WOA3, Section 5, Subsection 5A, Chapter 5: Use of genetic resources and biotechnology

Use of genetic resources and biotechnology

Writing team: Robert Blasiak and Muriel Rabone (coordinating authors), Sophie Arnaud-Haond, Angelika Brandt, Tyler-Rae Chung, Luciana Fernandes Coelho, Jane Collins, Natalia Erazo, Marcel Jaspars, Jessica Lavelle, Enrique Marschoff (lead member), Randi Rotjan, Changwei Shao, Matthew Upton, Helena Vieira, Tanya Wagenaar and Juying Wang (co-lead member).

Key points

  • Marine genetic resources hold great potential but remain largely understudied, with most areas beyond national jurisdiction and the deep sea still unexplored. Even marine genetic resources from accessible and well-known marine environments (e.g. coastal areas) are still little investigated compared with genetic resources from terrestrial systems.
  • Advancements in the marine genetic resources research and development pipeline have contributed to increasing interest in biodiscovery in marine environments, including the deep sea, particularly of marine microbes, including microbiomes. There are wide-ranging potential applications, including industrial processes, environmental mitigation and health, especially medicines.
  • Marine genetic resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits thereof, are one of four main elements addressed under the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Engagement by the scientific community will be necessary to achieve objectives related to marine genetic resources in the Agreement, including advancing conservation and promoting marine scientific research, capacity-building and the transfer of technology.
  • Coordination is needed on benefit-sharing relating to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information and the conservation of marine biodiversity within and beyond national jurisdictions across multilateral environmental agreements (the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity).
  • Equitable, interdisciplinary approaches to access to and use of marine genetic resources and biotechnology are central to addressing existing knowledge and capacity gaps, and also provide a basis for addressing global challenges of planetary and human health, thereby building sustainable and inclusive futures.

1. Introduction

A remarkable diversity of life is found in the ocean, which is home to species from 33 of the 34 major animal phyla Ref 114. Living organisms have evolved in the ocean for 3 billion years longer than they have on land, with resulting deep evolutionary diversity, and have adapted to thrive in complex habitats, some of which are characterised by extreme temperature, salinity and the absence of light. Extreme conditions and habitat heterogeneity, such as hydrothermal vents and abyssal plains in the deep sea, also drive adaptation and evolutionary novelty Ref 117. The vast genomic diversity of marine ecosystems therefore offers a reservoir of genetic resources and biological innovations, with marine organisms producing a wide variety of specific and potent bioactive substances Ref 21 Ref 28 Ref 14 Ref 102 Ref 3.

In the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, marine genetic resources are defined as "any material of marine plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value". Marine genetic resources therefore encompass all forms of marine biodiversity and also provide raw materials for marine natural products, or bioactive chemical compounds produced by marine organisms. Marine biotechnology is the discovery and usage of marine genetic resources (and isolation of marine natural products) for a wide range of potential applications, including human and animal health, improvement of industrial processes, climate change mitigation, bioremediation and the management of invasive species, biomimetics, and areas where marine genetic resources can inspire novel materials and structural design innovations (Blasiak and others, 2020, 2022; Harden-Davies and others, 2020; Jaspars and others, 2016; see also sect. 3, chap. 2).

In recent decades, around 42,000 marine bioactive compounds have been extracted, identified and characterized Ref 21. Marine organisms demonstrate higher bioactivity than terrestrial ones in various studies Ref 36 Ref 108 Ref 2. While roughly 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 tested terrestrial compounds leads to applications, this rises to 1 in 2,550 for marine compounds, potentially due to high levels of bioactivity in some species Ref 105 Ref 39. However, marine and terrestrial compounds appear to be more closely related than previously thought, suggesting that marine genetic resources research should be focused on the subset of unique natural product diversity in the marine realm Ref 130. Many new discoveries are expected, including new species (metazoans or microbes), antimicrobial defences, mechanistic pathways, immune strategies and chemical compounds, all with potential applications in biotechnology.

This potential, however, has yet to be translated into a step change in research into marine genetic resources and marine biodiversity Ref 114, particularly in the deep sea and areas beyond national jurisdiction, where biodiversity has been little explored. In deep-sea regions of the Pacific, for example, an estimated 80 to 90% of species are new to science Ref 98 Ref 67. Only 0.001% of the deep sea has been visually observed Ref 10. To date, marine biodiscovery has been focused on a relatively small group of organisms and habitat types Ref 36. Only 1,639 marine species have genetic sequences associated with patents Ref 137 of the approximately 250,000 currently known marine species in the World Register of Marine Species database (WoRMS, 2025)1 , with new species discovered at a rate of around 2,300 annually. Only a handful of medicines have been derived from marine genetic resources to date, with the15 to 20 approved drugs derived from marine sources (Francesch and others, 2024; see also https://www.marinepharmacology.org/approved) representing a tiny fraction of the discovery potential.

Ongoing developments in marine genetic resources research and development and biotechnology have contributed to increasing interest in marine biodiversity Ref 36 Ref 137. The exploration of marine genetic resources has been facilitated in recent years by improved and lower-cost sequencing technologies and bioinformatics tools. Since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment, sequencing techniques have been greatly advanced, including through in situ sequencing platforms, synthetic biology, environmental DNA/metabarcoding, and multiomic approaches utilizing genomic, metagenomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic data in tandem Ref 36 Ref 71 Ref 44 Ref 102. Other key developments include the use of artificial intelligence and automation in sampling and collection and analysis Ref 97.

These rapidly developing techniques open up marine environments that have previously been challenging to sample and can facilitate conservation processes, environmental monitoring and biodiversity discovery efforts Ref 7, as well as establish baselines underpinning global commitments on biodiversity conservation. A total of 1,425 new bioactive compounds were reported from marine organisms in 2021 alone Ref 21. Increased patenting activity of products derived from marine genetic resources is also evident, with 4,779 patent filings referencing marine genes from 1,639 different marine species identified in 2024 Ref 137. There is an increasing focus on deep-sea species for biodiscovery Ref 137, likely driven by their high diversity and myriad adaptations to extreme conditions, combined with increasing accessibility. Marine microbes, including host-associated microbiomes of metazoans such as sponges, show great natural product potential Ref 21 Ref 54 Ref 133 Ref 11, and new studies have revealed previously unreported levels of biodiversity and novel function of the global ocean microbiome Ref 23 Ref 127 Ref 111. New techniques for rapid microbial biodiscovery are also emerging, including the use of in situ cultivation and metagenomics tools Ref 18. Developing applications include bioremediation by genetically modified bacteria Ref 106.

Pharmaceutical development remains a central focus for research related to marine genetic resources and biotechnology efforts Ref 36 Ref 92 Ref 78. More broadly, marine genetic resources remain far less investigated and characterized than terrestrial counterparts Ref 65 Ref 21 Ref 130, and marine biotechnology in some respects can still be considered an emerging or even nascent field Ref 30. Large-scale initiatives to map the ocean genome are under way, which are aimed at improving knowledge of marine species and providing libraries of reference genome data to support further research. These include the Earth BioGenome Project Ref 75, the Ocean Genome Atlas Project, the Aquatic Symbiosis Project Ref 83, ATLASea in French exclusive economic zones and the recently developed KAUST Metagenomic Analysis Platform (KMAP) Global Ocean Gene Catalog Ref 71.

