<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>BRIDGES Trade
BioRes, Vol. 3 No. 6 3 April, 2003</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>BIODIVERSITY
CONVENTION INTEGRATES WSSD OUTCOMES INTO WORK PROGRAMME<BR><BR>Sustainable
development-related issues featured strongly at the 17-20 March<BR>Open-ended
Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Multi-Year Programme of Work for<BR>the
Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological<BR>Diversity
(CBD) in Montreal, Canada. Building on the political momentum<BR>created by the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the meeting<BR>focused, inter
alia, on the international regime for access and benefit<BR>sharing, legal and
socio-economic aspects of technology transfer, and the<BR>CBD's contribution to
the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).<BR><BR>Legal nature of benefit-sharing
regime remains controversial<BR><BR>Delegates focused most of their attention on
the WSSD mandate to negotiate<BR>"within the framework of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, bearing in<BR>mind the Bonn Guidelines [on Access to
Genetic Resources and Fair and<BR>Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out
of their Utilisation], an<BR>international regime to promote and safeguard the
fair and equitable sharing<BR>of benefits arising out of the utilisation of
genetic resources". Among the<BR>more straightforward issues was a decision to
broaden the mandate to include<BR>'access' in addition to benefit-sharing, which
was adopted without any major<BR>controversy.<BR><BR>Debates on the legal nature
of the regime, however, saw similar divisions<BR>among countries, as had been
apparent in Johannesburg. Many developing<BR>countries, including Mexico on
behalf of the Like-minded Group of<BR>Megadiverse countries, called for a
legally binding regime based on the Bonn<BR>Guidelines, arguing that a voluntary
regime would not guarantee fair and<BR>equitable benefit-sharing. The US
reiterated its view that WSSD had<BR>deliberately left out the term "legally
binding" from the Plan of<BR>Implementation, which indicated that the regime
would be voluntary. Several<BR>countries, including Canada, Australia and the
EU, stressed the need to take<BR>into account related processes in other forums,
such as the WTO, WIPO and<BR>FAO, in an effort to ensure coherence and avoid
overlap. Canada, supported<BR>by Japan, Norway and Switzerland, called for work
on applying and assessing<BR>the implementation of the Bonn Guidelines at the
national level before<BR>starting negotiations on the international
regime.<BR><BR>In the end, countries instructed the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working
Group on<BR>Access and Benefit-sharing at its next meeting on 1-5 December 2003
to<BR>consider the process, nature, scope, elements and modalities of
an<BR>international regime and provide advice to COP-7 (19-30 April 2004
in<BR>Malaysia). In support of this work, they invited countries to
provide<BR>information on experiences gained when implementing the Bonn
Guidelines and,<BR>along with indigenous and local communities and relevant
organisations, to<BR>submit their views on process, nature, scope, elements and
modalities of a<BR>possible regime.<BR><BR>Strong emphasis on sustainable
development in CBD's work<BR><BR>A strong focus on sustainable
development-related issues as raised by the<BR>WSSD characterised the decisions
adopted at the meeting. This included a<BR>request for the CBD's Executive
Secretary to assess the relevance of the<BR>MDGs for the CBD's work and explore
how in each programme of work<BR>biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
could facilitate the<BR>achievement of the Goals. In addition, the decision on
the multi-year<BR>programme of work up to 2010 highlighted the need to consider
priorities<BR>identified by the WSSD, including inter alia "poverty alleviation,
human<BR>health [and] sustainable communities and livelihoods", in the context
of the<BR>CBD's existing programmes. Each COP until 2010 should assess as an
explicit<BR>agenda item the state of progress regarding the Convention's 2010
targets<BR>and the MDGs.<BR><BR>On technology transfer -- one of the priority
issues at COP-7 -- the meeting<BR>instructed the Executive Secretary to analyse
the information contained in<BR>the thematic report on this issue submitted by
Parties and provide a report<BR>to the upcoming COP. The meeting furthermore
invited WIPO to further explore<BR>and analyse the role of intellectual property
rights in technology transfer<BR>in the CBD context. Developed countries were
invited to provide the<BR>necessary incentives that would facilitate technology
transfer, while<BR>developing countries were asked to create an enabling legal,
administrative<BR>and policy environment to facilitate foreign investment and
promote<BR>South-South cooperation.<BR><BR>In related developments, the apparent
momentum created by the WSSD towards a<BR>greater focus on sustainable
development was also apparent in the CBD<BR>Secretariat's decision to change the
theme of the International Day of<BR>Biodiversity 2003 (22 May). Rather than
focusing on "mountain biodiversity",<BR>the day will now be devoted to focusing
on "Biodiversity and poverty<BR>alleviation - challenges for sustainable
development".<BR><BR>The meeting documents are available at:<BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?wg=MYPOW-01"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?wg=MYPOW-01</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>.<BR><BR>For daily coverage, see IISD
Linkages:<BR></FONT><A href="http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/mypow/"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/mypow/</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>.<BR><BR>ICTSD reporting; ENB Vol. 9 No. 256, 24
March 2003.</FONT><BR><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Agriculture<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>AGRICULTURE
MODALITIES: DEADLINE MISSED, EYES NOW ON CANCUN<BR><BR>During a 31 March wrap-up
meeting of the WTO Committee on Agriculture (CoA),<BR>Chair Stuart Harbinson
formally declared that Members' efforts to agree on<BR>agricultural modalities
by the end-March deadline had failed. Nevertheless,<BR>Harbinson said he would
continue consultations on technical issues such as<BR>tariff formulas and
Strategic Products for developing countries after the<BR>mid-April Easter break,
and that further CoA special sessions had been<BR>scheduled for June and July.
