What was interesting in the discussions during the CGRFA on paragraph 12 of the Interlaken Declaration which deals with IPR on animals, was that during the plenary when Interlaken Declaration was the agenda, delegations agreed for the deletion of the text with reference to IPR (or this was the general understanding as reflected in the draft report). Germany made the intervention at the last minutes of the whole CGRFA meeting - during the adoption of the report - on the eve of 15 June 2007, much to the disappointment of some delegations and civil society organisations. Here are additional excerpts (not exact wordings):
Germany: asked to refer back to the reference on IPR in paragraph 12
Argentina: The proposal of Germany goes beyond Article 27.3b of TRIPS and is covered by the proposal of Australia on 'consistent with international agreements'. TRIPS agreement is already covered. The proposal of Germany goes beyond TRIPS and went beyond 15 minutes after the discussions (on agenda item: Interlaken Declaration which was earlier discussed in plenary). We should work on equal terms.
Chair: Thank you, it was very clear. EU (addressing Germany) do you want to keep it in brackets?
Germany: Obviously not possible for us to know the conditions in the negotiations at that time. We prefer (the text on paragraph 12) to be in the form as seen before. EU has not understood that this text has disappeared. If there is no possibility, we stick to the proposal in brackets.
(There were some movements in the other EU delegations - some were about to approach Germany, or so we think and so Germany said..) To ease our life in EU, we say this is a German addition.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
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 andThis 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:
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."
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.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Recommendations on Key Issues under the Commission Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity
SEARICE welcomes the initiative of the Commission to draft a Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) that will strengthen the Commission's capacity to act effectively within its statutes. The MYPOW will make it possible for the Commission to advise the FAO on the activities on genetic resources and biodiversity for food and agriculture, as well as facilitate the cooperation with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), especially on the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity.
SEARICE forwards its inputs for consideration on relevant issues in developing the MYPOW:
I. STRENGTHENING OF INFORMAL SEED SYSTEMS AND FARMERS' RIGHTS
SEARICE welcomes the interventions and recommendations from BHUTAN and INDIA regarding appropriate recognition, further consideration and strengthening of the informal and farmer seed systems, farmer-led plant breeding and community-based plant genetic resources conservation and development initiatives:
1. We similarly re-emphasize the need, and recommend FULL RECOGNITION and STRENGTHENING of INFORMAL SEED SYSTEMS under the Global Plan of Action (on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture). Strengthening of the informal seed system can be achieved through a number of ways, which may include:
a. supporting and recognizing Farmers' Rights in practice through community-based efforts and initiatives by farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples in the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources
b. recognizing the distinctiveness of informal seed systems that exist in varying social and cultural environments, and maintaining the fluidity and dynamic feature that characterizes informal seed systems which is crucial in ensuring the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
2. Informal seed systems are not fully recognized in the drafting of seed policies whether in the national or international levels, when such systems are in fact very significant not only in the seed and food security of different communities, but highly crucial in the in situ conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources by farmers in developing countries. Farmers have, since time immemorial, treated all plant genetic resources as raw materials for selection and breeding in their farm activities, and for further development of plant genetic diversity in the farm. Informal seed systems thus provide a process of conservation and sustainable use of seed materials by farmers which is continuous, progressive, proactive and dynamic.
3. An assessment study of the effects and impacts of formal seed policies on informal seed systems and farmer-led processes of conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources may prove helpful in assessing the needs of informal seed systems.
4. Experiences in our work in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Lao PDR, and Bhutan have showed that farmers have the capacity to develop farmers' varieties in different agro-ecosystems, including prime irrigated and market oriented areas which actually promote conservation of plant genetic resources through their sustainable utilization on farm. These developments should be recognized in developing mechanisms for strengthening informal seed systems.
II. ON THE DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
SEARICE recognizes the need for a more thorough and further study and discussion on the matter of the draft Code of Conduct but also expresses the urgency of a Code of Conduct to address potential impacts of modern biotechnology. In addition, SEARICE raises the following concerns and gaps on the draft Code of Conduct which the Commission should similarly address:
1. On the aspect of conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, the Commission should recommend the FAO to widen the scope of the code of conduct to include animal, aquatic, forestry and micro-organisms/invertebrate genetic resources, in anticipation of the need to address similar concerns in equally important sectors.
