Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 5 • Number 4 • 4th March 2005
FAULT LINES SURFACE AT ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING NEGOTIATIONS
FAULT LINES SURFACE AT ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING NEGOTIATIONS
Delegates at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Ad hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS), convening from 14 to 18 February in Bangkok, Thailand, used the meeting to further clarify their positions on the objectives and nature of an international regime on ABS. The Working Group had been mandated by the seventh CBD Conference of the Parties (COP-7) Decision VII/19 to initiate negotiations on an international regime on ABS (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 February 2004). Divisions among the providers and users of genetic resources were plainly evident during the discussions, revealing a wide range of expectations and understandings of the need for and scope of the new regime.
Countries that are largely providers of genetic resources, such as the African Group, the Like-minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC) and other developing countries, called for a legally-binding international agreement that would prevent the misappropriation and misuse of genetic resources and their derivatives, ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use and protect traditional knowledge. Several developing countries stressed that the new agreement should complement, rather than substitute, national access and benefit-sharing legislation. Additional norms at the international level, however, were needed to support compliance with national legislation since no judicial remedies currently exist for cases where ABS arrangements or legislations of provider countries are not respected once the genetic resources have left the country. Provider countries also called for the inclusion of both genetic resources and their derivates in the scope of the regime — a proposal rejected by a number of developed countries.
Countries that are primarily users of genetic resources, such as Canada, the US and the EU, maintained that further analysis of experiences with existing national, regional and international ABS instruments and processes (a ‘gap analysis’) was needed as a prerequisite for defining the scope of the regime. Many developing countries, however, noted that the gaps were already known, namely to prevent unauthorised access and use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and that in any case the gap analysis could be carried out in parallel to and thereby inform the negotiations. The final recommendation adopted by the Working Group recognises the utility of the analysis of existing instruments prepared for the meeting (UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/3/2) and supports employing the same analysis with respect to the potential additional elements and options to be identified.
The final document also presents six options submitted by Parties regarding the nature, scope, objectives and elements of the future regime. An number of visions are presented regarding the objectives of the new regime, including preventing misappropriation of genetic resources; protecting traditional knowledge; facilitating access to genetic resources; supporting national legislation; promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and ensuring mutual supportiveness with other international instruments.
The next meeting of the Working Group on ABS will be held from 13-17 March 2006 in Spain.
For daily reporting, see IISD Linkages.
ICTSD Reporting; ENB Vol. 9 No. 311, 21 February 2005; "CBD Launches new negotiations," BANGKOK POST NEWS, 16 February 2005.