There are also recent developments in governance frameworks for marine genetic resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing provide a framework for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources from areas within national jurisdiction. Recently, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in its decision 16/2, adopted modalities for operationalizing a new multilateral mechanism for benefit- sharing from the use of digital sequence information within national jurisdictions. The Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction , adopted in 2023 and entering into force in January 2026, provides a new legal framework for equitable access and benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources and associated digital sequence information from areas beyond national jurisdiction (de la Concepción, 2024; see also sect. 3 and subsect. 5B, chap. 5).

3. Pressures and impacts

Our global ocean is under the threat of unprecedented loss of biomass and biodiversity from multiple (and frequently cumulative) anthropogenic pressures, including climate change, pollution and the impact of overfishing and extractive industries Ref 29 Ref 124. Rapidly changing environmental conditions due to these anthropogenic stressors have resulted in widespread marine ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, with impacts evident from coastal habitats to the deep sea and from polar habitats to the equator. In coastal regions, fisheries, aquaculture and coastal development have directly affected habitats, affecting genetic diversity and the populations of certain species, particularly in tropical areas rich in biodiversity such as mangrove forests, coral reefs and seagrass habitats (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2024; Herrera and others, 2022; Morrison and Aalbersberg, 2022; Salimi and others, 2021; Thomas and others, 2017). Climate change has affected the diversity and distribution of marine species through processes of ocean warming, acidification and deoxygenation (Levin, 2018; see also sect. 4 chap. 3). In addition to the manifold negative impacts for humanity from affected ecosystems, countless species and potentially invaluable marine genetic resources (including those that could help to address challenges in planetary and human health) may be lost before they are even discovered. Addressing ocean health is therefore doubly crucial for the conservation of marine biodiversity and marine genetic resources and provides the backdrop for marine biodiscovery and biotechnology activities (see subsect. 5B).

4. Sustainability pathways

Maintaining a balance between the resilience of marine ecosystems and their utilization will require coordination of research, governance and economic activities (including responsible management of global supply chains) Ref 69. This can be aided by global efforts to address biodiversity knowledge gaps Ref 71 Ref 98 Ref 103, the application of genetic/genomic monitoring tools, cooperative interdisciplinary marine scientific/biodiscovery research Ref 136, holistic approaches to valuing marine genetic resources Ref 70 and developing sustainability pathways and ocean futures Ref 94. Marine genetic resources and marine biotechnology have often been conceptualized as "future" or "emerging" elements of an ocean economy that generated over $1.9 trillion in revenues in 2019 alone (Claudet and others, 2021; Virdin and others, 2021, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2025). It is timely, therefore, to develop pathways for equitable and sustainable use of marine genetic resources Ref 70. The present part of the chapter introduces aspirational pathways in the lead-up to 2050, envisaging an ideal future in which marine genetic resources are accessed and used in a fair and inclusive manner, contributing a broad range of monetary and non- monetary benefits and improved conservation outcomes Ref 25 Ref 81. Proceeding along this pathway will require coordinated steps across several disciplines Ref 29, as outlined below.

Governance

In our scenario, after the entry into force of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, a clearing house mechanism and subsidiary bodies will be rapidly established that are tasked with achieving consensus on modalities and levels of benefit-sharing for marine genetic resources. By 2030, the legal clarity provided by the Agreement and its clearing house mechanism will have facilitated a new era of exploration and marine biodiscovery in the deep sea. To ensure fair and equitable access to marine genetic resources, including their utilization for marine conservation, a network of regional centres of excellence will be established, catalysing knowledge exchange. Alongside legally binding regulations, new norms of inclusivity will become increasingly embedded throughout marine scientific endeavours, with each research project (and resulting expedition) composed of scientists from diverse backgrounds Ref 128 Ref 131 Ref 1 Ref 116. An extensive library of publicly available novel biotechnologies associated with marine genetic resources will be created alongside benefit-sharing agreements that will have built capacity globally. By 2040, this interconnected network of regional centres might not only have generated monetary benefits, but also distributed capacity to employ genomic technologies for a wide range of applications in human and planetary health. The utilization of marine genetic resources techniques in setting conservation priorities, monitoring, and establishment of networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) will also indicate that the legal frameworks governing marine genetic resources have developed into effective, fit-for-purpose instruments, contributing to improved conservation outcomes.

Economy, markets and technology

As envisioned above, if States have access to marine biotechnology applications and can actively participate in their development, under the guidance of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), a coordinated international effort will be made to build scientific, technical and computing capacity by 2030 Ref 17. In this scenario, industry embraces equity and inclusivity as norms of corporate practice, whereby it would publicly announce and share access and benefit-sharing agreements in line with the Nagoya Protocol and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Following the Agreement's entry into force in 2026, the first commercial product from areas beyond national jurisdiction will demonstrate flagship benefit-sharing and knowledge exchange, wherein all phases of research and development, commercialization and sales achieve full compliance with the Agreement and transparency principles and are aligned with scientific best practice. In addition, long-term industry partnerships with the regional centres of excellence could be developed with the aim of advancing the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources.

As the range of benefits associated with marine biotechnologies becomes widely known, purely economic valuations are expected to increasingly shift to more holistic approaches. These would align with the findings of the values assessment framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which show a broad scope of the values related to nature, including intrinsic (nature for nature), instrumental (nature for society) and relational (nature for culture) values Ref 70 Ref 58. As the multiple benefits of marine genetic resources and marine biotechnology become part of public discourse, policymakers might incentivize the use of marine bioresources for biotechnology. In turn, industry could channel resources from successful commercialization efforts into foundations that support scientific research and conservation. By 2050, marine biotechnology could be considered a pillar of the sustainable, equitable and inclusive ocean economy, assessed not only in terms of revenues, but also in terms of its contribution to ocean conservation and sustainable development.

This aspirational pathway is one of many possible scenarios, and includes a number of uncertainties, assumptions and risks, including, for example, risks related to the pace and direction of marine biotechnology progress or the effective implementation of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. A business-as-usual pathway would be likely to carry suboptimal outcomes for the environment and for global equity, wherein the current rapid pace of climate change and biodiversity loss would likely continue or even escalate, with attendant but also uncertain socioeconomic and environmental consequences. The description of an aspirational pathway is intended to highlight ideal, sustainable and inclusive futures. The realization of this vision requires global and regional cooperation and the tackling of equity challenges, as outlined in part 5 below.

