IU survives Spoleto

International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

A NOTE ON THE RESULTS OF THE 6TH MEETING OF THE IU CONTACT GROUP IN SPOLETO, ITALY, 23-28 APRIL 2001

3 May 2001

The Contact Group made progress and built up some momentum for agreement. As a result they agreed to send the outcome of their work to the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture for adoption as a revised International Undertaking. This meeting will be in June at FAO Headquarters in Rome. But, while a lot of consensus was achieved - especially between Europe and most developing countries - there are still quite a number of issues outstanding ? and a few powerful countries ready to torpedo the deal.

Introduction

At the core of the renegotiation of the International Undertaking (IU) lies the aim to establish a multilateral system for the exchange of ­ and benefit sharing from ­ the world's crop genetic resources. As such, it is the first attempt to develop a comprehensive and legally binding interpretation for agriculture of the general principles and rules of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ­ an issue that was largely unresolved when the CBD was signed almost 10 years ago.

In the past few years, the negotiations have been conducted in a 'Contact Group' consisting of representation from some 40 countries. Progress in this group has been painfully slow, and the recent meeting in Spoleto (Italy) held in the last week of April, was generally seen as a 'now-or-never' session. The negotiators had a 'simplified text' proposal by the Chair, Ambassador Gerbasi of Venezuela, which was used as the basis for the negotiations.

The Spoleto negotiations were in many ways similar to many of the previous sessions of the Contact Group. After the first three days of totally blocked negotiations ­ with the usual countries pestering over details ­ the Chair called the group to order and insisted that they should either recognise failure and go home, or get serious and move on. European donors got tough and threatened there would be no money for a further meeting unless substantial progress could be shown. That sent a bit of a shockwave and got everybody going. Also, the increased presence of civil society ­ through observers, briefings, open letters and sign-on statements ­ did help to keep up the pressure as delegations felt they were being watched.

At some points, delegates sailed through articles only focusing on the main issues, but in other moments they got bogged down on irrelevant details ­ spurred by the usual countries which love to see the negotiations drag on ­ or just collapse. On several points, agreements in principle were reached between Europe and the developing countries bloc, which left other industrialised countries (the US, Canada and Australia) more isolated. These included agreements on language about how to deal with intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the IU, and a text on what to do with the material held by the institutes of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) ­ two central issues in the IU. On the last day however ­ and in a clear move to undermine any progress - the USA reinstated an old proposal of theirs that would render the entire IU useless. Generally seen as a sign of weakness and a desperate attempt to undermine the consensus building that was underway, that proposal consists of leaving it up to each country which germplasm of each crop to include in the multilateral system with the argument that governments cannot control what private companies collect, store and exchange.

Still, in the end, the overall feeling was that enough progress had been made to allow the hope that a final extraordinary meeting of the Commission will be able to wrap things up. This meeting will happen at the last week of June, at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) headquarters in Rome.

The central issues

Overall, the net result of the Spoleto sessions sticks pretty closely to the original simplified text of the Chair, which was the basic negotiating document. But there are still quite a lot of issues unresolved:

* There has been no serious fighting over IPR. The Group of 77 (G77, or developing countries) decided not to make that a big battle and accepted the current text that ?Recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit access to PGRFA, or their genetic parts or components, in the form received from the Multilateral System?. This is a quite weak version of what CSOs and farmers movements have been demanding in their open letters. The ?in the form received? clause does allow for IPRs on any new material developed from the genetic resources received from the system. But even that was too much for the USA who insisted that ?genetic parts and components? should be bracketed, after which the G77 asked that ?in the form? should be bracketed as well. So, in principle that discussion is still open ­ although there is a basic consensus among all parties except the USA, Canada and Australia.

* The text on commercial benefit sharing has not been changed in any substantial way. The proposal forwarded to the Commission meeting still includes the provision that for genetic resources that are covered by IPRs that restrict access, a royalty payment should be made to a funding mechanism of the IU. It comes with a footnote that states that that four countries do not agree to this. These are the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand ­ although New Zealand seems now to be ready to drop its reservation.