2. The Commission should consider existing efforts in other international fora in the draft Code of Conduct, especially on the matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). In this regard, the Commission should advise FAO to consider the following documents insofar as they are relevant in the draft Code of Conduct:
a. To regard GURTs as limiting the rights of farmers to save, re-use, sell and exchange seeds, as stated in Decision VI/5 of the Conference of the Parties.
b. Under Decision VIII/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, parties, other governments, relevant organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to respect traditional knowledge and Farmers' Rights to the conservation of seeds.
c. The Governing Body of the ITPGRFA has the mandate to examine, within the context of its work, priorities and available resources, the potential impacts of GURTs with special consideration to the impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities and associated traditional knowledge, smallholder farmers and breeders and Farmers' Rights.
3. The Commission, in the development of the Code of Conduct, should further take into consideration and precaution that modern biotechnology will limit the capacity of farmers to innovate, and would widen the gap between formal and non-formal innovations. The Commission should thus take steps to address the special needs of farmers and farming communities.
4. Studies on the potential impacts of existing and new agricultural technologies and the promotion of methods of sustainable agriculture that employ management practices, technologies and policies that mitigate the potential negative impacts of these existing and new agricultural technologies on agricultural diversity, with particular focus on the needs of farmers, indigenous peoples and local communities, should be conducted.
5. The Commission should address the concern on transgene flow in centers of diversity and origin of plant genetic resources, especially in developing countries which lack the capacity and resources to monitor and prevent potential transgene flow and contamination to their agro-ecosystems.
6. The Commission should similarly provide for a liability regime that will specifically address this concern on transgene flow and potential contamination. A possible mechanism is the creation of an environmental guarantee fund to mitigate and address immediate and even long term potential negative impacts of transgenes on the food system, the environment, and plant diversity.
7. The Commission should also consider that innovations arising from the use of genetic resources should not be subjected to intellectual property rights to ensure access to new technologies that are appropriate and responsive to the needs of small farming communities and indigenous peoples.
III. ON THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO ADDRESS POSSIBILITY OF UNINTENTIONAL PRESENCE OF TRANSGENES IN EX SITU COLLECTIONS
SEARICE supports the development of the Guiding Principles for the Development of CGIAR Centers' Policies to Address the Possibility of Unintentional Presence of Transgenes in Ex Situ Collections, but urges the Commission to compel the CGIAR to:
1. Conduct periodic report and assessment on the implementation of the Principles to focus on gaps and opportunities which may be identified in the implementation to further develop said Principles, which can also be considered and adopted in the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to Plant Genetic Resources (PGR).
2. Ensure the conformity of CGIAR's gene bank management practices to these principles through the amendment of protocols that are not compliant to the Principles, and/or the establishment of new protocols in line with the policies of the Guiding Principles.
3. Institutionalize the conduct of periodic assessment on the possible contamination of collections from transgenes and provide immediate action to mitigate possible impacts to other accession.
SEARICE commends the effort of the Commission in providing avenue to discuss farmers and indigenous peoples' concern in the development of the CGIAR Guiding Principles to ensure the protection and integrity of indigenous peoples' and farmers' seed systems.
SEARICE however emphasizes that farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples are also involved in IN SITU COLLECTIONS through COMMUNITY GENEBANKS. In this regard, the Commission should recognize these initiatives by farmers and consequently similarly address the special needs of farmers regarding potential unintentional presence of transgenes in in situ collections.
ON THE DRAFT INTERLAKEN DECLARATION ON ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
SEARICE expresses its concern on the draft Interlaken Declaration on Animal Geentic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
SEARICE joins the interventions from civil society organizations in expressing the concern regarding the last sentence of paragraph 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration which has serious implications on the issue of intellectual property and animal genetic resources. Said paragraph 12 creates an imbalanced text in the declaration that may be subjected to misinterpretation as to require countries to grant patents on animals thereby discounting the flexibility under the TRIPS Agreement to exclude animals from patentability.
In this regard, SEARICE supports the deletion of this statement,as this is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Declaration. It is necessary to maintain the balance provided under the ITPGRFA and the CBD.
