TWN Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture
5 December 2025
Third World Network

Seed Treaty: South Rejects Unfair Amendments to Treaty, SMTA

Lima, 4 Dec 2025 (Nithin Ramakrishnan and Mirna Inés Fernandez Pradel) – Developing countries from GRULAC, Africa, the Near East and Asia strongly rejected a last-minute compromise proposal from the Swiss Chair, which clearly favoured developed countries.

(GRULAC is the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean.)

This took place on the extended last day of the 11th Session of the Governing Body (GB11) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).

They also rejected proposed amendments to Annex 1 of the Treaty and the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) of its Multilateral Access and Benefit Sharing System (MLS).

GB11 was held from 24 to 29 November in Lima, Peru.

At the beginning of GB11, the proposal was to amend Annex 1 to include “all” plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) under the scope of the MLS, beyond what is currently listed in the Annex 1, particularly those contained in the national ex-situ collections of the Contracting Parties. This, in return for some amendments to the SMTA, was characterised as “enhancement” of the MLS.

In reality, the proposed SMTA amendments meant little improvement from the existing SMTA. Instead, the text would worsen, with definitional issues, zero improvements in non-monetary benefit sharing clauses, nominal changes in monetary benefit sharing clauses, incorporation of new confidentiality clauses and ambiguity in withdrawal clauses.

The Group of 77 developing countries (G77), on the opening day, clearly objected to the proposal of expanding Annex 1 and also expressed concerns about the SMTA amendments. The G77 stated that any possible expansion of Annex I must:

·         “fully respect the sovereign rights of States over their plant genetic resources, national legislation and national priorities;

·         preserve each Party’s right to determine when and how they will place their PGRFA under the Multilateral System;

·         be based on the two criteria of food security and interdependence, in accordance with article 11.1 of the Treaty; and

·         be considered in the context of a package, which also includes an effective increase of the financial resources in the Benefit-sharing Fund, and the incorporation of DSI in the SMTA.”

The Group also asserted that the obligation to share benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, including digital sequence information (DSI), is not optional under international law.  It stressed that DSI associated with MLS material must be explicitly covered under the SMTA in a traceable manner.

Egypt, India, Argentina, the African group and others made similar proposals. They warned that the expansion of Annex 1 based on a negative list would be a no-go, and that any expansion of Annex 1 must be in the context of a package that increases benefit sharing, addresses DSI and improves transparency and governance.

(Negative list means all PGRFA will be included in Annex 1 except for specific exclusions.)

Unbalanced ‘compromise’ deal

After a week of protracted negotiations, the Swiss Chair proposed a ‘compromise’ deal, a draft resolution favouring the United States, Canada and Europe, that required adoption, or approval with a view to adoption, of the revised SMTA. There was no mention of DSI, while the proposal locked in a commitment to expand Annex 1 by the next GB session in 2027. Modalities for integrating DSI in the Treaty implementation mechanisms would be explored by an Ad hoc Advisory Group. 

The Chair presented the deal by claiming “it strikes a fine balance and respects all the redlines expressed in plenary, contact groups, friends of the chair, and bilateral meetings. Not everyone will get everything, but everyone will get something”.

However, none of the demands of developing countries were reflected, though some of their concerns were deferred for future consideration.

The only concession made was the postponement of the expansion of the Annex list to GB12. The demand for “all PGRFA” to be included – which was anyway inconsistent with the Treaty – was also removed from the package.

In exchange, what was asked from the developing countries was to accept a 21-page amended SMTA, which was only officially uploaded as an in-session document just an hour before the final plenary session. Many countries had not even seen the document until then.

The SMTA which had been tabled by the Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group to Enhance the Multilateral System to the GB had nearly 146 brackets, indicating disagreements. However, only 42 brackets remained in the Chair’s draft resolution which also included yet-to-be-finalized figures and dates. This means that nearly 100 substantive issues in the SMTA text had been cleaned through an untransparent process, which many of the Contracting Parties and stakeholders were unaware of.

The Chair explained that he had consulted regions and countries and established informal group discussions as “Friends of the Chair”, to find consensus. However, many delegations were not even aware of the Friends of the Chair discussions.

In response, Kenya objected, indicating that the proposal was not a solution and reserving the right to make text suggestions should the Chair’s proposal be the basis of further discussions.

Egypt objected strongly to the last-minute introduction of the package. It said that there was no time to discuss the Chair’s package which was very long and demanded that the whole proposal be bracketed and discussed at GB12. The Chair’s draft resolution was seven pages long, and the annexed SMTA contained around 25 pages.

India made a joint statement on behalf of Asian developing countries, GRULAC, and the Near East region, raising five important issues.

First, the process has generated a lot of apprehension because the Chair’s proposal was not shared with the plenary in a timely manner. The proposal emanated, not even from the contact group, but from a Friends of the Chair convening called in haste, very late, on the last evening of the meeting.

Second, the draft SMTA had been heavily bracketed. But a substantially rewritten version, shared in the middle of the night with a few countries, and only shared with all just before the final plenary, had almost all brackets removed without discussion.

Third, the new text had neither been negotiated nor subjected to regional discussion or national consultations. It had also never been taken up in the contact group.

Fourth, it would be unreasonable to expect Contracting Parties to endorse an extremely complex and lengthy legal instrument. They need to first assess the legal implications of the package, including the SMTA, for domestic ABS and farmers’ rights legislation.

Fifth, there are many critical and unresolved elements in the SMTA proposed by the Chair including the payment architecture; DSI provisions; confidentiality conflicts; Annex I scope, and several definitions.

Uganda on behalf of the Africa Region warned that the Chair’s proposal was not tenable. Several issues in the package on expansion and subscription were not addressed or negotiated, and therefore the package could not be assessed appropriately. It also could not accept an SMTA that was revised in a non-transparent manner, nor could it compromise on elements that are important for the enhancement of the MLS.

Gaps in draft SMTA highlighted, South warns against rushing

Morocco, in line with the concerns raised by the G77, provided an indicative list of problems with the amended SMTA. It highlighted that “it is clearly an immature draft with numerous texts to be improved; there are some definitions that are not clear, confidentiality clauses, weak non-monetary benefit sharing obligations, with not legally sound withdrawal and dispute settlement clauses.”

It warned that “if we adopt this SMTA today, we will lock this SMTA for several years from now and we will have to suffer with these issue”.

Morocco asserted that the revised SMTA therefore cannot be adopted and needs to be reconsidered at the next GB.

Peru similarly said that if the GB11 adopts the revised SMTA in a rush, then Contracting Parties would be locking themselves into a legally binding instrument without an opportunity to review or dialogue. It thus indicated that it would be premature to adopt the SMTA.

Chile, Colombia, Nepal, Uganda, Argentina, India, Ecuador and others also cautioned the GB against rushing to adopt the amended SMTA.

Nonetheless, Argentina, the chair of the next GB, and Peru, the GB 11 host country, tried to help. Argentina acknowledged that it was directly involved in the process that the Swiss Chair indicated. However, it said, “sadly we converged too late and didn’t have time for many delegations to make the necessary consultations. My delegation shares these concerns but believes that advances of this session could be consolidated. We take note of some of the concerns on a continuity or extension of the mandate”.

Peru acknowledged the Chair’s effort put into the proposal, which it said was complex and could be the basis for future work. However, as the Treaty requires full consensus for any decision, it recognised that the overall package cannot move forward, since many countries, including several in GRULAC, were not prepared to support the adoption of the SMTA.

Developed countries push to adopt amended SMTA

The U.S. was the first of the developed countries to respond to the Chair’s proposal and wanted to adopt the package as proposed. It claimed that “the package was extensively discussed”, although it qualified that with an acknowledgement that the negotiations took place with delegates “sequestered” in rooms.

