The rapid advancement of biotechnological research has fundamentally shifted the landscape of genetic resource management, moving from the physical exchange of seeds and tissue samples to the global dissemination of digital data. As the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) prepares for the upcoming 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the organization is intensifying its call for a multilateral mechanism that balances the need for equitable benefit-sharing with the necessity of maintaining open access to scientific data. Digital Sequence Information (DSI) has become the cornerstone of modern innovation, fueling breakthroughs in everything from mRNA vaccines and climate-resilient crops to sustainable biofuels and advanced cosmetics. However, as governments work to operationalize a global system for sharing the financial and non-monetary benefits derived from this data, the global business community warns that poorly designed regulations could stifle the very innovation that the CBD seeks to harness for conservation.
The Shift from Physical Samples to Digital Sequences
For decades, the international community managed genetic resources through the Nagoya Protocol, a 2010 supplementary agreement to the CBD. The Nagoya Protocol established a framework for Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS), requiring researchers to obtain "Prior Informed Consent" from provider countries and negotiate "Mutually Agreed Terms" for the use of physical biological materials. However, the digital revolution has rendered many of these physical-world regulations obsolete. Today, a scientist in one hemisphere can sequence the genome of a rare plant or a pathogenic virus and upload that information to a public database within hours. A researcher in another hemisphere can then access that digital sequence to develop a new enzyme or therapeutic drug without ever touching a physical sample.
This "dematerialization" of genetic resources created a significant regulatory gap. Developing nations, which are often the most biodiverse regions on the planet, argued that the use of DSI without compensation constituted "digital biopiracy." Conversely, the scientific and business communities argued that imposing restrictive, country-by-country permit requirements on digital data would create an administrative bottleneck, slowing down global research and discouraging investment. The compromise reached at COP15 in Montreal was the decision to establish a multilateral mechanism for benefit-sharing from the use of DSI, including a global fund. As the world moves toward COP17, the focus has shifted from the theoretical existence of this fund to the practicalities of how it will be funded and managed.
The ICC Position: Prioritizing Legal Certainty and Innovation
The ICC, representing over 45 million companies in more than 170 countries, has emerged as a primary voice for the private sector in these negotiations. The organization’s stance is rooted in the belief that for a benefit-sharing mechanism to be successful, it must be attractive to the entities expected to contribute to it. The ICC is urging COP17 delegates to prioritize a mechanism that provides absolute legal certainty. For a pharmaceutical or agricultural firm, the risk of retroactive claims or shifting regulatory goalposts is a significant deterrent to long-term research and development.
Business leaders are calling for a system that is characterized by clarity and proportionality. In the view of the ICC, the mechanism should not impose a "one-size-fits-all" fee but should instead reflect the diverse ways in which different sectors utilize DSI. For instance, a small-scale startup using DSI for basic environmental monitoring has a vastly different revenue profile than a multinational corporation developing a blockbuster drug. The ICC emphasizes that benefit-sharing expectations must be proportionate to the commercial value derived and must avoid "double-dipping"—situations where a company is forced to pay both a national-level fee under the Nagoya Protocol and a global-level fee under the new DSI mechanism for the same resource.
Chronology of the DSI Negotiations
The journey toward a global DSI framework has been marked by a decade of intense diplomatic maneuvering. Understanding the timeline is essential for contextualizing the stakes at COP17:
- 2010 (Nagoya Protocol): The protocol is adopted, focusing almost exclusively on physical genetic resources. The term "Digital Sequence Information" is not yet part of the official lexicon, though the seeds of the digital divide are already planted.
- 2016 (COP13, Cancun): DSI officially enters the CBD agenda. Parties recognize that the use of digital data is increasing and may have implications for the objectives of the CBD.
- 2018 (COP14, Sharm El-Sheikh): Tensions rise as developing nations demand that DSI be treated the same as physical resources. A science-based "Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group" is formed to study the issue.
