Under the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol

Because the provisions on benefit-sharing in the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol leave the specifics to national implementation in the various Contracting Parties, it is mainly up to national legislation to connect benefit-sharing to adaptation if the first is to contribute to the latter. This could be done by, for example, specifying – in national access and benefit-sharing legislation and regulations, standard agreements and model contractual clauses – that, for crop genetic resources, certain types of benefits or a set proportion of benefits must target adaptation.

For monetary benefits, such provisions might specify that a certain percentage of access fees, up-front payments, milestone payments, royalties and license fees be channelled to adaptation. The more adverse and urgent the effects that climate change is predicted to have on domestic agriculture, the higher the percentage set aside for adaptation work should be. Additionally, any research funding should be directed towards adapting national crop production to climate change. Another promising approach could be to establish national trust funds for adaptation and food security, funded through special fees provided for in access agreements.

In many countries, it would be useful if benefits were channelled to national efforts aimed at collecting, characterizing and maintaining crop genetic diversity currently not represented in or available from gene banks. This would be one way for benefit-sharing to contribute to the conservation of and improved access to a broader scope of material and traits, which again would benefit adaptation.

Adaptation requirements could also be envisioned for non-monetary benefit-sharing, with national legislation and other implementation tools, perhaps establishing that all research results of relevance to national adaptation must be shared. It would also be natural for many countries to declare adaptation a priority need related to food security, as a follow-up to the potential benefits listed in the Annex to the Nagoya Protocol, and to include adaptation research as a preferred benefit in transfer agreements. For countries with weak or struggling plant-breeding sectors, institutional capacity building will also be fundamental to sustainable and successful national adaptation efforts.

Countries that already have legislation and regulations in place covering access and benefit-sharing should consider whether amending these instruments is needed to take climate change adaptation into account, whereas countries that have not yet developed any such instruments should ensure that benefit-sharing from the utilization of crop genetic resources is linked to adaptation. One such country is Ethiopia, which has introduced legislation dealing specifically with access and benefit-sharing. Ethiopia has chosen an approach where the type and amount of benefit-sharing is to be decided on a case-by-case basis for each of the access agreements negotiated by the responsible national institution (Andersen and Winge, Reference Andersen and Winge2012). A first step towards channelling benefits to adaptation would therefore be to change institutional practice, but amendment might also be needed to specify that monetary benefits may be used for adaptation. In addition, the regulation on access to genetic resources and community knowledge, which establishes an access fund for all monetary benefits received (Andersen and Winge, Reference Andersen and Winge2012), could be amended to declare climate change adaptation one of the fund's explicit goals.

In addition to measures such as these taken at the national level, efforts can also be made to link benefit-sharing under the CBD, and its Nagoya Protocol, to adaptation at the international level. It would be advantageous if the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, as well as national governments, encouraged stakeholders to include provisions on contribution to adaptation in industry guidelines, standards or codes of conduct.

Additionally, in connection with discussions on the need for and modalities of the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism of Article 10 in the Nagoya Protocol, the Contracting Parties should take adaptation to climate change into consideration. The Contracting Parties might wish to consider whether the effects of climate change affect the need for such a mechanism, and whether channelling a specified proportion of the benefits to adaptation should be part of the modalities if a mechanism is established. Based on the recommendation of the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol, it can be expected that the first Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol will invite Parties and others to submit views on ‘situations that may support the need for’ a mechanism, its possible modalities and ‘areas requiring further consideration’ (IISD Reporting Services, 2014, p. 5). In preparation of later submitting their views, countries that have ratified the Protocol and countries expecting to do so could initiate national processes that take climate change and adaptation into account.

Under the Plant Treaty

Whereas the potential to create room for adaptation has remained unrealized under the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, adaptation to climate change has already received attention under the Plant Treaty, in particular with regard to the Benefit-sharing Fund. As of October 2014, funds from the Benefit-sharing Fund had been distributed through two rounds of benefit-sharing.

