


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

178 
 

Original Paper 

The Response of the Codification of the Eco-Environmental 

Code to the ―Mainstreaming of Biodiversity‖ Objective in the 

GBF 

Xilai Li
1
 

1
 Xiangtan University, XiangTan, China 

 

Received: September 12, 2025   Accepted: September 19, 2025   Online Published: October 2, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elp.v8n2p178               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v8n2p178 

 

Abstract 

The subsequent international negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 

Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework are approaching. China’s ecological civilization 

construction is advancing vigorously, and the draft of the Ecological Environment Code has been 

formulated for public consultation. Against the backdrop of these critical historical milestones, both 

domestic and international processes resonate with the priority area of “biodiversity mainstreaming” 

outlined in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2023-2030). The content of this priority 

area mainly involves two major directions: establishing a legal and regulatory system related to 

biodiversity, and drafting regulations on access and benefit-sharing of biological genetic resources. To 

meet the localized objective of “biodiversity mainstreaming,” the Ecological Environment Code, which 

is philosophically grounded in “harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,” must also 

respond to issues related to this priority area. This includes formulating rules on benefit-sharing of 

digital sequence information on genetic resources and establishing a “biodiversity credit market 

mechanism.” Such measures will not only promote the integrated development of ecological 

civilization construction and biodiversity conservation in China but also help shape the international 

discourse on China’s concept of “ecological civilization.” 

Keywords 

ecological civilization construction, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, digital 

sequence information on genetic resources, Ecological Environment Code 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

179 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

Originating from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de 

Janeiro, Brazil, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has, over more than 30 years of 

development, progressively established key objectives including ―the conservation of biological 

diversity,‖ ―the sustainable use of its components,‖ and ―the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits 

arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.‖ At the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties (COP15), China put forward consensus-building concepts such as ―ecological civilization,‖ 

―exploring a path of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,‖ ―working together to build 

a community of all life on Earth,‖ and ―a community with a shared future for humanity.‖ China also 

announced the establishment of the Kunming Biodiversity Fund to address funding challenges faced by 

developing countries in implementing the Convention and played a leading role in the successful 

adoption of the ―Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework‖ (GBF) and a package of 

associated decisions. This has resulted in a combined and diversified system of international 

biodiversity law characterized by ―convention-protocol-framework‖ interactions and a blend of ―hard 

law and soft law.‖ The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) also supports the 

revision and update of China‘s ―National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan‖ (hereinafter referred 

to as the ―Strategy and Action Plan‖), the implementation of concrete action targets, and the normative 

preparation on specific issues to enable localized regulatory responses. In particular, Priority Area  

(Mainstreaming Biodiversity) under Chapter 4 of the ―Strategy and Action Plan‖ proposes the 

establishment of a policy and regulatory system for biodiversity, especially through the research and 

drafting of regulations on access to and benefit-sharing of biological genetic resources. Currently, a 

draft of the ―Ecological Environment Code‖ has been prepared for public consultation. Within this 

draft, the sections on ecological conservation and legal responsibilities are expected to respond to the 

content related to the ―mainstreaming biodiversity‖ priority area outlined in the ―Strategy and Action 

Plan,‖ which is aligned with the CBD-GBF structure. Particular attention should be given to issues 

such as digital sequence information on genetic resources. 

 

2. Issues Related to the “Mainstreaming of Biodiversity” Objective: Core Controversies Over 

Benefit-Sharing   

Prior to the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, developing countries 

insisted on suspending negotiations until progress was made on financial issues. These financial issues 

include matters related to digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. This indicates that 

the issue of DSI cannot be overlooked in the process of achieving the ―mainstreaming of biodiversity‖ 

objective. Furthermore, China‘s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) lists 

benefit-sharing of traditional genetic resources as Priority Area 3 (Action 19). However, this does not 

fully encompass the scope of the issue. Therefore, the NBSAP also incorporates this matter into 

Priority Area 1 (Priority Action 1: Policy and Legal Framework for Biodiversity). Thus, it is essential 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

180 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

to clarify the issue of benefit-sharing related to DSI on genetic resources in the context of the 

―mainstreaming of biodiversity‖ objective.   

2.1 Controversies over Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Genetic Resources   

At the COP6 meeting in The Hague in April 2002, the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic 

Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Their Utilization were adopted, 

establishing the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) system. However, developing countries argued that the 

objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) could not be effectively implemented, 

particularly in preventing the unjust appropriation of benefits from genetic resources. The CBD lacked 

appropriate mechanisms to curb illegal transnational bioprospecting activities. Moreover, as a soft law 

instrument, the Bonn Guidelines are not legally binding on Contracting Parties. Subsequently, at 

COP10 in 2010, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable 

Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity 

(hereinafter referred to as the ―Nagoya Protocol‖) was adopted, introducing ―The Aichi biodiversity 

Targets.‖  

From a phased perspective, the Nagoya Protocol incorporated relevant experience from the Bonn 

Guidelines, particularly regarding the scope of protected subjects. In addition to genetic resources, it 

also extends to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. As a hard law instrument, it 

explicitly establishes the obligation for user countries to ensure that utilization within their jurisdiction 

complies with the requirements of the Protocol. It is elevated to the status of hard law, explicitly 

establishing that resource-user states are also obligated to ensure that resource use within their 

jurisdiction complies with the provisions of the protocol. However, the fulfillment of these 

obligations—specifically, how compliance is ensured—still requires the development and operation of 

a subsequent, fully elaborated compliance mechanism. The significance of the Nagoya Protocol lies in 

several aspects. First, it clarifies the transnational nature of genetic resources. Second, it imposes more 

detailed obligations on both provider and user countries, aiming to strike a balance. Additionally, the 

interests of non-governmental organizations and groups, particularly academic and research institutions, 

are given greater attention, and they are to be treated differently from commercial users. Unfortunately, 

the disclosure requirement strongly advocated by provider countries was not incorporated into the final 

text.   

