Category: Policy

Diverse Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) are an important aspect of biodiversity and greater investment in both in-situ and ex-situ conservation of genetic material will be important. PGRFA are essential for agriculture to adapt to environmental stresses, climate change, and changing markets. In 2022, 5.7 million accessions were reportedly conserved in 831 gene banks by 114 countries including through the International Treaty Benefit Sharing Fund. Continuing to meet funding commitments is critical. Cooperation between informal farmer seed systems and gene banks to maintain genetic material could be scaled up.

Could not have put it better myself. And the fact that it comes from a World Bank report (Agriculture Rooted in Biodiversity) advocating for more sustainable agriculture makes it all the sweeter. Check out p. 71 for the agrobiodiversity section. Then on p. 114 you’ll find a recommendation to: “Support in-situ and conservation of plant and animal genetic material for food and agriculture (PGRFA).” Which is a bit weirdly phrased but makes ex situ conservation a bit more explicit when you look at its components:

• Develop partnerships between gene banks and community seed funds to exploit the potential of farmer seed systems to maintain genetic material in-situ and share with gene banks (see case studies in Annex 15).
• Support local seed companies that create markets for locally adapted varieties saved by farmer seed systems (e.g., matching grants to facilitate access to finance for improved seeds facilities.
• Conduct an inventory of breeds and assess extinction risks.

The Multilateral System (MLS) of the Plant Treaty must deliver the fair and predictable monetary benefits it promised. If, that is, we want crop diversity to continue to be available with minimal friction to all who want to use it to help ensure the world’s food security.

That at least has been the premise of the past two years of negotiations by the Plant Treaty’s Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System. With the 11th Session of the Governing Body coming up in November in Lima, Peru, the report of the Working Group is now up on the Plant Treaty’s website. ¹

What does it say? Are we there yet?

Well, it’s not easy reading, but let me give you what I see as the key points. Summarizing such a dense and technical document in a few sentences is tricky, so I hope I don’t misrepresent anything. Please let me know if I have, and I will make any corrections needed.

Countries agree that a subscription model would generate more, and more predictable, user contributions than the current pay-per-use approach. There also seems to be a shared view that more crops should be brought under the MLS (beyond the ones currently listed in Annex 1), to reflect importance and interdependence. But also that countries should be allowed to carve out exemptions. And finally, there is general agreement that benefits derived from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) must be addressed in the MLS framework. Somehow.

Still unclear, however, are the level, timing, and conditions of payments under the subscription model. And indeed debate continues over whether pay-per-use should remain available as an option, and under what terms. There are also different views on how DSI contributions could be embedded in the subscription system; and around how to amend Annex 1, whether to include all PGRFA or adopt a phased approach. The view of the seed sector was recently well summarized in Seed World. A predictably somewhat different view comes from Third World Network.

So, though there’s definitely been a lot of progress, without bold decisions and compromises in Lima (and thereafter), the reform package could still fall short of the needs of farmers and future generations. Fingers crossed.