You are here > Previous Events > Geneva WS 1/2008 > Workshop programme > Friday, 18th Jan 2008

Friday, 18th January 2008


8:00 - 9:00

Registration

9:00 - 9:30

Welcome and Opening

Chair: Dr. David Hafashimana, Uganda



Emphasised collective working towards an international regime in the coming weeks as crucial for communities in Africa. Ms. Crisson added that there is a need for a greater commitment and collective working towards COP 9. Ms. Crisson thanked all participants for being there and making the Dutch German ABS Capacity Building Initiative a success.

Prof Birouk extended a warm welcome to all participants and thanked the German-Dutch initiative for organising this event that is important for the francophone countries.
The IEPF has started a 4 year project working with francophone countries to increase their informed participation in international negotiations around the environment. The goal is for francophone countries to build a common negotiating platform. We can now say that the francophone countries have begun to engage with the CBD through the development of national strategies and plans. Despite the lack of resources the international committee of francophone countries is developing concrete positions on the various aspects of the CBD including areas of the CBD such as the Certificate of Origin, International Regime etc.
In order to build the capacity of francophone countries to effectively participate in the CBD negotiations, the IEPF has organised several sub regional workshops in Mahe, Marrakesh and Libreville. In 2007 the IEPF published a guide for negotiators on ABS and is currently in partnership with the Dutch German Initiative to further these aims.



 

Ms. Normand welcomed all the participants on behalf of the Executive Secretariat of the CBD. She took the opportunity to thank IEPF for making available the funds and translation and UNEP for the provision of the room and necessary arrangements and the Dutch German initiative through GTZ for putting the workshop together.
The various workshops organised across Africa by GTZ makes clear links between the local and the international and raises a number of important issues. This aids developing policies that are adapted to the real world.
Highlighting the challenge of the coming week Ms. Normand invited participants to fully engage in the next two days in order to make valuable contributions at ABS WG 6 to ensure an international regime by 2010.

Dr. Drews welcomed all the participants and mentioned that it would be the last time that a workshop such as this will be organised as purely the Dutch German Initiative since the IEPF will be integrally involved in organising all future workshops to bridge the gap between the English and the French speaking African countries. He also thank the CBD secretariat for their excellent organisation.
Referring to the planned activities of the Initiative for 2008 Dr. Drews listed out ABS workshops in Bonn, SA, Uganda, Tunisia and Madagascar. He also outlined the Comifac plan of Activities for 2008.

Dr_Andreas_Drews.ppt

316 kB
9:30 - 10:30

Reports from ABS WG-5 and preparatory meetings under the ABS for Africa Initiative

DG_ABS_presentation_on_WG5-pierre_du_plessis.ppt

19.0 kB

Mr. du Plessis began with the caveat that his presentation was his own and did not necessarily represent the views of the African Group
He said ABS-WG 5 in Montreal was an enormous improvement on ABS- WG 4 in Grenada. Parties were not organised in Grenada and didn’t work in a co-ordinated fashion which meant that the Grenada Text didn’t have any consensus on the International Regime. The Montreal meeting was conducted in a more constructive spirit and there was a greater willingness to listen amongst parties. This was a result of a good decision by the co-chairs to treat WG5 and WG6 as two halves of one meeting.
The African position was looked at by other parties as a constructive one demonstrating willingness to be open and to listen. The LMMC was the only group to make further proposals for draft text. This antagonised those parties who were not convinced as to why we need an International Regime. Africa because of its circumstances is uniquely positioned to make the case as to why we need an international regime.
The outcomes of Montreal were “Compilation of Views” and “Co-Chairs Reflections” Some of the parties were reluctant to adopt these documents which was overcome when co-chairs took sole responsibility for the documents. At this stage it is particularly important for Africa to explore the possible commonalities with the EU position. The main question for Africa is what we must have in the international regime and what can we live without.
This will lead to a more consensus text towards COP 9.

