The thirteenth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System (MLS) for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) began on April 1, 2025, in Rome. This meeting has sparked debate due to proposed amendments that could alter benefit-sharing provisions. The proposed changes could potentially allow unrestricted access to all plant species, raising concerns about the rights of developing countries.
About Plant Treaty
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) or Plant Treaty, adopted in 2001, is the only legally binding international agreement focused on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
It aims to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits derived from these resources.
It provides a framework for access to genetic resources and supports Farmers’ Rights, recognising the contributions of farmers in conserving crop diversity.
Controversial Amendments in Discussion
The 13th meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group in Rome (April 1-4, 2025) is discussing changes that could weaken the benefit-sharing system by allowing free access to genetic resources.
Currently, only 35 food crops and 29 forage plants are covered under the treaty’s Multilateral System (MLS) for access and benefit-sharing.
The proposed change would remove these limits, allowing all plant species to be transferred if they have useful traits for food or forage breeding.
Significance of Farmers’ Rights
Farmers’ Rights are central to the Plant Treaty. Article 9 mandates countries to protect these rights, which include the ability to save, use, and exchange seeds. The implementation of these rights is crucial for maintaining crop diversity and ensuring food security. The treaty encourages measures that support farmers, particularly in developing nations, to manage and conserve their plant genetic resources.
Opposition to the Changes
138 civil society groups, farmers’ organizations, Indigenous communities, and local groups (including 23 from India) have opposed these amendments.
They argue that this move:
Violates the original treaty’s purpose of protecting developing countries’ rights.
Encourages corporate control and biopiracy, including digital biopiracy.
Threatens biodiversity and food security by making all plant species available without restrictions.
Implications for Biodiversity
The proposed amendments could have far-reaching implications for global biodiversity. With approximately 350,000 known plant species, of which 30,000 are edible, the risk of sharing unrecognised genetic resources could threaten local biodiversity. The amendments may also conflict with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims to protect the rights of nations over their genetic resources.
Concerns for Developing Countries and Biodiversity
The amendment could force developing countries to share genetic resources they might not even know they possess.
With approximately 350,000 known plant species, of which 30,000 are edible, the risk of sharing unrecognised genetic resources could threaten local biodiversity.
It would weaken the treaty’s alignment with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which protects biodiversity rights.
It would allow corporations to exploit plant genetic resources, reducing the benefits for local farmers.
Leave a Reply