Maripoldata Blog

iDSI’s Reflections on the CBD’s Open-Ended Working Group on DSI: Discussions on Benefit-Sharing and Data Governance

9. January 2024/in General /by Paul Dunshirn

By Paul Dunshirn, Ayşegül Sırakaya, Adam McCarthy, and Irma Klünker.

This blog post summarizes and reflects on discussions at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) first meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Benefit-sharing from the Use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on Genetic Resources, which took place on November 14-18 in Geneva. It explores some of the key issues under negotiation, namely whether benefit-sharing on DSI should be mandatory or voluntary, how benefit-sharing contributions and modalities should be assessed, and how the multilateral mechanism should interact with other genetic resource governance regimes. The post was written collaboratively by members of the group Interdisciplinary Researchers Working on DSI (iDSI), who are also affiliated with the ERC-funded research project MARIPOLDATA, the Research Platform Governance of Digital Practices, the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The Weizenbaum Institute, Lund University and the Natural History Museum.

Parties and observers to the CBD convene to negotiate benefit-sharing from the use of DSI in Geneva (https://enb.iisd.org/).

Introduction

Decision 15/9 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP Decision 15/9), agreed in December 2022, constituted an important signpost in bringing genetic resource governance to the digital age. Until then, it was disputed whether access to and benefit-sharing from the utilization of DSI, a placeholder term for various types of genetic sequence data, should be considered alongside genetic materials under the auspices of the CBD. However, since considerable scientific and commercial value is produced once DSI are abstracted from material samples, Parties decided that a new multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism on the use of DSI shall be developed until the next Conference of the Parties (COP 16) (COP Decision 15/9, para. 16), to be held in 2024. The decision also initiated an open-ended working group to negotiate whether and if so, how the multilateral benefit-sharing system could operate under the CBD, which had its first meeting on November 14-18 in Geneva.

This decision was generally received as a major step forward, but it quickly became clear during the Geneva meeting that some fundamental questions about the nature of the mechanism are yet to be resolved. This is visible in the formulations used by the Secretariat in various versions of the negotiation document: while at the start of the meeting, the discussed non-papers described areas where ‘we heard agreement’, the final document merely outlines ‘elements on which there is potential convergence’. Additionally, many important issues remain marked by divergences, and were placed under issues ‘for further discussion’. Considering the lack of concrete progress in the negotiations on the future benefit-sharing system, it is highly relevant to explore which issues are currently on the agenda and how the discussions are likely to proceed in the upcoming months.

Voluntary vs. mandatory

A central discussion point was whether the benefit-sharing mechanism on DSI should be voluntary or mandatory. Parties in favor of mandatory provisions argued that established voluntary systems have not provided substantial benefits in the past. There was a lack of clarity on what could constitute a voluntary benefit-sharing mechanism but Parties and stakeholders often used the voluntary contributions to the benefit-sharing fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (‘Plant Treaty’) as a point of reference. Some Parties emphasized the need to introduce legally binding forms of benefit-sharing to ensure a system of rights-based transactions rather than of charity payments.

Proponents of a voluntary system argued that the envisioned CBD system may not be comparable to other specialized mechanisms as its scope (i.e. the types of DSI covered) could be much wider. Some argued that a mandatory system would require a new Treaty to be negotiated, while a voluntary system could more rapidly be established under existing frameworks.

Overall, the meeting yielded minimal progress regarding the voluntary versus mandatory question, a sentiment that is reflected in the final document. It states that there is a need for further discussion on ‘How obligations for sharing the benefits […] can be created; whether this would facilitate a predictable level of contributions and fairness […], and whether this could be done through a legally binding instrument or a non-legally binding framework’. (para. 9). Some Parties supported starting with a voluntary framework and to transition into a more detailed or mandatory system in the future. It appears that such a ‘two-phase’ solution constitutes a potential area of convergence, which would to some extent resemble the benefit-sharing approach taken under the recently decided Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ).

