In recent years, the global landscape of trade and regulatory governance has seen a gradual but significant shift from multilateralism — where decisions are made through broad-based global consensus — to plurilateralism, which involves agreements among a limited number of like-minded countries. This evolution is increasingly visible in the seed sector, where harmonization of rules is crucial for facilitating trade, innovation, and biodiversity conservation.
Multilateralism: A Framework for Inclusivity and Stability
Multilateral institutions and agreements — like those under the World Trade Organization (WTO) — have long provided the global seed sector with a relatively stable and predictable regulatory environment. Instruments such as the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), OECD Seed Schemes, and the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) standards are all examples of multilateral systems that facilitate seed trade, protect plant breeders’ rights, and ensure quality and phytosanitary safety.
The key strength of multilateralism lies in its inclusiveness. Global rules apply equally, offering developing countries a voice in shaping standards.
For instance, the OECD Seed Schemes allow countries to certify seed for international trade based on commonly agreed standards. Similarly, ISTA-accredited labs enable global trust in seed quality, and UPOV provides a global framework for protecting plant varieties.
However, the downside is that reaching consensus among numerous countries can be slow, politically complex, and sometimes results in lowest-common-denominator outcomes.
Multilateralism also struggles to adapt quickly to emerging challenges such as biotechnology, gene editing, or digital sequence information (DSI).
Plurilateralism: Speed, Flexibility, and Fragmentation
Plurilateral agreements, on the other hand, allow like-minded countries to move faster and be more ambitious. They offer flexibility to address emerging issues without waiting for a global consensus. For example, a group of countries might develop new rules on the digitalization of seed certification or on climate-resilient varieties, setting standards ahead of multilateral institutions.
This approach may better accommodate innovation and regional diversity. For seed companies, this can mean quicker market access, simplified regulations in aligned countries, and opportunities for advanced R&D collaboration.
Yet, plurilateralism is not without trade-offs. A fragmented regulatory landscape risks creating barriers for countries outside the agreements. For smaller seed producers or countries with limited regulatory capacity, navigating a patchwork of differing rules can be costly and confusing. Moreover, plurilateral rules may reflect the interests of dominant players, sidelining those of developing countries or smallholder farmers.
Impacts on the Global Seed Sector
The shift to plurilateralism could reshape seed trade and governance in significant ways. If plurilateral groups begin to establish their own certification systems or intellectual property frameworks, it may challenge the authority or relevance of global bodies like UPOV or ISTA. Regional blocs could set divergent standards, making it harder for seed companies to operate across multiple markets.
For example, while OECD Seed Schemes offer harmonized certification accepted in over 60 countries, a plurilateral alternative adopted by a regional bloc could disrupt this equivalence. Similarly, if some countries decide to develop plurilateral plant variety protection regimes that differ from UPOV standards, it could undermine the predictability breeders currently enjoy.
Is Global or Plurilateral Better?
For the seed sector, which thrives on cross-border movement, harmonization, and trust in regulatory systems, multilateralism remains essential, especially in foundational areas like phytosanitary standards (IPPC), seed quality (ISTA), and certification (OECD). These systems offer a level playing field and reduce transaction costs for companies and countries alike.
However, plurilateralism can complement multilateralism, particularly when innovation outpaces existing global rules. In areas like digital traceability, climate-smart varieties, or genome editing, plurilateral pilot initiatives could act as testing grounds, later feeding into broader multilateral processes.
The key is ensuring that plurilateral efforts are transparent, inclusive, and interoperable with existing global frameworks. Rather than replacing multilateralism, plurilateralism should serve as a bridge—enabling progress where possible, while maintaining the coherence and legitimacy of global systems.
A Balanced Path Forward
The global seed sector stands at a crossroads. While multilateral systems provide the bedrock of international cooperation, the growing role of plurilateralism offers opportunities for agility and innovation. To harness the best of both worlds, stakeholders—including seed companies, regulators, and farmer organizations—should advocate for plurilateral initiatives that reinforce, not fragment, global norms.
In a world of increasing complexity, neither approach alone will suffice. A strategic blend of multilateral legitimacy and plurilateral pragmatism may be the best way forward for a resilient, inclusive, and innovation-driven seed sector.
