TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Nov26/01)
4 November 2026
Third World Network

CBD: Developing Countries Object to “Existing Practices of DSI Databases”

Geneva, 4 Nov (Nithin Ramakrishnan) - In a significant development at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), developing countries have objected to references to the “existing practices of DSI databases” and the loosely-worded reference to “open access principles”.

Consequently, the decision on digital sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources and the Cali Fund, adopted by the Seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP17) omits references to both existing database practices and open access principles.

The decision was adopted on the basis of the President’s text, which secured consensus among Parties. It was adopted at the midnight plenary between 30 and 31 October 2026.

[COP17 was held in Yerevan, Armenia, from 19 to 30 October 2026, under the Presidency of Armenia. The decision concerned one of the contentious agenda items, DSI on genetic resources, listed as agenda item 11.]

The President’s text contains 64 paragraphs, organised into five sections and one annex. Paragraphs 26 to 30 address data availability and accessibility. This subsection calls upon indigenous peoples and local communities to develop educational materials to guide database operators, scientific and research institutions, the Secretariat and other stakeholders, taking into account the FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability, the CARE principles of collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics, and the UNESCO Recommendations on Open Science.

It also calls upon databases to share information on how they implement paragraph 10 of Decision 16/2, which requires them to align with the CARE principles and UNESCO Recommendations. In addition, Parties and Governments that fund, sponsor or host sequence databases are called upon to share information on the actions they have taken pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 of Decision 16/2 to ensure databases support the implementation of decision 16/2 that established the CBD’s Multilateral Mechanism for fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of DSI on genetic resources, including the Cali Fund.

The subsection also includes recommendations to provide capacity-building and assistance to indigenous peoples and local communities in developing these educational materials, compile information on the materials and disseminate them widely.

Finally, it calls for continued work, through an Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group that the decision also establishes, to explore tools and models, including databases, for making DSI on genetic resources publicly available and accessible to all Parties in a transparent and accountable manner.

Paragraph 26 reads thus:

26. Invites, with the aim to making publicly available digital sequence information on genetic resources further accessible in a transparent and accountable manner:

(a)   Indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, to contribute, in consultation and collaboration, with Parties, and digital sequence information on genetic resources database managers, the scientific community, users of digital sequence information on genetic resources, relevant organizations and initiatives, as appropriate,  to the development of educational material for use by database operators, scientific and research institutions, the Secretariat and other stakeholders, as relevant, on the management and governance of data linked with indigenous peoples and local communities, including the women and youth within those communities, and their traditional knowledge, including consideration of and alignment with the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability (FAIR) and collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics (CARE), and collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics, and considering the recommendations set out in section III of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Recommendation on Open Science, in order to, inter alia, providing guidance for scientific publications on research using digital sequence information on genetic resources;

(b)   Organizations hosting databases that make digital sequence information on genetic resources publicly available to share information with the Executive Secretary by the eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties concerning their implementation of paragraph 10 of the annex to decision 16/2 while maintaining open access, including for making available, where known, information on the country of origin of the genetic resource from which the DSI was derived;

(c)    Parties and other Governments funding, sponsoring or hosting sequence databases to share information on the actions that they have taken to make sure that entities operating those databases progressively implement paragraphs 11 and 12 of the annex to decision 16/2;

Previously, in the conference room paper (CRP) developed by the Working Group Chair, the chapeau and paragraph 26(b) were considerably different. In the CRP, the corresponding paragraph read:

34. Invites, with the aim of making digital sequence information on genetic resources publicly available and accessible in a transparent and accountable manner, consistent with the sovereign rights of all Parties over the genetic resources and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and consistent with the principles of open access to data:

(a)   …

(b)   Organizations hosting databases that make digital sequence information on genetic resources publicly available to share information with the Executive Secretary by the eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties concerning their implementation of paragraph 10 of the annex to decision 16/2 while maintaining open access and taking into account existing database practices;  (Emphasis added)

The phrases emphasized above were completely removed in the President’s text, owing to the opposition of developing countries. The same phrases had appeared in the Contact-Group Co-Chairs’ non-paper version 2.

However, owing to consistent questioning and resistance from developing countries, these clauses were removed from the final text.

Commissioned study on databases recognized gaps in accountability and transparency

As per Decision 16/2, the COP decided “to explore possible new tools and models, such as databases, for making digital sequence information on genetic resources publicly available and accessible in a transparent and accountable manner to all Parties”. They also requested the Executive Secretary to commission a study on this issue.

The study was released before the Seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI7) held in August 2026. Though the study has been criticised for its recommendations, based on the methodology adopted, it did highlight the lack of accountability and transparency in the current practices of DSI databases. The study explains four major gaps (emphases added):

i) Access/Use gaps Across stakeholders and rights holders there was a perceived lack of trust in existing public DSI and the databases that manage it. This was in large part due to the lack of transparency provided by many public DSI databases surrounding who are accessing and using the DSI. Some felt that more transparency mechanisms were needed to ensure that the MLM was successful in its mission to share the benefits, fairly and equitably, by all users of public DSI.

ii) Compliance gaps: The lack of compliance information associated with the DSI within public DSI databases was another gap identified. Although most of the large primary DSI databases do ask submitters to check a box to indicate that there are no restrictions on the data, this is in no way legally binding. Additionally, there is no metadata that contains permit or compliance information, thus there is a lack of accountability.

