Key points | Purpose | Background | Setting the scene for COP 16 | GBIF's position on DSI
Key points
-
Purpose
This briefing explains the role of GBIF in discussions around the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the sharing of benefits from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. It is not a lobbying document but an explanatory overview of how DSI benefit sharing could affect GBIF. -
Target audience
GBIF nodes, data publishers, governments, potential Participants, and stakeholders involved in CBD and DSI discussions leading up to the Sixteen meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 16) in Colombia in October and November 2024. -
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing
Established in 2014, the Nagoya Protocol mandates access to and fair and equitable benefit sharing from genetic resources. However, since 2016, developing countries have argued for the inclusion of DSI in these benefit-sharing agreements. -
Current state of DSI debate
Since 2016, DSI has been a contentious issue, although the parties agreed to establish a global mechanism for DSI benefit-sharing at COP 15 in 2022. However, specific implementation details will be decided at COP 16. -
GBIF's role
GBIF remains neutral in the DSI debate but supports the principles of open access to biodiversity data. Its role in DSI will depend on final agreements about access and benefit-sharing at COP16. -
Uncertain definitions
The broad or narrow definition of DSI will impact GBIF's relevance, particularly regarding metadata and genetic sequence handling. -
Monetary vs. non-monetary benefits
GBIF is not likely to play a significant role in generating monetary benefits from DSI. However, it plays a strong role in non-monetary benefits, such as enabling research through open access data and training programs. -
Lessons from GBIF
GBIF’s experience in data governance and its approach to responsible data use and open access could offer valuable insights for the development of the DSI mechanism.
Purpose
This briefing aims to clarify and communicate GBIF’s relevance to the discussions and decisions in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on the sharing of benefits arising from use of digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI). It is not intended as a "position" or lobbying document, but rather an explanatory summary of the ways in which the emerging system of DSI benefit sharing will, and will not, affect GBIF’s activities. Since it is written while many of the details of the CBD mechanism remain undecided, the messages in the briefing are necessarily tentative, and will need to be monitored and updated once the system is finalized and in place.
The audience for this briefing includes GBIF nodes and data publishers, users of GBIF tools and services, GBIF Participant governments and organizations, as well as potential Participants, CBD delegates and other communities involved the DSI discussions up to and during the CBD COP 16 meeting in Cali, Colombia, in October and November 2024.
Background
Under the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, which came into force in 2014 as a supplement to the CBD, signatory countries agree to enact rules for the benefits arising from access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, whether monetary or non-monetary, to be shared equitably. In practice, this means setting up contractual arrangements before material is collected from the field, to guarantee that a fair portion of any resulting profits or other benefits, such as scientific research, is shared with the country or community providing the access.
The effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol in delivering on its principal objectives, namely the generation of funds and incentives to support conservation and human well-being, has been much debated. In 2016, this debate took on a new dimension when a group of developing countries at the CBD COP 13 meeting in Mexico argued that the principle of access and benefit sharing (ABS) should apply not only to physical material collected from the field, but also to digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI). The case made by these countries was that recent advances in bioinformatics enabled large profits to be realized from development of products and services, without the need for physical access to biological material. These parties also viewed the free availability of millions of sequences deposited in public databases, such as those operated through the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), as a loophole preventing the return of benefits to the countries and communities that provided access to the material from which the sequences were extracted. Initial suggestions to include DSI within the scope of the Nagoya Protocol were strongly resisted by other countries, which argued that any restriction on open access to sequence data would hamper research and innovation.
Setting the scene for COP 16
In subsequent CBD meetings and associated discussions since COP 13, the issue of DSI has become hotly contested between countries, as well as among communities from research institutions, industry, civil society and other groups. The complex scientific background has been well described through initiatives such as the DSI Scientific Network, in particular its latest briefing on the contribution made by DSI to achievement of the goals and targets of the CBD.
Despite the strong and conflicting positions taken on each side of this argument, the world’s governments managed to find consensus in 2022 at the COP 15 meeting in Montreal, Canada, on a decision relating to DSI. This included agreement to set up a multilateral mechanism for sharing benefits (both monetary and non-monetary) from the use of DSI, including a global fund to capture and distribute revenues from such uses.
The detail of how this mechanism will operate has been left to the COP16 meeting to decide. However, countries agreed on a number of key principles when it was created, including:
- Efficiency and effectiveness, with more benefits than costs
- Certainty and legal clarity for providers and users of DSI
- Consistency with open access to data and not hindering research/innovation
A CBD working group set up in 2022 was tasked with making recommendations prior to COP 16 that will help resolve critical questions relating to the DSI mechanism, including, for example:
- How and at what point in the value chain funds generated from the use of digital sequence information will be captured
- How the funds collected through this mechanism should be distributed among beneficiaries
- How principles of data governance, such as FAIR and CARE, should be applied to digital sequence information within the new mechanism
At the second and final meeting of this working group in August 2024, attending governments made progress in narrowing down the options across these three questions, but failed to reach agreement on a single set of recommendations, leaving the key decisions to be negotiated at the COP 16 meeting in Colombia.
