|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Nov25/10) Seed Treaty: Swiss Chair pushes to adopt cleaned SMTA, no discussion on bracketed proposed amendments Lima, 28 November 2025 (Third World Network) – In an unexpected and troubling development, the Chair of the 11th Session of the Governing Body (GB) employed irregular procedures to pressure developing countries into accepting amendments to the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing (MLS) under the Seed Treaty. (The International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Food and Agriculture is commonly referred to as the Seed Treaty.) Under Agenda Item 9.2, concerning enhancement of the MLS, the Chair, Alwin Kopse from Switzerland, is attempting to push developing countries into adopting a revised Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) that has never been discussed in the plenary at any point in the GB11 session. The document under discussion IT/GB-11/25/9.2 was not considered by the Plenary which had 200 brackets overall in a 29 paged package of measures. Now the Chair is pushing to adopt 25 pages of the package cleaned with brackets remaining only on payment rates. Developing-country negotiators reported that the Swiss Chair is acting at the prompting of developed countries to rush through a weakened, loophole-laden SMTA—without the plenary having had a single opportunity to read or examine it. Agenda Item 9.2, on enhancement of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing under the Seed Treaty, has been the most contentious issue, since the beginning of the 11th session of the GB meeting in Peru from 24th to 29th November. A contact group was constituted immediately after several statements from the global south, including the G77, rejecting the expansion of the amendment of Annex 1, citing the inequities and lack of transparency and governance in the MLS. In the contact groups there was also no reading or discussion on the text proposals to amend SMTA and/or amend to Annex 1 Treaty. After a few rounds of contact group meetings, the Chair invited the regions for bilateral meetings. Once again, there were no text-based negotiations in the contact group though Africa asked for the same. After the Chair met the regional representatives, there was limited reporting back to the plenary of the Governing Body. There was only an indication that informal discussions were on-going between countries. According to some sources, the Swiss Chair paired regional representatives to informally discuss certain parts such as pairing South West Pacific and Near East to discuss payment structure, E.U. and GRULAC to discuss expansion of crops in the MLS, North America and Africa to discuss DSI. It is not clear whether the entire regions were informed. After these fragmented discussions, a “friends of the chair” was unofficially formed with 2 representatives per region. While they were given a draft resolution which discusses the package, another group was formed to discuss a revised SMTA text. It further fragmented the developing country delegations who were already stressed between the parallel sessions - Plenary, Contact Group, and informals. In addition to the parallel sessions, negotiations on the enhancement of MLS itself got diverted and also took place simultaneously. Key negotiators from developing country regions had to either choose between discussing the draft resolution or discussing the amendments to SMTA. The circulated Chair’s text for a draft resolution reads as follows: GB 11 Chair’s compromise proposal: enhancement of the functioning of the Multilateral System on Access and Benefit-sharing Draft text for Resolution on the enhancement process Package of measures to enhance the functioning of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing 1.
Decides on a package of measures to enhance the functioning
of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing as follows: i.
the 64 crops and forages in current Annex I will not be excluded; e. Further decides that the adopted revised SMTA will enter into force when the text of the Amendment is adopted; 2. Recognizes that, in the exercise of their national sovereignty, a number of Contracting Parties already make available a wider range of PGRFA under the terms and conditions of the SMTA; When the negotiators and observers left the venue, on the night of 28th November, many were unaware that there were two parallel negotiations going on, one on the Draft Resolution and another on the SMTA (which had not been discussed in the Plenary or in the Contact Group). Midnight of 28th November, a cleaned SMTA was circulated with limited brackets such as on payment rates, which was to be discussed in the next biennium and incorporated in the draft resolution for consideration of the next GB. Small developing country negotiators confirmed that they were just perplexed to see a cleaned SMTA, when the draft had been full of brackets. Even at 6:23 AM in Lima, Peru the in-session documents (the draft resolution and cleaned SMTA) had not been posted on the webpage. The Trap of Chair’s Proposed Draft Resolution: Locking-In Developing Countries Into an Inequitable Solution: The Chair’s proposed solution highlights three key messages about the package of measures for the so-called enhancement of the MLS: Firstly, to adopt a revised Standard Material Transfer Agreement, with payment rates to be integrated only after the intersessional discussions in the next biennium, at the 12th Session of the GB. Secondly, to agree on expansion of Annex 1, by amending the Treaty Text, in 12th GB. Thirdly, to