Humans depend on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) for many aspects of survival, including food, fuel, and fiber. A study conducted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that plants contribute the vast proportion of the world's food supply, particularly for developing countries in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. At a global level, the total dietary energy and protein provided by plants is 84% and 63%, respectively, while animal sources contribute 16% and 37%, respectively ( Table 1 ). Plant resources are even more critical in Africa, where about 93% of food energy and 79% of protein are derived from plant sources. The history of the development and use of PGRFA has been characterized by relatively rapid movements of domesticated crops and animals across and among continents, with ultimately a relatively small number of species representing a very high percentage of the daily diets of people around the world. FAO estimates that four crops—rice, wheat, sugar (beet and cane), and corn—account for over 60% of human calorie intake from plants. Many agricultural scientists and development practitioners believe that PGRFA are the foundation for modern agriculture and are essential for achieving food security. They say that much of the increase in food production over the last half-century can be attributed to innovations achieved through plant breeding, drawing on existing genetic resources. FAO estimates that more than three-quarters of the increased crop productivity of the past 30 years is the result of plant breeding. FAO and other agricultural experts believe that future global food security depends to a large extent on the continued improvement of food crops—for example, developing new varieties that are higher-yielding, resistant to pests and diseases, resistant to extreme weather events such as drought or flood, and/or regionally adapted to different environments and growing conditions. Crop improvement has also resulted in significant gains in the nutritional value of crop plants. Plant genetic resources serve as the raw material used by plant breeders and farmers to create new crop varieties. Feeding a growing global population will require a significant increase in food production. Despite a 70% growth in world population, agriculture today provides over 15% more calories per capita than it did 30 years ago. By 2050 the world's population is estimated to reach 9.1 billion, 34% higher than today. About 70% of the world's population will be urban (compared to 49% today), and income levels will be higher than they are today. FAO estimates that farmers will need to increase production by at least 70% by 2050 to satisfy the demand for food due to population growth, urbanization, and rising incomes. All countries are interdependent with respect to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture—each relies on others for the genetic basis of its major food crops and for food security. Modern crops and forages have a multitude of parent materials, as exemplified by the development of rice varieties grown all over the world ( Table 2 ). The diets of people around the world have evolved and adapted to such an extent that most countries and regions rely heavily on nonindigenous, imported germplasm of staple crops from other parts of the world. For example, corn is one of the world's three most important staple crops, especially for millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa. Corn originated in South America, but the United States is the largest global producer of corn and holds one of the world's largest genebank collections of corn varieties. Cassava, which also originated in South America, is another major food source in Africa today, while African millets and sorghums are major food crops in South Asia and Latin America. Latin America's extensive cattle pastures depend largely on African grasses. Alfalfa from southwestern Asia is now cultivated around the globe. A plate of pasta with red sauce, a dish typical in Italy, relies on crops that originated in South America (tomatoes) and in west and central Asia (wheat). The exchange of plant genetic resources has taken place over centuries, and without it few typical "local" meals would exist. A recent study concluded that for the major food crops, all regions were dependent on PGRFA from other regions to a high degree—over 50% for most regions. Interdependence in central Africa ranges from 67% to 84%, and in south Asia ranges from 85% to 100%. No country in the study was ranked as completely self-sufficient. The high degree of interdependence argues for continued access by countries to a wide range of plant genetic resources in other regions as essential for crop improvement and the development of modern agriculture. The U.S. food supply is based on intensive agriculture. Intensive agriculture benefits from genetic uniformity in crops, but it can also increase the potential for crop vulnerability to new pests, diseases, and environmental stresses. An example of that vulnerability occurred in 1970, when a widespread outbreak of a disease called southern corn blight hit from the southeastern United States into the Great Plains. The epidemic cost farmers 15% of the nation's corn crop that year because nearly all the corn planted was genetically susceptible to the fungus that caused the blight. Congress responded to this event by establishing the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) within the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Agricultural Research Service (ARS). The NPGS is a national network of public agencies (federal and state agencies including more than 20 federal gene banks located across the country), private institutions, and individuals. It is the primary entity in the U.S. effort to conserve and use crop germplasm for crop improvement. With a collection that includes about 