- Biodiversity-rich developing countries are raising concerns over governance of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) of genetic resources at the recent biodiversity conference.
- Access, benefit-sharing and funds remain thorny points even as parties grapple with a suitable definition for DSI in the draft text under discussion.
- Experts recommend that the generation and sharing of the DSI fund need to be worked out sooner rather than later.
At the ongoing Conference of Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Cali, Colombia, countries are grappling with the issue of Digital Sequence Information on genetic resources, with significant dissonance between developing and developed countries. A draft text is under discussion at the two-week conference.
Digital Sequence Information, or DSI, refers to genomic sequence data and other related digital information including the details of an organism’s DNA and RNA, which determine its unique characteristics. The exact interpretation and scope of the term, such as whether it refers only to the nucleotide sequences or includes the proteins and metabolites they encode, are not available and await clarity.
In addition to a lack of definition of the term, a lack of coordination among multiple agencies addressing the issue, the mechanism of access to DSI and the sharing of its benefits, as well as a funding mechanism to ensure smooth operations, emerge as sticking points at the CBD.

The definition of DSI remains a placeholder in the text, with the ongoing debate over whether it should consider only the base sequence of genomic DNA or encompass all information associated with genetic resources. “Is it DNA only, DNA and RNA, or DNA, RNA and proteins, or DNA, RNA, proteins and metabolites?” asks Kailash Bansal, former director of the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi.
Apart from the CBD, three other international fora address DSI — the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Material Transfer for Food and Agriculture, the UN Convention on Law of the Seas, and the World Health Organization Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework.
A clear definition is crucial for the sound regulation of the use of DSI; all four organisations are developing new rules to govern it. “A key challenge is to ensure these emerging legal frameworks are harmonised across the UN fora so that scientists can continue to use the full global DSI dataset without bureaucratic hurdles and unintended consequences,” says a report in Nature Communications, which calls for harmonising rules for benefit sharing from use of DSI.
Batting for better clarity
The DSI Scientific Network’s position paper on the issue states that the biodiversity COP16 decision needs to be clear about the expected roles and responsibilities of commercial and non-commercial users of DSI. Non-commercial users of DSI, such as academic organisations and other not-for-profit organisations that do not generate a commercial profit from their use of DSI, should not be required to contribute to a proposed DSI fund. Additionally, the DSI Scientific Network asserts that the meaning of “user” should be made clear at COP16, so that there is clarity on which entities are deemed to have obligations — individuals as users or organisations as users. The position paper also states that the CBD should “acknowledge open access (to DSI) as a non-monetary benefit.”
This, in turn, is linked to benefit sharing, or how the communities that provide the resources can benefit. “As scientists, we want access; open access to foster research and innovation,” says Bansal, adding, “Open access should be on a multilateral basis, instead of a bilateral basis.”
One of the causes of concern for developing countries stems from their previous experience with access and benefit-sharing (ABS) under the CBD’s Nagoya Protocol, which came into force in 2014. Its objective is to provide a transparent legal framework for access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources, in order to encourage the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. “I think there are very few success stories out there regarding ABS,” says Marcel Jaspars, professor at the Marine Biodiscovery Centre at the University of Aberdeen, UK.
Previously, an international team of scientists including Bansal had reported in Nature Communications that the rules for accessing DSI produced from genetic resources were unclear. “DSI is typically held in online open-access databases, where use is disconnected from physical access and accompanying permits,” the report says. “Biodiverse nations, many of which are low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), believe their sovereign rights have been undermined because any potential monetary gains from DSI through commercialisation are not shared back to them, as they would be with a genetic resource. Thus DSI is perceived as a loophole that inhibits fair and equitable benefit-sharing.”
Benefit sharing of DSI use
The Third World Network, an independent non-profit international research and advocacy organisation involved in issues relating to development, developing countries, and North-South affairs, describes the draft text under discussion as “unfit for delivering fair and equitable benefit-sharing from the use of DSI.” The Network has outlined its concerns over the current nature of DSI use. “Current DSI databases are not established and not governed in a manner consistent with the rights of the parties under the CBD,” Lim Li Ching, from the Third World Network, alleged at a press briefing in Cali.

