Are you a germplasm user? Are you confused about which ABS arrangement applies to you? The International Seed Federation has got you covered, with its Genetic Resources Interactive Tree (GRIT).
Unfortunately, it will only take you so far:
Please note that the Genetic Resources Information Tree (GRIT) does not provide a turnkey solution, and each user will have to check the national legal requirements accessing a genetic resource in a given country.
But I guess it’s a start.
Incidentally, one of the possible sources of germplasm on GRIT is the CG Centres, and most of their distributions are done with the SMTA of the International Treaty. Most, but not all, as a new paper makes clear. ISF, please take note…
Not `absolutely clear’ to me.
The `new paper’ (`Guidelines on the Nagoya Protocol for CGIAR Research Centers’) says (p. 22): “Furthermore, pursuant to Article 6.5 of the SMTA, improved materials developed through the CGIAR breeding programs that incorporate materials acquired from the multilateral system (known as ‘PGRFA under development’ in the lexicon of the ITPGRFA) must also be made available using the SMTA.”
But must they? There are some ambiguities. Firstly ‘PGRFA under development’ – although apparently a direct quotation – does not appear in the text of either the Treaty or the SMTA. Secondly, Art 6.5 of the SMTA only covers transfer to `another person or entity’. It follows (despite what the lawyers are trying to have us believe) that transfer within a CG institute (not to another `entity’ need not be covered and to my mind, anything developed as `improved materials’ is not covered by an SMTA when distributed onwards – even internationally.
Thirdly – and I am less sure of this – there is a distinct chance that germplasm transfers within countries from national collections (even if in the Treaty) will not be covered by an SMTA. I think this already may be the case within the USDA system and I suspect also within India. This would be a major leakage of potential funding for the Treaty. Further, it material circulates within a country without an SMTA, then what is to stop onward transfer to anyone anywhere without an SMTA. For example, a multinational seed company with offices in the USA could send anything out without and SMTA to affiliates in other countries.
I find the `new paper’ frightening: CG institutes should have kept away from the Treaty (as they could have done). Why not stick with the 1994 In-Trust Agreements, apparently still in force?