Here it should be noted that the establishment of a legally binding/mandatory mechanism is generally understood to require enacting Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol, which is the CBD’s central protocol for regulating access and benefit-sharing. Article 10 was specifically negotiated to enable the establishment of a multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism through future negotiations during a time when more consensus was available and modalities were clarified. However, the majority of the Parties, rightsholders and stakeholders are attempting to reach a mechanism through the CBD without enacting the Nagoya Protocol.

Triggers and modalities for benefit-sharing

Another important discussion point was how benefit-sharing would be triggered and how benefits to be shared or received should be assessed. Parties deliberated on a wide range of potential triggers for benefit-sharing, such as ‘use of DSI’, commercialization involving DSI, ‘database-related’, or ‘time-based’ triggers, without convergence. A related question was whether a voluntary system would require triggers, which in the end was also included in the final document under issues for further discussion (para. 5). In discussing the various options, delegates repeatedly emphasized the need for conceptual clarification, for example on how ‘use of DSI’ may be defined (e.g. access to DSI, scientific use, or commercialization). At times, the lack of conceptual clarity seemed to make it difficult for Parties to formulate clear statements on positions to be negotiated.

Next to the potential triggers, the modalities for benefit-sharing had to be discussed. While it remained inconclusive, there appeared to be agreement amongst most Parties that ‘commercialization’ should be taken into account when assessing benefits to be shared and that all actors engaging in commercialising products or processes through the utilisation of genetic resources should contribute to the multilateral system. However, it remains unclear how this should be operationalized in practice and statements remained abstract while touching on a range of options for identifying relevant actors, products, and intellectual property rights. Some Parties suggested avoiding the term commercialization and formulating more precisely as ‘generation of value’, ‘shares of incomes’ or ‘sales’ from the use of DSI to have more concrete discussions. Additionally, some concerns have been raised regarding the lack of knowledge on how to value the biobased product sector which, according to some Parties and stakeholders, results in a lack of transparency in the amounts to be captured, generated and disbursed through the fund. These issues remain unresolved.

Geographic information of DSI origin has been on the table for some time as a potentially important modality to assess benefit-sharing, as it resembles the notion of ‘provider country’ under the Nagoya Protocol. However, some Parties and observers argued that it is not a reliable source of information for the multilateral system on DSI, as many types of DSI (such as proteins) are detached from original samples to the extent that they do not allow for identification of geographic origin. Other arguments against such an indicator are that tracing connections of various types of DSI to original samples would require an extensive track-and-trace system, which has been deemed ‘not practical’ for ‘all DSI’ under CBD decision 15/9 (para. 5).

Other potential benefit-sharing modalities included:

Competitive project applications, which also relates to arguments about ‘absorption capacity’: Several Parties argued that funds should be allocated based on competitive project applications, possibly specified to serve conservation aims. Others opposed this notion, arguing that competitive applications would disadvantage certain countries or Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs).
Biodiversity richness: Some Parties argued that biodiversity-rich countries should receive comparatively more funding via the multilateral mechanism, to support local conservation measures
IPLCs: Some Parties argued that IPLCs should have preferential access to funds, which they should be able to access either directly or via national institutions – views on this question diverged. This approach demonstrated a divergence from the approach during COP 15 as the negotiations in Montreal specifically recognised the IPLCs as primary beneficiaries (COP Decision 15/9, para. 10).

Interactions with other Frameworks

DSI is currently being negotiated under several international fora, namely the Food And Agricultural Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO), and World Intellectual Property Organisation. Adopted in June 2023, the BBNJ Treaty constitutes the first legally binding instrument to include DSI in its provisions on marine genetic resources. As such, there is a heightened interest in how the CBD is going to design its multilateral DSI mechanism.

However, interactions with other frameworks did not appear to be high on the agenda for negotiators at the Geneva Meetings. Some discussion took place on the idea of establishing an inter-forum body on access and benefit-sharing to facilitate coordination. While this was placed under areas of agreement in initial non-paper documents, it was moved to further issues of discussion after some Parties objected. While it is generally uncontested that some form of harmonization across existing and future access and benefit-sharing mechanisms would be useful, during the Geneva Meetings some Parties and stakeholders also pointed out that these arenas are independent legal frameworks that cannot simply be replaced by a new harmonized one nor be forced to adjust to terms defined by the CBD.

