Multilateral SystemEdit
The Multilateral System (MLS) is a structured framework within the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) that facilitates access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) for breeding and research. Administered under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the MLS aims to streamline exchange among countries, researchers, and seed breeders so that crop diversity can be conserved, improved, and made available for food security worldwide. The system rests on a standardized path for access: a common Material Transfer Agreement (Material Transfer Agreement) governs the terms, and benefits from use are shared through a global fund and other non-monetary benefits.
The MLS sits at the intersection of public goods and private innovation. Plant genetic resources are, in many respects, a shared heritage that underpin long-run agricultural resilience, yield gains, and adaptation to changing climates. At the same time, private breeders and seed companies invest heavily in developing new varieties and in applying plant-breeding technologies. The MLS seeks to balance these realities by providing facilitated, low-friction access to a defined pool of resources while ensuring that providers receive acknowledgement and benefits—primarily through a Benefit-Sharing Fund and non-monetary benefits such as collaboration, capacity-building, and information exchange.
The scope of the MLS is defined by a specific list of crops and forages that are crucial to world food systems. Access is typically limited to resources within that list and governed by the standard MTA, with providers retaining sovereignty over their own national resources outside the MLS framework. Crops commonly associated with the MLS include staples such as wheat, rice, maize, and potato, among others included in the treaty framework. These resources are intended to support breeding programs that increase yields, improve nutritional quality, and bolster resilience to pests, diseases, and climate stress. See Annex I (ITPGRFA) for the crops covered, and explore related resources such as PGRFA to understand the broader category.
Overview
- What the MLS is and why it exists
- How the MTA governs access to MLS resources
- The role of the Governing Body and the FAO Secretariat
- The balance between global public goods and private incentives
- The interaction with national sovereignty and biodiversity objectives
The MLS operates through a governing structure under the ITPGRFA. Countries join the treaty, and a Governing Body oversees operations, approves lists of resources, and administers the MLS framework. A dedicated Secretariat coordinates day-to-day activities and ensures that exchanges flow smoothly under the standard MTA. The MLS is designed to reduce transaction costs and time lags in obtaining germplasm, which in turn accelerates breeding programs and conservation efforts. See ITPGRFA and FAO for the umbrella governance and the institutional context.
Legal framework and governance
- The ITPGRFA establishes the legal basis for the MLS, including the right of participants to access PGRFA within the MLS and the obligation to share benefits.
- The standard MTA codifies the terms of use, including provisions on non-commercial and research use, documentation, and attribution.
- The Benefit-Sharing Fund channels monetary contributions from users back to provider countries, with additional non-monetary benefits such as capacity-building and knowledge exchange.
Key terms and bodies include Governing Body of the ITPGRFA and FAO as the administering organization. The list of crops and forages, principally in Annex I (ITPGRFA), sets the material scope of the MLS, while resources outside Annex I fall outside the MLS unless nations decide otherwise. For more on the policy architecture surrounding plant genetic resources, see Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
Economic and development implications
- The MLS lowers the cost and complexity of obtaining germplasm for breeding and research, which can speed up innovation and bring new varieties to farmers faster.
- By providing a global pool of resources, the MLS supports crop diversity and resilience, particularly for staple crops that underpin food security in many countries.
- The regime interacts with intellectual property and plant variety protection regimes. It complements, rather than replaces, private rights to new varieties, and it does not grant ownership over the resources themselves; instead, it structures access and benefit-sharing around a standardized framework. See UPOV for plant variety protection regimes and Farmers' rights for how rights of farmers are positioned within the broader system.
- Critics argue that the MLS can blur incentives for private investment if benefits are redistributed broadly or if access terms are perceived as too liberal. Proponents counter that well-designed benefit-sharing, coupled with the prospect of access to diverse germplasm, sustains high-quality breeding pipelines and global agricultural competitiveness.
From a policy and development perspective, the MLS is often defended as a pragmatic compromise: it preserves essential public goods—diverse genetic resources and the knowledge to utilize them—while preserving enough space for private sector innovation and investment in new varieties. The system is sometimes contrasted with broader calls for open-source seed models or stronger expropriation-style access, which proponents say could undermine investment incentives and long-run improvements in crop performance.
Controversies and debates around the MLS tend to focus on how benefits are shared, how access terms influence research and breeding activities in different regions, and how the regime adapts to new technological realities such as digital sequence information (DSI). Supporters emphasize that the MLS has helped maintain a robust pipeline of germplasm for improvement work and that the funding mechanism for benefit-sharing is essential to supporting resource-providing countries. Critics may allege that the MLS does not adequately reward all contributing breeders or that it imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that can constrain national strategies for agriculture and biotech development. In the debates about DSI, some argue for expanding or revising rules to cover digital representations of genetic material, while others warn that overreach could threaten traditional access mechanisms.
Proponents of market-led reform argue that the MLS should align more closely with incentives for private investment, including clearer compatibility with IP regimes and fewer encumbrances on licensing and commercialization. They argue that open-ended access without strong, targeted compensation can undermine the investment that yields new varieties and improved traits. Detractors of this view, often aligned with developing-country perspectives, worry that too-narrow a focus on private innovation might neglect farmer-led improvement and local adaptation in resource-poor settings. The ongoing policy conversation seeks to reconcile these concerns by refining the balance between access, innovation, and shared gains.
Reforms and future directions
- Clarify and modernize rules for digital representations of genetic information while preserving the substantive access and benefit-sharing principles.
- Ensure predictable, adequately funded support for the Benefit-Sharing Fund so provider countries receive tangible returns from use of their resources.
- Improve alignment with evolving IP frameworks to protect legitimate private investments while maintaining broad access to germplasm for breeding and research.
- Expand capacity-building and technical assistance, especially in developing countries, to enable more effective use of MLS resources for local breeding goals.
- Periodically review Annex I to reflect changes in agriculture, crops, and nutritional priorities, while maintaining a stable core of resources critical to food security.
See also DSI and Seed saving for related topics that influence how genetic resources are used and preserved, as well as Farmers' rights and UPOV for broader IP and access dynamics in agriculture.