UN CSTD WG on data governance

The main objectives of this meeting were to determine the Working Group’s terms of reference (ToR) and methods of work, to discuss the tasks outlined in the GDC, and to agree on topics and dates for subsequent meetings. The chair’s summary provides a detailed overview of discussions and deliberations. 

The group decided to begin discussions on its ToR from scratch, rather than accept the draft initially proposed by the CSTD Bureau. The main points of discussion included:

• Whether the ToR should repeat expressions from the GDC, and reaffirm certain objectives, such as sustainability and equity, or if this was not necessary. The United States, in particular, opposed a reference to the 2030 Agenda and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Delegations from Canada, Switzerland, Indonesia, Brazil, Ecuador, Austria and others expressed their support for maintaining the GDC’s language on SDGs, equity, inclusivity and sustainability and geographic balance.
• The scope of the group. The United States stressed that data governance should be managed at the national level, consistent with state sovereignty. Therefore, the WGDG should focus on facilitating information-sharing and capacity building, rather than formulating universal principles or frameworks.
• Mainstreaming asymmetries. The Gambia and members from civil society stressed the importance of reflecting explicit references to data stewardship and remedies for power asymmetries.
• The structure and content of the report produced by the WGDG. Several members proposed thematic chapter proposals. Some members suggested that the WGDG should issue a series of thematic briefs rather than a single contribution.
• How to address dissent. While many members argued that divergent views should be recorded if consensus could not be reached, the United States maintained that all published outputs, including summaries of dissent, must themselves be adopted by consensus.

As consensus was not clear, the Chair of the WGDG invited members to submit comments on proposed themes for the WGDG report, modalities of work, and timelines. Following this, a second draft ToR and a proposed Work Plan would be circulated ahead of the next face-to-face meeting of the WGDG.

During the first meeting of the WGDG, the Secretariat adopted the practice of sharing draft texts and written submissions not only with WGDG members, but also with all individuals registered to attend the meeting as observers (online or on-site). This practice was maintained intersessionally, and emails continued to include both members and observers.

On 23 May, the Secretariat sent an e-mail to members and observers, requesting volunteers to co-author three thematic working papers aimed at supporting and informing the WGDG’s deliberations. These would be integrated into the WGDG’s report.

The themes of the papers were:

• Data ontologies, dedicated to examining how different conceptual frameworks define data, data governance, and the relationships between different types of data and the concepts they represent across various domains. The lead was Mr Peter Major (Chair).
• The development dimension of data, which aimed to explore the role of data in development, highlighting existing gaps and the need for capacity building (data for development). The lead was H.E. Ambassador Muhammadou Kah (Vice-Chair).
• Data taxonomies: This paper would analyse existing classification systems for different types of data (e.g. personal, sensitive, public-interest data), and their significance for policy development and regulatory coherence. The lead was Ms Claire Melamed (Vice-Chair).

The group of co-authors would also welcome written contributions, and the initial drafts of the three papers were expected to be circulated on 19 June 2025. The CSTD Secretariat received more than 20 expressions of interest to co-author the papers. Nevertheless, some members raised concerns regarding the tight deadlines, and highlighted the necessity of first agreeing on the ToR and the Work Plan. In response, the Chair decided to pause work on these papers until the ToR and Work Plan were finalised. The Chair also stressed that ‘All decisions, including the report on progress, will be based solely on our collective discussions and agreements in plenary.’

The Secretariat requested international organisations to provide summaries of their contributions on data governance, in order to serve as background information and support the Group’s subsequent discussions.

On 23 June, a document with an ‘overview of data principles’ was shared. This document, produced by the CSTD Secretariat at the request of the Working Group Chair, provided a compilation of relevant data governance principles, identified in policy documents, academic literature, and submissions from intergovernmental and international organisations. It identified commonalities and differences, and a recurrent reference to a few principles, such as consent, transparency, accountability, and human rights. The contribution was considered a living document, expected to evolve based on feedback and inputs received from WGDG members and observers. 

On 25 June, a new draft ToR was shared, in which the changes proposed during the first meeting appeared between brackets.