- 2022 (COP15, Montreal): A breakthrough occurs with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Decision 15/9 concludes that a multilateral mechanism for benefit-sharing from DSI should be established, including a global fund.
- 2024 (COP16, Cali): Negotiations focus on the "modalities" of the fund—who pays, how much, and who receives the money. The ICC and other industry groups provide extensive feedback on the "trigger" points for payment.
- Upcoming (COP17): This summit is expected to be the venue where the mechanism is fully operationalized. Governments will finalize the legal architecture, the governance structure of the fund, and the specific obligations of data users.
Economic Data and the Value of the Bio-Economy
The economic stakes of the DSI negotiations are staggering. According to various economic analyses, the global bio-economy is currently valued at approximately $4 trillion and is projected to grow significantly over the next decade. The pharmaceutical sector alone, which relies heavily on genetic sequences for drug discovery and vaccine development, is a trillion-dollar industry. In agriculture, DSI is vital for the development of crops that can withstand the extreme weather patterns associated with climate change—a market estimated to be worth hundreds of billions.
A report by the DSI Scientific Network highlights the scale of data usage: the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), which includes GenBank, the European Nucleotide Archive, and the DNA Data Bank of Japan, hosts over 200 million sequences. These databases are accessed by millions of unique users annually. The ICC argues that if even a fraction of a percentage of the revenue generated from products derived from this data were funneled into the global biodiversity fund, it could generate billions of dollars for conservation. However, they caution that if the contribution rate is set too high or the administrative burden is too complex, companies may pivot away from using public DSI, thereby reducing the total potential revenue for the fund.
Official Responses and Stakeholder Perspectives
The debate at COP17 will not be limited to business and government. Civil society organizations and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) are also key stakeholders. Many NGOs argue that the ICC’s call for "proportionality" and "legal certainty" is a euphemism for minimizing corporate responsibility. Groups such as the Third World Network have expressed concerns that a multilateral mechanism might allow companies to bypass the rights of Indigenous groups who have stewarded the biological resources from which the sequences were derived.
In response, the ICC has clarified that its members support the equitable sharing of benefits, provided the system is workable. "Business is not opposed to sharing benefits; business is opposed to bureaucracy that halts innovation," a representative from the ICC’s Commission on Environment and Energy stated during a recent preparatory meeting. The ICC also calls attention to the importance of non-monetary benefit-sharing, such as capacity building, technology transfer, and joint research initiatives between developed and developing nations. They argue that these contributions are often more valuable to a developing country’s long-term scientific infrastructure than a simple cash transfer.
Analysis of Implications: The Path to COP17
The success of COP17 hinges on whether negotiators can create a "Goldilocks" mechanism—one that is robust enough to generate meaningful funding for biodiversity conservation but flexible enough to keep the engine of scientific innovation running. If the mechanism is perceived as too lenient, developing nations may choose to opt-out and implement their own restrictive national DSI laws, leading to a fragmented global landscape that would be a nightmare for researchers to navigate. If the mechanism is too stringent, the "open access" nature of genomic databases—which has been a catalyst for global scientific cooperation—could be compromised.
The ICC’s call for expanding the mechanism to cover more countries and a broader range of data is a strategic move to ensure a level playing field. If the mechanism only applies to a handful of countries or specific types of data, it could lead to market distortions. By advocating for a broad, inclusive, and predictable system, the ICC is positioning the private sector as a partner in conservation rather than an adversary.
As the world heads toward COP17, the focus remains on the "Multilateral Mechanism" as the most viable path forward. The challenge will be translating the high-level principles of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework into a functional, legally binding system. For the ICC and the global business community, the priority is clear: a system that rewards innovation, ensures legal safety, and provides a clear, predictable pathway for contributing to the preservation of the planet’s biological heritage. The outcome of these negotiations will determine the future of the bio-economy and the global effort to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2030.
About the Author
