|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Aug25/02) Plant Treaty: Developed countries seek to retain control over sequence information, avoid benefit sharing Penang, 6 August 2025 (TWN) – While progress has been made on access and benefit sharing regarding sequence information on genetic resources at the international level, there was a recent setback for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Governments had agreed in some international fora, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and World Health Organisation (WHO), to subject sequence information to national and international access rules and benefit sharing obligations. However, discussions under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (commonly known as the Plant Treaty) took a different turn. At the last and 14th meeting (7 – 11 July 2025) of the Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group on Enhancement of the Functioning of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing under the Plant Treaty, developed countries opposed proposals to guarantee access to digital sequence information and genetic sequence data (DSI/GSD) generated from the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). They also sought to avoid obligations to fairly and equitably share benefits arising from the use of such DSI/GSD within the scope of the Plant Treaty. Succumbing to the pressure from the developed countries, the Plant Treaty could reverse the progress made on DSI/GSD in other international fora such as the CBD, WHO and the Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the 14th Working Group meeting, the developed countries deleted the following text supported by the developing countries: “[Affirms the importance of maintaining access to digital sequence information/genetic sequence data on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in the Multilateral System, [in databases accountable and transparent to the Governing Body and Contracting Parties that provide access to all registered users who undertake terms and conditions as stipulated by the Governing Body,] for conservation, agricultural research and plant breeding, subject to applicable law;] …” The phrase “in databases accountable and transparent to the Governing Body and Contracting Parties that provide access to all registered users who undertake terms and conditions as stipulated by the Governing Body” was vehemently opposed by the developed countries during the 13th Working Group meeting itself when the same text was proposed. The 13th meeting took place in April 2025. They also moved to delete reference to the principles of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science 2021 that seeks to ensure access to research data for all researchers without discrimination. They opposed proposals obligating recipients of PGRFA to use the Global Information System established under the Treaty as a first point of release, while sharing DSI/GSD publicly. Above all, these also seek to bypass sharing of benefits arising from the use of PGRFA DSI/GSD simply by proposing language that subscription rates to the MLS shall address expectations from the use of the PGRFA DSI/GSD. Subscription rates can only address use of PGRFA DSI/GSD involved in breeding and the seed sales, while the same could be used for several other purposes including in industries like food ingredients, flavours and fragrances etc. In the second week of July the Working Group concluded its last meeting before the 11th meeting of the Governing Body of the Plant Treaty in November. The outcome document contains no consensus with respect to the treatment of PGRFA DSI/GSD. Nevertheless text as currently contained in the outcome document favours the interests of developed countries as opposed to developing countries. Mirage of Open Access Developed countries sought to keep simple language in the draft package of measures that “Affirms the importance of open access to DSI/GSD and the value of findable links between such data and PGRFA in the MLS”. This is in lieu of the paragraph ensuring access to all researchers without discrimination. However, the devil is in the details. It must be noted that there is no internationally agreed definition of open access. What the developed countries mean by “open access” is merely the status quo, whereby DSI/GSD is shared through the databases that claim themselves to offer “open access”. The reality is that these databases undertake no legal responsibility to guarantee access to researchers from all parts of the world. The above language proposed by developed countries does not mandate the MLS to ensure access to all researchers without discrimination. Neither does it aid developing countries or their researchers to efficiently manage their data resources or infrastructure. On the other hand, it legitimizes the de facto control exercised by developed countries over DSI/GSD and the associated digital infrastructure. It must be noted that currently, DSI/GSD sequences are largely shared through databases funded or hosted by Developed Countries. This means the funders or hosts of these databases, i.e., the developed countries, can effectively decide on the access policies, no matter whether these databases remain accessible to all or whether they promote or undermine benefit sharing from the use of the PGRFA DSI/GSD. Recent events show the