Naritiana_Rakotoniaina_power_point.pptx

38 kB

 

Ms Rakotoniana’s presentation concerned the Dutch German Initiative organised Marrakesh workshop in October 2007. It attracted 56 participants in the workshop who included representatives of government, civil society, economists, academics and lawyers.
This was the first workshop for the subregion and the objective was to develop the understanding of the participants on ABS and to engender a road map for the region. The methodology used for the workshop was an interactive one with the participants using small groups and open discussions. The participants discussed the international regime, where they stand in relation to it and what the obstacles in the forthcoming meeting ABS WG 5 meeting were. Other issues such as best practices, case studies and national practices were discussed and this gave the participants an insight into the various shortcomings and how to overcome them.
The participants had a field trip to see the production of arganier oil and met women in the co-operative and the researcher who is developing possible ABS strategies regarding arganier in Morocco.
A number of priorities were identified for the sub-region which was based on the various national experiences and the field trip. These priorities were put in the form of a roadmap and were presented to the participants at the Nairobi workshop to further develop prior to ABSWG6.



Dr._David_Hafashimana_powerpoint.ppt

82 kB

 

The Nairobi workshop was the second Africa wide workshop after Cape Town.
The first objective of the workshop was to take stock of the 1st year of the 3 year ABS capacity building initiative in Africa. The second objective was to exchange experiences of bioprospecting cases in the region and look at national legislation and regulation. The third objective was to look at the outcomes of the ABS WG 5
Presentations were made on previous regional and sub-regional capacity building initiatives and national ABS and bio prospecting experiences. Six working groups were formed to discuss ABSWG 6 and make recommendations.
The Nairobi recommendations to the ABS WG6 African negotiators: They were divided into the following heads
Scope, Nature and Objectives
Access
Traditional Knowledge
Benefit Sharing
Compliance
Capacity building

Emmanuel_Bayani_powepoint.ppt

94 kB

 

Mr. Bayani’s presentation  gave an overview of the work carried out in Daula. In August a working group for Central Africa was set up consisting of all the stakeholders involved in biodiversity ranging from scientists to indigenous communities and NGOs.
On the 11th and 12th January 2008  the working group  organised a meeting which looked at all the documents from the different ABS WG meetings.
The Working Group felt it was important to have a legally binding international regime on ABS which included in its scope not just GR but also their derivatives, products and associated TK .

10:30 - 11:00

Coffee Break

11:00 - 11:15

Walking through the agenda of ABS WG-6 (Analysis, African Viewpoints and Discussion)

Ms. Normand summarized the history of the ABS WG, the Annex to decision VII/19D which outlined the various aspects of the IR and the urgency for the WG to finish its work before COP 10
Ms. Normand spoke of the COP 8 decision to set up a group of technical experts to look at the Certificate of Origin/Source. The mandate of this group was to identify the elements of such a Certificate and the obstacles. The Group of Technical Experts met in Jan 2007. The report of their meeting was presented to the ABS WG5. Ms. Normand highlighted that the main items on the agenda of the ABS WG5 and WG6 meetings are:

PIC and MAT

Internationally recognised certificate of origin, source and legal provenance

Monitoring, enforcement and dispute settlement

At ABS WG 5 parties were asked to provide concrete options for the IR. The document titled ‘reflections of the co-chairs’ outlines the discussions that took place in the 5th meeting. The document titled ‘co-chairs notes’ reflects the proposals put forward by the parties in the 5th meeting. During the 5th meeting the parties and stakeholders were asked to make contributions on the agenda items of both the 5th and 6th meetings. Ms. Normand also spoke of other important documents for the ABS WG 6 meeting including a compilation of submissions on concrete options presented to the secretariat based on a request of the COP 8 and a document produced by consultants which looks at specific case studies on PIC and MAT

11:15 - 13:00

CISDL-_Measures_to_Support_Compliance.pdf

71 kB

 

Mr. Rukundo presented the CISDL technical briefing paper on compliance measures to support PIC and MAT. He emphasized that it is difficult for many countries to monitor and enforce compliance especially once the GRs have left the country of origin. He outlined various possibilities for a system which would ensure compliance. He initiated a vigorous discussion among the participants by asking 3 questions:

  1. Should the IR require adoption of measures to support compliance with PIC and MAT by users of genetic resources? What forms might such measures take?
  2. What should be the role of voluntary codes of conduct or guidelines in the IR?
  3. Should the IR promote cooperation between jurisdictions and access to justice?

CISDL-_Internationally_recognized_certificate_of_origin.pdf

95 kB

 

Two questions on the brief were read out initiating a discussion amongst participants: 

 

  1. Should the IR create some sort of internationally recognized certificate system?
  2. How might a certificate system be structures? Who would grant certificates? Who would be required to obtain certificates? When would the presentation of a certificate be required (i.e. what checkpoints would be established)? What would be the sanctions for not presenting a certificate or presenting a false certificate?

