|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on Sustainable Agriculture Lima, 27 November 2025 (Nithin Ramakrishnan) – Developed countries have opposed a legally established right of African countries to be kept informed about who is undertaking research and development on their seeds. Fraught discussions on the fourth day of the 11th Session of the Governing Body (GB11) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), or the Seed Treaty, saw the U.S., Canada, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden making this move. GB 11 is meeting in Lima, Peru from 24-29 November 2025. During the plenary discussion of agenda item 9.1 on the implementation and operations of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing (MLS), those countries opposed a provision Morocco proposed in the draft resolution. That proposal requested the Treaty Secretariat to provide information on the providers, recipients, their signed Standard Material Transfer Agreements (SMTAs) and the PGRFA shared under those SMTAs. As per the existing Article 5(e) of the SMTA, the providers of PGRFA need to inform the Governing Body about material transfer agreements they enter into. This is the information Morocco has asked for. However, the U.S. forwarded an argument that the information requested by Morocco is either not available with the Secretariat or is considered confidential. The rest of the developed countries followed suit. Paragraph 12 of the conference room paper (CRP) under discussion, CRP.1 (on screen para 16), read: “Requests the Secretary to maintain and improve the MLS Data Store and reporting tools, including [formats that distinguish SMTA requests and transfers by user category such as public research institutions, universities, private sector entities, government agencies, and Article 15 institutions to enable clearer analysis of MLS utilization]”. Morocco added the following phrase to this paragraph, as per the demands made by the African Group, Argentina and a few other countries: “and to report the information on the providers and recipients of the PGRFA, their signed SMTAs, and the PGRFA accessions shared through such SMTAs.” Immediately, the U.S. opposed, followed by the Netherlands and Germany. The Secretariat said that they don’t have all the necessary information required to serve various requests made by Contracting Parties, referring not only to the Moroccan proposal but also to some other information requests including from the U.S. The chair of the session (Switzerland) asked Morocco whether it could withdraw its proposal in this context. Morocco responded by saying that, as per Article 5(e) of the SMTA, the entire SMTA has to be reported to the GB and there is no confidentiality clause in the SMTA. The delegate explained that Africa is asking for information that forms part of the reported SMTA. Kenya also supported Morocco’s proposal. The chair then proposed that the U.S. and Morocco discuss the issue bilaterally to find a solution for the paragraph, while continuing discussions on the rest of the paragraphs in the CRP. However, by the time discussion on the rest of the CRP had finished, there was still no agreement between Morocco and the U.S. The U.S. further asserted that the website of FAO’s Easy-SMTA portal contains terms of use where the FAO says that it will not share personal identifiable information with a third party, and suggested alternative language “to develop an aggregated report on SMTAs and the PGRFA accessions shared through such SMTAs”. Argentina asked whether aggregated information would allay Morocco’s concerns. However, Morocco responded that aggregated information would not allow them to know who is using their seeds. Sweden tried to explain by saying that only the types of recipients are important. However, Morocco insisted that their text needs to be reflected in the on-screen text. Morocco further alluded to the dire circumstances under which Africa is asking for this information. The national authorities of the Africa region together have signed only around 200 SMTAs, while Article 15 institutions have signed more than 16000 SMTAs involving African seeds. The delegate explained that it is therefore important for Africa to know who obtained their seeds from international gene banks. Otherwise, African countries would have very limited understanding about what is happening with their resources. According to Morocco, “Africa is only asking for the details which it is legally entitled to get as per Article 5(e) of the SMTA.” Negotiators from other developing country regions confirmed with Third World Network that the concern raised by Morocco reflects their concerns as well. However, owing to parallel negotiations, many were not on the floor to support Morocco. “It’s a developing country concern, not just an African concern,” explained a member from the Near East region. Argentina proposed another suggestion which qualifies the proposal of Morocco, whereby the Secretariat needs to report only available information. Argentina added that the concern of Africa is understandable, as aggregated reporting only gives numbers and will not help countries understand who the providers and recipients are, and what PGRFA they share. At the same time, it understood the possibility that the Secretariat might not have adequate information. Morocco was agreeable to Argentina’s proposal. The delegation also pointed to the fact that the Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on the Multilateral System and the Standard Material Transfer Agreement clearly identifies the information requested under “reporting obligations”. [As per the Advisory Committee, providers can either transmit a copy of the SMTA to the Governing Body or give the information on provider, recipient, PGRFA accessions involved and how the original copy of the SMTA can be accessed for any official purposes]. The chair however tried to reassert that the information is confidential. Morocco squarely objected to this. Papua New Guinea argued that what is needed is not aggregated information, but disaggregated information. The Netherlands asked whether the Secretariat has information on the PGRFA accessions shared under the SMTA. Although the Secretariat gave a mixed response, Morocco said that the Annex to the SMTA contains information on PGRFA shared and that they need that information. Canada said that all the information is with the Treaty Secretariat, with trust that this information is kept confidential. If there is a change in this understanding they might even not want to report the SMTAs with the Secretariat. Canada also reminded the floor that the relevant provision 5(e) is being debated under agenda item 9.2 on the enhancement of the MLS. It said that the changes that will be made in the SMTA under that item would have an impact on this request. [There are three new, previously non-existing confidentiality clauses being introduced to the draft SMTA being revised under agenda item 9.2.] The U.S then read out the sentence from the terms of use, which says “FAO, acting as the Third Party Beneficiary, will not otherwise share any Identifiable Information with any third party unless directed by the user in question.” The U.S. suggested that the phrase “in line with the terms of use of the Easy-SMTA” be added after the proposal made by Morocco. Morocco suggested that it would need time to study the terms of use of the Easy-SMTA and would come back to the plenary later. [It must be noted that the terms of use of the Easy-SMTA website were only developed by the Treaty Secretariat, whereas the SMTA is a negotiated document agreed upon by the Contracting Parties to the ITPGRFA. Furthermore, the SMTA is a contract that is signed by providers and recipients when they share PGRFA and thereby they explicitly agree to transmit this information to the Governing Body. The Easy-SMTA website is only a reporting tool that enables this information sharing.] Farmers’ representatives and members of the scientific community observing the sessions told Third World Network that they are concerned that there is no information given to the providers of the PGRFA, while their resources are being researched, developed and monopolized somewhere else. “It’s not just an African concern; we expect more developing countries to speak up on this issue”, said an African negotiator. Third World Network earlier reported on the lack of transparency in the MLS and how the same could enable biopiracy.+
|
||