It should be noted that the discussions on relationships with other bodies are partially shaped by tensions within the CBD, namely on how the multilateral mechanisms on DSI would interact with the Nagoya Protocol. Some Parties made statements to suggest they see the new multilateral system as potentially undermining the sovereign rights of states recognised under Article 15 of the CBD as well as Articles 4 and 6 of the Nagoya Protocol.

iDSI emphasizes the importance of Open and Responsible Data Governance in managing DSI

The group Interdisciplinary Researchers Working on DSI (iDSI) made several interventions during the Geneva meeting concerning interactions with other benefit-sharing frameworks. iDSI highlighted the need to develop principles for Open and Responsible Data Governance (ORDG) and integrate them into the evolving multilateral system. The idea of ORDG is to promote guidelines for practitioners on how to nurture fair and equitable DSI use while managing DSI according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). Given the potential transformation of bilateral access processes into multilateral ones, iDSI emphasized the importance of providing practitioners with explicit guidance on avoiding ethical breaches and the infringement of pre-existing rights and obligations in their routine use of DSI. Such guidelines may simplify researchers’ navigation through the complex landscape of benefit-sharing mechanisms while jumpstarting the implementation of international law on the ground.

Interdisciplinary Researchers Working on DSI (iDSI) at the Geneva Open-Ended Working Group Meeting.

Next steps and conclusion

To summarize, delegates and observers are faced with a substantial workload in the upcoming months as they endeavor to discern the future configuration of the multilateral benefit-sharing system for DSI. As highlighted in this blog, the main points of negotiations are whether the mechanisms will entail voluntary or mandatory provisions, how the trigger points and assessment criteria are designed, and how the new mechanism will relate to existing legal frameworks. A fundamental question underlying these considerations is how to align principles of open science with the rights of provider countries and IPLCs under the umbrella of a new multilateral system.

In terms of the next steps, many actors emphasized that they await the results of studies requested under decision 15/9 (para. 22). It was also agreed that an Informal Advisory Group (IAG) will be set up, to meet every month leading up to the second meeting of the Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on DSI in August 2024, in time for the next COP 16 scheduled for October 2024. The IAG nomination and acceptance process is ongoing and likely to be relatively closed, with selection based on “pertinence” (IAG notification).

iDSI will continue to engage in this process, and is open to discuss our perspectives on any of the issues touched on above. Please feel free to contact us at idsi.research@gmail.com.

The BBNJ treaty as a pioneer in genetic resource governance? Impressions from the Edinburgh High Seas Treaty Symposium

10. November 2023/in General /by Paul Dunshirn

By Paul Dunshirn

Only a few months after the adoption of the new legally binding agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) in June 2023, stakeholders met up for the ‘High Seas Treaty Symposium’ in Edinburgh on October 6th-7th. The Symposium brought together experts from policy, science, and conservation to discuss the first steps towards implementation and to deliberate on yet unresolved issues. This blog focuses on how marine genetic resources and digital sequence information (DSI) were discussed during the Symposium and reflects on the pioneering role that the BBNJ community may play in regulating the complex genetic resource policy field.

BBNJ stakeholders meeting in Edinburgh. Credits: https://jfdmedia.com/BBNJ Symposium 2023

The BBNJ agreement defines marine genetic resources as ‘any material of marine plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value’ (Art. 1.8). Being of crucial ecological importance to marine ecosystems, marine genetic resources are also frequently considered as highly valuable to biotech industries 1. One estimate [1] puts the market value of marine biotech at 6.4 billion US dollars by 2025. Importantly, it remains unclear how valuable specifically ‘BBNJ marine genetic resources’ are in comparison to those collected from coastal areas [2]. Against this background, BBNJ negotiators struggled for years to agree on a new governance system to regulate access and use of these resources. Positions were split about which types of benefits arising from biotech and science should be shared multilaterally [3], particularly whether ‘monetary benefits’ should be included, and to what extent such contributions should be based on a transparency or monitoring system [4]. A compromise was finally reached in March 2023, which included monetary benefits, yet without determining the exact modalities long-term (BBNJ agreement, part II). Importantly, negotiators also agreed to include DSI in the treaty alongside marine genetic resources (the latter being understood as genetic samples). There is currently no agreed definition of DSI, but it is generally understood as genetic sequence data (including at least DNA and RNA sequences [5]).

