BBNJ Batch Identifier
A String of Characters Could Democratise Ocean Science.
Published on the 12 December 2025 by Dr Angelique Pouponneau, Dr Judith Gobin and Sheena Talma
Dr Diva Amon (left) and Professor Judith Gobin (right) measuring Bathymodiolus mussels sampled from the cold seeps. Photo credit: Dr Diva Amon.
In 1951, researchers collected a Caribbean sponge and changed cancer treatment forever. The sponge, Cryptotethya crypta, yielded unusual nucleosides, spongouridine and spongothymidine, that provided the template for synthesising cytarabine in the laboratory. By 1969, cytarabine became the first marine-derived anticancer agent approved by the FDA, used to treat meningeal leukaemia.
Caribbean scientists were absent from every stage of that journey, from collection to isolation to synthesis to clinical application. The benefits flowed elsewhere entirely.
The BBNJ Standardised Batch Identifier (SBI) is designed to ensure the Common Heritage of Humankind does not become another story of extraction without inclusion.
When the BBNJ Agreement enters into force in January 2026, this string of letters and numbers, generated through the Clearing-House Mechanism, will do what decades of ocean governance failed to achieve: bring transparency to a world that has long belonged to a privileged few. For the first time, there will be a systematic record of who is collecting marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, what they are collecting, and crucially, what opportunities exist for scientists from developing States to participate.
The SBI is more than an administrative tool. It is a mechanism designed to enable equity, justice, and meaningful universal participation in the benefits flowing from the ocean's genetic wealth. And here is the critical point: you do not have to be physically present on the high seas to benefit. Whether through monetary benefit-sharing or non-monetary opportunities in research, training, and technology transfer, the SBI creates a thread connecting collection activities to the communities and scientists who should share in their outcomes.
The Wrong We Are Trying to Right
For decades, Caribbean scientists have watched what Professor Judith Gobin of the University of the West Indies (now retired) describes as 'research ships passing in the night.' That is to say, vessels transiting regional waters, collecting specimens, and departing without engagement with local institutions or scientists. Years later, these same Caribbean scientists would discover through publications that valuable pharmaceuticals or scientific breakthroughs had emerged from organisms collected in their region. The Cryptotethya crypta story is not an anomaly; it is a pattern.
This is often referred to as parachute science. Marine biologist Dr Asha de Vos is emphatic about what this means in practice: 'Do not arrive in a country with a grant looking for an implementing partner; work with potential partners to write the proposal so all parties are on board if the grant is successful.' Similar practices take place in areas beyond national jurisdiction where the resource holder wields unequal power and often controls the narrative and research agenda.
This principle cuts to the heart of what the BBNJ Agreement is attempting to address. A notification sent six months before departure, after the cruise is designed, funded, and staffed, may already be too late for a genuine partnership. In fact, the design of research cruise missions may have been finalised some two years before.
Professor Judith Gobin's Perspective
In 2014, researchers aboard the E/V Nautilus discovered cold seeps off Trinidad's coast and with them, a new species of deep-sea tubeworm. That species now bears the name Lamellibrachia judigobini, honouring Professor Judith Gobin, the Trinidad and Tobago marine scientist who was aboard for the discovery. It is a small measure of recognition for what Caribbean participation in deep-sea science can yield when the door is opened.
But how that door opened is instructive. When Gobin became the first Caribbean marine scientist to join the Nautilus in 2013, there was no formal notification system, no Clearing-House Mechanism alerting regional scientists to opportunities. The invitation came through a regional network of South American Coastal ecosystem scientists (SARCE), and specifically through Professor Patricia Miloslavich, who extended it because she felt it was important to have a Caribbean scientist on board. The following year, Dr Diva Amon joined the expedition. It was again through networks, relationships, and someone deciding representation mattered.
This is precisely what the BBNJ SBI seeks to address: replacing informal pathways that depend on who you know with systematic transparency about who is collecting what, and where opportunities exist.