5. Social components

The advancement of marine biodiscovery is increasingly being recognized as a means to address certain Sustainable Development Goals. There are myriad potential societal benefits from the exploration of and utilization of marine genetic resources, from global health to the development of a sustainable and inclusive ocean economy. Potential benefits include the improvement of global public health Ref 107, from addressing the control of zoonoses and the looming antimicrobial resistance crisis to vaccine development and pandemic preparedness (Gamberi and others, 2024; see also subsect. 5B). With antimicrobial resistance, infections become less treatable with current antibiotics, resulting in growing morbidity and mortality Ref 88 Ref 87. An estimated 1.14 million people died of an antimicrobial resistant infection in 2021, and new antibiotics for some of the most significant antimicrobial-resistant pathogens could save 11 million lives between now and 2050 Ref 88. Most antibiotics currently in use are derived from soil bacteria, but there is significant potential for new antibiotics to be derived from marine environments Ref 8 Ref 122, especially the deep sea, given the extreme conditions and the increased likelihood that such antibiotics could be derived from undiscovered chemical classes, and therefore act against current antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. This is also true for the most promising alternative to antibiotics, phage therapy Ref 43, as there are large reservoirs of bacteriophage viruses in marine environments Ref 19. Alongside deep-sea sediments, another potential source of bacteriophages is the bacteria that form elements of the microbiomes of sponges and other marine animals. The recovery of bacteria from these environments allows for the investigation of their genomes, which can reveal the presence of biosynthetic gene clusters responsible for the production of bioactivity. Some marine-derived bacteria have been shown to be rich in such biosynthetic gene clusters, illustrating their potential as marine natural products Ref 54.

A sustainable and inclusive ocean economy is one that provides social and economic benefits for current and future generations through its ability to protect, maintain and restore marine biodiversity Ref 50. The global blue economy, now known as the sustainable and inclusive ocean economy, has been estimated at $2.5 trillion a year Ref 132. Marine biotechnology offers significant growth potential due to increasing demand for sustainable resources, recent technological advancements, including in molecular techniques, and employment opportunities (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2017, 2016; Daniotti and Re, 2021). For example, the global marine biotechnology sector creates an estimated 200,000 jobs annually Ref 100. Marine biotechnology can therefore support the sustainable development and economic growth of States, including through its potential to address social, economic and environmental challenges Ref 96.

The quantification of the marine biotechnology sector's economic value is challenging, however, due to the lack of a robust economic activity classification system globally for marine biotechnology enterprises. Current estimates of the global market value of marine biotechnology range from 2.5 euros and 3.9 billion euros in 2021 (Market Research Future (MRFR), 2024). The medical and pharmaceutical sectors are at the forefront of marine biotechnology, and vaccine development Ref 37 is expected to contribute substantially to the sector's future growth. These trends reflect the fact that pharmaceuticals and medical applications tend to have high added value (European Union Blue Economy Report, 2024). Other high-value applications from marine genetic resources include nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals and biomaterials, as well as climate and agricultural mitigation applications Ref 14. Revenues from just five marine-derived drugs (Adcetris, Halaven, Lovaza, Prialt and Yondelis)ⓘ were found to total over $1 billion per annum Ref 13 Ref 91. Other high-value marine genetic resources include the marine-derived drugs Zovirax and Cytarabine (Ara-C), both derived from the Caribbean sponge, Tectitethya crypta Ref 46 Ref 77 and polymerase enzymes derived from archaea found in hydrothermal vents (e.g. Pyrococcus furiosus) and widely used in research and biotechnology Ref 66.

The benefits of marine genetic resources to society go far beyond monetary valuations Ref 70. Beyond biotechnology, research on genetics/genomics, such as species diversity and population connectivity, provides insights on ecology and evolution Ref 62. Because of the unique conditions in which marine genetic resources survive, they can provide essential information about life on Earth and its evolution, as well as improve knowledge of marine biodiversity and the role it plays in the provision of ecosystem services. Such information informs conservation and environmental management. For example, knowledge of species ranges, dispersal potential and population connectivity allows for the design of ecologically cohesive, connected networks of MPAs Ref 57. Non-monetary benefits of equitable marine scientific research (elements of which include the sharing of data, samples and knowledge) can build capacity as well as knowledge with respect to marine biodiversity, ecosystems and evolution, with improved outcomes for conservation Ref 47 Ref 97 Ref 45.

One primary concern related to utilizing marine genetic resources and biodiscovery activities is the potential impact on marine ecosystems, particularly if products are developed that require a continuous supply of biological materials Ref 70. To date, however, marine biotechnology has depended on the small-scale collection of samples to discover new molecules that are subsequently synthesized, avoiding further harvesting that may be unsustainable due to low natural abundance or other environmental concerns. Such collection efforts are consistent with general biological sampling principles, for example those employed by taxonomists with the underlying aim of better understanding marine ecosystems, and are subject to the same norms of best practice to minimize ecosystem harm Ref 56 Ref 9. For example, biodiscovery from microbes can be carried out sustainably if the bacteria can be cultured in the laboratory, avoiding the need to repeatedly sample potentially sensitive environments Ref 70. By contrast, some products still require the harvesting of wild organisms. For example, high-purity polyunsaturated fatty acids for heart medications are obtained from marine species such as krill Ref 20. Aside from this medical application, krill and other species are targeted for nutraceuticals by industrial-scale mesopelagic fisheries, giving rise to major concerns regarding sustainability and food-web impacts Ref 35.

Equity

Diverse narratives of a blue economy have emerged, but crucial to most framings is that equity is a guiding motivation for transitioning to an economy that is both sustainable and inclusive Ref 90. In the context of marine genetic resources, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits associated with use are set forth in both the Nagoya Protocol and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Despite regulatory expectations and emerging norms of best practice Ref 15 Ref 99 Ref 47, achieving the aspirational vision of an equitable, sustainable and inclusive ocean economy set out in part 4 of this chapter presents significant challenges. Specifically, imbalances in capacity can lead to fewer opportunities for participation in all stages of the marine biodiscovery process, from accessing the open and deep ocean to conducting laboratory work, research and publication and even participation in scientific conferences Ref 47 Ref 70.

Currently, the ability to conduct research on marine genetic resources is not equal across regions and States Ref 45 Ref 125. Unequal access to marine genetic resources is driven both by disparities in molecular biology and biotechnology expertise and limited access to oceanographic vessels and equipment Ref 48 Ref 6. The expertise to conduct discovery research exists in some centres in the global South, where the richest biodiversity is found with attendant increased likelihood of novel compounds Ref 48. However, investment is required to strengthen capacity and retain trained staff in these global South centres and achieve fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from this biodiscovery work Ref 136. To develop the regional centres of excellence in marine genetic resources and marine biotechnology research envisaged in part 4 of the chapter, major capital funding is required for infrastructure development, funding that also needs to be sustained for maintenance and development Ref 99 Ref 27. These networks could initially be established by developing in-country capacity, for example in sampling and bioinformatics, and progressing through strategic partnerships and joint funding towards the building of repositories and research infrastructure, ultimately leading to interconnected centres. Cooperation and aligned efforts at the regional and international levels Ref 50 will prove instrumental.