* As expected, the Farmers Rights text was not discussed at this meeting ­ but informally there was some talk about the possibility to flag this as an outstanding issue in a separate resolution to come with the new IU and committing countries to deal with it at a higher level.

* One hotly debated issue was the question how to deal with the germplasm held by the CGIAR. In the delegates? rhetoric, positions seem further apart than ever, but if you look through that, there is a basic understanding that this material should come under policy control of the Governing Body of the new IU, and that basically the same rules should apply to them. On the last day, a basic agreement was brokered to that extent between the G77 and Europe that bring most of the current materials under the rules of the IU and allow that newly collected materials which are not on the list can be dealt with on a more bilateral basis.

* The discussion on the list is closely related to this. The new IU will come with an annexed list of crops to which the facilitated access and benefit sharing rules will apply. By the end of the meeting there was already consensus about 30 crops ­ and the expectation is that this could very well increase to include most of the major crops and fodder species.

* One hot topic still to be discussed, will be the issue of how to deal with non-parties to the IU. By now everybody assumes that the US and Australia will not sign on. Actually, on the first day the US publicly announced that it might sign, but most likely would not ratify with current political climate in the country. This move turned it into the only country in the room that uses its own electoral system as an excuse to keep on blocking the negotiation process. It also resulted in the momentum for other countries to not bother anymore - and move on. Incorporation of other countries such as Canada, Brazil and Colombia, who have been particularly uncooperative in the negotiations is more uncertain, but most observers expect that they will come around once a reasonable deal has been struck. The developing countries proposed an Article ruling that non-Parties only may get access to materials that fall under the IU if they commit themselves to comply with all the conditions and obligations. Canada proposed instead, that non-Parties are of non-business to this agreement and should be allowed to.

Where from here?

The most important news from Spoleto is that the IU survived another hurdle ­ and is now headed towards a final make-or-break session of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture on 24-30 June. The other good news is that now there seems to be better collaboration ­ and more consensus - between Europe and most of the developing countries, which could form enough of a basis for the adoption of a new IU. However, the opposition to any meaningful and comprehensive agreement for crop germplasm has also stepped up. As happened in the lead up to the Cartagena meeting that adopted the Biosafety Protocol, the USA can be expected to use all and any channels available to create doubts in any government willing to listen ­ or susceptible to be arm-twisted.

CSOs have had an increased presence at the negotiations ­ as was shown by an open letter of Via Campesina, and a CSO statement about the IU negotiations signed by over 300 organisations. But the essence of our demands - no IPRs on PGRFA and stronger Farmers' Rights - have not really been dealt with and our demand for a comprehensive list of crops to be included in the IU is only partially met:

By the time the Spoleto meeting closed, negotiators had reached consensus about some 30 crops to be included in the multilateral system ­ a significant increase from the five agreed previously! However, a lot of the so called 'minor crops' ­ and a lot of the basic fruit and vegetable crops ­ are not on the list despite the fact that they are crucial for local food security. CSOs should argue for a more comprehensive inclusion of such crops in the multilateral system.

A consensus was reached amongst the delegates several years ago on a very weak version of Farmers' Rights. We should ask for a reopening of that debate to strengthen language on this in the IU, or to get an accompanying resolution together with the adoption of the IU that commits countries to deal with this issue on a higher level, perhaps in the UN High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCHR).

The current compromise text that requires countries not to claim IPRs on the genetic resources 'in the form received' from the multilateral system, does put some limitation on the patenting of crop germplasm, but is a far cry from our demands. We should try to strengthen this requirement as much as possible and argue for the 'in the form received' clause to be deleted. A stronger limitation on IPRs in exchange for a longer and more inclusive list of crops to be covered, could very well form the basic trade-off in the final negotiations.

It is important that as many CSOs as possible actively engage in this process of finalising the IU, lobby their governments in preparation for ­ and participate themselves in ­ the final negotiating meeting of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, to be held from 24 to 30 of June in Rome.

GOING FURTHER:

Detailed coverage of the Spoleto session was produced by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/iucg6

RAFI is preparing a report on Spoleto and where things now stand with respect to possible adoption of the IU in November.
http://www.rafi.org

Further information on the IU renegotiation can be found at UK ABC's website.
http://www.ukabc.org/iu2.htm