Gobin, who served as CARICOM's marine science advisor throughout the BBNJ negotiations and continues advising on implementation, is direct about what operationalising Articles 12(2)(h) and (i) requires. On opportunities for participation, she emphasises that "SIDS scientists must be included and given opportunities to actively participate in deep-sea cruises, MGR and DSI training. True capacity needs to be built for sustainability, not tokenism. The region now has an increased number of qualified young marine scientists; the infrastructure to connect them to opportunities has been what's missing."
On technical assistance, she advocates for regional approaches: "Technical assistance can be provided at a CARICOM level; this will result in building expertise that is appropriate and that can be sustained. At the same time, institutional capacity can be built at a regional level to create centres of excellence."
And on the harder question of what it would take for Caribbean scientists to lead rather than merely participate? Gobin sees the foundations already in place. "We now have some very qualified marine scientists. The expertise across the region continues to grow, and the Caribbean can now certainly lead in specific areas as we move forward." Twelve years of engagement in the BBNJ process have built capacity not just in marine science but across legal, environmental impact assessment, and policy domains.
The trajectory from Gobin's 2013 invitation to her current role advising on treaty implementation suggests what is possible when participation is sustained. But it should not require a decade and the right personal connections. The SBI promises that the next generation of Caribbean marine scientists will not need to wait for someone to feel it is important to include them; the system itself will make inclusion visible, expected, and ultimately, routine.
What the Notification Requirements Demand
Article 12(2) of the BBNJ Agreement establishes the information that must be submitted to the Clearing-House Mechanism six months or as early as possible before collecting marine genetic resources. Sub-paragraphs (h) and (i) speak directly to the participation question. Researchers must notify 'opportunities for scientists of all States, in particular scientists from developing States, to be involved in or associated with the project' and 'the extent to which it is considered that States that may need and request technical assistance, in particular developing States, should be able to participate or to be represented in the project.'
But Article 14(2) adds crucial substance to what participation might actually mean. Non-monetary benefits, the Agreement specifies, shall include 'capacity-building, including by financing research programmes, and partnership opportunities, particularly directly relevant and substantial ones, for scientists and researchers in research projects, as well as dedicated initiatives, in particular for developing States.' It includes 'increased technical and scientific cooperation, in particular with scientists from and scientific institutions in developing States.'
Read together, these provisions suggest something more ambitious than a seat on a research vessel. They envision partnership opportunities that are 'directly relevant and substantial,' language that implies meaningful scientific collaboration rather than token participation. The question is whether the operational framework will deliver on this promise.
It is worth pausing to acknowledge what negotiators achieved. These notification requirements were hard-won. Earlier drafts of the Agreement contained no such provisions; some delegations argued that imposing conditions on marine scientific research would chill the very activities that generate knowledge about ocean biodiversity. The compromise was notification rather than prior consent, six months rather than a year, 'as early as possible' rather than a fixed timeline reflecting the political reality of what could be agreed. The alternative was not stronger provisions; it was no provisions at all. What we have is a foundation, and foundations can be built upon.
The Six-Month Question
The Agreement requires notification six months prior to collection, or 'as early as possible.' For a scientist from a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) to realistically join an expedition, six months may be barely adequate and 'as early as possible' could mean considerably less. Research cruises require months of planning. Berths are limited. Institutional approvals move slowly. People have lives to reorient.
And de Vos highlights another practical barrier that the Agreement does not address: 'most researchers in low-income/developing countries do not always have the freedom to travel and conduct research across the globe due to weaker passports and resulting visa restrictions.' Even if a SIDS scientist receives notification and is selected, can they obtain the necessary visa in time for a six-month turnaround? These restrictions mean limited opportunities to participate, regardless of scientific merit or interest.