GBIF’s position on DSI
General principles
As an intergovernmental collaboration, it has not been appropriate for GBIF as a whole to adopt a ‘position’ in relation to the polarized debate on DSI among governments within the CBD. Since the Voting Participants on GBIF’s Governing Board include governments with varying positions on the issue, a single point of view from the entire board, separate from any consensus developed through the CBD, cannot be expected. Moreover, the GBIF Memorandum of Understanding makes it clear that nothing in its provisions may be read to contradict the principles of the CBD and related Conventions (see §2(3): Understandings). Thus, GBIF remains committed to working within the rules of the DSI mechanism once they are established.
Nevertheless, with the support of the Executive Committee, GBIF Secretariat has been able to contribute constructively to discussions on DSI through its position as an Observer organization to the CBD. This work has included emphasizing the many benefits that have arisen from promoting and supporting free and open access to biodiversity data and the experience of developing a robust and well-functioning system of data citation, which may provide a model for some aspects of data governance within the DSI mechanism.
Specific relevance to DSI
The extent of GBIF’s relevance to the DSI mechanism agreed through the CBD will depend largely on details yet to be decided. For example, any approach that introduced access charges to public data platforms as a means to generate revenue would conflict with GBIF’s core principle of maintaining free and open access to data under a system of open licenses. The principle of open access agreed under the COP 15 decision on DSI (see above) appears to rule out any such charges, but the exact terms of data governance agreed through the CBD will need to be examined for consistency with GBIF’s present terms of use, notably its Data Publisher Agreement and Data User Agreement.
A second area of uncertainty arises from the term "Digital Sequence Information" itself, which is acknowledged as a placeholder without a fixed, agreed definition. The eventual relevance to GBIF will depend on the final scope of the term. For example, a large proportion of the data handled by GBIF would be encompassed in a broad definition of DSI that included metadata associated with organisms from which sequences are taken, for example, relating to location, species co-occurrences, or other contextual information. A narrower definition restricted to the sequences themselves would cover a much smaller subset of the data accessible through GBIF.
Assuming that DSI is understood to refer only to sequence data in its strict sense, the following clarifications with regard to GBIF’s relevance may be useful:
- Why does GBIF deal with sequence data?
This summary of GBIF’s relationship with DNA-derived data offers the primary rationale for its work in this area and the increasing role of data derived from sequencing of organisms and environmental samples (eDNA), which is important in supporting understanding of the diversity and distribution of life on Earth and its changes over time. Thus, GBIF needs to develop tools and partnerships to ensure that data collected through sequencing techniques can be interpreted and shared using data standards compatible with those applied to other types of biodiversity evidence.
- In practice, what does this mean for the type of DSI shared with and accessible through GBIF?
Sequence data accessible directly through GBIF currently consists mainly of short sequences of genetic regions known as barcoding regions, useful for determining the taxonomic identity of specimens or the composition of environmental samples. These are most often either non-coding regions or incomplete genes. Such data has little value in isolation, in terms of exploring gene expression for the development of commercial products. Future developments in GBIF may include publication of longer, entire barcoding gene sequences and the smaller organellar genomes of plastids and mitochondria as these harbor most of the classical barcoding genes. However, this is unlikely to extend to entire nuclear genomes, the location of genetic material needed for use in genetic biotechnology.
- Should GBIF be described as a repository or databank for DSI?
No. GBIF has very rarely been either the primary or the only place where sequence data is available—this is and will remain the role of International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC). Even in the case of eDNA, primary data in the form of raw sequencing data is not in GBIF, but rather in one of the INSDC repositories such as the Short Read Archive (SRA) at NCBI. GBIF shows the version of the data that has been analyzed, filtered, and interpreted, i.e., the ‘barcodes’ and their taxonomic inference.
- Does GBIF have any role in generating and/or sharing monetary benefits arising from access to DSI?
For the reasons given above, the sequence data accessed via GBIF is unlikely to have a significant role in generating monetary benefits in the sectors identified through the CBD as the major beneficiaries of DSI access, e.g. pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food and feed, lab equipment, and IT (bioinformatics software). However, the growing market in the use of eDNA as a commercial service for biodiversity monitoring creates increasing economic value for such data, especially in relation to business reporting of biodiversity impacts. Depending on the methods selected for capturing revenue for the DSI mechanism, GBIF may have a role in the system of sharing benefits from access to eDNA data. This topic will require further exploration with relevant partners.
- Does GBIF have a role in generating and/or sharing non-monetary benefits arising from access to DSI?
GBIF’s role with regard to non-monetary benefits is much clearer. Through a literature-tracking system based on the use of DOI citations, GBIF already routinely communicates flows of benefit across countries and regions in terms of the research enabled by access to datasets made freely available through its global data infrastructure. Application of this approach specifically in relation to DSI access could be explored with partners. GBIF’s programme of training and capacity enhancement, including modules that deal with DNA barcoding data, may also be seen as a component of non-monetary benefit sharing.
- Are there broader lessons that GBIF could contribute to the development of the DSI mechanism?
In consultations regarding the various options and approaches on DSI, many organizations have shown appreciation of GBIF’s approach to balancing a commitment to free and open access to data, with responsible recommendations and norms regarding data use and citation. This is encapsulated in the message communicated to data users when they order a download from GBIF: “Free of cost – not free of responsibilities” and detailed in the data user agreement. While GBIF has not taken a hard enforcement approach with regard to its terms of use, it has achieved steady increases in their adoption through clear communication of the guidelines, provision of simple tools to follow them, and ‘soft’ engagement when users are found to have fallen short. This approach may carry lessons when implementing the DSI mechanism.