From Obstruction to Decolonization? 147
The press release promptly situates the beneficiaries of ratification as “both the
public-sector and commercial interests” (U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in
Rome, 2017). Indeed, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State’s 2016 testimony to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which oversees I nternational Treaty
negotiations) argued that the U.S. needed “facilitated access” to the treasury of
germplasm held in genebanks around the world to support agricultural industry needs. As a non-party, the U.S. institutions “have to engage in lengthy ad
hoc negotiations of terms of access” to comply with the Nagoya Protocol for
Access and Benefit Sharing, to receive prior informed consent from indigenous and local communities and stewards of such valuable germplasm. The
numerous testimonies positioned these requirements as mere obstacles to the
global flows of agri-food genetic resources. Moreover, the testimonies regularly couched the value of germplasm in terms of the Green Revolution, which,
they erroneously argued, “saved hundreds of millions of lives”
8 (see Kumar
et al., 2017; Patel, 2013; Perkins, 1997; Shiva, 1991; Stone, 2019). After lauding
Borlaug again, the chairman of the American Seed Trade Association testified
that “Public and private plant breeders once enjoyed much freer access to seeds
for research and development”.
9 This time, the Nagoya Protocol is called out
by name as the enemy as “further threatening our ability to exchange germplasm globally. With ratification, the US would be able to resume its leadership position to enhance the functioning of the Treaty and greatly diminish
the uncertainty created by the CBD and Nagoya”.
10 Overall, the testimonies
concurred that ratifying would “enable the United States effectively to guide
the trajectory of the Treaty and its Material Transfer Agreement”.
11 The arguments proved effective.
At the first Governing Body Session that the U.S. attended as a ratifying
party, in November 2017, the U.S. representative Christine Dawson was elected
as the next Chair of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture: a two-year term. It is the State Department that represents the U.S.,
and Dawson was a longtime State Department official, serving as the director
of Office of Conservation and Water in the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Her experience in such biological aspects of
diplomacy as the CITES Treaty earned her the appointment, despite lack of experience or expertise in agriculture or food systems. Dawson chaired a Conference
of the Parties session focused on longstanding axes of tension in the Treaty, such
as expanding the Multilateral System of ABS (MLS) and the S tandard Material
Transfer Agreement (SMTA); funding the Benefit Sharing program; actualizing
Farmers’ Rights; and regulating access to Digital Sequence Information (DSI) of
PGRFA. Dawson presented a compromise package on MLS which comprised a
slightly revised SMTA with expanded Annex 1 list of MLS crops. It did not pass.
She did agree to scoping research for DSI (iisd Reporting Services, 2019). In
short: a largely status quo meeting. Even w ell-discussed solutions such as a ratiobased subscription system for the MLS to fund the Benefit Sharing fund were
not formally considered. Industrial countries blocked the Farmers’ Rights Ad
The press release promptly situates the beneficiaries of ratification as “both the
public-sector and commercial interests” (U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in
Rome, 2017). Indeed, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State’s 2016 testimony to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which oversees I nternational Treaty
negotiations) argued that the U.S. needed “facilitated access” to the treasury of
germplasm held in genebanks around the world to support agricultural industry needs. As a non-party, the U.S. institutions “have to engage in lengthy ad
hoc negotiations of terms of access” to comply with the Nagoya Protocol for
Access and Benefit Sharing, to receive prior informed consent from indigenous and local communities and stewards of such valuable germplasm. The
numerous testimonies positioned these requirements as mere obstacles to the
global flows of agri-food genetic resources. Moreover, the testimonies regularly couched the value of germplasm in terms of the Green Revolution, which,
they erroneously argued, “saved hundreds of millions of lives”
8 (see Kumar
et al., 2017; Patel, 2013; Perkins, 1997; Shiva, 1991; Stone, 2019). After lauding
Borlaug again, the chairman of the American Seed Trade Association testified
that “Public and private plant breeders once enjoyed much freer access to seeds
for research and development”.
9 This time, the Nagoya Protocol is called out
by name as the enemy as “further threatening our ability to exchange germplasm globally. With ratification, the US would be able to resume its leadership position to enhance the functioning of the Treaty and greatly diminish
the uncertainty created by the CBD and Nagoya”.
10 Overall, the testimonies
concurred that ratifying would “enable the United States effectively to guide
the trajectory of the Treaty and its Material Transfer Agreement”.
11 The arguments proved effective.
At the first Governing Body Session that the U.S. attended as a ratifying
party, in November 2017, the U.S. representative Christine Dawson was elected
as the next Chair of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture: a two-year term. It is the State Department that represents the U.S.,
and Dawson was a longtime State Department official, serving as the director
of Office of Conservation and Water in the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Her experience in such biological aspects of
diplomacy as the CITES Treaty earned her the appointment, despite lack of experience or expertise in agriculture or food systems. Dawson chaired a Conference
of the Parties session focused on longstanding axes of tension in the Treaty, such
as expanding the Multilateral System of ABS (MLS) and the S tandard Material
Transfer Agreement (SMTA); funding the Benefit Sharing program; actualizing
Farmers’ Rights; and regulating access to Digital Sequence Information (DSI) of
PGRFA. Dawson presented a compromise package on MLS which comprised a
slightly revised SMTA with expanded Annex 1 list of MLS crops. It did not pass.
She did agree to scoping research for DSI (iisd Reporting Services, 2019). In
short: a largely status quo meeting. Even w ell-discussed solutions such as a ratiobased subscription system for the MLS to fund the Benefit Sharing fund were
not formally considered. Industrial countries blocked the Farmers’ Rights Ad