GRATK

The Australian Parliament's Joint Committee on Treaties in its latest report addresses the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (aka GRATK) as follows 

The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty) was referred to the Committee on 13 May 2026. 

 

The Committee received 13 submissions and held two public hearings in Canberra on 29 June 2026 and 6 July 2026. A list of submissions can be found in Appendix A and the details of the hearings and witnesses can be found in Appendix B. The transcripts of evidence from the public hearings can be accessed through the Committee’s website. 

 

Overview and background 

 

The GRATK Treaty creates an international framework for the introduction of a disclosure of source requirement into patent systems. The GRATK Treaty was created by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the United Nations agency responsible for setting international norms for intellectual property (IP). The GRATK Treaty was adopted at WIPO in Geneva on 24 May 2024 and was open to WIPO Member States for signatures for one year following its adoption.Australia signed the GRATK Treaty on 12 December 2024. 

 

The disclosure of source requirement will require applicants of patent protection to disclose the source of knowledge for inventions based on any: Genetic Resource (GR): any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity (not including human genetic resources) Associated Traditional Knowledge (ATK): knowledge of Indigenous Peoples of local communities associated with a GR. The above requirements are intended to increase transparency in patents systems to promote recognition and respect for Indigenous Peoples’ culture and knowledge. The GRATK Treaty is the first WIPO treaty to include specific provisions for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

 

Justification 

 

As a biodiverse country with many GRs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with deep knowledge of GRs, the GRATK Treaty aligns strongly with Australia’s interests. 

 

Australia has considered the introduction of a disclosure of source requirement for several years, particularly considering concerns raised about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge appearing in the IP system. Introducing a disclosure of source requirement allows the Government to actively demonstrate its commitment to elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems. Furthermore, the entry into force of the GRATK Treaty contributes to the Australian Government’s policy of advancing economic empowerment and lasting economic security for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 

 

A disclosure of source requirement for patents based on GRs and ATK will provide greater visibility of source information, which is not always clear. The provision and visibility of more information will allow for greater understanding of what GRs or ATK is being used as a basis for innovation and commercialisation in the patent system. The additional information will also support IP Australia’s examination of patents, which may further prevent the granting of erroneous patents. 

 

Australia played an active role in the WIPO negotiations to conclude and adopt the GRATK Treaty. The entry into force of the GRATK Treaty will provide increased recognition for the traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and support a patent system with diverse innovation. The ratification of the GRATK Treaty would cement Australia’s role in leading IP approaches that foster economic opportunities for a diversity of actors. 

 

Through the ratification of the GRATK Treaty, Australia would become a Contracting Party to the GRATK Treaty. This means that Australia would be able to influence the future of the GRATK Treaty through participation in the Assembly.  Australia would also be able to maintain its ability to influence other ongoing international discussions relating to enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to protect and economically benefit from traditional knowledge and culture.

 

Furthermore, the GRATK Treaty provides an international standard for the implementation of disclosure of source requirements in patent processes. Consistency across jurisdictions through international standards assists patent applicants by minimising the navigation of disparate rules. 

 

Obligations 

 

Article 1 of the GRATK Treaty establishes its objectives: enhancing the efficacy, transparency and quality of the patent system regarding GR and ATK; and preventing patents from being wrongly granted for inventions that are not novel with regard to GR and ATK.Article 2 contains definitions for key terms used in the GRATK Treaty. This includes the definition of ‘based on’ meaning that the GR and/or ATK must have been necessary for the invention in a patent and that the claimed invention must depend on the specific properties of that GR and/or ATK. Article 2 also provides a term for signatories of the GRATK Treaty, Contracting Parties. This term includes countries and intergovernmental organisations. 

