A crucial international treaty aimed at safeguarding global food security is facing strong opposition. Delegates are currently meeting in Lima, Peru, for the 11th session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). This treaty, established in 2004, is designed to protect the world’s seeds and ensure fair sharing of benefits from their use.
However, farmers’ organisations, scientists, and advocates for seed sovereignty are raising serious concerns. They fear that proposed changes to the treaty, known as a “package of measures,” could allow industries and researchers easy access to the genetic resources and heritage seeds of developing nations. These concerns centre on a lack of adequate safeguards for these valuable resources.
The ITPGRFA has a Multilateral System (MLS) that allows for the exchange of genetic material for 64 key crops and forages. Under this system, recipients cannot claim intellectual property rights over the material. The exchange is managed through a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA).
The current debate revolves around expanding the MLS to cover all crops. This proposal, discussed since April, has sparked fears in the Global South about free access to seeds and reduced transparency. Over 290 organisations across 52 countries oppose these measures. They argue that expanding the treaty’s scope could harm national interests, seed sovereignty, and farmers’ rights.
Bharat Mansata of the Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch, an Indian network of seed savers, believes the treaty should focus on conserving plant genetic resources in their regions of origin. He stresses the importance of supporting farmers and their local bio-cultural habitats.
Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign, an organisation focused on food and livelihood security, highlighted that the current system for the 64 crops has already seen extensive access by developed countries with minimal compensation paid. She warned that while physical access to seeds can be controlled, regulating access to digital genetic information is much harder without strong legal frameworks.
The danger now lies with Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and genetic sequence data (GSD). This digital blueprint of seeds is often already in the public domain. Sahai argues that access to DSI must be treated similarly to physical seed access, requiring fair compensation. “DSI is not free,” she asserted, adding that countries should be compensated for past use before expanding access to more crops.
India, which co-chaired the working group that proposed these new measures, has remained silent on the expansion of DSI access. This has drawn criticism from Indian organisations. The Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch is particularly worried that proposed changes to India’s own Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act could further reduce farmers’ control over their seeds and knowledge.
“There has been very little in-depth consultation with farmers,” stated Mansata. In an open letter to the Indian government, Scientists for Genetic Diversity urged India to reject the expansion of crop access. They called for mandatory benefit-sharing, transparency, and tracking mechanisms for all plant genetic resources. They also demanded that DSI and GSD be shared only through accountable databases and not used beyond agreed purposes.
Experts warn that expanding access to DSI without proper regulation amounts to “digital biopiracy.” They argue that India has already contributed significantly to the MLS, with over 400,000 samples listed on the ITPGRFA website, contradicting claims of no past contributions.
Concerns are also mounting over India’s proposed Seeds Bill and the deregulation of genetically engineered seeds. “The proposed amendments to the ITPGRFA as well as proposed amendments to India’s PPV&FR Act, 2001, are all tailored for the benefit of big seed companies and agri-business rather than the interests of our common farmers,” said Mansata.
Critics point out that the MLS lacks transparency and traceability. Despite millions of transfers, there is no clear record of how these plant genetic resources have been used or reported back to the original providers. The push for these changes is seen as aligning with the World Trade Organization’s intellectual property rights regime, potentially undermining national sovereignty over biodiversity.
Advocates stress that the treaty must ensure genetic resources and related information are used only for authorised purposes and that benefit-sharing obligations are strictly enforced. The current process, according to some, is too corporatised, with insufficient involvement from farmers’ groups, despite their crucial role in conserving and developing these vital resources.