One recent example of equitable and inclusive marine genetic resource development is a project based in Kiribati, a small island developing State that obtained its first-ever patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,878,057) in a collaboration with researchers based in the United States of America. The discovery of novel deep-sea bacteria was made with minimal environmental impact, requiring no additional sampling beyond normal exploration efforts Ref 38. Furthermore, the subsequent experiments and inventions do not require any further visit to, or extraction from, the deep sea, as the bacteria can be cultured in the laboratory. These novel bacteria were discovered in filtered water and tissue samples of benthic organisms, then cultured in a laboratory environment, where they can be maintained in long-term storage. Innovations from these novel, lab-cultured bacteria were patented with named inventors from both Kiribati and the United States Ref 104. The United States-based institutions covered the full patent fees, but the majority ownership of the patent rests with the Government of Kiribati. While no monetary benefits have yet been realized, the patent itself may be beneficial for conservation outcomes, since this discovery and subsequent invention were motivated by the conservation status of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Future conservation efforts in Kiribati and elsewhere will be strengthened by the realization that cutting-edge research can lead to industry pathways that involve equitable partnership. The balance between production and durable ocean protection is essential for enabling pathways for research and development on marine genetic resources that have a low environmental impact and high potential for economic value and conservation efforts Ref 69. Such projects provide examples that can inform the development of a network of regional marine genetic resource repositories and research centres and the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction on promoting marine scientific research, capacity- building and technology transfer.

Gender

Considering gender in relation to the use of marine genetic resources and biotechnology is important to achieving equity and the Sustainable Development Goals (Österblom and others, 2023; see also subsect. 5B, chap. 6). However, data on gender are scarce, especially for emergent sectors such as marine biotechnology when compared with traditional sectors of the maritime industry Ref 59. Although gender inequality in marine biotechnology has been noted in the literature Ref 68, a lack of available data impedes informed analysis. When examining participation in marine scientific research, persistent gender bias patterns have been reported for European Union marine sciences and conservation Ref 40 Ref 76. The situation is more acute for women in the global South, but, again, data are lacking Ref 113. Fundamental issues of women's safety at sea while conducting scientific research (including within industrial contexts such as fisheries or oil and gas exploration) have also been raised in the literature, which shows that multiple factors contribute to a challenging work environment Ref 1 Ref 64 Ref 79. Implementing frameworks to address fundamental equality issues including work environments at sea, particularly for women of the global South, are needed to advance gender equity Ref 1 Ref 64.

More broadly, recommendations are being put forward at the United Nations and OECD to address gender equality in marine scientific research and to acknowledge the contributions of women and girls in marine conservation efforts (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2024). There have been calls to mainstream gender equality in legislation and policy frameworks to promote the creation of better employment opportunities for women across the blue economy (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), 2020; Rahaman and others, 2024). However, these policies are not yet widespread in ocean-related activities, including those directly linked to marine genetic resources, such as marine biotechnology, where data remain scarce. Examples of women's participation in the blue economy in developing countries include women-led small-scale local fisheries and aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian Ocean Rim, with outcomes both positive and more equivocal, which underscore the need to support women's active participation Ref 123 Ref 34. Enhancing women's roles in sustainable and innovative uses of marine genetic resources would contribute to a more equitable blue economy, alongside efforts to address the root causes of gender inequalities, collaborate with men and boys to challenge stereotypes and create conducive environments for women-led initiatives in the ocean space (UNESCO, 2024).

Traditional knowledge

The traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities associated with the management of marine resources, the understanding of species behaviour and medicinal applications dates to ancient times, with references in Indian, Chinese, Greek and Arabic texts Ref 42. The Pacific region in particular has a rich tradition of traditional knowledge and cosmologies that directly relate to marine genetic resources Ref 51 Ref 86. Traditional knowledge has long been and continues to be vital to the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean and marine genetic resources Ref 86 There is a growing focus on integrating traditional knowledge into ocean governance and management Ref 93. Studies have shown that marine species used in traditional medicine belong to groups rich in bioactive natural products, namely sponges, cnidarians, molluscs, echinoderms and tunicates, pointing to the potential of traditional knowledge on marine species for the discovery of novel bioactive compounds Ref 52. A recent example of traditional knowledge and marine genetic resources is the oyster Crassostrea (Magallana) saidii, a species first identified by traditional knowledge and maintained as a separately managed fishery for over 120 years before it was formally described Ref 115. The local fishers could distinguish the "new" species from a co-occurring congener consistently, but scientists could not; the fishers' identifications were 100% accurate, as confirmed by DNA barcoding and morphometrics Ref 115.

However, links between scientific discovery associated with marine genetic resources and traditional knowledge are rare, in large part due to a disconnect between scientists undertaking biodiscovery research and the Indigenous Peoples and local communities who hold the knowledge. Furthermore, there is a great disparity between the holders of traditional knowledge and scientists in the global North in terms of capacity to explore and utilize marine genetic resources Ref 5. In addition, Western science and traditional knowledge follow different epistemologies in terms of knowledge production. While the former relies on rigorous methodological approaches and generalizations, the latter is localized and tied to the experiences, observations and practices passed down through generations, which are often tied to cultural, ecological, medicinal, social, agricultural and spiritual practices Ref 55. For medicinal examples, differences between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge in relation to marine genetic resources arise because traditional knowledge systems encompass not only medicinal uses but also the social-spiritual dimensions of traditional medicine that cannot be readily translated into scientifically evaluated and medically approved patent medicines Ref 134. This disconnect raises ethical and legal challenges with respect to benefit-sharing, as researchers may lack awareness of associated traditional knowledge and communities may face challenges in accessing information, organizing and navigating access and benefit-sharing negotiations. Furthermore, inadequate legal frameworks exist for recognizing the knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and protecting the intellectual property rights of traditional knowledge holders. This is magnified by the fact that traditional knowledge systems and cosmologies are often held in oral rather than written records and across communities and geographical boundaries, especially in the case of marine species. Moreover, traditional knowledge is not bound by the legal fiction of jurisdictions under international law Ref 84. The governance of traditional knowledge falls under the Convention on Biological Diversity for marine genetic resources from areas within national jurisdiction and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction for the marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Benefit-sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity may involve bilateral agreements between the Indigenous Peoples and local communities of provider States and resource recipients. This approach facilitates direct benefit flows to traditional knowledge holders. To harmonize legal frameworks governing marine genetic resources and to support the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, facilitating the connection between traditional knowledge and scientific research could foster more inclusive biodiscovery and innovation Ref 97 Ref 93.

6. Governance

Key legal frameworks governing the fair and equitable benefit sharing of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information include the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, for areas within and beyond national jurisdiction respectively. Over the past decade, challenges linked to the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol have been identified Ref 72 Ref 95. While these instruments have been ratified by many States, capacity constraints mean that many of these States have not yet implemented relevant administrative procedures Ref 60. The bilateral structure of the Nagoya Protocol necessitates navigation of the legislation on a country-by-country basis, which can be burdensome for users Ref 72 Ref 33. Work is ongoing under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity to address some of these challenges. In relation to digital sequence information, there has been a shift towards a more harmonized approach to benefit-sharing with adoption of the multilateral mechanism on digital sequence information and the creation of the Cali Fund for the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from the Use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources (Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity decision 16/2), a global benefit-sharing mechanism Ref 112 Ref 110. There is a need for coordination across the Convention and its Nagoya Protocol (including on digital sequence information multilateral benefit- sharing) and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. More broadly, harmonization across agreements can support global commitments on conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity and align with benefit-sharing targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022. At the time of writing, with rapid recent ratifications by States, the Agreement has already reached the threshold for entry into force, surpassing expectations Ref 12. However, national and institutional capacity varies widely across States and regions, with some at risk of being left behind Ref 4 Ref 97 Ref 41. For current and future generations to benefit equitably from marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, as anticipated under the Agreement, legislative and institutional preparations will need to begin now.