While Harbinson is hoping to have the<BR>modalities established before the next
WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun<BR>(September), some sources noted that it is
more than unlikely that<BR>modalities could be agreed before trade ministers
meet in Mexico.<BR><BR>Harbinson made clear that Members would have to work even
harder in the<BR>coming period to develop the basis and framework for the
necessary<BR>compromises. "To achieve this will require greater appreciation by
all sides<BR>of the sensitivities and expectations of others," he added. At a
news<BR>conference following the formal plenary session, Harbinson further
declared<BR>that the "ball is clearly in Members' court now," as he felt that he
had<BR>done all he could in terms of hammering out a draft compromise text
for<BR>possible modalities. "I need a clearer signal from Members that they are
in<BR>a more receptive mood to have another look at a new piece of paper,"
he<BR>added.<BR><BR>The US blamed Members such as the EU and Japan for the
failure. Hinting at<BR>the internal EU mid-term review of the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP)<BR>starting in June this year, the statement called on
EU member states to<BR>endorse the CAP reform proposals presented last year by
EU Agriculture<BR>Commissioner Franz Fischler (see BRIDGES Weekly, 17 July
2002,<BR>http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/02-07- 17/story3.htm) so as to "give
the<BR>[European] Commission more flexibility to meet the mandate of the
'Doha<BR>Development Round'". Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile also lashed
out at<BR>the EU, blaming it for "continuing to oppose efforts to bring about
genuine<BR>reform of agricultural trade".<BR><BR>The EU, however, countered that
it had done its homework with regard to<BR>moving the WTO agriculture talks.
"The EU modalities proposal represents a<BR>middle way between extreme
positions," EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz<BR>Fischler said. Fischler also
defended the EU's major use of export<BR>subsidies, stating that "bogus food
aid," export credits (both mainly used<BR>by the US), and the pricing practices
of certain state trading enterprises"<BR>(as in the case of Australia) also
would have trade-distorting effects.<BR><BR>ICTSD reporting; "Agriculture: trade
diplomats downplay impact of missed<BR>deadline in WTO agriculture
negotiations," WTO REPORTER, 1 April 2003;<BR>"Australia blames EU, Japan for
missed WTO farm deadline," DOW JONES, 1<BR>April 2003; "WTO farm talks: 'We will
plough on', Fischler says," EU PRESS<BR>RELEASE, 31 March 2003; "European Union
to challenge Australia's<BR>protectionist food import regime at WTO," EU PRESS
RELEASE; 31 March 2003.</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>2-3 April,
Geneva, Switzerland: WTO COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY<BR>MEASURES.
For further information, contact: the WTO Information and Media<BR>Relations
Division, Geneva; tel: (41-22) 739- 5007; fax: 739-5458;
email:<BR>enquiries@wto.org.<BR><BR>3 April, Oslo, Norway: MEDICINAL PLANTS:
ACCESS, USE AND BENEFIT SHARING IN<BR>LIGHT OF THE CBD. Organised by University
of Oslo. For more information<BR>contact: Ms. Alida Jay Boye; University of
Oslo; tel: (47) 22 85 89 00; fax:<BR>85 89 20; email: alida.boye@sum.uio.no
Internet:<BR>http://www.sum.uio.no/bioprospecting/cbd.html<BR><BR>4-6 April, St.
Louis, US: BIODIVERSITY, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND THE PROTECTION OF<BR>TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE. The event organised by the Washington University<BR>School of
Law will gather key individuals and parties to discuss the<BR>protection of
biodiversity, the protection and regulation of agricultural<BR>and plant
biotechnology, and the international intellectual property<BR>implications of
both, with particular attention to the protection of<BR>traditional knowledge
and other intellectual property mechanisms of interest<BR>to the developing
world. For information, contact: tel: (314) 935-7988;<BR>fax: 935-7961;
email: IGLS@wulaw.wustl.edu; Internet:<BR><A
href="http://law.wustl.edu/igls/">http://law.wustl.edu/igls/</A></FONT><BR></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>TOWARDS A
RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND<BR>TRIPS
AGREEMENT: AN INTERFACE AMONG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON<BR>BIOTECHNOLOGY,
TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, AND BENEFIT SHARING. By Jonathan Curci<BR>Staffler, 2002.
This document proposes several approaches for reconciling<BR>the "legal
tensions" that exist between the CBD and the TRIPs Agreement.<BR>Available at
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Patents/Staffler-CBD-TRIPS.doc</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>