|
The Conference of Parties faced an enormous amount of
work. Among important negotiations on a biosafety protocol and on marine
and terrestrial biodiversity, and the usual "housekeeping" discussions
on funding and Secretariat housing, this time it also had to deal with
the concerns of people organisations. More than thirty indigenous peoples
representatives, together with some farmer organisations and NGOs, formed
the Coalition Against Biopiracy (CAB) which made its voice clearly heard.
Discussions on access to genetic resources and intellectual property rights
had been heating up for some time amongst NGOs, since both concepts are
central to the biotechnology industry's plans to privatise the world's
biological resources. The CAB's BioTalk newsletter, whose colourful pages
could be seen being widely read both inside and outside the meeting hall,
clearly voiced these concerns.
Many of the issues articulated by the CAB were echoed
by delegates. Several government delegations declared that human genetic
resources should not be considered within the scope of CBD, despite the
fact that human genes are already being patented and commodified. Some
South Pacific governments, alarmed by the fact that the cell lines of
a Papau New Guinean Hagahai tribe member had been patented by the US government,
requested that the International Court of Justice be consulted on the
patentability of human genetic material. The final conference report requests
the Secretariat to prepare a study on the impact of IPR systems on the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the equitable sharing
of benefits derived from genetic resources. The Secretariat was also requested
to "liaise" with the WTO on the implementation of the TRIPS
Agreement in GATT — language which came as quite a deception, since
the wording in the final document doesn't really reflect that some delegates
had requested that the CBD "assert its supremacy over the WTO
in matters pertaining to biodiversity."
During the plenary discussion on access to genetic resources
and intellectual property rights, the Indigenous People' Biodiversity
Network (IPBN) read a strong statement — applauded by many government
and NGO delegates — calling for a moratorium on the collection of
biological material, stating their opposition to patents on all life forms,
and demanding rights to control over resources and knowledge (see Box).
In the light of all the discussions on prior informed consent, material
transfer agreements, etc, it was made clear that before negotiating access,
indigenous and local communities demand to talk about rights over their
resources and knowledge.
Many governments made declarations on the need to develop
mechanisms to recognise the rights of indigenous and local communities:
instruments that go beyond those that simply aim to guarantee access.
Some countries stressed that Community Rights need separate treatment
from Northern- style Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). This issue will
be on the agenda of COP3, within the discussion on the implementation
of article 8(j) of the Convention on the rights of local and indigenous
communities. As a practical and welcome step, Canada offered to cover
the costs of having a permanent representative for indigenous peoples
in the CBD Secretariat. Dr. Calestous Juma, the new Executive Secretary
of the Convention Secretariat, immediately embraced the idea and met with
NGOs to discuss ways to move the proposal ahead. It remains to be seen
whether this move entails real empowerment, since, as the Coalition Against
Biopiracy made clear in one of its statements, "consultation among
unequal partners is not consultation".
Towards the end of the discussions the United States
government desperately complained that most delegations had placed more
emphasis on limiting access than on facilitating it. Indeed, those countries
that had hoped for a quick deal guaranteeing free access, were in for
a disappointment. As NGOs argued, access is not only a matter of someone
in the national capital giving the green light for a biodiversity collecting
mission. Local communities holding and nurturing that biodiversity should
have a clear say in the matter as well, which can only be facilitated
by putting the discussion on "rights" up front. This was the
clear message from civil society to the negotiators at COP-2, and it seems
that some took notice. At least the stage has been set, and the next COP
will continue the discussion on possible options for implementing access
at the national level, and keep a watchful eye on IPR developments while
alternative Community Rights are discussed.
A protocol on agricultural biodiversity?
Once again the outstanding issues concerning plant genetic
resources included in Resolution 3 of the Nairobi Final Act for the adoption
of the CBD came up for discussion. These related to access to ex-situ
collections acquired prior to the CBD, and the question of farmers' rights.
In that context, the ongoing processes within FAO to harmonise the Global
System for Food and Agriculture with the CBD were well received by the
COP.
