Plant Genetic Resources Treaty

The third meeting of the Governing Body (GB3) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture takes place June 1-5 in Tunis.  The Contracting Parties will spend some of their time reviewing the confident first steps they have taken toward establishing a multilateral system (MSL) that guarantees open access to plant genetic resources and sharing of the benefits arising from the use of those resources.  Then they will have to turn to a more problematic discussion – how to secure the funding and political commitment needed to keep the Treaty on track.

The Treaty’s primary accomplishment to date is keeping the genebank doors open.   After decades of squabbling over ownership rights in the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), the entry into force of the Treaty in 2004 established a secure framework of legal rights and obligations for both the genebanks that provide PGRFA for research and breeding, and for the researchers and breeders who need access to materials located in other countries in order to continue to improve crop varieties, and ultimately, agricultural productivity.  The 12 government-funded International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) holding plant germplasm collections were the first to place their materials in the MLS and to start using the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA), the licensing agreement that contains the Treaty’s benefit-sharing requirements.  Four other international institutions, eleven countries, and two private breeders’ associations have also notified the secretariat of materials being made available under the MLS.  Over 100,000 seed samples annually are now being distributed under the MLS.  

The weakness in these impressive statistics is the paucity of Treaty members who have taken the necessary steps to make their PGRFA available under the MLS.  The eleven members who are making material available under the MLS represent less than 10 percent of the Treaty’s 120 members.  Fortunately for the research community, the IARC collections represent the majority of the unique PGRFA collected ex situ and the eleven countries participating in the MLS hold some important collections.  It should also be noted that the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, which holds one of the world’s largest collections, continues to provide access to materials from its collection free of charge to anyone who requests them even though the United States is not a party to the Treaty.

A number of developing countries have requested technical and financial assistance to implement the MLS.  Some countries appear to be following a more deliberate strategy of non-implementation while they await the outcome of the ABS negotiations at the CBD Conference of the Parties in Nagoya in 2010.    For some countries, perhaps a majority of those that have not implemented, it may be that the Treaty is simply not a priority.  

Whatever the reasons behind it, non-implementation threatens to undo the Treaty’s grand political bargain: facilitated access to the world’s genetic resources in exchange for sharing of the benefits, both monetary and non-monetary.  While it is widely acknowledged that access itself is one of the chief benefits, it is time for governments to also accept that without funding access won’t expand beyond what it is now.  Funding is needed to provide technical assistance and capacity building to those countries without adequate resources to identify, conserve, characterize, utilize and make available the PGRFA within their borders.  Because of the long time horizon for the development and commercialization of new varieties, the royalty scheme on seed sales contained in the SMTA will not generate enough revenue quickly enough to provide adequate levels of technical assistance and capacity building.  Nor will it overcome the skepticism of those who think they will get a better deal out of the CBD ABS negotiations.  

What is needed is direct financial support from individual contracting parties.  The countries in a position to provide support can maintain flexibility in the level and means of their financial commitments by providing voluntary contributions.  If the funding is spent wisely, i.e., on technical assistance, capacity building and information technology needed to implement the MLS, it can bring more countries into the fold of the MLS and expand open access to the world’s PGRFA.  Current levels of access to PGRFA may be adequate to meet today’s needs, but with the specter of climate change looming over the global food security situation, we would be foolish not to open up access as much as possible.