Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 6 • Number 2 • 3rd February 2006

Traditional Knowledge Meeting Revisits Gurts, Sui Generis Systems

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

In the week preceding the access and benefit-sharing negotiations (see related story, this issue), the Working Group on Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held its fourth meeting also in Spain, focusing on the Article in the Convention that looks at the need to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities that embody traditional lifestyles that support the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Heated discussions on what the Group should tell the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention to decide on genetic use restriction technologies (GURTS, referred to as “terminator technologies” by many critics) were the subject of civil society and developing-country mobilisation before, during and after the talks (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 22 July 2005). GURTS, i.e. technologies that can be used to genetically alter seeds to be sterile and thus prevent reuse, sparked disagreement on whether the CBD’s 2000 decision (V/5/III), which established a de facto moratorium (or recommendation, as some describe it) on the approval of GURTS by CBD Parties, should be ‘reaffirmed’ or ‘noted’. Several developing countries, civil society representatives and indigenous groups called for a long-term ban on field testing and commercial use, while Australia and Canada pushed for a case-by-case risk assessment of particular GURTS. The final resolution simply reaffirmed the previous decision, upheld the precautionary approach and confirmed the rights of farmers and indigenous peoples to use, save and exchange seeds. The inclusion of a reference to further research using a case-by-case risk assessment approach, however, rose the ire of civil society groups such as the International Ban Terminator Campaign, who suggested it could open the door to field trials.

The indigenous groups present argued that it was important that their interests in the ABS talks, such as ensuring that an international regime requires prior informed consent from indigenous and local communities, are taken into account in the ABS Working Group. Agreement on the creation of a voluntary fund to enhance the participation of indigenous and local communities in the CBD process will likely support this goal. Indigenous groups also raised concerns, along with the Africa Group, Brazil and Pacific countries, that proposed international registers of traditional knowledge could in fact provide free access to traditional knowledge, without necessarily ensuring that the users of the resources would have to seek prior informed consent and a benefit-sharing arrangement that its supporters suggest the register could encourage. However, such registers could do so if patent authorities used the information therein to enforce prior informed consent and benefit-sharing requirements in patent applications. In addition, talks on what an international or regional system to provide alternative ’sui generis’ protection of traditional knowledge could look like also got underway, but Parties were only able to find common ground on encouraging regional sui generis frameworks to deal with the transboundary distribution of biological resources.

ICTSD Reporting; ENB Vol. 9 No. 334-339, 23-27 January 2006.