The line between a biological sample and a digital dataset has never been thinner, and that makes the new legal questions around Digital Twins of the Ocean (DTOs) some of the most consequential for ocean governance today. A DTO is not a static map; it is a living, AI-driven replica of ocean systems that fuses real-time data from buoys, satellites, and genetic sequences into a single operational model. When that model generates new digital sequence information on marine genetic resources, who benefits, and how? The BBNJ Agreement, the landmark treaty for areas beyond national jurisdiction, set up a benefit-sharing framework for this kind of data, but it was drafted before DTOs existed. The result is a gap that threatens to undermine the very equity the treaty was designed to achieve.
We have long argued that validated ocean intelligence is the foundation for responsible decision-making, whether in energy transitions or biodiversity conservation. A DTO is the most ambitious expression of that principle yet: it integrates empirical, peer-reviewed data streams into a single calibrated environment. But the legal analysis confronting us reveals a hard truth. The current definition of digital sequence information in the BBNJ Agreement is too narrow to capture the hybrid, AI-generated outputs of a DTO. When a model fuses a genetic sequence with oceanographic data and produces a predictive indicator, is that output itself DSI? The treaty does not say. That ambiguity opens the door for data to be used commercially without the traceability that benefit-sharing depends on. This is not an abstract concern; the Mumbai Coastal Biodiversity Survey shows how critical on-the-ground validation remains, even as digital models become more powerful.
The practical stakes are clear. Researchers and policymakers who rely on DTOs for climate indicators or marine resource management must now operate in a legal grey zone where data rights are increasingly complex. A tiered periodic fee model, as proposed in the legal analysis, makes sense as a monetary benefit-sharing mechanism because it scales with the value the DTO generates, rather than trying to assign ownership to every fused data point. But the harder question is traceability. A DTO that processes data in real time and generates new information through AI does not leave a simple paper trail. Strengthening the Clearing-House Mechanism and building a traceability monitoring system that works at machine speed is not optional; it is the only way to ensure that benefit-sharing is measurable and enforceable.
The specific detail to watch is how the BBNJ Agreement's Conference of the Parties handles the definition of DSI at its first meeting. If it adopts a progressive, technology-neutral definition that accounts for AI-generated data, the treaty can evolve alongside the science. If it does not, the most advanced tool we have for ocean intelligence will operate outside the legal framework meant to ensure that its benefits are shared fairly. That would be a failure of governance, not of technology.