Highlights and images for 18 September 2024

How can the exchange of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) support global food security and sustainable agriculture? Throughout the history of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), developed and developing countries have debated whether priority should be given to facilitating access to PGRFA or to enhancing benefit-sharing flows.  

A long-standing impasse characterizes the revision process: expansion of the list of crops in the Treaty’s Annex I, which determines the scope of the Multilateral System (MLS), will generate more income, developed countries have long argued. Developing countries have conversely stressed that user-based income flows need to materialize before agreeing to an expansion.  

In 2019, a compromise was reached to expand the scope of the MLS to all PGRFA while allowing parties to exempt a limited number of species. However, negotiations collapsed when agreement on benefit-sharing was not reached. As the Working Group continued its deliberations on the basis of the Co-Chairs’ proposal, delegates debated, in light of new circumstances, whether to reopen previously agreed text on the expansion, while addressing issues related to the definition of PGRFA, access to PGRFA in in situ conditions, and species to be excluded by parties. 

This fundamental divide resurfaced during discussions on the implementation and review of the enhanced MLS, should it be adopted. The review, scheduled for 2031, would assess the status of ratifications of the amended Annex I, the level of user-based income to the Benefit-sharing Fund, and the availability of MLS material. Failing to reach the number of ratifications required for the amended Annex I to enter into force would result in reverting to the current system. However, as representatives from Africa and civil society pointed out, no plan exists for what would happen if enhanced benefit-sharing fails to materialize.   

Delegates may have achieved a breakthrough regarding another long-standing impasse: whether benefit-sharing payments under the revised Standard Material Transfer Agreement will be based solely on subscriptions or whether a possibility for “single-access,” without subscription, will be retained.  

Co-Chairs Sunil Archak (India) and Michael Ryan (Australia) presented a new compromise proposal to establish a subscription system with two alternative triggers for mandatory monetary benefit-sharing: an upfront payment upon registration; or a deferred payment upon commercialization of a product incorporating material from the MLS. Delegates broadly accepted to proceed on the basis of this proposal, with the understanding that several issues need to be addressed, particularly on payment rates.