National ownership of biodiversity creates hurdles for breeders seeking global solutions.
For much of human history, biological resources were seen as the common heritage of humanity. Seeds, plants, and genetic material flowed across borders with little restriction, fuelling the development of agriculture and enabling societies to grow food in new climates and regions. For thousands of years, farmers and breeders depended on this free exchange to adapt crops, build resilience, and create the diversity we still rely on today.
This worldview began to change in the late 20th century. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which came into force in 1993, marked a decisive shift. It was agreed that countries have sovereign rights over their biological resources and can decide who may use them, and under what conditions, and that benefits need to be shared. What was once a shared resource for the benefit of all became subject to national control.
This paradigm shift has far-reaching implications for agriculture and plant breeding. I’ll try to weigh both the advantages and disadvantages.
The Case for Sovereignty
The CBD and later the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA, 2001/2004) did not appear in a vacuum. By the mid-20th century, it was already clear that traditional landraces and wild relatives of crops were becoming less prevalent. It was felt that different types of agriculture, and the replacement of traditional varieties with modern high-yielding ones was leading to a steady erosion of genetic diversity. The FAO’s 1959 resolution on the “Importance and Threat of Plant Genetic Resources”, sparked efforts to collect and preserve this diversity in genebanks around the world.
Developing countries—home to much of the world’s crop diversity—often felt that their genetic resources were being taken freely, conserved and improved elsewhere, and then sold back to them at a price. At the same time, reactions to UPOV and the extension of IP to improved varieties was seen by some as piracy and a threat to traditional farmers.
For these countries, the CBD’s recognition of national sovereignty was a matter of fairness and justice. It meant they could set conditions, negotiate benefit-sharing agreements, and protect against what they saw as “biopiracy.”
The CBD and ITPGRFA, in theory, were created to conserve biodiversity. Furthermore, if a nation could benefit economically or technologically from the use of its genetic resources by others, monies (monetary benefits) would be shared and used to safeguard them for the future.
The Challenges for Agriculture
For plant breeding, however, this shift complicated what was once a relatively open system. The entire development of modern agriculture—from wheat in the Middle East to maize in the Americas, potatoes in the Andes, and rice in Asia—was made possible by moving plants far from their regions of origin and adapting them to new environments (also collecting them for storage in gene banks). Such exchanges are still essential today.
Breeders working on food security challenges—whether developing drought-tolerant maize for Africa or disease-resistant wheat for Asia—often need access to genetic resources from multiple continents. But pursuant to the Nagoya Protocol of the CBD, every request might be subject to negotiations with national authorities, legal permits, contracts, and sometimes political approvals. What used to be a straightforward scientific exchange can now be a slow, uncertain, and bureaucratic process.
The result is that genetic resources are less readily available. Some countries have adopted restrictive access rules, and have high benefit sharing expectations, fearing exploitation or hoping for significant financial returns. Many countries don’t have practices or policies to make their genetic resources readily available. Yet in practice, the actual flow of benefits back to countries of origin has been limited. Instead, researchers and breeders may turn away from using certain genetic resources altogether, simply because the hurdles are too high.
Striking a Balance
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was intended to ease some of these frictions by creating a Multilateral System (MLS) for access and benefit-sharing, covering 64 of the world’s crops. In principle, this system allows breeders to access materials from participating genebanks under a standard agreement, with benefits shared globally.
But the MLS is only a solution in theory. Many crops of growing importance—such as soybean, many vegetables, or groundnut—are not included. And national implementation varies widely. While some countries facilitate access in the spirit of global cooperation, others impose tight controls and/or national systems in addition that discourage use.
The broader picture is that agriculture depends on a fluid, global flow of genetic diversity, while countries increasingly emphasize national ownership and control and the primacy of national law. This tension is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Looking Ahead
For the seed sector, this shift from “common heritage” to “national sovereignty” has both practical and philosophical consequences. On the one hand, it recognizes the rights of countries and farmers and reminds us that genetic resources are not limitless. On the other hand, it creates barriers at a time when global collaboration is more necessary than ever.
Climate change, emerging pests and diseases, and a growing world population demand that breeders have timely access to the widest possible genetic base. Every delay in access is a delay in developing the varieties that farmers and consumers urgently need. Therefore, the ITPGRFA, which intends to provide for a workable multilateral mechanism, needs to offer a workable comprehensive system.
I see that the seed sector is engaging constructively with governments and international processes. They are demonstrating that plant breeding delivers real benefits—food security, resilience, nutrition, sustainability—and that broader access to genetic resources is essential for everyone. Without trust, transparency, and cooperation, the promise of genetic diversity risks being locked away in national collections, unused and underutilized.
The paradigm shift of the 1990s was meant to create fairness. But unless governments find the right balance, via a balanced and workable MLS, it could also undermine the very system of agricultural innovation that ensures food security worldwide.