iii) Communication/Education gaps: Stakeholders and rightsholders felt like the communication pathways between policymakers and DSI users could be improved. Parties and rightsholders had concerns regarding DSI user’s awareness of ABS obligations the CBD, it’s MLM and ABS in general and conversely there were concerns amongst researchers that policymakers did not understand the intricacies of how DSI was being accessed and used. Additionally, there were concerns about the inequitable geographic distribution of public DSI databases globally and consequently the geographical inequity concerning who gets to set and shape the policies surrounding public DSI storage, submission, access and reuse.

iv) Gaps concerning the responsible stewardship of DSI and aTK associated with indigenous peoples and local communities: It was generally acknowledged that public DSI databases were aligned with the FAIR principles, and that at least larger DSI databases were making strides to align with the TRUST principles. However, it was identified that public DSI databases have not yet allocated the time and resources necessary to consider how to align with the CARE principles, UNDRIP and the materials developed by the CBD on Article 8(j) implementation, to ensure that they can be responsible stewards of the DSI, and aTK associated with indigenous peoples and local communities.

Attempt to legitimize unaccountable and non-transparent practices of existing DSI databases

Despite the gaps in accountability and transparency highlighted by the commissioned study, the developed countries and their industry-science lobbies tried to legitimise these practices in multiple ways. Some pushed the phrase “taking into account existing database practices” into the conference room paper. Others tried to argue that “open access to DSI” itself is a non-monetary benefit arising from the use of DSI.

For instance, the Japan Bioindustry Association (JBA) claimed: “Registration of DSI in public databases, such as the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), constitutes the most fundamental form of non-monetary benefit-sharing.”

[In fact, INSDC promotes anonymous and non-transparent access to DSI as well as does not exercise any meaningful due diligence measures against unlawful publication of DSI.]

The International Chamber of Commerce argued that “resources should be used to strengthen and reinforce the value of existing open access databases for research and innovation”.

The DSI Scientific Network and Leibniz Institute DSMZ argued that DSI open access plays a foundational role in non-monetary benefit sharing and argued that open access to DSI itself is an exemplary non-monetary benefit.

However, developing countries categorically rejected such claims. They conveyed three clear messages to COP17:

First, there is no universally agreed definition or set of principles governing open access, apart from the understanding of the term that may be derived from the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. It is therefore not appropriate to rely on a standalone phrase such as “open access principles” in the decision without clearly defining what it entails. Nor can open access to DSI be considered a non-monetary benefit within the scope of the Multilateral Mechanism for sharing benefits arising from the use of DSI.

Second, DSI databases cannot simply rely on self-declarations by data submitters that they have complied with applicable national legislation or have the right to make DSI publicly available. If databases are unable to conduct due diligence checks themselves, they should, at the very least, require submitters to provide verifiable information to support such declarations. This could include permit identifiers, machine-readable certificates or other documentation demonstrating that the necessary consent has been obtained from providers of the genetic materials before making DSI derived from those materials publicly accessible.

Third, existing database practices cannot simply be taken into account as they stand while significant gaps remain, including a lack of transparency regarding the use of DSI and a lack of accountability for ensuring that DSI is lawfully published.

African Group and Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries call for database(s) accountable to all Parties

At COP17, the African Group made it clear during their opening plenary statement that they support “advancing a CBD-governed database, platform or equivalent infrastructure to strengthen transparency, provenance, accountability and the functioning of the mechanism. Its feasibility should be assessed alongside other models, without predetermining reliance on existing external databases, while ensuring scientific openness, interoperability, responsible data sharing and respect for national legislation. Parties funding, sponsoring or hosting databases also have responsibilities in this regard.”

Similarly Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC) also stated in the opening plenary that “Databases should accurately record the country of origin, information on legal access to the genetic resources from which DSI is derived, where applicable and as appropriate, and be transparent about use while remaining open for research. We support a feasibility assessment of options, including a platform under the authority of the Conference, before COP18.”

Brazil also proposed text suggestions which call for user registration, persistent metadata for provenance information and application of the CARE principles. Many developing countries also called for verifiable metadata fields to prove the legitimate authority of the person making DSI publicly available.

Although all these proposed measures were parked for future discussions, the attempts of the developed countries and their industry-science lobbies to legitimize existing DSI sharing practices under the guise of open access was squarely rejected.

EU proposed to stop the work on database accountability

The EU, in their early submission to COP17, proposed to delete the bracketed recommendation from SBI7 to consider the commissioned study and its findings after a peer review process.

There was a similar push back against any work on this agenda by the EU behind closed doors, according to diplomatic sources.

A developing country delegate who participated in both SBI7 and COP17 told the Third World Network: “All the EU wanted was a collaborative activity between indigenous peoples and local communities, database managers and DSI users, to develop educational materials for improving the awareness of the DSI users and databases managers regarding the CARE principles on indigenous data sovereignty, and then claim they have done enough to protect indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights over their data”.

However, developing countries insisted on having the process continue by subjecting the commissioned study to further peer review and by submitting the finalized study for further consideration of the Parties.

COP directs further work through an Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group

Paragraph 30 of the President’s text that was adopted by consensus reads:

Requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources, to ensure that the findings and recommendations arising from the study on tools and models, such as databases, for making digital sequence information on genetic resources publicly available and accessible in a transparent and accountable manner are subject to peer review, allowing Parties, indigenous peoples and local communities, database operators and relevant experts to provide comments, and to submit the finalized study and recommendation for review by the Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group;

Thus, the options for improving database accountability and transparency to all Parties, including through the creation of possible new database(s) under the CBD, are now squarely on the table, under the formal negotiating process of an Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group. This is a major step forward in the deliberations on DSI under the CBD. +