GBF-aligned NBSAPs series - Target 4: Halt species extinction, protect genetic diversity
GBF-aligned NBSAPS to ensure just, sustainable futures for all life to thrive: the role of African civil society
FACTSHEET 4
Halt Species Extinction, Protect Genetic Diversity, and Manage Human-Wildlife Conflict
The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is committed to dismantling inequalities and resisting corporate industrial expansion in Africa’s food and agriculture systems.
PO Box 29170, Melville 2109, Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel: +27 (0)11 486-1156
Researched and written by ACB research consultant Linzi Lewis
Editorial oversight and input by ACB executive director Mariam Mayet
Design and layout: Katerina Sonntagova, Moss and Sea Studio
Cover art: Sun ray 03 by Jessica Hooft, https://www.jesshooft-art.com/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ACB gratefully acknowledges the financial support of several donors, though the views expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of our donors.
February 2026
Acronyms
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CWR Crop wild relatives
DSI Digital sequence information
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FMSS Farmer-managed seed systems
GBF/ KM-GBF Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
GPA (2) Global Plan of Action (2)
IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and local communities
MLS Multilateral System
NBSAPs National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans
PGR Plant genetic resources
PGRFA Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
SMTA Standard material transfer agreement
Treaty (The) International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Industrial agriculture is the primary driver
of the
loss of PGRFA & the urgency to conserve agricultural biodiversity and support FMSS
In this, the fourth in the series, with our focus on the interface between agriculture and biodiversity, we discuss:
Target 4: Halt species extinction, protect genetic diversity, and manage human-wildlife conflicts: Ensure urgent management actions to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species in particular threatened species, to significantly reduce extinction risk, as well as to maintain and restore the genetic diversity within and between populations of native, wild and domesticated species to maintain their adaptive potential, including through in situ and ex situ conservation and sustainable management practices, and effectively manage human-wildlife interactions to minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence.
Our focus is on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), crop genetic diversity, farmer-managed seed systems (FMSS), and the rights of farmers, including in relation to digital sequence information (DSI).
Background to Target 4 of the GBF
Target 4 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) follows on from Aichi Targets 121 and 13.2 As none of the Aichi Targets were fully achieved, Aichi Targets 12 and 13 also failed, with extinction rates increasing over the same decade (CBD, 2020). The erosion of species and genetic diversity3 continues despite increased efforts to conserve genetic material through ex situ conservation.
It is important to note that species and genetic erosion occur via similar processes in wild and domesticated species. The inclusion of protecting genetic diversity in both wild and domesticated species under Goal A4 of the GBF is an important shift to: promote monitoring and conservation actions to preserve genetic diversity within many wild species in situ and ex situ; help close the gap between conservation actions directed at ecosystems and species with those at the genetic level; and increase the focus on genetic diversity in national and subnational policies (Hoban et al., 2020).
Learning from the failures of Aichi Target 13, Target 4 now includes in situ conservation. At the same time, it has three distinct yet connected aspects, which dilute and broaden the target, shifting the focus away from socio-economically and culturally significant domesticated species and their wild relatives. This raises concerns and dangers for genetic diversity, particularly regarding animal and PGRFA. 5
1 Aichi Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
2 Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimising genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.
3 Genetic erosion is the loss of genetic diversity (e.g., evolutionary potential), lineages, traits, populations or metapopulations, breeds, varieties, landraces or similar, in situ or ex situ; and/or the disruption of processes maintaining genetic resilience such as genetic connectivity; and/or high levels of hybridisation; and/or other threats to genetic diversity such as high inbreeding.
4 Goal A – Protect and Restore: The integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored, substantially increasing the area of natural ecosystems by 2050; Human induced extinction of known threatened species is halted, and, by 2050, the extinction rate and risk of all species are reduced tenfold and the abundance of native wild species is increased to healthy and resilient levels; The genetic diversity within populations of wild and domesticated species is maintained, safeguarding their adaptive potential.
