Biodivers Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s10531-016-1109-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Twenty-five years of international exchanges of plant
genetic resources facilitated by the CGIAR genebanks:
a case study on global interdependence
Gea Galluzzi1 • Michael Halewood1 • Isabel López Noriega1 •
Ronnie Vernooy1
Received: 31 August 2015 / Revised: 12 April 2016 / Accepted: 16 April 2016
 The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract This article analyses 25 years of data about international movements of plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), facilitated by the gene banks hosted
by seven centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. It
identifies trends in the movements of PGRFA for use in research and development, and
describes the diversity of those resources transferred over time. The paper also presents
data on the number of countries involved in the global exchanges, analyses their devel-
opment status and describes their role as providers and/or recipients, providing a picture of
the breadth of these global exchanges. We highlight that it is primarily developing and
transition economies that have participated in the flows, and that the transferred germplasm
has been largely used within their public agricultural research and development pro-
grammes. We conclude that, when provided the opportunity of facilitated access, countries
will use a wide diversity of germplasm from many other countries, sub-regions and con-
tinents as inputs into their agricultural research and development programmes. We high-
light the importance of enabling the continuation of the non-monetary benefits from
international access to germplasm. We discuss the implications for the process of devel-
opment and reform of the multilateral system of access and benefit sharing under Inter-
national Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Keywords Plant genetic resources  Interdependence  International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture  Multilateral system  Conservation 
Breeding
Communicated by Anurag chaurasia.
& Gea Galluzzi
geagalluzzi@gmail.com
1 Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, Maccarese, Rome, Italy
123
Biodivers Conserv
Introduction
Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) are the basic building blocks of
crop improvement and adaptation and, by extension, of food security. As a result of the
history of crop domestication and global dispersal and adaptation, all countries are now
highly dependent upon plant genetic resources located (or originally collected from)
beyond their borders. Global interdependence on plant genetic resources has been previ-
ously discussed (Crosby 1972, 1986; Diamond 1997; Fowler et al. 2001; Halewood et al.
2014; Mann 2011; SGRP 2011), and predictions have been made of increased future
interdependence as a result of challenges such as climate change (Lane and Jarvis 2007;
Burke et al. 2009; Jarvis et al. 2010; Fujisaka et al. 2011; Ramirez-Villegas et al. 2013) and
the evolution of food systems and diets (Khoury et al. 2014). Global recognition of the
policy significance of interdependence on PGRFA arguably reached its zenith in 2001
when ‘interdependence’ was explicitly included in Article 11 of the International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) as one of two criteria—the
other being relevance for food security—for including crops or forages in the multilateral
system of access and benefit sharing (MLS).1
Through the MLS, ITPGRFA parties agree to create a global, virtual pool of genetic
resources for 64 crops and forages (these are listed in the Treaty’s Annex 1). In addition to
conservation, this germplasm is intended to be utilized for the purposes of training,
breeding and research for food and agriculture. Member states agree to provide facilitated
access to one another (including natural and legal persons within their borders) on the
understanding that monetary benefits will be shared if the recipients incorporate materials
in new, commercialized PGRFA products that are not available to others for research,
training or breeding. The multilateral architecture of access and benefit sharing under the
ITPGRFA was designed to reflect countries’ current and future interdependence on
PGRFA. The system was meant to minimize transaction costs that could otherwise mul-
tiply beyond acceptable limits, given the magnitude of international exchanges of genetic
resources that accompany agricultural research, development and plant breeding.
In recent years, ITPGRFA member states have expressed concerns that the MLS has not
been functioning at the anticipated levels, either in terms of generating financial benefits by
users to be shared through the international Benefit-Sharing Fund (BSF) or in terms of
materials being made available to, and accessed through, the MLS. Based on this concern,
the ITPGRFA’s Governing Body created the Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group to
Enhance the Functioning of the MLS. Its mandate is to develop a range of optional
measures to both increase user-based payments and contributions to the BSF in a sus-
tainable and predictable long-term manner and enhance the functioning of the Multilateral
System by additional measures.
This article focuses on an issue at the heart of the MLS—the state of global interde-
pendence on PGRFA. We hope that the data presented here will be useful within any
process aimed at revising or reforming the terms and conditions of the MLS. It is critically
important to keep interdependence in mind when developing policies concerning the
conditions under which genetic resources can be accessed and used as well as the ways in
which benefits derived from their use should be shared. Illustrating the volume, diversity
and geographical spread of global flows of plant genetic resources mediated by Consul-
tative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres, the findings
1 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 29 June 2004, http://www.
planttreaty.org/content/texts-treaty-official-versions (accessed 15 December 2015).
123
Biodivers Conserv
highlight the benefits accrued by virtually all countries in the world—namely, being
granted access to a rich variety of materials (and associated technology and information)
otherwise unavailable within their own borders and difficult to access under bilateral
conditions. The resulting conclusions highlight the importance of the system’s non-mon-
etary modalities for sharing benefits, most of which have involved users in developing
countries. We hope that such evidence will encourage efforts to maintain and enhance
these mechanisms, in addition to improving the mechanisms associated with monetary
payments to the BSF.
Data sources and methods
Data on the holdings, acquisitions and distributions of nine CGIAR genebanks was
retrieved from the CGIAR’s System-wide Information Network on Genetic Resources
(SINGER).2 A system-wide database such as SINGER has never been established for the
distribution of germplasm from the CGIAR’s breeding programmes, and, therefore, our
study focuses on genebank distributions only. We asked each of the genebank curators to
validate the accuracy of the data stored in SINGER and/or to provide updates or inte-
grations. In the end, we obtained validated or updated data for seven genebanks, which are
those included in this study (Table 1). Given the magnitude of the distributions from the
other centres whose data is not included in this research, i.e., CIMMYT, CIAT, IITA, the
final conclusions regarding the extent of international interdependence would likely have
been even stronger had their data been included.
Distribution data followed a standard format gathering information according to the
fields shown in Table 2.
Distribution records were available beginning in 1973 for some of the genebanks
included in the study, but there were large gaps in the records until 1985 (due to data
storage and reporting systems not being fully in place in all centres). Thereafter, the data
were more uniform, which led to the decision to consider only the data from 1985 onwards.
