ENB:09:47
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE CONFERENCE
The Leipzig Conference brought together countries from all corners of the world to debate actions necessary to stem the relentless loss of plant genetic diversity essential for food and agriculture and, in particular, world food security. The State of the World Report, which was presented at the Conference, highlighted the importance of conserving these resources, particularly as it noted the fact that 800 million people are undernourished. Long, late hours were spent pulling a Global Plan of Action (GPA) towards a final resolution. Many delegations indicated that they were not happy with the outcome, but conceded that it represented a fragile consensus. Nevertheless, this fragile consensus appears to have diminished the opportunity for the GPA to be a true plan of action.
A number of contentious issues underscored the tension between delegations. These were reflected in the wordy and cautiously written Leipzig Declaration. The primary debate of the Conference centered around finances. Other nerve points, pertinent to conserving and sustainably using plant genetic resources included: forests, access and benefit sharing, and Farmers' Rights.
FINANCING: Prescribing funding sources for the GPA was the most contentious issue of the Conference. From the outset it was clear that there was a significant gulf between donor and developing countries. According to one source in the contact group established to address this issue, a developing country regional group sought a commitment to cover the full incremental cost of implementing the GPA. Apart from the ambiguity inherent in the term "full incremental cost", this proposal was not well received by donor countries. The lack of any substantial reference to funding in the GPA and its complete absence in the Leipzig Declaration, signifies the delicate nature of these negotiations. Delinking discussions on funding from the negotiation of both the GPA and the Declaration, and only including it in the Report of the Conference, appeared to be an attempt to ensure that one's adoption was not contingent upon the other's.
According to some sources, despite the overall non-committal language on funding, some donor countries made verbal funding commitments in the contact group. One delegate suggested that the consensus reached in the contact group was contingent on these verbal commitments being honored. If so, it is extraordinary that the final endorsement of the GPA was contingent on verbal commitments made by some donor countries in the contact group. The final formulation in the Report of the Conference, indicating that funding "should come from developed countries and/or other sources", is hardly conclusive since it essentially leaves the GPA hanging in a financial void.
The Report of the Conference also suggests that multilateral funding institutions should be invited to support the GPA and recommends close cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). According to one observer, this may imply that an appeal is being made to the CBD, so that the GPA can access funds through a window of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). If so, the GPA may have the potential to absorb a significant percentage of biodiversity funding, making other aspects of the CBD inoperable through lack of funds.
FORESTS: Discussion about forest genetic resources surfaced again during the working group deliberations on both the GPA and the Declaration. One African country drew attention to the fact that it relies on forest species as an integral part of its plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). This apparently sparked tensions among some developing countries, as certain Latin American and Caribbean countries were clearly reluctant to bring discussion on forests into another international arena, preferring that the issue be dealt with by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests of the Commission on Sustainable Development.
The interest in forests was reinvigorated after the Secretariat clarified the meaning of the term "sub-sets" of PGR, stating that it referred to forests. In doing so, this text leaves open the possibility that forests may be discussed within the context of PGRFA in the future. As a result, two Latin American countries indicated their reservation over the use of the term "sub-sets". This casts a cloud over a complete consensus adoption of the GPA.
ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING: The issue of access and benefit-sharing was highly debated in the working group during discussions on ex situ collections, a cross-cutting issue also addressed by the CBD. For example, during debate over long- term objectives for ex situ conservation, the US claimed that "unrestricted" access to ex situ PGRFA was necessary for world food security. Many nations objected, pointing to language in the CBD implying a new international paradigm on access and benefit-sharing. Even industrialized nations such as Japan pointed out that it may not be appropriate to provide unrestricted access for the private sector to public domain germplasm stored ex situ. Also relevant to this topic was agreed text on cooperation to "sustain ex situ collections, recognizing that States have sovereign rights over their PGRFA." The International Agricultural Research Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) are closely following this issue. The international centres will likely take their cue from international negotiations such as these before modifying their policy toward the private sector on access and benefit-sharing regarding the ex situ collections maintained by them.
FARMERS' RIGHTS: Farmers' Rights (FR) was another cross-cutting issue in the GPA that was closely scrutinized. Some observers had difficulty understanding the distinction between FR, as defined by the IU, and the rights of communities to share the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources, as mentioned in Article 8(j) of the CBD. Governments, however, may not wait for the results of UN processes to resolve these definitions. Some have already begun experimenting with incorporating FR into proposals for genetic resources access legislation.
LEIPZIG DECLARATION: Whereas the GPA is the Conference's main working document, the Leipzig Declaration is its key political document. Delegates exercised caution and conservatism in crafting the Declaration, which resulted in a clumsy compromise text, prompting one NGO in Plenary to pronounce it the "Leipzig Declension". Given the text's cumbersome wordiness, it is difficult to perceive this as the brief and inspiring expression of vision originally intended. The wording of the Declaration reflects delegates' preference for juxtaposing already agreed upon language rather than risking new - and potentially divisive - formulations. As it stands, the overloaded Declaration will need to be converted into executive summaries for national governments so as to be intelligible to the broader audience it is trying to target.
INCONCLUSIVE OUTCOME: The principle outcome of the Leipzig Conference is the GPA. Delegations spent many hours debating language, primarily focused around whether words implied the need for new and additional funding. Although the intentions of the GPA are noteworthy, it is clear that there is a strong lack of commitment to the Plan, particularly by some key donor countries. The 800 million undernourished people mentioned in the Report on the State of the World's PGR will find little consolation in outcomes of the Leipzig Conference.