 

Patent disclosure of source requirements 

 

Article 3 contains the main obligations about the disclosure of source requirements. To fulfil the GRATK Treaty’s disclosure of source requirements, Contracting Parties must require patent applicants to disclose: the country of origin (or, where not known, the source) if the claimed invention is based on a GR the Indigenous Peoples or local community who provided any traditional knowledge for claimed inventions based on ATK.The GRATK Treaty provides examples of sources of GRs and ATK in Article 2. Applicants must also declare that the content of their disclosure is true and correct to the best knowledge of the applicant. If an applicant is unaware of this information they must disclose where they obtained the GR or ATK. Article 3.4 obliges Contracting Parties to provide guidance to applicants on how to meet and comply with disclosure requirements. It also requires Contracting Parties to provide applicants with an opportunity to rectify a failure to meet the disclosure requirements or correct an erroneous disclosure. However, the GRATK Treaty also allows for Contracting Parties to exclude applicants from this opportunity where fraudulent conduct or intent is present. Article 3.5 states that the responsible IP Office within a Contracting Party (IP Australia in Australia) shall not be obliged to verify the authenticity of any disclosures provided. This reflects that applicants have more available information regarding their claimed invention than an IP Office. In the event of failures to meet the disclosure requirements, appropriate, effective and proportionate measures must exist to address them. 

 

The GRATK Treaty allows for flexibility in the measures Contracting Parties use. Sanctions or remedies cannot be applied before an applicant has an opportunity to address a failure to disclose. Furthermore, under Article 5.3, Contracting Parties must not revoke, invalidate, or refuse to enforce patent rights solely due to an applicant’s failure to meet disclosure of source requirements. Article 5.4 does allow for Contracting Parties to apply sanctions post-grant of patent rights in cases of fraudulent intent by applicants. The obligations in Article 5 reflect the serious impact loss of patent rights can have on invention-based income and benefit sharing. Under Article 4, Contracting Parties shall not impose the obligations of the GRATK Treaty retrospectively. This means that any patent applications filed prior to the entry into force of the GRATK Treaty are not subject to the disclosure of source requirements set out in the GRATK Treaty. This aligns with Australia’s typical approach to the application of regulatory requirements. 

 

Information sharing and related systems 

 

Article 3.6 states that Contracting Parties shall make the information provided in source disclosures available in accordance with patent procedures. In Australia, patent procedures are determined by the Patents Act 1990, Patent Regulations 1991 and IP Australia’s Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure. 

 

The GRATK Treaty allows for Contracting Parties to establish information systems of known GR and ATK. This is not mandatory under the GRATK Treaty, however, Article 6.1 states that if established, it should be done in consultation with Indigenous Peoples and local communities where applicable. Contracting Parties should also ensure appropriate safeguards are developed for these databases. The information systems should be made available to the IP Offices for the purposes of examining patents. 

 

The Assembly 

 

Article 10 establishes an Assembly comprised of one delegate from each Contracting Party. The Assembly shall deal with all matters concerning the maintenance and development of the GRATK Treaty and its application and operation. However, any administrative tasks concerning the GRATK Treaty, including the provision of a secretariat for the Assembly, will be performed by the International Bureau of WIPO. Aside from Contracting Party delegates and WIPO staff, participation with Assembly business may be extended to representatives from Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Under, Article 10.1(c), the Assembly shall encourage Indigenous Peoples and local communities to effectively participate as accredited observers. 

 

Relationship with other international agreements 

 

Article 7 requires that the GRATK Treaty is implemented in a mutually supportive manner with other relevant international agreements. The GRATK Treaty specifically notes the Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970). Australia is a signatory to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970), and several other patent-related international agreements. Ensuring the implementation of the GRATK Treaty is consistent with Australia’s other relevant patent-related agreements would be part of progressing Australia’s patent system. 

 

Consultation 

 

Consultation on IP with regard to Indigenous Knowledge 

 

The topic of IP and Indigenous Knowledge was brought to WIPO for consideration in 2001. Discussions related to the GRATK Treaty began at WIPO in 2019. In 2018–19 and 2021 IP Australia commenced large-scale public consultation on Indigenous Knowledge issues with a range of stakeholders, prioritising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement. 

