Source: The Global Crop Diversity Trust

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture may still have a few sharp edges. It’s not the prettiest creature. And those who worked on it over the years have certainly lost a lot of their hair. But, the Treaty is now decidedly REAL.

Efforts to achieve an international treaty addressing the conservation and exchange of plant genetic resources date to the late 1970s. Reaching consensus on a binding instrument proved impossible before the new millennium.

The absence of an agreed international framework for acquisition of genetic resources stifled exchange and perpetuated mistrust without providing any off-setting benefits. Accusations swirled. New words, such as “biopiracy,” entered the lexicon. Collecting for conservation purposes decreased – countries were leery of what might be lost, stolen or misappropriated. Exchanges declined, undermining breeding programs.

Some assumed genetic resources could be sold sample-by-sample and that the marketplace would thus provide an incentive for conservation. It didn’t happen. There was no market, little access, and zero benefits. Everyone lost.

Because seeds are so easy to multiply and transport, genetic resources defy attempts at commercialization. For 500 years, they have foiled all attempts.

In economists’ terms they are a “public good.” The marketplace provides little, if any, economic incentive to entrepreneurs to conserve crop diversity in order to sell it. And yet, it is in society’s interest that crop diversity be conserved.

It has been wryly observed that governments always do the right thing…but only when all other options have been exhausted. The challenge countries faced in the Treaty negotiations was how to regulate the exchange of genetic resources so as to promote both access and the rewards that flow from access (e.g., food security).

For political reasons, negotiators also needed to find a mechanism for generating additional benefits, benefits they could manage and dispense. If selling genetic resources were unworkable, providing access with no regulation or recompense was unthinkable, and not providing access was slowly suicidal.

Following seven years of formal negotiations, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture debuted in 2002. Featuring a Multilateral System for the access and benefit-sharing of crop diversity, it lacked the detailed provisions needed to implement the system.

The tough nuts-and-bolts decisions were bequeathed to the first meeting of the Treaty’s Governing Body, the 104 countries that had formally ratified the Treaty when the Governing Body convened in June in Madrid.

Confounding most observers who thought the issues too technically and politically intractable to resolve, the Governing Body:

• Agreed on the terms of a standard Material Transfer Agreement (sMTA) through which all crop diversity covered by the Treaty’s Multilateral System (covering more than 35 of the world’s most important crops, plus a number of forages) will be accessed and used. The sMTA calls for a royalty of 1.1% of sales to be paid into a fund when (a.) genetic material is accessed from the Treaty’s multilateral system, (b.) it is incorporated into a product that is a plant genetic resource, such as a new crop variety, (c.) the product is commercialized, and (c.) there are restrictions, such as patent protection, that limit use of the product for further plant breeding and research. Users can opt for a lower royalty rate (0.5%) if they apply it to all products of a particular crop regardless of whether there are restrictions to further use and regardless of whether multilateral system materials were used in making them. The Treaty’s Governing Body will control and dispense funds raised, using them to support crop diversity related programs.
• Agreed on a financial strategy for implementation of the Treaty and Rules of Procedure for the Governing Body.
• Approved the text of agreements bringing collections held by the CGIAR under the terms of the Treaty. These collections contain much of the diversity of the world’s major crops and are the most widely used collections in the world.
• Expressed in the final report of the meeting its “unanimous support” for the Global Crop Diversity Trust and approved and signed a Relationship Agreement with the Trust recognizing, uniquely, the Trust’s role as an “essential element” of the Treaty’s funding strategy in regards to ex situ conservation and availability of plant genetic resources.

In short, the Treaty became Real in Madrid.

The Treaty removes the uncertainty of access and the fear of exploitation that prevailed in the 1990s – uncertainty and fear that choked off exchanges of crop diversity and undercut conservation and plant breeding efforts.

By promoting cooperation and the sharing of genetic resources, will the Treaty reduce the impulse of countries to take an “every man for himself” approach to conservation? We’ll see. It should, because through cooperation based on the Treaty, a rational, efficient, effective and sustainable system can now be created for conserving crop diversity and making it available to all. This can be done without incurring large costs, and it can be done without diminishing any country’s access to the crop diversity it needs.

A legal framework is in place. Now it is time for thinking to shift and for attitudes to catch up to the new reality. By normalizing transactions, the Treaty should help create a new climate of trust and cooperation among custodians and users of crop diversity. If it does, it will be the Treaty’s greatest achievement. This may take a little time. By then we may all be a little loose in the joints and shabby, but it won’t matter. The new global system will be Real.