CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32International Maritime Law IssuesInternational Environmental Law and PoliciesInternational Science and Diplomacy

Bringing access and benefit sharing into the digital age

Open access
Aubry, Sylvain, Frison, Christine, Medaglia, Jorge C., Frison, Emile, Jaspars, Marcel, Rabone, Muriel, Sirakaya, Aysegul, Saxena, Devanshi +1 more·2022·PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
DOI 10.1002/ppp3.10186
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Societal Impact Statement: Reading and writing DNA is now possible with an unprecedented speed and ease. To catch up with digitization of genetic resources, scientists need to join with all relevant stakeholders and design new global governance mechanisms for digital sequence information. We propose the establishment of a Multi‐stakeholder Committee on the Governance of Digital Sequence Information (DSI). This multi‐disciplinary body will be dedicated to mitigate governance issues associated with the digitization of genetic resources. Solving the DSI conundrum is sorely needed given the forthcoming multilateral meetings of the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) framework (the next CBD COP is scheduled in 2021) that are central to tackle the global loss of biodiversity, global warming, pandemic risk and food insecurity. Summary: Contemporary research is increasingly data‐centric and the rise of genomics revolutionized our approach and use of genetic resources. However, genomics developed relatively independently from the international instruments on the conservation of biological diversity, in particular the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) framework. The legal and political status of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) derived from genetic resources emerged recently as a contentious point in the various ABS instruments dealing with genetic resources. In view of the multiple parallel and uncoordinated debates that occurred in various forums dealing with plants, animals, terrestrial, microbial, marine and agricultural biodiversity, we propose here to take a step back in the discussion. We argue that DSI should be considered as an overarching issue to be addressed through a coordinated and inclusive Multi‐stakeholder Committee that would assess its position and role within the existing ABS regime complex. This Multi‐stakeholder Committee on the Governance of Digital Sequence Information, that may run under the auspices of the United Nations, will be dedicated to mitigate global governance issues associated with the digitization of genetic resources. In this paper, we sketch this body as a transversal and inclusive tool to facilitate long‐term coherence in all ABS policy forums.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ppp3.10186

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A growing consensus has emerged that the Nagoya Protocol must evolve to address the realities of the digital age.

    “As governments and stakeholders debate how to regulate DSI, a growing consensus has emerged that the Nagoya Protocol must evolve to address the realities of the digital age (Aubry et al. 2021).”

    From Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance (2026) · cites this paper as Aubry et al. 2021

