Breeding Under the Treaty on the Line: The Future of the Multilateral System

Lima could reshape how breeders use global crop diversity.

Why Lima Matters

Later this year, the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) will gather in Lima, Peru. One of the key items on the agenda is whether countries can agree on measures to improve the Treaty’s Multilateral System (MLS) of access and benefit-sharing.

For commercial plant breeders and seed companies, this discussion is more than legal theory. A workable, predictable MLS could make valuable plant genetic resources accessible for use in breeding programs under improved terms — while also creating a fair system of benefit-sharing. If progress is made in Lima, it could unlock new opportunities for the global seed sector and the conservation of plant genetic resources.

A Treaty Designed for Sharing

The Treaty, adopted in 2001 and in force since 2004, was created to ensure that plant genetic resources — vital for breeding and global food security — could be conserved, shared, and used sustainably. Its Multilateral System was meant to simplify access to crop diversity by replacing the complex, country-by-country negotiations required under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

At its heart is the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA), a legal contract that governs how breeders, farmers, and researchers access materials in the system.

In theory, it’s a straightforward way to exchange germplasm: sign the SMTA, use the material, and if it leads to a commercial product that is restricted (for example, patented), the user makes payments into the Treaty’s Benefit-sharing Fund.

In practice, the system hasn’t delivered as expected. Since 2007, more than 100,000 SMTAs have been signed, but most have been by public institutions. Payments from commercial use have been limited.

Many companies find the obligations under the SMTA unclear or too open-ended, so they turn instead to other sources of germplasm.

Why the MLS Matters for Breeders

Access to diverse genetic resources is essential for breeding resilient, productive varieties. Yet under the CBD’s bilateral approach, breeders often face lengthy negotiations with individual governments, each with different rules and expectations. This slows down innovation and has discouraged exchange altogether.

The MLS was supposed to fix that by providing a simple, consistent framework. For public breeders, it has been an important tool. But for commercial breeders, uncertainty about payment obligations, rates, and long-term commitments has been a deterrent.

That matters because commercial seed companies are among the few actors with the scale and resources to invest in turning raw germplasm into products that farmers use. Without their participation, these resources will be underutilized.

The Enhancement Process

Recognizing these challenges, Treaty members launched an “enhancement process” in 2013. The goal: make the MLS more attractive to users, increase predictable benefit-sharing payments, and expand the crops covered.

The seed industry, represented mainly through the International Seed Federation (ISF), has been an active participant from the start. Commercial breeders have provided data, perspectives, and proposals aimed at making the system workable in practice — not just on paper.

Some key points the industry has raised:

• Multiple payment options are needed. A one-size-fits-all approach won’t work. Companies have different crops, business models, and levels of interest in MLS material. A mix of options — such as single-access payments and subscription models — will bring more users into the system.
• Payment obligations should be clear and time limited. Many companies hesitate because they fear perpetual obligations every time MLS material is used, even if it represents only a small portion of a final product.
• Rates must reflect reality. Set them too high, and companies will simply avoid the MLS. Set them too low, and the Fund won’t generate meaningful income. The sweet spot is modest rates that encourage widespread participation.

Industry Initiatives

The seed sector has not just talked; it has also been proactive recognizing the importance of putting money on the table.

In 2017, a group of seed companies signed a Declaration of Commitment, pledging to test a subscription model. They agreed to pay a fixed percentage of sales of Annex 1 crops in exchange for more predictable access terms. This demonstrated a willingness to contribute financially — provided the system makes business sense.

Unfortunately, negotiations stalled in 2019 over disagreements on payment rates and whether digital sequence information (DSI) should be included in benefit-sharing. With no agreement, the seed sector’s declaration was withdrawn, and momentum was lost.

Still, the principle remains: companies are willing to pay into the system if terms are fair, practical, and legally clear.

The State of Play in 2025

As the 11th Governing Body session approaches, the enhancement debate has been going for over a decade. The main goals have not changed:

• Increase benefits from the MLS, both monetary and non-monetary.
• Make user-based payments sustainable and predictable.
• Expand the crops and diversity available.
• Improve availability of material in the MLS.
• Ensure legal certainty and simplicity for all users.

But agreeing on the details remains difficult. Key sticking points include:

1. Payment rates. For companies, the decision to use MLS material ultimately comes down to quality of germplasm and their cost. Too high a rate will discourage participation. Too low a rate risks underfunding conservation efforts.
   • Current evidence suggests that Article 6.7 rates (for restricted products) are acceptable to some companies, since they have already led to payments.
   • A portfolio-based subscription rate around 0.01% of sales has some precedent, based on the 2017 Declaration.
   • One proposal is to make voluntary payments (Article 6.8) mandatory but at a much lower rate than 6.7 — about 10 times lower.
2. Scope of crops (Annex 1). Many countries want to expand Annex 1 beyond the current 64 crops to include all food and forage plants especially certain vegetables. The seed sector is not opposed, but expansion only makes sense if the payment system is workable.
3. Digital Sequence Information (DSI). Some countries argue that benefit-sharing must also apply to genetic information, not just physical material. This remains unresolved, and views differ widely.

Commercial Use: Myths and Realities

A persistent challenge in the negotiations is unrealistic assumptions about how much MLS material is used in commercial breeding.

The reality:

• Use in major field crops such as maize, soybean, and cotton is close to zero. Companies already have other sources of germplasm and don’t see MLS material as competitive.
• The most commercial interest has been in certain vegetable crops, including some not currently in Annex 1.
• The number of SMTAs signed is not a reliable indicator of commercial use. Many SMTAs are for research, training, or small-scale projects with no link to seed sales.

This means that projections of tens of millions in annual payments from commercial breeders are not realistic. For the MLS to work, it needs to be based on actual use patterns and realistic expectations. A goal is to expand use in row crops, but this will only happen with time and appropriate terms.  

What’s at Stake in Lima

For the seed sector, the outcome in Lima could shape the future of access to plant genetic resources. If negotiators can agree on a balanced package, the MLS could become a truly useful tool for breeders — speeding up access to diversity, supporting innovation, and ensuring fair contributions to conservation.

If talks collapse again, the risk is that the system remains underused, underfunded, and irrelevant for commercial breeding. That would be a missed opportunity not just for companies, but for global food security.

Looking Ahead

From a commercial user’s perspective, success in Lima requires three things:

1. Clear and fair payment terms. Companies will only participate if obligations are predictable and aligned with the realities of breeding.
2. Multiple payment options. A mix of single-access and subscription models at reasonable rates will attract the widest range of users.
3. Realistic expectations. Benefit-sharing must be based on actual use of MLS material, not inflated projections.

The seed sector has consistently provided honest input and will continue to do so. Companies are open to working with MLS material — especially in vegetables and niche markets — if the SMTA is improved. With the right package, more breeders could explore MLS resources, more payments would flow to the Benefit-sharing Fund, and the Treaty’s goals of conservation and equitable sharing would be advanced.

Compromise & Commitment

The upcoming meeting in Lima is a critical moment for the future of the Treaty’s Multilateral System. For breeders and seed companies, the potential rewards are significant: easier access to diversity, more predictable rules, and a fairer benefit-sharing system. But reaching agreement will require compromise, honesty, and a focus on practical solutions.

The seed sector remains committed to supporting an outcome that works — for breeders, for governments, and for global food security.

Thomas Nickson is an independent consultant in International Agricultural & Environmental Policy Research

Editor’s Note: For readers who want to dive deeper into the history, negotiations, and technical details, the original full paper is available and offers a comprehensive account here: https://worldseed.org/document/opinion-enhancing-multilateral-system-treaty-2025/