Collaboration between Private and Public Genebanks in Conserving and Using Plant Genetic Resources

In conversation with Theo van Hintum (Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands) and Jan Engels (independent researcher plant genetic resources and Honorary Research Fellow Bioversity International, Italy) on their recently published article on ‘Collaboration between Private and Public Genebanks in Conserving and Using Plant Genetic Resources’.

Could you share with us what your reasoning was for writing this article?

Jan: Over the past ten years or so, we have observed that more and more private breeding companies have started to develop their own genebanks. Although these companies typically manage their own breeding collections, they now moved from a simpler working/breeding collection to an extensive genebank. This started to worry me as I was afraid that this development could be seen as a duplication of efforts that commonly are undertaken by public genebanks and thus, that this could lead to a possible undermining of the funding situation of the public genebank. Based on a review of the global conservation and use system of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) (see: https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/16/2992) and having held discussions with some selected private breeding companies, we obtained more details with respect to the reasons why private companies had started to establish their own genebanks. Furthermore, also the collaboration between public (CGN) and private genebanks in the Netherlands (Rijk Zwaan and East West Seed) had been analysed, with a strong focus on vegetable crops. These efforts have led to the development of the article on the collaboration between public and private genebanks.

What is the main aim you had with the publication of this article?

Theo: We both observed there is a lot of controversy in the discussion regarding Plant Genetic Resources (PGR) and the related Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS). We see that PGR used to be a common public good, PGR were seen as ‘the heritage of mankind’. That changed with the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in the early ‘90s; PGR became ‘under the sovereignty’ of the country where they occur. And consequently, access to PGR became more and more a political issue, with a contra-productive narrative. The concept of benefit-sharing was based on the expectation that users of genetic resources, especially private companies, should share benefits that derived from their use with developing countries, but this unfortunately resulted in unnecessary polarization. Accessing genetic resources became more difficult, especially for private companies. This has led to the establishment of private genebanks, as breeding companies needed to assure their continued access to PGR. Luckily, this has not resulted in a marginalization of the role of public genebanks. However, there is often limited collaboration between public and private genebanks and therefore, a duplication of efforts. We wanted to showcase the positive story of the Netherlands, where we see a lot of collaboration between CGN (the Dutch genebank) and the companies represented by Plantum (the Dutch branch organization for the breeding industry) and how this collaboration benefits both parties, and in the end the preservation of genetic resources.

In the article, you assess bottlenecks and constraints in the conservation and use system that impact collaboration between private and public genebanks. What did you identify as biggest constraint?

Jan: In the past decades, a strong shift has taken place from genetic resources to be a public good to the ‘privatization’  of these resources. The paperwork for private companies to access genetic resources is taking increasingly more time and money, due to bureaucratic requirements as well as an increasing uncertainty if access would be granted, which has resulted in the establishment of their private genebanks. In the Netherlands, the collaboration between public and private genebanks is a very positive one, but globally, the discussion is so strongly focused on equally sharing of benefits that we see limited collaboration taking place.

Theo: The international rules for exchange of PGR are very complicated to work with, compliance to the international agreements is low and the political debate is so polarized now that people seem to forget we are all working on the same ambition of conserving genetic resources and using it for making better varieties for the farmers. There is no fundamental disagreement about fair ABS and breeding companies are willing to share benefits with farmers. We don’t want duplication of genetic resources to take place, as this is a waste of time and resources, and most importantly, we should all prevent the loss of genetic resources from occurring.

And what is your suggestion for overcoming this constraint?

Theo: There is room for collaboration between public and private genebanks because there can be mutual benefits and we largely have the same objectives. A lot of the controversy is based on the concept of national sovereignty, as particular developing countries have felt they were disadvantaged in sharing germplasm with the North, and not receiving sufficient benefits in return. We should shift the political debate from this ‘battle’ between private companies and farmers in the global South, to a more productive one about how we can reform the global legal system to make it work for everyone, and reach the common goals of avoiding genetic erosion, creating access to PGR and fairly sharing the benefits.

You focused your article on vegetable crops. Can the lessons learnt be applied to other crops as well?

Jan: Absolutely. It was a conscious decision to zoom in on vegetables because they represent the total range of plant genetic resources very well and the ample experiences and knowledge with vegetable genetic resources in the Netherlands can serve as an excellent example for the rest of the world, and for PGR in general. As authors we believe the findings and discussion points can be applied to all countries and all crops.

What do you now envision as follow-up to this article?

Both: We hope our article contributes to having a constructive discussion at the global level to see how we could reform the global (legal) system so that it does what it is supposed to do. Right now, we see that the ITPGRFA and the Nagoya Protocol are not working well at a practical level, that they are very bureaucratic, and it is difficult to understand the complexity. We are glad that in the article we have shared our positive experience in the Netherlands and expressed our appreciation of the collaboration with our colleagues in the breeding companies. In the global discussion, the most relevant point is that we are right now in a situation where genetic diversity is disappearing rapidly, and if we don’t act and conserve now, we will lose it. We should indicate this more and keep in our minds that we’re all going for the same objectives, which is conservation of, and access to, genetic resources and sharing the benefits of their use.

Do you have a specific call-to-action you’d like to share with the SeedNL community?

Theo: The Netherlands can be a beautiful example of how we can work collaboratively to preserve genetic resources and to ensure farmers have access to the right seeds and share in the benefits. The SeedNL community should ensure in its international endeavors on seed sector development that no genetic diversity is lost in the process, and that the element of conserving genetic diversity is included in every project proposal.

Jan: In the end, we all want to contribute to achieving global and improved food and nutrition security, and genetic diversity is crucial to achieving this.

The full article can be accessed here: https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/13/2/247