Since our focus was the germplasm sent to countries and within-country recipients, intra-
and inter-CGIAR centre distributions were removed as well as those from CGIAR gene-
banks to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. The total number of distributed samples shown in
Table 1 was the basis for our analysis. These centres’ mandate crops (and their wild
relatives) include key staples for worldwide food security, such as rice, tropical and dry-
land legumes and cereals, potatoes and other roots and tubers, bananas and plantains and
tropical forages (see Appendix, Tables 6, 7 for details on the collections hosted at all
CGIAR centres).
Various ways of measuring international PGRFA movements were explored. We
considered the total number of samples distributed [a single sample consisting ideally of
between 50 and 100 viable seeds or less vegetative propagules (CGKB 2014)], the number
of accessions distributed (excluding the repeated distributions of the same accession) and
the number of species distributed. The latter two statistics provide a picture of the diversity,
rather than the sheer volume, of the flows.
Further analyses qualified the international germplasm flows facilitated by the gene-
banks using the number of countries from which the materials distributed were originally
2 SINGER has been discontinued, with much of its data and functionality—minus distribution data—
incorporated into GENESYS, http://www.genesys-pgr.org (accessed 20 November 2014).
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 1 Total number of samples sent to national recipients from the seven CGIAR genebanks
(1985–2009)
AfricaRice Bioversity CIP ICARDA ICRISAT ILRI IRRI
Samples distributed 38,963 13,436 84,380 246,026 418,934 30,830 166,681
Table 2 Fields of information
CGIAR centre Transfer year
included in the distribution data
from CGIAR genebanks Accession number Recipient country code
Genus Recipient country name
Species Recipient institute
Country of origin Recipient last name
Biological status Recipient first name
Recipient code Recipient user type
Recipient region Transfer date
collected or improved, the number of recipient countries and types of recipient institutions,
the number of genera and species distributed, and the type of materials exchanged.
Countries were classified based on their development status according to the United
Nations classification system (UN 2012), which helped to analyse the germplasm contri-
butions according to the economy of the donor or recipient country. All data handling and
analyses were performed in R (R Development Core Team 2011).
Results and discussion
Global flows of PGRFA, 1985–2009: volumes and diversity
Between 1985 and 2009, germplasm conserved in the selected CGIAR genebanks was
distributed to a broad range of users. According to the available data, 999,250 samples of
262,872 accessions belonging to 1470 different plant species were distributed during that
period. The average number of samples distributed per year (39,970) is below that of the
U.S. National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), where total annual distributions have
increased from around 120,000 (Bretting 2007) to more than 200,000 (Heisey and Day
Rubenstein 2015) over the past few years. About 30 % of NPGS yearly distributions are
typically to requestors from outside the U.S. However, in making this comparison, our lack
of data from three important CGIAR genebanks should be kept in mind. Notwithstanding
the missing data, the yearly volumes described are much higher than the average number of
distributions of other important germplasm systems, such as the Russian Vavilov Institute
(6400) (FAO 2009), the German Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Resources
(4400 of barley only) (Ullrich 2011), the Centre for Genetic Resources in the Netherlands
(2500) (Centre for Genetic Resources 2008), the Brazilian Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária (1800) (Da Silva Mariante et al. 2009), the Institute of Crop Germpasm
Resources in China (1550) (ICGR 2015), the Plant Genetic Resources Institute of Canada
(1500) (Fowler and Hodgkin 2004). These numbers are useful for providing a general idea
of the CGIAR’s relative contribution on the international scene, but they should be
123
Biodivers Conserv
considered with caution because of the differences in the reporting periods and the limi-
tations of our data.
Virtually all countries in the world have been involved in the exchange of germplasm.
The materials listed in Table 1 were originally collected in, or provided by, at least 189
countries and distributed to at least 191 countries. In addition to distributions from the
various genebanks, large amounts of germplasm in different stages of improvement have
been sent out by the centres’ breeding programmes, although no system-wide mechanism
has ever been set up to document these distributions over time. However, data provided by
the centres3 for the fourth session of the ITPGRFA’s Governing Body indicate that from
August 2008 to December 2009 these breeding programmes sent out over 500,000 samples
(SGRP 2011). This amount points to the outstanding contribution that the CGIAR breeders
make to international flows of germplasm, in addition to the centres’ genebanks.
According to data available through the GENESYS portal, which gathers information
on numerous national and international genebanks, the international ex situ collections
hosted by the CGIAR centres currently include 712,834 accessions of their mandate crops
and related gene pools, originally collected from a vast number of countries (Appendix,
Tables 6, 7, 8). The genebanks that were analysed in this study, currently host 445,785
accessions of 2848 species.4 Our data suggest that samples of roughly half the diversity
held have been distributed at least once by these genebanks.
During the period analysed, there appears to be have been a slight downward trend in
the overall number of samples distributed, as already highlighted elsewhere (Halewood
et al. 2013). A similar decline was observed in the diversity of the materials distributed,
which was measured according to the number of accessions distributed and the number of
species represented (Table 3). This trend may be attributed to the fact that the requests
became more targeted as more characterization and evaluation data became available,
which led to breeders and researchers making requests for smaller sets of materials
(Halewood et al. 2013; López Noriega et al. 2013a). For those CGIAR genebanks actively
distributing sets of materials for international adaptation trials, the decline could also be
due to decreases in the funding made available for these multi-location field operations. It
could be that some of the requests that were traditionally made to the CGIAR are now
being directed to other genebanks. In addition to institutions that have always been at the
forefront of international distributions, alongside the CGIAR, such as the US Department
of Agriculture (USDA), a number of national institutions in other countries have been
increasing their collections and may be receiving more germplasm requests (FAO 2010). In
addition, some private sector users—those most likely to apply some form of intellectual
property rights to the final PGRFA products—may have refrained in recent years from
requesting germplasm from the CGIAR because of their reluctance to accept the benefit-
sharing clauses of the MLS (Halewood and Nnadozie 2008). It is important to note that
traditionally these companies have been an extremely small portion of the users of CGIAR
materials, as described later.