SEARICE forwards its inputs for consideration on relevant issues in developing the MYPOW:
I. STRENGTHENING OF INFORMAL SEED SYSTEMS AND FARMERS' RIGHTS
SEARICE welcomes the interventions and recommendations from BHUTAN and INDIA regarding appropriate recognition, further consideration and strengthening of the informal and farmer seed systems, farmer-led plant breeding and community-based plant genetic resources conservation and development initiatives:
1. We similarly re-emphasize the need, and recommend FULL RECOGNITION and STRENGTHENING of INFORMAL SEED SYSTEMS under the Global Plan of Action (on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture). Strengthening of the informal seed system can be achieved through a number of ways, which may include:
a. supporting and recognizing Farmers' Rights in practice through community-based efforts and initiatives by farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples in the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources
b. recognizing the distinctiveness of informal seed systems that exist in varying social and cultural environments, and maintaining the fluidity and dynamic feature that characterizes informal seed systems which is crucial in ensuring the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
2. Informal seed systems are not fully recognized in the drafting of seed policies whether in the national or international levels, when such systems are in fact very significant not only in the seed and food security of different communities, but highly crucial in the in situ conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources by farmers in developing countries. Farmers have, since time immemorial, treated all plant genetic resources as raw materials for selection and breeding in their farm activities, and for further development of plant genetic diversity in the farm. Informal seed systems thus provide a process of conservation and sustainable use of seed materials by farmers which is continuous, progressive, proactive and dynamic.
3. An assessment study of the effects and impacts of formal seed policies on informal seed systems and farmer-led processes of conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources may prove helpful in assessing the needs of informal seed systems.
4. Experiences in our work in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Lao PDR, and Bhutan have showed that farmers have the capacity to develop farmers' varieties in different agro-ecosystems, including prime irrigated and market oriented areas which actually promote conservation of plant genetic resources through their sustainable utilization on farm. These developments should be recognized in developing mechanisms for strengthening informal seed systems.
II. ON THE DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
SEARICE recognizes the need for a more thorough and further study and discussion on the matter of the draft Code of Conduct but also expresses the urgency of a Code of Conduct to address potential impacts of modern biotechnology. In addition, SEARICE raises the following concerns and gaps on the draft Code of Conduct which the Commission should similarly address:
1. On the aspect of conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, the Commission should recommend the FAO to widen the scope of the code of conduct to include animal, aquatic, forestry and micro-organisms/invertebrate genetic resources, in anticipation of the need to address similar concerns in equally important sectors.
2. The Commission should consider existing efforts in other international fora in the draft Code of Conduct, especially on the matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). In this regard, the Commission should advise FAO to consider the following documents insofar as they are relevant in the draft Code of Conduct:
a. To regard GURTs as limiting the rights of farmers to save, re-use, sell and exchange seeds, as stated in Decision VI/5 of the Conference of the Parties.
b. Under Decision VIII/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, parties, other governments, relevant organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to respect traditional knowledge and Farmers' Rights to the conservation of seeds.
c. The Governing Body of the ITPGRFA has the mandate to examine, within the context of its work, priorities and available resources, the potential impacts of GURTs with special consideration to the impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities and associated traditional knowledge, smallholder farmers and breeders and Farmers' Rights.
3. The Commission, in the development of the Code of Conduct, should further take into consideration and precaution that modern biotechnology will limit the capacity of farmers to innovate, and would widen the gap between formal and non-formal innovations. The Commission should thus take steps to address the special needs of farmers and farming communities.
4. Studies on the potential impacts of existing and new agricultural technologies and the promotion of methods of sustainable agriculture that employ management practices, technologies and policies that mitigate the potential negative impacts of these existing and new agricultural technologies on agricultural diversity, with particular focus on the needs of farmers, indigenous peoples and local communities, should be conducted.
5. The Commission should address the concern on transgene flow in centers of diversity and origin of plant genetic resources, especially in developing countries which lack the capacity and resources to monitor and prevent potential transgene flow and contamination to their agro-ecosystems.
6. The Commission should similarly provide for a liability regime that will specifically address this concern on transgene flow and potential contamination. A possible mechanism is the creation of an environmental guarantee fund to mitigate and address immediate and even long term potential negative impacts of transgenes on the food system, the environment, and plant diversity.
