ENB:09:46
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
PLENARY
The CHAIR invited the Chairs of the WG on the Leipzig Declaration (LD) and the Contact Group (CG) on finance and implementation to report on their progress. The CHAIR of the WG on the LD outlined bracketed text that still remained in the Declaration (ITCPGR/96/6 Rev. 1). This included the location of a paragraph referring to national sovereignty over PGR, as well as text on the IU, technology transfer, and finances. He emphasized that the Plenary was awaiting consensus language on technology transfer and finances from the contact groups. Following this, the CHAIR of the CG on finance and implementation reported that discussions continued.
Moving to Agenda Item 7 on the GPA, the CHAIR called for comments on the revised GPA (ITCPGR/96/5- Rev. 2) and a set of amendments to the revised GPA (ITCPGR/96/5-Rev.2-Add 1). The US stated that it could not accept language in Add-1 on benefit-sharing, Farmers’ Rights (FR), and technology transfer. CANADA and AUSTRALIA stated that they would need to confer with their capitals regarding language in Add-1 on these issues. VENEZUELA on behalf of the G-77, later reinforced by INDIA, BRAZIL, MALAYSIA, SENEGAL and PAKISTAN, stated that language in Add-1 represented the minimum that was acceptable to them. The EU stated that it was in full agreement with language in Add-1 dealing with FR and technology transfer, but needed to consult internally regarding the language on benefit-sharing.
POLAND and ARGENTINA stated their desire to comment on unbracketed text in the GPA. The CHAIR suggested that, if absolutely necessary, this be done following interventions on Add-1. SWITZERLAND, later supported by fourteen other countries, underscored his support for the newly formulated paragraph on benefit-sharing in Add-1. The amended text replaced language referring to “ensuring” with "to promote" fair and equitable sharing. It also confirmed the rights of farmers both to have access to, inter alia, germplasm, technologies and financial resources, and to develop and strengthen policies and legislative measures to promote benefit-sharing.
NEW ZEALAND stated that FR had not been properly explored and will be dealt with under the IU. He also noted that the sub-paragraph on benefit-sharing relating to the rights of farmers to have access to financial resources implied subsidies to farmers, which may have implications for GATT. The CHAIR emphasized that it was not the responsibility of the Conference to define FR. NORWAY suggested that the problems with the text were not significant and could be resolved through informal consultations. MEXICO emphasized that his country was a centre of origin of important PGRFA and hence supported FR.
POLAND introduced a new Policy/Strategy, stating that governments should consider legislation to allow distribution of land races/farmers' seed varieties. This proposal was supported by BANGLADESH, SUDAN, MALAYSIA, SENEGAL, URUGUAY, BRAZIL, COSTA RICA, CONGO, INDONESIA, PHILIPPINES and CHINA. ECUADOR noted that before Poland's proposal could be adopted, the definition of local varieties would need to be clarified as it might be problematic for UPOV members. PERU noted no technical objection to Poland's proposal, which would broaden the base for use of genetic resources which may have become obsolete, but called for further informal discussions. The CHAIR indicated that the text would be placed in brackets, as suggested by AUSTRALIA, as the Plenary awaited the results of consultations between interested delegations. Based on these deliberations, the text, with minor alterations, was ultimately adopted as proposed by Poland.
In the paragraph on "intermediate objectives" under the GPA activity on "expanding the characterization, evaluation and number of core collections to facilitate use," URUGUAY proposed to add "useful accessions" to the text calling for the identification of genes that counter stresses which limit crop production. In response to TURKEY's request for clarification of the term, the CHAIR referred the issue to bilateral consultations between the two countries.
Referring to the paragraph on activities promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and broader diversity in crops, URUGUAY proposed to qualify the reference to on-farm improvement with "in accordance with an appropriate strategy." She noted that the purpose of the amendment was to take into account needs, geographical placement, health standards and other factors. The text was accepted as amended by Uruguay.
The paragraph calling for support to regional networks for PGRFA, which also lists those regions considered to be priorities, engendered debate over which regions to list. The CHAIR, seconded by VENEZUELA, supported URUGUAY's proposal to support networks "when necessary." The CHAIR also proposed that the list mention "other regions" at the bottom. These amendments were accepted. GABON, supported by PERU, then proposed language on harmonization of policies on phytosanitary regulations. The UK disagreed with introducing new text and the amendment was withdrawn.
THIRD WORLD NETWORK, later supported by the RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL (RAFI), highlighted the need for new and additional financial resources as well as FR. She noted that the majority of farmers in some nations are women, and equated support for women's rights with support for FR. RAFI called for a legally-binding IU incorporating FR, to be administered by FAO under the umbrella of the CBD. The INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND TRADE POLICY expressed frustration with the US position on FR, stating that FR are already recognized around the world.
The CHAIR then announced the formation of a "friends of the Chair" Contact Group to work out remaining differences over all text, and adjourned the Plenary until midnight.