Meeting Dec 15-16, 1993 - National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC)

Executive Summary
Third Meeting Dec. 15-16, 1993

1. The third meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held December 15-16, 1993 in Washington, DC. In attendance were seven appointed members and six ex officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by Neal Jorgensen with the assistance of vice-chair Don Duvick.

2. The Council was welcomed by Leodrey Williams, acting for R.D. Plowman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, who discussed aspects of the USDA's proposed reorganization both at Department and at Agency level.

3. The Council addressed three significant issues: material transfer agreements, a request by the Crop Science Society of America relative to the establishment of a new category for storage at the USDA's National Seed Storage Laboratory, and a strategic plan for the National Genetic Resources Program.

4. The Council supported the continuation of the effort to develop an effective material agreement while recognizing that such a uniform agreement does limit some flexibility to develop agreements on a needs basis. However, for plant collectors now facing a variety of potential agreements, it was decided that it was in the best interest of the Department to have a good generic form to work from. That is to be pursued, perhaps taking guidance from an agreement being developed for the international agricultural research centers.

5. The Council considered the request by the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA) for the National Seed Storage Laboratory establish a new blind category for holding protected genetic resources. After considerable debate and recognizing this to be a deviation from current USDA policy, the Council asked development of a resolution which recommends that the USDA establish a [restricted] category of germplasm which is not available for current distribution. To provide balance the Council recommended development of a similar category to hold material from other "protected" sources, such as foreign sources. The genetic material registered by CSSA into this restricted category would later become part of the USDA's National Plant Germplasm System and become freely available for distribution. The establishment of such categories was noted not to be contrary to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Council charged the USDA to monitor the use of the categories to measure the impact of their use and, as a matter of preference, strongly urged the USDA to encourage the use of the NPGS for plant material which is freely available to scientists worldwide.

6. Lastly, while addressing the matter of a strategic plan, the Council recognized the immensity of the task assigned to the National Genetic Resources Program. However, in the Council's view, the program has not received adequate funding and attention since its inception and it then developed a resolution which recommends organizational and administrative changes be made or that the program be transferred to another appropriate executive department. The resolution was later tempered somewhat but the change was not the preference by all members. The chair and vice-chair would like to discuss the matter with the Secretary early in the new year. NGRACNational Genetic Resources Advisory Council Bldg. 005, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center - West Beltsville, Maryland 20705 Phone: (301) 504-5059; FAX: (301) 504-6699 

Final Summary
Third Meeting December 15-16, 1993

1. The third meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held December 15-16, 1993 in Washington, DC. In attendance were seven appointed members and five ex officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by Neal Jorgensen with the assistance of vice-chair Don Duvick. The Board approved a revised agenda.

2. Leodrey Williams, Acting Assistant Secretary for Science and Education and Acting Administrator of the Extension Service welcomed the Council, recognized its unique role and discussed the reorganizational changes underway in the Department. The Assistant Secretary for Research, Education and Economics is one of the six proposed functional areas within the Department. It was pointed out that the organizational chart is an unofficial Department proposal and is subject to change. There is no information when or if the proposals will be official or when they might be implemented. The National Genetic Resources Program is attached to the Deputy Administrator, Planning and Coordination Staff.

3. The Chair addressed some general statements to the Council for their consideration during the course of the two-day meeting and had some immediate reaction: Has the Council made a difference? What actions has the Department taken in response to Council recommendations? Should the Council recommend that the Department reconsider the National Academy of Science recommendations regarding placement of the National Genetic Resources Program? The new agency's mission statement and list of program functions give absolutely no indication that the planners put any thought into or claimed ownership of the genetic resources program. With a mandate from Congress, why is the Administration unresponsive to such a critical and high priority area? In Agriculture there is a clear disconnect between rhetoric on biodiversity and action; action is occurring in Interior on the National Biological Survey. How can the Council enlighten the public?

4. The Council heard three presentation on ex-situ storage methodologies. Steve Eberhart, Director of the USDA's National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) at Fort Collins, Colorado, described the current methodologies used at the laboratory for storing the germplasm in the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). He also discussed the research being conducted at the NSSL to extend the storage life of seeds and various vegetatively propagated plant parts. Following the overview, he restated the NSSL policies for free availability of the material deposited into the NPGS and summarized the distributions over the past five years. There is an average of about 175,000 samples distributed per year with about 25 percent going to foreign countries. It was noted that the NPGS and NSSL have few pharmaceutical or herbal medicine plant samples.

5. Robert Adams of Baylor University presented his work on the conservation and utilization of genes from endangered and extinct plants: DNA Bank-Net. Highest priority is given to tropical rainforest species by the network of working nodes and reserve nodes of cooperating organizations. New molecular technologies such as gene cloning and transfer along with technology for the removal and analysis of DNA have made it possible to collect tissues and store DNA as a "genetic insurance policy". Some 40 institutions (18 countries represented) now make up the network. Additional information is provided in Gene Conservation and Exploitation, Edited by J.P. Gustafson et al., Plenum Press, New York, 1993.