7. The Commission should also consider that innovations arising from the use of genetic resources should not be subjected to intellectual property rights to ensure access to new technologies that are appropriate and responsive to the needs of small farming communities and indigenous peoples.
III. ON THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO ADDRESS POSSIBILITY OF UNINTENTIONAL PRESENCE OF TRANSGENES IN EX SITU COLLECTIONS
SEARICE supports the development of the Guiding Principles for the Development of CGIAR Centers' Policies to Address the Possibility of Unintentional Presence of Transgenes in Ex Situ Collections, but urges the Commission to compel the CGIAR to:
1. Conduct periodic report and assessment on the implementation of the Principles to focus on gaps and opportunities which may be identified in the implementation to further develop said Principles, which can also be considered and adopted in the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to Plant Genetic Resources (PGR).
2. Ensure the conformity of CGIAR's gene bank management practices to these principles through the amendment of protocols that are not compliant to the Principles, and/or the establishment of new protocols in line with the policies of the Guiding Principles.
3. Institutionalize the conduct of periodic assessment on the possible contamination of collections from transgenes and provide immediate action to mitigate possible impacts to other accession.
SEARICE commends the effort of the Commission in providing avenue to discuss farmers and indigenous peoples' concern in the development of the CGIAR Guiding Principles to ensure the protection and integrity of indigenous peoples' and farmers' seed systems.
SEARICE however emphasizes that farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples are also involved in IN SITU COLLECTIONS through COMMUNITY GENEBANKS. In this regard, the Commission should recognize these initiatives by farmers and consequently similarly address the special needs of farmers regarding potential unintentional presence of transgenes in in situ collections.
ON THE DRAFT INTERLAKEN DECLARATION ON ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
SEARICE expresses its concern on the draft Interlaken Declaration on Animal Geentic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
SEARICE joins the interventions from civil society organizations in expressing the concern regarding the last sentence of paragraph 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration which has serious implications on the issue of intellectual property and animal genetic resources. Said paragraph 12 creates an imbalanced text in the declaration that may be subjected to misinterpretation as to require countries to grant patents on animals thereby discounting the flexibility under the TRIPS Agreement to exclude animals from patentability.
In this regard, SEARICE supports the deletion of this statement,as this is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Declaration. It is necessary to maintain the balance provided under the ITPGRFA and the CBD.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
SEARICE POSITION On the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it Relates to Genetic Resources For Food and Agriculture
COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Eleventh Regular Session
11-15th June 2007
SEARICE POSITION
On the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it Relates to Genetic Resources For Food and Agriculture
The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) - a regional non-government organization promoting community-based conservation, development and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources and farmers’ rights in Bhutan, Lao PDR, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines - recognizes the need for a more thorough and further study and discussion on the matter of the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology. In addition, SEARICE raises the following concerns and gaps on the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, which the Commission should address:
1. On the aspect of conservation of genetic resource for food and agriculture, the Commission should recommend the FAO to widen the scope of the code of conduct to include animal, aquatic, forestry and micro-organism/insect genetic resources, in anticipation of the need to address concerns in equally important sectors.
2. The Commission should consider existing efforts in other international fora in the draft Code of Conduct, especially on the matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). In this regard, the Commission should advise FAO to consider the following documents insofar as they are relevant in the draft Code of Conduct:
a. To regard GURTs as limiting the rights of farmers’ to save, re- use, sell and exchange seeds, as stated in Decision VI/5 of the Conference of the Parties.
b. Under Decision VIII/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, Parties, other governments, relevant organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to respect traditional knowledge and Farmers’ Rights to the preservation of seeds under traditional cultivation.
c. The Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has the mandate to examine, within the context of its work, priorities and available resources, the potential impacts of genetic use restriction technologies with special consideration to the impacts on indigenous and local communities and associated traditional knowledge, smallholder farmers and breeders and Farmers’ Rights.
3. The Commission, in the development of the Code of Conduct, should further take into consideration and precaution that the technology will limit the capacity of farmers to innovate, and would widen the gap between formal and non-formal innovations. The Commission should thus take steps to address the special needs of farmers and farming communities.