In line with the initial priority areas outlined in Annex 1 of the Funding Strategy for the implementation of the Plant Treaty, the three priorities of the first call for proposals, whose total portfolio amounted to only USD 543 004, were information exchange, technology transfer and capacity building; managing and conserving crop genetic resources on farm; and the sustainable use of crop genetic resources (FAO, 2013a). There was little direct focus on adaptation to climate change. However, the funding strategy mentions that increased sustainability of agricultural production through diversification, genetic enhancement and broadening of the genetic base of crops will ‘respond to the challenges of climate change’ (FAO, 2013c, p. 11).

Despite this indirect and not overly prominent focus on climate change adaptation in the first call, five of the eleven small-scale projects that were approved for funding by the Bureau of the Governing Body in May 2009 have been noted as having ‘a strong focus on helping farmers adapt to climate change’ (FAO, 2013a, p. 12). These projects were implemented in Costa Rica, India, Peru, Tanzania and Uruguay and focused, inter alia, on selection and breeding of varieties with high resistance levels to various biotic and abiotic stresses (like heat, drought and cold), as well as making them available to farmers, and training farmers in plant selection techniques and other adaptation strategies. Traditional and local crops were often taken as the point of departure for identifying such varieties. Collecting, evaluating and characterizing crop genetic resources, also from crop wild relatives, are also among the project activities with a potential to contribute to adaptation.

The focus on climate change adaptation under the Benefit-sharing Fund was considerably strengthened in connection with the second call for proposals in 2010, when the thematic focus chosen for the call was helping ensure sustainable security ‘by assisting farmers adapt to climate change’ (FAO, 2013c, p. 3). This choice was based on the expert advice of Hawtin et al. (Reference Hawtin, Moreno, Swaminathan, Pillai and Hegwood2010), requested by the Bureau (FAO, 2013d). That study argued that the use of funds under the Benefit-sharing Fund needed to be highly thematically focused to achieve real impact and secure further funding and proposed that conservation and use of crop genetic resources for the purpose of ensuring food security in the face of climate change should be the thematic focus for at least the following two calls of the Benefit-sharing Fund.

For the second round, increased voluntary contributions allowed the selection of altogether 19 large-scale projects to receive funding from a total amount of USD 5,497,773. The projects were approved by the Bureau in August 2011 (FAO, 2013b). In addition, three projects nested within the United Nation Development Programmes (UNDP) are receiving support after joint resource mobilization with UNDP (FAO, 2013e). However, even with increased funding, the need for financing, highlighted by the more than 440 pre-proposals (Plant Treaty, 2013), was considerably higher than the ability of the fund to support projects.

In March 2014, a new call for proposals under the Benefit-sharing Fund was announced, after the Governing Body decided at its fifth session, in September 2013, that a third call should be launched. Continuing the round-wise increase of funds, the call indicates that more than USD 10 million will be available (Plant Treaty, 2014b). The link to climate change adaptation is further strengthened as the thematic focus on helping farmers adapt to climate change through conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic resources has been kept (FAO, 2012a, b; Plant Treaty, 2014b).

It can be expected that the Benefit-sharing Fund will continue to focus on climate change adaptation also after the third round of benefit-sharing has been conducted as the same thematic focus is outlined for the period 2015–2020 in the Draft Elements for the Mid-Term Plan for the Benefit-Sharing Fund that was presented at the fifth session of the Governing Body (FAO, 2013d).

As the Benefit-sharing Fund already has an explicit focus on climate change, one factor that will decide how much it will actually contribute to adaptation is the resources available. Thus far, the Benefit-sharing Fund has received only voluntary contributions, and, given the long time it takes for a new plant variety to be developed, several more years are likely to pass before the mandatory mechanism provides any payments (Noriega et al., Reference Noriega, Wambugu, Mejías, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013). As adaptation efforts are already needed and the extent of future mandatory contributions is hard to predict, it is worth asking whether anything can be done to secure and increase the flow of resources.

Because voluntary contributions have proven central, one strategy for ensuring a steady flow of such contributions would be to increase the number and type of contributors. So far, such contributions have come only from a handful of Contracting Parties and the UNDP. The seed industry contains other important contributors, and the introduction of guidelines by the industry itself could be a promising approach to secure contributions from this sector. Such non-binding guidelines established by the seed industry could, as mentioned by Halewood et al. (Reference Halewood, López Noriega, Louafi, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013), suggest that donations from seed companies to the Benefit-sharing Fund be calculated on the basis of seed sales or other metrics. As noted by Halewood et al. (Reference Halewood, López Noriega, Louafi, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013), the Governing Body could then express appreciation for the initiative and encourage the sector to follow the guidelines. The stability of the fund would also improve if more Contracting Parties contributed to it and if contributions could be secured from private philanthropic foundations, international governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations. Further strengthening of, and emphasis on, the adaptation focus could contribute to securing such resources.

