Agrobiodiversität in Deutschland - Genres

30 | Johannes Engels
From the earliest conservation and use activities
of genetic resources until today
With respect to access to and availability of genetic resources in the CBD,
the notions of national sovereignty and prior informed consent (PIC) should
be mentioned. Furthermore, the efforts to develop access and benefitsharing
(ABS) arrangements and the recognition of the importance of
traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights (IPR), (both, plant
breeders’ rights and patents) led to a much more restrictive attitude with
respect to the availability of genetic resources. This restriction was reflected
in the revision of the International Undertaking that started during the mid
1990’s and that was concluded with the adoption of the International Treaty
in 2004, replacing the International Undertaking and created a multilateral
system (MLS) for facilitated access to crops and species included in the Annex
I list of the Treaty (http://www.planttreaty.org/, visited on 28.12.2011).
In view of the fact that the main reasons for establishing the MLS as part
of the Treaty are a reflection of the peculiarities of PGRFA, especially the
cultivated and bred elements of same, it might be good to list these reasons
explicitly here:
• Significant interdependence of countries (some countries for all the
major crops up to 100%!); no country is autarkic of genetic diversity for
all crops
• PGRFA have a critically important role to play in the context of local/
national as well as global food security
• The actual geographic origin of cultivated genetic resources is usually
difficult to determine, especially since for many crops the origin is
diffuse as during the domestication and improvement process many
farmers contributed consciously or unconsciously, in almost all cases
without any record, and the material moved around freely
• From a genetic point of view the origin of bred material is in principle
very difficult to define as two genomes intermix and only randomly
one half of the genes are received from mother and the other half from
the father, without knowing which genes came from which parent!
Furthermore, also the pedigrees of modern varieties have gotten longer
and more complex with the increased availability of the (bio)technologies
and thus, making it difficult if not impossible to define which
contributions came from which parent or accession.
Some other aspects related to both, international agreements and the availability
of genetic resources, including their use, are important to mention.
One is the requirement of the member countries to use the standard material
transfer agreement (SMTA) for MLS germplasm (since 2006; for details see
the Treaty website). The access to other PGRFA, i.e. the so-called Non-Annex
I material should take place according to CBD requirements if and when no
other arrangements have been made. For instance, the European countries
have agreed to use the same SMTA, with an additional footnote, for the exchange
of Non-Annex I genetic resources. This has also become the norm
for all the accessions that will be included in the European Collection that
A European Genebank Integrated System (AEGIS) is establishing (http://aegis.cgiar.org/european_collection.html,
visited on 28.12.2011). The Nagoya
Protocol established at the end of 2010 on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) is
a rather broad and vague protocol and thus, leaving the interface with International
Treaty unclear. More recently, molecular tools greatly facilitate
the transfer of genes from even unrelated species and this development has
a direct impact on the use of germplasm, including the importance of crop
wild relatives (CWRs)! The already mentioned debate over the use of patents
in plant research is ongoing and especially the negative impact that genes
can have on the availability of genetic resources is becoming a well-known
and unwanted affect. Unfortunately, most of the above points have resulted
in more restrictive and more complicated access to PGRFA and this is disappointing
to note, especially when one realizes that the opposite would be
required to meet all the challenges of food security and mitigating the negative
impact of climate change!
Concluding remarks
• The movement and access to genetic resources is essential for breeding
and other uses and should be kept as unrestricted as possible
• The important role of genebanks in the conservation and sustainable
use of PGRFA should not be undermined by (too) restrictive access conditions
• Let us try to get a longer Annex I list and to expand the MLS!
• ABS arrangements need to be simple and un-bureaucratic to allow
genebanks to operate effectively (for collecting, conservation and distribution)
Johannes Engels | 31