4. The Commission should address the concern on transgene flow in centers of diversity and origin of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, especially in developing countries which lack the capacity and resources to monitor and prevent the potential transgene flow and contamination to agroecosystems.
5. The Commission should also provide for a liability regime that will specifically address the concern on transgene flow and potential contamination. A possible mechanism is the creation of an environmental guarantee fund to mitigate and address immediate and even long-term potential negative impacts of transgenes on the food system, the environment, and the present plant diversity.
6. The Commission should similarly consider that innovations arising from the use of genetic resources should not be subjected to intellectual property rights to ensure access to new technologies that are appropriate and responsive to the needs of small farming communities and indigenous peoples.
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Eleventh Regular Session
11-15th June 2007
SEARICE POSITION
On the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it Relates to Genetic Resources For Food and Agriculture
The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) - a regional non-government organization promoting community-based conservation, development and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources and farmers’ rights in Bhutan, Lao PDR, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines - recognizes the need for a more thorough and further study and discussion on the matter of the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology. In addition, SEARICE raises the following concerns and gaps on the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, which the Commission should address:
1. On the aspect of conservation of genetic resource for food and agriculture, the Commission should recommend the FAO to widen the scope of the code of conduct to include animal, aquatic, forestry and micro-organism/insect genetic resources, in anticipation of the need to address concerns in equally important sectors.
2. The Commission should consider existing efforts in other international fora in the draft Code of Conduct, especially on the matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). In this regard, the Commission should advise FAO to consider the following documents insofar as they are relevant in the draft Code of Conduct:
a. To regard GURTs as limiting the rights of farmers’ to save, re- use, sell and exchange seeds, as stated in Decision VI/5 of the Conference of the Parties.
b. Under Decision VIII/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, Parties, other governments, relevant organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to respect traditional knowledge and Farmers’ Rights to the preservation of seeds under traditional cultivation.
c. The Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has the mandate to examine, within the context of its work, priorities and available resources, the potential impacts of genetic use restriction technologies with special consideration to the impacts on indigenous and local communities and associated traditional knowledge, smallholder farmers and breeders and Farmers’ Rights.
3. The Commission, in the development of the Code of Conduct, should further take into consideration and precaution that the technology will limit the capacity of farmers to innovate, and would widen the gap between formal and non-formal innovations. The Commission should thus take steps to address the special needs of farmers and farming communities.
4. The Commission should address the concern on transgene flow in centers of diversity and origin of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, especially in developing countries which lack the capacity and resources to monitor and prevent the potential transgene flow and contamination to agroecosystems.
5. The Commission should also provide for a liability regime that will specifically address the concern on transgene flow and potential contamination. A possible mechanism is the creation of an environmental guarantee fund to mitigate and address immediate and even long-term potential negative impacts of transgenes on the food system, the environment, and the present plant diversity.
6. The Commission should similarly consider that innovations arising from the use of genetic resources should not be subjected to intellectual property rights to ensure access to new technologies that are appropriate and responsive to the needs of small farming communities and indigenous peoples.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Interventions for the Informal Seed Systems and Farmers' Rights - A Welcome in the Commission Meeting
The second day of the Commission meetings was warmly welcomed in the plant genetic resources afternoon plenary session by two interventions from BHUTAN and INDIA in support of recognizing and strengthening informal seed systems and farmer-led breeding in relation to farmers' rights. These interventions were in reference to the Commission's recommendations on the PGR Programme of Work and Global Plan of Action for the implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources which vaguely referred to strengthening of seed systems (and seed regulatory frameworks) and plant breeding.
The interventions were very crucial as informal seed systems do not receive the appropriate recognition in seed policies whether it be in the national or international levels when informal seed systems are actually highly significant in the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources by farmers in developing countries. Farmers have always treated all plant genetic resources as raw materials for selection and breeding in their farm activities, and for further development of plant genetic diversity in the farm. This system thus provides a process of conservation and sustainable use of seed materials by farmers which is continuous, progressive, pro-active and dynamic, which should similarly be supported and strengthened.
