Information and knowledge related to PGRFA

The supporting components (Part V of the Treaty) play an important role in facilitating the implementation of the Treaty by its contracting parties. The four interdependent components are: the Global Plan of Action (Article 14), the ex situ Collections of the IARCs and other International Institutions (Article 15), the International Plant Genetic Resources Networks (Article 16), and the Global Information System (GLIS) on PGRFA (Article 17).

A note is made regarding the tsunami that occurred at GB7 on DSI.

Defining the Global Information System on PGRFA

Article 17 states that contracting parties shall cooperate to develop and strengthen a GLIS to facilitate the exchange of information, based on existing information systems, on scientific, technical and environmental matters related to PGRFA. In this section, the GLIS will be briefly outlined and the diversity of existing information systems will be highlighted. A final note is made regarding tradi­tional knowledge.

The GLIS is aimed at enhancing the documentation on PGRFA, including crop wild relatives, on-farm and ex situ material, as well as promoting its dis­tribution in particular among developing countries. Article 17.1 highlights the necessary cooperation with the up and running CBD Clearing House Mecha­nism.⁴⁴ Article 17.2 stresses the role of the information system in early warning about hazards threatening PGRFA. Article 17.3 focuses on the role of the GLIS in the periodic reassessment of the state of the World’s PGRFA and in updating the rolling GPA (IT/GB-2/07/Inf.7: §§ 22-26; IT/GB-3/09/Inf. 7: §§ 15-20).

Several types of information systems are of relevance for the development of the GLIS. Information can relate to inter alia 1) the accession itself (passport and characterization data); 2) the existence, location and access conditions of material in national, regional or international collections or networks; 3) related technol­ogy, tools or research results; 4) publicly available genomic data; etc. The galaxy of existing information systems makes it difficult to have a clear vision of the current situation. The diversity among these systems makes it difficult to coor­dinate them together (with the view inter alia to avoiding too much duplication).

Examples of this variety of information systems and related initiatives are: 1) The World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (WIEWS) in FAO is the monitoring approach of the GPA adopted since 2004, which establishes National Informa­tion Sharing Mechanisms (NISM). 2) The System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) of the CGIAR. 3) The American Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) supports the national PGRFA collec­tions, collectively called the National Genetic Resources Programme (NGRP).

4) The European Plant Genetic Resources Search Catalogue (EURISCO).

5) Genesys is a plant genetic resources portal that gives breeders and researchers a single access point to information of about a third of the world’s genebank accessions. 6) The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is a multilat­eral initiative aiming at making the world’s biodiversity data freely and univer­sally available via the Internet. 7) The DivSeek initiative aims at characterizing crop diversity and developing a unified, coordinated and cohesive information management platform to provide easy access to genotypic and phenotypic data associated with genebank germplasm. 8) The Global Open Genome Sequence Data Framework proposes to establish a ‘public license for genomic informa­tion on crop germplasm’ as the first mechanism to ensure that ‘such data will be systematically treated as a public good for the benefits of mankind’. 9) The Multi-Crop Passport Descriptors (MCPD V2.1) is the globally adopted interna­tional standard for passport data of ex situ genebank accessions. It is compatible with WIEWS and Genesys. 10) Work on Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) is undertaken to identify genetic material with permanent unique identifiers, also indicating whether the material is included in the MLS or not.

Once a DOI is assigned to the material, an accession can be referenced easily and unambiguously forever, even across organizations, with the advantage that users and modern information systems will be able to discover and access the information associated with the material and also to add value to it to through automatized web links.⁴⁵

11) The Capfitogen Programme and the Platform for the Co-development and Transfer of Technologies are initiatives to support national and regional programmes in the development and transfer of information technologies for, and data analysis of, PGRFA (IT/ACSU-2/15 /Inf.2).

