TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Jul25/03)
29 July 2025
Third World Network

Plant Treaty: Scope expansion riddled with differences not reflected in working group’s report

Penang, 28 July (TWN) – Discussions on the expansion of coverage of plant genetic resources shared under the aegis of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture have been shadowed by process concerns on the work approach.

The Co-Chair from Australia to The Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System (MLS) of Access and Benefit Sharing under the Plant Treaty showed persistent reluctance to incorporate alternative text proposals in the draft package of measures. The two Co-Chairs of the Working Group are from India and Australia, with the Australian Co-Chair leading the formal discussions throughout the 14^th meeting.

The Group of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) Region, the Africa Region, and key developing country delegations from Asia suggested changes to the text proposed by the Co-Chairs for the Amendment of Annex 1 of the Treaty, commonly known as the Plant Treaty. However, these text suggestions are not included in the draft package of measures that will be submitted to the 11^th Session of the Governing Body (GB11) of the Plant Treaty in November. Instead, some of their proposals are summarily mentioned in the Working Group report.

[Annex 1 currently contains a negotiated list of 64 crops, plant genetic resources (seeds/propagating materials) from which are to be shared using a Standard Material Transfer Agreement developed under the Treaty, rather than through national access and benefit sharing systems. The amendment proposals from the Co-Chair, aligning mostly with the demands of the Global North is to expand the list of crops to cover genetic resources from almost all Plants.]

 

The Working Group met for the 14^th and last time in Lima, Peru, from 7 to 11 July 2025 to discuss a draft package of measures on the enhancement of the MLS that will be submitted to GB11.

A key contention is the proposed measure to expand Annex 1 which would then apply the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) to access to almost all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). This proposal is not accompanied with corresponding effective governance measures over gene banks that share these resources, databases sharing digital sequence information (DSI) from PGRFA, and the improvement of fair and equitable benefit sharing practices.

When the text suggestions were not included in the draft package, the Co-Chair from Australia promised to reflect the text proposals in the meeting report to the Governing Body. The delegations were also requested to email their proposals to be accurately compiled in the report. However, the Co-Chair later excused himself by saying that he was simply asking delegations to send their contentions and suggested language for the report, rather than text proposals.

 

Consequently, the final report of the 14th Working Group meeting does not reflect the text proposals relating to expansion of Annex 1 emailed by Malaysia. Neither is the opposition of the Asian developing countries including the Philippines, Nepal and others, regarding the consideration of Amendment of Annex 1, reflected accurately in the meeting report.

The Asia region’s developing countries represented by Nepal, Malaysia and the Philippines since the resumption of the Working Group in 2022 (after the COVID-19 pandemic) have consistently objected to expansion of Annex I before operationalizing an effective MLS that demonstrates enhanced benefit sharing flows. Unfortunately, none of the reports from the last four meetings reflect this position accurately with its specifics.

For instance, the report of the 11^th meeting states the following which is also partially reflected in the report of the 14^th meeting as well:

“On the expansion of Annex I, the Working Group generally supported an expansion of the list contained in Annex I, as one element of the package of measures, with relevant safeguards... The Working Group agreed to continue to work towards an expansion covering all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), under the condition that robust safeguards could be included in a manner that would address the concerns of all Regions. The Working Group noted that without these safeguards it would not be possible for some Contracting Parties to agree to the expansion of Annex I to all PGRFA...”

This paragraph does not reflect the demand of Asian developing countries which called for consideration of expansion to take place only after the enhanced MLS in terms of benefit sharing is operationalized.

The proposal to amend Annex 1 now says “all PGRFA” that is under the management and control of the Parties, and in the public domain and the ex situ collections shall be part of the MLS, notwithstanding the list of 64 crops. This means extending the scope of the Plant Treaty’s MLS to virtually all plant germplasm and, in particular, to all public sector collections, as a measure to attract more seed industries to the MLS.

If this proposed amendment is adopted, then Parties are obligated to share the seeds from “all PGRFA” through the SMTA. Although sharing using the SMTA is for the purpose of research, breeding and training for food and agriculture, there are no effective governance measures to avoid diversion of resources or to ensure effective benefit sharing from the very same purposes for which seeds were shared. 

Currently despite the MLS sharing 6.6 million PGRFA accessions with more than 25,000 users only 5-6 users have made monetary contributions to the benefit sharing fund managed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Since there are no tracking, accountability or transparency measures associated with sharing of the PGRFA through the MLS, national authorities or farmers contributing seeds to national collections do not know the recipients of their seeds unless the seeds were directly taken from them. Currently seeds from Africa, Asia and Latin America are largely transmitted through international gene banks, which are not obligated to notify the national authorities or original contributors such as farmers.