The U.S. said that there is a need to acknowledge that the work is only partially finished, to justify extension of work on MLS enhancement until GB12. If there is no commitment to take on the SMTA and continue to work on phased enhancement, it would have no mandate to extend the process.

The U.S said, “My region is prepared to adopt the SMTA noting that there is still work to be done at GB12”.

Switzerland said that the package which was brought to the GB was deliberated through a transparent process in the MLS Working Group. Switzerland noticeably omitted the fact that the text that came from the Working Group was heavily bracketed, but that the Chair placed before the GB, at the last hour, a text with no or very few brackets.

Switzerland claimed that there were elements in the package that it was not happy with. In reality, it stood to lose nothing, except having to wait until GB12 to get what it wanted. But developing countries would lose several of their key demands if they adopted a non-negotiated SMTA at GB11, including their demands to address DSI through the SMTA, as well as for better transparency, and expanded non-monetary and monetary benefits.

Norway said there cannot be more common ground than what was in the SMTA, as cleaned by the Chair.

Canada, which since the beginning of the process was not willing to address DSI in the SMTA, also demanded that the GB agree to the revised SMTA.

Sweden, speaking on behalf of Europe, tried to take the middle ground. It said that the new SMTA could be taken note of, without explaining the implication of whether this may mean that parts of the SMTA could be amended before adoption at GB12.

Germany aligned with the European region, stating that, “After 12 years of intensive work… we came to this meeting hoping for an outcome. We are disappointed but hope to work in the next biennium”,

Third World Network (TWN), in its closing statement to GB11 countered this argument, stating that it was, in fact, “12 years of delayed negotiations, a neo-colonial extractivist agenda, expanding access to PGRFA while postponing obligations linked to equity, governance and benefit-sharing.” TWN added that the cleaned SMTA would have entrenched this imbalance with no mandatory payments, no traceability, no DSI obligations, and no safeguards for the rights of the providers.

Chair: “We will lose everything if we don't adopt the SMTA tonight”

Following the statements from Contracting Parties, the Chair surprisingly hectored the floor, noting the statements from the U.S. and a few others that if GB11 does not adopt the revised SMTA, then there would be no process going forward.

He said: “If we don’t get consensus tonight, we lose everything, there is no process going forward… there will be no consideration on DSI and how we can integrate DSI considerations, if we don't find consensus there will be no draft revised SMTA... [or] an amended and enlarged coverage of multilateral systems. My proposal tries to bind three things together and to enable a process to deep dive in DSI and come with a solution… I don't think establishing a process on the SMTA will bring us any further on the SMTA. We discussed it for 12 years… we can't continue on [with] negotiations this same way”.

The Chair then went on to suggest a plan to approve the SMTA at GB11, with a view to adopt it at GB12. However, several developing countries were not sure whether this formulation would allow them to make further changes in the SMTA prior to adoption, while developed countries precisely wanted to avoid any opening of the revised SMTA.

The Chair did not respond clearly as to whether the SMTA could be further improved at GB12. Instead, he said “approve with a view to adoption” would provide Contracting Parties the opportunity to check whether what they will adopt is acceptable.

When this attempt failed, the Chair then made a final proposal: “I really make the very final proposal… if you need time to take a look at this SMTA and you are only ready to take note today, there needs to be a commitment that you take note with a view to adopt at the GB12. And there will be no organized process in between, and there may be one or two other legal points that need to be amended, but otherwise this is [a] good SMTA. It's not completely frozen text, but solid enough that it wouldn't melt away…”

The Chair said if this proposal is not acceptable, there will be no resolution, but a mere mention in the report about the work of the MLS Working Group and an expression of gratitude to the co-chairs of the working group.

Norway and Switzerland defy emerging consensus

Norway and Switzerland, who were keen to prevent further amendments to the SMTA, even though developing countries wanted to do so for better equity, insisted that the text be approved at GB11 and adopted at GB12, although others, including the U.S., Canada and Europe were willing to revisit it at GB12.

