|
|
PDF Format |
Spanish Version |
French Version |
|
|
|
|
| |
Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD)
Vol. 9 No. 368
Friday, 16 June 2006
ITPGR GB-1 HIGHLIGHTS:
THURSDAY,
15 JUNE 2006
On Thursday, 15
June 2006, Working Group
I addressed compliance, the relationship with the Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) and cooperation with international organizations. Working Group II: discussed
implementation of
Article 6 (Sustainable use of plant genetic resources), and assessment of progress in
the inclusion of PGRFA held by natural and legal persons in the
Multilateral System (MS); finalized an agreement between the
Governing Body and International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs)
and other international institutions; and continued negotiations on the funding strategy. The
budget committee met twice during the day, and the MTA contact group convened
in the evening and late at night. Plenary reconvened at night to address the budget and the date and venue of the second
session of the Governing Body.
WORKING GROUP I
COMPLIANCE: The UK for EUROPE proposed new
language on procedures, including text on: the content of submissions to
the compliance committee; a clear process for making submissions available
to the party concerned and steps to be taken in response by the party,
with timelines; and the right of the concerned party to participate in the
committee’s deliberations, but not in the elaboration and adoption of the
committee’s recommendation. Canada for NORTH AMERICA and Australia for the
SOUTHWEST PACIFIC proposed that parties concerned may present responses or
comments at every step of the proceedings.
NORTH AMERICA
proposed additional text regarding parties submitting documentation on
their own issues of non-compliance. The SOUTHWEST PACIFIC reiterated that
party submissions should only be self-triggered. URUGUAY, opposed by
YEMEN, the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC and INDONESIA, called for a section on
committee decision making. Delegates discussed references regarding
seeking information from NGOs and experts, without reaching agreement.
EUROPE, opposed by the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, proposed that confidentiality of
information be addressed under the committee’s rules of
procedure.
EUROPE proposed
that the committee and Governing Body should take action only on issues
raised in accordance with the procedures. Opposed by many, EUROPE and the
SOUTHWEST PACIFIC requested deletion of references regarding the
consideration of a country’s capacity to comply when addressing issues of
non-compliance. EUROPE proposed to publish “closed cases of
non-compliance,” whereas ASIA requested deletion of text on publishing
cases of non-compliance. Opposed by the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC and ASIA, EUROPE
proposed that the Governing Body may take any appropriate action in
accordance with the Treaty and its objectives. EUROPE proposed that
parties submit information to the committee on national implementation,
and that the committee would submit a synthesis report to the Governing
Body.
EUROPE,
supported by AFRICA, but opposed by the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC and BRAZIL,
called for establishing a compliance committee at this session, working in
the interim with provisional procedures, and approving its procedures and
mechanisms at the Governing Body’s second session. The SOUTHWEST PACIFIC
and the US suggested taking note of the draft procedures and mechanisms in
future negotiations.
RELATIONSHIP WITH CGRFA: The Secretariat
introduced a document on the Governing Body’s relationship with the CGRFA
(IT/GB-1/06/15). All regions thanked the CGRFA for its contribution to the
Treaty’s negotiation, emphasizing the importance of future cooperation and
calling for holding back-to-back meetings of the Governing Body and the
CGRFA. SWITZERLAND proposed creating an independent Treaty website to
increase its visibility. Working Group I Chair Harvey said the proposals
will be reflected in the session report.
COOPERATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: The
Secretariat introduced a report on cooperation with other international
organizations (IT/GB-1/06/Inf.4). The Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research reported on activities
relevant for the ITPGR’s implementation. EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA urged
the Governing Body to accept a CBD invitation to participate in the Joint
Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions. On a CBD recommendation
to address the impact of genetic use restriction technologies on
small-scale farmers, SWITZERLAND, opposed by many, suggested deferring
consideration until the Governing Body addresses farmers'
rights.
WORKING GROUP II
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 6: On the
implementation of Article 6 (IT/GB-1/06/10), Austria for the EU favored
step-wise implementation, suggesting that the Secretariat assess the best
way to progress and present its findings to the Governing Body to decide
on next steps. INDIA inquired how the benefit-sharing mechanism will work
and underscored the role for the technical committee in this
regard.
ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS OF PGRFA INCLUSION IN THE
MS: Delegates agreed to postpone to the third meeting of the Governing
Body the first assessment of progress in the inclusion of PGRFA held by
natural and legal persons in the MS, to allow for the MTA to become
operational.
AGREEMENTS WITH IARCs: On the draft agreements
between the Governing Body and IARCs and other relevant international
institutions (IT/GB-1/06/9), the EU and CANADA supported, and BRAZIL
opposed, a paragraph on encouraging ITPGR parties to give IARCs access, on
mutually agreed terms, to plant genetic resources not listed in Annex I.
Delegates eventually agreed to retain the text. On dispute settlement,
GRULAC argued that in cases of failure to agree on arbitrators, the FAO
Director-General should appoint arbitrators, while EUROPE and the CGIAR
preferred the UN Secretary-General to do so. Delegates accepted GRULAC’s
position, and agreed on arbitration based on the ITPGR arbitration
procedures. The draft agreement was approved with these
amendments.
INDIA said the
agreement should not automatically apply to other future relevant
international institutions. EGYPT drew attention to resources available in
IARCs and called for increased cooperation between countries and IARCs.
