By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A former Cabinet minister who oversaw enactment of the much-criticised natural resources regulatory regime has defended its objectives as noble, while asserting: “We were starting from ground zero.”

Romauld Ferreira, ex-minister of the environment, told Tribune Business that Bahamians and the wider scientific research community must never forget that the Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge Act, and the accompanying regulatory regime, were implemented because this nation and its people were earning nothing from foreign commercial exploitation of their natural resources.

Responding to concerns that the reforms, and associated Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) framework, have sparked “massive losses in biodiversity” and “stifled” legitimate research vital to building The Bahamas’ ‘blue economy’, he reiterated in a recent interview that the changes were designed to ensure “we gain something” from this industry.

“We forget the intent behind this, and the intent behind this is to ensure the people of The Bahamas benefit from any sharing of traditional knowledge and genetic resources that resulted in any commercial gains,” Mr Ferreira told this newspaper. “There was a lot more going on with this piece of legislation.

Pointing out that foreign companies have already benefited from discoveries, both in Bahamian waters and land, without this nation gaining a singe cent, he added: “What this legislation intended is for us to gain something from it in the event we get future hits. The legislation had a provision for a sovereign wealth fund that these monies would be paid into, so that every Bahamian can benefit.

“I think we were starting from ground zero. We had nothing, so some sort of regulatory regime had to be introduced.” Mr Ferreira said “there are two big ones I can remember” in terms of discoveries in The Bahamas that were exploited for commercial gain, and generated significant income for the private interests involved, without any benefits accruing to The Bahamas.

The first, he recalled, was a find that contributed to a suite of drugs combating erectile dysfunction. “In The Bahamas, we have a rich bush medicine and traditional knowledge history, like many Caribbean countries, and we have had people come and interview our seniors and elders about which types of bush medicine - bark, vegetation, roots - aid particular ailments,” he added.

“As it turned out, one of them was used in part of an erectile dysfunction suite of drugs.” Mr Ferreira, an attorney by profession who specialises in environmental law, argued that The Bahamas cannot lose sight of the need to benefit financially from its own natural resources, despite complaints that it has introduced overwhelming bureaucracy and red tape, with Inter-American Development Bank studies suggesting it has missed out on million of dollars.

He added that “the advantage The Bahamas has is that genetic diversity of the animals is much greater here”, which enables researchers to obtain far more diverse samples of sea life and coral reefs than anywhere else in the world.

“We know there have been major commercial successes based on that type of research,” Mr Ferreira said. “The question is: ‘What else is out there?’ I wasn’t aware until I sat in the chair that the genetic richness of the organisms was much greater here. That was really a shock to me. I didn’t know what the ratio is, but that’s very important in genetics.

“I’m aware they were having some challenges with the online portal. I’m optimistic that can be resolved because that’s so necessary to move away from what’s going on with this legislation. Everyone has to move forward. There’s no way we can develop environmental policy without scientific research. This is something where I remain very hopeful and optimistic we can all come together and chart the right course where everyone can benefit.”

However, five scientists - including Dr Krista Sherman; Dr Craig Dahlgren of the Perry Institute for Marine Science; and Dr Nick Higgs, head of research and innovation at Cape Eleuthera Institute - in a paper published last month by the environmental journal, MDPI, revealed that the Government has largely failed to act on concerns voiced by the scientific community over the new regulatory regime.

“In April 2021, 107 local and international scientists, conservation practitioners, and students expressed concerns regarding the implementation of the ABS legislation and new permitting process with the DEPP (Department of Environmental Planning and Protection) and the Bahamian government,” they wrote.

“The scientific and conservation community flagged potential negative impacts to research, funding, collaborations and capacity building opportunities. The Government was also warned of potential unintended and adverse consequences on eco-tourism and Family Island communities, which directly and indirectly benefit from visiting scientists and research groups.

“Unfortunately, despite over two years of repeated efforts advocating for mutually beneficial changes to the Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge Act and ABS permitting process, most of these concerns have not been addressed. As a result, the forecasted potential risks have become the reality for researchers, students, Bahamian-based organisations and Family Island businesses.”

Pointing to problems with the legislation prior to its passage through Parliament, the scientists wrote: “The ABS project failed to consult with key stakeholders (for example, researchers) to solicit input during the process of creating the new legislation, policies and permitting portal. This project also failed to inform the public both adequately and accurately about the new legislation and permitting regime.

“The legislation itself was presented in a nationalistic manner, making it attractive to Bahamians to support it, even though most were - and still are - not familiar with the intricacies of specific policies and the implications for The Bahamas.

“While some sectors were informed to varying degrees, most of the public, including key stakeholders, were not made aware of the new policies associated with the legislation until after the fact. For example, no information was provided to stakeholders, including some ABS committee members, ahead of the online launch of the new registration fee structure, despite multiple requests for this information to assist with planning and budgeting.”

The Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge Act was billed as plugging a loophole said to have enabled foreign exploitation of The Bahamas’ biological and genetic resources without this nation earning a cent. It sought to establish a regulatory, permitting and revenue-sharing regime with companies seeking to research and exploit this nation’s marine genetic resources.

The legislation aimed to close a gap identified in an Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report, which exposed that the Bahamian people are earning nothing from foreign exploitation of resources that have produced over 100 “new natural products”. The document disclosed that this nation was gaining zero commercial and financial benefits from the research activity it permits annually in the waters of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

This is despite the granting of more than 100 research permits per year, most of which are to institutions based in the US and Canada. The report revealed that many of these research initiatives had resulted in patent applications being made in the US, “a large cluster” of which covered “a marine microbe” found in Bahamian waters and its use in the lucrative global pharmaceutical industry.

The IDB said one of the “biomolecules” generated from this Bahamian microbe strain had made it to “clinical phase II” drug trials in 2014, but the failure of successive administrations to establish a commercial and regulatory regime to ensure this nation gains a just share of any resulting revenues/profit from such exploitation of its resources has deprived it of a potentially “significant” income source.

“The Bahamas used to issue over 100 research permits per year, about 90 percent of which were issued to foreign institutions (generally from the US and Canada) enabling access to genetic resources, mostly in the marine environment,” the IDB report said.

“A study published in 2012 calculated that 125 new natural products were discovered in EEZ in the 2000s. A preliminary review of the patent databases of the US revealed that a significant number of research initiatives conducted in The Bahamas applied for US patents.

“A large cluster of patents covers a marine microbe originating from The Bahamas, the production of biomolecules with this specific Bahamian strain and their use as pharmaceuticals. For one of these molecules, clinical phase II tests were announced to start in 2014,” the report continued.

“These inventions based on a Bahamian genetic resource might be developed into commercially successful drugs with significant revenues. Due to the lack of a regulatory access and benefit (ABS) regime in The Bahamas and appropriate contractual provisions, almost no benefits are flowing back to the country from these and other cases of utilisation and commercialisation of Bahamian genetic resources.”