Argentina had agreed to the last proposal by the Chair, but with some modification: “… take note of the progress made and take the text to finalize the SMTA at GB12”. It also suggested that there could be a two-day meeting before GB12.

Uganda wanted to take note of outstanding elements of the SMTA – meaning the issues that were not discussed at GB11.

Chile then questioned what the future work would be: “We want to know if in the future we can discuss brackets that were not analysed in this GB but are [the Chair’s] proposal”.

India said that as everyone is asking for more time, then GB11 should take note of all elements and come back to them at GB12.

The U.S. and Argentina agreed with India. Argentina (the next GB chair) went further to explain how the situation could be easily handled. It said that issues and concerns relating to the intersessional process could be captured in the report of the meeting as well, to avoid confusion with capitals and their strict mandates.

Meanwhile, Egypt, considering that there will be no intersessional work, said it would be good to invite Parties and regions to submit written comments and suggestions, compile them, and discuss them at GB12. This was supported by Uganda and Cameroun.

Morocco suggested that the draft revised SMTA might be taken note of, with a view to finalizing the text based on examining whether it achieves the objectives of the MLS under Article 10 of the Treaty.

Canada aligned with the U.S. proposal to take note of the SMTA and come back to it at GB12, with no additional actions mentioned for the intersessional period.

The Netherlands, on behalf of Europe, also followed suit, saying any work needed could be undertaken at GB12, and thus did not endorse any form of intersessional activities.

Despite the emerging consensus, Norway insisted that it was not willing to accept the proposal to take note of the SMTA and come back to GB12 with a minimal intersessional process. Norway categorically opposed Argentina’s proposal, claiming that the issues are not something that could be covered under the SMTA.

Despite the Chair’s proposal being acceptable to almost everyone with some modifications, the insistence of Switzerland and Norway gave an opportunity to the Chair to abruptly declare the agenda item closed.

Host country: “Cannot Accept this in Lima”

It should be noted that the host country, Peru, was very cautious about the deal being fair and equitable. Throughout the week, it very clearly stood by its words to the other Contracting Parties and stakeholders, including farmers and indigenous peoples, that if the deal was not fair, it would not propose or join the consensus.

Peru asked the Chair multiple times whether his proposals to approve or take note, etc. would close the SMTA from further discussions at GB12. There was no clear response.

When several other delegations raised the same question, Peru said that “even if there are important elements that can be kept in this proposal to be approved and then to be adopted, it is still the text that has been distributed with very little time to study it … we don't have time to really review this document, because the approval of this document now closes that window”.

It feared that “approval and to adopt” implies closing the “negotiations and dialogue window” and would proceed to a phase where that text simply becomes a part of the package for adoption at the next GB. “This is something which Peru wants to make clear… Peru cannot support this approval in Lima”.

Even with respect to the final proposal from Chair, Peru, hearing the rest of the floor, made it plain and clear that they can only contemplate a “taking note” language “with a view to discuss the text” in the future.

Chair abruptly ends Agenda Item

Immediately after the intervention from Peru requesting to take note with a view to discuss the text, the Chair decided to end the discussion on the agenda item. There was no additional question or attempt from the Chair on whether Switzerland, and Norway could join the emerging consensus where almost everyone was willing to undertake, i.e. to discuss the SMTA at the next GB. He also did not check with Peru if the resolution can say to take note with “a view to discuss and adopt" or something similar.

The draft resolution and package proposed by the Chair was thus dropped, and there is no GB11 resolution on the issue of the enhancement of the MLS, including any Treaty or SMTA amendments.

As he had previously intimated, the Chair said that the report of the GB will take note of the work done by the MLS Working Group and would thank the co-chairs for their efforts over the past few years.

It is not clear how the Treaty Secretariat or the incoming GB Chair will handle the process going forward. Nonetheless, developing countries have avoided an unfair and detrimental package being foisted on them. +