Adopted in June 2023 and entering into force in January 2026, the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction addresses a package of objectives geared towards achieving the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The objectives relevant to marine genetic resources include fair and equitable benefit-sharing, capacity- building, knowledge generation and marine technology transfer (art. 9). The Agreement applies to activities relating to the collection and use of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information sourced from areas beyond national jurisdiction after the entry into force of the Agreement, excluding fishing regulated under international law and fish or other living marine resources known to have been taken in fishing and fishing-related activities from areas beyond national jurisdiction (art. 10). The Agreement applies to the utilization of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information collected or generated before its entry into force unless a Party expresses an exception in writing (art. 10 (1)). Such activities can be carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction by all Parties, regardless of their geographical location, and by natural and juridical persons under their jurisdiction (art. 11 (1)). Relevant activities must be carried out with due regard for the rights and legitimate interests of coastal States in areas within national jurisdiction, as well as those of other States active in areas beyond national jurisdiction (art. 11 (3)). The interests of all States must be taken into account, particularly the interests and needs of developing States (art. 11 (6)).

Specific notification requirements have been created with respect to the collection and utilization of these resources. Parties are required to take the necessary legislative, administrative or policy measures to ensure that information is provided to the clearinghouse mechanism at various stages of the process. Article 12 (2) (a) to (j) lists the information that must be provided six months prior or as early as possible before the in situ collection occurs, after which time a standardized batch identifier shall be generated (art. 12 (3)). This is a persistent (or permanent) unique identifier that follows marine genetic resources and digital sequence information through the research and commercialization journey. Although this is a grouping identifier associated with a whole research cruise or equivalent "batch", its utility rests on the fact it can be used to identify research, development and commercialization activities involving marine genetic resources and digital sequence information, making this a "light touch" end-user traceability mechanism Ref 73 Ref 97 Ref 118. After in situ collection has taken place, Parties are required to ensure that information regarding, inter alia, where collected marine genetic resources and digital sequence information will be deposited, the geographical location from which marine genetic resources were collected and, to the extent possible, the findings from the activities undertaken, is provided to the clearinghouse mechanism, together with the standardized batch identifier, as soon as it becomes available, but no later than one year from the in situ collection date (art. 12 (5)). Once marine genetic resources and digital sequence information is used, including in commercialization, Parties must ensure that the following information, inter alia, is also provided to the clearinghouse mechanism, together with the standardized batch identifier: publications, patents granted and products developed; modalities for the management of access to collected marine genetic resources and digital sequence information; and details of the sales of relevant products (art. 12 (8)).

Regarding benefit-sharing, the Agreement makes a direct link between benefits and how they should be used by providing that benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, must be shared in a fair and equitable way in order to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (art. 14 (1)). Regarding non-monetary benefit-sharing, the Agreement provides extensive examples (see art. 14 (2) (a)-(h)). Parties are also required to take reasonable measures to ensure that marine genetic resources and digital sequence information subject to utilization are deposited in publicly accessible repositories and databases as soon as they become available, but no later than three years from the start of such utilization (art. 14 (3)). Reasonable conditions can be placed on access to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information, such as the need to protect the physical integrity of the marine genetic resources and reasonable maintenance and access costs (art. 14 (4)). Furthermore, opportunities for access on fair and most favourable terms may be provided to researchers from developing States (art. 14 (4). Concerning monetary benefit-sharing, the Agreement provides that such benefits must be shared through the financial mechanism established under the Agreement under article 52, with modalities to be decided by the Conference of the Parties, taking into account the recommendations of the access and benefit-sharing committee to be established under the Agreement (art. 14 (7)).

7. Summary

Marine genetic resources and the use of marine biotechnology hold significant, but as yet untapped, research and development promise. Rapidly advancing techniques will change the research landscape, however, and could greatly support conservation measures, monitoring efforts and the design of MPAs that underpin global commitments for conservation of biodiversity. Research and development of marine genetic resources and marine biotechnology provide a timely opportunity to address urgent global challenges in planetary and human health. If applied in an integrated, inclusive and interdisciplinary way, including through the development of regional marine genetic resource centres of excellence and leveraging existing resources and coordinating input from local, regional and global levels, such efforts have the potential to improve equity in research and, more broadly, across society.

