Blogging Biodiversity

I see where Bioversity International has a video podcast of Michael Halewood (head of policy at Bioversity International) offering his thoughts on the outcomes of the 11th session of FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, held in June of this year.

Michael comments on the Commission’s decisions to consider all aspects of genetic resources for food and agriculture (e.g., aquatic, forest, microbial genetic resources, etc.) and not just to stick with plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) that has largely been it’s focus to date. In the past, while the Commission was focusing on PGRFA, most other types of genetic resources were left to the CBD. The Commission also gave itself the mandate to look at access and benefit-sharing in relation to all these different types of genetic resources.

In a Bioversity press release, Michael also comments on the necessity of a cross-sectoral approach to ABS and these different categories of genetic resources.

I have no argument with the fact that the use of genetic resources for food and agricultural purposes is special. Food is a basic human necessity, everyone must eat and many people rely on agriculture for their economic well-being. We are seriously jeopardising our future security if we lose agricultural biodiversity.

Easy access to genetic resources is helpful in order to allow the research and development necessary to develop new crop varieties and prevent things like wheat rust from wiping out harvests.

What I am concerned about, though, is where some of this focus on the particular nature or uses of genetic resources for food and agriculture might be heading. Friend and colleague Christine Frison had a great French term for it - ’saucissonner’ - are we going to try to divide genetic resources into small discrete - but connected - packages like sausage links?

I am not convinced that this is feasible or advisable.

ABS as sausage links? Not sure this is a good idea

My concern is that the international community is going to start to develop rules for different types of genetic resources ‘for food and agriculture’ and also potentially for different types of genetic resources for other sorts of uses as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the International Treaty is great. It’s innovative international law and could make important contributions to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources.

I’m just not sure that it’s a model that should be repeated for all different types of genetic resources and different uses of said resources. The international community could create rules on:
- plant genetic resources for pharmaceuticals or
- aquatic genetic resources for pharmaceuticals or
- plant genetic resources for cosmetics or
- micro-organisms for industrial enzymes or
- micro-organisms for pharmaceuticals.

Starting to see the problem?

I feel that this could result in a mess of rules that actually makes the whole situation much more complicated rather than facilitating access to different types of genetic resources.

My concern is based in part on sentiments I came across during some other research where people felt that agriculture is very different from pharmaceuticals which are very different from industrial enzymes, etc. The view was that it was impossible to design rules that would cover all fields and that it was inappropriate to try. Rules should be based on the specifics of the industry concerned.

For starters, it is not always clear when a genetic resource is accessed what sorts of uses it might have. Much science is based on serendipity. How will anyone know which rules to follow if determining the applicable set of rules rests on the use to which the genetic resource will be put and this isn’t clear?

Furthermore, there isn’t necessarily a clear-cut distinction between different types of uses. One of the challenges countries will face in coordinating their implementation of the rules on access under the International Treaty and rules on access under the CBD is determining what is meant by ‘for food and agriculture’. The International Treaty’s Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing only applies to the list of crops and forages in Annex I to the Treaty when these are accessed for the purpose of food and/or agriculture. The rules of the Multilateral System do not apply when these crops and forages are accessed for other purposes. But what makes a purpose ‘for food and agriculture’?

As I’ve written elsewhere, an illustrative example would be Golden Rice. Golden Rice is rice that has been genetically engineered to produce extra vitamin A in order combat vitamin A deficiencies in children – deficiencies which can lead to blindness. Golden Rice was obviously intended to be grown and eaten so it can be considered as the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. It was also intended, however, to combat a health problem which would not be the use of a plant genetic resource for food and agriculture. So which rules apply? Those for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture or those for plant genetic resources that are not for food and agriculture?

Creating rules that apply to specific sets of genetic resources or specific uses of genetic resources could just exacerbate this issue rather than adding clarity and making ABS rules easier to apply and follow.

A realpolitik perspective on the sector-by-sector approach is that it can also be used to break down negotiators from developing countries who won’t have the financial or human resources capacity to follow all the different little parts or negotiations taking place in different fora.

Debate on the sector-by-sector approach is not mere idle speculation. For the upcoming fifth meeting of the CBD’s ABS Working Group, the European Union is proposing consideration of ’sectoral work on standardising Material Transfer Agreements’ (see p. 47-52 of document UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/5/INF/1.) This appears to be a proposal for a limited application of the sector-by-sector approach.

I’m ready to be convinced that I’m wrong and that a sector-by-sector approach to genetic resources is, in fact, the way to go. But count me among the skeptics for the time being. Genetic resources as sausage links? Not to my mind.

Posted on September 30th, 2007 under ABS, CBD, FAO •  Print This Post •  Email This Post • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback