1. Are we almost there yet? A back seat view of the 50
year trip to develop international systems for PGRFA
conservation and use
Michael Halewood, Bioversity International
PGR Secure, Cambridge, June 16-20, 2014

2. 1965 future20011983

3. Core components
Internationally linked
network of ex situ
collections
• Facilitated access for agricultural
research & breeding
Information
system(s)
International fund
• developed countries &
commercial users
• support developing countries
capacity to participate
• reward/incentivize
conservation

4. Phase 1: consolidation of vision
1965: FAO Panel of Experts in Plant Exploration
1967: International tech conference
1972: IBPGR
 300 collecting missions in 90 countries
 International network of base collections, to make available for agriculture
research and development
1979-1983: FAO conference considers options
1983: International Undertaking; CPGR

5. International Undertaking, 1983
• “internationally coordinated network of national, regional and
international centers . . . under the auspices or the jurisdiction of
FAO, that have assumed the responsibility to hold, for the benefit of
the international community and on the principle of unrestricted
exchange, base or active collections of PGR.”
• “global information system . . . related to plant genetic resources
maintained in the aforementioned collections . . . linked to systems
established at the national, subregional and regional levels.”
• International financial mechanism to secure funds to support
conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA in developing
countries

6. Why is it taking so
long?

7. Despite shared basic vision, high degrees of
uncertainty, disagreement over …
• How much PGRFA will be included, from which
sources?
– From IARCS? (relatively easy)
– From countries? from whom within countries? (much
more difficult)
• What benefits should be shared in return?
• What is legal status of PGRFA? Who has deepest
rights of control?

8. Legal status/deep rights of control
Fundamental. Once you know this, it is clear who
gets to decide what goes in. And under what
conditions.
Until all parties were comfortable with this, progress
institutionalizing 3 core components was not
possible, at least not as far as countries were
concerned.
1983-2001: key period. Sea-change

9. Phase 2: common heritage to primacy of
national sovereignty and IPS
• 1985: CPGR 1
• 1989:CPGR 2
• 1989: resolutions 4/89, 5/89
• 1991: resolution 3/91; UPOV 1991
• 1992: CBD adopted
• 1994: Treaty negotiations start; FAO-CGIAR In
Trust Agreements;.
• 1995: WTO/TRIPS
• 1996: GPA1
• 1997: SoW 1
• 2001: Treaty text adopted (into force 2004)

10. International Treaty & MLS
• First international legally binding instrument addressing
pooling, conserving, sharing benefits for PGRFA
• Based on recog and exercise of national sovereign rights
wrt PGRFA
• Recognizes and works around IPRs
• Automatically in the network of collections: management
and control of contracting party and in the public domain
– National public mats w/o IPRs
– Everything else subject to voluntary inclusion. Commitments to
encourage natural and legal persons to do so.
– Some in situ, but not so much given formula
• Benefit sharing formulae (2 options)
• Creation of a benefit sharing fund
• Commitment to creation of a global information system

11. 20:20 hindsight: sea-change
precondition for progress
• Early efforts to consolidate international rules
regarding pooling, conserving , sharing PGRFA
and associated benefits floundered when they
were based on conceptions of PGRFA as part of
the public domain and/or the common heritage
of human kind.
• Progress made possible with primacy of
intellectual property and national sovereignty
were clarified, and countries’ and IPR holders
deeper rights were clarified.

12. Treaty is huge progress, but as we
enter phase 3 …

13. And …

14. Leading to …

15. More adjustments necessary…
• Not on the scale of 1983-1993 (not another sea change)
Need to:
• lower transaction costs, increase user & others monetary
contributions, create willingness to confirm what materials
are automatically, create incentives for voluntary
contributions, possibly expand Annex 1 for more crops,
forages,
• create/endorse operationalize information system
Many of these challenges well documented by the
Funding Strategy Working Group & Governing Body,
which launched formal intergovernmental process

16. Working Group to Enhance
Functioning of the Multilateral System
(EFMLS)
• 3 meetings planned 2014-15
• 5 reps/region
• Co-chairs: Bert Visser, Modesto Fernandez
• 1st was in June
• First two focus on user measures
• Third to focus on providers

17. EFMLS 2
• Some tensions about disaggregating user messages and
increased access
– Library analogy
• Some initial conversion around revision of benefit sharing
option 6.11 of SMTA
– Up front membership or subscription fees, based on
commercial operations of user/subcriber
– No need to trace incorporation or sales of particular varieties
– But, lots of open questions. Opening meeting only. Long way to
go. Great start, but need to be cautious
• Extremely important process. Dynamic, innovative,
exceeding UN norm (though more intense stakeholder
engagement would be welcome)

18. So, are we almost there?

19. 2015: GB adopts revised MLS conditions?
2017: Global information system? BSF contributions
from users? And or governments? Automatic and
voluntary inclusions verified & increased?
Into the future
2015 onwards: Mutually supportive implementation
of the Treaty/CBD/Nagoya Protocol?
??: In situ conservation and sustainable use?

20. Are going to make it? When?

21. Thank you very much