Implementing the Global Information System

Notwithstanding this diversity of systems, the Second Report of the State of the World on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture highlighted a sig­nificant imbalance among regions and countries within regions in maintaining an integrated national information system on germplasm holdings (FAO, 2010 : chapter 4). Therefore, contracting parties requested the Secretariat to develop a Vision paper which takes stock of existing information systems, outlines a pro­cess for the development of the GLIS (Resolution 4/2011: point 13), and identi­fies the gaps and needs for information of providers and users (IT/GB-4/11/19: §§ 46-47; and IT/GB-4/11/Inf. 4: §§ 20-22). Following the development (IT/ GB-5/13/17; Resolution 10/2013; IT/GB-5/13/Report: point 41) and adop­tion of the Vision paper and the Programme of Work on the GLIS (Resolution 3/2015; IT/GB-6/15/Report: §§ 30-32 and Appendix A.3; T/GB-6/15/7), the first global data library of genetic data of food crop seeds was set up.⁴⁶

Resolution 3/2013 states that GLIS should integrate and augment exist­ing systems to create the global entry point to information and knowledge for strengthening the capacity for PGRFA conservation, management and utilization. The idea is to promote inter-connectivity among systems and provide overarching mechanisms to ensure ready access to the information and services provided (IT/GB-6/15/Report: Appendix A). This translates into the following objectives for the period 2016-2022: 1) to create a web­based platform with use-oriented entry points to PGRFA information; 2) to provide a comprehensive overview and facilitate access to sources of PGRFA and associated information; 3) to promote and facilitate interop­erability among existing systems by providing clear principles, technical standards and appropriate tools to support their operations in accordance with the principles and rules of the Treaty; 4) to promote transparency on the rights and obligations of users for accessing, sharing and using PGRFA associated information and to establish ways to exercise those rights and obligations within the Global Information System; 5) to create and enhance opportunities for communication and international and multidisciplinary collaboration to increase knowledge about and add value to PGRFA; 6) to provide capacity development and technology transfer opportunities for the conservation, management and use of PGRFA and associated information and knowledge paying special attention to the needs of developing countries; and 7) to create a mechanism to assess progress and monitor effectiveness of the Global Information System.

Digital object identifiers project

To progress on this task the Treaty Secretariat launched the Digital Object Iden­tifiers (DOI) project, following the advice of the Scientific Advisory Committee, to unambiguously and permanently identify PGRFA being exchanged across organizations. DOI allows to digitally provide a Permanent Unique Identifiers (PUID), i.e. a common standard, to facilitate the management and exchange of information between parties using all the above-mentioned tools.⁴⁷ The GB encourages contracting parties to use DOIs to accelerate implementation of GLIS (Resolution 5/2017). The objective is to significantly simplify and reduce the administrative burden of tracking PGRFA exchanges. It is also presented as a tool to facilitate the inclusion of accessions in the MLS (Resolution 4/2017: point 4).

In order to attract more users to the MLS, it was sought to increase the visibility and accessibility of the type of material in the MLS, including by improving the access to technical information on genetic resources (Resolution 1/2013, points 20-25). Focus is therefore set on the type of material included in the MLS, on the related (genetic) information available, and on the means of making it available. Indeed, having a clearer view on what is part of the MLS can definitely incite stakeholders to use it. Two specific recent initiatives are presented to contracting parties as ways to enhance the availability and use of genetic information associated with MLS material: the DivSeek Initiative and the Global Open Genome Sequence Data Framework.

The DivSeek initiative

The DivSeek initiative is a global ‘big data’ partnership to ‘harness genetic resources for food security’ (DivSeek website). To date (January 2018) there are 68 partnering institutions: genebanks, breeders, plant and crop scientists, uni­versities, database and computational experts but also the Global Crop Diversity Trust, the CGIAR Consortium and the Global Plant Council.

The Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources 115 and make it available to all so that it can be utilized to enhance the productivity, sustainability and resilience of crops and agricultural systems’ (DivSeek, n.d.).

The Global Open Genome Sequence Data Framework

In the 2015 Global Sustainable Development Report,⁴⁸ researchers pledged for a ‘universal access to genome information, needing nothing more than a web browser’ to ‘transform plant breeding [... and] spawn innovation around the world’ (Warthmann and Chiarolla, 2015). Responding to the call for ‘a New Data Revolution’ for sustainable development expressed by the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on post-2015 development goals (United Nations, 2015b: 23), the rationale behind this initiative is that ‘using genetic data can improve the speed and efficiency of plant breeding compared with classic trial- and-error practices’. Do to so, Warthmann and Chiarolla (2015 : 2) propose to establish a ‘public license for genomic information on crop germplasm’ as the first mechanism to ensure that ‘such data will be systematically treated as a pub­lic good for the benefits of mankind’. This license would ensure that genome sequence information and related data remains free and is made available as a public good, as long as it originates from publicly funded repositories and other stakeholders. This means that anyone sequencing germplasm in the public domain should be able to render the resulting information publicly available as is, ‘without prior curation, and without being exposed to the risk of infring­ing someone else’s rights on the material and/or related information, including patents or copyright’ (ibid: 3). Article five of the draft public license imposes a reach-through obligation that is to say that ‘the genomic information of descen­dants of material subject to this license is again subject to the same terms and conditions’ (ibid: 3-4).