databases from developed countries can shut down access to researchers from other countries according to changing political scenarios. It is clear from these recent experiences that the researchers from other countries do not have effective legal remedies when their access is unilaterally terminated by the database managers located in the developed countries. The fact that developed countries deleted reference to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science 2021 shows that there is no genuine commitment towards ensuring access to research data for researchers from all parts of the world. SMTA text not discussed During its 14th meeting, the Working Group began discussion on DSI on the 2nd day. The Co-Chair from Australia opened by saying DSI/GSD is not a defined term and thus it is difficult for many regions (essentially North America and Europe) to include the same in legally binding text. The indication was very strong from Europe and North America that they did not want amendments to the Plant Treaty or amendments to the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) to address the issue of DSI/GSD although both are being amended in the process of enhancement of the MLS. They pushed any reference to DSI/GSD to a resolution, drafted to adopt these amendments. A resolution is not a legally binding instrument. However, developing countries from all other regions – Africa, Asia, GRULAC, Near East, South West Pacific etc. – were all very clear from the beginning that they need to address DSI/GSD generated from PGRFA within the legally binding text. Stakeholders like Civil Society, Academia as well as Farmers Organisation also supported developing countries’ call on their own respective approaches. The seed industry however sided with Europe and North America. The Co-Chairs’ proposal for the draft package of measures effectively ignored the demands of developing countries and stakeholders, and instead contained proposals that are acceptable to developed countries and industry. Since then, it has always been an uphill battle for developing countries to address DSI/GSD within the legally binding text. Developing countries, as a middle ground, sought to address DSI/GSD within the SMTA, which is legally binding for the providers and recipients of the PGRFA. There were a few text proposals submitted for inclusion in the SMTA during the 13th meeting, a few in the Preamble of the SMTA and two paragraphs in Article 6. The 14th meeting began with the Co-Chair again emphasising the difficulty as raised by North America and Europe. However, developing countries insisted on addressing DSI/GSD in the SMTA. Civil Society Organisations provided evidence that DSI/GSD though an undefined terminology has been part of legally binding instruments such as the UN Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, WHO Pandemic Agreement as well as SMTAs of the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework. Countries like the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany and France, who objected to the use of DSI/GSD in SMTA in the Working Group, have expressed agreement to one or other instruments referred above. Ignoring the views from developing countries, Norway stated that a user who is a subscriber should be considered as compliant with benefit sharing obligations relating to any use of DSI/GSD. Although they indicated that a user accessing materials from the MLS without subscribing will not be considered as compliant with benefit sharing from use of PGRFA DSI/GSD, they did not indicate how such users should actually be sharing benefits arising from the use of DSI/GSD. Meanwhile North America, which is keen in promoting access to PGRFA without subscription, argued that a similar understanding is necessary with regard to monetary contributions made by recipients who are not subscribers. They argued that such an understanding could also be an incentive for recipients to share monetary contributions. The seed industry came up with a bizarre demand in that they wanted to consider benefit sharing contributions under the MLS as extinguishing all other expectations to share benefits from the use of the DSI/GSD even if such DSI/GSD are not covered under the MLS. However, GRULAC very clearly stated that DSI is considered as part of genetic resources within the region and it is imperative to address DSI/GSD within the SMTA to safeguard national sovereignty. They referred to Decisions 15/9 and 16/2 of the Conference of Parties (COP) to CBD that recognize national sovereignty, in particular, the right to legislate on DSI. They informed the Working Group that if DSI/GSD is not addressed in the SMTA, this would potentially undermine such future legislations. Asia, while demanding DSI/GSD to be addressed in the SMTA, pushed for clear guidelines and tracking tools to verify when DSI falls into the MLS. Africa stated that they support Asia developing countries. Referring to the CSO statement, Africa said they want to place appropriate text on DSI/GSD in the SMTA. Upon this insistence, a small group was formed within the Working Group to discuss approaches towards DSI/GSD as well as text suggestions. Although the small group discussed the subject matter until late night of the penultimate day to the closure of 14th meeting, the small group did not find consensus on the approach towards DSI/GSD, i.e. whether DSI/GSD