Multiple approaches can also be envisioned to ensure the sustainability of mandatory contributions. The Plant Treaty does provide its Governing Body with the opportunity to extend mandatory payment also to cases where the products are available without restriction for further research and breeding. The Governing Body might decide that plant variety protection also triggers mandatory payments. At the fifth meeting of the Governing Body of the Treaty, civil society representatives argued for a change in this direction, but no decision was made. However, an Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing was established, tasked inter alia with developing a range of measures to increase user-based payments and contributions to the Benefit-sharing Fund (see Resolution 2/2013).

The extent of mandatory payments also depends on the amount of material from the Multilateral System used by the seed sector, and, as long as no new triggers are introduced, the sector's use of patents. Stannard et al. (Reference Stannard, Caracciolo, Hillery, Moeller and Stannard2013) argue that the flow of benefits will be influenced by whether and when Contracting Parties make their Multilateral System material available through notifications, whether and when potential members join the Plant Treaty and whether the Governing Body decide to expand the list of crops in Annex 1. Availability, new members and new crops are seen as factors that will increase the flow of funds. With current availability and Plant Treaty membership, it is estimated that it will take as many as 38 years before the fund-raising target is reached, even under favourable assumptions regarding matters like voluntary payments and avoidance by breeders (Stannard et al., Reference Stannard, Caracciolo, Hillery, Moeller and Stannard2013). For the sake of climate change adaptation, that timeframe will need to be shortened.

Although equitable benefit-sharing is the focus of the Benefit-sharing Fund, it also has the potential to contribute to improving access to crop genetic resources through the work of the projects funded. In addition, the accessions collected, evaluated, characterized and/or developed through funded projects from Annex 1 crops are to be included in the Multilateral System, as decided by the Governing Body in its Resolution 3/2011 para 12.

The realization of Farmers' Rights, in line with Article 9 in the Plant Treaty, is also linked to benefit-sharing. Much of the progress that has been achieved with regard to implementation of this Article has related to exchange of information, technology transfer and capacity building, in the form of participatory plant breeding, value adding, seed fairs, infrastructure and re-introduction of varieties (Andersen and Winge, Reference Andersen, Winge, Andersen and Winge2013).

Because farmers in centres of diversity often rely on their own seed networks (Mercer and Perales, Reference Mercer and Perales2010), systems for seed exchange that facilitate access across borders for farmers, as well as distribution of new varieties, are needed as climate change increases interdependence. The realization of Farmers' Rights through benefit-sharing can help to create such systems: and here the point of departure should be the needs and priorities of the farmers and communities themselves.

Potential priorities for adaptation-focused benefit-sharing

The previous sections have argued that maintenance and utilization of crop genetic resources are central to adaptation, postulated that benefit-sharing should, at least partly, be devoted to helping crop production adapt to climate change and outlined some strategies for linking adaptation to benefit-sharing under the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty. But where should such benefit-sharing be directed, more specifically?

Adaptation will require breeding of varieties with improved resistance to stresses, particularly abiotic stresses (Lane and Jarvis, Reference Lane and Jarvis2007). Targeted benefit-sharing could help to shift the breeding focus in this direction. Additionally, incentives in the form of benefit-sharing can contribute to a broadening of the genetic base of important crops, for which the utilization of crop wild relatives (Jarvis et al., Reference Jarvis, Lane and Hijmans2008) and landraces (Trethowan et al., Reference Trethowan, Turner and Chatta2010) will be particularly important. However, one of the adaptation challenges for agriculture is that, whereas food security is threatened by climate change in the relatively near term, with serious effects predicted by as early as 2030 (Lobell et al., Reference Lobell, Burke, Tebaldi, Mastrandrea, Falcon and Naylor2008), it takes many years to breed a new variety (for cereals ten or more), and usually even longer, perhaps another 7–8 years, for a variety to be adopted by farmers (Lane and Jarvis, Reference Lane and Jarvis2007).