The interventions were very crucial as informal seed systems do not receive the appropriate recognition in seed policies whether it be in the national or international levels when informal seed systems are actually highly significant in the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources by farmers in developing countries. Farmers have always treated all plant genetic resources as raw materials for selection and breeding in their farm activities, and for further development of plant genetic diversity in the farm. This system thus provides a process of conservation and sustainable use of seed materials by farmers which is continuous, progressive, pro-active and dynamic, which should similarly be supported and strengthened.
Paragraph 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration
On the matter of the draft Interlaken Declaration, several options for a change in the text of Paragraph 12 were provided.
Paragraph 12 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.
The clarity of the paragraph is being questioned, since it appears to be an extract of Article 16.2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Article 16 of the CBD is on Access to and Transfer of Technology, of which reference to intellectual property rights are indicated on paragraph 2 and 5. Interpreting Article 16.2 into the Interlaken Declaration might cause misinterpretation of the paragraph – this might be interpreted as requiring all countries to grant patents on animals, but which under the TRIPS Agreement, excludes patentability of animals.
Paragraph 12 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.
The clarity of the paragraph is being questioned, since it appears to be an extract of Article 16.2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Article 16 of the CBD is on Access to and Transfer of Technology, of which reference to intellectual property rights are indicated on paragraph 2 and 5. Interpreting Article 16.2 into the Interlaken Declaration might cause misinterpretation of the paragraph – this might be interpreted as requiring all countries to grant patents on animals, but which under the TRIPS Agreement, excludes patentability of animals.
CGRFA Day 1 - June 11 (afternoon session)
The last agenda before the session ended was on the strategic priorities on Animal GR. Debates as to the source of funding for implementation of the priorities, especially for developing countries, however, pre-empted a detailed discussion of the contents. The discussions will continue tomorrow morning, which will start earlier at 930am.
There were three side-events organized for the first day of the commission meeting:
1. A Greater Appreciation for Local Crops
2. Patents on Seeds and Farm Animals
3. Exchange, Use and Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources: Policy and Regulatory Options
It was decided to have the first meeting of the MYPOW Working Group on Wednesday for the evening session (7:30 to 10:30), where there will be focus on contentious issues in the MYPOW and in what was discussed in the plenary, in order to avoid prolonging and lengthening of the discussions in the plenary. The Working Group was resolved to be composed of the Bureau, 3 representatives from each region, and observers.
Regarding NGO participation in the plenary, the chair clarified that they will be following the traditional way which was to consider suggestions and views from NGOs and IGOs for further discussions after the delegates have finished intervening.
Some points identified which are pressing and important issues to consider on AnGR:
- identifying conservation strategies for AnGR
- guidelines on AnGR CSU
- lack of human capacities and networks
- identifying national initiatives
- in-vitro conservation and issues on structures/responsibilities, access regulations and biosafety issues
- lack of interest from countries, NGOs and donors
- a regulatory framework that would have to address (a) implications of international laws, (b) implications of national laws, and (c) IPR issues
For the second day of the commission meetings, it was decided to allot the morning session for the continuation of the discussions on the strategic priorities for animal genetic resources. The afternoon session was to be separated into two simultaneous plenary sessions on plant genetic resources and on animal genetic resources. Furthermore, the conduct of an evening session was decided to continue discussions on animal genetic resources.
There were three side-events organized for the first day of the commission meeting:
1. A Greater Appreciation for Local Crops
2. Patents on Seeds and Farm Animals
3. Exchange, Use and Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources: Policy and Regulatory Options
It was decided to have the first meeting of the MYPOW Working Group on Wednesday for the evening session (7:30 to 10:30), where there will be focus on contentious issues in the MYPOW and in what was discussed in the plenary, in order to avoid prolonging and lengthening of the discussions in the plenary. The Working Group was resolved to be composed of the Bureau, 3 representatives from each region, and observers.
Regarding NGO participation in the plenary, the chair clarified that they will be following the traditional way which was to consider suggestions and views from NGOs and IGOs for further discussions after the delegates have finished intervening.