CISDL-_Monitoring__enforcement_and_dispute_settlement.pdf

70 kB

Two questions on the brief were read out for discussion amongst participants

  1. Should the international regime set specific requirements for mechanisms on monitoring and enforcement to be implemented by both provider countries and countries with users in their jurisdictions or should countries be left to determine the most appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms based on their own national context?
  2. Should the international regime include private international law rules for the settlement of disputes between private parties? If so what should these rules be?
13:00 - 14:00

Lunch

14:00 - 15:00

Walking through the agenda of ABS WG-6 (Analysis, African Viewpoints and Discussion) – contd.

After lunch discussions continued on private international law and its relation to the IR, model contracts and enforcement of foreign judgements in user countries

CISDL-Traditional_Knowledge_and_Genetic_Resources.pdf

72 kB

 

Three questions on the brief were read out for discussion:

  1. How should the negotiation of the IR draw on related work in other fora, e.g. the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore of WIPO and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
  2. Should the International Regime include a specific mechanism for the protection of Traditional Knowledge (e.g., a sui generis form of intellectual property, traditional knowledge database/register, others) or should the development of such mechanisms be left to countries and indigenous peoples based on their particular contexts?
  3. How should the ABS Working Group and the Article 8(j) Working Group collaborate in the elaboration and negotiation of an international regime on ABS?


CISDL-_Capacity_Building.pdf

66 kB

 

Two questions on the brief were put before the participants for discussion:

  1. How might the negotiation of the international regime draw on the existing capacity- building provisions in the Convention and the ABS Capacity- Building Action Plan adopted by the Parties: Might the ABS Capacity-Building Action Plan need revising in the light of the international regime negotiations?
  2. Should the international regime include some mandatory minimum requirements on capacity-building or should this be left for countries to decide based on their needs and abilities?

CISDL-Nature__Scope_and_Objectives.doc

37 kB

 

Three questions in the brief were discussed by the participants:

  1. Should the international regime be integrated with other pertinent legally binding instruments/voluntary instruments or should the IR be independent.
  2. Should the international regime only consider rules for access to genetic resources or should it be broader in scope and also consider access to biological resources, access to traditional knowledge and access to derivatives
  3. To what extent should the international regime make a distinction between access to genetic resources for commercial purposes versus access for non commercial purposes?
15:30 - 16:00

Coffee Break

16:00 - 17:30

Consultation & regional positions

Co-chairs had to leave because of other commitments. They have invited the African group to meet with them tomorrow for consultations.

Mr. Buck began by stating that there are a number of overlaps and some divergences between the views of the African Group and the EU. The EU sees an intrinsic connection between the binding elements of the IR and International Access Standards. These International Access Standards would be negotiated amongst the parties and each party will see to it that these Access Standards are met. Once these standards are met then measures to promote compliance will take place. This is because unless there are proper access standards the user countries will not have adequate guidelines to have proper compliance measures

The overall thrust of these standards is transparency and ensuring legal certainty for potential users of GR in the EU. This includes specific guidelines on PIC requirements, clear legal standards on how GR can be acquired. The EU also suggests additional measures of how compliance can be supported. While the EU advocates a disclosure requirement but it sees WIPO as the primary forum. The EU also wants clarity as to what constitutes misappropriation of GR. The EU outlined its views on: concrete options to support compliance with MAT, developing menus of model clauses for potential inclusion in material transfer agreements, maximising the utility of modern IT tools to improve the information base of ABS related transactions, capacity building needs and integrating traditional knowledge into the ABS regime

Mr. Buck concluded that for the EU regarding the ‘nature’ of the regime the key issue is whether or not there will be work on international access standards. This is crucial as there is no clarity on the content of the entire package. Regarding the scope of the IR it should include benefit sharing for the use of GR and traditional knowledge. The EU however would like some flexibility in the regime due to its overlaps with other international regimes. As for the objectives of the IR, the EU supports broad objectives to effectively implement Art 15 and 8 j of the CBD. Finally the EU would like to see an identification of the main components of the regime by COP and these components shall be subject to detailed negotiations.


02/07 2008

ABS Workshop


Third ABS Capacity Development Workshop for Africa in Antsiranana (Diego Suarez), Madagascar (24.-28.11.2008)

Read more >