Participatory plant breeding is an approach with the potential to speed up this process. Through farmer participation in testing and selection, the participating farmers themselves as well as their friends and family become familiar with the varieties in question, their properties and potential, so that breeding and adoption are combined to a greater extent. Knowledge about and trust in a new variety are important for adoption rates, particularly in marginal environments (Abay et al., Reference Abay, Bjørnstad, Winge, Andersen and Winge2013; Ceccarelli et al., Reference Ceccarelli, Grando, Winge, Andersen and Winge2013). Importantly, participatory plant breeding can also ensure that farmers' needs and knowledge are taken into account. Crop and variety selection should, as noted by Lane and Jarvis (Reference Lane and Jarvis2007), be guided by local knowledge to ensure that agriculture is adapted to local conditions (see also Snook et al., Reference Snook, Dulloo, Jarvis, Scheldeman, Kneller, Yadav, Redden, Hatfield, Lotze-Campen and Hall2011).

The characteristics and results of participatory plant breeding make it stand out as one of the most promising adaptation approaches for agriculture and a considerable portion of benefit-sharing funding should therefore be channelled towards participatory plant-breeding projects focused on adaptation. Through sharing of technology and knowledge, participatory plant breeding is also an important tool for non-monetary benefit-sharing and can contribute to the maintenance of crop genetic resources and diversity. To ensure that such projects also lead to improved and continued access, provisions for ensuring the access conditions for resulting material could be given along with the funding. One example is the previously mentioned requirement of the Benefit-sharing Fund to include resulting accessions in the Multilateral System.

Funding for participatory plant breeding could, for example, target areas that currently have the highest average growing-season temperatures. As there will be few if any crop climate analogues for these climates (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Lobell and Guarino2009) that better adapted varieties can be accessed from, breeding based on currently grown varieties is urgently needed.

The usefulness of participatory plant breeding has already been recognized under the Plant Treaty, with the Secretariat of the Plant Treaty, when summarizing the lessons learned from the first round of benefit-sharing under the Plant Treaty's Benefit-sharing Fund, recommending participatory approaches and underlining that beneficiaries should be involved during as many stages as possible, including planning (FAO, 2013a). However, further progress is still needed, and the approach should also be recognized as an efficient way to promote utilization, maintenance and adaptation in connection with national implementation of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.

Adaptation-related plant breeding will be needed everywhere and for practically all crops, but which areas and crops should be receiving the limited resources of benefit-sharing? Breeding priorities could be based on predicted climate impact on crop productivity, number of people dependent on the crop and how poor or affluent they are, as well as what can be achieved with breeding (Lane and Jarvis, Reference Lane and Jarvis2007). Focusing on area–crop combinations for which negative impacts from climate change are very likely (including wheat (Triticum) in South Asia, rice (Oryza) in Southeast Asia and maize (Zea) in Southern Africa), or for which the probability is lower but the potential consequences worse (as for sorghum (Sorghum) in the Sahel and maize (Zea) in Southern Africa (Lobell et al., Reference Lobell, Burke, Tebaldi, Mastrandrea, Falcon and Naylor2008)) could be another way to determine priorities for adaptation-focused benefit-sharing. In addition, regions likely to be most affected by reduction of suitable crop areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, and regions already struggling with food insecurity and where funds and capacity for plant breeding are lacking (Lane and Jarvis, Reference Lane and Jarvis2007) could be prioritized.

Social capital, social networks and institutions are essential when it comes to vulnerability and adaptation (Turner and Meyer, Reference Turner, Meyer, Yadav, Redden, Hatfield, Lotze-Campen and Hall2011), and for plant production, this includes systems for selling, exchanging and sharing seed. In many countries, the informal market is an important source of seed, and more information is needed on how climate change affects local access to seed, including seed networks and markets (Padulosi et al., Reference Padulosi, Heywood, Hunter, Jarvis, Yadav, Redden, Hatfield, Lotze-Campen and Hall2011). The hypothesis that communities with strong seed networks are better able to adapt to climate change (Sthapit et al., Reference Sthapit, Padulosi and Mal2009) indicates that one priority for benefit-sharing could be research on and efforts to strengthen such networks. Evaluations of existing national legislation might be necessary in this context, as the degree of legal space for seed exchange affects utilization (Winge and Groome, Reference Winge, Groome, Andersen and Winge2013). As many communities will need genetic material from outside their own area and their own country (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Lobell and Guarino2009), such projects should also focus on linking local communities with gene banks.