 

These consultations heard support for disclosure of source requirements, noting they would not address all concerns regarding the use of Indigenous Knowledge. The following points were also widely noted during the consultations: the onus for indicating source information should be on the patent applicants disclosure of sources should capture secondary sources used measures to ensure disclosure requirements are met are very important disclosure should be part of further measures to support consent agreements and benefit sharing arrangements for the use of Indigenous Knowledge to ensure research and innovators are not burdened by requirements. Ahead of the final treaty negotiations IP Australia hosted roundtables to discuss the GRATK Treaty’s content with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experts. 

 

Intellectual property was also a frequently raised topic during the Australia’s Ambassador for First Nations People engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia. Several Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander observers were present for the conclusion of the GRATK Treaty at the WIPO May 2024 Diplomatic Conference. 

 

Industry engagement 

 

IP Australia regularly engages with IP stakeholders and professionals through consultation meetings. Updates on the GRATK Treaty were provided through these forums. IP Australia also engaged with IP attorney professionals and other industry stakeholders regarding the GRATK Treaty. IP Australia staff have attended various professional industry events and have spoken about or presented on the GRATK Treaty. 

 

IP Australia and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also met with industry representatives ahead of the adoption of the GRATK Treaty, including from medicines and biotechnology sectors. Concerns were noted from some representatives about ensuring changes did not impact the legal certainty of the patent system. These concerns were also raised in negotiations at WIPO, resulting in the intention to create a disclosure of source requirement that maintains certainty and confidence in the patent system. 

 

State and Territory engagement 

 

The GRATK Treaty does not place obligations on State or Territory jurisdictions. States and Territories were briefed on the GRATK Treaty on 20 November 2024 at the Senior Officials Trade and Investment Group. They were also notified of the GRATK Treaty on 22 October 2025 through the Interjurisdictional Working Group. 

 

Implementation 

 

Article 9 sets out general principles on implementation; they allow for some flexibility in how Contracting Parties give effect to the GRATK Treaty’s obligations. The flexibility allows for Contracting Parties to determine the specific legal, administrative and policy measures needed to fulfill their obligations under the GRATK Treaty. 

 

Australia’s patent and IP systems are exclusively regulated by the Commonwealth. IP Australia is the Commonwealth entity responsible for administering patents. Implementation of the GRATK Treaty’s obligations in Australia would require amendments to the Patents Act 1990 and Patents Regulations 1991. Updates would also need to be made to administrative practice and procedure. 

 

Termination 

 

Under Article 19 any Contracting Party may denounce the GRATK Treaty by notification to the Director General of WIPO. Denunciation shall take effect one year following the Director General of WIPO receiving notification. Denunciation shall not affect the application of the GRATK Treaty to any pending patent applications and any patent in force at the time of a Contracting Party’s denunciation taking effect. 

 

Costs 

 

Joining the GRATK Treaty will result in no cost to the Australian Government or State and Territory Governments. 

 

As IP Australia operates on a cost recovery basis, the costs of any activities related to the implementation of the GRATK Treaty would be met from within IP Australia’s budget. 

 

The National Interest Analysis (NIA) for the GRATK Treaty raises concerns about potential costs to businesses. It argues that patent applicants already provide detailed information about their inventions under current requirements. The introduction of a new requirement will add another element to the already detailed process. This may potentially incur costs according to how inventions have been developed. 

 

The NIA predicts that this will be most relevant to industries linked to GR and ATK such as biotechnology, food, agriculture, nutraceutical, plant-based cosmetics and medical/pharmaceutical industries. Based on data from 2015-2020 IP Australia estimates that between 3 and 9 per cent of future patent applications filed in Australia may be subject to the disclosure of source requirements. 

 

Guidance may be required from patent attorneys and IP Australia regarding how to fulfill new disclosure of source requirements. 

 

Future treaty action 

 

Amendments to the GRATK Treaty are covered within Articles 8, 10, 14 and 15. 