It must be noted that the number of SMTAs, a Plant Treaty tool, signed by international gene banks, handling seeds from these regions, are several times more than national authorities in these regions (20 times for Asia, 190 times for Africa, 228 times for Latin America, 37 times for the Near East), showing who controls the seed sharing.

It is in this context the Asian developing countries have objected to the consideration of expansion unless they see improvements in the operations of the MLS. For instance, during the 13^th Working Group meeting they cautioned that the Working Group should not assume that “expansion of the Annex will come with ease” and called for mutually reinforcing proposals on issues such as benefit sharing, limiting the scope of intellectual property claims, use of DSI, transparency and governance of the MLS.

In the 14^th meeting, the Philippines and Malaysia reiterated this proposition by saying that “any consideration of expanded access or additional crop inclusion under Annex I must be preceded by the operationalization of a fully functioning MLS”.

An email sent by Malaysia to the Treaty Secretariat explained the position of the Asia region where several Contracting Parties were not willing to consider expansion of Annex 1 until an enhanced MLS with better benefit sharing options and governance elements is operationalized.

The email also suggests that most Asian developing countries prefer a “positive list” approach to expansion, and that they strongly oppose the “one-time negative list” which is a “red line” for many Contracting Parties from the Asia region.

[A one-time negative list would mean sharing all PGRFA except those from the limited number of species that are explicitly excluded at the time of ratifying the proposed amendment to Annex 1. A positive list approach is where Parties may themselves declare which crops or species they will share through the MLS.]

Nevertheless, the draft package of measures now proposes a “one-time negative list”, whereby at the time of ratification of the amendment, Parties can issue a list containing the limited number of species they will exclude from the MLS.

The draft package also requests Contracting Parties to provide reasons why they are excluding the said limited number of species and requests them to remove the exclusions from the list as soon as possible. Parties are not allowed to add species into the list, once the list is declared at the time of amendment. Interestingly, there are suggestions that benefit sharing funds should not finance projects involving the conservation or sustainable use of such excluded species.

The position of the Africa and Near East regions is also the same, favouring a positive list, rather than a negative list. Africa was of the view that provided there are substantial improvements in benefit sharing options and measures, countries can and will expand the crops and PGRFA they commit to share through the MLS. The Near East also did not explicitly endorse full expansion. They referred to the need for having a definitive list of the species for which countries are obligated to provide facilitated access.

Although GRULAC had several times, in the 13th and 14th meetings said that they have taken tough decisions to fully expand the annex, diplomatic sources from the region indicate that they only decided to open the list, but they have no consensus on how or when to open. GRULAC consistently argued in the 14th meeting that unless benefit sharing is mandated through subscriptions, they would not be in a position to open the annex fully. Accordingly, GRULAC suggested changing the phrase “all PGRFA” in the text proposal to amend Annex 1, to the phrase “other significant” PGRFA. They also indicated that the negative list should be open for countries to add more species for exclusion.

None of these positions or divergences appear with clarity in the meeting reports, particularly in the 14th meeting report, except for the proposals of GRULAC and some other North America Parties. Neither are these divergent positions reflected in the draft amendment text to Annex 1. This risks obscuring the decision-making choices available for the GB11 regarding expansion of Annex 1.

The 14th Meeting report in its Appendix 3 containing the Report of The Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group to Enhance The Functioning Of The Multilateral System To The Eleventh Session of The Governing Body reads thus in paragraph 31:

“Noting the interconnectedness and different views on how to balance the three hotspots, the Working Group recognised that agreement on the expansion of Annex I is dependent on consensus on the entire package, but especially payment structure and rates. There remain different views on the text for the Amendment that should be adopted as part of the enhancement process. These views include but are not limited to, the need to maintain or delete paragraph 3 and whether to provide additional flexibility with regard to PGRFA coverage and modalities for exclusion/inclusion. In this context, the Working Group took note of, but did not reach consensus on, a proposal to support a significant expansion of coverage, while allowing Contracting Parties to declare any number of specific species that they will not make available to the Multilateral System. Some Regions emphasized the importance of being clear in the proposed amendment text that any declaration of exclusion pursuant to Art. 1.2 of the amendment text shall not include any crops listed in the current Annex I, and the need to reflect this matter also in the draft Resolution”

However, Asian developing countries asked for a differently drafted paragraph 30bis:

