Subscribe
Efforts to reform the global system that governs sharing of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) is at a crucial stage.
Delegates from around the world gathered in Lima, Peru from July 7-11, 2025 for the final meeting of the Working Group before the Treaty’s governing body meets in November this year.
PGRFA are the seeds and plant varieties that farmers have cultivated and relied on for generations. They are important for breeding new crops that can survive droughts, pests and changing climates.
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was established to ensure that these resources are shared fairly across borders and that the benefits, such as profits from commercial use, return to the farmers and communities who have protected them for generations.
At the 14th Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group, discussions were held on many unresolved issues but without much success.
The working group is trying to improve the Treaty's Multilateral Systems (MLS), a framework that allows countries and companies to access genetic material.
At the heart of the discussions are two main issues: First, how users will pay to access the material and second, how benefits from the use of digital data will be shared. Other issues including payment structures, benefit sharing from digital sequence information (DSI), expansion of crop list and revisions to the seed sharing agreement. While some progress was made on technical matters, no final agreement was reached.
Most developing countries prefer a subscription-only system, where companies pay a fixed yearly amount to access all seeds. This gives predictable income to support farmers.
However, some countries, especially developed countries want a choice either subscribe or pay once per seed used (single access). A new idea is the partial subscription where companies can exclude certain crops from their subscription.
Maize and soy, for instance, are among the most valuable crops but some companies want to exclude them. Latin America and the Caribbean warned this would cut money going in to benefit sharing fund which support farming communities. But north America argued that big companies already have their own collection of maize and soy so they might not subscribe at all if forced to include them.
Another bone of contention is the payment rate. North America and the EU want a very low rate (0.01 per cent of annual seed sales), while Africa and Norway suggest 0.1 per cent and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries have pushed for 0.5 per cent.
In 2024, the global seed sales amounted to $70 billion. Even if everyone joined and paid 0.1 per cent, it would just raise $70 million which is not enough to support all developing countries that preserve seeds.
Many developing countries want mandatory benefit sharing from DSI. It refers to genetic data from seeds which is used by companies in labs to develop new varieties without sharing profits.
Richer countries want it to stay voluntary. There is also disagreement on whether DSI is even covered by the Treaty.
The treaty currently covers a limited list of crops. Some countries want to expand this list to include more species. But developing countries say they will only agree if the payment system is fair, DSI benefit sharing is not included and their sovereign rights over native species are respected.
The new proposal suggests that countries must share seeds that are in public collections and declare a few species as exceptions if they are native. Future exemptions could be allowed under special conditions.
Still, the whole proposal remains in brackets, meaning nothing is finalised yet.
The meeting also reviewed updated draft of the SMTA, which is a legal contract users to sign to access seeds such as advice from legal experts, options for partial subscription, rules on withdrawing from subscription or debates on sharing benefits if someone sells the rights to a third party.
The standing group of legal experts is continuing to refine and examine the language of the draft SMTA to help countries move forward. There was no consensus was reached on important definitions as 'affiliate', 'sales' or 'trait of commercial value'.
Countries also talked about how to review progress on system in the furture, list of seeds provided by the countries and whether national rules like Nagoya protocol are working well with the treaty.
Farmers groups asked for a ban on patenting DSI from seeds shared under the treaty. They also asked to be part of the decisions and not be left out of important meetings. Civil society organisations raised concerns that some of the current proposals favor companies more than farmers or communities. They warned that this could reduce fairness and make the system less transparent.
These discussions also echoed broader concerns raised by scientists and civil society during the same week. As reported by Down to Earth experts warned that expanding the crop list and granting full access to DSI without strong benefit sharing safeguards could weaken national soveriegnity and farmers rights.
Countries have made some technical progress but still disagree on most important points. The real outcomes depends on what happens at the November meeting.