TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Aug24/04)
13 August 2024
Third World Network

CBD: Developing countries call for CBD database for DSI and improved data governance

Montreal, 13 August (Nithin Ramakrishnan) – Developing countries have called for a new sequence database to be established within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a part of its multilateral mechanism.

Several of them also called for developing a data governance framework for the databases that share digital sequence information (DSI).

The call was made on the first day of the second meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Benefit-sharing from the Use of DSI on Genetic Resources that is taking place on 12 -16 August 2024 in Montreal, Canada.

Mphatso Kalemba (Malawi) and William Lockhart (United Kingdom) will continue to serve as the Co-Chairs of the Committee of the Whole of the Working Group. Angela Lozan (Moldova) will also continue to act as Rapporteur of the meeting.

The Working Group is mandated to undertake further development of the multilateral mechanism for the sharing of benefits arising from the use of DSI and began with a focus on the elements proposed by the Co-Chairs for the development of the mechanism.

Developing country Parties such as Egypt, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Eswatini called for the establishment of a CBD database for providing access to DSI in an accountable manner to facilitate not only benefit sharing but also open access in a more responsible manner.

Several Parties such as South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia, Côte d’Ivoire and Peru called for some form of data governance to ensure more accountability, transparency and legitimacy in the sharing and use of DSI. 

A number of developing county Parties from different regions, including the major regional groups such as the African Group and the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) also called for better governance in general for the CBD multilateral mechanism. 

On 12 August morning, 65 civil society organisations sent a letter to the Co-Chairs and the Working Group, calling for a new CBD sequence database that would not only act as a central repository of DSI for the multilateral mechanism, but also as an additional interim facility for developing countries lacking national capacities to store and share DSI that fall under the scope of their national access and benefit sharing (ABS) laws. Third World Network and Ecoropa, members of the CBD Alliance, expressed similar calls at the Committee of the Whole and received Party support.

According to the joint letter, the proposed elements for the CBD multilateral mechanism rest on the premise that Parties are free to exercise their sovereign rights over DSI, but only until it is deposited in a public database, and that Parties could refrain from exercising such rights once the DSI is placed in a public database. These proposed elements cannot be efficient unless public databases show accountability and do not share DSI in violation of the sovereign rights or the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities recognized by the Convention.

Egypt underscored the urgent need for a centralized DSI database within the framework of the CBD as part of the clearing-house mechanism. Such a database is crucial for the effective monitoring of DSI access, facilitating the appropriate sharing of information, and supporting non-monetary benefit-sharing measures, including capacity building and technology transfer. This step is essential to ensure that all Parties, especially developing countries, can participate fully and equitably in the benefits derived from DSI.

 

Peru, in their intervention, made it clear that while they welcome the move of major databases to include the geographic origin of the genetic material, there must also be measures to verify the documents related to DSI generation.

Saudi Arabia stressed “the importance of databases taking the necessary measures to comply with best practice guidelines and international agreements and decisions related to access and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of DSI from genetic resources”.

South Africa appealed “for a transparent and inclusive governance structure for the benefit-sharing mechanism and as such we propose a governing body, inclusive of all participating Parties, to govern the operations of the multilateral mechanism and the global fund, and the cooperation and collaboration between Parties for effective implementation as well as clear guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of DSI use, as well as the management and disbursement of funds”.

Along similar lines, India advocated for “open access to DSI databases with features of capturing accurate Geographic Information during uploading of data while adhering to the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles for maintaining such database. A Database Governance framework in sync with the multilateral mechanism which promotes fair and equitable Access and Benefit sharing from the use of DSI on genetic resources also needs to be developed.”

Uganda on the other hand called for obligating the entities operating public databases “to disseminate information about the multilateral mechanism to promote accountability and facilitate a thorough understanding among all users of their responsibilities regarding fair benefit-sharing practices”.

In support of Egypt’s statement, Uganda also proposed that during the review period of the multilateral mechanism, modalities be explored for the creation of a DSI database under the full authority of the CBD.

Serbia stated that while it strongly supports principles of open science, it also recognizes and reiterates that “open access" requires considerations of ownership and sustainability of open access infrastructure.

Surprisingly, developed country Parties remained silent on the issues relating to the accountability of the databases sharing DSI, while they were quite vocal with regards to the accountability of countries in the utilisation of the funds they receive from the global fund, which is the part of the CBD multilateral mechanism.

Opposing views of developed countries

The developed country Parties on the other hand were keen to avoid obligations for sharing of benefits in a fair and equitable manner. At the same time, they also wanted to provide legal certainty to the users who might voluntarily share some benefits, so as to get confirmation from the system that they fulfil benefit sharing provisions and will not be subject to any other benefit sharing claims.

For instance, Switzerland said, “as a COP decision is not legally-binding, it cannot introduce any legal obligations for Parties or users of DSI. Therefore, wording such as ‘requirement’ must be replaced by ‘encouragement’ or ‘invitation’. In turn, strong incentives are needed to achieve broad participation. A major incentive for users of DSI that contribute to the fund will be legal certainty provided by a confirmation that they fulfil the benefit-sharing provisions and that they will not be subject to any other benefit-sharing claims for the use of DSI”.

Japan stated that it attaches great importance to transparency and accountability, when it comes to the utilisation of the funds. It stated “If one company contributes to the global fund and that money is used for something other than biodiversity conservation, the company would be accused by their shareholders and criticised by other stakeholders. Such risks would eventually discourage companies from contributing to the global fund”. At the same time, Japan remained silent about the accountability of databases to not to infringe the rights recognized by the Convention nor did it attach importance to ensuring every user who generates benefits using DSI, shares such benefits fairly and equitably.

Australia said that any design should be transparent, accountable and easy to understand and is not complicated with multiple payments to multiple mechanisms and/or bilateral arrangements.

U.S. cautions about fragmentation and complexities

The United States, a non-Party to the Convention, and who calls for voluntary benefit sharing schemes, stated that the proposed elements rely on country measures at the national level to operationalize benefit sharing. In its view, such a proposal has the potential of fragmenting the benefit sharing system and can cause complexities that would disincentivise participation both from the providers and users. It cautioned thus in the Committee of the Whole:

“We recognize Parties' interest in a solution that will mandate benefit-sharing through the multilateral mechanism, however, we are concerned by the possible reliance on country measures. The potential for wide variation in their design and execution could create uncertainty and lead to avoidance – the very problems a multilateral approach is meant to solve. We believe that clear, consistent measures are more likely to work. Further, the United States, cannot commit to mandate U.S. users to contribute to the mechanism”.

Discussions on these contentious issues will continue in a Contact Group setting for most of the week.+