The second meeting of the CSTD WGDG was dedicated to the finalisation of the ToR and the Work Plan, as well as to an exchange of views on the structure of the report, the methods of work of the group, and on timelines. The chair’s summary provides a detailed overview of discussions and deliberations. 

The main outcome of the second meeting was the approval of the Terms of Reference and the Work Plan of the WGDG. Some aspects from these documents can be highlighted:

• Mandate: The ToR affirms that the mandate will be carried out as ‘articulated in Paragraph 48 of Annex 1 (GDC)’. This concise formulation avoided the cherry-picking of words, as well as the opposition raised to certain expressions contained in the GDC.
• Timeline: The main milestones in the work of the WGDG will be:
  • 3rd meeting: 15–16 September 2025
  • 4th meeting: 19–20 November 2025 (TBC)
  • 5th meeting: beginning of February 2026
  •  6th meeting: April 2026, before the annual meeting of the CSTD
• Working methods and consensus:
  • The group will hold discussions in hybrid plenary meetings (in-person and remote participation). Plenaries are open to observers, and observers may contribute to the work of the group.
  • During the intersessional periods, smaller groups may be formed to produce input to be discussed during the plenaries.
  • The structure of the final report will allow for both consensus and non-consensus views. The group will work by consensus and will seek to elaborate, by consensus, any differing views in the report. However, if there are specific issues where consensus cannot be achieved, ‘the Chair will include a “Chair’s note” in the report on progress’. The ‘Chair’s notes’ should elaborate divergent views or disagreements in a balanced way, not reflecting one side or another as a majority or minority view. The notes will be made available to the members of the group for comments.
•  Creation of four intersessional tracks, as a way to organise the work of the group. The tracks mirror the areas of work suggested by the GDC: principles of data governance at all levels; interoperability between national, regional, and international data systems; considerations of sharing the benefits of data; and facilitation of safe, secure, and trusted data flows, including cross-border data flows.

The intersessional tracks are led by two co-facilitators: one governmental member representative and one non-governmental member representative. More than 20 nominations for co-facilitators were received during July 2025, and a selection was jointly made by the Chair and Co-Chairs of the CSTD WGDG:

• Principles of data governance at all levels: United Republic of Tanzania and Alejandro Saucedo (Zalando, Business Sector)
• Interoperability between national, regional, and international data systems: Indonesia and Renata Ávila (Open Knowledge Foundation, civil society)
• Considerations for sharing the benefits of data: Brazil and Nick Ashton-Hart (APCO, Business Sector)
• Facilitation of safe, secure, and trusted data flows, including cross-border data flow: Ecuador and Dame Wendy Hall (Academia)

In August 2025, the appointed co-facilitators of the intersessional tracks launched an online survey with questions designed to gather substantive input from WGDG members and observers. The Secretariat produced a compilation of the submissions received, to be discussed during the plenary meeting in September.

This meeting was dedicated to discussing the synthesis reports produced by the CSTD Secretariat, based on responses to the questionnaire proposed by the co-facilitators of the intersessional tracks. WGDG members agreed that the reports are living documents, intended to be enhanced as further contributions are received.

Track 1: Principles of data governance at all levels

Questions from the survey:

1. What additional data governance frameworks should be included in the compilation prepared by the Secretariat?

2. Which principles are particularly important?

3. Are there any sector-specific nuances that the track ought to highlight?

4. Which tensions or trade-offs among the proposed data governance principles do you consider most pressing in your context, and what mechanisms would you recommend to resolve or balance these tensions?

5. Are there any aspects of this subject that require further studies, standardisation, or other empirical work, from a development perspective, that would facilitate our work on the subject?

The synthesis report was based on 28 contributions from members and other actors. It reviewed existing national, regional, and international frameworks (e.g. EU Data Governance Act, OECD privacy guidelines, China’s CSL/DSL/PIPL, APEC CBPR, MyData principles) to map convergences and gaps.

The main sections of the document relate to:

1. A proposed baseline of rights-anchored, people-centric principles.

2. Sector-specific nuances (health, finance, agriculture, biodiversity), showing the need for flexible application.

3. An indication of potential trade-offs – e.g. openness vs privacy, sovereignty vs free data flows, innovation vs compliance, and sustainability vs innovation.