FUNDING STRATEGY: GRULAC reiterated its call for
adoption of the resolution and Annex I on the funding strategy by the
Governing Body at its first session, as well as for establishing an
intersessional process coupled with budgetary provisions to address the
other annexes. Because of continued disagreement on text relating to an
advisory committee, priorities and disbursement of funds, informal
consultations were held over the lunch break.
In the
afternoon, the Secretariat summarized progress reached in informal
consultations, including compromise on country reporting “as appropriate”
on the “results of” actions in support of the funding strategy, and
establishing an advisory committee whose meetings are subject to available
funds. BRAZIL requested bracketing a paragraph on using financial
resources arising from benefit-sharing to improve the conservation and
sustainable use of Annex I genetic resources.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: INDIA, supported by
GRULAC, proposed text on the establishment of a permanent advisory
committee to review issues referred by the Governing Body and act as a
think-tank on scientific and technical issues. The UK opposed the
establishment of a committee, whether permanent or not, citing
insurmountable budgetary constraints in the short- to medium-term.
PLENARY
BUDGET: Chair Mombiela introduced a draft resolution
with appendices containing the ITPGR core administrative budget and a
programme of work for the biennium 2006-2007. Budget Committee Chair
Christer Wretborn (Sweden) reported that the committee had agreed on a
core administrative budget of US$ 2,800,610, of which the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization would contribute 40%. He noted that the budget is
presently under-funded, expressed hope for country voluntary
contributions, and urged the Plenary to adopt the resolution.
SWITZERLAND,
supported by NORWAY, noted that the resolution cannot be adopted because
the list of meetings contained in the programme of work is contingent upon
working groups’ decisions that are still pending. AUSTRIA, FINLAND,
IRELAND, SPAIN and CANADA each pledged US$ 5,000 for the first meeting of
an ad hoc advisory committee on the funding strategy.
DATE AND VENUE OF THE SECOND SESSION: Delegates agreed
that the second session of the Governing Body will be held back-to-back
with the next session of the CGRFA, in the first half of 2007 in Rome,
Italy.
MTA CONTACT GROUP
The MTA contact
group convened in the evening, following informal consultations throughout
the day. Delegates agreed to, inter alia, text on: making
information on MTAs that have been entered into available “by the
Governing Body to the third party beneficiary;” and taking into account
the Governing Body’s decisions when necessary for interpretation of the
applicable law.
On the
acceptance signature, delegates discussed click-wrap and signature forms
of acceptance, with most agreeing that both options should be made
available. GRULAC argued, and delegates eventually agreed, that both
provider and recipient should choose the method of acceptance. On the rate
and modalities of payment, delegates agreed that only one payment was
required when a product contains a PGRFA accessed from the MS under two or
more MTAs.
The contact
group did not reach agreement on preambular language on recognizing the
diversity of parties’ legal systems, and on a related operative paragraph
on MTA parties recognizing and accepting legal measures adopted by ITPGR
parties. On arbitration, GRULAC objected to text referring to the Rules of
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.
Delegates
discussed, without reaching agreement, the different regional groups’
proposals for payment rates linked to broad and narrow definitions of
“product.” AFRICA stated that a higher rate was appropriate considering
the increased value of genetic resources, while the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC
advocated a lower rate with a broad definition, noting the need to balance
the flow of funds with the use of the MS.
In a late night
session, the contact group resumed discussions on the relationship between
MTA parties and ITPGR parties. GRULAC, opposed by NORTH AMERICA and the
SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, insisted that MTA parties “accept” legal measures and
procedures adopted by ITPGR parties. NORTH AMERICA and the SOUTHWEST
PACIFIC preferred using “acknowledge,” with NORTH AMERICA requesting to
move the text to the preamble. Deliberations continued into the early
morning.
IN
THE CORRIDORS
On Thursday, the
corridors were crowded with sleep-deprived and weary delegates commenting
on the late-night budget committee’s decision to drastically shrink the
budget to less than US$ 3 million. Some said this was due to faltering
commitments of voluntary contributions, while others pointed to limited
funds coming from the FAO core budget. Either way, participants noted that
the smaller budget remains severely under-funded. Many anticipate that the
victims will be the substantive activities necessary for the Treaty’s
implementation. A few, however, defend the smaller budget as being
“realistic,” pragmatically commenting that the adoption of a budget is
worth the sacrifice of a reduction in its size.
Meanwhile,
pressure was mounting because members of the standard MTA contact group
were eager to reconvene after plenary, as they felt that a final
breakthrough was hopefully just another late-night session
away.
ENB
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: The Earth Negotiations
Bulletin summary and analysis of the First Meeting of the Governing
Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture will be available on Monday, 19 June 2006 online at: http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/itpgrgb1/.
This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is written and
edited by Radoslav Dimitrov, Ph.D., Reem Hajjar, Harry Jonas, Stefan
Jungcurt, and Elisa Morgera. The Digital Editor is Anders Gonçalves
da Silva. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the Director of
IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Sustaining
Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the United
States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom
(through the Department for International Development - DFID), the
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany
(through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the
German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission
(DG-ENV) and the Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory
General Directorate for Nature Protection. General Support for the
Bulletin
during 2006 is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the Government of Australia, the Austrian Federal Ministry
for the Environment, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, SWAN International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES)
and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through
the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute -
GISPRI). Funding for translation of the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin into French has been provided by the International
Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate
academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including
requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, +1-646-536-7556
or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. The ENB Team at
the First Session of the Governing Body of the ITPGR can be
contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | |
