TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Aug26/06)
21 August 2026
Third World Network

CBD: Discussions inch forward on synthetic biology assessment

London, 21 August (Eva Sirinathsinghji and Lim Li Ching) – Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have inched forward in discussions on the need to robustly assess novel and emerging synthetic biology applications, and how to do so.

Parties were in Nairobi for the Twenty-eighth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSSTA-28) and the Seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-7), which were held from 27 July–1 August, and 3–12 August 2026, respectively

Synthetic biology was on the agenda of both Subsidiary Bodies, which addressed the scientific/technical and implementation aspects, respectively, particularly in relation to a thematic action plan to support capacity-building, technology transfer and knowledge sharing. Parties had agreed in decision 16/21 of 2024, to develop the action plan.

Additionally, the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Synthetic Biology was also considered at SBSSTA-28. It’s mandate, provided in decision 16/21, was to, among other things, identify current and potential benefits of synthetic biology, identify the potential positive and negative impacts of most recent technological developments, and provide advice on ways to take into account capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge-sharing in synthetic biology with respect to the thematic action plan.

SBSTTA-28 recommended a draft decision that includes, in brackets (indicating disagreement), a proposal for the establishment of a new AHTEG. Among the tasks of the AHTEG, it would “develop and apply a transparent, structured and scientifically robust methodology for assessing the potential positive and potential negative impacts of synthetic biology…”

Such methodology is needed to enable Parties to critically assess the evidence-base for claims of the potential positive impacts of synthetic biology, as well as of the potential negative impacts. As such, numerous Parties supported strengthening assessment, regulatory and governance oversight to address the complexities in recent technological advances.

However, a limited number of Parties objected to robust assessment processes to determine which, if any, synthetic biology applications are environmentally safe, effective and appropriate for further development and/or deployment.

Unverified claims of the potential benefits of synthetic biology continue to be forwarded by commercial and vested interests. A clear separation of hype and hubris versus reality is thus essential to provide accurate information so that Parties can make informed and sovereign decisions, based on national needs and priorities.

As is stands, and given the lack of time, major differences were not resolved at SBSSTA-28, with the draft decision remaining heavily bracketed. Thus, much of the discussion will be deferred to the Seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-17), which will be held in Yerevan, Armenia from 19–30th October 2026.

The SBI-7 discussions fared a little better, with the discussion on the implementation aspects of the thematic action plan less contentious and without needing to move to a Contact Group setting. The draft decision contains some brackets, which will also be taken up at COP-17.

AHTEG report provides reality check

The pre-session document, CBD/SBSTTA/28/4, contained, inter alia, (i) the draft thematic action plan; (ii) a proposal to establish a new AHTEG to assess five priority topics identified as novel developments within the field, and (iii) the conclusions of the previous AHTEG.

The five priority areas identified by the AHTEG were: (i) artificial intelligence and computational biology, (ii) bioremediation and water reduction applications, (iii) artificial cells, synthetic genomics and artificial biochemical pathways, (iv) applications for conservation use, and (v) microbiome engineering.

The report of the AHTEG (CBD/SYNBIO/AHTEG/2026/1/3) provides a stark reality check regarding the state of play of the synthetic biology field, illustrating that demonstrable current benefits of synthetic biology to biodiversity are sorely lacking, while potential risks identified are broad-ranging. 

Additionally, the very limited list of current benefits was disputed by some members of the AHTEG, while further deficiencies were noted by the AHTEG in relation to the identification of the potential benefits of synthetic biology.

The AHTEG concluded that there is a need for a more robust and precautionary assessment process, demonstrating the rationale behind proposals by Parties to develop an appropriate means to do so.

With regard to the thematic action plan, the AHTEG concluded that it should be responsive to broader cross-cutting issues, including biosecurity and biosafety concerns, the need for robust regulatory frameworks, liability and redress for damage, equity considerations, environmental and social safeguards, the importance of strengthening public sector research for public good, technology transfer of environmentally sound and appropriate technologies, and data sovereignty.

Deadlock in Nairobi

When Parties took up the agenda item at the plenary session on 28 July at SBSSTA-28, they largely focussed discussions on the thematic action plan, with the African Group calling for implementation to build capacity in the region, as well as the requisite financial support. Moreover, the group emphasized the need for equitable access and benefit-sharing mechanisms, an aspect also raised by India.

The Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) called for robust assessment processes in line with a precautionary approach, the need to ensure free, prior and informed consent, and for capacity building to focus on developing countries, with financial mechanisms to support its implementation.

Several Parties including India, Egypt, the Russian Federation and Costa Rica called for a precautionary approach to synthetic biology. The Russian Federation further highlighted that biosafety and biosecurity measures need to be enshrined as a key principle, raising also the issue of potential transboundary movements.

Belarus emphasised the need for the action plan to be adapted to national needs and priorities. Bahrain further emphasised the need to consider religious and cultural values.

Egypt, the Russian Federation and Costa Rica supported the continuation of horizon scanning mechanisms as a means to support Parties to stay abreast of the latest developments, including in identifying socio-economic implications. Egypt further emphasised that horizon scanning and monitoring should be conducted via a multidisciplinary process aligned with decision 16/21.

Explicit support for the establishment of a new AHTEG to continue the work on synthetic biology under the CBD was provided by Egypt, South Africa and Tanzania. The advance statement submissions from Belgium, Colombia, Cuba, the European Union, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and Tanzania also provided broad support for the establishment of a new AHTEG.

However, Argentina, Panama and Zimbabwe voiced opposition to a new AHTEG. Panama stated that the AHTEG is not a useful process or responsible use of resources, with Argentina not wanting to create new obligations or tasks. Their advance statement submissions, as well as that of Australia and New Zealand, proposed to discontinue the process.

Given the divergence of views, a Contact Group was established. The Contact Group was co-chaired by Valeria Giovannelli from Italy, and Martha Kandawa-Schulz from Namibia.

In all, the Contact Group discussed two non-papers – one on the draft thematic action plan, and the other on the draft decision.

The first three Contact Group sessions worked on the thematic action plan. Discussions were tense, with one developing country Party wanting to block the approval of the action plan from the outset.

However, many other Parties expressed broad support for the action plan. Discussions then tilted towards rebalancing the action plan, with efforts to strengthen elements of the plan that focus on assessment and monitoring aspects, due to biosafety as well as biosecurity concerns. This was accompanied by the removal of some elements aimed at scaling-up commercialisation and deployment of synthetic biology applications.

Despite some progress in the discussions, much of the action plan still remains in brackets, particularly on elements related to horizon scanning, assessment and regulation, as well as benefit-sharing. It should also be noted that not all of the text of the thematic action plan was discussed in the Contact Group sessions.

A final fourth Contact Group session focussing on the draft decision was much more contentious. A limited number of Parties adamantly opposed the establishment of a new AHTEG, which would be a means by which continued oversight on latest developments in the field could be provided.

However, there was also support for the establishment of the AHTEG. The proposal to establish a new AHTEG is therefore fully in brackets, as is its accompanying TOR. 

An alternative paragraph, proposed by those who oppose a new AHTEG, notes the outcomes of previous work undertaken on synthetic biology, and explicitly states that “…at this time, the continuation of an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology is not necessary”.

The TOR of the AHTEG, contained in Annex II of the draft decision, lays out its proposed substantive tasks, which are also individually bracketed. The first is to develop and apply a transparent, structured and scientifically robust methodology to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of synthetic biology.

The AHTEG is tasked to then assess, using the methodology developed, the potential positive and the potential negative impacts of specific priority topics narrowed from those identified by the previous AHTEG. These options – artificial intelligence and computational biology, and applications for conservation use – are bracketed, alongside a more general option and a placeholder for one subject only.

A reference to biosafety, economic, social, ecological, cultural, traditional, religious and ethical considerations remains bracketed.

The third substantive task of the AHTEG is to review the methodology for horizon scanning as developed by a previous multidisciplinary AHTEG, with a view to its continued application to emerging trends and issues in synthetic biology.

Other references to horizon-scanning, monitoring and assessment are also bracketed, in both the SBSTTA-28 and SBI-7 draft decisions.

As such, it is expected that future negotiations on synthetic biology at COP-17 will continue to be difficult. Parties would need to settle on a balanced and precautionary decision to ensure that the emerging applications of synthetic biology are adequately anticipated, monitored and assessed. +