Types of materials and frequency of distribution
According to GENESYS, over 50 % of the total germplasm distributed by the CGIAR
genebanks over the 25 years analysed are landraces or traditional cultivars, which are
predominant within these collections (Fowler et al. 2001; Genesys 2014). Breeding and
3 Except IITA, which did not provide information for this report.
4 GENESYS, http://www.genesys-pgr.org (accessed 20 November 2014).
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 3 Results of the models used for analysing trends in the overall flows over time (1979–2009)
Parameter/year Estimate P value Method
Samples -0.031 \2e-16 Generalized linear model with Poisson error distribution
Accessions -0.065 \2e-16 Generalized linear model with Poisson error distribution
Species -0.013 \2e-16 Generalized linear model with Poisson error distribution
research lines constitute less than 20 % of the materials distributed, while advanced or
improved cultivars comprise only 7 % of the distributions. Wild and weedy relatives amount
to 12 % of the samples sent out by the analysed genebanks, not only suggesting their
importance as sources of useful traits but also reflecting the greater difficulty of using them in
breeding compared to other materials (Fig. 1). The decision about which materials to con-
serve in the long term is made by each centre independently, often following the outcomes of
economic analyses on the costs and benefits of conserving materials in genebanks or
breeding programmes (Koo et al. 2004). The data in this study reveal that most centres give
priority for long-term storage in their genebanks to materials that belong to the primary
genepools – that is, the landraces and wild relatives of their mandate crops. This strategy also
reflects the fact that all centres with genebanks also have breeding programmes that actively
exchange research, breeding and improved lines with partners worldwide, making the
conservation of these sets by the genebank neither necessary nor efficient. However,
research, breeding and advanced lines are sometimes included in long-term collections,
when the properties, or the use of the material, justify it. For instance, this may be the case
with materials that have accumulated unique genetic properties (for example, allele com-
binations), those that are laborious to reproduce (for example, inter-specific hybrids) or those
that are commonly used as benchmark varieties in evaluation trials.
Based on the number of samples per accession sent to recipients, there appears to be
enormous variation in the popularity of any single accession. Almost 60 % of the accessions
in the dataset have been distributed between two and ten times, while only 5.7 % (150
accessions) have been distributed more than 100 times. Most of the latter come from ILRI,
CIP and ICRISAT and have been distributed to an average of over 38 countries (SD 20.5)
(see Appendix, Table 9 for details on the top 50 most ‘popular’ accessions of our dataset).
Fig. 1 Proportion of the different types of germplasm distributed by the selected CGIAR genebanks based
on accession data (1985–2009)
123
Biodivers Conserv
More than half of these frequently distributed materials are improved lines, whereas lan-
draces, wild relatives and, to a lesser extent, breeding materials constitute the bulk of the
accessions transferred less frequently. Among the possible reasons for the ‘popular’ mate-
rials to be more frequently requested (that is, by many institutions worldwide) is the fact that
the characterization and/or evaluation data already accumulated on them increases their
value for breeding and research. This information, in turn, facilitates their use including in
institutions and countries with limited capacity or infrastructure for conducting lengthy and
costly pre-breeding research using non-adapted populations and wild relatives (FAO 2010).
Providers and recipients
Of the total 189 countries from which material distributed by the seven CGIAR genebanks
was obtained, 112 are developing countries, 54 are developed countries and 23 have
economies in transition. Of the total 191 recipients, 116 are developing countries, 19 are
economies in transition and 56 are developed countries. Data for developing countries and
countries with economies in transition has been combined in our analyses. Both developed
and developing countries are net recipients—that is, they receive more diversity than they
contribute to international gene banks. While this ‘sink’ behaviour is more evident for
developed countries, which tend to harbour comparatively less indigenous genetic diversity
in their territories, the majority of global exchanges of germplasm mediated by the CGIAR
genebanks is distributed South to South—that is, between developing countries (Fig. 2).
In their analysis of the flows from six of the CGIAR genebanks and from the USDA’s
National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) between 1990 and 1999, Smale and Kelly Day
Rubenstein (2002) also observed that a predominance of developing countries and tran-
sition economies were providers and recipients. So too did the CGIAR’s System-wide
Genetic Resources Programme (2011) in its biannual reports to the Governing Body of the
ITPGRFA. Tables 4a, b provide more detail on the amount, diversity and geographical
coverage of the distributions facilitated by the international genebanks for the top 25
provider countries and the top 25 recipient countries.
Almost all of the top providers listed in Table 4 are developing countries. Many of them
are important centres of origin, domestication or diversification of the crops curated by the
Fig. 2 Number of accessions exchanged between developed (the ‘North’) and developing and transition
countries (the ‘South’)
123
Biodivers Conserv
123
Table 4 Top 25 provider countries (including total number of samples, genera and accessions originally sourced in these countries and circulated by the CGIAR genebanks
analysed in this study as well as the number of recipient countries) and top 25 recipient countries (total number of samples, genera and accessions received as well as the
number of countries where these materials were originally sourced) (1985–2009)
Provider Total samples Accessions Genera Recipient Recipient Total samples Accessions Genera Provider
country provided provided provided countries country received received received countries
India 188,911 48,635 35 144 India 284,454 115,849 70 181
Peru 67,899 16,216 23 158 United States 45,992 39,963 97 178
Ethiopia 40,143 13,683 94 120 China 33,690 18,664 48 151
United States 36,652 6294 30 156 Ethiopia 28,863 17,572 175 150
Iran 29,829 9779 26 87 Australia 20,218 17,566 63 150
Turkey 29,579 9634 29 83 Japan 17,628 12,022 32 141
Syrian Arab 26,029 7487 27 78 United 17,231 14,283 89 144
Republic Kingdom
Sudan 24,262 3457 17 61 Morocco 16,362 14,618 38 97
The Philippines 21,626 4016 7 109 The Philippines 16,332 8798 50 107
Côte d’Ivoire 20,494 3037 4 78 Tunisia 13,399 9706 18 70
China 18,559 7225 21 125 Iran 13,083 12,301 18 135
Nigeria 16,060 3462 27 126 Austria 12,703 12,657 24 92
Zimbabwe 15,477 4500 19 62 Italy 12,345 10,003 36 116
Cameroon 15,216 2942 13 67 Syrian Arab 10,598 8610 19 92
Republic
Jordan 12,328 3319 20 66 South Korea 10,195 8423 26 137
Morocco 12,257 4106 34 69 Russia 9614 8636 12 92
Bangladesh 12,092 3839 14 94 Pakistan 9512 7901 64 139
Indonesia 11,696 3774 12 93 Turkey 9295 7221 25 96
Uganda 11,172 2565 13 103 Canada 9160 7709 38 121
Tunisia 10,799 3523 22 74 Indonesia 8965 8395 32 110
Pakistan 10,587 2950 23 99 Peru 7953 4053 33 75
Kenya 10,509 2205 38 104 Egypt 7921 6685 54 126
Biodivers Conserv
123
Table 4 continued
Provider Total samples Accessions Genera Recipient Recipient Total samples Accessions Genera Provider
country provided provided provided countries country received received received countries
Algeria 9743 3522 24 65 Germany 7276 6253 63 130
Tanzania 8438 2132 37 96 Brazil 6903 6030 34 129
Nepal 7725 2745 19 73 Thailand 6821 4899 27 103
Biodivers Conserv
genebanks considered in this study, including India (rice, millet), Peru (potatoes), Syria
and Turkey (wheat and barley), China (rice) and a number of African countries (particu-
larly for tropical forages). Many of the top recipients are also developing countries, and,
again, many of them are centres of origin or diversity of crops or forages that they have
requested, underscoring the fact that even diversity-rich countries are not self-sufficient in
terms of their PGRFA needs. As an example, the difference in the amount of germplasm
flowing in and out of India, compared to other countries, stands out as very significant.
India has provided and received massive quantities of germplasm. Interestingly, a signif-
icant percentage of the materials originally collected in, or obtained from, India ends up
going back to Indian recipients (59 % of the samples and over 70 % of the accessions),
which makes it the largest recipient of CGIAR-hosted materials originally obtained from
within its own borders. A high percentage of ‘reabsorption’ of their own materials through
CGIAR-mediated flows are also recorded for Tunisia and Morocco (48 and 42 %
respectively), the Philippines (37 %), Iran and Jordan (30 and 25 %) and others to lesser
extents. These observations highlight the additional benefit of germplasm deposited in
international collections since it provides long-term secure conservation and availability of
quality material (and often value-added characterization and evaluation data) originating
from one’s own territory, in addition to access to diversity from hundreds of other coun-
tries. The latter benefit is particularly relevant for those countries with limited capacity to
establish and maintain national conservation programmes for their own local materials.
Differences exist not only in the amount, but also in the type of materials provided by
developed and developing countries. While developed countries provide an overall lower
quantity of materials compared to developing countries, they contribute a proportionally
higher share of materials for which some formal research, pre-breeding or other form of
improvement has been conducted. In total, 27 % of the samples ‘distributed’ by our seven
CGIAR genebanks from developed countries were research materials and improved/elite
lines (with the United States supplying as much as 80 % of this category); only 14 % of the
samples distributed from developing and transition countries belonged to these categories.
On the recipient side, the share of germplasm that carried some degree of research and
improvement flowing into developing countries and transition economies is 30 % of the
overall incoming samples, while it is 14 % for developed countries.
In both developed and developing nations, public institutions (including the National
Agricultural Research System (NARS), universities and genebanks) are by far the pre-
dominant recipients of CGIAR materials (Table 5; Fig. 3). These public sector recipients
are located in developing countries in over 75 % of the cases. The share of samples sent to
commercial companies is only around 3 % of the total, and the recipients are primarily
(77 %) in developing countries.
These findings are also consistent with those of Smale and Day Rubenstein (2002) who
found that most recipients of germplasm from the US NPGS, another important worldwide
facilitator of PGRFA for research and breeding, were in the public sector. The volume and
diversity of the PGRFA flows described in this study, albeit only a small sample of
worldwide exchanges, demonstrate the extent of countries’ interdependence on PGRFA for
crop improvement and, ultimately, food security. While acknowledging the limits of our
dataset, we believe that the conclusions regarding the extent of international interdepen-
dence would likely have been even stronger had the data from important genebanks such as
those at CIMMYT, CIAT and IITA been included. The emerging picture confirms an
established description of modern agriculture as an interdependent network of seed and
germplasm sources, in which very few countries or farming systems in the world do not
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 5 Type of recipients, samples and accessions and percentages over the total
Recipient type Samples received Percentage Accessions received Percentage
NARS 573,456 57.39 374,714 61.87
University 297,034 29.73 161,845 26.72
Genebank 53,198 5.32 33,967 5.61
Commercial company 32,020 3.20 10,985 1.81
Other 24,739 2.48 13,650 2.25
Non-governmental organization 14,821 1.48 7905 1.31
Regional organization 2727 0.27 2054 0.34
Farmer 1255 0.13 528 0.09
Fig. 3 Share of accessions received by different recipient categories (1985–2009)
rely to some degree on the international system that moves crop germplasm, breeding lines
and improved varieties across international borders (Duvick 1984).
Analyses by other authors confirm these patterns, describing how crop improvement has
benefited from access to a wide range of materials with different origins. Fowler, Smale
and Gaiji (2001) undertook an analysis of CGIAR data focusing on a different time frame
and different measures than those presented here. Smale et al. (2002) used the case of
spring bread wheat released by national programmes in developing countries. Warburton
et al. (2006) and Dreisigacker et al. (2005) looked at synthetic hexaploids to illustrate the
significance of access to wild relatives from centres of diversity in wheat improvement.
Voysest et al. (2003) took the case of beans in Latin America (Fowler et al. 2001; Smale
et al. 2002; Voysest et al. 2003; Dreisigacker et al. 2005; Warburton et al. 2006). Addi-
tional studies have focused on those countries that are the centres of crop diversity. Rejesus
et al. (1996) reported that 45.6 % of the germplasm used by wheat breeders in Western
Asia, the Vavilov centre for the species, comes from international sources. Evenson and
Gollin (1997) documented the dependence of Asian countries, including the Vavilov-
centre countries such as India, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal and Vietnam, on IRRI for rice
123
Biodivers Conserv
germplasm of different provenance (65.0 % in India and 98.1 % in Vietnam) (Rejesus
et al. 1996; Evenson and Gollin 1997). All of this evidence points to the ‘international
public good’ nature of the materials held and made available by the CGIAR as well as by
other actors who make such materials available. It highlights the importance of supporting
the continuation and enhancement of conservation as well as the internationally facilitated
sharing of germplasm within the framework of the ITPGRFA.
Conclusions
It is clear that access to globally pooled genetic resources is a fundamentally important benefit
that all countries have historically exploited when systems were set up to facilitate such access.
Any effort to improve the MLS must be guided by the necessity of supporting and improving
countries’ ability to further capitalize on this benefit. This is particularly true considering the
contemporary challenges associated with climate change (Fujisaka et al. 2011), population
growth and the harmonization of diets across the world (Khoury et al. 2014). While
acknowledging the importance of improving the monetary benefit-sharing mechanisms, we
believe that one should not lose sight of the need to maintain the non-monetary benefit-sharing
mechanisms when evaluating the effectiveness of the MLS and considering options for its
reform. Significant knowledge and opportunities for crop improvement accompany the
materials distributed by the CGIAR genebanks, so focusing exclusively on the monetary
benefits that can potentially result from germplasm flows represent too narrow a view of its
overall impact. Indeed, it has been argued that non-monetary benefits from the MLS (as
outlined in Articles 13.1 and 13.2(a)–(c) of the ITPGRFA) can generate much greater eco-
nomic return than developing countries would ever gain through the BSF.