Just a few months after the Treaty’s adoption in June 2023, the Edinburgh High Seas Treaty Symposium allowed stakeholders to discuss implementation steps and unresolved issues. The Symposium’s principal sponsors were the deep sea research project iAtlantic, the NGO Marviva, the inter-governmental Sargasso Sea Commission, the Office français de la biodiversité, and a diverse group of other organisations. Amongst the other topics addressed by the BBNJ Treaty, marine genetic resources were high on the agenda and were the subject of the Symposium’s opening panel.

What still needs to be resolved?

Janine Coye-Felson, a Belizean delegate and facilitator on the marine genetic resources part, opened the marine genetic resource panel by reflecting on the divergence of positions that had to be overcome and identified aspects that require further deliberation. For instance, she pointed out that the Treaty defines obligations for Parties regarding notifications, traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and benefit-sharing while in most cases not prescribing how exactly these measures should be implemented. While some details are likely to be refined in the upcoming Conferences of the Parties (COPs), Janine Coye-Felson pointed out that this ‘bottom-up approach’ might lead to divergences in implementation. Such divergences might occur due to differences in national institutional and financial capacities to implement the measures. Other issues pointed out by Janine Coye-Felson included potential loopholes concerning fish and marine genetic resources, how diverging membership constellations to different genetic resource regimes (under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)) will affect the implementation of BBNJ provisions, and how the specific issue of DSI will be governed across these regimes.

Marine genetic resources panel. Credits: https://jfdmedia.com/BBNJ Symposium 2023

How BBNJ will interact with other access and benefit-sharing regimes

Constituting the first legally binding agreement to regulate DSI, it is highly relevant to consider how the BBNJ framework will interact with other regimes. The participants of the marine genetic resource panel picked up on this issue. Gaute Voigt-Hanssen and Arianna Broggiato (negotiators of the genetic resource part for Norway and EU, respectively) emphasised the need to link the process under BBNJ to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the CBD decision on DSI, which the CBD state parties adopted in December 2022. Arianna Broggiato pointed out that scientific and private-sector stakeholders must be considered in this context. However, Siva Thambisetty (advisor to the Chair of the G77) noted that Parties to the BBNJ treaty are by no means obliged to wait for decisions on access and benefit-sharing on DSI to be made in other fora. Instead, the Treaty could be a pioneer in the complex field of data governance and genetic resources that may inspire similar solutions in other contexts.

It should be emphasised that, beyond the topic of DSI, many general questions persist over how the BBNJ access and benefit-sharing system will interact with other regimes. In the view of the blog’s author, one relevant question is whether the Treaty will be considered an exception (a ‘specialised international access and benefit sharing instrument’) under the Nagoya Protocol (Art. 4.4), which is the CBD’s central instrument to regulate the collection and use of genetic materials within national jurisdiction. While frameworks like FAO’s Seed Treaty or WHO’s Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) framework are likely to be considered as such [6], it is unclear whether the BBNJ Treaty will similarly interact with the CBD system. In any case, a lot hinges also on how countries themselves will deal with potential interactions across regimes through their own domestic access and benefit-sharing laws.

The BBNJ Treaty advances ‘trendy’ solutions to complex policy challenges

Considering the longstanding impasse in advancing genetic resource governance during the BBNJ negotiations and under other regimes, it seems evident that negotiators had to find innovative solutions to agree on a final text. During the Symposium’s marine genetic resource panel, Gaute Voigt-Hanssen went ahead and described the Treaty’s approach to access and benefit-sharing as ‘trendy’, due to its focus on benefit-sharing and its comparatively light regulatory focus on access. In particular, he pointed out that the Treaty is positive for researchers because it refrains from obliging users to enter contracts when using resources. Access and benefit-sharing have historically been conceived as necessarily paired issues to achieve equitable and fair partnerships between resource providers and users. The usefulness of combining those two aspects has been questioned in various settings over the past years, particularly in the context of DSI [7,8].

