First as an agronomist in Africa, then a plant breeder, a member of the Policy Committee on Plant Genetic Resources of the CG system and now the representative of the global breeding industry, I have been confronted with the issue of plant genetic resources for the past forty years or so. I have attended several meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and almost all the meetings of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources since 1992.
Until the end of the years 1990, farmers and breeders have traditionally relied on open access to genetic resources for research and breeding, including landraces selected by farmers and ‘modern’ commercialized varieties protected under the UPOV Convention. However, with the entry into force of the Convention the sovereign right of nations to control access to their biological diversity has received formal recognition and made access to genetic resources more complex.
Two main debates have taken place and are still going on.
Evolution of crop Diversity There is a common assertion that genetic diversity within the most cultivated crops has decreased during the past century, due in particular to modern breeding. I disagree with that assertion that is rarely based on documented scientific studies.
In the past 10,000 years, since the origins of agriculture, farmers have selected landraces (1) from the genetic diversity available to them. They moulded genetic resources over centuries through phenotypic selection, allowing and even facilitating genetic exchange between cultivars and weedy relatives, and by transporting cultivars from one region of the globe to another. By incorporating and re-mixing genetic diversity in new varieties to develop varieties (2) with improved traits such as quality or yield to address the demand of an ever increasing need for productivity increase that paralleled population increase, modern plant breeding has created more variation in food crops than has ever been available to farmers and consumers.
The divergence of opinion on the impact of modern plant breeding on crop biodiversity is mainly due to the fact that the criteria used to measure agricultural crop diversity differ from one author to another. Many statements on the decrease of diversity within a crop are based on the number of varieties available to farmers. However, whether this criterion is relevant in terms of diversity is disputable. Defining terms and using them appropriately across disciplines is a challenge. Social scientists use number of varieties, the proportion of area planted to varieties and the rate at which farmers switch from one variety to another. Biological scientists tend to use genealogical indicators, analyses of morphological characteristics and indices of gene frequencies measured by biochemical molecular markers. Not only do these indicators measure different phenomena, the empirical relationship between them is also sometimes weak.
I have made a bibliographical study whose references are available on demand. Publications show that a temporary loss of diversity has sometimes been observed at the introduction of new crop types such as the ‘double 0’ oilseed rape or the short wheat or at the request of consumers for stringent quality standards (baking quality) for Canadian hard red spring wheat. However, in general, that loss has been followed by a recovery resulting from renewed breeding activity. A number of studies also show that in the last 100 years or so, there is no trend towards decreasing diversity in major crops such as wheat, barley, rice, maize, oilseed rape or peas.
Post 1990 ABS Evaluation of Plant Genetic Resources used for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) — When we speak of benefit-sharing one of the main difficulties is to evaluate in monetary terms the value of a PGRFA. Indeed, there is a general agreement on the potential value of ‘exotic’ genetic resources but we do not know how to evaluate their actual value. This value can be known only after long research work first to identify potentially useful traits and then to introduce them in technically and commercially adapted varieties. The advances in biotechnology, viz. a better knowledge of the plant genome may make that evaluation easier. In contrast they may render access to genetic resources less necessary by the development of new traits in a few model plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana.
Access and benefit-sharing regime — I consider, with the majority of the community of people working with plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, that the bilateral approach mandated by the Convention: “prior informed consent” (PIC) on the basis of “mutually agreed terms” (MAT) with countries of origin, if it may have value for certain industries, is not suited to plant genetic resources used for food and agriculture (PGRFA). All nations are strongly dependent on each other in terms of PGRFA. Each nation grows or imports food crops whose centres of diversity lie outside their national boundaries, and is thus inherently dependent on multiple and foreign sources of germplasm.
Therefore, I strongly support the Multilateral System (MLS) and the principle of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) established by the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA. The benefit-sharing mechanism embodied in the SMTA with in-kind benefit when the commercial product is available for further research and breeding, and monetary payment when it is not, is well adapted to plant breeding. The seed industry has some concerns regarding the implementation of the SMTA, in particular on the absence of a threshold for the level of incorporation of accessed material in the final product and the lack of a termination clause. I remain confident, however, that in the coming months the Governing Body of the Treaty will provide clarification. Consequently I urge the Parties to the Convention to bring all plant genetic resources used for food and agriculture within the Multilateral System of the FAO International Treaty.
Should this prove impossible, I am of the view that the CBD should take a sectorial approach in implementing its Access and Benefit-sharing strategy. For the food and agriculture sector, the ABS regime should include the general principles of the FAO SMTA.
To monitor PIC and MAT, the CBD is currently debating a Certificate of Compliance when using genetic resources for specified scientific or commercial purposes. I am not in favour of such a certificate, as I am not convinced of its need, true value or implementation feasibility.
In view of the considerable difficulty in identifying ‘country of origin’ as defined by the CBD, I believe disclosure of ‘source’ of the genetic resource, i.e. where the material was obtained, would be possible when the source is known and disclosure is not in breach of a contract. Disclosure must not be a criterion for patentability.
Bernard Le Buanec is Secretary General,
International Seed Federation (ISF).
See also:
http://www.worldseed.org
(1) Landraces: name usually given to varieties that farmers are selecting mainly by mass selection.
(2) Varieties: name used in general for “modern” varieties developed by public and private professional plant breeders.