Some points identified which are pressing and important issues to consider on AnGR:
- identifying conservation strategies for AnGR
- guidelines on AnGR CSU
- lack of human capacities and networks
- identifying national initiatives
- in-vitro conservation and issues on structures/responsibilities, access regulations and biosafety issues
- lack of interest from countries, NGOs and donors
- a regulatory framework that would have to address (a) implications of international laws, (b) implications of national laws, and (c) IPR issues
For the second day of the commission meetings, it was decided to allot the morning session for the continuation of the discussions on the strategic priorities for animal genetic resources. The afternoon session was to be separated into two simultaneous plenary sessions on plant genetic resources and on animal genetic resources. Furthermore, the conduct of an evening session was decided to continue discussions on animal genetic resources.
CGRFA Day 1 - June 11
The CGRFA 11th session officially started on June 11 with the Welcoming Remarks from Mr. Alexander Muller, Assistant Director-General of FAO’s Natural Resources and Environment Management Deaprtmet, the Exit Speech of Outgoing Commission Chairperson Eng Siang Lim, the election of the new Chairperson, and the election of the Regional Representatives. The flow of the agenda was subsequently wrapped up with the referral of the discussion on the Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) to a working group with representatives from each region, and open to CSO observers.
As early as the 1st day, the Commission finished taking up two document of the agenda on animal genetic resources. It is however expected that as the agenda nears the document on the draft Interlaken document, a lot of concerns will be raised, specifically on paragraph 12. Further in the agenda, plant genetic resources, forest genetic resources, aquatic genetic resources, and micro-organisms and invertebrate genetic resources, aside from the cross-sectorial matters, will be discussed by the commission throughout the week.
As early as the 1st day, the Commission finished taking up two document of the agenda on animal genetic resources. It is however expected that as the agenda nears the document on the draft Interlaken document, a lot of concerns will be raised, specifically on paragraph 12. Further in the agenda, plant genetic resources, forest genetic resources, aquatic genetic resources, and micro-organisms and invertebrate genetic resources, aside from the cross-sectorial matters, will be discussed by the commission throughout the week.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Eleventh Regular Session of the Commisson on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) is currently holding its 11th Regular Session in Rome, until the 15th of June. The CGRFA is a permanent forum where governments discuss and negotiate matters relevant to genetic resources for food and agriculture. Its main objectives are to ensure the conservation and sustainable utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their use, for present and future generations. The Commission reviews and advises FAO on policy, programmes and activities, as well as deals with sectorial and cross-sectorial matters related to the conservation and utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Commission is also responsible for developing and monitoring the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources; and the Global System for Plant Genetic Resources (CGRFA homepage, www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa).
The Agenda of the 11th Regular Session of the CGRFA is intended to discuss and adopt the Multi-Year Program of Work (MYPOW). The MYPOW will essentially allow the Commission to identify issues it may wish to address, in order to implement its full mandate, and to incorporate these in a planned programme of work (cgrfa-11/07/2).
SEARICE has been actively monitoring and participating in local to international platforms that would greatly affect and impact on the rights of farmers, specifically their rights to plant genetic resources in food and agriculture.
SEARICE recognizes the importance and relevance of having the MYPOW to strengthen the commission's capacity to act effectively, especially on the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity. SEARICE is working together with other civil society organizations attending the 11th CGRFA in bringing forth the issues on Plant Genetic Resources, Animal Genetic Resources, the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology and the Guiding Pronciples of the CGIAR, among others.
The IISD also posts daily news bulletin on the negotiations - http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cgfra11/
The Agenda of the 11th Regular Session of the CGRFA is intended to discuss and adopt the Multi-Year Program of Work (MYPOW). The MYPOW will essentially allow the Commission to identify issues it may wish to address, in order to implement its full mandate, and to incorporate these in a planned programme of work (cgrfa-11/07/2).
SEARICE has been actively monitoring and participating in local to international platforms that would greatly affect and impact on the rights of farmers, specifically their rights to plant genetic resources in food and agriculture.
SEARICE recognizes the importance and relevance of having the MYPOW to strengthen the commission's capacity to act effectively, especially on the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity. SEARICE is working together with other civil society organizations attending the 11th CGRFA in bringing forth the issues on Plant Genetic Resources, Animal Genetic Resources, the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology and the Guiding Pronciples of the CGIAR, among others.
The IISD also posts daily news bulletin on the negotiations - http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cgfra11/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)