The urgent need for collection, characterization and conservation of crop genetic diversity makes such efforts another natural target for adaptation-focused benefit-sharing. This could include initiatives targeting countries which have current crop climates that are analogues to the future climates likely in many other countries, such as Tanzania, Cameroon, Nigeria and Sudan (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Lobell and Guarino2009), and further research to match such source environments with areas in need of their crop genetic resources (Ramirez-Villegas et al., Reference Ramirez-Villegas, Jarvis, Fujisaka, Hanson, Leibing, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013). Screening collections for drought and heat tolerance through the use of geographic information system tools based on information regarding original location and its environment (Trethowan et al., Reference Trethowan, Turner and Chatta2010) might be useful in this connection. Addressing under-representation of certain types of crop genetic resources in international gene banks, such as that of many landraces (Trethowan et al., Reference Trethowan, Turner and Chatta2010), crop genetic diversity from sub-Saharan Africa (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Lobell and Guarino2009) and crops that are more important locally and regionally than globally (Snook et al., Reference Snook, Dulloo, Jarvis, Scheldeman, Kneller, Yadav, Redden, Hatfield, Lotze-Campen and Hall2011), including neglected and underutilized species (Padulosi et al., Reference Padulosi, Heywood, Hunter, Jarvis, Yadav, Redden, Hatfield, Lotze-Campen and Hall2011), could also be central to such efforts. In all cases, ensuring that the resulting information is made freely available would be important for the adaptation-impact of such projects.

Under the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol

According to Article 15(2) of the CBD, Contracting Parties must ‘endeavour to create conditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties’, and adaptation efforts fall within this category of use.

One point of departure for implementation of the Convention and its Nagoya Protocol in a way that can facilitate adaptation can be found in the Protocol's Article 8 on special considerations. As previously mentioned, this Article outlines some considerations to be taken by the Contracting Parties when developing and implementing national access and benefit-sharing legislation. The first part of this Article concerns research and the possibility of including simplified measures for non-commercial research purposes; in a climate-change context, Contracting Parties could use it, together with the mention of the special role of crop genetic resources for food security, as a point of departure for providing simplified access for research on climate change, perhaps in particular for plant breeding for adaptation.

As with benefit-sharing, it is mainly up to national implementation to ensure that systems for access facilitate adaptation. Further, it is important that all countries have some sort of national implementation that clarifies how access can be obtained and that this information is easily accessible for all potential users. Again, national legislation and regulations, standard agreements and model contractual clauses will be central – for example, they may specify that facilitated or simplified access should be provided to crop genetic resources for adaptation purposes.

One approach could be to create a separate access category with separate conditions and requirements, and a related standard agreement, for material to be used for adaptation, possibly with various sub-categories for different users, such as non-profit and commercial initiatives. Countries might also want to consider introducing a separate user category for climate analogues: countries that will have future crop climates similar to the ones currently existing in the provider country. As explained in the section ‘Crop genetic resources and climate change’, easy access to pre-adapted varieties will be crucial to timely and resource-efficient adaptation. It is therefore particularly important for national implementation to ensure quick, smooth and inexpensive sharing of crop genetic resources between such analogues.

Standardized access could make time- and resource-consuming negotiations unnecessary. Access to the end-product could be taken into account when creating such standard agreements, for example, through preferential access requirements and conditions for users willing to commit themselves to not taking out intellectual property rights, in any form, on the resulting technologies and products.

Speedy processing of applications for adaptation access could be promoted by introducing measures like priority processing, time guarantees for final responses and deliveries and standard online click-wrap access agreements. For this access category, any access fees charged should be kept to a minimum, and upfront payments avoided, with the standard agreements focusing instead on royalties from and milestone payments tied to any resulting commercial success, as well as non-monetary benefit-sharing.