With respect to monetary benefit sharing, it is important to underscore the fact that the
primary users of germplasm from the CGIAR and the MLS have been public sector orga-
nizations (in developing countries) rather than private sector entities. Indeed, it has been
pointed out that a crucial factor that determines the demand for genetic resources in the seed
and crop protection industries is the effort required to turn them into usable materials.
Genetic resources that widen a company’s gene pool, but without the identified properties of
interest, are typically considered to have little commercial value since they require con-
siderable investment and the return on investment is often risky (Smolders 2005). Although
new technology can assist in the search for a specific trait, the expense of doing so is
generally prohibitive, particularly for smaller companies (Laird and Wynberg 2006). Larger
companies that would most likely trigger the mandatory financial benefit-sharing provisions
associated with the MLS tend to opt out of receiving materials from the system (Halewood
and Nnadozie 2008). These kinds of reasons likely underlie the failure of efforts to ‘pri-
vatize’ monetary benefit sharing through the adoption of mechanisms for mandatory pay-
ments from companies based on sales of products that incorporate materials from the MLS.
We believe that some other approach to monetary benefit sharing, linked to the operation
of the MLS, is necessary. Such an approach should more closely reflect the public goods
nature of PGRFA as well as the historical development of the international and national
collections that host most of the materials that do, and will, constitute theMLS. It should also
be as simple as possible, and less administratively burdensome on both the providers and
users of PGRFA, to encourage, rather than discourage, participation. In particular, it could be
useful not to link the collection of financial benefits to the privatization of products incor-
porating materials from the MLS. Rather, it could be governments or public authorities
123
Biodivers Conserv
which devise means to assume the costs of the MLS’ proper functioning, in a more familiar
form of state assumed responsibility on publically valuable assets. Governments could then
decide if and how they would need to recoup some of those costs; one option, which was
actually discussed in early Treaty days, could be some sort of contribution from the com-
mercial sector based on their annual seed sales. This approach would also be in line with the
way public organizations have historically supported the collections.
Of course, there are other ways to improve and enhance the functioning of theMLS and to
acknowledge countries’ increasing interdependence on PGRFA, beyond adopting a new
approach to monetary benefit sharing. No matter how well the system is designed or
reformulated, there are practical, institutional and capacity limitations for all countries and
all potential beneficiaries (from farmers to breeders and researchers) to take advantage of the
MLS, even once their legal ability to do so has been established. This may be particularly
true in some developing countries. Capacities and strong partnerships need to be established
among the broadest possible range of stakeholders, enabling them to recognize specific trait-
based needs, identify where the potentially useful materials could be within the MLS, and
request, receive and use the materials concerned. A more proactive and widespread par-
ticipation would contribute to a greater willingness to voluntarily introduce materials into
the MLS, increasing the diversity available to agricultural research and development and
giving rise to additional monetary and non-monetary benefits to be shared.
It has been argued that capacity building, technology transfer and information exchange in
the context of the MLS should take place in close relation to other ITPGRFA objectives,
particularly the recognition and protection of farmers’ rights (Article 9). Indeed, a number of
countries have flagged their concern about the MLS having too narrow a focus to the detri-
ment of issues that are more closely related to farmers and their role in on-farm conservation
(López Noriega et al. 2013b). After all, most of the ex situ materials that are being, or will be,
circulated globally thanks to the MLS are landraces or naturally adapted resources developed
and conserved by small farmers, often from developing countries. Their role today is ever
more crucial for allowing the continued conservation, evolution and development of genetic
resources with the potential to adapt to changing climates. Greater synergy between the
architecture of the MLS and the implementation of farmers’ rights would also contribute to
moving the ITPGRFA forward as a package of integrated measures, building confidence
among a wider range of key stakeholders and truly reflecting global interdependence.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton (IRRI), Daniel Debouck
(CIAT), Evert Thomas (Bioversity International), Colin Khoury (CIAT) and Anne Bjorkman (Wageningen
University), for their valuable suggestions and analytical inputs. They also wish to thank those CGIAR
genebank curators, David Ellis (CIP), Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton (IRRI), Jean Hansen (ILRI), Marie-
Noelle Ndjiondjop (Africa Rice), and Ines Van Denhouwe (Bioversity International), who validated the data
presented in the paper or corrected it by sharing internal data.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Appendix
See Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9.
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 6 Current numbers of
Centre Number of accessions held
accessions of plant germplasm
held by the genebanks of the
CGIAR system Data from Gene- Africa Rice 26,098
sys, http://www.genesys-pgr.org Bioversity International 1516
(accessed on 20 November 2014) CIAT 64,721
CIMMYT 164,320
CIP 16,061
ICARDA 147,076
ICRAF 2005
ICRISAT 119,524
IITA 27,232
ILRI 20,229
IRRI 124,052
Table 7 Plant genera repre-
Collection Genus Number of accessions
sented in the genebank collec-
tions of all CGIAR centres
(genera represented by less than Africa Rice Oryza 131,840
50 accessions are grouped as Other 22
‘‘other’’; numbers of accessions Bioversity Musa 1525
refer to those received and
Ensete 4
reported by centres over time and
may overestimate the current CIAT Phaseolus 36,124
living material available for dis- Manihot 5458
tribution in each genebank) Data
Stylosanthes 4276
from Genesys, http://www.