Similarly to the DivSeek initiative, the Global Open Genome Sequence Data Framework is certainly to be welcomed by many stakeholders. Promoting an open access to PGRFA-related genetic information could work around the increasing enclosure of seeds and allow public scientists and breeders to develop the new varieties to face our current and future needs. However, because of the type of information that is currently covered (i.e. genomic data), one under­stands easily that it will be useful mainly for a specific type of users, i.e. profes­sional plant breeders, and not for the end users, i.e. the smallholder farmers. This situation reveals at this level of data management the imbalance of rights and capacities in the Treaty between breeders and farmers.

Therefore, a caveat is placed on the above-mentioned initiatives which mainly focus on one specific type of PGRFA user, i.e. the (high-tech) breeder, leaving aside the majority of seed users, i.e. the (smallholder) farmer. It is understood that the end-beneficiary of this type of initiative is to be the farmer, but it does not recognize the fact that the majority of the seeds used by smallholder farmers does not originate from commercial breeders but from informal seed exchange systems between farmers (McGuire and Sperling, 2016), where traditional knowledge related to PGRFA is an important asset.

Traditional knowledge

While there is not yet an accepted definition of traditional knowledge (TK)⁴⁹ at the international level, within the WIPO fora, TK is presented as ‘knowledge, know-how, skills and practices that are developed, sustained and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity’ (WIPO webpage on TK). For smallholder farmers, seeds (the material) and traditional knowledge (the information related to the mate­rial) are indissociably related. A seed without its associated traditional knowledge is of no value, of no use. Therefore, this type of information is crucial for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. This is recognized in the Treaty, where Article 9.2 stipulates that ‘each Contracting Party should [...] take mea­sures to protect and promote Farmers’ Rights, including: a) protection of tradi­tional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’. Farmers’ traditional knowledge is undeniably considered as ‘information’ relating to PGRFA (Onwuekwe, 2004; Brush, 2005, 2007; Biber-Klemm and Cottier, 2006; Jarvis, 2011), which could be covered by the development of the GLIS. Addressing issues related to TK through the GLIS could be a way to limit mis­appropriation, which have enflamed polemics on cases of biopiracy (Mgbeoji, 2001; Ebhojie, 2013). The issue of documenting and digitizing TK and related intangible cultural knowledge is not an easy one (Oguamanam, 2007). Current negotiations on an international legal instrument to ensure the effective protec­tion of TK, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources are taking place within the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (WIPO-IGC). Besides, the development taking place within the ambit of the Nagoya Protocol (Morg- era et al., 2014; Lakshmi Poorna et al., 2014) will also very likely influence the way TK is handled in the implementation of the Treaty (Girard and Frison, 2018b: 12; Chiarolla and Sand, 2013).

There are two ways of protecting TK through IPRs: defensive and positive protection. Defensive protection refers to

a set of strategies to ensure that third parties do not gain illegitimate or unfounded IP rights over TK. [...] Some countries and communities are also developing TK databases that may be used as evidence of prior art to defeat a claim to a patent on such TK.⁵⁰

(Wendland, 2002: 101-138; see also Van Overwalle, 2002, 2005)

These databases could be integrated in the GLIS under the Treaty. Defen­sive protection include means such as maintaining secrecy, or documenting TK. Positive protection rather focuses on the protection of TK by IP rights through ‘preventing unauthorized use, and active exploitation of TK by the originating community itself’ (Wipo website). Positive protection are mechanisms such as patents, geographical indications, sui generis systems, ABS systems or contracts.

While (Article 9.2a) stipulates that Traditional Knowledge is important and should be protected, the fact that this responsibility is recognized only ‘as appro­priate, and subject to [...] national legislation[s]’ has not promoted a general move towards TK protection at the international level. According to the WIPO database, 17 countries adopted sui generis legislation.⁵¹ Nevertheless, after several years of negotiations at the IGC, countries still have not come to an agreement and the debate does not seem to be close to an end. Relationships between the Treaty Secretariat and the WIPO-IGC seem rather distant, and there is no con­crete collaboration foreseen in the coming agendas of both bodies as to com­mon work on the protection of information and knowledge related to PGRFA (Resolution 12/2017).