References

  1. Amon, Diva. J., and others (2022). Safe working environments are key to improving inclusion in open- ocean, deep-ocean, and high-seas science. Marine Policy, vol. 137, pp. 104947.
  2. Appleby, Thomas, and others (2016). The marine biology of law and human health. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 21.
  3. Arrieta, Jesus M, and others (2010). What lies underneath: conserving the oceans genetic resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, No. 43, pp. 18318-18324.
  4. Ardron, Jeff A, and others (2025). Considerations concerning state ratification of the BBNJ Agreement. In F. Humphries (Ed.) Decoding marine genetic resource governance under the BBNJ Agreement. Cham: Springer. Chapter 10, pp. 225-239.
  5. Armitage, Derek, and others (2020). Governance principles for community-centred conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Science and Practice, vol. 2.
  6. Arnaud-Haond, Sophie, and others (2011). Marine Biodiversity and Gene Patents. Science, vol. 331, No. 6024, pp. 1521-1522.
  7. Arnaud-Haond, Sophie, and others (2020). Mind the gap between Biological Samples and Marine Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Lessons from LANS. In New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea. The Netherlands, Leiden: Brill, Nijhoff.
  8. Barbosa, Filipa, and others (2020). Targeting antimicrobial drug resistance with marine natural products. International journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 106005.
  9. Beattie, Andrew. J, and others (2011). Ecology and bioprospecting. Austral Ecology, vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 341-356.
  10. Bell, Katherine L.C., and others (2025). How little we've seen: A visual coverage estimate of the deep seafloor. Science Advances, vol. 11, No. 19, p. eadp8602 ..
  11. Bérdy, János (2005). Bioactive microbial metabolites. Journal of Antibiotics, vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 126.
  12. Blasiak, Robert, and Jouffray, Jean-Baptiste (2024). When will the BBNJ Agreement deliver results? npj Ocean Sustainability, vol 3. art. 21, pp. 21.
  13. Blasiak, Robert, and others (2022). A forgotten element of the blue economy: marine biomimetics and inspiration from the deep sea. PNAS Nexus, vol. 1, No. 4, p. 196.
  14. Blasiak, Robert, and others (2021). Developments in the exploration for and use of marine genetic resources. In World Ocean Assessment II. United Nations.
  15. Blasiak, Robert, and others (2019). Scientists should disclose origin in marine gene patents. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 392-395.
  16. Blasiak, Robert, and others (2018). Corporate control and global governance of marine genetic resources. Science Advances, vol. 4, No. 6, p. 5237.
  17. Blasiak, Robert, and others (2020). The ocean genome and prospects for conservation and equity. Nature Sustainability, vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 588-596.
  18. Bogdanov, Alexander, and others (2024). Small molecule in situ resin capture provides a compound first approach to natural product discovery. Nature Communications, vol. 15, art. 5230.
  19. Breitbart, Mya, and others (2018). Phage puppet masters of the marine microbial realm. Nature Microbiology, vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 754-766.
  20. Caffrey, Cliodhna, and others (2023). Cardiovascular diseases and marine oils: a focus on omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and polar lipids. Marine Drugs, vol. 21, No. 11, pp. 549.
  21. Carroll, Anthony, R., and others (2023). Marine Natural Products. Natural Product Reports, vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 275-325.
  22. CBD (2024). Digital sequence information on genetic resources. Decision 16/2.
  23. Chen, Jianwei, and others (2024). Global marine microbial diversity and its potential in bioprospecting. Nature, vol. 633, pp. 1-9.
  24. Cisneros-Montemayor Andrés. M, and others (2021). Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy. Nature, vol. 591, No. 7850, pp. 396-401.
  25. Claudet, Joachim, and others (2021). Transformational opportunities for an equitable ocean commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, No. 42, pp. e2117033118.
  26. De la Concepción, Richard Tur (2024). Negotiating fair and equitable sharing of benefits in the BBNJ agreement: Role of the Group of 77 and China. Marine Policy, vol. 163, pp. 106085.
  27. Collins, Jane, and others (2021). Strengthening the global network for sharing of marine biological collections: recommendations for a new agreement for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 305-314.
  28. Cordier, Tristan, and others (2022). Patterns of eukaryotic diversity from the surface to the deep-ocean sediment. Science Advances, vol. 8, No. 5, pp. eabj9309.
  29. Crona, Beatrice, and others (2021). Sharing the seas: a review and analysis of ocean sector interactions. Environmental Research Letters, vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 063005.
  30. Daniotti, Sara, and Re, Ilaria (2021). Marine biotechnology: challenges and development market trends for the enhancement of biotic resources in industrial pharmaceutical and food applications. A statistical analysis of scientific literature and business models. Marine drugs, vol. 19, No. 2, p. 61.
  31. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) (2024). Marine genetic resources, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits (2024) Fact Sheet 2.
  32. https://www.un.org/bbnjagreement/sites/default/files/2024-07/BBNJAgreementFactsheet2MGRs.pdf. Accessed on 20 March 2025.
  33. Emery, Aidan, M., and others (2025). The research contribution of the Schistosomiasis Collection at the Natural History Museum (SCAN): highlights, challenges and future directions. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, vol. 14, No. 1, p. 29.
  34. FAO. (2020). Empowering women in small-scale fisheries for sustainable food systems: Regional Inception Workshop, 3-5 March 2020, Accra, Ghana. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 66., 2020. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9742en.
  35. Fjeld, Kristian, and others (2023). Mesopelagics-New gold rush or castle in the sky? Marine Policy, vol. 147, pp. 105359.
  36. Francesch, Andres M., and others (2024). Pharmaceuticals from marine sources: past, present and future. The Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. 313, No. 7987.
  37. Gamberi, Chiara, and others (2024). Oceanic breakthroughs: Marine-derived innovations in vaccination, therapy and immune health. Vaccines, vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1263.
  38. Gauthier, Anna E, and others (2021). Deep-sea microbes as tools to refine the rules of innate immune pattern recognition. Science Immunology, vol. 6. No. 57, pp. 1-15.
  39. Gerwick, William, and Moore, Bradley (2012). Lessons from the past and charting the future of marine natural products drug discovery and chemical biology. Chemistry and Biology, vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 85-98.
  40. Giakoumi, Sylvaine, and others (2021). Persistent gender bias in marine science and conservation calls for action to achieve equity. Biological Conservation, vol. 257, pp. 109134.
  41. Gjerde, Kristina, M., and others (2022). Getting beyond yes: fast-tracking implementation of the United Nations agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. npj Ocean Sustainability, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6.
  42. Gopal, Radhika, and others (2008). Marine organisms in Indian medicine and their future prospects. Natural Product Radiance, vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 139-145.
  43. Gordillo, Altamirano, and others (2019). Phage Therapy in the post-antibiotic era. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 32, No. 2.
  44. Govindarajan, Annette. F., and others (2022). Improved biodiversity detection using a large-volume environmental DNA sampler with in situ filtration and implications for marine eDNA sampling strategies. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, vol. 189, pp. 103871.
  45. Guilhon, Maila, and others (2025). Measuring the Success of Ocean Capacity Initiatives. Oceanography, vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 114-115.
  46. Guilloux, Bleuenn (2018). Marine Genetic Resources, R&D and the Law 1: Complex Objects and Use. ISTE Ltd and Wiley.
  47. Harden-Davies, Harriet, and others (2024). First to finish, what comes next? Putting Capacity Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology under the BBNJ Agreement into practice. Nature Partner Journal. Ocean Sustainability, vol 3, art. 3.