 

Under Article 8, Contracting Parties commit to a review of the scope and content of the GRATK Treaty four years after its entry into force.This review will address issues like the possible extension of the Article 3 disclosure of source requirements to other areas of IP and issues deriving from new technologies. 

 

Article 10.2 allows the Assembly to adopt amendments to Articles 10 and 11. Adoption requires a three-fourths majority of the votes cast with each Contracting Party entitled to one vote.  Once adopted, these amendments would enter into force for all Contracting Parties one month after three-fourths of the Contracting Parties have notified the Director General of WIPO in writing of acceptance. Any such amendment applies to all Contracting Parties at the time of its entry into force. 

 

Article 14 provides that the GRATK Treaty may only be revised at a Diplomatic Conference in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Assembly has the power to decide the convocation of the Diplomatic Conference and shall give necessary instructions to the Director General of WIPO for its preparation. 

 

Article 20 provides that no reservations are permitted. 

 

Any amendments to the GRATK Treaty would be subject to Australia’s domestic treaty making requirements, including consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. 

 

Ratification status 

 

WIPO currently has 194 Member States. Of these, only 44 Member States have signed or acceded to the GRATK Treaty. A table is included below listing these States by region. 

 

Table 4.1WIPO Member States that have signed the GRATK Treaty as of May 2026, by geographic region 

 

Algeria Bolivia Australia Albania Burkina Faso Brazil Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Bosnia and Herzegovina Cabo Verde Chile Indonesia Switzerland Central African Republic Colombia Iran Congo Dominican Republic Marshall Islands Côte d’Ivoire Ecuador Niue Eswatini Nicaragua Vanuatu Ghana Paraguay Lesotho Peru Madagascar Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Malawi Uruguay Morocco Namibia Nigeria São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal South Africa Tanzania The Gambia Togo Uganda Zambia  

 

The GRATK Treaty will enter into force three months after 15 eligible parties have deposited instruments of ratification or accession. To date two signatories have deposited instruments of ratification, Malawi in December 2024 and Uganda in July 2025. In March 2026, Albania deposited an instrument of accession. Whilst the period of the GRATK Treaty being open for signatures has ended, any Member State of WIPO may become party to the GRATK Treaty through an instrument of accession. 

 

Key Considerations 

 

Indigenous custodianship and control over traditional knowledge 

 

The GRATK Treaty is the first intellectual property treaty to refer to traditional knowledge, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Aware of the ongoing challenges Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face regarding Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP), the Committee was interested in First Nations perspectives of the GRATK Treaty. The Committee received several submissions from Indigenous organisations and academic experts. It also heard from representatives of the Indigenous Knowledge Panel to IP Australia (IK Panel), an independent panel that provides advice to IP Australia, and the National Native Title Council (NNTC), the peak body representing the native title sector. 

 

The Committee found these First Nations voices were calling for ratification of the GRATK Treaty. NNTC writes in their submission that the GRATK Treaty ‘…represents a small but positive step towards recognition of Indigenous Peoples Traditional Environmental Knowledge…’ Ms Chrissy Grant from the IK Panel explained: The current IP system has historically enabled the extraction and commercialisation of Indigenous knowledge without attribution, consent or benefit. Joining the GRATK treaty would be part of capturing the truth in the patent record where genetic resources or traditional knowledge have been used. It says this invention came from somewhere and from someone. That is the baseline that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been denied for too long. 

 

The Committee also heard evidence about the potential interactions between the GRATK Treaty and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Adopted in 2007 by the United Nations General Assembly, UNDRIP is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It establishes a framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous Peoples. Australia formally endorsed UNDRIP in 2009.  IK Panel explained the relevancy of UNDRIP to the GRATK Treaty, stating: Under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—UNDRIP—articles 3 and 4 provide for self-determination to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and the right to autonomy and self-government in matters relating to the internal and local affairs. Article 31 states that Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and intellectual property. 