genesys-pgr.org (accessed on 20 Desmodium 3561
November 2014) Centrosema 2874
Aeschynomene 1209
Macroptilium 1052
Vigna 1050
Zornia 967
Brachiaria 601
Panicum 563
Galactia 561
Calopogonium 553
Rhynchosia 389
Teramnus 372
Chamaecrista 339
Desmanthus 325
Crotalaria 274
Alysicarpus 259
Pueraria 255
Canavalia 215
Dioclea 199
Leucaena 198
Indigofera 184
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 7 continued
Collection Genus Number of accessions
Flemingia 179
Uraria 176
Arachis 171
Clitoria 157
Lablab 155
Paspalum 155
Tephrosia 153
Phyllodium 139
Cajanus 135
Tadehagi 108
Andropogon 93
Pseudarthria 72
Neonotonia 68
Dendrolobium 62
Sesbania 62
Cratylia 52
Other 926
CIMMYT Triticum 103,780
Zea 27,279
Triticosecale 16,004
Hordeum 14,221
Aegilops 1316
X Triticoaegilops 991
Secale 438
Tripsacum 156
X Aegilotriticum 128
Other 7
CIP Ipomoea 7783
Solanum 7112
Oxalis 520
Ullucus 435
Tropaeolum 54
Other 157
ICARDA Triticum 37,214
Hordeum 31,619
Vicia 16,151
Cicer 14,906
Lens 12,463
Medicago 9418
Pisum 6110
Trifolium 5010
Aegilops 4257
Lathyrus 4184
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 7 continued
Collection Genus Number of accessions
Astragalus 956
Onobrychis 733
Avena 593
Scorpiurus 500
Hippocrepis 319
Trigonella 280
Coronilla 251
Lotus 246
Hymenocarpos 223
Melilotus 219
Lupinus 134
Elymus 81
Hedysarum 81
Brachypodium 78
Secale 73
Other 977
ICRAF Prosopis 929
Calycophyllum 390
Guazuma 390
Leucaena 80
Gliricidia 55
Desmodium 52
Other 109
ICRISAT Sorghum 37,901
Pennisetum 22,200
Cicer 20,140
Arachis 15,440
Cajanus 13,289
Eleusine 5957
Setaria 1542
Panicum 1306
Echinochloa 749
Paspalum 665
Rhynchosia 290
Other 45
IITA Vigna 18,237
Dioscorea 3169
Manihot 2984
Glycine 1749
Zea 798
Musa 150
Sphenostylis 145
Other 0
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 7 continued
Collection Genus Number of accessions
ILRI Trifolium 1649
Vigna 1161
Stylosanthes 1160
Leucaena 801
Sesbania 674
Indigofera 669
Brachiaria 663
Alysicarpus 516
Neonotonia 508
Rhynchosia 501
X Triticale 459
Macroptilium 431
Panicum 423
Tephrosia 395
Lablab 374
Centrosema 323
Teramnus 322
Cenchrus 294
Zornia 283
Phaseolus 282
Vicia 258
Digitaria 255
Medicago 252
Acacia 248
Pennisetum 245
Crotalaria 237
Paspalum 223
Cytisus 220
Chloris 194
Glycine 192
Galactia 188
Desmodium 177
Lathyrus 166
Cajanus 164
Urochloa 162
Chamaecrista 160
Aeschynomene 158
Calopogonium 152
Avena 147
Gliricidia 141
Eragrostis 136
Cynodon 130
Lotononis 130
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 7 continued
Collection Genus Number of accessions
Setaria 130
Pisum 126
Clitoria 122
Andropogon 109
Desmanthus 107
Echinochloa 93
Pseudarthria 93
Bothriochloa 89
Senna 89
Uraria 89
Pueraria 76
Lolium 75
Sorghum 72
Cassia 71
Hordeum 71
Festuca 64
Argyrolobium 57
Erythrina 57
Lupinus 53
Amaranthus 51
Cymbopogon 51
Hyparrhenia 51
Dolichos 50
Other 2160
IRRI Oryza 124,052
Other 22
Table 8 Countries from which accessions held by CGIAR genebanks were originally collected or
improved Data from Genesys, http://www.genesys-pgr.org (accessed on 20 November 2014)
Country code in Genesys Country Number of accessions in
the CGIAR genebanks
AFG Afghanistan 4962
ALB Albania 75
DZA Algeria 3828
AGO Angola 110
ATG Antigua and Barbuda 116
ANT Antilles 9
ARG Argentina 3991
ARM Armenia 1304
AUT Austria 564
AZE Azerbaijan 1723
BHS Bahamas 4
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 8 continued
Country code in Genesys Country Number of accessions in
the CGIAR genebanks
BHR Bahrain 2
BRN Baker Island 215
BGD Bangladesh 8009
BRB Barbados 57
BLR Belarus 324
BEL Belgium 347
BLZ Belize 376
BEN Benin 1455
BTN Bhutan 507
BOL Bolivia 3289
BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina 59
BWA Botswana 1078
BRA Brazil 14,765
IOT British Indian Ocean Territory 1
VGB British Virgin Islands 55
BGR Bulgaria 1570
BFA Burkina Faso 2995
MMR Burma 3550
BDI Burundi 867
KHM Cambodia 4885
CMR Cameroon 5320
CAN Canada 914
CPV Cape Verde 22
CAF Central African Republic 849
TCD Chad 909
CHL Chile 2431
CHN China 15,294
COL Colombia 12,829
COM Comoros 8
COG Congo 334
COD Congo (Democratic Republic of) 687
COK Cook Islands 7
AUS Coral Sea Islands 2172
CRI Costa Rica 1543
CIV Cote d’Ivoire 10,018
HRV Croatia 63
CUB Cuba 980
CYP Cyprus 1103
CZE Czech Republic 556
DNK Denmark 206
DJI Djibouti 6
DOM Dominican Republic 497
ECU Ecuador 3934
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 8 continued
Country code in Genesys Country Number of accessions in
the CGIAR genebanks
EGY Egypt 1831
SLV El Salvador 562
GNQ Equatorial Guinea 28
ERI Eritrea 97
EST Estonia 10
ETH Ethiopia 22,113
FLK Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 2
FSM Federated States of Micronesia 7
FJI Fiji 53
FIN Finland 91
YUG Former Yugoslavia 222
FRA France 1136
GUF French Guiana 20
PYF French Polynesia 2
GAB Gabon 100
GMB Gambia 695
PSE Gaza Strip 129
GEO Georgia 1230
DEU Germany 2357
GHA Ghana 2006
GRC Greece 3921
GRD Grenada 50
GLP Guadeloupe 62
GUM Guam 9
GTM Guatemala 4447
GIN Guinea 1678
GNB Guinea-Bissau 151
GUY Guyana 156
HTI Haiti 233
HND Honduras 1476
HKG Hong Kong 21
HUN Hungary 1625
IND India 44,216
IDN Indonesia 12,087
IRN Iran 21,347
IRQ Iraq 1652
IRL Ireland 3
ISR Israel 1663
ITA Italy 2720
JAM Jamaica 189
JPN Japan 2555
JOR Jordan 5023
KAZ Kazakhstan 613
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 8 continued
Country code in Genesys Country Number of accessions in
the CGIAR genebanks
KEN Kenya 4048
KIR Kiribati 1
KGZ Kyrgyzstan 226
LAO Laos 15,642
LVA Latvia 32
LBN Lebanon 2208
LSO Lesotho 587
LBR Liberia 3616
LBY Libya 762
LTU Lithuania 38
MAC Macau 1
MKD Macedonia 766
MDG Madagascar 4296