In contrast, Siva Thambisetty argued that ‘access’ is central to various mechanisms of the BBNJ Treaty. She was referring to the ‘standardised BBNJ batch identifier’, which was proposed by the G77 during the latter stages of negotiation to facilitate a form of traceability that does not require heavy bureaucratic measures, yet facilitates benefit-sharing based on empirical evidence of access or use. Siva Thambisetty thus argued that the trendy nature of the Treaty lies not in its lightness on access, but in the extent to which it envisions technical solutions to overcome the longstanding divergence of issue positions on access and benefit-sharing.

The panel’s scientists (Muriel Rabone from the Natural History Museum London, Andre Abreu from the Tara Foundation, and host Marcel Jaspars from Aberdeen University) all agreed that the Treaty’s provisions on data governance are inspired by current good scientific practice and are thus unlikely to create extensive bureaucratic burdens for researchers. Nevertheless, Muriel Rabone emphasised the need to think carefully about how to implement the provisions in practice.

Implementation was picked up again at a workshop connected to the Symposium that was organised by the research project Deepend. This project aims to study the societal value of biodiversity in the deep sea and thus provide crucial information on how to implement and further develop international legal regimes such as the BBNJ agreement. As discussed during the workshop, the project aims to provide a space for exploring how the Treaty’s provisions can work in practice, both in terms of implementing standardised batch identifiers and when it comes to North-South research cooperation.

So what about corporate use of marine genetic resources? Author’s reflections

While the BBNJ genetic resource regime was designed in close coordination with ocean scientists and is thus closely aligned with scientific practice, implementation may turn out to be more difficult when it comes to corporate-type use of marine genetic resources and DSI. When it comes to corporate activities, a distinction can be broadly drawn between the commercialization of products and the claiming of intellectual property rights (IPR). Both types have been discussed during the BBNJ negotiations, but their relationship to the Treaty remains uncertain.

As Siva Thambisetty pointed out during the genetic resource panel, the Treaty does not include a separate article on IPR anymore, as no agreement could be found. However, both she and Gaute Voigt-Hanssen pointed out that the Treaty obliges Parties to report on the utilisation of resources under article 12.8, which includes granted patents and developed products. In this sense, activities such as patenting may retrospectively be considered in calculations on monetary benefit-sharing, if the COP decides so.

However, tracing the use of marine genetic resources in scientific databases, databanks and journals via the BBNJ batch identifier seems much easier to achieve than for corporate activities. Most scientific journals require researchers to upload their sequence data into the INSDC ecosystem, which in turn is stepping up requirements for the reporting of origin information. It is probably not very complicated to integrate the identifier in these efforts. No comparable transparency standards for identifying genetic resource origin exist in commercial or IPR-related domains [9,10]. Some countries oblige patent applicants to disclose origins [11], but this doesn’t apply to many other countries and it remains unclear whether WIPO will agree on new international standards. Genetic sequences mentioned in patents could be linked back to their entries in scientific databases (and thus to their origin information) [12], particularly if their accession numbers are reported correctly, but it is unclear how reliable of a solution this would be.

Overall, it is a highly relevant question how the BBNJ treaty will relate to the private sector. Notably, the panel on industry implications, which included Jane Eva Collins (KPMG) and J.B. Jouffray (Stanford University) seemed to agree that private biotechnology companies are unlikely to be immediately affected by the Treaty. However, including considerations of private sector benefits from genetic resources in the overall access and benefit-sharing scheme under BBNJ is arguably a crucial element of equitable benefit-sharing. While this is foreseen in the Treaty and more specifically in the idea of the batch identifier, it appears that more consideration will be needed on how exactly to implement Parties’ obligations to report on the corporate use of marine genetic resources and DSI. Jane Eva Collins also pointed out that it would be useful to start considering how exactly to mobilise private stakeholders to participate in the implementation of the Treaty.

