PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES TREATY LIKELY TO ENTER

UNCLAS ROME 001057

SIPDIS


STATE FOR E, EB, OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC
AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USDA FOR DHEGWOOD, FAS - BRICHEY LREICH AND RHUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK
USAID FOR EGAT/ESP - MOORE AND BERTRAM

SENSITIVE

FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID SENV KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT: PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES TREATY LIKELY TO ENTER
INTO FORCE IN JUNE 2004, RAISING QUESTION OF U.S.
RATIFICATION

REF: (A) ROME 0280; (B) 03 ROME 5197;
(C) 03 ROME 2210

Sensitive but unclassified -- please handle accordingly.


1. (SBU) Summary: According to the FAO Secretariat, 36
countries have now submitted ratification instruments for
the International Treaty (IT) for Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture. Anticipated action by EU
member states by March 31 would likely take the number of
ratifications over 40, triggering entry into force 90
days later. Meanwhile, FAO still lacks $1.2 million in
voluntary contributions to hold three important IT-
related meetings in 2004. In addition, the IT Governing
Body (GB) will have to hold its first meeting within two
years of the treaty's entry into force. Although some
developing countries may press for an early meeting of
the GB, senior officials responsible for plant genetic
resource issues in the FAO Secretariat prefer to allow
more time for preparatory work and to wait until a larger
number of countries have ratified and can participate in
the GB. The USG needs to decide soon whether we want to
ratify the IT and participate fully in the process, or
whether our interests are better served as marginalized
observers. End summary.


2. (U) On March 16, Alternate Permrep discussed
progress on the IT with Jose Esquinas-Alcazar, Secretary
of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. The Commission serves inter alia as the
Interim Committee for the IT. (Background: The IT will
be the principal international legal instrument governing
transfers of plant genetic material for food and
agriculture. It establishes a multilateral system for
facilitated access and benefit sharing that applies to 35
crops and a number of forages. Conditions of access and
benefit sharing requirements will be specified in an as-
yet undrafted Material Transfer Agreement [MTA].)


3. (U) Entry into Force: Esquinas reported that 36
countries had already submitted their instruments of
ratification. He said that the EU Council of Ministers
for Fisheries and Agriculture meeting on February 24
agreed that the EC and all member states ready to do so
would submit their instruments of ratification by
March 31. Action by the EU en bloc will take the number
of ratifications above the minimum number of
ratifications (40),thereby triggering entry into force
90 days thereafter -- probably sometime in late June

2004.


4. (U) Planned Meetings in 2004: At present, the FAO
Secretariat envisions holding three IT-related meetings

SIPDIS
in 2004, subject to available funds. In mid July there
would be held the First Meeting of the Expert Group on
the Standard MTA and the First Meeting of the Open-ended
Working Group on Rules of Procedure, Financial Rules and
Compliance. In November, there would be the Second
Meeting of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture acting as the IT Interim Committee.


5. (U) Funding: Holding the above three meetings would
cost $1.6 million, including interpretation, translation
and developing country participation costs, according to
Esquinas. Thus far FAO has received about $280,000 in
voluntary contributions, of which $25,000 has already
been spent on preparatory work. (The contributors thus
far are Japan, Spain, Canada, USA, Ireland and Norway.)
An additional $180,000 is available from FAO's regular
program budget. That leaves a shortfall of about
$1.2 million. Esquinas is hopeful that the flurry of
ratification activity in the EU this month will bring in
additional contributions, but he remains concerned that,
if FAO does not receive adequate funding commitments
within a week or so, the July 2004 meetings will have to
be further postponed.


6. (SBU) Governing Body: The first GB will have to
decide on a number of important questions, including the
level, form and manner of monetary payments upon
commercialization; the standard MTA; compliance
mechanisms; and the funding strategy. The IT text does

not specify explicitly how soon after entry into force
the GB must be held, but Article 19.9 requires that the
GB must meet at least every two years. FAO's Legal
Department has therefore concluded that the GB meeting
should take place within two years of the IT's entry into
force. According to Esquinas, some developing countries
have already expressed a preference for an early meeting
of the GB. Under Article 19.10, a special session of the
GB must be held if one-third of the countries that have
ratified the IT so request. If FAO's Africa Regional
Group (which would represent about half of the countries
that have ratified the IT) were to decide to request an
early GB meeting, the FAO Secretariat would be bound to
honor that request.


7. (SBU) GB Timing: Esquinas said he personally favors
holding off on a GB meeting for two reasons.

-- First, a lot of important preparatory work still
remains to be done; probably two Interim Committee
sessions and several MTA meetings would be desirable
before the first GB.

-- Second, it is important that the GB be as broadly
representative as possible, and this will only be the
case after significantly more than 40 countries have
ratified; this could take months if not years.


8. (SBU) Involvement of Other Fora: That said,
Esquinas added that he came away from the recent
Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in Kuala Lumpur with the realization
that, if the IT process does not get off the ground
relatively quickly, it will leave a vacuum that might be
filled -- unhelpfully -- by CBD discussions on access and
benefit sharing. He noted that the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) also is getting involved --
specifically this week's Intergovernmental Committee on
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional
Knowledge and Folklore. Esquinas sees a danger in the
involvement of other organizations and bodies, since in
his view the issues surrounding plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture are very different from those
related to natural genetic biodiversity.


9. (SBU) Comment: As long as the IT process remains in
the hands of the 165-member Interim Committee, the USG
(which is a member of the Interim Committee and has
signed -- but not ratified -- the IT) will continue to be
able to influence the discussion. Thereafter, we risk
being marginalized as observers, as has been the case in
the CBD. Another concern is that small developing
countries are disproportionately represented among the
early ratifiers, and their interests may differ from
ours. If we want to be full participants in the key
early deliberations of the IT, a decision on whether the
U.S. ratifies the IT needs to be made in near future.

Cleverley


NNNN
2004ROME01057 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED