Digital sequence information, DSI

by the CBD Alliance, Women's Caucus and by IIFB

CBD Alliance

Download as pdf

I speak on behalf of Third World Network and Ecoropa, members of the CBD Alliance. The concerns we raise here are also shared by the 65 Civil Society Organisations who sent  a joint letter to the Executive Secretary, the working group co-chairs, and the Parties this morning.

We have several concerns about the proposed elements in the Annex of the Document WGDSI/2/2.

• First, the proposed elements do not ensure the obligation to share benefits on the users of DSI. The Multilateral Mechanism relies on measures that might be taken up by parties in future. A MLM system which does not generate the obligation to share benefits is not an ABS mechanism at all. Benefit sharing should not be confused with charity.
• Second, the proposed elements explicitly ask Parties to refrain from setting up national ABS measures for the use of DSI from public databases - at least when  DSI has been deposited in a public database. But we are concerned about the lack of databases that would respect the Parties’ rights under the Convention, and that would only upload DSI in accordance with the Parties’ national laws and with the prior informed consent of the genetic material provider.
• Third, the proposed elements are inconsistent with the unanimously adopted UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and would promote inequitable extraction of DSI, in particular from developing countries that lack national capacities, to unaccountable institutions and non-Parties.

The following five components therefore need to included in the any decision for development of the MLM:

• First, recognize the lack of accountable public databases consistent with UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, as a major challenge in securing fair and equitable benefit sharing obligations from the use of DSI;
• Second, call upon Parties sponsoring or hosting sequence databases to ensure that these databases do not frustrate the rights of the Parties recognized under the Convention and the operationalization of the multilateral mechanism.
• Third, establish a safe, secure, and  accountable database for providing access to DSI from legitimate sources to all without discrimination, provided that the users undertake obligations to share both monetary and non-monetary benefits, including products and technologies arising from the use of DSI - fairly and equitably.
• Fourth, the same database could also provide additional facilities for those developing countries that lack national capacities, to store and share DSI that would fall under their national ABS laws and thereby allow Parties to make meaningful choices on how, when and why to share DSI.
• Finally, set up a governing body inclusive of all Parties to the Multilateral Mechanism to look into the effective implementation of the decision which we will adopt at COP16.    

Women's Caucus

Download as pdf

I am Edda Fernández from Avaaz, speaking on behalf of the CBD Women’s Caucus.

Distinguished Delegates, the common goal we all share is to make the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework possible.

Financing from all sources is needed, and that is the road we are building on here in Montreal.

But we are also here to ensure that we keep on walking within the “comprehensive package” that the GBF was agreed upon, which includes a whole-of-society approach, a human rights-based approach, and a strong emphasis on advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The CBD Women’s Caucus emphasises, again, that the specific reference to women, as to youth, to Indigenous Peoples and to local communities, is not just about naming them, but to effectively consider these relevant stakeholders as actors and partners in biodiversity conservation. Therefore, this approach should be reflected throughout our deliberations during this Working Group Second Meeting.

Yet, we are working with documents where key right-holders are not being referred to as partners and actors. Women are generally not even mentioned. One of many examples is paragraph 20 in document CBD/WGDSI/2/2, where women, as well as youth, are not even mentioned. And this paragraph is in the part addressing direct resource allocations; yet direct access to funding is a relevant element to effectively support biodiversity conservation on the ground, carried on by Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and youth.

As COP16 is being prepared as a Conference of the People, the work of this Working Group should present the COP with solid recommendations on how access and benefit sharing from DSI of Genetic Resources will address and reach rights holders as actors on the ground - that is, women, youth, Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

All Parties, stakeholders and right holders in this room have collectively agreed to an ambitious plan; now, we must ensure that we apply just and inclusive principles.

The CBD Women’s Caucus stands ready as a dedicated partner in this endeavour.

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

Download as pdf

Opening statements by CBD Alliance, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) and the Women's Caucus.

Statement from Third World Network, Ecoropa and SEARICE (CBD Alliance)

Thank you Chair. I’m speaking on behalf of the Third World Network, Ecoropa and SEARICE, active members of the CBD Alliance who are present at this meeting.

We thank the Parties for having taken up Decision 15/9 which agrees to share, fairly and equitably, the benefits arising from the use of DSI. This decision took a lot of effort to arrive at. The moment has now come to show the world that all those efforts are not meaningless. We have gathered here to develop an efficient, accountable and transparent multilateral mechanism which binds users of DSI to share benefits fairly and equitably.

Chair, the standard that the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol maintains is “appropriate access” to genetic resources. However, when it comes to DSI, the idea of “open access” has dominated the discussions, without a real examination of what that standard refers to. Since expert after expert has agreed that “DSI” practically reduces the relevance of physical access to genetic resources, we need to be careful about the implications of “open access”. It should not become “free access”, where users undertake no commitments to share benefits with the providers of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, including indigenous peoples and local communities.

Open access should also meet the standard of “appropriateness” - this will only happen if the medium used to share DSI becomes accountable to CBD Parties and maintains minimum access rules. In this regard, we believe that accountability of databases should be central to the discussions here. Failing to infuse accountability into the current practices of DSI sharing will only incentivize the privatisation of wealth generated using biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge, while costs are borne by the public.

Further, just as countries are cautious about the cross-border flow of financial and economic data, there needs to be, equally, caution about the cross-border flow of genetic data or DSI given its commercial and economic applications. Therefore, the multilateral mechanism has to respect the sovereignty of the States as well as the rights of IPLCs. Parties should retain control over data generation, storage and dissemination - only then can they exercise their sovereignty in the true sense. Basic international law principles extend the sovereignty of States to digital infrastructure and assets including data, and this should not be abridged by the multilateral mechanism.

Finally, with regard to the global fund that is to be part of the multilateral mechanism, we do not believe that distribution based on competitive project financing alone is the answer. While a part of the fund could be distributed this way, the idea that one has to compete for the benefits which they are actually entitled to, is unjust. This cannot be the basis of real benefit sharing. We need to explore other ways by which funds should be transferred to the providers of the genetic sequences, particularly indigenous peoples and local communities who have stewarded biodiversity.

Opening statement International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB)

Foundations

The foundation for a long-term solution on DSI is to create conditions for a robust, transparent and flexible approach that recognises the diversity of interests of Parties, Indigenous Peoples, Local communities. It needs to recognise the unique relationship that indigenous peoples and local communities have with biodiversity, and their conservation and diversification of genetic diversity - past, present and future.
This can be created through two practical steps:

• Firstly, establishing a foundational requirement that DSI must be deposited with databases and repositories that participate in the mechanism. This will create basic conditions for trust, provide legal certainty and generate substantive benefits;
• Secondly, the identification of a set of basic terms and conditions to give participants choices when sharing DSI. This should not assume that DSI will go into the public domain.

Open and Responsible Data Governance

Basic terms and conditions of use must be combined with measures to promote ethical Open and Responsible Data Governance.

• Any DSI obtained through FPIC must be deposited into databases linked to the Mechanism.
• In line with the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and the OECD recommendation on enhancing access to and sharing of data, a core principle is that data sharing arrangements should be as open as possible to maximise the benefits to society and as closed as necessary to protect legitimate public and private interests including respect and safeguards for the rights of IPs, LCs Women and Youth.
• The FAIR principles are widely recognised as good practice in open research and innovation and the complementary CARE principles consider the needs and values of IPs and LCs.
• Many Parties such as the EU, the UK, Australia and Canada already support Open and Responsible Data Governance in their funding policies and we will be happy to discuss examples.
• Additional measures of particular importance include providing measures to associate provenance metadata for species that are socio-economically and culturally significant, as defined by IPs and LCs, such as Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Notices and Labels.

The Global Fund Mechanism

• Regarding the governance of the fund, the participation of IPs, LCs, and stakeholders
  should be integral to the design, management, priority setting and governance of the fund.
• Trigger points for contributions to the fund should stem from multiple revenue generation measures. This should be seen as part of the Resource Mobilisation Strategy to support implementation of the GBF such as Target 21.
• Disbursement of funds needs to be fair, equitable, transparent, practical, secure, and
  directly accessible for IPs and LCs across all 7 socio-cultural regions, ensuring their full and effective participation.

Issues For Further Consideration

• The fear of fraudulent metadata creation should not outweigh the need for safeguards in the first place. Mechanisms for verifying metadata provenance should be maintained, as affirmations of accuracy upon input, and the requirement for associated contact details, needs to be submitted alongside the data input in accordance with existing controls.
• The relationship between ownership, property rights and potential as well as actualised intellectual property rights pertaining to DSI should be further investigated to ensure the operability of the GMBSM and ABS as a whole.
• We propose that an ATHEG bod
• y should be conformed to ensure the continuity and
  consistency to DSI implications to the relationship of IPs and LCs to biodiversity, and GRs with Associated Traditional Knowledge.
• We acknowledge the need to develop safeguards to ensure sustainable flow of benefits and ensure the successful implementation of Open and Responsible Data Governance.

An extend version of this statement is available for download.

Opening statement by CBD Women
Caucus

We have walked the walk that led to having the Nagoya Protocol today, as the African Group
stated.
The CBD Women Caucus is responding to the CALL in paragraph 14 of the decision 15/9.
We are here, as actors and partners, and ready to fully and effectively participate. Our priorities must be conceptualized and taken into account.
We urge Parties and other stakeholders, including other Governments, Business and Academia
to act accordingly with what they have agreed and said here and in so many other fora.
Therefore, the CDB Women’s Caucus expects the inclusion of gender responsiveness and
gender approach in the next assessments of DSI issues, including in the Multilateral Mechanism for ABS from DSI, and in capacity building considerations.
We also call for gender responsiveness in all the work and frameworks and mechanisms
relating to DSI in line with the KM-GBF by all actors involved in DSI. We further call for a
verifiable, fair, transparent, collaborative and accountable process that responds to the needs of women.
We look forward to further discussions on open access and benefit sharing.

Download the full issue as pdf

Snowman to snow-mess: negotiations at COP15 are opening doors to risky technologies

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network

An avalanche of heated discussions accompanied the first snowfall of this winter in Montreal. Regarding synthetic biology and target 17, the texts currently being discussed fall short on establishing robust international rules to govern biotechnology.

The inability to reach consensus, coupled with biased steering from those chairing discussions has severely weakened the text. While the government of Canada hosts a snowman building competition, negotiators of target 17 replace the “spirit of compromise” with a messy snowball fight of finger pointing.

As a result, several of the concerns raised by civil society organisations working on the issues of synthetic biology and biotechnology remain unresolved. For example, the lack of a biotechnology related target that establishes a process for horizon scanning, technology assessment and monitoring and considers socioeconomic impacts of synthetic biology reinforces the need for a global moratorium on the environmental release of gene drives.

It seems that the GBF as it stands today is blindfolded. It will not be able to see further and enable the assessment and monitoring of the potential adverse impacts of biotechnology and synthetic biology. In the case of gene drives, that once released, cannot be controlled, contained, reversed or recalled, this lack of international agreement poses critical threats to biodiversity and human rights.

It seems that the GBF will guarantee neither that new technologies are approached with precaution, nor that countries are equipped with the right tools to assess them. Therefore, their release must be halted. For more information, access the text of the manifesto for a global moratorium on the environmental release of gene drive organisms here:  https://www.stop-genedrives.eu/en/manifesto/

DSI decision should not undermine the scope of the CBD

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network

While there are rays of hope around the draft decision on Digital Sequence Information (DSI), a very few developed countries continue to forward hardline positions without remorse. These countries have continuously attempted to get a decision that states that DSI is not covered under the scope of the Convention. The current version of the draft decision contains this view in brackets: “Recognizing that there are divergent views on digital sequence information on genetic resources [with regards to its scope under][in relation to its scope in] the Convention on Biological Diversity”.

A worst case interpretation is that this paragraph gives recognition to a view that there is divergence regarding the scope of the Convention, as to whether it deals with DSI or not. This has never been the case. Decision 14/20 only points to divergence regarding the views relating to benefit sharing arising from the use of DSI, and there was a commitment to resolve such divergences. The draft decision, unfortunately, may accept an even graver form of divergence with regards to the scope of the Convention and whether it covers DSI.

To have such an outcome, for a promise of a future fund, of which details are unknown at this stage, is risky for developing countries. It may undermine their positions in many other forums such as the WHO, ITPGRFA and UNCLOS,where they are demanding fair and equitable benefit sharing from the use of the DSI based on the obligations of the CBD. The invitation to the users of DSI to contribute funds voluntarily to the proposed fund adds to this uncertainty. This may unfortunately open the door for users to contribute charity to the fund, but discharge their obligations under the Convention.

Here you can find our daily ECO

ECO 64(3) - 5 December 2022 (pdf)

• Five key points on biodiversity
• Why we must protect precaution at the CBD

ECO 64(2) - 4 December 2022 (pdf)

• New report uncovers human rights impacts of exclusionary natural protected areas on the Kichwa People of San Martin in the Peruvian Amazon
• We need gender in the biodiversity policy agenda NOW!
• Time to support Target 22 on gender equality towards COP15
• Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands are not a laboratory for testing risky gene drive organisms
• The responsible approach to Target 17
• Human rights and accountability in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

ECO 64(1) - 3 December 2022 (pdf)

• Ingredients for updated Post-2020 GBF (pdf)
• DSI discussions require urgent focus on data governance
• Gene drives are the opposite of nature conservation
• A rights-based path for people and planet. Human rights proposal for the post-2020 GBF
• The Post-2020 GBF must help operationalise the new right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment
• How business is quietly taking over the Convention on Biological Diversity
• Agroecology: The CBD’s transformative opportunity