Open access to sequence data is a cornerstone of biology and biodiversity research, but has created tension under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Policy decisions could compromise research and development, unless a practical multilateral solution is implemented. Ensuring international benefit-sharing from sequence data without jeopardising open sharing is a major obstacle for the Convention on Biological Diversity and other UN negotiations. Here, the authors propose a solution to address the concerns of both developing countries and life scientists.

This perspective paper follows up on earlier communications on bacteriophage therapy that we wrote as a multidisciplinary and intercontinental expert-panel when we first met at a bacteriophage conference hosted by the Eliava Institute in Tbilisi, Georgia in 2015. In the context of a society that is confronted with an ever-increasing number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, we build on the previously made recommendations and specifically address how the Nagoya Protocol might impact the further development of bacteriophage therapy. By reviewing a number of recently conducted case studies with bacteriophages involving patients with bacterial infections that could no longer be successfully treated by regular antibiotic therapy, we again stress the urgency and significance of the development of international guidelines and frameworks that might facilitate the legal and effective application of bacteriophage therapy by physicians and the receiving patients. Additionally, we list and comment on several recently started and ongoing clinical studies, including highly desired double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. We conclude with an outlook on how recently developed DNA editing technologies are expected to further control and enhance the efficient application of bacteriophages.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the most ambitious multilateral agreement on biodiversity to date. It calls for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to halt and reverse biodiversity loss worldwide. The GBF’s monitoring framework lays out how Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are expected to report on their progress. An expert group convened by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators, provided guidance on its implementation, including a gap analysis to identify the strengths and limitations of the indicators in the monitoring framework. We present the results of the AHTEG gap analysis and provide recommendations on implementing and improving monitoring of the GBF. We compare three implementation scenarios, from worst-case to best-case: (1) Parties only report on required headline and binary indicators; (2) Parties also report on all headline indicator disaggregations and (3) Parties additionally report on all optional component and complementary indicators. In each case, the monitoring framework covers (1) between 19–40%, (2) 22–41% and (3) 29–47% of the elements in the GBF’s goals and targets. Even in the best-case scenario (3), no indicators are available for 12% of the GBF’s elements. In practice, the coverage and thus effectiveness of the monitoring framework will depend on which indicators (required and optional) and disaggregations countries apply. Substantial investment is required to collect the necessary data to compute indicators, infer change and effectively monitor progress. We highlight important next steps to progressively improve the efficacy of the monitoring framework.

Background: The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) formally recognized the sovereign rights of nations over their biological diversity. Implicit within the treaty is the idea that mega-biodiverse countries will provide genetic resources and grant access to them and scientists in high-income countries will use these resources and share back benefits. However, little research has been conducted on how this framework is reflected in real-life scientific practice. Result: Currently, parties to the CBD are debating whether digital sequence information (DSI) should be regulated under a new benefit-sharing framework. At this critical time point in the upcoming international negotiations, we test the fundamental hypothesis of provision and use of DSI by looking at the global patterns of access and use in scientific publications. Conclusion: Our data reject the provider-user relationship and suggest a far more complex information flow for DSI. Therefore, any new policy decisions on DSI should be aware of the high level of use of DSI across low- and middle-income countries and seek to preserve open access to this crucial common good.

Societal Impact Statement: The international conservation of biological diversity is addressed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and goals for the next decade will be discussed at the next Conference of the Parties. One issue under negotiation in the CBD is Digital Sequence Information (DSI), which has created tension between parties calling for preserving open access to DSI who also note its importance in addressing biodiversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals and those parties calling for fair and equitable benefit sharing from DSI. This article introduces scientists to the current debate and political process on DSI within the CBD.Summary: Most biologists take open access to sequence data for granted. This open system, while a hallmark of innovation and collaboration for the scientific community, is being called into question as some parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) assert that this access undermines their sovereign rights over their genetic resources and corresponding benefit sharing. The governance of sequence data and potentially other types of biological data, known in international policy circles as “Digital Sequence Information” (DSI), a placeholder term invented by negotiators, could be dramatically altered and ultimately change the way scientific research and publishing on sequence data is conducted. Many sequence‐using scientists are unfamiliar with the international political processes around DSI even though it could lead to irreversible decisions that might have significant impacts on research. This paper bridges that gap by providing an overview of the ongoing political process with a focus on the most recent studies on DSI commissioned by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and what these studies forecast about the political debate. With this information in hand, the scientific community can hopefully better engage with the political process and proactively promote evidence‐based decisions or even solutions that can bridge the demand for benefit sharing with the scientific need for open access to DSI.