In summary, the fundamental point of contention regarding access to genetic resources and 

benefit-sharing is that genetic resources have increasingly become the material basis for developed 

industrialized countries to obtain patents or new plant and animal varieties, while developing countries 

have derived minimal benefits from this process. Consequently, developing countries have begun to 

emphasize national sovereignty over biological genetic resources. Since the inception of the CBD, after 

nearly two decades of intense negotiations and compromises, a fragile international framework for 

access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing—the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) 

mechanism—has ultimately been established. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

181 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2.2 Controversies over Establishing a Benefit-Sharing Mechanism for Digital Sequence Information on 

Genetic Resources   

The information and communication technology revolution in the digital age has fundamentally 

transformed how people connect and interact, bringing about radical changes in production and 

lifestyle, and leading to profound social shifts. Data itself, as a new factor of production, now directly 

participates in the production process, altering the traditional way value is created. Digital Sequence 

Information on Genetic Resources is a product of this data era. It also directly engages in production 

processes and has changed conventional value-creation methods, thereby impacting the fragile 

international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing. Of particular concern is the 

issue of ―Digital-mediated Bio-piracy of Biological Resources.‖ 

DSI, as an operational entity of genetic information in digital space, possesses the characteristics of 

accountability, specificity, and transfer-ability. The rapid growth in the volume of DSI has directly 

spurred the emergence of a new data-driven research paradigm for scientific discovery in the life 

sciences. The application of DSI has expanded the boundaries of understanding life sciences and given 

rise to numerous emerging bio-industries, such as drug design, vaccine development, and genetic 

testing. From the perspective of biodiversity conservation, access to and utilization of DSI can provide 

new research avenues and more technological options for the protection and sustainable use of genetic 

resources, as well as for bio-security management and risk prevention. Specifically, DSI holds 

significant application value in areas such as the description and identification of biodiversity, 

biological classification, monitoring habitat changes, invasive species monitoring and early control, 

tracking illegal trade, determining product origin, planning conservation management, mitigating risks 

to threatened species, crop breeding and improvement, maintaining crop genetic diversity, pest control, 

and understanding pollination patterns. 

The impact of DSI on the international regime for access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing is 

manifested in several ways: First, there is the challenge of identifying the source of sequences and 

defining the original providers. Genetic digital sequence information often cannot be traced back to a 

specific biological source, and this issue becomes more complex as sequences are modified. Second, 

monitoring digital sequence information is far more difficult than monitoring traditional genetic 

resources, as the origin of sequences can be obscured over time through modifications. Third, valuing 

DSI is problematic—the value derived from individual sequences is difficult to quantify. Digital 

sequences can be regularly modified and reused indefinitely, raising questions about benefit-sharing for 

each transaction they generate. 

Although a subsequent decision adopted at COP16 formally established a multilateral mechanism for 

benefit-sharing from DSI, including the creation of the ―Cali Fund‖ to ensure the equitable distribution 

of benefits arising from the utilization of DSI, challenges remain. The mechanism stipulates that users 

of digital sequence information on genetic resources should contribute 1% of their profits or 0.1% of 

their revenue, as an indicative scale, to the global fund, based on their size. This model also includes 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

182 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

provisions for non-monetary benefit-sharing and terms for entities operating databases, tools, and 

models that rely on DSI. However, developed countries advocate for open access, while developing 

countries emphasize national sovereignty and benefit-sharing, leading to ongoing conflicts in 

negotiations. Moreover, the current DSI benefit-sharing mechanism lacks legal enforce-ability, relying 

instead on voluntary implementation by contracting parties. Its effectiveness, including the scale of the 

fund and the distribution of benefits, will require periodic evaluation in the future. 

 

3. Prerequisites for Achieving the “Mainstreaming of Biodiversity” Objective in the 

Kunming-Montreal Framework 

3.1 Ideological Foundation: Shaping International Discourse on “Harmonious Coexistence between 

Humans and Nature” 

As the president of COP15, China centered the conference around the theme ―Ecological Civilization: 

Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth.‖ This philosophy, which prioritizes the common 

interests of all humanity, holds the moral high ground and helps counteract narrow national interests, 

compelling all parties to collaborate on addressing global issues.
 
 

However, Western countries, leveraging their inherent influence in international institutions, continue 

to dominate the global discourse on systemic environmental solutions and green governance. 