85 crops, the NPGS collects plant germplasm from all over the world. It is "devoted to the free and unrestricted exchange of germplasm with all nations and permits access to U.S. collections by any person with a valid use," such as for research or breeding, although medical and other uses are included. Germplasm users in other countries have the same privileges as those in the United States. According to ARS, this policy has "grown out of the belief that germplasm, like the oceans and air, is a world heritage to be freely shared for the benefit of all humanity." Through these efforts, NPGS assists in improving the quality and productivity of crops in the United States and in the world. The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) provides support to NPGS and gives germplasm users continuous access to databases for the maintenance of passport, characterization, evaluation, inventory, and distribution data important for the effective management and use of national germplasm collections. GRIN is also administered by ARS. In 1990, Congress authorized the establishment of a National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP). NGRP has the responsibility to acquire, characterize, preserve, document, and distribute to scientists germplasm of all life forms important for food and agricultural production, which, in addition to plants, includes animals, microbes, and invertebrates. The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary and Director of the NGRP. The NGRAC responds to national issues pertaining to the conservation and utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the Treaty on PGRFA) provides a general framework for conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. The treaty's preamble acknowledges that the conservation, exploration, collection, characterization, evaluation, and documentation of PGRFA are essential for sustainable agriculture development and to meet the global goals of ending hunger and poverty, as stated in the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action. The treaty sets up a multilateral system of access and benefit sharing, where all members, in exercise of their sovereignty, provide free (or nearly free) access to each other's plant genetic resources for research, breeding, conservation, and training. The multilateral approach allows members access to germplasm to promote food security and improve crop productivity, lowers transaction costs, and redistributes back to the governing body financial benefits derived from the commercial exploitation of the genetic resources. The treaty is unlike other international laws governing global genetic resources, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; see text box below), which extends private or sovereign control and limitations over genetic resources through bilateral interactions, and which many feel is inappropriate for food and agriculture. By establishing a multilateral approach that provides for a standardized protocol and framework applying to all contracting parties, the treaty deals with access and benefit-sharing of agricultural biodiversity in a different way than they are treated under the CBD. The treaty originated from and eventually replaced the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU), a voluntary non-legally binding agreement adopted by FAO in 1983. The IU was the first international instrument that sought "to ensure that plant genetic resources of economic and/or social interest, particularly for agriculture, will be explored, preserved, evaluated and made available for plant breeding and scientific purposes." The IU reflected the widely held view of the time that plant genetic resources were a heritage of humanity that should be available to all for research and breeding. While the IU attracted considerable support, some countries did not find the concept of free availability of genetic resources under the IU compatible with the intellectual property protection afforded by plant breeders' rights. Some tension existed concerning farmers' rights, in that intellectual property regimes that rewarded formal breeders often ignored the contributions of generations of farmers to the development and conservation of the PGRFA that breeders utilize. Many critics were also concerned that any system addressing PGRFA should reflect more fully the sovereign rights that countries have over those resources. These concerns were addressed in a series of agreed interpretations of the IU, adopted in 1989, that sought to balance the rights of breeders and farmers. A further conference resolution in 1991 reiterated the sovereign rights of states over their plant genetic resources. While negotiations proceeded towards the adoption of the CBD, the parties in an appendix to the Nairobi Final Act of the CBD resolved that there were outstanding issues on the interrelationship between the CBD and the promotion of sustainable agriculture. In 1993, the FAO Conference requested FAO to launch a revision of the IU to take into consideration the outstanding issues of access on mutually agreed terms to PGRFA, including ex situ collections and the realization of farmers' rights, in harmony with the CBD, and asked its intergovernmental Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to act as the forum to negotiate between countries. After seven years of complex and difficult negotiations, FAO members concluded the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The treaty established the legal basis for the exchange of PGRFA, at least for those covered in Annex 1 by the multilateral system of access and benefits. The treaty was adopted by consensus by the 31 st session of the FAO Conference on November 3, 2001, and would enter into force 90 days after the ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession of the 40 th country, which occurred on June 29, 2004. The treaty currently has 120 contracting parties (see Appendix for list). The United States signed the treaty on November 1, 2002, and it was submitted by the Bush Administration to the Senate for advice and ratification on July 7, 2008. In her letter of submittal to President Bush, Secretary Rice stated that "[a]ll interested agencies in the Executive Branch favor ratification of the Treaty, which can be implemented under existing authorities." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony in support of ratification of the treaty on November 10, 2009, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty on December 14, 2010, but it was not considered by the full Senate before the close of the 111 th Congress. The fundamental purpose of the treaty is to enable individuals and nations around the world to make use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in order to ensure global food security. The two primary objectives of the treaty, as stated in Article 1, include: conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; and fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their use, in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, for sustainable agriculture and food security. The main components of the treaty are: general provisions relating to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; farmers' rights, the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing (MLS); supporting components; financial provisions; and institutional provisions. The general provisions on the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA apply to all PGRFA, not just those listed in Annex 1 of the treaty. The general provisions set a modern framework for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA drawing upon the Global Plan of Action (GPA) for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of PGRFA. Article 5 sets out the main tasks that contracting parties are to carry out with respect to conservation, evaluation, and documentation of PGRFA. Similar to other CBD provisions, the responsibilities are placed on each contracting party, acting individually or, where appropriate, in cooperation with other contracting parties, and call for the promotion of an integrated approach to the exploration, conservation, and sustainable use of PGRFA. Article 6 requires the contracting parties to develop and maintain appropriate policy and legal measures that promote the sustainable use of PGRFA. Articles 7 and 8 deal with national commitments, international cooperation, and technical assistance. According to analysis provided by the State Department in treaty transmittal documents, the treaty likely could be implemented in the United States under existing policies, programs, and statutory authorities, primarily those under the jurisdiction of USDA. The State Department analysis suggests that the activities described in Articles 5 and 6 are consistent with current U.S. practice and could be implemented using existing USDA authorities to operate the National Plant Germplasm System (NGPS) and for ARS's research activities derived from 7 U.S.C. §§ 1621-27, 2201, 2204, 3291, and 5841. Activities described in Articles 7 and 8 are also consistent with U.S. practice. The U.S. currently participates in the FAO; USDA provision of technical assistance to further the sustainability of global agriculture is currently provided pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 3291; and USAID has provided program support for International Agricultural Research Centers and international organizations such as FAO to strengthen national agricultural research systems in developing countries pursuant to authority derived from the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 2220b. Further, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sponsors the Global Intellectual Property Academy, which holds seminars for sponsored participants from developing countries and includes conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources. Article 9 of the treaty deals with farmers' rights and recognizes the contributions of local and indigenous communities and farmers to the conservation and development of plant genetic resources as a basis for food and agriculture production. Article 9 places the responsibility for realizing the rights of farmers on national governments. The provisions of Article 9 are neutral with respect to the issue of the right of farmers to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seed, an issue that was hotly contested during the negotiations. The wording in the treaty recognizes implicitly that farmers may have rights under national law and that these should in no way be limited by the provisions in Article 9. The measures that contracting parties should take under Article 9 include the protection and promotion of: traditional knowledge relevant to PGRFA; rights of farmers to participate equitably in the sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of PGRFA; and the right to participate in making decisions at the national level with respect to the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. The United States acknowledges the importance of such recognition and consultation pursuant to various national and state laws, regulations, and orders. USDA has long conveyed extensive nonmonetary benefits to farmers through land-grant universities and extension services authorized under 7 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., 322 et seq., and 341 et seq. USDA also provided services specifically to indigenous communities through 7 U.S.C. § 3241 and 20 U.S.C. § 1059d. A key focus of the treaty is the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing (MLS), which was established both to facilitate access to genetic resources of major food crops and forage species and to share, in a fair and equitable way, the benefits arising from the utilization of these resources, in