5 The term PGRFA refers to any genetic material of plant origin, including reproductive and vegetative propagating material containing functional units of heredity, of actual or potential value for food and agriculture (FAO, 2009). PGRFA therefore encompass: (i) cultivated crop varieties (cultivars) that are newly developed; (ii) obsolete cultivars; (iii) primitive cultivars (landraces) and farmer varieties; (iv) crop wild relatives (CWR), i.e. wild populations related to cultivated species; (v) wild food plants (WFP); and (vi) breeding and research materials or special genetic stocks (including elite and current breeders’ lines and mutants). While the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and other hereditary materials of these plants are also considered PGRFA, the term is commonly used in reference to whole plants and their propagules (FAO., 2025).
It must be noted that specific references to agricultural biodiversity,6 including PGRFA, are completely absent from Target 4 and, therefore, from the entire Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) While some argue that this target addresses the historical focus on domesticated plants, and many non-domesticated plants hold significant cultural, economic, and ecological significance (Hoban et al., 2020; Hoban et al., 2023), this also represents a severe oversight. As part of maintaining the genetic diversity within and among populations of all species, restoring genetic connectivity, and developing national genetic conservation strategies, countries must ensure that the in situ and ex situ conservation of PGRFA, as well as agricultural biodiversity more broadly, is addressed in their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs).
6 Agricultural biodiversity is a broad term that includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture, and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agro-ecosystem: the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes (CBD, 2000)
PGRFA under threat
Genetic diversity is the foundation of a species’ ability to adapt and is a key component of ecosystem function and resilience. Yet, there is a continuous, widespread, and rapid decline in genetic diversity globally (Des Roches et al., 2021; Hoban et al., 2021a). Crop diversity7 underpins the productivity, resilience, and adaptive capacity of agricultural systems (Khoury et al., 2021). In traditional agroecosystems, for example, genetically heterogeneous crop landraces/farmer varieties are frequently cultivated in a mosaic of different varieties and crop species, promoting spatial diversification for resilience against shocks (Khoury et al., 2021).
Crop genetic diversity and PGRFA are crucial for maintaining food and nutrition security, ensuring sustainable agriculture, and providing the basis for all food produced, enabling it to withstand climatic changes, pests, and diseases. This diversity is managed through farmers’ cultivation and selection practices, with local exchange and gene flow among local varieties, with occasional introgression with crop wild relatives (CWR), encouraging genetic variation, and local adaptation (Khoury et al., 2021:84).
PGRFA are typically found in the wild, in farmers’ fields, and in experimental fields. These also provide the raw genetic material for breeders to develop new crop varieties. Therefore, their conservation ensures a diverse genetic library for future generations to adapt to evolving challenges.
7 The variation among crop species, their varieties and/or individual plants.
However, intensive, monoculture agriculture that entails the use of commercial seed varieties, which are part of a technological package including pesticides and inorganic fertilisers, overharvesting in the wild, habitat modification, habitat loss and fragmentation, deforestation, urban expansion, pollution, invasive species, loss of traditional knowledge and traditional food culture, and climate change are driving the genetic erosion of PGRFA (FAO, 2025). Over the past five decades, the international community has consistently called attention to the importance of PGRFA for food security and nutrition, and to the interdependence of countries regarding the conservation and sustainable use of and access to these resources, and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use (Sonnino, 2017).
PGRFA can be safeguarded ex situ in gene banks as germplasm accessions and in situ in their natural habitats (FAO, 2025). Both in situ and ex situ conservation methods of PGRFA face significant resource constraints, with a historical bias toward greater investment in ex situ methods. The primary financial difference lies in their costs: ex situ involves high initial investment and ongoing maintenance for controlled facilities, while in situ requires continuous funding for community involvement and ecosystem management. While some CWRs are found in protected areas, protected in situ conservation areas do not focus on these plant groups.