But who can actually take these opportunities? Extended research cruises demand flexibility. Many scientists cannot drop everything for four weeks—they have teaching obligations, family responsibilities, or institutions that will not cover their absence. A mid-semester expedition is no opportunity at all if you cannot access it. And will anyone compensate participating scientists? If so, who pays?
Once there is notification of the opportunity through the Clearing-House Mechanism, then what? The Clearing-House Mechanism should have a dashboard where these opportunities can be seen, and with a clear process for application. This raises the question: will the individual scientist be able to subscribe to alerts for such capacity-building opportunities, or will the State receive the alert and then nominate an applicant to participate? Or will the match-making function enable countries to register their interest in research vessels and be informed when such opportunities arise?
Who Decides?
Once we get past the notification, the question becomes: who decides which scientists receive these opportunities? The answer, seemingly, is the State sponsoring the research cruise or the principal investigator, that is, the very actors who already control the vessels, the funding, and the research agenda. The Agreement provides some guidance: Article 14(2)(f) specifies that the special circumstances of SIDS and LDCs should be taken into account. But what does this mean in practice?
Should scientists from SIDS and LDCs be prioritised when opportunities are allocated? Or does it mean the application process itself should be designed to accommodate capacity constraints through shorter forms, flexible timelines, and support for visa applications? Without clearer operational guidance, the discretion remains with those who have historically not extended their collaborative energy southward.
The question is not whether the treaty permits equitable allocation. It does. The question is whether those who control the vessels will interpret it that way without being required to. Good intentions in treaty text do not automatically translate into changed behaviour at the level of research planning. Discretion, without accountability, tends to reproduce the patterns it inherits.
Participation or Leadership?
The BBNJ Agreement enables participation, but it does not address the structural barriers that prevent developing country scientists from leading research. There is a deeper question buried in the implementation details: have these provisions gone far enough?
The language throughout speaks of 'participation,' 'involvement,' 'association,' and 'representation.' But participation is not leadership. Being invited onto someone else's research cruise is not the same as designing, funding, and executing your own scientific programme.
A 2021 study by Tolochko and Vadrot, analysing nearly three decades of marine biodiversity research publications, illuminates why this distinction matters. The researchers introduced the concept of 'collaboration capital': the share of international scientific collaboration that countries allocate to one another. Their findings are stark. European countries direct 76% of their significant scientific collaborations to other European countries, building dense intra-regional networks. Between 2010 and 2018, the United States received the largest share of collaboration capital from 83 different countries; a dominance that actually increased over time. The researchers call these dominant actors 'the usual suspects': institutions positioned in a way that makes it structurally difficult for others to gain better positions in the field. They are not just producing more science; they are gatekeepers of the networks through which science flows.
The Global North collaborates intensively with its neighbours; it does not extend that same collaborative energy southward.
When scientists from the Global South engage in international collaboration, the pathways also lead north—not necessarily because of preference, but because that is where the vessels, the funding, the laboratory infrastructure, and the publication pipelines are controlled.
The practical reality of high seas research remains, for now, unchanged by these provisions. The institutions with the vessels, the equipment, the funding, and the established research programmes will continue to set the agenda. A scientist from Seychelles or Trinidad and Tobago may now have better access to a berth on that vessel, but they remain guests in a system designed and controlled by others. The fundamental question of who funds these missions, who has the institutional capacity to lead them, and whose scientific priorities they serve remains largely unaddressed.
This principle that working outside one's home is a privilege, not a right, challenges the very structure of how high seas science has been conducted. The BBNJ Agreement creates opportunities within an existing system; it does not restructure that system. Whether participation can eventually evolve into leadership depends on whether the operational framework is designed with that transformation in mind.
Sheena Talma's Perspective
While Sheena Talma became the first Seychelloise woman to sail the Southern Ocean, no formal notification system or institutional pipeline got her there. She built her path, she reflects, on tenacity and the perceived audacity to ask—asking for a place on vessels, asking to join research teams, pursuing roles that no one traditionally offered to young Seychellois scientists, let alone women.