Systems for simplified access should also create the needed legal space for collecting expeditions. Collection of crop genetic resources and other under-represented crop genetic resources will be necessary to provide farmers and breeders with access to as much potentially climate change-relevant diversity as possible. While it is important that national institutions and experts are involved in such collecting efforts, also international and foreign institutions may be central. National access legislation should facilitate such projects and provide clear and simple access procedures, preferably standardized, to be followed.

Adaptation access can also be promoted at the international level. It would be useful if the Conference of the Parties to the CBD discussed the relationship between agricultural adaptation and access to crop genetic resources and also took concrete measures, like a decision specifically mentioning the possibility of providing for simplified access for adaptation efforts in national access legislation.

Under the Plant Treaty

Although the Multilateral System under the Plant Treaty could have been both simpler and more efficient (Stannard, Reference Stannard, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013), it has the potential to contribute positively to climate change adaptation through its system for facilitated access. However, as it covers only a subset of crop genetic material, it is natural to ask whether Annex 1 should be expanded to meet the increased interdependence entailed by climate change.

When the Plant Treaty was negotiated, one of the difficult issues was agreeing on the list of crops to be included in the Multilateral System (Esquinas-Alcázar et al., Reference Esquinas-Alcázar, Hilmi, López Noriega, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013). Agreement on this rather controversial subject was achieved only during the finalization of remaining issues during the 21st session of the FAO Council in 2001, just in time for the Treaty to be adopted on 3 November 2001 at the 31st session of the FAO Conference. As previously touched upon, food security and interdependence were the agreed criteria for including crops on the list, but as the lengthy process and disagreements indicate, the selection process proved highly political.

Two of the notable crops not on the list of 35 food crops and 29 forages are soy beans (Glycine max) and tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum), both among the world's ten most important food commodities (FAOSTAT, 2013). Tomatoes and soybeans, as well as many other important crops, were included in a draft version of the list from August 2000, but had been removed when consensus was finally reached on a list of 30 food crops in April 2001 (five crops were later added) (Visser, Reference Visser, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013).

Visser (Reference Visser, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013) argues that crops such as soybeans, groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea), sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) and oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) were removed from the draft list because the objecting countries or regions saw their genetic resources as economic assets, not because they were seen as unimportant for food security. According to Ramirez et al. (Reference Ramirez, Ortiz, Taba, Sebastián, Peralta, Williams, Ebert, Vézina, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013), there are strong scientific arguments for including cacao (Theobroma cacao), groundnuts and other crops of worldwide importance in the Multilateral System. Further, Ramirez-Villegas et al. (Reference Ramirez-Villegas, Jarvis, Fujisaka, Hanson, Leibing, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013) argue that a substantial number of farmers depend on the major staples, forage species, crop wild relatives, minor and underutilized crops not included in Annex 1 and that adaptation will require facilitated exchange also of these resources. Both science and the history of Annex 1 therefore seem to indicate that the list should be expanded to cover all food crops of actual importance for food security. The effects of climate change underline the need for such expansion, as they affect food security (IPCC, 2014) and increase interdependence.

It can also be argued that the food security and interdependence criteria should be interpreted quite broadly to promote access to and exchange of crop genetic resources of underutilized and neglected species as well. Sthapit et al. (Reference Sthapit, Padulosi and Mal2009) and Padulosi et al. (Reference Padulosi, Heywood, Hunter, Jarvis, Yadav, Redden, Hatfield, Lotze-Campen and Hall2011) argue that Annex 1 should be expanded to include underutilized species, in order to improve access to and exchange of the genetic resources of such species, thereby promoting crop diversification as an adaptation strategy.

Expanding the list in Annex 1 would also make it easier for countries to receive funding for conservation and sustainable-use efforts related to adaptation through the Benefit-sharing Fund. Annex 1 crops are prioritized, and the second window in the mid-term plan, farmer impact projects, will mainly fund projects on Annex 1 crops (FAO, 2013d). As the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which supports ex situ conservation, only funds collections whose crop genetic resources can be accessed ‘under the internationally agreed terms of access and benefit-sharing provided for in the Multilateral System’ (Global Crop Diversity Trust, 2013, p. 6), expansion of the list in Annex 1 would also enable the added crops to receive adaptation relevant funding from there.

