Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03ROME5197
2003-11-17 15:38:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Rome
Cable title:  

PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES: INTERGOVERNMENTAL

Tags:  EAGR ETRD SENV KIPR AORC FAO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS ROME 005197 

SIPDIS


STATE FOR OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC
AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USAID FOR EGAT/ESP - MOORE AND BERTRAM
USDA FOR FAS - REICH AND HUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK

FROM FODAG

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT: PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES: INTERGOVERNMENTAL
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, 5-7 NOVEMBER 2003

UNCLAS ROME 005197

SIPDIS


STATE FOR OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC
AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USAID FOR EGAT/ESP - MOORE AND BERTRAM
USDA FOR FAS - REICH AND HUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK

FROM FODAG

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT: PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES: INTERGOVERNMENTAL
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, 5-7 NOVEMBER 2003


1. Summary: Participants in the FAO Commission for
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA)
Intergovernmental Technical Working Group (ITWG) made
progress in setting guidelines for implementing the
Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (GPA) at their Second Meeting in
Rome on November 5-7 2003. Efforts to debate political
subjects such as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies
(GURTs) were, for the most part, successfully evaded by
the Chair. The Secretariat noted that 33 countries had
ratified the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (IT),increasing the
likelihood that it would enter into force during the
first half of 2004. Since the developed countries are
lagging in ratifications, the IT Governing Body may
initially be dominated by developing countries, whose
actions may not reflect the consensus of those
governments that have signed the treaty. End Summary.

--------------
Second Meeting of the ITWG and
Preceding Technical Workshop
--------------


2. The Second Meeting of the ITWG took place at the FAO
Headquarters in Rome on November 5-7. Participants
included representatives from Algeria, Angola, Australia,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Germany, Italy, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela,
Egypt, Iran, Canada, and the United States. The
Malaysian delegate was elected as chair and kept the
three days of discussions flowing smoothly. Norway and
Angola were selected as vice chairs, and Iran as
rapporteur.


3. A November 4 Technical Workshop of experts preceded
the ITWG and provided it with input on how to integrate
most efficiently the information-gathering activities
associated with monitoring the GPA and with writing the
Second Report of the State of the World's Plant Genetic

Resources for Food and Agriculture (SoW). The experts
agreed on a schedule for completing the first draft of
the SoW, and for conducting GPA monitoring.

--------------
Progress in Implementing the GPA
--------------


4. The ITWG discussed and made recommendations regarding
several papers prepared by the FAO that addressed the
means for implementing the GPA. The "Strengthening Plant
Breeding" paper paralleled closely an existing US
national study on this topic, and was well received by
the ITWG. The "Strengthening Seed Systems" paper was
controversial. Australia expressed strong concerns that
much of the work proposed in the preceding paper
duplicated existing regulatory frameworks (e.g., OECD)
and information currently available as documents or via
Internet websites. Canada, Portugal, and the US recorded
similar concerns. India, Norway, and Angola articulated
the need for seed systems research and development
tailored to developing nations' conditions. Oddly,
representatives from the International Seed Federation
(ISF) were silent regarding this topic, even when asked
by the Chair for their views. An FAO representative
clarified the scope of the proposed work, suggesting that
it was not duplicative and filled a serious gap. FAO
will reformulate and rewrite the paper, presumably for
presentation to the Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) in 2004.


5. Discussion of the role and nature of the Facilitating
Mechanism for the IT revealed polarized views.
Developing nations wanted it to serve essentially as a
funding mechanism, whereas developed nations and,
seemingly, the FAO Secretariat viewed it more as an
"information clearing house" that would assist nations in
identifying resources (financial and otherwise) for
implementing the GPA. The ITWG failed to reach consensus
regarding the objectives of the Facilitating Mechanism,
so the Chair will forward this topic to the CGRFA for
resolution. Surprisingly, the ITWG did make considerable
progress in reaching consensus about the activities the


Facilitating Mechanism should undertake, and its
operational structure.

--------------
Avoiding GURTs, Revising the Code of Conduct,
and Other Political Issues
--------------


6. The Chair steered the discussion on revising the
current Code of Conduct for Plant Exploration and
Transfer away from issues that might affect the terms of
the standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) of the IT
that has yet to be negotiated. When the discussion
began, Angola proposed that the Code be revised
immediately. Germany, Portugal, Norway, Canada, US, and
India suggested that such a revision be considered only
after the upcoming negotiations on the MTA are concluded.
The Chair quickly recognized this position as the
consensus. Some representatives from other governments
suspected that the FAO had worked behind the scenes to
dissuade the developing nations from using a discussion
of Code revision as an opportunity to influence the MTA.
Interestingly, Cuba and Iran were absent from the room
during this discussion.


7. The Chair ably sidelined efforts by some
representatives, especially Cuba, to politicize the
proceedings. For example, in discussions on the SoW,
Cuba, with support from Iran and Angola, requested the
inclusion of information on GURTs. The US requested and
received clarification that such information would be
from extant documents, rather than from new, additional
studies. The Chair specified further that such
information would only be from "scientific and
authoritative studies."


8. The roles that biotechnology and genetic engineering
methods may play in crop improvement surfaced at several
points during the meeting. Cuba, Angola, and India
requested that the "Strengthening Seed Systems" paper
prepared by FAO discuss the eventuality that genetically-
engineered seeds might be transferred, either
deliberately or inadvertently, to developing nations as a
result of famine relief programs. The US suggested this
topic was a seed quality issue, which was already
addressed at length in the paper.

-------------- --------------
The IT - Initial Domination by Developing Countries?
-------------- --------------


9. At the end of the meeting, FAO representatives made a
pitch for contributions to support the implementation of
the IT, specifically for discussions on the MTA, rules of
procedure, financial terms and compliance. Announcements
that the US had contributed funds for supporting the
Experts Groups Meeting for the MTA, and for the Global
Crop Diversity Trust, were well received. The FAO is
gratified and surprised by the speed of IT ratifications;
thirty-three governments have ratified to date. The IT
is expected to enter into force during the first half of
2004, ninety days after the required forty ratifications.


10. An FAO official told U.S. reps on that sidelines
that he did not expect the European Union to be among the
forty initial IT ratifications - only five EU states have
ratified the IT so far. Therefore, the initial IT
Governing Body is likely to be dominated by developing
countries and its actions may reflect their concerns
rather than those of the broader FAO membership. The FAO
will not seek an early meeting of the Governing Body, in
the hopes that the MTA and other issues can first be
resolved at Expert Group meetings, and by the more
broadly based CGRFA, which includes 150+ nations. But
the timing of a Governing Body meeting may be out of the
FAO's hands, because a quorum of one-third of the parties
to the IT can call a meeting. In any event, devising a
standard MTA may take some time, because so far few
countries have developed definitive positions on key
issues that the MTA will resolve.

--------------
Comment
--------------



11. The G-77's interventions regarding GURTs and other
biotechnology issues at the ITWG and elsewhere suggest a
coordinated campaign, waged simultaneously across several
multilateral forums. The ultimate aim of this effort may
be to regulate (or in the case, of GURTs, ban outright)
agricultural biotechnologies via resolutions in
"multilateral environmental agreements" (e.g., CBD, FAO-
IT) rather than via the actions of more technical
regulatory bodies or agreements (e.g., IPPC, Codex
Alimentarius).

Hall


NNNN
2003ROME05197 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED