Everyone who thought that the COP16 in Cali, Colombia, would be the game changer on the issue of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is in for disappointment. Two meetings held in April prove this.
At the CBD or Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP16, a multilateral mechanism for sharing benefits earned from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources was put in place. The Cali Fund was established to receive and disburse funds. As of now, no member, industry or anyone otherwise has shown any interest in sharing benefits. This fund was launched in February.
It is early months but there is evidence that suggests that the conversation is shifting away from a robust system. There might be deliberate steps to gaslight efforts to implement.
To understand the trajectory of action, let us go back to 1992 when the CBD was adopted. At this time, it was accepted that countries and communities have sovereign rights over their biodiversity. The concept of access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits earned from their use was made integral to the convention.
But over the last three decades and more, there are very few examples of communities receiving benefits for sharing genetic resources. Digital sequence information, which can be used instead of the actual material and is freely available, makes ensuring that benefits are shared even more difficult.
What is of concern is that the weak systems set at COP16 have failed to provide any direction to the discussions taking place in other international foras. The discussion on ABS on both physical specimens and digital sequence information is of major importance for two UN agencies: World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
For years, these two organizations have deferred the decision on access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits arising from their use sharing to the CBD. ABS is an integral part of the Pandemic Agreement under discussion at WHO and a subscription system for benefit sharing being discussed as part of FAO’s International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
The World Health Organization is trying to figure out the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) under its Pandemic Agreement which is in the making since 2021 now. On April 16, 2025, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) finally managed to agree on a draft which will be discussed at the World Health Assembly in May. However, even though the document is likely to be adopted, the negotiations on an Annex detailing the PABS mechanism will continue after the assembly.
PABS is a system through which pharmaceutical corporations will allocate a portion of the resulting medical product for further supply to countries through WHO. During the negotiations, it was clear that the INB was leaning towards the industry. The proposed text guarantees only a 10 per cent donation while flexible access to another 20 per cent could be considered in a situation of pandemic emergency. Civil society had asked that at least 20 per cent of the supply should be guaranteed.
In April, benefit sharing was discussed at the Thirteenth meeting of FAO’s Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System too. This is part of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Here, a subscription-only system was discussed to ensure predictable benefit sharing by making users contribute annually, instead of waiting for them to commercialise. This was vetoed by developed countries such as Canada and the United States and the discussions are currently hung.
This does not bode well for the future of any of the three legal instruments. This is unfortunate at a time when the world is looking for solutions to ensure food security and health — two essentials in a climate-risked world. There is no doubt that the solutions will come from the natural world and unless there is a system for fair and equitable benefit sharing, there would always be uncertainties and delays in access.