 

NNTC also highlighted the connection between UNDRIP and the GRATK Treaty, outlining how the protection of Indigenous rights to ICIP and traditional knowledge is essential in accomplishing the rights established through UNDRIP: The recognition of Traditional Owner rights to ICIP… [Traditional Environmental Knowledge] and intangible cultural heritage more broadly is essential to give life to UNDRIP. Whilst this is being executed incrementally though various instruments of international law, the incorporation of instruments into jurisdictional legislation and regulation is another point at which they can be strengthened. An example of this would be the way in which the Treaty in implemented in Australia. Evidence to the inquiry highlighted the importance of meaningful consultation with First Nations Australians regarding protection of cultural knowledge under the GRATK Treaty. Ms Grant from the IK Panel emphasised that traditional knowledge may be held by individuals, families, clan groups or a whole Nation, and that there is currently limited accountability for identifying where such knowledge originates. Without clear processes regarding cultural intellectual property First Nations peoples may find it difficult to assert their rights or ensure that traditional knowledge has been used appropriately.  Effective implementation of the GRATK Treaty will require mechanisms to ensure the correct Traditional Owners and knowledge holders are identified and consulted. Ms Grant stated: There needs to be a concerted effort put into informing people about the changes that can, and probably will at some time, impact on them. By them understanding fully exactly what is expected of them, but also what they can expect from the researchers and the government under the framework that is put together, they should have the right and the opportunity to have input into that process. Therefore, it might be a fairly extensive consultation process. 

 

Evidence provided by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders highlighted the following key themes: The need for further reform of the patent system in Australia following ratification of the GRATK Treaty. The need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander presence within the implementation and future action of the GRATK Treaty, developed in accordance with existing Indigenous governance structures. The importance of considering Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) frameworks and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) requirements during implementation. 

 

Innovation, consistency and legal certainty 

 

Australian agriculture accounts for over 50 per cent of domestic land use and 12.4 per cent of Australia’s goods and service exports. 

 

The plant science industry plays an important role in the innovation and advancement of Australia’s agriculture. During the inquiry the Committee sought to understand the potential impacts of the GRATK Treaty on Australia’s plant science industry. The Committee received submissions from two peak industry bodies, CropLife Australia and the Australian Seed Federation (ASF). 

 

CropLife Australia and ASF emphasise the importance of innovation and a pragmatic patent system for the plant science industry. Mr Justin Crosby from CropLife Australia explained ‘…intellectual protection is a really important part of how we get new innovations that help our farmers.’ Both industry bodies raised concerns that implementation of the GRATK Treaty could create additional administrative burden and legal uncertainty. ASF stated that: …the new disclosure requirement should operate solely as a transparency measure and should not create additional access and benefit-sharing compliance obligations, administrative burdens or legal uncertainty for innovators, researchers and plant breeders. 

 

The safeguards and boundaries built into the GRATK Treaty through Articles 3–5 have been designed to maintain certainty and confidence in the patent system. CropLife Australia and ASF’s submissions underlined the importance of these articles. ASF explained that they ‘…welcome the important safeguards in the GRATK Treaty, such as clarifying language on the disclosure trigger and the exclusion of sanctions that could lead to revocation or invalidation of patents.’ CropLife Australia’s submission additionally asserts that successful implementation of the GRATK Treaty in Australia would maintain ‘…a focused, procedural disclosure requirement limited to the clear boundaries of the disclosure requirements agreed by the parties within Article 3 of the Treaty.’ 

 

There is also a need to ensure consistency across procedures and requirements, given that the plant science and biotechnology industry operates within a complex framework of national and international instruments, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. ASF explains that ‘…activities in plant breeding and plant biotechnology require navigation of a complex patchwork of biodiversity-related access and benefit sharing requirements.’ 