MWI Malawi 3214
MYS Malaysia 4832
MDV Maldives 23
MLI Mali 4850
MLT Malta 35
MTQ Martinique 17
MRT Mauritania 162
MUS Mauritius 31
MEX Mexico 77,448
MDA Moldova 94
MNG Mongolia 232
MNE Montenegro 43
MSR Montserrat 11
MAR Morocco 4989
MOZ Mozambique 413
BUR Myanmar 323
NAM Namibia 1546
NPL Nepal 5858
NLD Netherlands 780
NCL New Caledonia 11
NZL New Zealand 117
NIC Nicaragua 646
NER Niger 4983
NGA Nigeria 14,636
NIU Niue 4
PRK North Korea 2592
NOR Norway 29
OMN Oman 324
PAK Pakistan 5604
PLW Palau 2
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 8 continued
Country code in Genesys Country Number of accessions in
the CGIAR genebanks
VUT Palestine 3
PAN Panama 1000
PNG Papua New Guinea 991
PRY Paraguay 1375
PER Peru 14,412
PHL Philippines 9224
POL Poland 426
PRT Portugal 2381
PRI Puerto Rico 364
REU Reunion 1
ROU Romania 572
RUS Russia 3529
SUN Russia 1259
RWA Rwanda 874
KNA Saint Kitts and Nevis 33
LCA Saint Lucia 37
VCT Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 54
WSM Samoa 2
SMR San Marino 3
SAU Saudi Arabia 84
SEN Senegal 3540
SRB Serbia 99
SYC Seychelles 3
SLE Sierra Leone 1997
SGP Singapore 6
SVK Slovakia 105
SVN Slovenia 8
SLB Solomon Islands 56
SOM Somalia 562
ZAF South Africa 2138
KOR South Korea 2153
ESP Spain 3567
LKA Sri Lanka 2740
SDN Sudan 3528
SUR Suriname 188
SWZ Swaziland 276
SWE Sweden 554
CHE Switzerland 1102
SYR Syria 10,776
TWN Taiwan 3075
TJK Tajikistan 2275
TZA Tanzania 4094
THA Thailand 7870
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 8 continued
Country code in Genesys Country Number of accessions in
the CGIAR genebanks
TGO Togo 2817
TON Tonga 15
TTO Trinidad and Tobago 201
TUN Tunisia 4382
TUR Turkey 16,775
TKM Turkmenistan 587
TUV Tuvalu 1
UGA Uganda 3532
UKR Ukraine 1610
ARE United Arab Emirates 4
GBR United Kingdom 801
USA United States 12,969
UNK Unknown 6870
URY Uruguay 1229
UZB Uzbekistan 987
VEN Venezuela 4075
VNM Vietnam 3787
VIR Virgin Islands 17
YEM Yemen 2816
ZMB Zambia 2733
ZWE Zimbabwe 5717
Table 9 Top 50 most popular accessions of our distribution dataset (based on how many samples of each
accession have been distributed), with information on the distributing centre, genus, frequency of distri-
bution, number of recipient countries, biological status and country of origin. Data elaborated from SINGER
Accession Centre Genus Frequency of Number of Biological Country of
number distribution recipients status origin
328 IRRI Oryza 321 42 Landrace Philippines
CIP 985003 CIP Solanum 312 76 Improved Peru
10865 ILRI Sesbania 268 66 Weedy/ Unknown
wild
104 ILRI Desmodium 253 51 Improved Australia
CIP 720088 CIP Solanum 252 101 Improved Argentina
4 ILRI Stylosanthes 247 53 Improved Colombia
69 ILRI Macroptilium 247 59 Improved Unknown
4918 ICRISAT Cicer 246 13 Improved India
5159 IRRI Oryza 246 21 Landrace Philippines
30333 IRRI Oryza 245 23 Landrace Philippines
6765 ILRI Desmodium 240 50 Improved Unknown
140 ILRI Stylosanthes 232 49 Improved Brazil
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 9 continued
Accession Centre Genus Frequency of Number of Biological Country of
number distribution recipients status origin
CIP CIP Solanum 220 88 Improved Peru
379706.27
70 ILRI Leucaena 219 55 Improved Unknown
30416 IRRI Oryza 213 41 Improved Philippines
ITC0249 Bioversity Musa 213 50 Weedy/ Unknown
wild
75 ILRI Stylosanthes 212 50 Improved Venezuela
ITC0504 Bioversity Musa 212 77 Improved Unknown
ITC1123 Bioversity Musa 212 67 Landrace Unknown
599 IRRI Oryza 210 18 Breeding/ Philippines
research
CIP CIP Solanum 210 88 Breeding/ Peru
378017.2 research
CIP 720087 CIP Solanum 209 91 Improved Argentina
6756 ILRI Macrotyloma 208 51 Improved Unknown
7035 ICRISAT Cajanus 207 16 Improved India
CIP CIP Solanum 203 67 Improved Peru
374080.5
CIP 800827 CIP Solanum 199 70 Improved United
States
CIP 978001 CIP Solanum 195 54 Breeding/ Peru
research
4973 ICRISAT Cicer 194 14 Improved India
6984 ILRI Medicago 179 37 Improved Unknown
10320 IRRI Oryza 178 30 Improved Philippines
12048 IRRI Oryza 178 38 Other Guinea
ITC0506 Bioversity Musa 178 74 Improved Unknown
27748 IRRI Oryza 177 29 Landrace Thailand
71 ILRI Leucaena 176 43 Improved Unknown
CIP 978004 CIP Solanum 176 64 Breeding/ Peru
research
66970 IRRI Oryza 175 38 Improved Philippines
CIP 984001 CIP Solanum 174 60 Breeding/ Peru
research
167 ILRI Stylosanthes 173 51 Weedy/ Venezuela
wild
147 ILRI Lablab 169 42 Improved Unknown
17159 ICRISAT Cicer 169 7 Weedy/ Turkey
wild
5003 ICRISAT Cicer 169 12 Improved India
15036 ILRI Sesbania 167 54 Improved Uganda
6633 ILRI Chloris 167 40 Improved Unknown
11575 ILRI Cajanus 163 50 Weedy/ Unknown
wild
15019 ILRI Sesbania 163 53 Weedy/ DR Congo
wild
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 9 continued
Accession Centre Genus Frequency of Number of Biological Country of
number distribution recipients status origin
23364 IRRI Oryza 163 29 Landrace Philippines
ITC0505 Bioversity Musa 163 68 Improved Unknown
CIP 980003 CIP Solanum 159 54 Breeding/ Peru
research
15632 ICRISAT Cajanus 158 5 Weedy/ India
wild
312 ILRI Desmanthus 157 42 Weedy/ Belize
wild
References
Bretting PK (2007) The U.S. National Plant Germplasm System in an Era of Shifting International Norms
for Germplasm Exchange. In: Acta horticulturae. International Society for Horticultural Science
(ISHS), Leuven, Belgium, pp 55–60
Burke MB, Lobell DB, Guarino L (2009) Shifts in African crop climates by 2050 and the implications for
crop improvement and genetic resources conservation. Glob Environ Chang 19:317–325
Centre for Genetic Resources (2008) Collections. http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN?Plant?Genetic?