should be addressed through the SMTA or not. Neither did they discuss the texts relating to DSI/GSD in the SMTA. Some texts as proposed by developing countries in the preamble and Article 6 of the SMTA, remain bracketed, indicating lack of consensus. Some of these relevant text proposals are as follows: “Preamble, Para 7 ALT: Resolution [XX]/2025 of [XX] of November 2025 adopted the revised Standard Material Transfer Agreement, and addresses specific aspects related to information, including digital sequence information/genetic sequence data on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, implementation and review of the enhanced Multilateral System.] [[6.2 BIS][6.10 BIS] In the case that the Recipient applies for a patent [or plant breeders rights] over an invention based on the Material [or DSI/GSD received from the Material], the Recipient shall disclose the [Material and its] source in its patent [or plant variety protection] application[, subject to applicable law].] [6.12 If the Recipient generates DSI/GSD from the Material received and decides to make it publicly available or share it with third parties, they shall do so under applicable law, and, in case of making it publicly available, shall do so under the Global Information System established under Article 17 of the International Treaty.]” Talking to various participants of the Working Group, TWN learnt that North America and Europe insisted on discussing the language in the draft resolution first, which took almost all the time the small group had. On the night of 10th July, a draft text replacing the text in the draft resolution was proposed by the small group. Clearly the text was one-sided, removing several important principles and language inserted by developing countries in the draft resolution previously during the 13th meeting. The developing country members in the small group themselves, however, told the Working Group that there was no consensus in the language proposed as the outcome of the small group meeting. They agreed to use the small group text on the condition that they are allowed to bring back and place new elements as well as text suggestions that are essential to developing countries’ interests. Small Group Text The draft text submitted by the small group to the Working Group reads as follows: “1. Recalls Resolution 16/2022, in which it noted that it had not yet decided on the official terminology for digital sequence information / genetic sequence data and therefore uses “DSI/GSD” until new terminology is agreed; (AGREED AD REF_2) 2. Recognizes the important role of digital sequence information/genetic sequence data on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in conserving and sustainably using these resources; (AGREED AD REF_2) 3. Acknowledges the FAIR data management principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and their respective subprinciples; 4. Affirms the importance of open access to DSI/GSD and the value of findable links between such data and PGRFA in the MLS; 5. Encourages users of the MLS to make DSI/GSD available and to identify the MLS as a source, where appropriate; 6. Invites entities operating databases that make DSI/GSD on PGRFA publicly available, to offer a possibility to those submitting such data to be able to identify the MLS as the source of such genetic resources from which the DSI/GSD was derived; 7. Reaffirms that monetary and non-monetary benefits arising from the use of PGRFA under the MLS shall be shared fairly and equitably, as provided for in Article 13.2 of the International Treaty; 8. Notes the expectations for benefit-sharing from the use of DSI/GSD on PGRFA; 9. Invites Contracting Parties and the CGIAR Centers and other Art. 15 institutions to provide resources and support to build capacities in the access to and generation and use of DSI/GSD on PGRFA; 10. Acknowledges that benefit-sharing payments under the subscription option of the revised SMTA address any expectations for monetary benefit-sharing from the use of DSI/GSD on PGRFA; 11. Affirms that the Multilateral System will continue to be implemented in a mutually supportive manner with other relevant international instruments, including on aspects relating to DSI/GSD; 12. Acknowledges decision 16/2 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); 13. Requests the Secretary to continue efforts to follow processes under other relevant international instruments, especially the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol, concerning DSI/GSD, and report to the next Session of the Governing Body, and continue to collaborate with the secretariats of other relevant instruments, within their respective scope; …” The developing country delegations following the consideration of the text from the small group suggested to make a few changes including the following: (a) Addition of CARE (Collective Benefits, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) principles, and UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science 2021 to paragraph 3 above; (b) Addition of importance of accountability of databases sharing PGRFA DSI/GSD to all Parties in paragraph 4 above; (c) Addition of the requirement to identify the provider country of the PGRFA in paragraphs 5 and 6 above; (d) New paragraph 14 mandating the Secretariat to develop a portal for DSI/GSD sharing within the Global Information System