accordance with multilaterally agreed terms and conditions. Article 11 specifies the PGRFA covered by the MLS as those that are listed on Annex I, are under the management and control of the parties, and are in the public domain. The list in Annex I covers 35 crops and 29 forages, including many major crops important to the United States for either domestic use or export. Many countries wanted a broad and comprehensive list of crops to be included in the MLS. Others wanted the MLS to start off with a more limited list of the most important crops. In theory, the negotiators agreed on a list of crops chosen according to their importance for food security and their interdependence. In practice, the list set out in Annex I was negotiated in part on the basis of the perceived interests of individual negotiating parties, with some crops important to food security being excluded, such as soybeans and groundnuts (peanuts). Nevertheless, the list does include most of the major food crops, including cereals such as rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, and millets; grain legumes such as beans, peas, lentils, chickpeas, and cowpeas; roots and tubers such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, and yams; oil crops such as coconut, sunflower, and plants in the mustard family such as cabbage and broccoli; and fruits such as citrus, apple, and banana/plantain. Noticeable absences that would appear to fit the food security and interdependence criteria include soybeans, groundnuts (peanuts), sugar cane, wild relatives of cassava including the genus Manihot , several fruits, and tomato. The MLS also includes PGRFA held in the ex situ collections of the Consultative Group on International Research (CGIAR) Centers as well as those held in other international institutions, by agreement with the governing body as referenced in Article 15. The contracting parties are required to take appropriate measures to encourage natural and legal persons in their jurisdictions to include their holdings of Annex I PGRFA in the MLS. The United States currently encourages private entities to deposit germplasm in the National Plant Germplasm System pursuant to authority derived from 7 U.S.C § 5841. Article 12 creates the core obligation of the treaty, where parties are required to facilitate access to covered PGRFA. Parties are only obliged to provide access to PGRFA under the MLS when the PGRFA will be used solely for the purpose of research, breeding, and training for food and agriculture (not chemical, pharmaceutical, or other non-food or -feed industrial uses). Parties are to provide PGRFA expeditiously and for free or at a minimal charge, and also are to include available passport data for the PGRFA. Article 12 also notes that recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit access to PGRFA or their genetic parts or components, in the form received from the MLS. Recipients are required to continue to make accessed PGRFA available to the MLS under the terms of the treaty. This article also provides for a standard material transfer agreement (SMTA) between germplasm donors and recipients, which is to accompany any transfer of PGRFA under the MLS. The governing body adopted the text of the SMTA in June 2006. The State Department analysis asserts that the obligations in Article 12 could be implemented in the United States using existing authorities, particularly through ARS, which maintains the National Plant Germplasm System, a network of more than 20 federal gene banks that operate under authority derived from 7 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2204, 3125a, 3291, 5841, and 5924. Under these authorities, the USDA Secretary is authorized to provide, free of charge, samples of germplasm from the federal genebanks to any requestor, so long as such provision is not inconsistent with other laws or regulations. Also, the State Department analysis suggests that in the United States, any recourse required from contractual disputes arising from the SMTA would be available via existing authorities that allow for recognition and enforcement of arbitral judgments in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Article 13 describes the types of benefit-sharing that may result from the provision of access to PGRFA. It recognizes that the provision of PGRFA itself is a major benefit to the world community. Other benefit-sharing takes the form of exchange of information, access to and transfer of technology, capacity-building, and financial benefit-sharing arising from the commercialization of PGRFA. Under the monetary benefit-sharing provision found in Article 13.2d(ii) and the SMTA adopted in June 2006, a recipient of PGRFA who commercializes a product incorporation material accessed from the MLS is to pay 1.1% of gross sales. Recipients who make such a product available without restriction to others for further research and breeding are encouraged but not required to make such a payment. The parties agree in this article that the benefits go back to the governing body and not to any individual country or entity, and that benefits should flow primarily to farmers in all countries who conserve and sustainably use PGRFA. Again, the State Department suggests that Article 13 could be implemented using existing USDA authorities derived from 7 U.S.C. § 5841 to operate the National Plant Germplasm System. USDA currently provides technical assistance to further the sustainability of global agriculture pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §3291. USAID provides technical assistance for agriculture development in rural areas pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended via 22 U.S.C. § 2151a. Part V of the treaty deals with supporting components, which are activities that lie outside the institutional structure of the treaty itself but provide essential support for proper implementation of the treaty