Influenced by counter currents such as anti-globalization, populism, and trade protectionism, some 

Western nations exhibit skepticism, resistance, and exclusion toward China‘s concept of ecological 

civilization governance. This is particularly evident in divergent understandings of ―ecocentrism‖ 

within ecological civilization construction. Western ―ecocentrism‖ emphasizes placing the overall 

interests of ecosystems above human interests, representing a critical reconstruction based on 

―rights-based‖ thinking. In contrast, China‘s interpretation of ecological relations leans toward a 

political philosophy of ―harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,‖ reflecting a relational 

approach focused on ―balanced symbiosis.‖ 

Therefore, China‘s theory of socialist ecological civilization is structured around the organic unity of 

historical materialism‘s political economy and philosophical research paradigms. Through COP15 and 

the Kunming-Montreal Framework, China has attempted to reshape the international discourse on 

global environmental solutions and green governance. Specifically, it aligns with the green theories of 

ecological justice advocated by other developing countries while offering ―Chinese wisdom‖ as an 

option to bridge the ―North-South divide‖ and establish a more just and equitable global environmental 

governance order. Under the guidance of China‘s international discourse system of ―ecological 

civilization‖ as ―harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,‖ the mainstreaming of 

biodiversity is expected to achieve further substantive progress. More importantly, this provides the 

ideological prerequisite for realizing China‘s goal of ―mainstreaming biodiversity.‖ 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

183 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.2 Policy Framework Prerequisite: Constructing a Legal and Regulatory System for Biodiversity   

The Kunming-Montreal Framework builds on the provisions of the CBD and also touches upon the 

Cartage Protocol on Bio-safety and the Nagoya Protocol. Its innovations lie in its concepts, form, logic, 

and content, which collectively advance the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable 

use to varying degrees. Among its action targets, Target 13 explicitly calls on countries to establish or 

strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks related to biodiversity as appropriate. In response to Target 

13 of the Kunming-Montreal Framework, China has revised its National Biodiversity Strategy and 

Action Plan (NBSAP). Chapter 4, Priority Area one (Priority Action 1), explicitly emphasizes the need 

to develop a policy and legal system for biodiversity. Priority Action outlines a three-pronged approach: 

improving coordinated mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, establishing joint promotion 

mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and governance in key strategic regions, and constructing a 

―1+N‖ policy system for biodiversity governance. Under this national policy layout, it is essential to 

first examine China‘s existing legal system and stay updated on legislative and scientific developments 

to address current challenges effectively. 

China has already enacted laws such as the Yangtze River Protection Law, the Yellow River Protection 

Law, the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Ecological Protection Law, and the Wetland Protection Law. These 

laws have improved the administrative supervision and management system for biodiversity, initially 

establishing a ―multi-stakeholder co-governance and collaborative protection‖ mechanism for key 

ecological regions. Currently, a draft of the National Parks Law has been formulated. This law adopts a 

systematic approach to legislation for protected areas, designing its framework and arranging relevant 

institutions rationally. The legislative design authorizes national park management agencies to exercise 

centralized and unified resource management and environmental enforcement powers within park 

boundaries. This indicates that China is building a ―protected area system with national parks as the 

core‖ to achieve biodiversity conservation. In summary, legislation on protected areas and laws for 

special regions form a ―general-specific‖ relationship, providing an integrated direction and framework 

for improving the legal system of ―mainstreaming biodiversity.‖ 

However, there are still gaps. China‘s reforms on ecological and environmental damage compensation 

have not addressed compensation for damages caused by biodiversity loss and degradation. The 

valuation and accounting of biodiversity have not been integrated into administrative decision-making, 

and a bio safety risk prevention and control system remains to be established, with no categorized 

institutional arrangements in place. The main reason for this omission is the ongoing controversy over 

the conceptual and legal nature of ―ecological restoration.‖ Additionally, the Civil Code, confined to 

private law theory, exhibits limitations in addressing ―biodiversity loss‖ within ecological and 

environmental damage compensation, as seen in Articles 1234 and 1235 and their interpretations. Only 

―permanent loss of ecological environmental functions‖ is eligible for relief, which does not fully 

encompass the concept of ―biodiversity loss.‖ Finally, assessing such losses in practice faces numerous 

difficulties. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

184 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.3 Legal Tools for Achieving the “Mainstreaming of Biodiversity” Objective in the Kunming-Montreal 

Framework   

3.3.1 Optimization of the Draft Regulations on Access to and Benefit-Sharing of Biological Genetic 

Resources   

In accordance with Target 13 of the Kunming-Montreal Framework, Priority Action 2 under Priority 

Area 1 in Chapter 4 of the NBSAP explicitly calls for in-depth research and drafting of regulations on 

access to and benefit-sharing of biological genetic resources. As early as 2017, China released a draft 

of the Regulations on Access to and Benefit-Sharing of Biological Genetic Resources for public 

comment. However, it was not promulgated due to various reasons.   

Currently, China‘s system for access to and benefit-sharing of biological genetic resources is not fully 

established and faces challenges posed by DSI-related issues. There is significant room for optimizing 

the draft regulations. 

First, the legislative purpose and basic principles need expansion. The draft was formulated to 

implement the Nagoya Protocol. Based on current international developments and the realities of DSI, 

it should incorporate relevant requirements of the Kunming-Montreal Framework, particularly 

methodologies, rights fields, and values such as the ―whole-of-government and whole-of-society 

approach,‖ ―cooperation and synergy,‖ ―human rights-based approach,‖ and ―One Health approach.‖ 

Second, the content of investigation and protection planning requires optimization. The draft stipulates 

the establishment and updating of a national database for biological genetic resources. Currently, 

China‘s National Center for Bio-information has certain infrastructure capabilities aligned with 

international standards. However, challenges remain, such as fragmented data storage, insufficient data 

sharing and utilization, and the lack of a scientific evaluation system for data value. Third, regarding 

benefit-sharing of biological genetic resources, the draft should include a multilateral mechanism for 

benefit-sharing from the use of DSI, as well as alternative measures for revenue generation at different 

stages of the value chain and the feasibility of implementing these measures. Specifically, it is 

necessary to classify and categorize DSI data and, based on these classifications, simulate revenue 

generation measures at different value chain stages to establish a benefit-sharing mechanism for DSI 

under various scenarios. 

3.3.2 Strengthening the Response of the ―Ecological Environment Code‖ to the ―Mainstreaming of 

Biodiversity‖ Objective   

As a ―sector-specific‖ code, the Ecological Environment Code must consider the appropriate extent and 

the central logical of ―mainstreaming biodiversity‖—that is, how and to what degree ―mainstreaming 

biodiversity‖ should be integrated into the code. The code constructs a broad concept of ―ecological 

environment‖ under the concept of ―comprehensive environmental protection,‖ encompassing the three 

narrower concepts of ―environment,‖ ―ecology,‖ and ―resources,‖ The concept of ―mainstreaming 

biodiversity‖ is broad. From the perspective of the code‘s responsive purpose and based on rational 

reasoning, it is more reliable to integrate the connotations of ―mainstreaming biodiversity‖ through the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

185 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

two narrower concepts of ―ecology‖ and ―resources.‖ 

This is because the concept of ―environment‖ in the code‘s context is linked to ―pollution prevention 

and control‖ and is the core concept of the pollution control section. The two concepts of ―ecology‖ 

and ―resources‖ are increasingly converging. Under the premise of downplaying ―resources,‖ limiting 

―ecology,‖ strengthening ecological protection, and organizing by elements and spaces (regions), the 

ecological protection section is structured with general provisions (element protection) followed by 

special provisions (regional protection), balancing utilization control, protection and improvement, and 

restoration and governance. It makes unified arrangements from the perspective of holistic ecosystem 

protection, constructing the ecological protection section. The ecological protection section uses 

―natural ecology‖ as its foundational concept, ―ecological priority‖ as its value orientation, and 

―coordinated governance‖ as its governance principal, building a normative and institutional system 

suited to holistic ecological protection. This aligns with the NBSAP (2023-2030), which establishes 4 

principles, 3 strategic positioning, 2 objectives, 4 priority areas, and 27 priority actions (―432427‖) to 

promote ―mainstreaming biodiversity.‖ Both are remarkable achievements in China‘s ecological 

civilization construction. 

Therefore, the ecological protection section is the main pathway for integrating ―mainstreaming 

biodiversity‖ into the code and the primary domain for expressing its core content. As for the legal 

liability section, it provides safeguards for legal accountability after the main content of 

―mainstreaming biodiversity‖ is expressed in the code. Particularly, it is essential to address the 

specialized nature of ecological environment responsibilities to counter the current ―fragmented‖ state 

of ecological environment legal liability and offer solutions for addressing liability issues related to 

―biodiversity loss.‖ 

 

4. Codification Response: Specific Approaches to Implementing the “Mainstreaming 

Biodiversity” Objective   

4.1 Ecological Conservation Section: Establishing a DSI Benefit-Sharing Mechanism 

Currently, the draft ―Ecological Environment Code‖ has been formulated. The ecological protection 

section of the code addresses biodiversity conservation through two types of norms: ―ecological 

element protection‖ and ―ecological region protection.‖ It incorporates achievements from the reform 

of the ecological civilization system and adopts a ―moderate codification‖ approach through 

coordinated legislation and watershed legislation. Based on Articles 39 and 40 of the General 

Principles section, it governs the specific provisions related to biodiversity in the ecological protection 

section. Although the general principles of the ecological protection section stipulate the state‘s 

responsibility for protecting and monitoring important ecosystems, biological species, and genetic 

resources, as well as a national benefit-sharing scheme for biological genetic resources, and further 

implement the ―mainstreaming biodiversity‖ strategic deployment of the NBSAP (2023-2030) through 

ecosystem protection, key geographical units, national parks as the main focus, and nature reserves as 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

186 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

carriers, thereby providing ―Chinese wisdom‖ and constructing China‘s discourse system for 

post-Kunming-Montreal Framework international negotiations under the Convention, the ecological 

protection section still has deficiencies in protecting DSI.   

First, As China is building a protected area system with national parks as the core, DSI, as an 

indispensable part of systematic biodiversity conservation, also needs to be incorporated into this 

management system. Article 687 of the code still regulates DSI from the perspective of the ABS 

system, which cannot address the issue of ―digital bio piracy.‖ Specifically, DSI technology may give 

rise to unknown types or variations of genetic information. Therefore, protecting such genetic 

information has cutting-edge value. In particular, the economic, ecological, and social value of DSI bio 

synthetic products and recombined DSI information units is immense. Excluding DSI bio synthetic 

products and information units from the species and genetic diversity protection system may put China 

at a disadvantage in international competition and negotiations. 

To avoid these issues, it is possible to consider adding fallback provisions to Articles 682 and 683 of 

the code, such as the DSI database information coordination and monitoring mechanism proposed in 

the aforementioned draft ―Regulations on Access to and Benefit-Sharing of Biological Genetic 

Resources.‖ Incorporating this mechanism could provide a higher-level legal basis for the 

―inter-ministerial coordination mechanism for biological genetic resources‖ in the draft regulations. 

