Wednesday, 28th March 2007
09.00 – 09.45
Welcome and Opening
Moderator: Dr. Gemedo Dalle
Dr. Girma Balcha, Director General of the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (IBC), Ethiopia:
He welcomed the participants, underscored the importance of biodiversity and detailed Ethiopia’s work on the three main objectives of the CBD. He argued that an international regime is required to ensure proper access and equitable benefit sharing, pointing out that national legislation is not enough to ensure this. The certificate of “???” is one plank of that effort. Indigenous knowledge is essential to the identification of new products – but so far few benefits are returned because of the lack of binding obligations. He briefly outlined the mandate of the Group of Technical Experts (GTE) and detailed the outcome of the Lima meeting. He thanked the German and Dutch governments for supporting capacity development around these issues in Africa.
| |
 |  |
H.E. Ahmed Nassir, State Minister, Ministry of Agriculture und Rural Development, Ethiopia:
He drew participants’ attention to Ethiopia’s biological, geographical and cultural diversity. It is the origin of a number of important commercial plants. He underscored the importance of having rules relating to the access to biological diversity – because indigenous people do not know about the issue of benefit sharing. Biodiversity conservation includes a relationship between the commercial world and communities and should be based on prior informed consent (PIC) and material transfer agreements (MTA). He drew attention to the Teff bio-prospecting case. He argued that collective thinking is critical, thanking the German and Dutch governments as well as the IBC for their support, and urged participants to engage meaningfully with the work.
Valerie Normand, Programme Officer, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Canada:
She thanked the IBC, the German and the Dutch governments and expressed pleasure that the Secretariat is involved in the ABS Capacity Development Initiative for Africa. She recalled the work of the 7th Conference of the Parties to negotiate an international regime on ABS. In Curitiba, the Working Group on ABS, being the negotiating body of the international regime, was given a deadline of 2010. She continued to detail the history of the ABS negotiations until Peru. She explained that the GTE comprised 24 participants with 5 from Africa as well as 7 observers. The report is part of technical input to feed into the next meeting of the ABS-WG and the broader process. This meeting is a good opportunity to explore African perspectives on a Certificate of “???” in particular, and ABS more generally.
| |
 |  |
Dr. Andreas Drews, Coordinator of the Dutch-German ABS Capacity Development Initiative for Africa, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Germany:
He outlined the Capacity Development Initiative’s history and expressed the need for continent wide capacity development on ABS. He drew attention to the Kirstenbosch ABS-Vision, which was developed during the Cape Town workshop last November. The Vision was read by Lucy Mulenkei to the participants and Dr. Andreas Drews explained that the vision is a future aim, and should not be taken to be a reality today. He thanked the Secretariat and the IBC. Furtheron, he introduced the objectives of the workshop:
- Share the results of the Lima Meeting
- Conduct a reality check with African experiences
- Elaborate (an) African viewpoint/s on the Lima recommendations
- Develop Recommendations and proposed elements for an African position
Finally he introduced the team organising and facilitating the workshop: Valerie Normand, Suhel Al-Janabi, Peter Munyi, Verena Streitferdt and Dr. Gemedo Dalle.
09.45 – 10.00
Introduction to the programme and methodology of the workshop
Facilitator: Peter Munyi
|
Workshop Programme |
81 kB |
10.00 – 10.30
Coffee break
10.30 – 11.00
Participants introduction: Origin, background, expectations
Facilitator: Suhel al-Janabi
Participants were asked to perform a number of tasks including identifying themselves in terms of their ABS knowledge and the amount of time they are involved in ABS issues in their work. Furthermore, they were also asked to state what they expect from the workshop. Ideas included: clarity of the issues, understanding of PIC, the feasibility of the certificate, developing an African position and empowerment in ABS issues.
| |||
 |  |  |  |
11.00 – 12.30
Geneflow out of Africa - the example of the IBC
Facilitator: Peter Munyi
Equipped with the following research questions
- Where do the seeds come from?