    Section 4 (“Learning from the Seeds”; page unavailable) says existing access-and-benefit-sharing instruments have not addressed digitization and urges a coordinated approach; it describes changing the Nagoya Protocol’s scope as a possible option whose details remain unclear. Section 6 proposes adapting various frameworks to the digital age. These passages support a need for reform, but not the claim that a growing consensus has emerged specifically to evolve the Nagoya Protocol. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. S Aubry, S. (2019). The future of digital sequence information for plant ge- netic resources for food and agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01046 · DOI
  2. Blasiak, R., Wynberg, R., Grorud-Colvert, K., Thambisetty, S., Bandarra, N. M., Canário, A. V. M., da Silva, J., Duarte, C. M., Jaspars, M., Rogers, A. et al (2020). The ocean genome and future prospects for conservation and equity. Nature Sustainability, 3, 588-596. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s4189 3-020-0522-9 · DOI
  3. Boesch, D. F. (1999). The role of science in ocean governance. Ecological Economics, 31(2), 189-198.
  4. Bond, M. R., & Scott, D. (2020). Digital biopiracy and the (dis)assem- bling of the Nagoya Protocol. Geoforum, 117, 24-32. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geofo rum.2020.09.001 · DOI
  5. Cabrera Medaglia, J. (2020). Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and benefit-sharing arising from its use: An unfinished discussion. GRUR International, 69, 565-566. https://doi.org/10.1093/gruri nt/ ikaa057 · DOI
  6. Cabrera Medaglia, J., & Perron-Welch, F. (2019). The benefit-sharing principle in international law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 14, 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/ jpy162 CBD. (1992). Convention on biological diversity. http://www.CBD.int/ CBD. (2019). CBD ATHEG studies on Digital Sequence Informations. https://www.CBD.int/meeti ngs/DSI-AHTEG -2020-01 · DOI
  7. Deplazes-Zemp, A., Abiven, S., Schaber, P., Schaepman, M., Schaepman- Strub, G., Schmid, B., Shimizu, K. K., & Altermatt, F. (2018). The Nagoya Protocol could backfire on the Global South. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 917-919. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4155 9-018-0561-z · DOI
  8. dos S. Ribeiro, C., Koopmans, M. P., & Haringhuizen, G. B. (2018). Threats to timely sharing of pathogen sequence data. Science, 362, 404-406. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.aau5229 ENB. (2019). Earth negotiations bulletin (Vol. 9, No. 740). https://enb.iisd. org/vol09/ enb09 740e.html · DOI
  9. Finkelstein, L. S. (1995). What is global governance? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 1(3), 367- 372. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426 720-001-03-90000007 · DOI
  10. Frison, C. (2018). Redesigning the global seed commons law and policy for agrobiodiversity and food security. Routledge.
  11. Frison, C. (2021). Biodiversity. In K. De Feyter, S. De Moerloose, & G. Türkelli (Eds.), Law & development encyclopaedia (pp. 1-32).
  12. Halewood, M., Lopez Noriega, I., Ellis, D., Roa, C., Rouard, M., & Sackville, H. R. (2018). Using genomic sequence information to increase conservation and sustainable use of crop diversity and benefit- sharing. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 16, 368-376. https://doi. org/10.1089/bio.2018.0043 · DOI
  13. Herz, M. (2018). Formal and informal groups. In G. W. Weiss & S. Daws (Eds.), The Oxford Hanbook on the United Nations (pp. 332-345). Oxford University Press.
  14. Humphries, F., Gottlieb, H. M., Laird, S., Wynberg, R., Lawson, C., Rourke, M., Tvedt, M. W., Oliva, M. J., & Jaspars, M. (2020). A tiered approach to the marine genetic resource governance framework under the proposed UNCLOS agreement for biodiversity beyond national juris- diction (BBNJ). Marine Policy, 122, 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2020.103910 · DOI
  15. Laird, S., Wynberg, R., Rourke, M., Humphries, F., Muller, M. R., & Lawson, C. (2020). Rethink the expansion of access and benefit sharing. Science, 367, 1200-1202. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.aba9609 · DOI
  16. Lawson, C., Burton, H., & Humphries, F. (2018). The important place of information in the evolving legal and policy framework for the con- servation and sustainable use of the world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. European Intellectual Property Review, 40.
  17. Leonelli, S. (2014). Data interpretation in the digital age. Perspectives on Science, 22, 397-417. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00140 · DOI
  18. Lewin, H. A., Robinson, G. E., Kress, W. J., Baker, W. J., Coddington, J., Crandall, K. A., Durbin, R., Edwards, S. V., Forest, F., Gilbert, M. T. P., Goldstein, M. M., Grigoriev, I. V., Hackett, K. J., Haussler, D., Jarvis, E. D., Johnson, W. E., Patrinos, A., Richards, S., Castilla-Rubio, J. C., … Zhang, G. (2018). Earth BioGenome Project: Sequencing life for the future of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 4325-4333. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.17201 15115 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Mehrabi, Z., McDowell, M. J., Ricciardi, V., Levers, C., Martinez, J. D., Mehrabi, N., Wittman, H., Ramankutty, N., & Jarvis, A. (2020). The global divide in data-driven farming. Nature Sustainability. https://doi. org/10.1038/s4189 3-020-00631 -0 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Morgera, E. (2016). The need for an international legal concept of fair and equitable benefit sharing. European Journal of International Law, 27, 353-383. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chw014 · DOI
  21. Morgera, E. (2017). Fair and equitable benefit-sharing: History, nor- mative content and status in International Law. In E. Orlando & L. Krämer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of environmental law (pp. 1-15). Principles of Environmental Law.
  22. Morgera, E., Switzer, S., & Geelhoed, M. (2020). Study for the european commission on 'possible ways to address digital sequence informa- tion -legal and policy aspects'. Consultancy project conducted for the European Commission (pp. 1-74). Strathclyde Centre for Environmental.
  23. Oberthür, S., & Pożarowska, J. (2013). Managing institutional complexity and fragmentation: The Nagoya protocol and the global governance of genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13, 100-118. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00185 · DOI
  24. Peres, S. (2016). Saving the gene pool for the future: Seed banks as ar- chives. Studies in History of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 55, 96- 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.09.002 · DOI
  25. Rourke, M. (2019). Access by design, benefits if convenient: A closer look at the pandemic influenza preparedness framework's standard material transfer agreements. The Millbank Quarterly, 97(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12364 · DOI
  26. Sirakaya, A. (2019). Balanced options for access and benefit-sharing: stakeholder insights on provider country legislation. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01175 · DOI
  27. Stephens, Z. D., Lee, S. Y., Faghri, F., Campbell, R. H., Zhai, C., Efron, M. J., Iyer, R., Schatz, M. C., Sinha, S., & Robinson, G. E. (2015). Big data: Astronomical or genomical? PLoS Biology, 13, e1002195. https://doi. org/10.1371/journ al.pbio.1002195 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Stoll, P. (2009). Access to GRs and benefit sharing: Underlying concepts and the idea of justice. In G. Winter & E. Kamau (Eds.), Genetic re- sources, traditional knowledge and the law: Solutions for access and ben- efit sharing (pp. 3-18). Routledge.
  29. Thacker, E. (2005). The global genome. The MIT Press.
  30. UNESCO. (1998). Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/ UNESCO. (2003). International declaration on human genetic data. https://unesd oc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf000 01331 71.page=45 Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global gover- nance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/71370 1075 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aubry, S., Frison, C., Medaglia, J. C., Frison, E., Jaspars, M., Rabone, M., Sirakaya, A., Saxena, D., & van Zimmeren, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • University of Costa Rica San Pedro Costa Rica
  • Alliance Bioversity International - CIAT (IT)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
  • Faculty of Law University of Ghent Ghent Belgium
  • Government and Law Research Group University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium
Corresponding author
  • Aubry, Sylvain
  • Frison, Christine
ORCID
Venue
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02-21
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
5-12
ISSN
2572-2611 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/ppp3.10186
OpenAlex
W3133056092
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Plants People Planet (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (12X8318N)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (31003A_172977)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Maritime Law Issues
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Environmental Law and Policies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Science and Diplomacy
Keywords
digital sequence information, access and benefit sharing, genetic resources, global governance, biodiversity conservation, United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity, genomics, DNA sequencing, biodiversity loss

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review