Presentation short abstract

Digital Sequence Information technology enables the extraction of plant genetic data without the need to access physical resources. Existing laws on access and benefit sharing are unprepared, and global and national law-making processes are power fields entrenched in coloniality.

Presentation long abstract

Digital Sequence Information (DSI) has become one of the most contentious elements of contemporary biodiversity governance, challenging legal frameworks designed for the exchange of physical plant genetic resources (‘PGR’). While the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol assert that States exercise sovereignty over tangible biological materials, DSI enables the access, use, and commodification of genetic information through intellectual property, even without any physical transfer of PGR. This renders existing Access and Benefit-Sharing mechanisms increasingly ineffective. Efforts to regulate DSI are further complicated by a ‘regime complex’ of overlapping treaties and shifting negotiating forums.

Such fragmentation is also mirrored in the national governance of PGR. In India, the Biological Diversity Act operates alongside overlapping agricultural, scientific, and trade rules. Similarly, in Bolivia, laws recognising the rights of Mother Earth sit uneasily alongside conflicting regulations that prioritise trade and commercial interests, making effective implementation difficult. A political ecology lens reveals that DSI governance is not merely a technical challenge, but a continuation of colonial and neoliberal power hierarchies mediated through biotechnology, intellectual property and global market logics. Although India and Bolivia formally articulate sovereignist, postcolonial, and farmers' rights-centred approaches, both remain embedded in colonial legal architectures where technologically and economically powerful actors continue to dominate law-making spaces.

Historically, the shift from viewing plant genetic resources as the “common heritage of humankind” to national sovereignty was intended to redistribute control. This presentation questions the possibilities for regulatory coherence in a system shaped by technological asymmetries and enduring coloniality.