6. The last speaker on the topic was Norman Anderson, Large Scale Biology Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland. Anderson described a new and inexpensive DNA storage procedure utilizing barcoded filmstrips with multiple suspensions of nuclei as a protection against contamination, particularly from laboratory viruses. The work was done in conjunction with the American Type Culture Collection, NIH, USDA, and DOE. The subsequent discussion of items 4, 5, 6 noted that the loss of ecosystem diversity in the future will not be stopped and that various combinations of these technologies offer some possibility of capturing more of that diversity than attempting to save the ecosystems or even whole organisms. The question was posed where to look for genes as new lands are lost to providing for the doubling of the population of the planet over the next 50 years. Members noted that these technologies are certainly in the long term public interest to employ as practically as possible.

7. The Council heard, as a topic of interest, a review of the management of a large microbial collection. Presenting the report was Cletus Kurtzman, Research Leader of the Microbial Collection at the USDA's National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research at Peoria, IL. Kurtzman noted the accumulation of some 80,000 collections since the laboratory was opened in 1940. Some of the most recognized work has been the discovery of penicillin, riboflavin, dextran, xanthan gum, xylose fermentation from yeast, xylanase from Aureobasidium, work with industrial organisms and systematic research. In Kurtzman's unit, scientists spend about 20 percent of their time on service activities while technicians spend about 40 percent on service and 60 percent on research support. Distributions total about 4000 annually with about 1/3 going to foreign requests. The collection maintains the ARS Patent Culture Collection (since 1948) of which there are 4307 collections and about half of those under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty where deposits can be made in such a recognized Patent Depository Authority and not have to be made in every country where a patent is filed. Reporting obligations to the patent owner are only to the first level distribution which leaves a large loophole for misuse of material. Often the owner does not take care of the sample and the only viable samples are available in the singular depository or redistribution sites. The Patent Collection charges $500 for the deposit and $20 for each distribution, all money going to the U.S. Treasury. The laboratory is funded through regular agency budgeting. Further information is provided in the ad hoc committee report on microbial genetic resources prepared for the Initial Report of the National Genetic Resources Program.

8. Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) received considerable attention during the Second Meeting of the NGRAC following discussion of requirements for the Convention on Biological Diversity. John Barton led the discussion explaining the complexity of the issue yet the need for a model agreement. The USDA meeting in October 1993 tried to address the elements of an acceptable MTA that could be used by plant collectors when faced with signing a foreign MTA. The result of that USDA meeting was a suggestion that a "Source Recognition" agreement was acceptable for receipt of genetic materials but that the scientist should have leeway to adjust terms as necessary. ARS also has a general MTA for use by requestors wishing an MTA so that they can feel comfortable using material from ARS without some unknown future complication. John Barton and Wolfgang Siebeck are developing an MTA under contract with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research which should be ready in March of 1994. There appear to be no inconsistencies in the needs of the USDA and the CGIAR and the final CGIAR MTA form may be useful for USDA to consider with minor changes.

9. There was considerable discussion about the real need for MTAs and whether the USDA could maintain its position for the free flow of genetic resources, arguing the differences between food genetic resources and pharmaceuticals, and hoping that the developing countries would wake to the disadvantages of low financial return and the cost of instituting such a procedure. Mr. Barton noted that this "stay as is practice" is one option; a second option involves payments by users whereby the gene banks would notify recipients of their obligation to share profits and thereby keep the gene bank out of the transaction, and; a third option is to develop a fund where profit sharing is deposited. Other forms of "recognition" were noted such as providing supplies and equipment and training. Mr. Barton suggested that the most difficult area was rewarding indigenous people's knowledge by transfer of funds directly to them, something the governments are less likely to do. It was emphasized that even the "commercial value" of the material at the international centers was not highly coveted by the private plant breeding sector since it is not immediately usable and there really would not be significant money resulting from usage except in rare instances. Marginal material won't be used if there is up front requirement for payment without known traits in a readily transferable form. Lastly, a need was pointed out to provide some recognition to the developing countries supplying useful germplasm. The Council identified the following action item: The USDA should continue to examine the development of an MTA for use by plant collectors and others, considering what will the U.S. give away, what limits will be acceptable, and the degree of encumberment of gene banks in the transactions.