That willingness to ask, combined with mentorship, regional collaboration, and saying "yes" to unfamiliar challenges, shaped a career that now spans high seas and EEZ research across the ocean basins. Working at the intersection of Seychelles' marine science and policy spaces created opportunities to bridge research and decision-making, positioning Talma to take part in and eventually co-lead expeditions. She currently serves as scientific advisor to the Seychelles government on BBNJ implementation.
But she is clear-eyed about the barriers that make her path difficult to replicate and that the BBNJ Agreement must address if its provisions are to deliver meaningful change.
Access to research opportunities in the region, Talma explains, is often shaped by unequal networks, visibility, and nomination systems that disadvantage early-career scientists, particularly those from small island states. Participation is frequently confirmed with very short notice, leaving little time for researchers to develop their own project ideas, secure funding, or adequately prepare. "Consequently, they often join expeditions as unpaid support staff rather than scientific leads, with limited influence over research design or long-term data use."
These challenges are compounded by restricted access to vessels, equipment, and reliable funding pathways, which hinder local scientists' ability to raise grants or conduct follow-up analyses. The result: leadership of publications and scientific outputs remains in the hands of external teams, reinforcing existing power imbalances, "…and furthering the idea that regional scientists should be grateful to have even been given a berth on the vessel."
On what would make the BBNJ notification system work in practice, Talma is specific. "The system needs to be transparent and predictable, with clear timelines, clear requirements, and an open process that allows anyone qualified, not just those already within government structures, to apply." Too often, she notes, opportunities are gatekept and limited to internal staff; that must change nationally if the system is to work equitably.
Notification must also come with real capacity support. This means "dedicated funding not only for analysing the data but also for storing it nationally or in an accessible regional space where it can contribute to long-term scientific leadership." And above all, the system must be grounded in trust: trust that coastal states will be informed early enough to prepare, trust that support will be available when needed, and trust that participation will translate into meaningful scientific involvement rather than tokenistic inclusion.
On whether she has experienced the difference between participation and leadership, Talma is reflective. She has gone from watching expeditions from the sidelines to taking on prominent leadership roles. This shift required confidence, preparation, and navigating resistance, "especially as a young SIDS, African woman working in a space still primarily dominated by voices from the Global North."
These experiences have strengthened her view that capacity sharing must go well beyond traditional training. "What is needed are systems that create genuine leadership pathways for scientists from SIDS and across Africa, rather than limiting them to observer roles or extra hands on board."
But Talma also turns the lens inward. "We must recognise the barriers we create for ourselves: we don't always see the potential within our own people, and as states, we don't always assertively advocate for our scientists to take on leadership positions. Too often, the region accepts a follower role by default, even though the talent, expertise, and ambition to lead are already present."
This is the structural problem the SBI must solve, and Talma's honesty about internal as well as external barriers suggests that solving it will require change on both sides. The notification system can create visibility and access. Whether SIDS seize that access as an opportunity for leadership, rather than accepting participation as enough, is a question only they can answer.
Recommendations for Effective Implementation
Based on the structural analysis above and the experiences of SIDS scientists, the following measures could help ensure the BBNJ notification requirements deliver meaningful outcomes:
- Establish proactive alert systems: The Clearing-House Mechanism should enable States to register areas of scientific interest and expertise, automatically notifying relevant national focal points when matching opportunities are posted. There should be opportunities for individual scientists and scientific institutions in the developing States to register interest in being notified of such opportunities. Such features are essential to ensuring notifications translate into awareness.
- Address financial barriers through the Special Fund: The Special Fund established under Article 52 should consider supporting participation costs for developing State scientists as part of its capacity-building scope. This could include travel, equipment, and compensation for time away from primary employment.