and its objectives. These include promoting the effective implementation of the Global Plan of Action, encouragement of international plant genetic resources networks, and development and strengthening of a global information system on PGRFA, including a periodic assessment of the state of the world's PGRFA. Part VI of the treaty addresses financial resources. Article 18 states that parties are to implement a funding strategy that will assist in the implementation of the treaty's activities. The objectives of the strategy are to enhance the availability, transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the provision of financial resources for the treaty. Financial benefits from the commercialization of PGRFA under the MLS are included in the strategy, as well as finances made available through other mechanisms, funds, and bodies. These provisions state that the governing body may establish targets for funding and that the primary use of the resources are for the implementation of plans and programs under the treaty (e.g., providing resources to strengthen technical capacity and infrastructure to assist developing countries in treaty implementation). Voluntary contributions may be provided by parties and other sources, but the treaty does envisage mandatory payments over time by contracting parties. The treaty establishes a governing body composed of representatives from all contracting parties. The governing body acts as the supreme body for the treaty and provides policy direction and guidance for the implementation of the treaty and the MLS. All decisions of the governing body are taken by consensus, or, if it agrees to do so by consensus, the governing body can use another method of decision making for all matters other than amendments to the treaty and its annexes. The treaty also provides for the appointment of a Secretary of the Governing Body, who is appointed by the Director General of the FAO and is required to have the approval of the governing body. Amendments to the treaty may be proposed by any contracting party and must be adopted by consensus of the parties present at the session of the governing body. Amendments come into force 90 days after two-thirds of the contracting parties ratify, accept, or approve them and apply only to those parties that have ratified, accepted, or approved them. The treaty provides for a dispute settlement mechanism and contains provisions for third-party mediation when negotiations fail. No reservations may be made to the treaty. Currently 120 countries are parties to the treaty (see Appendix ). The United States signed the treaty on November 1, 2002 (Treaty Doc, 110-19), but no further action was taken on it until it was submitted to the Senate for advice and ratification by the Bush Administration on July 7, 2008. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a treaty hearing on November 10, 2009, which included testimony in support of ratification of the plant treaty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty, without objection, on December 14, 2010, but it was not considered by the full Senate before the close of the 111 th Congress. The 112 th Congress may consider ratification of the plant treaty. Several proponents of the treaty assert that the United States might provide needed leadership and resources in the areas of agricultural biodiversity conservation and use, international agricultural research and development, and global food security. Some believe that the United States' presence could help to foster more trust and goodwill between contracting parties, which has taken many years to develop, particularly among developing countries. Others have suggested that some countries (such as Japan and China) may be more inclined to sign on to the treaty if the United States officially ratifies. In addition, the United States might also be able to provide leadership to resolve some outstanding tensions regarding more comprehensive inclusion of Annex 1 crops covered by the MLS. Critics claim that there is also a need for more resources and capacity strengthening to assist with treaty implementation and the realization of benefits, which have experienced slow progress since the treaty entered into force, especially for developing countries. Despite having signed on, many developing countries often lack the technical expertise, necessary infrastructure, or required resources to carry out effective implementation of the treaty. One of the most widely cited accomplishments of the treaty to date is the inclusion of the CGIAR ex situ collection of agricultural biodiversity under the multilateral system (see text box below). The crops listed in Annex 1 to the treaty that are covered by the MLS together contribute to about 80% of the world's total energy food supply. Collectively the CGIAR Centers hold about 600,000 accessions, which account for an estimated 30%-60% of the world's crop diversity. The treaty requires contracting parties to develop and implement a funding strategy for carrying out the treaty plans, programs, and activities, in particular to assist developing countries in implementing their commitments under the MLS and to build capacity to use and conserve plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The current goal set by the governing body is to raise $116 million over the next five years. The governing body envisions that funding will come from voluntary contributions by developed country contracting parties, international funds, bodies and organizations such as the Global Crop Diversity Trust (see text box below), multilateral institutions such as the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank, and private organizations. Mandatory and voluntary contributions resulting from the commercialization of crop diversity from the treaty's MLS will also provide funds, for example, 1.1% of gross sales from the commercialized product. What