10. The Council took up a request by the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA) which requested that the National Seed Storage Laboratory establish a new blind category for holding protected genetic resources. The owners would like to control distribution themselves but would like to publish about them in the journal to earn career advancement credit for the creativity of the germplasm. The CSSA requested that the material would become part of the NPGS and be freely available for distribution at a future date. It was noted that the U.S. Government does not favor such protection since it provides a special kind of protection which enables distribution while protecting the owner. After considerable debate, the Council asked development of a resolution which enabled establishment of the category while developing a similar category to hold material from other "protected" sources, particularly foreign sources. The establishment of such categories was noted not to be contrary to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Council charged the USDA to monitor the use of the categories to measure the impact of their use and strongly urged the USDA to encourage the use of the NPGS for plant material which is freely available to scientists worldwide. The resolution is attached.

11. Wayne Denney introduced Frank Vacca, named to become Agricultural Attache to FAO about April 1994, and Ms. Melinda Kimble, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at Department of State. Mr. Denney noted Ms. Kimble's strong support for genetic resources at FAO. He summarized the conclusions of the FAO Conference concluded in November. Considerable discussion at the Conference focussed on the FAO International Technical Conference scheduled for summer 1996. The Conference process will feature a renegotiation of the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, a bottoms up series of country, sub-regional, and regional reports leading to the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources and Global Action Plan and a ministerial level conference to recognize the validate and recognize the funding needs. The Conference also passed the FAO Code of Conduct on Plant Collecting and Germplasm Transfer. Denney noted that the U.S. (ARS) had contributed $50,000 towards helping the Conference Secretariat obtain computer equipment and software to communicate with countries for the country reports and ITC information. He also noted that the U.S. (ARS) had contributed $50,000 towards computer equipment and software development to establish the Domesticated Animal Database in FAO.

12. Robert Herdt reported on the status of the CGIAR system and discussed the impact of the financial reductions occurring over the past several years. The U.S. contributed has gone down from $46M in the mid-80s to $38M in 1993 and $34M in 1994. The impact is very heavy on those Centers which the U.S. supported most heavily, CIMMYT in particular. It was noted that the Centers are serving the U.S. and other country national programs well as germplasm enhancement centers and that the USDA should support increased payments to the Centers due to their considerable impact on U.S. agriculture. Loss of that resource will have not only a negative impact on U.S. programs but will hurt programs in developing countries at a time when the population explosion will demand more efficient and greater production.

13. Peter Thomas provided the update on the activities surrounding the Convention on Biological Diversity due to enter into force on 29 December 1993. He noted that the October meeting in Geneva had many country reports of activities but not much other activity. Little was said about agricultural biodiversity, the delegates seemingly leaving that for the FAO. There is a scientific meeting scheduled in Mexico, 11-15 April 1994, and he believed that there would be a component on agricultural biodiversity. The next Intergovernmental Committee meeting is scheduled for May in Geneva. The U.S. ratification package was distributed and will be taken up by the Senate upon their return from recess in late January.

14. The topic of agency cooperation was discussed in light of the USDA reorganization proposal, particularly the benefits that might accrue in the ARES where ARS, CSRS, ES, and NAL are to come together. Other major partners for the NGRP are APHIS, FS, and SCS which are under two additional assistant secretaries. Efforts to get cooperation when there are shrinking budgets and reduction pressures are not going well. The Council judged that this was further evidence of lack of Departmental support to the program.

15. The strategic plan discussed extensively during the Second Meeting of the NGRAC was addressed again. Data were supplied to the Council of the ARS expenditures by commodity and the plant germplasm expenditures by commodity. Henry Shands explained the difficulty of breaking down the animal germplasm expenditures by organism since the breeding and conservation efforts are commingled in the projects. The Council noted the immense undertaking the NGRP was charged to do under the Farm Bill, to which are added even more environmental, international, and national issues. The Council expressed its interest in a document stating 1) where we are, 2) where we want to be, and 3) how to get there. They noted that the Initial Report for the program has a number of attributes of a strategic plan which could be built upon but that the whole effort depends on cooperation, that there is no real way to evaluate where we are, and that there are no indicators to evaluate the adequacy of the program. They pointed out the need to link to groups in environment conservation and seed savers. The Council noted the lack of a national policy and asked whether it should be promoting the development of that policy by government officials or whether the Council itself should try to develop one, according to its mandate. The Council looks upon the Biennial Report, due December of 1994, as a means to do much of the proposed work and to present it to the public.

16. The Council developed a resolution expressing their concerns about their effectiveness and ability to make a difference, because they believe that the Administration and the Department have not been adequately supportive of the mandate given in the 1990 Farm Bill legislation. The Council recommended moving the National Genetic Resources Program from the Department of Agriculture to another agency, such as the Smithsonian, if increased recognition in the Department to the NGRP is not forthcoming. Citing the National Academy of Sciences' report which recommended greater attention be given to agricultural genetic resources, they also noted an inconsistency in the Administration's position about conserving biological diversity, considering the lack recognition of the NGRP in the reorganization of USDA and the proposed new ARES agency's mission and program activities. Furthermore, the Council noted that the Department had not provided budget increases or planned budget increases through the FY 1994 budget for the NGRP. The Council will be unable to meet a mandated second time in FY 1994 due to insufficient budget for their travel. The chair and vice-chair of the Council would like to meet directly with the Secretary in the new year to discuss the issues. They indicated an interest to go to members of Congress with their concerns.