  48. Harden-Davies, Harriet, and Snelgrove Paul (2020). Science Collaboration for Capacity Building: Advancing Technology Transfer Through a Treaty for Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 7, No. 40.
  49. Harden-Davies, Harriet, and others (2020). Science in Small Island Developing States: Capacity Challenges and Options relating to Marine Genetic Resources of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Report for the Alliance of Small Island States. University of Wollongong, Australia.
  50. Hassanali, K. (2022). Examining institutional arrangements toward coordinated regional ocean governance and blue economy policy development in the Caribbean community (CARICOM). Coastal Management, vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 385-407.
  51. Hau'Ofa, Epeli (2008). We are the ocean: Selected works. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
  52. Herbert, David. G, and others (2003). Invertebrate animals as a component of the traditional medicine trade in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. African Invertebrates, vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 1-18.
  53. Herrera, and others (2022), Trade-offs and synergies between seagrass ecosystems and fishing activities: A global literature review. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 9, p. 781713.
  54. Hesketh-Best, Poppy. J., and others (2023). Whole genomes of deep-sea sponge-associated bacteria exhibit high novel natural product potential. Federation of European Microbiology Societies Microbes, vol. 4, p.xtad005.
  55. Hockings, Marc, Lilley Ian, Matar Diane. A., Dudley Nigel, and Markham Robert (2019). Integrating Science and Local Knowledge to Strengthen Biosphere Reserve Management. In UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Routledge.
  56. Hope, Andrew. G., and others (2018). Collection of scientific specimens: benefits for biodiversity sciences and limited impacts on communities of small mammals. BioScience, vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 35-42.
  57. Hunter, Margaret, E., and others (2024). A new era of genetic diversity conservation through novel tools and accessible data. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 22, No. 4.
  58. Islar, M., and others (2022). The role of the values of nature and valuation for addressing the biodiversity crisis and navigating towards more just and sustainable futures. In Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuations of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, and D. González- Jiménez, eds. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat.
  59. Ituarte-Lima, Claudia and others (2025). Model guidelines: Human rights-based participation in just transitions. Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
  60. Ivey, P.J., and others (2023). Nagoya Protocol and Africa's willingness to share biological control agents, are we deterred by barriers instead of using opportunities to work together? BioControl, 68(3), pp. 253- 259.
  61. Jaspars, Marcel, and others (2016). The marine biodiscovery pipeline and ocean medicines of tomorrow. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 96. No. 1, pp. 151- 158.
  62. Jeffery, Nicholas. W., and others (2022). Application of omics tools in designing and monitoring marine protected areas for a sustainable blue economy. Frontiers in Genetics, vol. 13.
  63. Johannesen, Ellen, and others (2022). The sea change needed for gender equality in ocean-going research. Marine Technology Society Journal, vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 18-24.
  64. Johannesen, Ellen. (2025). Advancing gender equality in international ocean science: Participatory approaches for institutional actions. Marine Policy, 171, p. 106421.
  65. De Jong, Emma (2024). Toward genome assemblies for all marine vertebrates: current landscape and challenges. GigaScience, vol. 13, p. giad119.
  66. Juniper, Kim (2013). Technological, Environmental, Social and Economic Aspects. In IUCN Information Papers for the Intersessional Workshop on Marine Genetic Resources, 2-3 May, pp. 15-21.
  67. Kennedy, Brian R.C., and others (2019). "The Unknown and the Unexplored: Insights Into the Pacific Deep-Sea Following NOAA CAPSTONE Expeditions". Frontiers in Marine Science.
  68. Kitada, Momoko, Erin Williams, and Lisa Loloma Froholdt, eds. (2015). Maritime women: global leadership, vol. 3. Springer. Berlin.
  69. Kittinger, John. N., and others (2024). Balancing protection and production in ocean conservation. njp Ocean Sustainability, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 24.
  70. Krusberg, Tilde, and others (2024). A review of marine genetic resource valuations. npj Ocean Sustainability, vol. 3, No. 46.
  71. Laiolo, Elisa, and others (2024). Metagenomic probing toward an atlas of the taxonomic and metabolic foundations of the global ocean genome. Frontiers in Science, vol. 1, p. 1038696.
  72. Laird, Sarah, and others (2020). "Rethink the expansion of access and benefit sharing." Science, 367 (6483), 1200-1202. Available at https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9609.
  73. Lawson, Charles and others (2025). "Data management and the 'BBNJ' standardized batch identifier under the BBNJ agreement". In F. Humphries and C. Lawson (eds.), Decoding Marine Genetic Resource Governance Under the BBNJ Agreement (pp. 253-281). Springer Nature.
  74. Le Bris, N., and Gaill, F. (2007). How the annelid Alvinella pompejana deals with an extreme hydrothermal environment. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, vol. 6, Nos. 1-3, pp. 197-221.
  75. Lewin, Harris. A., and others (2022). The earth BioGenome project 2020: Starting the clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, No. 4, p. e2115635118.
  76. Lima, Ivan. D., and Rheuban, Jennie. E. (2022). Gender differences in NSF Ocean Sciences awards. Oceanography, vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 68-75.
  77. Lloyd-Evans, L.P.M. (2005). A Study into the Prospects for Marine Biotechnology Development in the United Kingdom: Volume 1 - Strategy. Report Commissioned by the Foresight Marine Panel.
  78. Lindequist, Ulrike (2016). Marine-Derived Pharmaceuticals- Challenges and Opportunities. Biomolecules & therapeutics, vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 561.
  79. Maia, Michele. C, and others (2024). Harassment and bullying aboard: Impacts of gender inequality on ocean professionals. Marine Policy, vol. 160, p. 105946.
  80. Market Research Future (MRFR) (2024). Global Blue Biotechnology Market Research Report: Forecast to 2032.
  81. Martin, Adrian, and others (2022). The role of diverse values of nature in visioning and transforming towards just and sustainable futures. In Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and
  82. Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Christie, M., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Baptiste, B., and Gonzáles-Jiménez, D., eds. Bonn, Germany, IPBES secretariat.
  83. McKenna, Victoria, and others (2024). The aquatic symbiosis genomics project: probing the evolution of symbiosis across the tree of life. Wellcome open research, 6, p. 254.
  84. Menime, Tualima, and others (2022). ABS or Access Before Service: A Samoan Perspective. In Access and Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources, Information and Traditional Knowledge, Lawson, Charles, and others, eds. Routledge.
  85. Morrison, John. R., and Aalbersberg, W.G.L. (2022). Anthropogenic Environmental Impacts on Coral Reefs in the Western and South-Western Pacific Ocean. In Coral Reefs of the Western Pacific Ocean in a Changing Anthropocene, Zhang, J., Yeemin, T., Morrison, R.J., Hong, G.H., eds. Cham, Springer, vol. 14.
  86. Mulalap, Clement Yow, and others (2020). Traditional knowledge and the BBNJ instrument. Marine Policy, vol. 122, p. 104103.
  87. Murray, Christopher J., and others (2022). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. The Lancet, vol. 399, No. 10325, pp. 629-655.
  88. Naghavi, Mohsen, and others (2024). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance 1990-2021: a systematic analysis with forecasts to 2050. The Lancet, vol. 404, No. 10459, pp. 1199-1226.
  89. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2017). Marine biotechnology: Definitions, infrastructures and directions for innovation. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 43. Paris, OECD Publishing.
  90. Österblom, Henrik, Wabnitz Colette. C, and Tladi Dire (2023). Towards ocean equity. In The Blue Compendium: From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, Jane Lubchenco and Peter M. Haugan, eds. Cham, Springer International Publishing.
  91. Ottaviani, Daniela (2020). Economic Value of Ecosystem Services from the Deep Seas and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, No. 1210. Rome.
