TWN Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture
27 November 2025
Third World Network

Seed Treaty: Lack of transparency in MLS raises global concerns

Lima, 26 November 2025 (Nithin Ramakrishnan and Mirna Inés Fernández Pradel) – As discussions at the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) kick off, several Contracting Parties have called for more information on the implementation and operations of the Treaty’s Multilateral System (MLS) of Access and Benefit Sharing.

[The 11th Session of the Governing Body (GB11) is taking place in Lima, Peru between 24th to 29th November 2025.]

Both developed and developing country groups called for more information that is relevant for the Governing Body to review the operations of the MLS in a transparent manner, although these groups differed on what information they seek.

Developing countries wanted information on the recipients of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) accessed from the MLS, the PGRFA accessed, and the implementation of monetary and non-monetary benefit sharing. Developed countries wanted more information on the sharing of PGRFA and the various categories such as governmental collections, public domain, etc.

Interestingly, the lack of information and transparency was the major concern through the various agenda items on the first day of the meeting. It is expected to take centre stage in the debate during the week, spanning across various agenda items that deal with the operations of the MLS.

Key to this debate are agenda items 9.1 on implementation and operations of the MLS and 9.2 on enhancement of the functioning of the MLS. There are also several other agenda items such as Item 10 (Funding Strategy), item 11 (Global Information System) and item 13 (Farmers’ Rights), where transparency is relevant.

During the opening statements, as well as in the responses to the report of the Secretary, developing countries raised concerns on transparency. Argentina said that the Treaty lacks a transparency mechanism and is susceptible to the threat of biopiracy. Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, also called for transparency. India said more consultations are needed with farmers.

In an unexpected turn of events with respect to the enhancement of the MLS and the unfair package proposed, the G77 spoke as a group and stressed that they can only support a system with a strong governance, reporting and information-sharing mechanism.

With respect to the current functioning of the MLS and its operations, Africa made these demands:

1. Information on non-monetary benefit-sharing: How many recipients of PGRFA have uploaded research results to GLIS as per Article 6.9 of the standard material transfer agreement (SMTA) and how many have shared any non-monetary benefits as expressly identified in Article 13.3?
2. With respect to payments collected in the Benefit Sharing Fund, Africa asked for information on commercialized products from which the revenue was generated and total revenue generated so that the rates can be verified.
3. With respect to Emergency Reserve Support for conservation of PGRFA, Africa requested further details on the applications rejected and on what basis the applications were rejected.
4. With regard to alleged SMTA violations and their resolution under the Third Party Beneficiary Procedures, Africa wanted to know which Article 15 institution shared PGRFA without signing an SMTA and the response given by the institution regarding such a transaction.

Importantly, Africa, as well as Argentina, called on the Secretariat to urgently provide full information on all signed SMTAs, as required under Article 5(e) of the SMTA, i.e. who the providers and users of PGRFA are, and the PGRFA accessions they shared.

Africa further demanded that the Easy-SMTA system include a facility enabling verification of SMTAs, their parties, and the PGRFA accessed – consistent with the guidance of the Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee.

Developing countries also noted the inadequacies in the SMTA reporting portal, where there is no facility to report implementation of Article 6.9 obligations. Africa specifically asked why this requirement is missing in the portal.

On the contrary, Canada, U.S., Japan and a few other developed countries defended the non-transparency evident in the concerns raised by developing countries, by pointing out various technical excuses such as confidentiality, different processes handling different reporting, etc.

Canada stated that details of commercialized products cannot be asked for, because of confidentiality requirements.

However, civil society pointed out that there exist no confidentiality clauses or confidentiality issues associated with the information sought by the developing countries. Civil society also pointed out that the way the ITPGRFA works and the way its implementation is reported to the Governing Body is fragmented. This fragmentation in turn systemically affectsthe oversight and review of the implementation and operations of the Treaty as a whole.

Developed countries did not respond to the observation that there exist no confidentiality clauses.

Developed countries insist on compliance of countries, instead of corporates

Countries like the U.S., Netherlands, Canada, Japan and Korea were seen to be more concerned about the implementation by the Contracting Parties of the provision on facilitating access to PGRFA.

Many of them wanted to know why certain countries have not notified any PGRFA, and why certain others have only partially notified. The U.S. also wanted to know more about the collections of PGRFA and their characterization in order to assess what actually comes under the management and control of the Parties, what is notifiable to the MLS and what is actually notified by the Contracting Parties. The Netherlands also followed suit to raise compliance concerns against Contracting Parties.

The U.S. also called for information on the types of the users of the PGRFA, such as commercial, non-commercial, academic, and public institutions.

CGIAR representatives also called for more transparency, but stopped short of asking for user level data, aligning themselves with the U.S. position.

Could MLS operations increase risks of biopiracy?

The issue of transparency has raised so many concerns in this GB11 for a reason. It has become evident that PGRFA (seeds) from the Global South are transferred by international agencies like CGIAR centres, several times more than transferred by national authorities themselves, whereas this is not the case for PGRFA from the developed countries.

The latest reports to GB11 show that the total number of SMTAs signed by all national authorities together in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East and Asia regions are 246, 194, 134 and 1251 respectively. But the number of SMTAs signed by the international agencies for African, Latin American and the Caribbean, Near East and Asian seeds are 16265, 25192, 2844 and 16620 respectively.

For Europe and North America, these numbers show a different trend. Europe has signed more than 46000 SMTAs, while international agencies have signed only 3500 agreements. When it comes to North America, none of their seeds are shared by international agencies.

This effectively means that most of the PGRFA (seeds) from the Global South go to foreign entities. Yet, the information on these transfers is not shared with the national authorities of the provider countries, neither with farming communities. As per the SMTA provisions, these transfers should be disclosed to the Governing Body through the Treaty Secretariat. However, so far, the Secretariat has refrained from making this information available.

On the other hand, information related to monetary benefit sharing contributions received is also not shared with the Governing Body, such that it could verify the levels mentioned in the SMTA.

Speaking to the Third World Network, a developing country delegate said: “The monetary contribution to the Benefit Sharing Fund now looks like a fee being paid to perform biopiracy. If no information on the commercialized product is disclosed, to the extent no one knows from what product the monetary contributions are coming from, it is nothing but allowing biopiracy to happen by collecting some money”.

Strangely, Treaty systems like the Easy-SMTA portal are not even providing facilities to the recipients of the seeds to report back on the implementation of non-monetary benefit sharing such as information on research results. Systematically, over the past two decades, there has been no information on how many of the 28000 plus users of seeds have reported back to the Treaty with respect to their non-monetary benefit sharing obligations.

Even more surprisingly, there is strict confidentiality maintained in any process dealing with alleged violations of the SMTA.

Accessing genetic resources via the Treaty MLS will thus trigger increased risks of biopiracy. Firstly, no one would know they have received seeds from the MLS. Secondly, they are not compelled to report the outcomes of their research, and no data on their monetary contributions is available to be verified by the Governing Body or the public. Finally, if they are ever caught violating the SMTA, engaging in biopiracy or not paying adequately, the MLS could continue to protect them through confidentiality assertions. In short, the MLS operations could enable biopiracy.

Countries like India suggested during various GB11 sessions that such a system is prone to mistrust and therefore decisions to enhance the MLS should wait until there is adequate and meaningful consultation with the stakeholders. Argentina also reiterated many times during the discussion on agenda item 9.2 on the enhancement of the MLS, that no enhancement is possible without addressing first the lack of transparency. +