17. The meeting closed at 11:40AM. Due to insufficient funding, this Council will not meet again during the Fiscal Year 1994. Rechartering and new appointments to the Council will be necessary before it meets again.

18. Postscript. After reviewing the resolution they approved (see Para. 16), some members of the Council reconsidered their action in the light of the difficulties of current budget constraints on the Department which have had a impact on many important programs, not only the NGRP. They also learned that in the FY 1995 budget presented by President Clinton, that there was no additional funding proposed for the NGRP but, at the same time, the NGRP was not being asked to take cuts in budget as were many programs in the Department. Other members of the Council reluctantly agreed to the change in the resolution (attached) which moderated its stance on the issue. It was apparent that the majority, perhaps all, of the Council preferred the original version.

Prepared by: Henry L. Shands
December 17, 1993
Edited by NGRAC
January 4, 1994
Final Edition:
March 4, 1994

Resolution of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council

Whereas the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States germplasm community as a whole and in their best judgement feel that the continued free flow of genetic resources for food and agriculture is in the best interest of all nations of the world, and;

Whereas the Convention on Biological Diversity has sanctioned conditional access to the acquisition of genetic resources requiring bilateral agreements on mutually agreed terms between Contracting Parties, a departure from the multilateral and openly available policy of the FAO, and;

Whereas the USDA has been requested by the Crop Science Society of America, a professional society of plant scientists, to create a blind category for storage at the National Seed Storage Laboratory for protected genetic materials, available only through bilateral agreement with the owners, but which will become freely available stock within the National Plant Germplasm System in no later than 20 years after deposit, and;

Whereas the Council recognizes that the action requested is consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity but that such an action is a substantial departure from the USDA's current national policy and that such action may have subsequent unknown consequences in spite of the future availability of the genetic resources,

Be it resolved that the USDA's National Genetic Resources Advisory Council recommends that the USDA proceed with the development and institution of the requested category as a matter of prudence and good stewardship and that the USDA simultaneously explore the feasibility of a comparable arrangement and category for accepting material from other sources, including foreign sources.

Be it further resolved that this Council would expect that the USDA will strongly promote deposition of all germplasm into the currently recognized system where the material is distributed freely in accordance with the stated policies of the USDA. It further recommends that the USDA should monitor the use of the newly created categories and take measures such to ensure that they do not become categories of preference for depositors of genetic material or become administratively burdensome to the management of the germplasm system.

Resolved this 16th day of December 1993, in Washington, D.C. 

Resolution of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council

In 1990, the Congress, recognizing the need to acquire and protect genetic resources essential to maintain a vibrant agriculture for the United States, passed Public Law 101-624, establishing the National Genetic Resources Program within the Agricultural Research Service. The Secretary submitted the Initial Report to the Congress laying out the proposed program and appointed the Director and the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council. The Council believes that the United States needs to develop the appropriate pieces of the proposed program and to considerably strengthen the current program activities to include:

Establishment of relative priorities for the conservation of the various plant, animal, insect, and microbial species;

Establishment of relative priorities for in-situ conservation, for collection, for ex-situ conservation, and for conservation research; and

Integration of program activities with other biodiversity conservation programs including those of the Department of Interior, of the various States, of the private sector, and of the various members of the international community.

To implement these integrated activities both within and without the Department, the Council concludes that the program must have the support and authority of a higher administrative level to receive and allocate its budget in response to overall program priorities. The Council recommends that appropriate organizational changes be made to enable it to create and monitor an integrated program that is genuinely responsive to the needs of United States agriculture.

Without additional funds, since the program was initiated, the existing program is deteriorating and newly proposed and critical activities are not possible. While the Council recognizes that some efforts have been made by the Department of Agriculture to protect this program in a time of budgetary stringency, that is not enough.

The Council considers that these program needs of agriculture cannot wait until good budget times return. The loss of genetic diversity which cannot be recovered or reconstructed would not be in the best interests of the American public. The Congress and the public have placed their trust in the Department to do the job and the Department must take positive and swift action to preserve that trust. The Council believes that, unless action is taken to advance this program, the Department with the consent of Congress should place the program authority with another executive department which recognizes that these national treasures must be protected.

Resolved, this 16th day of December, 1993.
Revised, this 16th day of January, 1994.

Return to: Meetings, NGRAC Home Page