- Where do the seeds go to?
- Who owns the seeds?
participants were shown the IBC’s gene bank. The duties of the gene bank include: registering seeds, purity analysis, drying and packaging, seed viability testing, seed distribution and quality control and gene bank documentation. During the visit a number of questions were asked by the participants, including: who decides whether a request for genetic resources is granted (Answer: the board), whether there is a legal team to manage the MTAs (A: no, there is a pro forma MTA), who owns the seeds (A: the State), who requests the seeds (A: mainly research institutions).
| ||
 |  |  |
On the research questions participants reported back to the group as a whole. A matrix was used to present the results for maize, sorghum, teff and millett and later visualized on a world map.
To complete the discussion about the gene flow from Ethiopia, Dr. Girma Balcha, Director General of the IBC, presented the Ethiopian ABS legislation. He explained that, according to the principle of state sovereignty over natural resources, the country’s genetic resources are owned by the Ethiopian state and that local communities own their knowledge, referred to as “community knowledge” (CK) in the legislation.
|
ET-ABS-Legislation-GB-2007-03.ppt Girma Balcha, 2007. Ethiopian Proclamation on Access to Genetic Resources and Community Knowledge and Community Rights. |
115 kB |
|
|
Proclamation No. 482/2006: Access to Genetic Resources and Community Knowledge, and Community Rights Proclamation. Federal Negarit Gazeta, No. 13, Addis Ababa, 27th February 2006. |
76 kB |
12.30 – 13.15
Lunch break
13.15 - 15:00
Certificate of Origin/Source/Legal Provenance - context and current development
Facilitator: Dr. Andreas Drews
Dr. Andreas Drews introduced the session by referring back to the map visualising the geneflow in and out of Ethiopia and highlighting the need for a certificate to be able to trace and document the origin/source/legal provenance of genetic resources along the user chain.
|
 |
Valerie Normand, Secretariate of the CBD, presented the background of the international discussion about the certificate of “???”, beginning at COP-6 in 2002 and reported on the outcome of the Group of Technical Experts (GTE) meeting held in Lima, Peru, from 22nd to 25th January 2007. She explained that the GTE comprised 25 experts and 7 observers and highlighted the terms of reference, according to COP Decision VIII/4C, before providing the GTE’s suggestions:
They discussed the distinction between options of certificate of origin/source/legal provenance. They felt that because none of the options fully covered the term, a combination could work. Australia suggested calling it a 'certificate of compliance' referring to compliance with domestic law(s). They considered the potential characteristics and features of a certificate of “???” and discussed its main components. They debated whether it should be a mandatory system or a voluntary system, with intermediate options and explored the impacts this issue would have on the scope of the system. The group felt that duplication with the MTA provisions of the ITPGR should be avoided. Also on scope, they agreed that further exploration of whether traditional knowledge should be included was required. The GTE acknowledged that such a system could increase costs to research institutions. They listed possible minimum types of information to be contained in the certificate and drew up a suggested standard format. The GTE also made suggestions about the procedure in the provider and user country as well as at the international level. On consequences of infringement, measures may were deemed to depend on whether the certificate was not presented, or forged. Implementation was discussed, including the concern that costs may spiral if there is excessive tracking / monitoring, or generates other forms of bureaucracy. Other challenges include the set up and maintenance of checkpoints and enforcing the certificates across jurisdictions though it was felt that costs could be balanced in the long run by factors such as the marginal decrease in transaction costs. The GTE made recommendations for key factors in assessing practicability feasibility, costs and benefits. Finally, the group felt that further study of the issues should be undertaken and that capacity development plays an important role to play in any certification scheme.
|
|
Valerie Normand, 2007. An Internationally Recognised "Certificate of Origin/Source/Legal Provenance - Outcomes of the Group of Technical Experts. |
574 kB |
| ||
 |  |  |
Group and plenary discussions
Divided in 5 table groups participants were requested to discuss the recommendations of the GTE by items which were agreed, which need further discussion and which were disagreed about the certificate of “???”. Each group presented its results and a matrix was created in which all points of the groups were noted.