Resources/Approach/Safety?duplicates/. Accessed 1 Aug 2015
CGKB (2014) Procedures for in-country seed plant material distribution
Crosby A (1972) The Columbian exchange: biological and cultural consequences of 1492. Greenwood
Publishing, Westport
Crosby A (1986) Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Da Silva Mariante A, Amstalden Sampaio MJ, Valadares Inglis MC (2009) State of the Brazil’s plant
genetic resources. Second rep, Brazilia, DF
Diamond J (1997) Guns, germs and steel: the fate of human societies. Norton & Co., New York
Dreisigacker S, Zhang P, Warburton ML et al (2005) Genetic diversity among and within CIMMYT wheat
landrace accessions investigated with SSRs and implications for plant genetic resources management.
Crop Sci 45:653–661
Duvick DN (1984) Genetic diversity in major farm crops on the farm and in reserve. Econ Bot 38:161–178
Evenson RE, Gollin D (1997) Genetic resources, international organisations, and improvement in rice
varieties. Econ Dev Cult Change 45:471–500
FAO (2009) Russia: country report to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic
Resources. Moscow, Russian Federation
FAO (2010) Report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Fowler C, Hodgkin T (2004) Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: assessing global availability.
Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:10.1–10.37
Fowler C, Smale M, Gaiji S (2001) Unequal exchange? Recent transfers of agricultural resources and their
implications for developing countries. Dev Policy Rev 19:181–204
Fujisaka S, Halewood M, Williams D (2011) Background study paper no. 48
Genesys (2014) A gateway to genetic resources. www.genesys-pgr.org. Accessed 17 Nov 2014
Halewood M, Nnadozie K (2008) Giving priority to the commons: the international treaty on plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture. In: Tansey G, Rojotte T (eds) The future control of food: a guide to
international negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity and food security. Earthscan,
London
Halewood M, López Noriega I, Louafi S (2013) Crop genetic resources as a global commons: challenges in
international governance and law. Routledge, Abingdon
Halewood M, Baidu-Forson JJ, Clancy E, Vodouhe RS (2014) Cooperating to make the best use of plant
genetic resources in West and Central Africa: a regional imperative. Rome, Italy and Dakar, Senegal
123
Biodivers Conserv
Heisey P, Day Rubenstein K (2015) Using crop genetic resources to help agriculture adapt to climate
change: economics and policy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Washington
ICGR (2015) Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources in China. http://icgr.caas.net.cn/China/chinesutilization.
htm. Accessed 12 Aug 2015
Jarvis A, Upadhyaya H, Gowda CLL, et al (2010) Climate change and its effect on conservation and use of
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and associated biodiversity for food security. In:
Second state of the world plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, p 26
Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H et al (2014) Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and
the implications for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:4001–4006. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1313490111
Koo DB, Pardey PG, Wrigh B (2004) Saving seeds: the economics of conserving crop genetic resources ex
situ. Wallingford, UK and Cambridge, MA, USA
Laird SA, Wynberg R (2006) The commercial use of biodiversity: an update on current trends in demand for
access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, and industry perspectives on ABS policy and imple-
mentation. Montreal, Canada
Lane A, Jarvis A (2007) Changes in climate will modify the geography of crop suitability: agricultural
biodiversity can help with adaptation
López Noriega I, Halewood M, Galluzzi G et al (2013a) How policies affect the use of plant genetic
resources: the experience of the CGIAR. Resources 2:231–269
López Noriega I, Wambugu P, Mejı́as A (2013b) Assessment of progress to make the multilateral system
functional: incentives and challenges at the country level. Crop genetic resources as a global commons:
challenges in international governance and law. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 199–225
Mann CC (2011) 1493: uncovering the new world Columbus created. Knopf, New York
R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing
Ramirez-Villegas J, Jarvis A, Fujisaka S et al (2013) Crop and forage genetic resources: international
interdependence in the face of climate change. In: Halewood M, López Noriega I, Louafi S (eds) Crop
genetic resources as a global commons: challenges in international law and governance. Earthscan,
London, pp 78–98
Rejesus RM, Smale M, Van Ginkel M (1996) Wheat breeders’ perspectives on genetic diversity and
germplasm use: findings from an international survey. Plant Var Seeds 9:129–147
SGRP (2011) CGIAR Centers’ Experience with the Implementation of Their Agreements with the Treaty’s
Governing Body, with Particular Reference to the Use of the SMTA for Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1
Materials
Smale M, Day Rubenstein K (2002) The demand for crop genetic resources: international use of the US
national plant germplasm system. World Dev 30:1639–1655
Smale M, Reynolds MP, Wharburton M et al (2002) Dimensions of diversity in modern spring bread wheat
in developing countries from 1965. Crop Sci 42:1766–1779
Smolders W (2005) Commercial practice in the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
Background study paper prepared for the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 18 pp
Ullrich SE (2011) Barley: Production, improvement, and uses. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
UN (2012) Statistical annex - Data sources, country classifications and aggregation methodology. In: World
Economic Situation and Prospects. United Nations, p 9
Voysest O, Johnson N, Pachico D (2003) The distribution of benefits from public international germplasm
banks: the case of beans in Latin America. Agric Econ 29:277–286
Warburton ML, Crossa J, Franco J et al (2006) Bringing wild relatives back into the family: recovering
genetic diversity in CIMMYT improved wheat germplasm. Euphytica 149:289–301
123