“Facilitated access” to plant genetic resources: does it work?

Bjørnstad, Åsmund; Tekle, Selamawit; Göransson, Magnus

doi:10.1007/s10722-013-0029-6

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, there is much ambiguity about the status of PGR not included in ex situ collections but occurring under in situ conditions. Bjørnstad et al (2013) tested the extent to which facilitated access was functioning in practice by sending requests for seeds to 121 countries which were Contracting Parties to the ITPGRFA. They received seeds from 44 of these countries, with 54 countries not responding and contacts with the other 23 countries not resulting in obtaining the seeds requested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genebank Operation in the Arena of Access and Benefit-Sharing Policies

Brink

Hintum

2020

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1990s, the exchange of genetic resources has been increasingly regulated. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Nagoya Protocol recognize that countries have sovereign rights over their genetic resources and provide a framework for domestic legislations on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS). However, within the rules of these international agreements, countries can follow their own interpretations and establish their own rules and regulations, resulting in restricted access to genetic resources and limited benefit-sharing, effects that are contrary to the objectives of these agreements. Although the ITPGRFA's Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing provides opportunities for easier access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), plant genebanks face increasing complexity in their operation. Adding material to genebank collections has become more difficult, not only because collecting missions need to be negotiated with national and local authorities, but also because acquiring material from other collections is only possible if the origin of the material is properly documented and is done in compliance with regulations. Genebanks may only provide access to their own collections if the material that is to be released is distributed in compliance with a) the conditions under which the material was received and b) the national laws of the country where the genebank is located. The only way genebanks can deal with this new complexity, apart from ceasing to add or distribute material, is by setting up proper procedures to document the origin of every accession and the conditions for their use and further distribution. To prevent a further decrease in access to PGRFA, complexity must be fought. Applying the ITPGRFA's Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) only, even for material that does not fall under the ITPGRFA, would simplify matters. The scope of the ITPGRFA could be expanded to include all crops. Furthermore, certain ambiguities (e.g. regarding in situ material and wild species) could be resolved. Finally, compliance with the ITPGRFA should be improved and better monitored.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genebank Operation in the Arena of Access and Benefit-Sharing Policies

Brink

Hintum

2020

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bjornstad et al (2013) reported that of seed requests sent to 121 countries, seeds were received from only 44 (36%). Contractual terms in the present standard material transfer agreement are currently under review by the governing body of the treaty.…”

Section: The Costs Of Acquiring Genetic Stocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, significant improvements remain to be made regarding accessibility of germplasm from genebanks. Bjornstad et al (2013) reported that of seed requests sent to 121 countries, seeds were received from only 44 (36%). Additional germplasm may be available on a bilateral basis once countries have implemented biodiversity laws under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity.…”

Section: The Costs Of Acquiring Genetic Stocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elements of Intellectual Property Protection in Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Interactions and Outcomes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public and private investments in plant breeding have a proven track record of increasing agricultural productivity, significantly contributing to economic well‐being or social welfare. Substantial investments in research and development are required before a new plant variety can be developed and released, which the private sector can only recoup through commercial sales coupled with property rights. We previously published outcomes from economic modeling implementing different categories and hypothetical variants of intellectual property protection (IPP) in the field of plant breeding and biotechnology. Our goal here is to portray these outcomes using examples that will be more immediately familiar to the plant‐breeding and policy‐making communities. In so doing, we do not add to the analyses and arguments already presented. Our objective here is to make more accessible to a broader audience subject matter already presented in a more formal economic format by Lence et al. (2015). We found that plant variety protection (PVP) and utility patents played important and complementary roles in promoting and adopting innovation. Voluntary licensing under patents had a major contribution to social welfare. Periods of protection longer than the current life span of a utility patent did not contribute maximally to the stock of social welfare. We performed a reality check comparing different types of innovation and assessment of time and risk to commercialization. We hope that this information can contribute to more effective implementation of IPP to further promote genetic gain and thus enable commercially funded plant breeders to maximally contribute to the benefit of society on a global basis.

show abstract

“…These policy developments have, or rather have been discussed to have, an apparent effect on the germplasm exchange patterns of member countries which, otherwise, had been major donors for many international ex situ collections that are globally utilized in various crop breeding programmes. Whether or not ITPGRFA facilitated access to PGR is also still a mooted question [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indian Plant Germplasm on the Global Platter: An Analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food security is a global concern amongst scientists, researchers and policy makers. No country is self-sufficient to address food security issues independently as almost all countries are inter-dependent for availability of plant genetic resources (PGR) in their national crop improvement programmes. Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR; in short CG) centres play an important role in conserving and distributing PGR through their genebanks. CG genebanks assembled the germplasm through collecting missions and acquisition the same from national genebanks of other countries. Using the Genesys Global Portal on Plant Genetic Resources, the World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and other relevant databases, we analysed the conservation status of Indian-origin PGR accessions (both cultivated and wild forms possessed by India) in CG genebanks and other national genebanks, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) genebanks, which can be considered as an indicator of Indian contribution to the global germplasm collection. A total of 28,027,770 accessions are being conserved world-wide by 446 organizations represented in Genesys; of these, 3.78% (100,607) are Indian-origin accessions. Similarly, 62,920 Indian-origin accessions (8.73%) have been conserved in CG genebanks which are accessible to the global research community for utilization in their respective crop improvement programmes. A total of 60 genebanks including 11 CG genebanks have deposited 824,625 accessions of PGR in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (SGSV) as safety duplicates; the average number of accessions deposited by each genebank is 13,744, and amongst them there are 66,339 Indian-origin accessions. In principle, India has contributed 4.85 times the number of germplasm accessions to SGSV, in comparison to the mean value (13,744) of any individual genebank including CG genebanks. More importantly, about 50% of the Indian-origin accessions deposited in SGSV are traditional varieties or landraces with defined traits which form the backbone of any crop gene pool. This paper is also attempting to correlate the global data on Indian-origin germplasm with the national germplasm export profile. The analysis from this paper is discussed with the perspective of possible implications in the access and benefit sharing regime of both the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the newly enforced Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

show abstract

“Facilitated access” to plant genetic resources: does it work?

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Genebank Operation in the Arena of Access and Benefit-Sharing Policies

Genebank Operation in the Arena of Access and Benefit-Sharing Policies

Elements of Intellectual Property Protection in Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Interactions and Outcomes

Indian Plant Germplasm on the Global Platter: An Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About