under Article 17 of the Plant Treaty as well as related protocols for the use of such portal. Accordingly relevant paragraphs in the draft resolution contained in the draft package of measures, attached to the Working Group Report, now appear as follows: “48. Acknowledges the FAIR data management principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and their respective subprinciples[, the CARE principles (collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics) and the TRUST principles (transparency, responsibility, user focus, sustainability, and technology), as well as the recommendations set out in section 3 of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science 2021]; 49. Affirms the importance of open access to DSI/GSD and the value of findable links between such data and PGRFA in the Multilateral System [as well as accountability of databases sharing DSI/GSD on PGRFA under the International Treaty and its Contracting Parties]; 50. Encourages users of the Multilateral System to make DSI/GSD available and to identify the Multilateral System as a source, where appropriate[, and to identify the Provider as the source of the PGRFA]; 51. [Invites][Encourages] entities operating databases that make DSI/GSD on PGRFA publicly available, to offer a possibility to those submitting such data to be able to identify the Multilateral System as the source of such genetic resources from which the DSI/GSD was derived[, where appropriate][, and to be able to identify the Provider as the source of the PGRFA]; 59. [Requests the Secretary to develop a portal within the information system established under Article 17 of the International Treaty for sharing DSI/GSD from PGRFA coming from the Multilateral System and related protocols.]” Stakeholders like Farmers Organisations and Civil Society Organisations were not given a chance to address the new text suggested by the small group or make text suggestions to improve them. After the consideration of the Working Group and taking note of the responses from the Contracting Parties, stakeholders were invited to briefly reflect upon the new text, just ahead of suspending the discussions. Working Group reverses the Progress Made on DSI/GSD in other fora Although the Working Group regularly discusses the developments in other international fora, especially with respect to issues associated with access to DSI and sharing of benefit arising from its use, there seems to be little interest in the Working Group to learn from the progress made by those other fora. For instance, the WHO Pandemic Agreement which was recently adopted at the 78th Session of the World Health Assembly in May 2025 explicitly addresses access to sequence information of pathogens and sharing of benefits arising from the use of such information on an equal footing basis. Similarly, the WHO Agreement decided to address open access to data along with traceability measures. Both these principles found no place in the outcome document of the Plant Treaty’s Working Group, despite developing countries' insistence on these issues. The language regarding equal footing principle was even deleted during the small group discussions. Similarly Decision 16/2 of the CBD COP clearly recognises national sovereignty over DSI by explicitly limiting its Multilateral Mechanism for Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing from the use of DSI “subject to national legislations”. It explicitly recognizes that the use of DSI can be subject to “mutually agreed terms” established at the time of access to the genetic resources from which the digital sequence information is derived (in the case of Plant Treaty, in SMTA). However the outcomes of the working group seem not to have learned from this consensus by not addressing DSI/GSD from PGRFA in a manner that sets out the legal rights of the provider countries. Plant Treaty since it obligates Parties to share PGRFA for food and agriculture purposes, it is under international responsibility to place safeguards such that rights of the parties to receive benefits from the use of PGRFA in other purposes are not undermined. This right extends to the PGRFA DSI/GSD as well. The Working Group by not arriving at consensus for addressing DSI/GSD in SMTA is aiding Plant Treaty to shrug away its responsibilities. Further the CBD Decision 16/2 recognizes the importance of the need for accountability and transparency of sequence databases towards all of its Parties. More importantly, it recognizes the need for the obligation on the States supporting, funding or hosting databases in order to effectively implement COP Decisions which would in turn ensure the rights of the countries over their genetic resources and DSI are not undermined. Nevertheless, the Working Group’s approach towards these issues have been so far obstructed by countries like the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Norway. By pressurizing the developing countries to give up on their demands through delay tactics and closed room discussions, the Working Group is paving way for the developed countries to back track from their commitments to improve DSI/GSD governance and benefit sharing. The Governing Body of Plant Treaty risks undermining the rights over DSI of provider countries, in particular of developing countries, if it continues the approach of the Working Group, pressure and delay tactics.
|
||