In line with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the Treaty), adopted in 2001 and entered into force in 2004, is the current internationally-agreed governance mechanism for PGRFA (FAO, 2025). In addition, the Second Global Plan of Action (GPA2) was developed as a strategic framework for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. The Global Plan of Action (GPA) is under the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) and was adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Council in 2011. The GPA reaffirms the government’s commitment to promoting PGR as important for sustainable agriculture in the face of climate change (Mushier, 2023).
Significantly, these multilateral agreements recognise that a large proportion of genetic diversity is held in farmers’ fields and therefore safeguard the rights of peasant/small-scale farmers, and Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), to their seed systems.
This includes their integration into decision-making on the conservation and use of PGRFA to ensure the historic, current, and future conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity (Nnadozie, 2023).
The Treaty, its failed MLS, and the emerging threat of DSI
Currently, several actors, including seed companies, the biotechnology industry, gene banks, and academic and commercial research centres, can access all seeds from national collections through the Multilateral System (MLS) of the Treaty. This can be done without informing the original seed contributors, who may be farmers and IPLCs. To access the seeds, all that is required is to enter a standard material transfer agreement (SMTA).
The SMTA is established and governed by Article 12.4 of the Treaty, which mandates its use for facilitating access to PGRFA under the MLS, as set out in Annex 1 to the Treaty. Annex 1 was also created by negotiation and entrenched in Article 11 of the Treaty, earmarking 64 crops based on their importance for food security and on the interdependence levels between countries as the main access to the genetic diversity of these crops. In recent years, the seed industry, mostly based in “user” countries, has been pushing for this to be extended to all PGRFA.
Under Article 6.1 of the SMTA, recipients may use PGRFA accessed from the MLS for research, breeding, and training if the aim is end-use for food and feed purposes. The PGRFRA can be accessed and received by several actors, yet only users who commercialise seeds are required to share monetary benefits. This excludes commodities; for example, beer made from barley seeds accessed from the MLS is excluded, and the recipient need not share any benefits. The Governing Body of the Treaty adopted the SMTA in Resolution 1/2006 on the 16th of June 2006, making it the legal instrument for the transfer of PGRFA under the Treaty. Since the Treaty entered into force, more than seven million PGRFA materials have been transferred and reported to date, and about 6,200 SMTAs have been signed each year, totalling more than 1,160,000 as of August 2025. However, only six users have made monetary contributions to the benefit-sharing fund so far. There have been almost no non-monetary benefitsharing obligations imposed on seed recipients in the SMTAs. In terms of other uses, the obligation is to share the results of research and development activities carried out on the PGRFA, excluding any confidential information. Further to this, access to PGRFA under the Treaty remains largely out of reach for smallholder farmers and constitutes an impractical, inaccessible, and inequitable system that, to date, has been unable to protect farmers’ rights.
There is widespread criticism that the current system is opaque, untransparent, inherently flawed, and unaccountable. Negotiations to enhance the MLS collapsed in Lima in November 2025, and thus, the status quo will persist for many years.
What measures should the Parties to the Treaty in Africa take, given the current system, including the issue of good data governance and securing benefits from the use of DSI? This should take into consideration the decision taken at the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, which met in Cali in 2024 and created the Cali Fund, a multilateral mechanism to share benefits from the use of DSI of genetic resources. This fund, supported by voluntary contributions from large companies that profit from DSI, aims to provide resources for biodiversity conservation and to support the needs of IPLCs. CBD Decision 16/2 explicitly recognises Parties’ sovereign right to legislate over DSI and negotiate terms and conditions for DSI, including benefit sharing, when they provide access to genetic materials. It also recognises that Parties can specifically address DSI generated from materials transacted under other international agreements, such as the Treaty.
Yet despite the recognition of the importance of PGRFA and on-farm maintenance, conservation, and adaptation, the wave of legal restrictions and obstructions to FMSS continues, in support of neocolonial, largescale, corporate-controlled seed and agricultural systems that simplify and homogenise on-farm species and genetic diversity (ACB, 2021).