is less clear is how the funds are to be distributed and used. The benefit-sharing provisions give priority to the sharing of resources and benefits with farmers, especially in developing countries, but the details of how this objective would be implemented is not fully articulated. The governing body established a "Benefit-Sharing Fund," which initially distributed $500,000 to 11 projects in its first biennial cycle (2008-2009). These projects addressed one or more of the following priorities: (1) information exchange, technology transfer and capacity building; (2) managing and conserving plant genetic resources on-farm; and (3) the sustainable use of plant genetic resources. More detail may be sought about the longer term, and about a broader strategy for scaling up the use of treaty funds to support a coordinated, sustainable, and efficient set of programs and activities that promote the conservation and use of PGRFA, especially by farmers in developing countries. More information may also be relevant on how the governing body will (or will not) coordinate with existing international partners, such as the CGIAR Centers and the Global Crop Diversity Trust, in carrying out the benefit-sharing objectives. If the United States becomes a party to the treaty, some believe that other countries will expect the United States to contribute greater capacity-building resources for the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity globally, and for the implementation of the MLS provisions by developing countries. Even though contributions are technically made on a "voluntary" basis, FAO does have an Indicative Scale of Contributions that provides a recommendation for how much countries should contribute. In the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ), Congress authorized USAID to contribute $60 million to the Global Crop Diversity Trust from FY2008 to FY2012 to assist in the conservation of genetic diversity in food crops. To date, the United States has contributed $14.5 million to the trust, $2.5 million for operational support and $12.5 million for the trust's endowment. For FY2010, USAID has earmarked $10 million for the trust. A key question that arises is whether there will be increasing pressure for the United States to commit additional funds to the governing body, and if so, how much is appropriate for these causes. Congress may opt to consider the importance and implications of the plant treaty relative to other pending international issues and agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity. Article 1 of the plant treaty states explicitly that the objectives should be carried out "in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity." As discussed in the " History of the Treaty " section, the treaty was adapted from the International Understanding (IU) to meet identified gaps in the CBD process related to agricultural biodiversity. The CBD is the only comprehensive international agreement dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Only four nations are not parties to the CBD: Andorra, Iraq, Somalia, and the United States. After extensive involvement by the United States in the six-year drafting and negotiation phases, President George H. W. Bush declined to sign the treaty when it opened for signatures at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. In June 1993, President Clinton signed the CBD on behalf of the United States and transmitted the CBD to the Senate for advice and consent along with "seven understandings" to accompany the ratification instrument. He noted that existing federal, state, and local laws and programs were "sufficient to enable any activities necessary to effectively implement our responsibilities under the Convention" and that the "Administration does not intend to disrupt the existing balance of Federal and State authorities through the Convention." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee supported CBD ratification by a 16-3 bipartisan vote, subject to the seven understandings. However, the CBD never received a ratification vote on the Senate floor. The Senate has not revisited CBD ratification for 15 years. Several environmental groups advocate for the U.S. ratification of the CBD because of their support for biological conservation and protection globally. At the same time, other groups are opposed to ratification of the CBD because of the perceived potential restrictions imposed by the CBD on intellectual property rights and the position of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety regarding biotechnology. The Cartagena Protocol, which is an international agreement on biosafety and a supplement to the CBD, claims to protect biological diversity from the potential and perceived risks posed by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Cartagena Protocol allows countries to invoke the "precautionary principle" when considering the benefits and risks of new technologies such as biotechnology. For example, it allows countries to ban imports of genetically modified crops if they contend that there is not enough scientific evidence that the product is safe. They can also require exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton. The United States has been a strong proponent of the use of biotechnology for agriculture and has argued in international trade venues against the blocking of U.S. commodities by the European Community and others because they contain GMOs. The 112 th Congress could assess whether ratification of the Treaty for PGRFA would have any bearing on the United States' position on the CBD. While signing on to one does not require the United States to be a party to the other (e.g., becoming a party to the plant treaty without being a signatory on the CBD does not offer up any known policy contradictions), some maintain that consideration of the context and relationship of both treaties is a