Is Nature’s code just a commodity to be traded?

Scientists have been experimenting with DNA since 1972. Among other scientific achievements, this research has put genetic information and resources at the forefront of developing disease resistant crops (ensuring food supplies to feed the plant), and lifesaving vaccines. It’s therefore not surprising that genetic resources are at the centre of conserving biodiversity, as they are, in essence, the building blocks of all living things.

But genetic resources come from living plants, animals and microorganisms, usually found in biodiverse rich ecosystems. They need to be protected and fostered, to guarantee their survival. Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) are the ultimate guardians of these natural resources. Furthermore, their traditional knowledge of the ecosystems they inhabit is crucial to guarantee these species survive.

During COP16 in Cali, I became increasingly aware of the controversy emerging from the use of genetic resources harvested from biodiverse rich ecosystems. On the surface, it seemed to be related to acknowledging the source and sharing the benefits from the use of these genetic materials with all actors involved – and so far, it seemed Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) were not receiving their fair share of these benefits. 

I was intrigued; was it really as simple as that? 

I soon learned it was not, when I started investigating the history behind the controversy. The first thing I learned was that this controversy is not new. In fact, it’s more than 30 years old, as benefit sharing is one of the three main objectives of this convention, since its inception in 1992. This was not the first time that the unregulated use of genetic information was brought to the negotiations table during the Biodiversity COP. 

I also learned that there are several layers of complexity around genetic resources, like how to regulate them or whether they should be open source. My reflection, however, focuses on the fair distribution of benefits (monetary or otherwise) that comes from these resources and the emerging debate of treating Nature as a commodity.

Back in 2010, during COP10 in Japan, the Nagoya Protocol was established as an attempt to regulate the use of genetic resources. This protocol was meant to provide fair compensation to those protecting these resources, including the traditional knowledge associated with conservation practices. It was also meant to ensure that the extraction of genetic materials would cause minimum disturbance to the ecosystem. 

But, by 2014, a new technology was brewing. The world of genetics was undergoing a revolution that would allow for these physical resources to be replicated digitally, a technology known as Digital Sequence Information (DSI).

As the protocol only covered the physical genetic resources, DSI were out of its purview. And, just like that, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) were back to square one. 

During COP14 and COP15, the pressure was on to regulate the use of DSI. By that time, big corporations had large databases with digital copies of their physical genetic counterparts. This meant that the source of these genetic materials could be uploaded without acknowledging their source. The fact that some of these DSI were a combination of genetic information from several sources added a second layer of complexity, as it was impossible to filter contributions from different provenances. 

On 25 February 2025, during the official launch of the Cali Fund, H.E. Susana Muhamad quite rightly stated: “We have had the Nagoya Protocol for a long time (…) but as the digital age and technology came these global databases started putting DNA and digital genetic resources online that are used by business to develop products, and then they didn't need to go to the countries, to the governments, if they were not going use the physical genetic resource. They could go to the databases and use the genetic digital sequences (…) it is not, let's say charity from the companies, their funding here is their fair payment for the use of the global biodiversity.”

As I investigated this topic, a pattern started to emerge. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are the guardians of the natural world. They care for the plants and animals that provide the genetic materials for a variety of research, from advancements in medicine to popular cosmetics, and they keep being left behind.

The Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) hold unique knowledge about local ecosystems and traditional conservation practices. Their insights are crucial for responsible DSI management and benefit-sharing. As Cristiane Juliao from Pankararu, Brazil, states: "There is ancestral knowledge associated with each type of genetic material."

By the end of COP16.1 in 2024, the conversations that started two years prior on the need to build a framework that would benefit all stakeholders was developed. The Cali Fund aims to:

• establish a mechanism by which organisations using DSI will contribute monetarily or though capacity building to the fund
• ensure fair allocation of the above contributions to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)
• provide ongoing monitoring to adjust the mechanism as needed

However, its implementation faces challenges, as different organisations have different needs, as well as the fact that the contributions to the Fund are voluntary which may result in a low number of contributions. 

Although the establishment of the Cali Fund was viewed as a step in the right direction, there are still concerns regarding its efficacy.

A good way forward to ensure the Cali Fund’s success would be to include Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) perspectives in DSI governance, promote knowledge exchange between scientists and local communities and develop ethical guidelines for research involving Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), similar to the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research .

By taking these steps, we can move towards more equitable benefit-sharing and foster trust between stakeholders. After all, DSI is just a digital copy of real-world organisms – preserving the original is crucial for species’ survival.

Communities that draw their livelihoods from nature often hold cultural and spiritual connections to their natural resources and knowledge. Their profound understanding of the natural world ensures the survival of their endemic animals and plants. Therefore, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) should be at the front and centre of decision making, as they are the gatekeepers of these resources as well as the protectors of such ecosystems for millennia, and into the future.

As acknowledged in the final document of COP16 pertaining to DSI “in some world views, all-natural genetic information belongs to Mother Earth.”  As such, an extra layer of ethical implications emerges as it’s not possible to obtain consent from living organisms like plants and animals, which are frequently subject to harm and exploitation. If we strive to achieve “Peace with Nature” we should ensure minimal disturbance of specimens and habitats by taking great care when conducting fieldwork and taking samples. And this level of care can only be achieved when drawing from the traditional knowledge of the people who developed this wisdom over thousands of years.

With special thanks to Audrey Wagner, Programme Coordinator and the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, for her input on the science behind this article.