During the discussion first elements for an African position on the certificate emerged.
|
|
Discussion points after presentation of the GTE’s recommendations |
35 kB |
15:00 - 15:30
Coffee break
15:30 - 17:00
Certificate of "???" - African viewpoints
Facilitator: Peter Munyi
The three African Experts, who attended the GTE and were present in this workshop, presented their specific views on the report of GTE and highlighted those issues where they agree or disagree with the consensus report of the GTE:
Eulalia Macome, Policy Analyst, Policy Analysis Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Mozambique:
She highlighted the discussion on the name of the certificate of “???” and whether it should be a mandatory mechanism, highlighting the African position that it should be. She drew attention to the transboundary issue asking how countries could share benefits in the case of transboundary resources? She argued that the issue was not particularly discussed and called for it to be given further attention. She also raised the question, how to deal with resources that were accessed after CBD, but before the international regime on ABS is in place.
Naritiana Rakotoniaina, Chef de programme Valorisation de la biodiversité, Madagascar:
She stated that TK was not discussed fully in the context of the certificate and stressed the importance of a unified African position to ensure a strong team attending the next ABS-WG meeting because a lot of issues are still open.
| ||
 |  |  |
Dr. Dalle Gemedo, Head of the Forestry Department, Institute of Biodiversity (IBC), Ethiopia:
He highlighted the language barrier for the mainly French speaking African Experts because the meeting was held in English. He highlighted that the terms of reference for the GTE requested whether participation in the system be compulsory or optional and felt that the GTE went beyond this mandate. He reported that African experts supported the idea that the certificate should be mandatory. He asked whether biological materials such as chemicals,extracts and essential oils would be freely useable without a certificate and whether TK associated with genetic resources should be included. He reported that it was argued at the GTE meeting that the coverage of TK is not workable because it is not traceable. But he argued that TK is traceable just as GR. In his opinion controls should be at patent offices and registration points of other commercial application processes; Africa needs to build human resources and institutions; there is a need for capacity development of competent national authorities; and, any mechanism requires an international registry containing information on all certificates to serve as clearing house mechanism.
|
|
ABS-CertificateOfOrigin-GD-2007-03.ppt Gemedo Dalle, 2007. African view onthe GTE recommendations for a Certificate of Origin/Source/Legal Provenance. |
76 kB |
Group and plenary discussions
Peter Munyi invited participants to further consider the issues within groups, after which the rapporteurs reported on the discussion. He called upon participants to revisit the definition, role and relationship between MTA, MAT, PIC and the certificate. Points made included:
- There should have been translation into French - beside the Spanish translation - to circumvent the language barrier
- Who should grant the certificate
- The certificate should be of ‘origin’ not ‘compliance’
- Ignore the plants and varieties that are covered under the ITPGR
- Transboundary GRs should become jointly owned
- TK is traceable and therefore the certificate should include TK
- Checkpoints at the patent office
- A mandatory mechanism is preferred
- The certificate mechanism should be retroactive from the signing of the CBD
- Should indigenous groups be punished for their government’s inaction, in contravention to Article 8j?
In the following discussion it was argued that any retroactivity would hardly be acceptable to a number of countries for various reasons. It was further pointed out that the initial idea behind the certification mechanism is to facilitate research and ensure benefit sharing. These original aims may have been obscured by the detail of the debate. Attention was raised to the point that international law is not a substitute for lacking domestic legislation.
The further points were made:
- The option that becomes the African position must reflect the interests of the majority of African countries.
- If African countries had national legislation that would be the best way forward, but some countries do not have legislation so they need strong international law.
- The international regime is important for pushing user countries to fully implement the CBD.
- Countries must gazette ABS legislation and not wait for the international regime.