However, access in general, and expansion of Annex 1 in particular, is, as inextricably tied to successful benefit-sharing. An expanded list would have the potential to increase benefit-sharing, but evidence of successful benefit-sharing is also needed if Contracting Parties are to reach consensus on expanding the list. According to Visser (Reference Visser, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013), any perceived negative effects of intellectual property rights – in addition to how implementation of the Plant Treaty in general, and its benefit-sharing and funding strategy provisions in particular, will fare – affect the willingness of Parties to re-negotiate the list. In Visser's opinion, the effects of climate change on interdependence might induce the Parties to expand the list, but only after the various countries have analysed how climate change is affecting their national agriculture and come to realize that they are becoming even more dependent on crop genetic resources from other countries.

Judging by the statements made at the fifth meeting of the Governing Body of the Plant Treaty in 2013, consensus on the need to expand Annex 1 is still some years away. The African group, for example, underlined that they were not ready to discuss such an expansion. This position was supported by representatives of the civil society organizations present, who in a joint statement underlined that benefit-sharing under the Multilateral System must be proven effective before Annex 1 is re-opened (Author's personal notes from the meeting).

Although all crop genetic resources listed in Annex 1 of the Plant Treaty and under the management and control of the Contracting Parties and in the public domain are per se in the Multilateral System, actual access to these resources under the terms of the Treaty depends, among other things, on accessible knowledge about which resources can be accessed from where. According to Moeller and Stannard (Reference Moeller and Stannard2013), the fact that many Contracting Parties have not yet made available any or all of their crop genetic resources belonging to the Multilateral System is holding back utilization of the System by crop improvement programmes. Indeed, only 37 Contracting Parties have so far sent in notifications to the Secretariat regarding their national Annex 1 resources that are in the Multilateral System (Plant Treaty, 2014a). As international exchange of crop genetic resources is essential to climate change adaptation, this lack of what Moeller and Stannard (Reference Stannard, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013) call ‘effective access to resources held by Contracting Parties’ can be seen as an impediment to adaptation. To achieve a functioning system that facilitates adaptation, all Contracting Parties must provide information about their mandatory inclusions. Ideally, this information should also be systematized in the Global Information System envisioned in Article 17 of the Treaty.

Another factor that influences the Multilateral System's potential to contribute to adaptation is the inclusion of material by natural and legal persons. Progress thus far has been rather weak: only six notifications (Plant Treaty, 2014a) from natural and legal persons. As the usefulness of the System for adaptation purposes will increase along with the amount of potentially useful material in it, improving this situation is important. Some dissatisfaction with the current situation could be heard at the fifth meeting of the Governing Body in September 2013, where civil society representatives argued that inclusion of Annex 1 material should be mandatory also for natural and legal persons (Author's personal notes from the meeting). However, a more realistic approach to increase the contributions of natural and legal persons to the System might be for the Governing Body to exercise its mandate to withdraw access to the Multilateral System for legal and natural persons that fail to contribute to it. This is discussed by Halewood et al. (Reference Halewood, López Noriega, Louafi, Halewood, López Noriega and Louafi2013) as one approach for defining, monitoring and enforcing the boundaries and reciprocal obligations of the Multilateral System more clearly and effectively.

If the Multilateral System is to contribute to adaptation, its system for facilitated access must also function as smoothly as possible. According to Bjørnstad et al. (Reference Bjørnstad, Tekle and Göransson2013), some challenges still remain for plant breeders wanting to access material under the Multilateral System. Their requests for material sent out to 121 Contracting Parties resulted in what they call an ‘alarming number of non-respondents’ (Bjørnstad et al., 2013, p. Reference Bjørnstad, Tekle and Göransson1964), and the countries that actually provided seed were unevenly distributed geographically. Practices with regard to use of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement were found to vary greatly, and achieving access proved quite time-consuming. Noting that some countries seem to be struggling with harmonizing their national laws and regulations with their Plant Treaty obligations, Bjørnstad et al. (Reference Bjørnstad, Tekle and Göransson2013) conclude that access under the Plant Treaty has so far not reached the stage where it is generally straightforward. This indicates that the routines and logistics of Contracting Parties must be improved if the adaptation potential is to be fully realized and that capacity building might be needed in some cases.