  92. Papon, Nicolas, and others (2022). Marine drugs: Biology, pipelines, current and future prospects for production. Biotechnology Advances, vol. 54, p. 107871.
  93. Pena-Neira, Sergio, and Coelho Luciana Fernandes (2025). Traditional Knowledge associated with marine genetic resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. In Decoding marine genetic resource governance under the BBNJ Agreement, Fran, Humphries, ed. Cham, Springer.
  94. Pereira, Laura. M, and others (2023). The Living Infinite: Envisioning Futures for Transformed Human- Nature Relationships on the High Seas. Marine Policy, vol. 153, p. 105644.
  95. Prathapan, K. D. and others (2018). "When the cure kills - CBD limits biodiversity research." Science, 360 (6396), 1405-1406. Available at https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9844.
  96. Querellou, Joel, and others (2009). Marine Biotechnology: A New Vision and Strategy for Europe. Marine Board, ESF Position Paper 15.
  97. Rabone, Muriel, and others (2025). BBNJ Agreement: Considerations for Scientists and Commercial End Users of MGRS at Research, Development and Commercialisation Stages. In Development and Commercialisation Stages", in Decoding marine genetic resource governance under the BBNJ Agreement, Fran, Humphries, ed. Cham, Springer.
  98. Rabone, Muriel, and others (2023). How many metazoan species live in the world's largest mineral exploration region? Current Biology, vol. 33, No. 12, pp. 1-14.
  99. Rabone, Muriel, and others (2019). Access to Marine Genetic Resources (MGR): Raising Awareness of Best-Practice Through a New Agreement for Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 6, p. 520.
  100. Rademaekers, Koen, and others (2015). Deep-Seabed Exploitation: Tackling Economic, Environmental and Societal Challenges, Study prepared for the European Parliamentary Research Service.
  101. Rahaman, Saidur, and others (2024). Empowering Women in Building a Sustainable Blue Economy. In Handbook of Sustainable Blue Economy. Cham, Springer Nature Switzerland.
  102. Reverter, Miriam, and others (2020). Metabolomics and marine biotechnology: coupling metabolite profiling and organism biology for the discovery of new compounds. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 7, p. 613471.
  103. Rogers, Alex D., and others (2023). "Critical habitats and biodiversity: inventory, thresholds and governance." In The Blue Compendium: From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (pp. 333-392). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  104. Rotjan, Randi, D., and others (2024). Immunomodulatory lipopolysaccaride compositions, New PCT Application No .: PCT/US2021/062898, filed December 10, 2021, Based on U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 63/124, 340 filed December 11, 2020, US Patent 11,878,057 Awarded January 2024.
  105. Royal Society (2017). Future ocean resources: Metal-rich minerals and genetics - evidence pack Issued: May 2017 DES4703 ISBN: 978-1-78252-260-7.
  106. Sajjad, Noreen, and others (2024). Application of Genetically Modified Microorganisms for Remediation of Petrol Discharges and Related Polluted Sites. I Genetically Engineered Organisms in Bioremediation. CRC Press.
  107. Salicrup, Luis. A, and Fedorková Lenka (2006). Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Biotechnology and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. Biotechnology Advances, vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 69-79.
  108. Saravanan, A., and Debnath, D. (2013). Patenting Trends in Marine Biodiversity: Issues and Challenges. Pharma Utility, vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 5.
  109. Salimi, Parisa Alidoost, and others (2021). A review of the diversity and impact of invasive non-native species in tropical marine ecosystems. Marine Biodiversity Records, vol. 14, art. 11.
  110. Scholz, Amber Hartman, and others (2022). Multilateral benefit-sharing from digital sequence information will support both science and biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications, vol. 13. art. 1086.
  111. Schubotz, Florence, and others (2024). Going deep on marine lipid metabolism. Science, vol. 385, No. 6714, pp. 1167-1168.
  112. Sett, Scarlett, and others (2024). Harmonize rules for digital sequence information benefit-sharing across UN frameworks. Nature communications, vol. 15, art. 8745.
  113. Shellock, Rebecca, and others (2022). Breaking down barriers: The identification of actions to promote gender equality in interdisciplinary marine research institutions. One Earth, vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 687-708.
  114. Sigwart, Julia. D., and others (2021a). Unlocking the potential of marine biodiscovery. Natural Product Reports, vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 1235-1242.
  115. Sigwart, Julia. D., and others (2021b). Global controversy in oyster systematics and a newly described species from SE Asia (Bivalvia: Ostreidae: Crassostreinae). Marine Biodiversity, vol. 51, art. 83, pp. 1- 16.
  116. St. Clair, Madeline A. (2021). Sexual Harassment in Marine Science Report.
  117. Sun, Jin, and others (2020). The Scaly-foot Snail genome and implications for the origins of biomineralised armour. Nature Communications, vol. 11, art. 1657.
  118. Thambisetty, Siva, and others (2023). The Expert Briefing Document: A Developing Country Perspective on the Making of the BBNJ Treaty. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Paper No. 30/2023.
  119. Thambisetty, Siva, and others (2025). From Paper to Practice: Operationalising the Standardized Batch Identifier in the BBNJ Framework. London Scool of Economics Policy Brief.
  120. Thomas, Nathan, and others (2017). Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996- 2010. PloS One, vol. 12, No. 6, p. e0179302.
  121. International Union Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2024). Red List of Mangrove Ecosystems. https://iucn.org/resources/conservation-tool/iucn-red-list-ecosystems/red-list-mangrove-ecosystems.
  122. Tortorella, Emiliana, and others (2018). Antibiotics from deep-sea microorganisms: current discoveries and perspectives. Marine drugs, vol. 16, No. 10, p. 355.
  123. UN-Women (2020). Women's economic empowerment in fisheries in the blue economy of the Indian Ocean Rim: A baseline report. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital- library/publications/2020/10/womens-economic-empowerment-in-the-indian-ocean-rim.
  124. Vieira, Helena, and others (2023). Current and Expected Trends for the Marine Chitin/Chitosan and Collagen Value Chains. Marine Drugs, vol. 21, No. 12: 605.
  125. Vierros, Marjo. K., and others (2016). Who Owns the Ocean? Policy Issues Surrounding Marine Genetic Resources. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, vol. 25, No. 2.
  126. Virdin, J., and others (2021). The Ocean 100: Transnational corporations in the ocean economy. Science Advances, vol. 7, No. 3: p. eabc8041.
  127. Vohsen, Samuel. A., and others (2024). Discovery of deep-sea coral symbionts from a novel clade of marine bacteria with severely reduced genomes. Nature Communications, vol. 15, art. 9508.
  128. De Vos, Asha, and others (2023). Towards equity and justice in ocean sciences. npj Ocean Sustainability, vol. 2, art. 25, pp. 25.
  129. Voultsiadou, Eleni, and Vafiis, Dimitris. Marine invertebrate diversity in Aristotle's zoology. Contributions to Zoology, vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 103-120.
  130. Voser, Tanja. M, and others (2022). How different are marine microbial natural products compared to their terrestrial counterparts? Natural Product Reports, vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 7-19.
  131. Wang, Lu and others (2024). "Broadening inclusivity at sea". Frontiers in Marine Science, 11.
  132. WWF (2025). Towards Nature Positive for the Ocean: Pathways for Corporate Contributions. 10.5281/zenodo.15587372.
  133. Williams, Philip G. (2009). Panning for Chemical Gold: Marine Bacteria as a Source of New Therapeutics. Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 45.
  134. Williams, Vivienne, L., and Whiting, Martin J. (2016). A picture of health? Animal use and the Faraday traditional medicine market, South Africa. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 179, pp. 265-273.
  135. WoRMS Editorial Board (2025). World Register of Marine Species. Available at https://www.marinespecies.org/. Accessed on 2025-10-07. doi:10.14284/170.
  136. Zhivkoplias, Erik, and others (2025). How transdisciplinarity can help biotech-driven biodiversity research. Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 2105-2116.
  137. Zhivkoplias, Erik, and others (2024). Growing prominence of deep-sea life in marine bioprospecting. Nature Sustainability, vol. 7, pp. 1-11.