This remains a concern that cannot be effectively addressed across multilateral fora and needs urgent attention and redress.
Alignment with other policies dealing with agricultural biodiversity, and in particular, regarding the urgent need to protect and recognise FMSS, demands legal reforms to affirm farmers’ rights to save, use, and exchange seeds – moving beyond commercial-focused laws – and investment in community-based conservation tools to counter corporate control, and promoting biodiversity. While there is reduced focus on PGRFA within the KM-GBF, there are still opportunities to revive initiatives and ensure resources are made available to sustain them as part of social, cultural, and ecological systems.
Opportunities to include agricultural biodiversity in NBSAPs
The content of NBSAPs – the official mechanism to implement the CBD – shapes national and international funding priorities. Therefore, as countries revise their NBSAPs and establish efforts to maintain species and genetic diversity within and among populations of all species, there is an opportunity to highlight the importance of agricultural biodiversity, including PGRFA, particularly through in situ/on-farm conservation.
We therefore call on African civil society to:
• Raise awareness of CWR’s presence and importance, and advocate for their specific inclusion in management plans.
• Ensure that the seeds and crops grown in farmers’ fields form part of a wider, more comprehensive programme, while prioritising the rights of IPLCs and benefit-sharing mechanisms.
• Ensure that NSAPs align with seed and agriculture policies; by advocating for:
- the characterisation of farmer varieties/landraces;
- the assessment of the utilisation and management of local varieties and traditional knowledge for on-farm PGRFA management in FMSS; and
- the implementation of participatory plant breeding and community-based approaches for managing local crop diversity, such as:
- community seed banks;
- community-based and collaborative research and training activities, and
- capacity development and marketing initiatives that target farmers and other stakeholders and aim to strengthen on-farm management of PGRFA.
• NBSAPs should consider existing conservation tools that have been developed, including diversity inventories and fairs, agricultural biodiversity zoning and crop diversity park systems, specialised markets, participatory evolutionary breeding, and payments for agricultural biodiversity conservation services (Narloch et al., 2011). Options appropriate to the location and culture should be identified based on participatory processes.
• Advocate for the prioritisation of good data governance about the access and utilisation of DSI and develop systems to secure benefits from the use of DSI that accrue to providers.
• Ensure that legal pathways exist to protect the rights of IPLCs and traditional seed practices in their FMSS.
• Advocate for the enhancement of on-farm/ in situ conservation in efforts to strengthen local seed systems, and support of markets for landraces and farmers’ varieties.
Ultimately, all of the above recommendations are underpinned by the overall goal of promoting agricultural practices, including and especially agroecology, as mentioned in Target 10 of the KM-GBF, bringing biodiversity back into production systems, such as through: the promotion of FMSS, integration of crop and animal breed diversity, habitat restoration, soil regeneration, reduction and banning of chemical use in agricultural systems, which reduces biodiversity – in particular, pollinators and beneficial insects – and soil biodiversity, among others.
Conclusion
Agricultural expansion and industrialisation are the primary drivers of global biodiversity loss, responsible for significant habitat destruction, species extinction, and the rapid narrowing of the genetic base in both wild and cultivated species (IPBES, 2019). With agriculture occupying roughly half of Earth’s habitable land, this transformation has accelerated in the last century, converting vital, complex ecosystems into genetically homogenous, monoculture-based production systems. Overall, global food systems threaten more species than any other human activity, through habitat destruction to create new farmland; overexploitation of marine and terrestrial species; and agricultural pollution of freshwater and marine ecosystems (Tilman, 2021). It is crucial that, as we consider developing NBSAPs for successful biodiversity monitoring, we address and reform the drivers of biodiversity.