Simultaneously, it would enhance the coordination and transparency of benefit-sharing related to DSI. 

It is important to note that the DSI database information coordination and monitoring mechanism, as 

stipulated in these articles, need only clarify its responsibilities for DSI coordination and monitoring, 

while more detailed behavioral norms should not be included in the code for now.   

Under the Digital Sequence Information database information coordination and monitoring mechanism, 

it is also necessary to clarify the content of biodiversity baseline investigations. This is because 

biodiversity baseline investigations serve as an important means for tracing the origin of DSI, defining 

information units, and evaluating the value of bio-synthesized compounds. At the same time, 

biodiversity baseline investigations provide essential data and materials for the construction of DSI 

databases and information systems. Furthermore, these investigations supply critical information for 

the development of subsequent biodiversity conservation policies, thus promoting the sustainable 

utilization of resources. 

Therefore, incorporating DSI-related content into biodiversity baseline investigations aligns with the 

strategic requirements of ―mainstreaming biodiversity.‖ Building DSI databases and information 

systems on the basis of these biodiversity baseline investigations is technically feasible and can be 

effectively supported. It is particularly important to note that confidential DSI of domestic origin must 

be subject to a classified management system. This involves maintaining both public and localized 

versions to safeguard China‘s sovereignty over genetic resources and its associated interests. For 

instance, DSI data from giant pandas and endemic plants must be stored locally. Furthermore, attempts 

to infiltrate localized databases and information systems containing confidential DSI must be penalized 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

187 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and incorporated into a ―blacklist‖ mechanism. On this basis, it is also necessary to establish a 

―comprehensive‖ DSI classification and grading catalogue at the genetic level (encompassing DNA, 

RNA, information units, cells, and tissues). This catalogue is distinct from the species management list 

and system based on DSI risk grading and classification. Moreover, the fundamental requirements for 

the safety management of biotechnology research and development primarily interface with the main 

responsibilities of the DSI database information coordination and monitoring mechanism. Considering 

the construction of basic safety management requirements for biotechnology based on the main duties 

of this mechanism involves several aspects: adherence to a classified management system, 

implementation of primary responsibility and organizational structure requirements, compliance 

approval and contingency planning, risk management and emergency response, as well as record 

keeping and credit-based penalties. Subsequently, it is essential to link these requirements with the 

provisions of the ―Administrative Measures for the Safety of Biotechnology Research and 

Development‖ issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, making referential 

provisions. This means that under the premise of following the basic safety management requirements 

for biotechnology, and based on the ―comprehensive‖ DSI classification and grading catalogue, a 

classified management system should be established. This includes clarifying risk categories and 

matching them with appropriate laboratory bio safety levels. The classification of risk levels and their 

matching with laboratory levels can refer to the relevant content of the aforementioned ―Administrative 

Measures.‖ It is important to note that the safety traceability management and tracking assessment of 

DSI-related biotechnology must be dynamic, allowing for timely adjustments to risk levels and 

corresponding response measures. 

In summary, the establishment of utilization rules for Digital Sequence Information (DSI) that differ 

from the traditional Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) framework must be grounded in a 

comprehensive process. This begins with biodiversity baseline surveys of DSI, followed by the 

coordination and monitoring mechanisms of DSI databases, leading to the development of integrated 

information systems and periodically updated classified inventories. Additionally, it requires the 

implementation of traceability management and tracking assessments for bio safety. Only then can such 

a framework be effectively formed, one that better aligns with the interests of developing countries like 

China in safeguarding sovereignty over their biological genetic resources. 

Furthermore, the provision in Article 687 of the Code, which encourages the ―transmission, promotion, 

and innovation of related practices to conserve biodiversity,‖ is intrinsically linked to access and 

benefit-sharing of biodiversity. Within this framework, explicit support should be provided for the 

utilization of digital sequence information (DSI)—on the condition that intellectual property rights are 

respected—with priority given to initiatives addressing ecological poverty alleviation, environmental 

crisis response, and the advancement of social equity. Specific applications may include promoting 

organic agriculture, incorporating DSI into ecological compensation mechanisms, supporting the 

breeding of endangered wildlife, and increasing income opportunities for low-income populations. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

188 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Should conditions permit, efforts may further advance the establishment of a unified national socialized 

compensation mechanism for DSI. Building on this foundation, it is essential to strengthen preferential 

protection and participation mechanisms for indigenous peoples in matters involving DSI. Clarifying 

the legal status of DSI as biological genetic resources will effectively safeguard the rights and interests 

of indigenous peoples arising from traditional knowledge associated with DSI. This approach aligns not 

only with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global 

Biodiversity Framework, but also reflects the traditional ethos of ―living in harmony with nature, 

sustaining livelihoods through ecological reciprocity.‖ Moreover, such a mechanism will substantively 

protect the interests of China‘s indigenous peoples in subsequent international negotiations, consistent 

with the nation‘s identity as a developing country, while upholding sovereignty over its biological 

genetic resources. 