“Noting the interconnectedness and different views on how to balance the three hotspots, the Working Group recognised that agreement to the expansion of Annex 1 is dependent on consensus on the entire package, but especially payment structure and rates. There remain different views on the text for the Amendment that should be adopted as part of the enhancement process. These views include but are not limited to, (i) need for opening annex to all PGRFA or to a significant selection of PGRFA; (ii) consideration of replacing negative list for positive list; (iii) the need to maintain or delete paragraph 3 and (iv) whether to provide additional flexibility with regard to PGRFA coverage and modalities for inclusion and/or exclusion. The treatment of currently listed crops and forages in respect of declarations of exclusion was also raised and the need to reflect this matter also in the Resolution. Co-Chairs invited parties to submit in writing their comments and suggestions to amend Annex 1 to be compiled in the report of the 14th meeting.” (Emphasis added)

Although GRULAC and the Africa Region supported the proposal by the Asian developing countries, the Co-Chair showed considerable reluctance to add this text. The Co-chair from Australia backtracked from his earlier invitation to delegations to send their comments and suggestions in email, stating that he had not invited Parties to submit written comments and suggestions. Malaysia in reply said that the Co-chair had invited submissions via email and accordingly the delegation had sent an email to the Co-Chairs and Secretariat.

The Co-chair from Australia responded that his invitation was not to all Parties, but to those Parties who suggested text changes in the amendment proposal to Annex 1 during the discussion on the topic.

The Asian developing countries indicated that they could withdraw their suggested text for paragraph 31, but the four points they indicated are to be reflected adequately in the text being finalized by the Co-chairs.

Meanwhile, Norway and North America intervened and said there was no such discussion on various options like full expansion versus partial expansion, or negative list versus positive list. Norway further added that the Working Group considered a positive list only as “a means for national implementation” of facilitated access based on an amended Annex 1 and not as a replacement of the negative list as currently proposed in the amendment text.

[Characterizing a positive list as a “means of implementation” requires no change in the amendment text proposed by the Co-chairs. In this approach Annex 1 is fully expanded, and each country will have a list that excludes a limited number of plant species from the scope. Anything not included in the list is automatically within the scope of Annex 1, obligating Parties to facilitate access to all PGRFA in their national collections through the SMTA under the MLS. A positive list can be then used, more or less, as “periodic notifications” by the governments to indicate that those PGRFA under the exclusion notification are available for global sharing using the SMTA.]

A Civil Society Organisation (CSO) representative took the floor and stated that the statements by North America and Norway do not provide an accurate characterization of the discussion that took place on the amendment to Annex 1. The CSO representative added that several regions have raised the matter, especially the Asian region, which had indicated that they are not ready to consider expansion until an enhanced MLS is operationalized. The CSO indicated preference for paragraphs which present various options relating to expansion, incorporating in particular points (i) and (ii) as proposed by the Asian developing countries for paragraph 31 on the form of expansion as well as on the issue of positive list versus negatives list  respectively, to finalise the paragraph.

The U.S. delegation then said that the points relating to significant expansion and positive list are captured well in the text as suggested by the Co-chair, as it specifically talks about “modalities for inclusion/exclusion”.

Proposals to change Amendment text on Annex 1 not included

On the last day of the 14th meeting, when the text to amend Annex 1 was taken up for discussion, GRULAC first suggested making changes to paragraph 1. They asked to replace “all other PGRFA” with “a significant other PGRFA”.

Currently the relevant part of Paragraph 1 in the draft package reads as follows:

“...the Multilateral System shall, in addition to the Food Crops and Forages listed above, cover all other plant genetic resources for food and agriculture... that are under the management and control of the Contracting Parties and in the public domain and that are found in ex situ conditions collections”.

Immediately after GRULAC suggested changing “all other PGRFA” to “a significant other PGRFA”, the Co-chair from Australia expressed concern over opening the text. Despite Asia’s consistent opposition, and the calls for a positive list and definitive list by Africa and Near East regions respectively, the Co-Chair said opening of the text and adding the suggestion made by GRULAC will be working backwards from a general agreement and commitment the Working Group achieved on full expansion.

The Africa Group took the floor to support GRULAC's text suggestion. They also requested to reflect their call for “positive list” in the first paragraph, although they did not have a specific text suggestion.

 

Asian developing countries also supported GRULAC and requested that the Group’s text suggestion be indicated.

Norway then said they do not want to see alternative text suggestions in brackets in the amendment proposal to Annex 1. They said their understanding is that Africa’s call for a positive list is limited to using such lists as a means of national implementation and does not require a reflection in the Amendment text. They said the positive list as a means of implementation is already reflected in the draft resolution adopting the amendment.