 

The Committee examined concerns that emerging technologies such as AI could make it harder to identify and disclose the use of traditional knowledge. Evidence suggested AI may weaken the traceability of knowledge sources, while IP Australia noted that the GRATK Treaty includes mechanisms to review and address emerging technologies through future implementation and review processes. 

 

Treaty status and prospects of ratification 

 

For the GRATK Treaty to enter into force, 15 eligible parties need to deposit instruments of ratification or accession. IP Australia discussed their expectation of how quickly other signatories will ratify. They predicted that ‘…a number of the signatories from the African region and from Central and South America would be actively looking at the GRATK Treaty.’ The Committee inquired into the level of interest shown by Australia’s neighbours in the Asia Pacific region. IP Australia reported that Indonesia and Pacific Island countries were active participants in the negotiation of the GRATK Treaty with Indonesia, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands becoming signatories. IP Australia also identified Switzerland as a signatory that is like-minded to Australia regarding the patent system. 

 

When asked about the role Australia can play in the GRATK Treaty’s entry into force IP Australia identified an opportunity for Australia to take a leading role. They explained: Our benefit, in joining the treaty, is being able to demonstrate how this treaty could be implemented in a sophisticated patent system in a sensible and pragmatic way. We would also have the opportunity to influence future developments around the protection and management of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. 

 

IP Australia further explained that if Australia were to ratify and implement the GRATK Treaty pragmatically there could be a positive flow-on effect for other nations. They stated that ratifying: … could also help influence the approach of other countries, which would support consistency, allow engagement in sharing mutual understanding and maximise transparency around when genetic resources and traditional knowledge are used across the world. 

 

A submission received by Mr Antony Taubman, a former Director of the WIPO Traditional Knowledge Division, reinforced this claim, stating: Ratification and implementation of the Treaty at a relatively early stage would secure first-mover advantage, influence general implementation of this emerging standard, and ensure a seat, from the outset, in the Assembly and in the Article 8 review. 

 

A number of submissions highlighted ratification as an opportunity for Australia to continue its active engagement with the GRATK Treaty. Professor Wendland explained that ‘Australia’s ratification would be fitting given Australia’s significant contribution over many years to the initiation of work by WIPO on these issues in the late 1990s to the adoption of the GRATK Treaty in May 2024.’ 

 

The Committee sought to understand possible impacts of a delayed entry into force. Professor Matthew Storey from the NNTC argued that without the legislative changes enabled by the GRATK Treaty, traditional knowledge and genetic resources could continue to be used under existing intellectual property laws without requiring benefit-sharing arrangements with Traditional Owners. This sentiment was also echoed by the IK Panel, who stated that Australia’s current IP system ‘…still treats Indigenous knowledge as if it is ownerless.’

 

Committee Comment 

 

The Committee recognises the ongoing struggle with misappropriation of ICIP and welcomes the acknowledgement of Traditional Knowledge within a multilateral treaty, noting the GRATK Treaty supports the rights of Indigenous Peoples to maintain, control, protect and develop their traditional knowledge, cultural heritage and intellectual property, consistent with Article 31 of the UNDRIP. 

 

Australia has demonstrated leadership throughout the GRATK Treaty negotiations and there is an opportunity for Australia to continue a global leadership role through ratification and effective domestic implementation. 

 

Plant science industry is vital to Australian agricultural productivity, innovation and export performance. The Committee supports implementation of the GRATK Treaty that maintains the safeguards agreed during negotiations and provides clarity and certainty for innovators, researchers and industry participants. 

 

The Committee notes that the successful implementation of the GRATK Treaty will depend on early, comprehensive and culturally appropriate engagement with Australian First Nations peoples. Consultation will be critical to ensuring that implementation measures reflect the diversity of First Nations communities, supports informed consent processes, and provides effective protections for traditional knowledge and cultural interests. 

 

Recommendation 3 

 

The Committee recommends the Australian Government consult relevant First Nations, the plant science industry and other relevant industry stakeholders during implementation of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. 

 

Recommendation 4 

 

The Committee supports the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.