Ching stated that the presumption that databases will be governed by national laws is a major concern. “The moment DSI is deposited in such databases, parties, and indigenous peoples and local communities have effectively relinquished their rights over their genetic resources, including genetic information,” she said. “The draft decision assumes that the databases will contain submissions made in compliance with national laws. However, it is important to note that, to date, not a single database is accountable to either the CBD or the parties involved, nor has any entity accepted responsibility in this regard.” In addition, most large databases are owned by the European Union (EU), Japan, and the non-party United States, Ching’s colleague Nithin Ramakrishnan pointed out.
“We need at least one database that is accountable to all CBD parties that can generate contractual obligations for the use of DSI,” Ching said. “And parties can use this database as a point of first release, which could also support developing countries lacking bioinformatics capacities to maximise benefit sharing through the multilateral mechanism as well as international ABS systems.”
Funding dilemma
The practical implication of DSI such as funding too has emerged as a contentious issue. As for funding, the primary payers are expected to be for-profit users of this information, such as private companies and businesses, according to Amber Scholtz, head of the department of science policy and internationalisation, Leibniz Institute, Germany. The fund is likely to also be open to voluntary payments from governments, philanthropy or academia, she says.
While there is no target fund being discussed for DSI alone, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund intends to raise $700 million, a part of which will go to the DSI fund. On the other hand, the “Finding Compromise” Report of the WiLDSI Project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, contemplates setting royalties for a multilateral system as low as 0.01%, says Joseph Vogel, professor of economics at the Puerto Rico University. “Why bother?” he says, advocating instead for royalty rates in the low single or even double digits.
“The intention is for end users to pay, that is mainly industry and those that profit from the use of DSI,” says Jaspars. “The mechanism may be that each country decides how this is paid. This could include direct payments by companies to the fund in exchange for freedom to operate. An alternative would be for a state to tax users of DSI and then for the state to pay this money to the fund.”
The operation of the proposed fund is another thorny issue. “This is where the controversy lies: How will payments to the fund be calculated, who will pay, and how will the fund operate?” Jaspars says. There needs to be clarity on how the fund will be spent, too. One option is to operate it via a project-based scheme, for example, through the GEF (Global Environment Facility). The second option is to divide the money between countries based on a metric such as species richness or how much DSI one generates and/or uses. “Both indicate a lack of trust between parties. The first suggests developed countries don’t trust developing countries to spend the money on biodiversity conservation, and the second suggests that developing countries don’t trust developed countries to divide the money fairly,” Jaspars notes.
“Sharing the fund has been an issue with access and benefit-sharing,” says Bansal, adding, “Users have not been able to contribute to the extent that developing countries would like them to. Based on this experience, biodiversity-rich developing countries are cautious about DSI.” He points out that biodiversity-rich but resource-poor developing countries should have access to technology as a non-monetary benefit to promote the use of DSI and related information for the welfare of the Global South.

On a similar note, the DSI Scientific Network’s position paper recommends that the allocation of funds from the global DSI mechanism place a stronger emphasis on capacity building and development related to DSI, particularly for scientists in low- and middle-income countries and for indigenous peoples and local communities with considerable DSI data gaps. The Third World Network cautions the CBD negotiators against rushing to make decisions simply to reach an outcome, as shortcomings in the current draft decision threaten to impede progress towards a fair, equitable, and functioning system for benefit sharing—one that is essential for the global biodiversity framework.
Read more: The international treaty on plant genetics moves a step ahead with farmers rights and DSI
Banner image: As the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity progresses in Cali, Colombia the disagreement between Global South and North on access and benefit-sharing of digital sequence information or DSI is evident. Image by Convention on Biological Diversity.