Europe as a region supported Norway and indicated that the concerns can be reflected in the report for the Governing Body and to leave the amendment text proposal as it is. The Co-chair from Australia said he would prefer to put brackets over the paragraph and reflect the concerns in the WG14 report.

GRULAC further suggested they would like to delete the words “exceptionally” and “limited number” as well as the phrase “but shall not make any additional declaration” from paragraph 2. However, this was also resisted by the Co-chair following the previous approach to reflect divergences in the meeting report.

Paragraph 2 of the amendment text proposal reads as follows in the current draft package of measures:

“At the time of its ratification, acceptance or approval of this Amendment, a Contracting Party may, exceptionally, declare certain and a limited number of species native to its territory that it will not make available under the terms and conditions of the Multilateral System. Such a declaration shall not affect the rights and obligations of any other Contracting Party related to the species, nor those of the International Agricultural Research Centres or other International Institutions that concluded an agreement with the Governing Body under Article 15 of this Treaty. A Contracting Party may withdraw its declaration at any time, or eliminate plant genetic resources for food and agriculture from its list at any time, but shall not make any additional declaration.”

Meanwhile, North America, which wanted to add a sentence to paragraph 2, proposed text suggestions that says countries should not exempt species from the current list of 64 crops in their respective negative list. The Co-Chair, though welcoming the inputs, suggested the same could also be reflected in the meeting report. North America accepted the suggestion.

It was at this stage the Co-Chair said that all suggestions and arguments on Annex 1 can be captured in the WG14 report, and it will be helpful if Parties made them available via an email.

Norway bracketed the third paragraph which mandates the 14^th meeting of the Governing Body in November to open further opportunities for Contracting Parties to add additional exceptions to their negative list.

GRULAC requested to bracket all the three paragraphs of the amendment text proposal related to Annex 1. 

The Malaysian email on behalf of Asian developing countries also contained the following text suggestion, which however does not appear in the report:

“In furtherance of the objectives and scope of this Treaty, in accordance with Article 3 of this

Treaty, and without prejudice to Article 12.3 h of this Treaty, the Multilateral System shall, in

in addition to the Food Crops and Forages listed above, cover food crops and forages that shall be added to the list periodically by the Governing Body, consistent with Article 11, notwithstanding anything contained in the Article 24 and 23.”

According to the written submission, Malaysia also proposed to delete paragraph 2 as a “one-time negative list” is a red line for many developing countries from the region. They also proposed to develop a process of periodic expansion of Annex 1 in line with their proposal post entry into force of the amendment proposal.

Working Group fails to discuss implications on farmers rights

Paragraph 42 of the Appendix 3 of the WG14 report reads: “The Co-Chairs regularly reviewed the possible implications for Farmers’ Rights across the three hotspots and identified that nothing in the package of measures should be interpreted as restricting Farmers’ Rights. The draft Resolution contains language to this effect.”

This paragraph as explained in the Working Group does not seem to do service to paragraph 8 of Resolution 7/2023, that requires the Working Group to take into account implications for farmers rights in developing solutions for enhancing MLS. The hotspots include expansion of Annex 1, digital sequence information and payment structure and rates.

Paragraph 8 of Resolution 7/2023 “Invites the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing to take account of the implications for Farmers’ Rights across three hotspots in developing solutions for enhancing MLS; …”

Farmers Organisations confirmed with TWN that there was no study, no report or any other form of discussion on the implications for Farmers’ Rights in the Working Group. The implications for Farmers’ Rights were not an agenda item in any of the Working Group meetings. Resolution 7 in inviting the Co-Chairs to take into account implications for Farmers’ rights does not mean the Co-Chairs doing this in their personal capacity. Logically, they would have to submit a realistic understanding of these implications in theory and practice, following which they should have requested the Working Group to consider those implications.

However, no such exercise was taken up in the Working Group’s meetings. At the very least regarding the hotspot expansion of Annex 1, implications for Farmers’ Rights should have been discussed extensively. There were no extensive text-based negotiations on Annex 1 expansion until WG14.

Discussions on amending Annex 1 were conducted summarily at WG11, where Asian developing countries, and farmers’ organisations opposed full expansion. Africa, the Near East, GRULAC, and Civil Society discussed various options and safeguards needed for expansion including consideration of national positive lists and gradual or partial expansion. GRULAC and Asian developing countries made some text suggestions as an alternative to full expansion as well.

Nevertheless, all these alternative approaches and text suggestions to amend the expansion of Annex 1 have not been incorporated in the draft package of measures as well as the WG14 meeting report. This raise concerns over fairness and accuracy, risking effective communication to GB11 regarding several choices available for the Governing Body in this regard.