To successfully halt species extinction, protect genetic diversity, and manage humanwildlife conflicts, it is essential that wild, domesticated, and on-farm conservation practices be implemented to support our coexistence. It is essential that ex situ and in situ approaches are better integrated, providing links to holistically monitor diversity and implement benefit-sharing in the context of crop diversity (Schwartz et al., 2017; Mercer et al., 2019; Khoury et al., 2021). Further to this, integrating the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA in NBSAPs will contribute to addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, sustainable development, food and nutrition security, and ultimately to achieving the goals and targets of the KM-GBF.
It is essential that the diversity inherent across social, cultural, and ecological systems is adequately reflected in NBSAPs to ensure that the KM-GBF can tackle the growing challenges being faced globally, particularly in Africa.
References
ACB, 2018. Status report on the SADC, COMESA, and EAC harmonised seed trade regulations: Where does this leave the regions’ smallholder farmers? https://acbio.org.za/ wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Harmonisation_report.pdf
CBD, 2020. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf
CBD, 2000. COP Decision V/5. Agricultural biological diversity: review of phase I of the programme of work and adoption of a multi-year work programme. https://www.cbd.int/ decision/cop?id=7147
Des Roches S, Pendleton LH, Shapiro B, and Palkovacs EP, 2021. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2021;5:574-582 https://pgl.soe.ucsc.edu/desroches21.pdf
FAO, 2025. The third report on The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessment 2025. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/bitstreams/14a2bc63-fbdd-4a78b974-e5b008cbdf7a/download
FAO, 2023. Conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture – Safeguarding our food security. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/ api/core/bitstreams/83681be6-d376-4d88-bd71-e17939c0f3ff/content
Hoban S, Bruford M, and Jackson JD, 2020. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biological Conservation 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654
Hoban S, Campbell CD, Da Silva JM, et al.2021. Genetic diversity is considered important but interpreted narrowly in country reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity: current actions and indicators are insufficient. Biological Conservation 261:109233. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109233
Hoban S, Bruford MW, da Silva JM, et al., 2023. Genetic diversity goals and targets have improved but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv. Genet.; 24(2):181-191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC9841145/pdf/10592_2022_Article_1492.pdf
IPES, 2019. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio E, and Ngo HT. (eds). Bonn: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Khoury CK, Brush S, Costich DE, et al., 2021. Crop genetic erosion: understanding and responding to loss of crop diversity. New Phytologist Vol 233: 84-118. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.17733
Mercer KL, Vigouroux Y, Castaneda-Alvarez N, De Haan S, Hijmans RJ, Leclerck C, McKey D, and Vanek SJ. 2019. Crop evolutionary agroecology: genetic and functional dimensions of agrobiodiversity and associated knowledge. In: Zimmerer KS & Haan S, eds. Agrobiodiversity: integrating knowledge for a sustainable future. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 21–62.
Mushita A, 2023. Implementing the Global Plan of Action (GPA). Safeguarding food sovereignty, farmers’ rights and farmer seed systems: plant variety protection and seed laws in South and East Africa. APBREBES, ACB, and CTDO. https://acbio.org.za/wp-content/ uploads/2023/07/PVP_Seed_Laws_Southern_-East_Africa_report_July2023.pdf
Narloch U, Drucker AG, and Pascual U. 2011. Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources. Ecological Economics, 70: 1837–1845.
Nnadozie K, 2023. Recent developments and impacts on seed policy development. Safeguarding food sovereignty, farmers’ rights and farmer seed systems: plant variety protection and seed laws in South and East Africa. APBREBES, ACB, and CTDO. https://acbio. org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PVP_Seed_Laws_Southern_-East_Africa_report_ July2023.pdf
Schwartz KR, Parsons ECM, Rockwood L, and Wood TC, 2017. Integrating in-situ and ex-situ data management processes for biodiversity conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5: 120
Sonnino A, 2017. Diversity. International Instruments for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: An Historical Appraisal. https:// www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/9/4/50/pdf?version=1513244042
Tilman D, 2021. Preserving global biodiversity requires rapid agricultural improvements. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/biodiversity/preserving-global-biodiversity-agricultural-improvements/