prudent approach. The State Department analysis suggests that the United States provide clarifying language to the governing body regarding some interpretations of the MLS provisions, especially those in Article 12 that describe the terms under which recipients accept the PGRFA. According to Article 12, recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit access to PGRFA or their genetic parts or components, in the form received from the MLS. The State Department analysis suggests notifying the governing body of the following upon deposit of its instrument of ratification: "The United States understands that Article 12.3d shall not be construed in a manner that diminishes the availability or exercise of intellectual property rights under national laws." Commercialization of plant genetic materials is allowable under the treaty, but parties must either provide free access to the material to all contracting parties or return 1.1% of gross sales of the commercialized material back to the governing body's "benefit-sharing" fund. The treaty and its objectives have been promoted extensively by international agricultural researchers and development practitioners as a critical factor for ensuring global food security. Yet several of the global food security initiatives proposed by the Administration and Congress do not directly make the link between agricultural biodiversity conservation and use, and agricultural research, development, and economic growth. What, if any, are the links between these initiatives and the objectives and activities carried out by this treaty? Is there a reason to make the connection between these initiatives? The Global Food Security Act of 2009 ( S. 384 in the Senate and H.R. 3077 in the House) authorizes increased investment in agricultural productivity, infrastructure, science and technology, research, education, and extension for hunger and poverty alleviation. The bill emphasizes the importance of agricultural research in developing countries as the primary means to increasing the productivity of smallholder farmers and seeks to strengthen the use of science and technology for agriculture in countries suffering from chronic food insecurity and poverty. At the same time, no mention is made about how any of these proposed programs might relate to the conservation and use of PGRFA, and the need for technical capacity-building in the development of PGRFA for crop improvement purposes, especially in developing countries. As of February 24, 2010: 120 The following instruments have been deposited on the dates indicated.

Summary: Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) serve as the raw material used by plant breeders and farmers to create new crop varieties. As such, they are viewed by many as the foundation for modern agriculture and as essential for achieving global food security. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that more than three-quarters of the increased crop productivity of the past 30 years is the result of plant breeding, and that future global food security depends to a large extent on the continued improvement of food crops—for example, developing new varieties that are higher-yielding, resistant to pests and diseases, resistant to extreme weather events such as drought or flood, and/or regionally adapted to different environments and growing conditions. All countries of the world are interdependent when it comes to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; each relies on others for the genetic basis of its major food crops and for its food security. Interdependence for major food crops—the measure of reliance on nonindigenous staple crop germplasm that comes from other parts of the world—is over 50% for most regions, and ranges from 67% to 84% for countries in central Africa and from 85% to 100% for countries in south Asia. The high degree of interdependence argues for free access by countries to a wide range of plant genetic resources from other regions, in order to ensure future crop improvement and continued gains in agricultural productivity globally. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the Treaty on PGRFA) provides a general framework for conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. The treaty sets up a multilateral system of access and benefit sharing, where all members, in exercise of their sovereignty, provide free (or nearly free) access to each other's plant genetic resources for research, breeding, conservation, and training. The multilateral approach allows members access to germplasm to promote food security and improve crop productivity, lowers transaction costs, and redistributes back to the governing body financial benefits derived from the commercial exploitation of the genetic resources. Currently, 120 countries are parties to the treaty. The United States signed the treaty on November 1, 2002 (Treaty Doc. 110-19), and it was submitted by the Bush Administration to the Senate for advice and ratification on July 7, 2008. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony in support of ratification on November 10, 2009. On December 14, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted, without objection, the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (Treaty Doc. 110-19), but it was not considered by the entire Senate before the close of the 111th Congress. In the 112th session, Congress may assess several issues related to ratification of the Treaty on PGRFA, including the implications for the United States' position on the Convention for Biological Diversity; the implications for the United States' position on intellectual property rights; the expectations for future financial commitments under the treaty, especially for capacity-building in developing countries; and the potential implications, if any, for congressional proposals related to international agricultural research and development.