- Create joint accountability between the ABS and CBTMT Committees: The Access and Benefit-Sharing Committee and the Capacity-Building and Transfer of Marine Technology Committee should work together to monitor whether notified opportunities result in actual participation. Currently, the cruise principal investigator may never be asked whether someone from a developing State actually joined. The Committees should develop mechanisms to track real outcomes, not just notifications. Participating in a cruise should not be the goal, but rather a long-term strategy for capacity-building for developing States. Is the participant subsequently authoring or co-authoring publications?
- Enable flexible participation models: Recognise that not all capacity-building, in line with the Agreement, requires physical presence on vessels. Remote participation in data analysis, sample processing, laboratory work, or publication co-authorship can deliver meaningful scientific collaboration. Article 14(2)'s reference to 'partnership opportunities' should be interpreted broadly.
- Prioritise regional scientific cooperation: The evidence shows that regional research networks in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean are severely underdeveloped compared to the dense networks European countries have built among themselves (Tolochko and Vadrot, 2021). Capacity-building measures under the BBNJ Agreement should actively foster regional-scale cooperation, encouraging scientists from neighbouring countries to collaborate on high seas research. This could include regional training programmes, shared research infrastructure, and joint proposals for participation in international expeditions.
- Changing Mindsets: Access carries responsibility. Those who benefit from opportunities to conduct research in areas beyond national jurisdiction should commit to making science more diverse through concrete actions: co-authorship, training, equipment sharing, and advocacy within their institutions for inclusive research practices.
The BBNJ SBI represents a genuine advance: transparency where there was opacity, notification where there was silence. But transparency is a precondition for equity, not equity itself. Whether the BBNJ SBI delivers on its promise depends on decisions that will be made in the coming months as the Clearing-House Mechanism takes shape and the Conference of the Parties establishes operational guidelines.
Part II of the BBNJ Agreement represents aspiration; implementation will determine whether participation becomes partnership, and whether partnership eventually becomes leadership. The scientists who read this piece already know what is at stake. What remains to be seen is whether those who design the Clearing-House Mechanism, and those who use it, choose to build the system the ocean's excluded scientists have been waiting for.
______________________________________
References
de Vos, A. (2022). Stowing parachutes, strengthening science. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(5), e12709.
de Vos, A. (2025). 20. Building equal partnerships for conservation success. Navigating our way to solutions in marine conservation, 297.
Tolochko, P. & Vadrot, A.B.M. (2021). The usual suspects? Distribution of collaboration capital in marine biodiversity research. Marine Policy, 124, 104318.
The CSDR is leading research focused on legal and governance elements to support the establishment of the BBNJ. This includes serving as the Secretariat to the BBNJ Expert Advisory Group. The Advisory Group was convened to provide independent expert analysis and thought leadership on the design and implementation of Article 52 of the BBNJ Agreement.
The Advisory Group brings together global experts with diverse geographical and gender perspectives and specialised knowledge in international finance, ocean governance, and environmental law. Access papers and guidance from the BBNJ Advisory Group and further information.
Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM)
This is the central hub (database) for the BBNJ Agreement.
Its main job is to share information and manage data across the treaty's key areas:
- Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs): Tracks research plans and sample data.
- Ocean Protection: Manages data on proposed and existing protected areas.
- Impact Review: Publishes reports on Environmental Impact Assessments.
- Support: Connects countries needing ocean technology and training with those offering it.
BBNJ Standardised Batch Identifier (SBI)
The SBI is a unique digital code generated by the CHM. It is the key to tracing ocean resources.
Function: This code acts as a group ID tag for all genetic samples and digital data (DSI) collected during a single, approved research trip.
Purpose: The SBI must stay linked to the samples and data in databases, publications, and commercial products. This makes their use transparent, ensuring that benefits are shared fairly in line with the treaty.
The Relationship
The CHM creates the SBI.
When a country plans an ocean research trip and notifies the CHM, the CHM automatically issues a unique SBI for that entire collection. The SBI is the digital chain of custody that enables the CHM to monitor the resources globally.
Read more about the BBNJ