Finally, to address DSI-related issues in a systematic manner, consideration should be given to adding a 

dedicated chapter on the protection of genetic resources in the ecological conservation section. This 

would primarily involve general provisions on the protection of genetic resources and the establishment 

of a fund for the protection and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. The general provisions on genetic 

resource protection should incorporate the legal definition and concept of DSI. The legal definition and 

concept of DSI is as follows: ―information derived from valuable biological materials containing 

genetic functions, expressed in digital form, representing specific arrangement code that encompass 

genetic and other multidimensional information attributes.‖ Regarding the fund for the protection and 

benefit-sharing of genetic resources, it is essential to balance the dual needs of data security 

management and open sharing of biological resources. This will help promote the development of an 

industrial system for the submission, management, research, application, and benefit-sharing of 

biological resource data, thereby fostering mutual benefits of DSI data across the country. Additionally, 

attention should be paid to ensuring alignment with the optimized content of the sixth point on 

benefit-sharing in the above-mentioned Regulations on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and 

Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization (Draft). For instance, the draft stipulates 

that users must contribute 0.5% to 10% of their profits to a national fund for resource conservation and 

the development of regions of origin. A specific proposal could involve leveraging the Kunming 

Biodiversity Fund to share benefits generated from DSI-based technologies at different stages 

according to varying proportions. Alternatively, direct linkage could be established with Articles 49 

and 50 of the National Parks Law (Draft). 

4.2 Legal Liability Section: Establishing a Biodiversity Credit Market Mechanism 

The current concept for the legal liability section is to form a systematic ecological environment legal 

liability framework structured as ―basic provisions + environmental administrative liability + 

environmental civil liability + ecological environment damage liability + ecological environment 

dispute resolution,‖ following an ―independent main body with supplementary dispersed provisions‖ 

approach. Within this, the legal liability section assumes an ―ecologically rational economic actor‖ and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

189 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

adjusts legal norms governing the relationships between ―humans–nature–humans,‖ divided into 

―liability to humans‖ and ―liability to the environment.‖ Under this division, an ―environmental 

liability‖ system based on the ―theory of ecological restoration‖ is being attempted. ―Liability to 

humans‖ is reflected in relevant criminal, civil, and administrative legislation, as well as in specialized 

environmental legislation.  

From the perspective of the aforementioned theory, ―biodiversity loss liability‖ should fall under the 

―special liability‖ category of ―environmental law liability.‖ If categorized as ―special liability,‖ it 

would overlap with the concept of ―permanent loss of ecological environment functions‖ under Article 

1235 of the Civil Code, creating conceptual intersection and rule conflicts. This would hinder the 

―communication and coordination‖ between ecological environment legal liability and traditional 

departmental law liabilities. Moreover, given the current progress of reforms on ecological 

environment damage compensation mechanisms, ―biodiversity loss liability‖ is unlikely to be 

recognized. After all, it faces numerous challenges, including an undefined legal concept, rejection by 

theories and liability mechanisms of traditional departmental laws (e.g., cases involving illegal 

electrocution of wild earthworms), and the exclusion of biodiversity value assessment and accounting 

from administrative decision-making.   

From the legal philosophy perspective of ―harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,‖ 

―biodiversity loss‖ can be affirmed as damage to ―ecology‖ or ―resources.‖ However, the current theory 

of traditional departmental laws based on ―anthropocentrism‖ is an established fact. Furthermore, the 

draft ―Ecological Environment Code‖ adopts an indirect expression of ecological environment liability, 

without directly clarifying its composite and specialized nature. The specialized nature of ―biodiversity 

loss liability‖ lacks sufficient support in the code. However, if ―biodiversity loss‖ is completely ignored, 

the realization of the ―2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development‖ under the Kunming-Montreal 

Framework and the vision of ―living in harmony with nature by 2050‖ would be jeopardized. Even the 

implementation effectiveness of the ―mainstreaming biodiversity‖ objective in the NBSAP (2023-2030) 

would be compromised.   

According to Marxist dialectical materialism, ―biodiversity loss liability,‖ under the universal 

expression of contradictions and based on the above analysis, does not qualify for integration into 

China‘s legal theory and system. However, if ―biodiversity loss liability‖ is specialized, it may yield 

surprising ―roundabout solutions.‖ Admittedly, the term ―biodiversity,‖ as a scientific concept, is not 

fully standardized. But at least a basic understanding can be established: biodiversity emphasizes a 

state. Only diverse genes, species, and ecosystems constitute a stable, balanced, and secure state. If 

maintaining this state is taken as the legislative purpose, the issue of defining the legal concept of 

―biodiversity‖ can be temporarily set aside. 

The specialized solution for ―biodiversity loss liability‖ is to transform it into ―biodiversity credit 

liability.‖ Then, based on the theoretical presuppositions of environmental liability in the legal liability 

section, it could be confirmed and implemented as a ―special form of environmental credit liability.‖ 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

190 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

For example, establishing a mechanism similar to the ―carbon mechanism‖ for ―biodiversity loss‖ 

would internalize externalize and transform it into a special environmental administrative liability 

mechanism, ultimately accepted by traditional departmental law theories and systems. Here, the 

concept of ―biodiversity credit liability‖ should be broadly understood, divided into two types: 

―biodiversity credits liability‖ and ―biodiversity offsets liability.‖ ―Biodiversity credits liability‖ leans 

toward positive incentives, serving as a measurement unit in biodiversity offset projects. ―Biodiversity 

offsets liability‖ leans toward ―command-and-control‖ type negative impact management liability. 

Therefore, this specialized solution for ―biodiversity loss liability‖ requires institutional design based 

on these two different understandings. Similarly, the necessity and feasibility of this specialized 

solution are worth discussing. 

From the perspective of necessity, transforming ―biodiversity loss liability‖ into ―biodiversity credit 

liability‖ is driven by legislative purpose needs, which is one aspect of its necessity. In fact, there are 

several considerations for the necessity of establishing ―biodiversity credit liability‖ in the code: First, 

based on economic theory as the underlying logic, constructing a ―biodiversity credit market 

mechanism‖ as a financing tool can be included in green finance, providing positive incentives. It can 

generate substantial funds for the ―Biodiversity Fund‖ and enterprise development. Simultaneously, it 

offers an important metric for corporate ESG development, standardizes corporate behavior, and 

enhances market competitiveness. Second, establishing a ―biodiversity credit blacklist mechanism,‖ 

biodiversity offsets liability, can integrate with administrative ―credit-based penalties‖ liability 

mechanisms, meeting the requirements of the ―no net loss‖ principle related to the mitigation hierarchy 

(―avoid-reduce-compensate,‖ ARC). It can also rely on public interest litigation mechanisms for 

judicial safeguards. Third, differing from the relief model for ―permanent loss of ecological 

environment functions‖ under Article 1235 of the Civil Code, it avoids the drawbacks of private law 

tools while fulfilling the ecological environment damage liability rules of the legal liability section.   

From the perspective of feasibility: First, the global biodiversity credit market is emerging, and 

international experiences in constructing such markets are available for China‘s reference. Examples 

include the biodiversity banking models in the United States, Australia, and Colombia. Among these, 

there are practical projects for reference, such as Australia‘s South Pole biodiversity and carbon credit 

project, Colombia‘s Climate Trade and Terasos habitat banking project, and the Wallacea Trust global 

biodiversity credit project. Second, some scholars have proposed: ―It is recommended that China use 

national parks as biodiversity credit providers, engage in ‗horizontal‘ value exchange with enterprises, 

innovate by using indicator trading models to offset the ecological impacts of development projects to 

net zero, support credit pledge loans and enhance corporate ESG ratings through green finance 

incentives, supplemented by mandatory information disclosure and market access permits as hard 

constraints, to jointly accelerate the formation of a biodiversity credit investment and financing 

mechanism that benefits national parks and surrounding communities.‖ This ―national park model‖ has 

a certain legal foundation. Firstly, the ecological protection section of the code already presupposes 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

191 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

management systems for natural ecological protection, ecological element protection, protected areas, 

and biodiversity conservation, along with supporting measures such as natural ecological protection 

planning, natural ecological protection information, ecological element utilization control and 

protection improvement, species and genetic diversity protection, protected area conservation and 

management, and ecological protection compensation. Then, according to Articles 49 and 50 of 

China‘s draft ―National Parks Law,‖ corresponding action basis and legal support can be provided for 

this model. Third, as observed from China‘s relevant regulations such as the ―Ecological and 

Environmental Damage Compensation Management Regulations,‖ ―Cultivated Land 

Requisition-Compensation Balance Assessment Measures,‖ ―Wetland Protection and Restoration 

System Scheme,‖ and the ―Interim Measures for the Collection and Use of Forest Vegetation 

Restoration Fees,‖ it is evident that the country demonstrates an initial inclination to require enterprises 

and individuals to ―offset negative impacts to achieve net-zero.‖ The government‘s demand to ―offset 

negative impacts to achieve net-zero‖ essentially represents an approach to holding enterprises 

accountable for biodiversity credit obligations. 

Fourth, although providing sound legal safeguards for ―diversity accounting methods and measurement 

indicators‖ is currently challenging, China still has a foundation in rule of law soil for nurturing such 

mechanisms. The concept of ―biodiversity credits liability‖ leans more toward an economic legal tool 

within the code. The concept of ―biodiversity offsets liability‖ leans more toward a fallback mechanism 

for legal liability consequences. The two can form a logical chain of ―risk prevention-process 

control-liability for damage‖ within the code. The ―biodiversity credits liability‖ mechanism can serve 

as a financial tool for ―preventing irreversible biodiversity damage risks.‖ Here, international 

mechanisms such as ―Payment for Ecosystem Services‖ (PES) can be referenced to design a ―credit 

prepayment for preventing irreversible biodiversity damage risks,‖ requiring enterprises to pay this 

security deposit during the environmental impact assessment phase based on biodiversity impact 

assessments.   

Fifth, although methodologies and metrics for biodiversity accounting are still under development, they 

do not present fundamentally insurmountable challenges. Internationally, assessing the ―net change‖ in 

biodiversity requires primary consideration of the following elements: (1) Spatiality: it must be linked 

to specific geographical areas. (2) Temporality: as biodiversity changes over time, the validity period of 

credit allowances needs to be considered. (3) Additionally: this refers to the ―additional‖ increase in 

biodiversity resulting from the implementation of a specific project. (4) Baseline: this refers to a 

reference point used to compare the current state with future changes. (5) Leakage: this occurs when 

improvements or maintenance of biodiversity within a project area lead to biodiversity loss in adjacent 

areas. Based on these indicators, it is feasible to develop a methodology for biodiversity accounting. 