What happens next?

The BBNJ Treaty will enter into force 120 days after the 60th country has ratified it. The first COP meeting should follow soon after, where, amongst other things, the details of the described access and benefit-sharing system will be further sketched out. Until then, it is important to keep the conversations flowing and for Parties and stakeholders to start working on implementation. Capacity-building and stakeholder cooperation will be crucial to achieve effective implementation on a global level [13]. Mobilisation of stakeholders, including scientists and private actors should be considered an important element in these efforts. As highlighted in this blog, creating effective interlinkages between different genetic resource regimes will also be crucial. The upcoming CBD open-ended working group on DSI, held in Geneva from November 14th to 18th, will be an interesting opportunity to observe whether and how the BBNJ Treaty will affect current developments in the broader genetic resources governance field.

References

Hurst, D., Børresen, T., Almesjö, L., Raedemaecker, F. & Bergseth, S. Marine Biotechnology Strategic Research and Innovation Roadmap – Insights to the future direction of European marine biotechnology. (Marine Biotechnology ERA-NET, 2016).
Oldham, P. et al. Valuing the Deep: Marine Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. https://bookdown.org/poldham/valuingthedeep/ (2014).
Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A. & Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. Who owns marine biodiversity? Contesting the world order through the ‘common heritage of humankind’ principle. Environmental Politics 31, 226–250 (2021).
Langlet, A. & Dunshirn, P. Traceability options for marine genetic resource from areas beyond national jurisdiction. https://www.highseasalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/traceability-options-paper-1.pdf (2023).
Houssen, W., Sara, R. & Jaspars, M. Digital sequence information on genetic resources: concept, scope and current use. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/fef9/2f90/70f037ccc5da885dfb293e88/dsi-ahteg-2020-01-03-en.pdf (2020).
Lawson, C., Rourke, M. & Humphries, F. Information as the latest site of conflict in the ongoing contests about access to and sharing the benefits from exploiting genetic resources. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 10, 7–33 (2020).
Scholz, A. H. et al. Multilateral benefit-sharing from digital sequence information will support both science and biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun 13, 1086 (2022).
Aubry, S. The Future of Digital Sequence Information for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science 10, (2019).
Rohden, F., Huang, S., Dröge, G. & Scholz, A. H. Combined study on digital sequence information in public and private databases and traceability. https://www.cbd.int/abs/DSI-peer/Study-Traceability-databases.pdf (2020).
Blasiak, R., Jouffray, J.-B., Wabnitz, C. C. C. & Österblom, H. Scientists Should Disclose Origin in Marine Gene Patents. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34, 392–395 (2019).
Humphries, F., Rabone, M. & Jaspars, M. Traceability Approaches for Marine Genetic Resources Under the Proposed Ocean (BBNJ) Treaty. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 661313 (2021).
Oldham, P. & Thambisetty, S. ONEST: The Middle way for Monetary Benefit Sharing in BBNJ Negotiations. https://zenodo.org/record/7573700 (2023) doi:10.5281/zenodo.7573700.
Gjerde, K. M. et al. Getting beyond yes: fast-tracking implementation of the United Nations agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. npj Ocean Sustain 1, 1–8 (2022).

Tweeting Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (#BBNJ): the story of a hashtag

23. May 2023/in General /by MARIPOLDATA Team

By Arne Langlet, Paul Dunshirn & Glen Wright

#BBNJ – Twitter Network

Twitter has become a central platform for political [1] and scientific communication [2], offering a unique data source for researching digital communication and discussions between diplomats, stakeholders and scientists. During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital communication may have been particularly important for international negotiation processes such as the recently concluded negotiations for a treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) [3, 4, 5].

