The US, CANADA and JAPAN proposed deleting bracketed text in a paragraph calling on the GPA to promote fair and equitable benefit-sharing from use of PGRFA "[or from the use of the knowledge, practices or innovations associated with such resources]". The US offered original text previously deleted, to promote benefit-sharing "within and with countries, and with farmers and communities." VENEZUELA, supported by PERU, the AFRICAN GROUP, SWEDEN, CAMEROON, BOLIVIA, KENYA, EGYPT, SPAIN, MALAYSIA and ITALY, proposed deleting the brackets.
NORWAY, later supported by PERU, proposed language from Article 8(j) of the CBD, referring to language calling on signatories to: "respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities...and encourage the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices." CANADA, pointing out that the CBD qualifies its call for rights for indigenous and local communities, cited Article 8(j) in its entirety, including that these rights are "subject to national legislation" and that they are to be respected only in the context of promoting "in situ conservation". The CBD also qualifies its call for these rights with the phrase "as far as possible and appropriate". With this in mind, COLOMBIA proposed referring instead to the CBD's Preamble due to its broader treatment of benefit-sharing, which recognizes the "close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities on biological resources" as well as the desirability of equitable benefits-sharing.
After informal consultations, VENEZUELA, supported by CANADA, COLOMBIA, GERMANY, NORWAY and the US, proposed text relating to the "desirability of sharing of benefits from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices..." which was adopted.
In the paragraph on long-term objectives to sustain existing ex situ collections, COLOMBIA, on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), MEXICO, SENEGAL, MALAYSIA, on behalf of the developing countries of Asia, EGYPT, on behalf of the Middle East region, PERU, NIGERIA, ARGENTINA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA and the CONGO supported the removal of brackets from the sentence ensuring "[the observance of the sovereign rights of the countries of origin]". The CONGO noted the principle of sovereignty in the CBD, and SENEGAL underscored the right to monitor material given to international centers. The EU, the US, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND proposed deleting the sentence. The compromise wording, developed through informal consultations, reads as follows: "...strengthen cooperation...to sustain ex situ collections, recognizing that States have sovereign rights over their PGRFA."
In the subparagraph calling on governments, the private sector, and institutions to "facilitate [unrestricted] access to PGRFA stored ex situ", the US supported a reference to "unrestricted", stating that this is necessary to ensure world food security. SENEGAL noted that restriction would foster duplication. The EU, supported by ZIMBABWE, EGYPT, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, IRAN, PERU, ECUADOR, KENYA and MEXICO, proposed deleting "unrestricted". VENEZUELA, COLOMBIA, MALAYSIA and TANZANIA cited the need for consistency with the CBD. JAPAN stated that "unrestricted access" should apply to public domain PGRFA, not private sector PGRFA. CANADA and GERMANY noted that "unrestricted" in the GPA would pre-judge IU negotiations. The US agreed to the deletion of "unrestricted" and the subparagraph was adopted.
When the Plenary re-convened, differences over language on benefit-sharing remained. These differences were resolved through informal consultations in the "Friends of the Chair" contact group. Final language on benefit-sharing was changed from "the needs and rights of farmers and farming communities to have access" to "the needs and individual rights of farmers and, collectively, where recognized by national law, to have non- discriminatory access to germplasm, information, technologies and financial resources".
[Return to start of article]