By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A regulatory regime designed to protect Bahamian natural resources from foreign exploitation has instead sparked “massive losses in biodiversity” and “stifled” legitimate research vital to building the ‘blue economy’.

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 week warned that failure to reform the Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge Act and its accompanying regulations have undermined multiple initiatives including protection of this nation’s coral reefs.

In a paper published by the environmental journal, MDPI, they asserted that the Act and its accompanying Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS) regime - which were passed into law and brought into effect under the Minnis administration - have created an “ineffective and excessively bureaucratic permitting system” for vital conservation research that has also resulted in “economic losses” for The Bahamas.

Pointing out that it was critical for the Bahamian authorities to distinguish between pure research projects and those with a commercial element, the five wrote that “researchers have routinely waited between four to 16 months (and counting)” for their permit applications to be vetted and approved compared to the promised “streamlined process” of two to four weeks.

And they also pointed out that the initial fee structure “made obtaining research permits in The Bahamas an order of magnitude more expensive” than most other countries with a two-week project to assess Hurricane Dorian’s impact on coral reefs charged some $7,421. Of this sum, some 96 percent - $7,125 - represented registration fees.

The paper, titled ‘Implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing in The Bahamas: A precautionary tale’, also pointed out that many international researchers, including those affiliated with universities, education institutions and non-profits, are also being scared away by punitive fines and sanctions, which include a $7m ‘fixed sum’ and up to ten years in prison, for violations over who they share data with.

Revealing that the Government had been warned about the likely fall-out and problems prior to the Act’s passage, the paper said: “To date, the current ABS system in The Bahamas has stifled research that contributes to preserving healthy and biodiverse ecosystems that are needed to provide food security, address climate change, safeguard biodiversity, sustain livelihoods and build a ‘blue economy’.

“This interruption has also hindered efforts to build capacity for both academic and conservation-based research and support eco-tourism throughout the country, resulting in economic losses as well. Many researchers, students and organizations have been forced to leave the country and work elsewhere.

“Those that remain have lost substantial funding and are at continued risk of losing funding and jobs due to massive permitting delays. Given that the goal of the ABS legislation is to advance biodiversity conservation and ensure commercial benefits from bioprospecting are received, impeding the work of academic and conservation-based researchers is not only ineffective, but also prevents the collection of information needed to safeguard biodiversity.”

Ryan Pinder KC, the attorney general, yesterday told Tribune Business in response to this newspaper’s inquiries that many of those seeking to exploit The Bahamas’ natural resources for commercial gain are still refusing to share the potential profits and earnings with the Government and this nation’s people.

“I will only say there is a balance between research, preservation of our biological resources and guarding against commercial exploitation of our biological resources without due regard or compensation to the Government,” he said.

“Many of the research institutions who are researching for eventual commercial exploitation are refusing to enter into commercial agreements. They want to utilise our biological resources for their singular financial remuneration and we will not permit that. Those that are purely research-based and do not take our biological resources out of the country get streamlined approvals.”

Mr Pinder, speaking to this newspaper almost three years ago in April 2022, said he was working with Dr Rhianna Neely-Murphy, the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection’s (DEPP) director, to conduct a “page-by-page” review of the Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge Act, which he described as “a poor excuse for legislative governance” by the Minnis administration.

Asked about the progress, and status, of the proposed legislative reforms yesterday, Mr Pinder referred Tribune Business to DEPP. However, before this newspaper was able to leave a voice message for Dr Neely-Murphy, the answer phone cut out.

Romauld Ferreira, who was the Minnis administration’s environment minister and shepherded the Act into law, declined to say much on the scientists’ paper and concerns until he had fully studied it. “There are a lot of moving parts,” he said of the Act and ABS regime. “I know all those people quite well, and I am not going to denigrate Dr Sherman or Dr Higgs.

“I’ve had numerous conversations on how to make this work and strike a balance. We all want to achieve the same thing. I know legislation is not perfect, and needs to be tweaked. The main thing is that we need to collect money from [use and exploitation] of our biological resources.”

Dr Higgs told Tribune Business that the research paper had been in production for some time, and the timing of its release was slightly “unfortunate” because the DEPP had sought to improve its timeliness and response to permit applications by the Cape Eleuthera Institute and others within the restrictions imposed by the Act and ABS regime.

Noting that recommended reforms had been provided to the Government by the research and scientific community back in 2022, he added that while he and others are grateful that the DEPP is attempting “to make the best of it, we’d be even more grateful if they can fix the problems “ imposed by the law and regulations.

“For us, we have seen improvements in our ability to get permits,” Dr Higgs said. “I think DEPP have taken note, and under Dr Neely-Murphy’s leadership they have made improvements we can applaud. But there are still significant administrative and logistical barriers, and issues around co-ordination with government departments that still remain challenges.

“What I pick up at Cape Eleuthera Institute is a willingness to make things work for us, to try and get things done in a timely manner, but there has been no change in the legislation, there’s been no amendments to the law, no change in the process and regulations surrounding it, and that’s what still causing the problems for others.”

Dr Higgs and his fellow authors wrote: “A growing body of work has documented pervasive issues with the implementation of the ABS regime and acknowledged the urgent need to re-evaluate and address these challenges.

“Indeed, the general trend associated with ABS to date has been reduced access and limited benefits, with few ABS agreements being realised. Common criticisms are the inability of countries to strategically plan for ABS implementation and apply appropriate legal frameworks, regulatory processes and policies that are clear, transparent, and neither overly complex nor restrictive.

“The Bahamas has suffered massive losses in biodiversity diversity because of poor ABS implementation and an ineffective and excessively bureaucratic permitting system....  It is critical to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial research, and ensure that the enacted ABS legislation and policies do no obstruct or discourage research, which is vital for biodiversity conservation and natural resource management.”

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.”