Here we introduce a dataset of tweets related to BBNJ discussions, which we collected from the first of January 2018 to March, 9th, 2023. The resulting dataset contains 72727 tweets from 26137 unique users. We included all tweets that mentioned the hashtag #BBNJ. Below we present a preliminary analysis of the data, focusing on themes such as the intensity of online engagement with BBNJ-related discussions over time, network community structures, and content of tweet texts. We consider these themes as pathways for further research.

We want to invite anyone with an interest in using the data to get in touch with us to discuss possibilities for further engagement.

How did the BBNJ discussion on Twitter evolve?

Our data shows that in early 2018, #BBNJ was already used in an average of around 12 tweets per day. The use of #BBNJ sparked for the first time during the first Intergovernmental Conference (IGC1) in September 2018. Particularly during the first three days of the IGC1 (4-6 September 2018), we can see high activity, peaking at 757 tweets in just one day. A total of 13465 BBNJ-tweets were posted during IGC1, averaging around 250 per day. The discussion subsequently went quiet, ahead of the next peak during the IGC2. By then, the hashtag was well established. During the intersessional period between IGCs2 and 3, more tweets were published than in the previous intersessional period.

Tweeting continued during the intersessional period between IGCs3 and 4, which stretched to 30 months owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. This period saw around 17 daily BBNJ-tweets. This continued engagement may indicate that the online dialogues (‘High Seas Dialogues’ and ‘BBNJ Intersessional Work’) helped to maintain some momentum and visibility during the COVID-19 pandemic [3, 4, 5].

The fourth IGC was originally planned to be the final round of negotiations, and the flurry of BBNJ-tweets on the opening day was relatively high. Nonetheless, this IGC ultimately garnered fewer Tweets in comparison to the previous rounds. Tweets on BBNJ dropped markedly after IGC4 – at around 11 per day, – this period was the quietest since we started sampling in 2018. Usage of #BBNJ once again picked up during the UN Ocean Conference, with civil society and ambitious States using the occasion to call for the finalisation of the BBNJ treaty.

The #BBNJ hashtag exploded during IGC 5 and 5.2, when the hashtag was used in more than 1000 tweets. This correlated with increased media and public attention on the negotiations. The days with the most tweets were March 5th, 6th and 7th 2023 with 5325, 3913 and 2056 Tweets respectively. We were unable to plot these dates on the following graph as they were outliers, and thus, outside of the limits of the visualization.

This analysis reveals a couple of trends. Firstly, BBNJ-related Twitter activity primarily occurs during the in-person negotiation sessions and strongly increased when the negotiations were getting closer to the finish line. After usage of #BBNJ was cemented during IGCs 1 and 2, the hashtag began to occur more often in other ocean events (such as the aforementioned UN Ocean Conference, which was not BBNJ specific). The days after BBNJ was concluded showed the strongest Twitter activity as it became part of the general media coverage.

How did the BBNJ network develop?

From the #BBNJ tweets emerged a social network, which we can visualise by analysing the interactions between users (i.e. retweets and mentions). We found that 13739 users interacted with at least one other user, creating 31842 connections. The following video shows how the BBNJ network has grown since the beginning of 2018.

Video editing: Alexander Medgett

Pathways for further research

Community Analysis

The network is quite closely connected in one large component, and we only see a few entirely disconnected user groups. A modularity-based community detection algorithm nonetheless identifies different communities within the main component (distinguished by colour in the video). Looking at network evolution over time reveals that certain core communities formed around IGC1, but that subsequent communities joined the discussions at later stages. Particularly, the purple and black communities formed around a small number of highly influential users that attracted a high number of otherwise disconnected users.

Network properties of #BBNJ discussions

Apart from analysing community structures, the relational nature of our data allows the use of established indicators from social network analysis, such as “centralization”. Centralization refers to the distribution of links between nodes [7]. An increase in centralization means that a small number of users are highly connected compared to the majority of people in the network. Table 1 shows that the centralization of the BBNJ network grew steadily after IGC1, indicating that the network grew closer together and a few users became very well connected. During the IGCs (in red), many new users joined the network and the centralization decreased. This indicates that the distribution of connections became more equal, i.e. the gap between hyper- and weakly-connected users shrank and new users joined the BBNJ community. After IGC3, the dynamics of the network did not significantly change and the network grew ever closer around a few highly central nodes for a long time. However, with IGCs 5 and 5.2, the centralization suddenly decreased strongly as many new nodes joined the network by tweeting about #BBNJ and tagging or retweeting other users.