The final report calls on the FAO to present the outcome
of the June 1996 Fourth International Conference on Plant Genetic Resources
(ITC4) to the COP3, particularly the State of the World Report and the
Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
It was also decided that the President of the COP should address the ITC4,
calling for complementarity between FAO and the CBD in the area of genetic
resources for food and agriculture, and recognising the plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture are critical components of biological
diversity. The CBD statement to be presented at Leipzig also compliments
the FAO Secretariat on the participatory preparatory process underway
for the ITC4, built up from national, regional and subregional meetings.
The COP also declared its support for the ongoing renegotiation
of the International Undertaking within the Commission on Plant Genetic
Resources (which, according to a recent FAO decision, will become the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). The renegotiations
aim to bring key areas of the Undertaking in harmony with the CBD.
In the usual corridor talks many delegates expressed
concern at FAO's poor record as a promoter of sustainability; nevertheless,
government support was strong for the establishment of a protocol to the
CBD for genetic resources for food and agriculture. Such a protocol would
tie together FAO's Global Plan of Action and the revised Undertaking,
and place the whole global system on genetic resources for food and agriculture
under the authority of the CBD. Many feel that the backing for that solution
can be explained by trust on the work done by FAO's Commission on Plant
Genetic Resources since its creation in the early 80's, and the strong
wish to bring all major biodiversity issues within the context of one
strong international agreement.
Biosafety and ecosystem management
In what was hailed as "a major victory for Third
World countries" by the Third World Network, work will finally
start on the development of a protocol on biosafety for the "safe
transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organism (GMOs)".
Due to strong pressure from developed countries — especially the
US, even though it still is not a Party to the Convention — the working
group that was set up will initially limit the scope of a future protocol
to transboundary movements. The reality is that most developing countries
want a protocol that also sets minimum national biosafety standards and
takes socio-economic aspects into consideration, including civil and criminal
responsibility in case of damage resulting from the handling of GMOs.
Work on the draft should finished by 1998, with an interim review at COP3.
Decisions were also taken by the COP to go ahead with
work on specific components of biodiversity, taking the ecosystem approach
as the framework for action. On the issue of forest biodiversity, the
Secretariat was requested to link up with work going on within the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests of the Commission on Sustainable Development. On the
conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity, an
expert group was created under the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice.
On the organisational side, the CBD seems to be on its
way to some needed independence. The selection of Dr. Calestous Juma,
who comes from a long time involvement in the struggle for equitable and
sustainable genetic resources management, as the Executive Secretary has
been well received. Montreal was chosen as the permanent secretariat location,
which could create a welcome distance from the UNEP offices in Nairobi
and Geneva. And although the World Bank linked Global Environmental Facility
will continue at least for another year as the CBD financial mechanism,
new sources of financing are also being explored. If the GEF remains as
the permanent mechanism, steps are being taken to guarantee that it comes
under COP mandate as much as possible.
For the time being, the Convention on Biological Diversity
has gone from the preliminary negotiations to a more dynamic and meaningful
stage. While transnational companies, most developed countries as well
as some developing countries rich in genetic resources continue to see
the CBD as merely a biodiversity trading bazaar, the impression after
Jakarta is that the Convention seems to be moving towards a more comprehensive
understanding on what should be done. Unlike many large United Nations
events, the voices of people-led organisations were heard in Jakarta,
and they were often joined by the voices of governments. Time will tell
how real those concerns and commitments were, and there is an alert watch
dog to keep watch. Indigenous peoples are taking up the challenge thrown
at them by Dr. Juma to "stop knocking on the door, and instead come
in, sit down and start talking". True sustainable conservation, use
and benefit sharing of biological diversity will never come about without
the real participation of those who have nourished it in the first place.
For the official final report: The Executive
Secretariat, CBD, 15 Chemins des Anmones, Chatelaine, CH-1219 Geneva;
fax (41-22) 797 25 12. Reports are also available from the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin, published by the IISD: 161 Portage Ave., East Sixth Floor, Winnipeg,
Manitoba RB OY4, Canada. The Bulletin is available on the Internet at
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/. Their email is: enb@igc.apc.org.
|
Imprimer
