ENB:09:65
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY (AGENDA ITEM 9)
When introducing the item, the Executive Secretary expressed regret that there had been insufficient time since SBSTTA-2 to incorporate its recommendations into the document that served as the main basis for COP consideration of this issue, Consideration of Agricultural Biological Diversity under the CBD (UNEP/CBD/COP/3/14).
As the main sectoral issue of COP-3, representatives of over 50 governments, regional groups, IGOs and NGOs addressed agricultural biodiversity on Tuesday, 7 November. These formal interventions focused on: the FAO Global System, the Global Plan of Action (GPA) adopted at the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, and the World Food Summit. Delegates raised a number of specific concerns, including: gap analysis; the impact of pesticides and chemical agents; the impact of subsidies on sustainable agriculture and international trade; ex-situ collections acquired prior to the CBD’s entry into force; financing agro-biodiversity; IPR on life forms and social knowledge; Farmers’ Rights; bioprospecting; benefit-sharing; and a protocol on PGRFA under the CBD.
An Open-Ended Working Group on Agricultural Biodiversity was set up under the chairmanship of Manfred Schneider (Austria). Delegates first deliberated whether they should base their negotiations on the SBSTTA recommendations or a Chair’s summary of the statements made in the COW.
During the second meeting, draft texts were tabled by the EU and the G-77/China. The EU stated that it could not accept the G-77 text as a basis for negotiation since it ignored the useful work of the SBSTTA. CANADA, MAURITIUS, the EU, NORWAY, the UK and AUSTRALIA stated that the SBSTTA recommendations would serve as a sound scientific basis for negotiation. BRAZIL, COLOMBIA and ARGENTINA preferred that the G-77 text serve as the basis, noting that SBSTTA recommendations could be brought in as “enrichments” to the final document once the political stage had been set by COP.
A small drafting group, composed of a core of regional representatives and chaired by Braulio de Souza Dias (Brazil), consolidated both draft proposals and the SBSTTA recommendations. The result, a text comprised of a three-page preamble and a 46- paragraph operative section, served as the basis for negotiation.
The Working Group then conducted a paragraph-by-paragraph review of the text, beginning with the operative section. Several delegations submitted additional text in conference room papers. For example, the US tabled text regarding agro-chemicals in response to a joint proposal by CANADA, AUSTRALIA and BRAZIL. SWITZERLAND submitted wording on integrated pest management strategies. MALAYSIA, NORWAY, CANADA and the EU each tabled text regarding the implementation of the GPA. While MALAYSIA reaffirmed commitments on new and additional resources within the context of UNCED, the other countries emphasized financing of the GPA within the context of the FAO Global System.
Delegates generally agreed on the importance of the role of farmers, traditional knowledge and public awareness. The most contentious issues, such as gap analysis, trade impacts, market forces and the relationship between the FAO and the CBD, were referred to informal consultations. Additionally, two contact groups, each of which included Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, the EU, Malaysia, New Zealand and Poland, were established to address the work programme and funding issues.
On the basis of this work, the Working Group finalized their draft decision and addressed unresolved issues. The reference to the World Food Summit’s wording regarding the role of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) on the relationship between trade and agricultural biodiversity was resolved through informal consultations. Several delegations expressed substantive difficulties with the paragraph pertaining to the interim financial mechanism and argued that the matter should be resolved on the basis of the decision from the Working Group on financial issues. However, BRAZIL noted that this paragraph was part of a “package deal” along with the text put forward by AUSTRALIA regarding the legal status of a revised International Undertaking on PGRFA and the Global Plan of Action. The paragraph was retained on the condition that the decision reflected similar language from the COP-2 decision on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity.
On the basis of a proposal by Canada, several paragraphs were re-ordered so as to clearly distinguish between action required by Parties and by the Secretariat.
The Working Group completed its work on Tuesday, 13 November, one week after its constitution, with two issues still outstanding: the status of ex-situ collections acquired prior to the entry into force of the CBD; and the relationship between IPR legislation and sovereignty over PGRFA as well as Farmers’ Rights. Once these issues were relegated to the relevant drafting groups on Access to Genetic Resources and IPR, respectively, the draft decision was adopted in the COW.
The COP decision on agricultural biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/3/L.12) is comprised of 15 preambular paragraphs, 24 operative paragraphs and three annexes. Annex I establishes a basis for action as it provides an overview of the impact of biodiversity on agriculture. Annex II presents an indicative list of thematic areas, including: land resources; water resources; plant, animal and microbial genetic resources; wildlife; air and climate; farm inputs; wild sources of food; traditional knowledge; marketing conditions for agricultural products; land-use pressures; and agro-forestry. Annex III highlights initial issues for conducting case studies. Notably, the decision: provides for the Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the FAO, to set work programme priorities on the basis of SBSTTA recommendations and the themes outlined in Annex 2; establishes a multi-year programme of activities; focuses on the interface between sustainable agriculture and environmental issues; and encourages Parties to develop national strategies, programmes and policies according to 14 action-oriented goals.
Also, according to the decision, the COP: welcomes the contribution of the GPA to the implementation of the CBD; calls for the effective and speedy revision of the International Undertaking in harmony with the CBD; affirms its willingness to consider a decision by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources “that the International Undertaking should take the form of a protocol” to the CBD, once revised.
The decision further calls for the strengthening of the FAO Global System and, within this context, recognizes issues that “require further work”, such as: financing; the realization of Farmers’ Rights; terms of technology transfer; and access and benefit- sharing arrangements. Finally, the decision draws the attention of international funding mechanisms to the urgent need to support agricultural biodiversity, and, citing the World Food Summit Plan of Action, encourages the WTO CTE to consider developing a better appreciation of the relationship between trade and agricultural biodiversity.