In the light of ongoing discussions regarding the amendment of the Plant Treaty, analyze its impact on developing countries like India.
As delegates from many countries in Asia gather in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to prepare for the next ITPGFRA meeting, many civil societies across the world and especially Aisa, debates are expected around the changes proposed to the multilateral system for benefit sharing under the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGFRA).
Plant Treaty
- The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) or Plant Treaty, adopted in 2001, is the only legally binding international agreement focused on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
- It aims to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits derived from these resources.
- It provides a framework for access to genetic resources and supports Farmers’ Rights, recognising the contributions of farmers in conserving crop diversity.
Controversial Amendments in Discussion
- The 13th meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group in Rome (April 1-4, 2025) is discussing changes that could weaken the benefit-sharing system by allowing free access to genetic resources.
- Currently, only 35 food crops and 29 forage plants are covered under the treaty’s Multilateral System (MLS) for access and benefit-sharing.
- The proposed change would remove these limits, allowing all plant species to be transferred if they have useful traits for food or forage breeding.
- The proposal is to expand the scope of the Multilateral System (MLS) for access and benefit sharing of the Plant Treaty from the current 64 crops to all plant genetic resources. This would lay open all 350,000 known species for use, according to the letter.
- Civil society members maintain that unless the MLS is strengthened, expanding the list would be harmful.
Significance of Farmers’ Rights
- Farmers’ Rights are central to the Plant Treaty. Article 9 mandates countries to protect these rights, which include the ability to save, use, and exchange seeds.
- The implementation of these rights is crucial for maintaining crop diversity and ensuring food security.
- The treaty encourages measures that support farmers, particularly in developing nations, to manage and conserve their plant genetic resources.
Opposition to the Changes
- 138 civil society groups, farmers’ organizations, Indigenous communities, and local groups (including 23 from India) have opposed these amendments.
They argue that this move:
- Violates the original treaty’s purpose of protecting developing countries’ rights.
- Encourages corporate control and biopiracy, including digital biopiracy.
- Threatens biodiversity and food security by making all plant species available without restrictions.
Implications for Biodiversity
- The proposed amendments could have far-reaching implications for global biodiversity. With approximately 350,000 known plant species, of which 30,000 are edible, the risk of sharing unrecognised genetic resources could threaten local biodiversity.
- The amendments may also conflict with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims to protect the rights of nations over their genetic resources.
Concerns for Developing Countries and Biodiversity
- The amendment could force developing countries to share genetic resources they might not even know they possess.
- With approximately 350,000 known plant species, of which 30,000 are edible, the risk of sharing unrecognised genetic resources could threaten local biodiversity.
- It would weaken the treaty’s alignment with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which protects biodiversity rights.
- It would allow corporations to exploit plant genetic resources, reducing the benefits for local farmers.
- There are loopholes in the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) that are being exploited to claim intellectual property over the shared genetic resources such as patents on sequence data and/or commercial traits. The proposed changes do not address the issue of benefit sharing on digital sequence information derived from seeds and other propagating materials.
- This means that there is no clarity on whether users of plant genetic resource from the MLS can generate sequence data and share such sequence data publicly or with databases that permit anonymous access to hosted sequences. It is also not clear whether the users of this sequence data have any commitments including benefit sharing. International agriculture research centres such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research already freely share sequence data in a manner by which it can be used anonymously by third parties.
Way Forward:
- Instead of developing a robust and enforceable governance framework for generating and sharing of sequence data, a non-binding resolution is being proposed which makes it easy to bypass the MLS benefit sharing obligations, by simply accessing sequence data instead of physical genetic materials.
- Ensure effective governance, including of sequence data and monitoring mechanisms by amending the Treaty and SMTA: This is a prerequisite if the MLS system is not to be an exploitative system. Such mechanisms are a must, prior to adding more crops to the scope.
- Ensuring sequence data are shared only through the Global Information System or other databases accountable to Treaty and its Parties subject to user registration and undertaking of legally binding commitments to share benefits with National Authorities or MLS, as applicable.
- Extend monetary benefit sharing obligations to all industries from the food and agriculture sector, profiting from our genetic resources.
Source: