b'EDITORS MESSAGESEEDS OF SOVEREIGNTYreactions to UPOV and the extension of IPnational implementation varies widely. to improved varieties was seen by some asWhile some countries facilitate access in piracy and a threat to traditional farmers.the spirit of global cooperation, others For these countries, the CBDs recognitionimpose tight controls and/or national sys-of national sovereignty was a matter of fair- tems in addition that discourage use.ness and justice. The CBD and ITPGRFA,The broader picture is that agriculture in theory, were created to conserve biodi- depends on a fluid, global flow of genetic versity.diversity, while policy frameworks increas-ingly emphasize national ownership and THE CHALLENGES FORcontrol. This tension is unlikely to disappear AGRICULTURE anytime soon.For plant breeding, however, this shift com-plicated what was once a relatively openLOOKING AHEADBY: MARCEL BRUINS system. The entire development of modernFor the seed sector, this shift from common agriculture was made possible by movingheritage to national sovereignty has both plants far from their regions of origin andpractical and philosophical consequences. F or much of human history, biologicaladapting them to new environments. SuchOn the one hand, it recognizes the rights resources were seen as the commonexchanges are still essential today.of countries and farmers and reminds us heritageofhumanity.Seeds,Breeders working on food securitythat genetic resources are not limitless. On plants, and genetic material flowed acrosschallenges often need access to geneticthe other hand, it creates barriers at a time borders with little restriction, fuelling thematerial from multiple continents. Butwhen global collaboration is more necessary development of agriculture and enablingunder the Nagoya Protocol of the CBD,than ever.societies to grow food in new climates andevery request requires negotiations withClimate change, emerging pests and regions. For thousands of years, farmers andnational authorities, legal contracts, anddiseases, and a growing world population breeders depended on this free exchange tosometimes political approvals. What useddemand that breeders have timely access adapt crops, build resilience, and create theto be a straightforward scientific exchangeto the widest possible genetic base. Every diversity we still rely on today. can now be a slow, uncertain, and bureau- delay in access is a delay in developing This worldview began to change incratic process. the varieties that farmers and consumers the late 20th century. The Convention onThe result is that genetic resourcesurgently need.Biological Diversity (CBD), which cameare less readily available. Some countriesI see that the seed sector is engaging into force in 1993, marked a decisive shift.have adopted restrictive access rules, fear- constructively with governments and inter-It was agreed that countries have sovereigning exploitation or hoping for significantnational processes. They are demonstrating rights over their biological resources andfinancial returns. Many countries dontthat plant breeding delivers real benefits can decide who may use them, and underhave practices or policies to make theirand that broader access to genetic resources what conditions. This paradigm shift hasgenetic resources available. Yet in practice,is essential for everyone. Without trust, far-reaching implications for agriculturethe expected flow of benefits back to coun- transparency, and cooperation, the prom-and plant breeding. tries of origin has been limited. Instead,ise of genetic diversity risks being locked researchers and breeders may turn awayaway in national collections, unused and THE CASE FOR SOVEREIGNTY from using certain resources altogether,underutilized.The CBD and later the International Treatysimply because the hurdles are too high. The paradigm shift of the 1990s was on Plant Genetic Resources for Food andmeant to create fairness. But unless gov-Agriculture (ITPGRFA) did not appear inSTRIKING A BALANCE ernments find the right balance, it could a vacuum. By the mid-20th century, it wasThe ITPGRFA was intended to ease somealso undermine the very system of agricul-already clear that traditional landraces andof these frictions by creating a Multilateraltural innovation that ensures food security wild relatives of crops were becoming lessSystem (MLS) for access and benefit-shar- worldwide.prevalent. It was felt that different types ofing, covering 64 of the worlds crops. In agriculture, and the replacement of tradi- principle, this system allows breeders toEditors Note: This is an abbreviated ver-tional varieties with modern high-yield- access materials from participating gen- sion. For the full version of this article, go to ing ones was leading to a steady erosion ofebanks under a standard agreement, withwww.seedworld.com/europe/2025/10/22/genetic diversity.benefits shared globally. locked-genes-lost-opportunities/Developing countries often felt thatBut the MLS is only a solution in their genetic resources were being takentheory. Many crops of growing impor- Marcel Bruinsfreely, improved elsewhere, and then soldtancesuch as soybean, many vegetables,editorial director, Seed World Europeback to them at a price. At the same time,or groundnutare not included. Andmbruins@seedworldgroup.comNOVEMBER 2025|SEEDWORLD.COM/EUROPEISEED WORLD EUROPE I 3'