Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
46 SEEDWORLD.COM DECEMBER 2015 and negotiate Mutually Agreed Terms which include the sharing of the benefits derived from the genetic resource. Benefits can be shared with a financial payment in a non-monetary form e.g. sharing research results or in any way that is chosen by the country or party that holds the genetic resource. To make the process operable and transparent member countries are required to designate National Focal Points to provide information on how to access genetic resources and negotiate Mutually Agreed Terms. Parties must also identify Competent National Authorities which acting in accordance with national laws negotiate terms of access grant access and document that all of the requirements for access have been met. National Focal Points and Competent National Authorities are listed in the Protocols Access and Benefit Clearing House. The Protocol also requires that coun- tries put in place monitoring systems and check points to ensure that the users of genetic resources have obtained consent and have negotiated Mutually Agreed Terms. At check points which can be established anywhere from research to commercialization plant breeders and others who wish to use genetic resources from a party to the Nagoya Protocol will have to present an internationally recognized certificate or a recognized equivalent issued by the Competent National Authority that identifies the genetic resource its source and how it will be used confirms that Prior Informed Consent was obtained and Mutually Agreed Terms were established and iden- tifies to whom the consent was granted. Uncertainty in the Unknown The relationship between the International Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol is not completely clear. The International Treaty defines its scope as applying to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture held in collections e.g. gene banks of its parties. It defines genetic resources as any genetic mate- rial of plant origin of actual or potential value for food and agriculture. Nagoya Protocol International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Year In Force 2014 2004 Ratified Parties 59 136 Crops Covered All genetic resources 64 Awareness of the benefits provided by public and private breeders to society is alarmingly low. Tom Nickson Some countries like Canada maintain that this covers all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. However only 64 crop kinds are listed in Annex 1 of the Treaty. Some countries maintain that access and benefit sharing of genetic resources of crops not included in Annex 1 and all that are not held in collections e.g. in the wild would be purview of the Nagoya Protocol where the process is not as clear. Some important agricultural crops such as soybeans tomatoes pep- pers sugar cane ground nuts and some fruits are not included in Annex 1. Sharing benefits is also a source of concern. Under the International Treaty those who access genetic resources agree to freely share any new devel- opments from the accessed genetic resources with others for further research and plant breeding. If they want to restrict access with patents or by contract they are required to pay a percentage of the commercial benefits derived from that development to the benefit-sharing fund. The current requirement is 1.1 percent of sales less 30 percent of the product or products resulting from the use of the genetic resource. However the Nagoya Protocol is not that clear stating only that sharing of benefits is subject to Mutually Agreed Terms. According to Nickson there is little recognition of the non-monetary ben- efits of plant breeding. Awareness of the benefits provided by public and private breeders to society is alarmingly low he says. Furthermore within international ABS negotiations the industrialized breeding sector is viewed by a signifi- cant number of negotiators solely as a source of cash and those businesses have a moral obligation to pay for the profits enjoyed. The products seem irrelevant. Given the complexity of plant breeding obtaining Prior Informed Consent from