establish an “ad hoc expert” group to discuss the expansion instead of continue the mandate of the “working group of contracting parties” on enhancing the functioning of the MLS of the Seed Treaty There is no mention of the DSI in the Chair’s proposal. Even if DSI/GSD is mentioned in the draft resolution, it is clear there is no meaningful provision to address DSI/GSD in the revised SMTA. Another document (not officially published but informally shared) which reflects the idea of Chair’s Solution talks about a separate work stream on DSI/GSD not connected with SMTA, meaning there will be no obligation on the recipients on the PGRFA regarding generation, storage, publishing use and benefit sharing from the use of PGRFA DSI/GSD. This means the adoption of SMTA is rushed through when all other solutions regarding payment rates and expansion have yet to be resolved, only for the purpose of ensuring developing countries will not come back with a claim that DSI/GSD should be included in the SMTA. This was a major demand of the Africa Group and Global South in exchange for amendment to annex 1 to expand it. The Swiss Chair’s text now ensures there will be an expansion of Annex 1 – but it is not clear whether it will be through a positive list (countries to determine which PGRFA they will include in the scope of MLS) or negative list (countries get one-time chance to exempt certain crops from the scope of MLS at the time of ratification). The SMTA is the main instrument of any ABS package. There are several problems right from the definitions section to the withdrawal provision in the SMTA - which needs to be reformed if the MLS is to be an equitable mechanism that at the least makes efforts to prevent biopiracy. None of these issues are resolved in the cleaned SMTA, yet the document has been put up for adoption. Concerns with the cleaned SMTA include: (a) There is a big gap between commercial purposes allowed under the SMTA and monetary benefits secured under SMTA. While the use of the PGRFA can be for any commercial food and feed activity, benefit sharing is only provided from seed sales. (b) There is no meaningful obligation on the recipients of MLS PGRFA to provide non-monetary benefits such as opportunities for researcher from provider countries, or acknowledgement of contributing provider researcher or farmer, access to bioinformatics tools and technology developed using the shared materials. (c) There are no adequate clauses on reporting of intellectual property rights (IPR) applications and ensuring access to PGRFA and its DSI/GSD is not limited. (d) There is no commitment on the recipient that the provider will be kept informed of future transfers of PGRFA and DSI/GSD. National authorities and contributing farmers will be kept in the dark about who is using their PGRA (Read: Developing Countries kept uninformed of who is using their seeds). (e) The nuanced interpretational issues in the provisions regarding “withdrawal clause”, “PGRFA-D”, “applicable law”, and “respect for farmers rights”, transparency and confidentiality clauses etc. have been ignored, unexamined and thus will remain in the SMTA and continue to limit equity in the operations of MLS. (f) The menace of digital biopiracy has no solution in the hindsight because the document which establishes the rights of recipients of PGRFA does not deal with terms of generation, use and publication of the DSI/GSD from the PGRFA as well as subsequent patenting and benefit sharing. Adoption of revised SMTA without addressing these issues mean for another decade or so, there will be no meaningful solutions to any of the above-mentioned issues, and benefit sharing will continue to be hindered. Neglect of G77’s Demands The Swiss Chair operating in the interests of developed countries has ignored the demands of G77, which at the start of the GB stated: “The G77 emphasizes that an enhanced Multilateral System must deliver real, predictable traceable, and legally robust benefit-sharing mechanism. Although the MLS has been extremely successful on access, with almost 7 million accessions, there has been minimal user-based income, less than one million dollars since 2007. In this context, G77 shall only support a system with strong governance, reporting, and information-sharing mechanism, where payments are mandatory and regular. The G77 firmly supports a payment structure that ensures equitable returns for provider countries and renders the system financially viable. In this regard, we emphasize that the subscription model remains the only option that offers sustainability, transparency and fairness. The G77 affirms that a 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 G77 stresses that the obligation to share benefits arising from the use of genetic resources—including Digital Sequence Information—is not optional under international law. The Multilateral System was created to facilitate access—not to circumvent the obligation of benefit-sharing. DSI associated with MLS material must be explicitly covered under the SMTA in a manner that is traceable.” None of these demands have been meaningfully incorporated in the Chair’s Draft. Inequitable Extraction Entrenched? The Chair’s text is nothing more than a delayed expansion of Annex 1, with no equitable benefit sharing or DSI/GSD regulation. It continues to reinforce inequitable extraction of plant genetic resources from the developing countries, providing no effective solutions to equitably enhance MLS and deliver fair and equitable benefit sharing. Instead, in all likelihood it will become a big enabler of biopiracy and digital biopiracy.
|
||
