Negotiations on paragraphs 9 and 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration:

Conservation and Sustainable Use of Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (AnGR) was one of the main agenda of the 11th Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. One of the more contentious documents taken and debated upon by the delegates of the Commission was the draft Interlaken Declaration, which was negotiated and debated upon in the evening session of june 14 and the afternoon session of june 15 (during the adoption of the text and minutes). In particular, paragraphs 9 and 12 of the draft document on recognition of local and indigenous communities and the issue of Intellectual Property Rights on AnGR were discussed and negotiated upon with much detail by delegates from both developed and developing countries, putting specific highlight on their needs and interests. This entry provides more or less a good account (and not an exact transcription) of the negotiations that occurred during the Commission meetings when the draft document was considered for discussion...





i. recognition of local and indigenous communities: diluting an express recognition of their contributions





Paragraph 9 of the draft Interlaken Declaration based on CGRFA document 11/07/8 states:

"9. We recognize the enormous contribution that the local and indigenous communities and farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders of all regions of the world have made, and will continue to make for the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. We affirm that they should equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. We affirm the desirability of protecting traditional knowledge relevant to animal breeding and production as a contribution to sustainable livelihoods, and the need for the full participation of local and indigenous communities and farmers and pastoralists in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources."

Cuba - 2nd sentence, change "should" to "shall"



Finland - last sentence, add animal breeders and consumers



Brazil - "consumers" is out of context - it should be removed



USA - keep in brackets - "shall" not appropriate for a declaration



Canada - 2nd sentence, change to "participate in fair and equitable sharing of benefits"



USA - strike out 1st sentence (on recognition of contribution of local and indigenous communities..." and replace with "We recognize the enormous historic and relevant contribution of all persons engaged in

animal husbandry, who have molded animal genetic resources to meet societal needs. It is their ownership and management of AGR that has enabled them to make important contributions in the past and its

ownership and management that should be ensured for future societal benefits"



Canada - last sentence - "protecting traditional knowledge" changed to "preserving traditional knowledge"



Argentina - leave it in brackets



Thailand - paragraph deals with local and indigenous communities, delete animal breeders and consumers



Canada - delete word "full" from participation for not being measurable



Pakistan - use "maximum" for participation



Canada - does not accede to Pakistan's proposal



Pakistan - submits to Canada's proposal

After the negotiations, the new paragraph 9 (now paragraph 8) of the draft Interlaken Declaration provides with brackets:

"8. [We recognize the enormous contribution that the local and indigenous communities and farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders of all regions of the worlds have made, and will continue to make for the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture.] [We recognize the enormous historic and relevant contribution of all persons engaged in animal husbandry, who have moulded animal genetic resources to meet societal needs. It is their ownership and management of animal genetic resources that has enabled them to make important contributions in the past and it is this ownership and management that should be ensured for future societal benefits.] We affirm that they [should] [shall] participate in the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. We affirm the desirability of [protecting] [preserving] traditional knowledge relevant to animal breeding and production as a contribution to sustainable livelihoods, and the need for the participation of local and indigenous communities, farmers [,] [and] pastoralist [,] [and] [animal breeders] [and consumers] in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources."

ii. intellectual property rights over animal genetic resources: a source of much confusion and debate under the declaration





Paragraph 12 of the draft document states:

"12. We recognize that access to, and the sharing of both, genetic resources and technologies, are essential for meeting world food security and the needs of the growing world population, and must be facilitated. Access to and transfer of technology, including that protected by intellectual property rights, to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, shall be provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favourable terms, in particular in the case of technologies for use in conservation as well as technologies for the benefit of farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders in developing countries, especially in least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, including on concessional and preferential terms where mutually agreed, inter alia, through partnerships in research and

development. Such access and transfer shall be provided on terms that recognize and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights."

This paragraph has been the source of serious concern and confusion among many of the delegates and civil society organizations present in the Commission meetings, as the inclusion of the last sentence (the history of which is not known by most) can cause misinterpretation as to require all countries to grant patents on animals, which the TRIPS Agreement excludes from patentability. This was what mostly happened during the negotiations:

Brazil for GRULAC (Latin America and Carribean Grouping) - present language is confusing and repetitive

- proposed text and delete last sentence on IPR and any reference on IPR which is appropriate in another forum



Kenya (for Africa Group) - supports GRULAC



Thailand - expressed confusion with paragraph



Australia - add "consistent with international obligations and national laws" in 1st sentence

- supports GRULAC statement



Norway - insert "relevant" to international and national in Australia's proposal



USA - 1st sentence, change "must" to "should"



Iran - persistent in shortening text of GRULAC



Brazil - does not submit to Iran's proposal and retains its proposed text





Germany - Last sentence on IPR should be retained in the text



GRULAC - does not want to accept Germany's proposal



Germany - proposal to retain original text or add the last sentence of original text on IPR

(no consensus in EU block so Germany intervenes for itself)



Uruguay - supports GRULAC proposal



Brazil - maintains its original proposed text for GRULAC

Germany's intervention to retain the last sentence of the paragraph on IPR was done much later after the chair "almost" closed the discussions and negotiations on paragraph 12. This was done after all have agreed during the negotiations to delete any reference to IPR in paragraph 12 of the draft document. GRULAC was adamant in saying that the Chair had already closed the topic on the last sentence when Germany just had to bring it up again, intervening as itself rather than as the European Block.





Paragraph 12 (now Paragraph 11) of the new draft Declaration now declares the following with brackets:

"11. We recognize that access to and the sharing of both genetic resources and related technologies are essential for world food security and the needs of the growing world population, and [must] [should] be

facilitated, consistent with relevant international obligations and relevant national laws. [Such access] [Access] to and transfer of technology [and, in particular in the case of technologies for use in] [associated with the] conservation [and sustainable use of animal genetic resources] as well as technologies for the benefit of farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders [in developing countries, especially in least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, [shall] [should] be provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favorubale terms/ [/including on concessional and preferential terms, where mutually agreed, /inter alia/], through partnership in research and developmet./]/ [In the case of technology subject to patents and other intellectual property rights, access and transfer of technology should be provided on terms which recognise and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights.]"

Powered by ScribeFire.