From Plant Press, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 2023.
By W. John Kress
The Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Montreal was held on 6-19 December 2022. I spent the first week physically in Montreal as an Observer at COP representing both the Earth BioGenome Project and the DSI Scientific Network, and the second week monitoring the conference virtually. Below are my notes and impression of the proceedings.
Report on first week
These first days have been packed with plenaries, regional meetings, contact groups, friends of the co-chairs, summits, side events, focus groups, presentations, informal discussions, and outside protests. With over 1,800 participants representing 193 countries, the venue is bursting. It is clear that one thing is on everyone’s mind: biodiversity. The four goals of the CBD are the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of biodiversity, the equitable access and benefit sharing of biodiversity (especially genetic resources and digital sequence information), and the identification of adequate financial resources for implementation. Swirling around these four core goals are issues of climate change, protected areas, the global public good, capacity building, indigenous peoples and local communities, genetic resources, digital sequence information, business and finance, and on and on. Of course, everyone has an opinion and a position on each issue.
This first week is about information sharing, staking out positions, and building allies. Those of us who are “Observers” are primarily trying to provide the necessary information for the national delegates to make informed decisions when the hardcore negotiations take place next week. All options seem to be on the table right now with regards to many of the 20+ targets under consideration.
I am here in Montreal representing “Academia and Research” as an Observer for the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), an international initiative aimed at generating genomic information for all species currently on Earth, about 1.8 million species. Most of my time is being spent in discussions on figuring out the best means to access genetic resources around the world, generate digital sequence information (DSI) from those samples, share the genomic data in an open and free system, and ensure that benefits (both monetary and non-monetary) flow back to the regions where those genetic resources originated. It is not clear at this point what the solution will be. From the scientific perspective, open access and multilateral regulation with free public data sharing is by far the best course of action. But many viewpoints prevail.
Three of us (Manuela da Silva, Catherine McCarthy, and myself) representing the EBP partnered with members of the DSI Scientific Network in attendance. We all arrived in Montreal early the week of December 6th just before the official start of COP15. Deliberations by the Fifth Open Ended Working Group, which took place the week before COP began, did not advance progress on DSI. In fact, things may have gone in reverse as a greater number of new proposals were advanced. The main sticking point continued to be over the implementation of bilateral vs. multilateral agreements on access to DSI and the mechanisms for sharing of benefits to parties involved. Just when the first week ended, a “non-paper” (i.e., a non-binding resolution) was issued that included a series of alternative proposals. These proposals ranged from taking DSI completely out of the CBD, to postponing any decision on DSI until COP16 four years in the future. Also, a number of additional views are collected, studies are conducted, and models are tested. These new data would then be considered by an Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group and presented at a later date for consideration at COP16 in 2024. Kicking the can down the genome….
The primary model being considered at present would decouple access from benefit sharing, establish a multilateral fund to be administered by the Global Environment Facility (this is at least one option) and disperse the funds collected from a 1% levy on commercial revenue resulting from DSI (as well as voluntary contributions) as monetary benefits. The solution will “be efficient, feasible and practical; not hinder research and innovation; be consistent with open access to data; be mutually supportive of other access and benefit-sharing instruments; and take into account the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.” In other words, many of the principles advanced by the scientific community are in the package. But it is STILL ALL UP IN THE AIR. We are now having a few days of rest before the hardcore negotiations begin. Decisions could be made by the end of this coming week. It is difficult to determine if we have made progress on DSI or not. In the long run, I remain optimistic.
During the first week, EBP and the DSI Scientific Network sponsored a number of events that reached a lot of participants and apparently had significant impact on the DSI deliberations. One was a side event on “A comparative analysis of policy options for DSI under the CBD: how do they measure up?” which was standing room only with a packed audience. Manuela da Silva from EBP was a panelist. The second addressed “Building a sustainable bioeconomy through biodiversity-based research and innovation,” which I moderated as a member of the DSI Scientific Network along with Daphne Yong d’Herve, Director for Global Policy of the International Chamber of Commerce. Four panelists spoke. This event, which was truly a meeting of academia and business, also generated a lot of interest and discussion, and was attended by a number of the national delegates involved in the negotiations. The third event was part of the Scientific Forum, which occurred between week one and week two of COP, with the topic “What capacity building for digital sequence information can offer.” This event again was well attended and put DSI in the light of local training and technology building. Ann McCartney from EBP made a presentation. We are having an impact.
Much of the official deliberations during the first week were behind closed doors which will also continue into the second week as the “High Level Consultations of the Ministers” take place. We did all that we can as scientists and researchers, and I believe it was worth the effort.
One additional issue needs to be brought up here. Of concern to many of us is the fact the United States has never actually ratified the CBD, although, it was signed by President Clinton many years ago. The Senate has yet to take action. This means that we as Americans have no seat at the negotiating table and our voices can only be heard from the outside. Besides being ineffectual, it is also embarrassing that our country has ignored this international forum. As Americans, we would best be able to have an impact on the CBD through discussion with our national representatives at COP. However, we do not have representation because our government has not ratified the treaty. Two things that have come to my attention here in Montreal that some of us might want to consider are: 1) should we form state-wide coalitions or working groups to attend COP and have a voice at the CBD, and 2) should we as citizens concerned with conserving biodiversity begin new efforts to push for the ratification of the treaty by the US government?
These are both complex issues, but apparently not insurmountable. With regards to issue number one, there is a group of about fifty participants here at COP15 from California, representing state offices, NGOs, and private conservation groups, who have banded together with the backing of the governor to have a unified voice for their state on issues of conserving biodiversity. They are called the California Global Biodiversity Working Group, which coalesced largely due to the efforts of Rosalind Helfand, an independent environmental and social policy advisor. I have been talking with them and their organization is impressive. They are the only state that has such representation. Could other states, such as my own state of Vermont, do the same? With regards to the second issue of getting the US to ratify the treaty, the more I talk with a variety of folks here, enthusiasm seems to be growing and what was at first a crazy idea seems to be picking up speed. Could we find a champion in Congress to make this happen?
Report on second week and finale
The Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that convened in Montreal over the last several weeks is now over. It is done. It is history. And we may have achieved a significant victory. As scientific representatives and Observers at COP15 we survived a packed convention center, unending sessions, street protests, and snowfall to see the final session gaveled to a close by Huang Runqiu, President of the COP, at 2:30 am on 19 December. The convention ended with shouts of objections from the floor over a number of issues, but it was a successful outcome for Digital Sequence Information.
The final draft document issued on 18 December 2022 in Montreal entitled “Digital sequence information on genetic resources” (CBD/COP/15/L.30) states in paragraph 16 that the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework:
“Decides to establish, as part of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, a multilateral mechanism for benefit-sharing from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, including a global fund.”
This simple statement may not seem like much, but it embodies just about everything that EBP has been seeking in an outcome on DSI. This becomes clear because earlier in the same document paragraph 9 states:
“Also agrees that a solution for fair and equitable benefit-sharing on digital sequence information on genetic resources should, inter alia:
- Be efficient, feasible and practical;
- Generate more benefits, including both monetary and non-monetary, than costs;
- Be effective;
- Provide certainty and legal clarity for providers and users of digital sequence information on genetic resources;
- Not hinder research and innovation;
- Be consistent with open access to data;
- Not be incompatible with international legal obligations;
- Be mutually supportive of other access and benefit-sharing instruments;
- Take into account the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including with respect to the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources that they hold.”
In other words, almost all of the principles that we as scientists spelled out in our original statements on DSI are included, namely open access, multilateral, associated benefits, support for research and science, practical, and mindful of rights of indigenous communities.
Although this outcome is not the final word on how the sharing of DSI will be implemented, the decision at COP15 clearly paves the way to set up a multilateral mechanism for benefit-sharing from DSI that reflects how scientists use DSI and how internationally standardized rules can be developed that both facilitate access and use of DSI with fair and equitable benefit sharing. As the meeting ended folks from the DSI Scientific Network who were in Montreal cheered, “This is a win-win.”
There is still a lot of work to be done across the scientific, technical, and policy community to make this happen. To that end the CBD will establish a DSI open-ended working group over the next two years to come up with a concrete mechanism to move forward. We all must and will remain engaged. Stay tuned.
Comments