Perceived betrayal: Global South criticises Plant Genetic Treaty Amendments

The Global South has voiced strong objections to proposed amendments within the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) during recent Working Committee Meetings in Peru. Their primary concern was the potential for exploitation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) originating from the Global South.  

The backdrop for these concerns is a history of perceived failings within Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) mechanisms, leading to a lack of trust among some countries in the Global South regarding the equitable distribution of benefits arising from the use of their genetic resources. Civil society organisations and farmer groups have highlighted the failure to ensure communities receive benefits, despite millions of seed samples being shared, and have called for greater transparency and accountability within the system.  

The global landscape of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) is a complex tapestry woven with threads of international cooperation, national sovereignty and often, deep-seated inequities. At its heart lies a contentious narrative, particularly for the Global South, concerning the promise and perceived betrayal embedded within international legal instruments designed to govern these vital biological assets.

Dawn of a new era: Earth Summit & CBD

The landmark Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 marked a pivotal moment, giving birth to several global legal treaties aimed at sustainable development. Among them, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) stood out, establishing a revolutionary principle: National sovereignty over genetic resources. For provider countries, largely in the Global South, this was a cause for celebration.

The CBD promised a framework for conservation, sustainable utilisation, and, crucially, ABS. It meant that any utilisation of their genetic resources would require prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms, ensuring a fair and equitable share of the benefits derived. This shift from the earlier “common heritage of humankind” concept was monumental, empowering nations to control their biological wealth.

Counter-narrative: ITPGRFA & multilateral system

However, almost concurrently with the CBD’s emergence, another international instrument began to take shape: The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), often dubbed the “Seed Treaty”. Adopted in 2001 and coming into force in 2004, the ITPGRFA was the culmination of over two decades of negotiations within the FAO.

While presented as a “specialised instrument” in harmony with the CBD, many perceived its design, particularly by corporate seed companies and user countries, as an alternative mechanism — the Multilateral System (MLS) — intended to circumvent the sovereign rights newly gained by provider countries under the CBD.

The core of the ITPGRFA’s MLS lies in its Annex I, which lists major food crops. Material listed in Annex I, along with vast collections held in the gene banks of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres, were to be made freely available for research, breeding and training for food and agriculture through a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA).

The benefit-sharing under MLS was not bilateral, but rather a fund-based mechanism, where monetary benefits from commercialisation would contribute to a common fund for conservation and sustainable use in developing countries.

Intrigue & unveiling of betrayal

The true implications of this dual system, particularly the denial of direct ABS, were not immediately apparent to provider countries when the ITPGRFA came into force. The ‘intrigue’ aspect came sharply into focus with the vast collections of PGRFA held in CGIAR gene banks. These ‘ex situ’ collections, amassed largely before CBD’s 1993 entry into force under the "common heritage" principle, contained genetic material predominantly from developing countries.

The dilemma was stark: Applying strict CBD national sovereignty retrospectively to these pre-existing collections was deemed impractical. This created a loophole. Developed countries, whose breeding programmes and commercial ventures heavily utilised these CGIAR collections, benefited immensely from this pre-CBD "common heritage" status. Yet, they were quick to assert national sovereignty and intellectual property rights (like patents and Plant Breeder’s Rights) over their own genetic resources and newly developed varieties once the CBD was active.

Double standards exposed: Tale of two systems

This created a glaring perception of "double standards". Developed countries, often net importers of genetic resources but significant developers of new varieties, gained facilitated access to a global pool of genetic diversity through the ITPGRFA's MLS and the CGIAR collections.

Meanwhile, the very developing countries that were the original providers of this biodiversity found themselves sidelined from the direct, bilateral ABS mechanisms envisioned by CBD. The benefits flowing back through the MLS fund were often seen as insufficient compared to the massive commercial value derived from their genetic heritage.

For over two decades, this system allowed developed countries and their corporate entities to freely use Annex I material through the MLS, making huge profits while effectively denying equitable ABS to the providers. This amounted to what many in the Global South termed "legal biopiracy protocols," where the letter of the new law (ITPGRFA) was used to bypass the spirit of the previous one (CBD) concerning historical collections.

Indian experience: Leader's dilemma & community discontent

The feeling of betrayal resonates deeply within India, a nation rich in biodiversity and a traditional leader for the Global South in these negotiations. Despite having robust domestic legislations like the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 and Biodiversity Act (2002) which provide legal mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing, native conservator and seed-saver communities narrate a story of impact and disillusionment. They argue that the international framework has failed to deliver tangible benefits to the ground-level custodians of genetic diversity.

This sentiment was amplified during the recent Peru round of working group meetings for the ITPGRFA, which India co-chaired. Farmer organizations and civil society groups in India voiced strong criticism, suggesting that the country's leadership role did not translate into a credible defense of domestic seed-saver communities' interests. A major point of contention was the fear that proposals put forth by the co-chairs could be misconstrued as India's official stance, co-opting the nation into agreements that lacked thorough domestic consultation with farmers and state governments.

However, for these communities and other provider countries, the Peru meeting ended with a ray of hope. The working group failed to reach a consensus on several contentious proposals favored by user countries. These included the expansion of the Annex I list to include all PGRFA, the establishment of open-ended access to Digital Sequence Information (DSI), and the corresponding modifications to the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA). This lack of agreement has stalled, for now, what provider countries see as a continued effort to consolidate advantage for the diversity-poor, technology-rich nations.

The Future: Extending the reach of control

The saga continues. Today, in working group meetings, there are ongoing efforts to extend the Annex I list to infinity, along with discussions around Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and modified SMTAs, all seemingly designed to further consolidate advantage for user countries. This push for broader access, coupled with what is perceived as inadequate benefit-sharing, reinforces the historical imbalances and deepens the sense of betrayal among the provider countries that hold the world's richest biodiversity.

The debate over the ITPGRFA's MLS and its effectiveness in delivering equitable benefits to the Global South remains a critical point of contention. It underscores the ongoing struggle to balance global food security with the sovereign rights and fair compensation due to the custodians of the world's invaluable plant genetic resources.

Sarath Babu Balijepalli is the president of Plant Protection Association of India and former head of ICAR-NBPGR, Hyderabad. Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.