As the world unites in Lima, Peru to prepare for the 11th Session of the Governing Body (GB11) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) to be held in November 2025, one issue looms large over all others — the acceptance of the so-called "package of measures" to improve the functioning of the Multilateral System (MLS) of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS).
The 14th meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group, currently underway in Peru between July 7-11, 2025, is set to be a crucial moment in the treaty's trajectory, especially with regards to access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) and benefit sharing arising from their utilisation, the Digital Sequence Information (DSI) debate,and the long-contested expansion of Annex I crop lists.
The ongoing reform of MLS has taken over a decade of negotiations, with recurrent halts and restarts. Notwithstanding the lofty goals of equitable access and benefit sharing, the current draft package of measures, designed principally by treaty co-chairs with heavy influence from developed countries and private sector lobbies, reflects a systemic imbalance.
While enjoying easy access to diverse plant genetic resources (seeds), developed nations and seed companies have mainly been non-committal on monetary benefit sharing, weakening the treaty's foundational principle of mutual reinforcement between access and benefit-sharing.
The Contracting Parties agree that the benefits arising from the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture under MLS shall primarily flow to farmers, especially in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, who conserve and sustainably utilise such resources.
These benefits shall reach farmers directly (through access to improved seeds, financial support and training programmes) and indirectly (via investments in research, infrastructure and policy support systems that enhance farming livelihoods).
The proposed package of measures permits users to access new genetic material without an equivalent increase in payments, thereby favouring industrial recipients, while discouraging the contributions of provider countries and farmers. Only five users have made monetary contributions to the Benefit-Sharing Fund, with over 90 per cent of funds coming from a single entity.
The system is broken, and the proposed reforms risk entrenching that failure. Literally, there aren’t any proposals to improve governance of the system.
Among the severest threats to the integrity of MLS is the loose use of DSI. Genetic sequences derived from MLS materials are presently being uploaded and downloaded from unaccountable databases, with no traceability or benefit sharing. While the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement have moved toward regulating DSI, the ITPGRFA's proposed approach is shockingly unpaid and non-binding. Instead of instructing disclosure of DSI sources, the present draft purely “invites” patent applicants to reference MLS, without legal responsibility or penalties.
Moreover, there is no reference to the country of origin or provider identity — a crucial gap that opens the door for digital biopiracy. Developing countries have rightly demanded that DSI sharing occur through accountable, transparent databases like the Global Information System (GLIS), with user identity registration and terms of use. Anything less undermines not just national sovereignty, but also the rights of indigenous communities and farmers.
The projected amendment to Annexe I, which would transport all plant genetic resources under MLS, is being pushed aggressively without meaningful benefit-sharing reform. While the language appears inclusive, it violates the Treaty’s criteria — namely, the crops included must be of global interdependence and vital to food security. Worse, countries are being “invited” to start sharing their entire PGRFA repertoire even before the amendment enters into force.
This pressure tactic bypasses sovereign discretion, while a parallel proposal threatens to penalise countries that exercise their sovereign right to exclude specific species from the MLS by withholding funding support. Such coercive diplomacy contradicts Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), emphasising state sovereignty and fair benefit sharing.
India has steadily advocated for stronger governance mechanisms, including transparency in user data, public scrutiny and monitoring of material access and DSI use, elsewhere. Yet in FAO ITPGRFA, no provisions for public reporting, real-time tracking, or third-party audit mechanisms have been proposed. Instead, the latest drafts introduce additional confidentiality clauses that would make it even harder for civil society and farmers’ organisations to demand transparency.
FAO’s role as third-party beneficiary also remains toothless. Despite being tasked with ensuring compliance, there is no expansion of its responsibilities to curb misuse or support provider countries in enforcing their rights, especially on DSI matters.
India must firmly reject any expansion of the MLS unless it is accompanied by binding reforms on benefit sharing, including:
• Mandatory source and country of origin disclosure for all genetic materials and DSI
• Creation of a farmer-centric benefit-sharing mechanism, including direct access to funds without competitive gatekeeping
• Mandatory use of accountable databases for DSI, with precise user tracking and consent-based sharing
• Inclusion of food, fragrance, and processing industries as obligated beneficiaries, not just breeders
• Amendment of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement to cover commercialisation beyond seed sales
As co-chair from the Asian region and a global leader in biodiversity, India has the responsibility and opportunity to ensure that the treaty evolves in a just, transparent and equitable way. The current package is a step toward legalising exploitation under the guise of cooperation.
The GB11 meeting in November must become the turning point where developing nations reclaim their stake in the global genetic commons. Before that in Lima, India as the co-chair of the Working Group, needs to reclaim some of its lost positions and work towards placing a better equitable package for the consideration of the GB.
Anson CJ is an Assistant Professor at Madras Christian College, Chennai. He works on intellectual property law, geographical indications, biodiversity governance, traditional knowledge protection, and emerging issues in AI-generated works.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.