4. Recommendations for further work.

Track 2: Interoperability between national, regional, and international data systems

Questions from the survey:

1. What dimensions of ‘benefits’ (economic, social, and other indirect aspects) should the track consider, and why?

2. How do stakeholders involved throughout the data lifecycle (e.g. collection, curation, analysis, and reuse) impact the benefits of data?

3. Which governance arrangements (e.g. standardisation, finance, intellectual property, and data protection in a broader sense) impact the benefits of data, and can such arrangements help address equities related to benefit-sharing?

4. How can investments in digital public goods and infrastructure expand the circle of actors able to derive value from data and participate in data-driven innovation?

5. Are there any aspects of this subject that require further studies, standardisation, or other empirical work, from a development perspective, that would facilitate our work on the subject?

The synthesis report, based on 31 contributions from members and observers, framed interoperability as a complex issue spanning technical, semantic, cultural, and legal or regulatory layers. The report identified challenges, including a lack of common standards, regulatory fragmentation, and capacity gaps, while also warning of risks such as the lowering of global data protection standards and the reinforcement of market concentration. Conversely, it highlighted the transformative potential of interoperability to positively impact areas such as trade, public services, and innovation.

The report pointed to approaches that support collaboration without requiring full harmonisation. It also identified several existing interoperability frameworks at national, regional, and international levels, presented in the submissions as examples of current practice.

Track 3: Sharing the benefits of data

Questions from the survey:

1. What dimensions of ‘benefits’ (economic, social, and other indirect aspects) should the track consider, and why?

2. How do stakeholders involved throughout the data lifecycle (e.g. collection, curation, analysis, and reuse) impact the benefits of data?

3. Which governance arrangements (e.g. standardisation, finance, intellectual property, and data protection in a broader sense) impact the benefits of data, and can such arrangements help address equities related to benefit-sharing?

4. How can investments in digital public goods and infrastructure expand the circle of actors able to derive value from data and participate in data-driven innovation?

5. Are there any aspects of this subject that require further studies, standardisation, or other empirical work, from a development perspective, that would facilitate our work on the subject?

The synthesis report was based on 23 contributions from members and other actors. It indicated that a broad understanding of ‘benefits’ should be considered, encompassing not only economic gains but also social, cultural, environmental, and rights-based dimensions. The roles of stakeholders throughout the data lifecycle – from collection and curation to analysis and reuse – were presented as critical factors influencing the quality, trustworthiness, and ultimate value derived from data.

The report highlighted that governance arrangements – including standardisation, intellectual property, and data protection frameworks, can impact benefit-sharing. It also identified a need for further empirical research, particularly to understand the distributional effects of data-driven innovation and to ensure that benefits are shared widely across different communities and countries.

Track 4: Facilitation of safe, secure, and trusted data flows, including cross-border data flows

Questions from the survey:

1. What domestic, regional, and international measures currently support cross-border data flows?
2. What challenges do countries, in particular developing countries, face regarding cross-border data flows?
3. What mechanisms, including data intermediaries, regulations, and international standards, exist to promote safe, secure, and trusted data sharing, and how do they interact with developmental benefits?
4. How do these mechanisms ensure safe and trusted data sharing in critical areas such as healthcare, emerging technologies, and disaster prevention?

The synthesis report was based on 25 contributions from members and observers. It outlined a range of existing domestic, regional, and international measures that support data flows, such as data protection laws with transfer mechanisms (e.g. the EU’s GDPR), regional agreements (e.g. APEC’s CBPR system), and international frameworks from bodies such as the OECD and G20, which promote principles for trusted data exchange. Modern trade agreements were also noted for their role in embedding commitments to limit data localisation.

The contributions highlighted significant challenges – particularly for developing countries – including regulatory fragmentation, lack of capacity, infrastructure and security constraints, and power asymmetries that can result in extractive data flows. The report also described various mechanisms to promote safe sharing, including the role of data intermediaries, interoperable legal frameworks, international standards, and privacy-enhancing technologies.