The construction of such a biodiversity accounting methodology could be designed around approaches 

such as negative list management, dynamically adjusted thresholds, and credit unit accounting. For 

negative list management, statutory law could authorize the State Council to issue an ―Applicable List 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

192 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of Biodiversity Credit Obligations‖ to clarify the types and contents of biodiversity credit 

responsibilities. Subsequently, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment could further refine the 

―Technical Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment—Ecological Impact‖ (HJ19-2022). 

Specifically, building on the HJ710 Technical Guidelines for Biodiversity Monitoring, dynamically 

adjusted thresholds and coefficients for the ―Habitat Fragmentation Index‖ and ―Endangered Species 

Decline Rate‖ could be introduced following research. Exceeding these thresholds and coefficients 

would trigger biodiversity credit obligations. Finally, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment could 

lead the development of a ―Biodiversity Credit Equivalent Accounting Guide.‖ One approach could be 

to introduce a coefficient based on the ―endangered species coefficient × habitat restoration cost‖ to 

quantify responsibilities. Alternatively, a ―Biodiversity Proxy Indicator Assessment Method‖ could be 

piloted initially, with the main assessment approach formalized in the ―Biodiversity Credit Equivalent 

Accounting Guide‖ once matured. 

In summary, the ―biodiversity credit market mechanism‖ is primarily based on the ―national park 

model,‖ supplemented by the ―biodiversity banking model.‖ It draws on the accounting methods and 

metrics of carbon trading markets, with biodiversity impact assessment deposits and dynamic corporate 

credit ratings serving as safeguards. If implemented, this framework would provide a systematic 

approach to jointly addressing climate change and the biodiversity crisis. It would not only advance the 

―ecological civilization‖ goals of ―Chinese-style modernization‖ but also help secure a leading position 

in post GBF‖ international negotiations. 

 

References 

Feng, H., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Problems in the practice of our country‘s administrative law 

enforcement ―blacklist‖ system and the approach to rule of law. Nanjing Journal of Social 

Sciences, (02), 76-84, 95. 

Gong, G. (2022). The Concept of the Cornerstone of the Environmental Code Starts from the Change 

of the Concepts of Resource, Environment and Ecology. Peking University Law Journal, 34(06), 

1523-1542. 

Li, B., & X D. (2019). Application of digital sequence information of genetic resources in biodiversity 

conservation and its impact on benefit-sharing system. Biodiversity Science, 27(12), 1379-1385. 

https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2019242 

Li, J., Zhang, H., & Wang, N. (2023). The path and institutional arrangement of biodiversity product 

value realization: Lessons and enlightenment from the experience of foreign biodiversity banks. 

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 43(01), 198-207. 

Li, X. (2019). International Dissemination of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization and Its 

Path Optimization. Issues of Contemporary World Socialism, (04), 3-14. 

Li, Y. (2023). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Essentials, Focuses and Local 

Normative Responses. Pacific Journal, 31(08), 88-100. 

https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2019242


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

193 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Liu, J. (2019). Credit Liability: The Emerging Fourth Major Category of Legal Responsibility. Legal 

Forum, 34(06), 5-17. 

Lv, Z. (2023). Theoretical Framework for Environmental Code Compilation. China Legal Science, (02), 

25-47. 

Lv, Z., & Liu, J. (2024). Legislative Framework for the Protected Area System. World Social Sciences, 

(01), 63-80, 243-244. 

Ni, G. (2012). Review and prospect of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Journal of Shanghai 

University (Social Sciences Edition), 29(06), 1-12. 

Ni, G. (2012). Review and prospect of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Journal of Shanghai 

University (Social Sciences Edition), 29(06), 1-12. 

Pan, C. (2007). Reconciling Tensions between Genetic Resource Conservation and Intellectual 

Property Rights. Intellectual Property, (03), 42-46. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198765011.003.0001 

Peng, Y., Jin, T., & Zhang, X. (2024). Biodiversity Credits: Concept, Principles, Trading, and 

Challenges. Biodiversity Science, 32(02), 154-164. 

Victor Meyer-Schoenberg, Kenneth Cooker. (2013). The Era of Big Data: The Great Change of Life, 

Work and Thinking (Sheng, Y., &Zhou, T., Trans., pp. 123-126). Hangzhou: Zhejiang People‘s 

Publishing House. 

Wan, X., & Zou, Y. (2020). Wang Qianlu. The 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 

Biological Diversity and the International Dissemination of the Concept of Ecological Civilization. 

Environmental Protection, 48(22), 55-58. 

Wang, Q. (2023). Implementation dilemmas and reform paths of the Convention on Biological 

Diversity. Local Legislation Journal, 8(01), 78-91. 

Wang, T. (2021). Social Transformations and Research in the Digital Era. Social Sciences in China, 

(12), 73-88, 200-201. 

Xun, Q. (2017). A Critical Overview of the Theory of Transcending Development in Latin America. 

Marxism & Reality, (06), 115-123. 

Zhang, L., Song, Z., & Xu, N. (2025). Operation Mechanism and Practical Experience of Costa Rica‘s 

Forest Ecosystem Service Payment System. National Park, 38(01), 118-125. 

Zhao, Y., Liu, Y., & Wan, X. (2024). A New Path for the Marketization of National Park Ecological 

Products: A Case Study of Biodiversity Offset and Credit Mechanism. National Park, 2(05), 

296-307. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198765011.003.0001

