5th December 2000

FAO EXPECTS REVISED IU BY NOVEMBER 2001

Discuss this itemShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

At the 119th UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Council meeting in Rome, Italy on 20-25 November 2000, delegates took notice of ongoing difficulties in the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU), the body currently addressing the safeguard of genetic resources for food supplies, including farmers’ rights. The revision is occurring in order to harmonise the IU with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Ambassador Fernando Gerbasi (Venezuela), Chairman of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) — the body responsible for the revision process — reported to the FAO Council on the latest developments, including a hectic 12-17 November meeting of the Inter-sessional Contact Group in Neuchâtel, Switzerland. In order to give the countries time to evaluate the situation politically, the Council called for a final text of the IU to be submitted to the 31st Session of the FAO Conference scheduled for November 2001.

Setback at Neuchâtel

The Neuchâtel meeting brought a considerable setback to negotiations on some crucial issues. Discussions around a draft on benefit sharing from commercialised plant genetic resources for food and agriculture from the Multilateral System (MS) were the most divisive. The MS is designed to ensure access and fair and equitable benefit sharing of profits arising from plant genetic resources, meeting the specific needs of agriculture, and the provision in question is closely related to the WTO TRIPs Agreement. The article addresses mandatory payment of royalties for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA). The progress made at the last meeting of the Contact Group held in Tehran in August this year was jeopardised as several developed countries, including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, said they could not accept the provision in its current form for several reasons, including potential conflicts with TRIPs.

Several developing countries reminded the Neuchâtel meeting that only the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) could provide advice on whether a provision is consistent with the trade rules. Analysts say, however, that the DSB could not decide on the issue until a dispute is raised, even though a dispute could not be raised until the revised IU has entered into force. Observers at the meeting expressed hope that the perfect will not be the enemy of the good: just as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contains ambiguities regarding implementation of the precautionary principle under the WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS), the final version of the IU may contain ambiguities regarding TRIPs which will have to be resolved in order to harmonise these agreements.

The revision of the IU to harmonise it with the CBD has been underway since 1993. The agreement’s objective is to ensure that Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are explored, collected, conserved, evaluated, utilised and made available for plant breeding and other scientific purposes. In its original form as a non-binding agreement, dating from 1983, it was based on the principle that such resources should be “preserved [...] and freely available for use, for the benefit of present and future generations” as part of the common “heritage of mankind.” FAO Resolution 3/91 subsequently subjected this principle to “the sovereignty of States over their plant genetic resources.” A decision emanating from the COP 5 Meeting of the CBD in Nairobi in May this year noted that the IU “is envisaged to play a crucial role in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.” COP 5 delegates also affirmed their willingness to eventually accept the IU as a legally binding instrument.