Period	Centralization
Pre IGCs	0,16
IGC 1	0,11
Intersessional IGC 1-2	0,16
IGC 2	0,21
Intersessional IGC 2-3	0,22
IGC 3	0,20
COVID-19 Intersessional IGC 3-4	0,31
IGC 4	0,32
Intersessional IGC 4 – UN Ocean Conference	0,32
UN Ocean Conference	0,34
Past UN Ocean & pre IGC 5	0,34
IGC 5	0.23
IGC 5.2	0.21

Content analysis: other hashtags used in connection to the BBNJ hashtag

Our dataset also contains the actual #BBNJ tweet texts, allowing for a closer analysis of the content of discussion. For example, we can identify other hashtags that were used jointly with #BBNJ. #highseas co-occurs most frequently, reflecting the use of that term as a more readily intelligible alternative and recent discussion about the possibility of renaming the BBNJ Treaty to the commonly used “High Seas Treaty”.

#	Freq
highseas	7230
ocean	3134
highseastreaty	2059
biodiversity	1914
igc5	1754
oneoceanoneplanet	1130
stronghighseas	1045
abnj	1044
igc4	872
sdg14	691
unclos	649
oceans	580
mpas	511
igc2	462
deepsea	417
protecttheoceans	398
igc3	394
oneoceansummit	381
30×30	300

Contact us for collaboration:

We are excited to announce that our comprehensive Twitter dataset on the #BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction) negotiations is available now. The dataset encompasses more than 72.000 tweets and can offer valuable insights into the global discourse surrounding conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainable use of marine resources. We invite fellow researchers, including early-career researchers and master students to utilize this rich dataset for their scholarly investigations, enabling a deeper understanding of public opinions, key themes, networks and emerging trends during the BBNJ negotiations.

Should you wish to access this dataset and collaborate on groundbreaking research, please do not hesitate to contact us:

maripoldata.erc@univie.ac.at

References:

[1] Jungherr, A. (2014). Twitter in politics: a comprehensive literature review. Available at SSRN 2865150.; Jörgens, H., Kolleck, N., & Saerbeck, B. (2016). Exploring the hidden influence of international treaty secretariats: using social network analysis to analyse the Twitter debate on the ‘Lima Work Programme on Gender’. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 979-998.; Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, Communities and Conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLOS ONE, 9.

[2] Boteler, B. (2016). Scientists and Twitter: How does this Group of Fact Finding Professionals use Twitter? Journal of Visual and Media Anthropology, 1(2), 5-18.; López-Goñi, I., & Sánchez-Angulo, M. (2018). Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter. FEMS Microbiology letters, 365(2), fnx246.; Su, L. Y.-F., Scheufele, D. A., Bell, L., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2017). sci. Science Communication, 39(5), 569-597.

[3] Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., Tolochko, P., Brogat, E., & Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C. (2021). Marine Biodiversity Negotiations During COVID-19: A New Role for Digital Diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 21(3), 169-186.

[4] Vadrot, A. B. M., & Ruiz Rodríguez, S. C. (2022). Digital Multilateralism in Practice: Extending Critical Policy Ethnography to Digital Negotiation Sites. International Studies Quarterly 66(3). Article sqac051, https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac051

[5] Langlet, A., Wanneau, K., Dunshirn, P., Ruiz Rodríguez, S. C., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. & Vadrot, A.B.M. (2022). A matter of time: the impacts of Covid-19 on marine biodiversity negotiations. Négociations, 37, 39-65. https://doi.org/10.3917/neg.037.0039

[7] Borgatti, Stephen P. (2005). “Centrality and Network Flow”. Social Networks. 27: 55–71.
[/av_textblock]