08:30 – 08:45

Catch of the day

Lucy Mulenkei and Christine Akello Echookit reviewed Thursday’s events and discussions - highlighting the case presentations and the field visit to the teff farmers.

08:45 - 10:00

Reality check: Options for a certificate of "???"

Facilitators: Suhel al-Janabi, Valerie Normand, Dr. Andreas Drews

The group work of the previous day was continued and the groups were tasked to review their conclusions to include the lessons from the teff bioprospecting case.

10.00 – 10.30

Coffee break

10.30 – 11.15

Report back to plenary: options for a Certificate of “???”

Facilitator: Peter Munyi

The rapporteurs of the three groups were invited to present the specific findings. To better structure the discussion the groups were requested to raise their questions regarding the teff case after the report back.

Hoodia group - rapporteur: Dr. Abebe Demissie 

• Rationale: disclosure should be a requirement
• Name: certificate of origin
• Nature: internationally recognised MTA for scientific research
• Scope: TK should be reflected in the certificate; species under multilateral systems of ITPGR should be excluded; must include ex-situ collections
• Content: must specify country of source, county of origin, holders of TK; permission to patent must revert to country of origin.

Kenyan bacteria group - rapporteur: Freddy Magagula

• Rationale: to facilitate research
• Name: certificate of origin, source and legal provenance
• Content: no transfer to third parties without further negotiation; derivatives inlcuded; only one focal point in each country listed
• Challenges: creation of a clearing house; check points; capacity to monitor; costs; PIC; streamlining government processes; question of the locus of enforcement. 

Prunus africana group - rapporteur: Dr. Marcelin Tonye Mahop

• Rationale: to identify the country, community and locality of the genetic resource; to ensure the legal certainty of the source; increase legal certainty for users; value the resource properly
• Name: certificate of origin with further negotiation for commercial MTA
• Nature: mandatory
• Scope: include derivatives; academic and commercial research
• Procedure: competent national authority acts as checkpoint, then the clearing house mechanism, and patent offices
• Challenges: cases in which countries have no, or dissimilar regimes; bureaucracy; PIC; compatibility with other international agreements; capacity development; function of CHM; costs of the system and to users.

Comments about the presentations included:

• explaining that the term ‘origin’ is defined in the CBD as indigenous plants growing in-situ and those that are naturalised
• certificates must make it easier for research institutions, not more difficult
• the certificate of origin is dependent upon an international regime

11:15 – 12:00

Discussion about the teff case

Facilitator: Peter Munyi

Peter Munyi invited comments and questions about the teff bioprospecting case. A number of issues were raised including:

Patents: Dr. Girma Balcha argued that he had not yet the opportunity to study the teff patent. Dr. Andreas Drews noted that more information on the patent is necessary and that GTZ will consult with competent lawyers to clarify the exact specifics of the patent. More information on TK associated with teff was called for to clarify how novel any process is in claiming intellectual property rights on teff products in Europe.

Technology transfer: It was argued that technology transfer is not occurring under the agreement.

Plant breeders’ rights: It was clarified that no patent on plant varieties is granted by the European Patent Office, but that the new teff varieties are protected under UPOV.

Co-ownership: It was questioned, whose rights are being protected under UPOV. It was underscored that there is co-ownership between Ethiopia and the company on teff varieties, becasue the UPOV protection is granted to the co-owned foundation.

Export ban: It was highlighted that the export ban of the Ethiopian Government on teff is hindering business development in Ethiopia.

Benefit-sharing: Dr. Girma asked why the company is so far not assisting Ethiopian business, and the export ban was re-highlighted as the reason for this.

International trade: The research on teff is linking Ethiopia to Europe and was considered to be a positive development.

General comments: Can this example shed light on novel ways to protect farmers’ rights? It was argued that no proper discussion could take place when the group had not seen the document in question. Dr. Andreas Drews ensured the group that the ABS agreement as well as the patent will be made available online.

	Teff-ABS-Agreement-2004-12.doc Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (IBC), Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) and Health and Performance Food International bv. (HPFI), 2004. Agreement on access to, and benefit sharing from, Teff genetic resources.	82 kB
	Teff-ABS-Agreement-Annex-1.tif	274 kB
	Teff-ABS-Agreement-Annex-2.tif	532 kB
	Teff-ABS-Agreement-Annex-3.tif	150 kB
	Teff-Patent-EP_1_646_287_B1.pdf European Patent Office (EPA), 2006. Processing of Teff Flour. European Patent Specification EP 1 646 287 B1.	559 kB
	FNI-FarmersRights-Ethiopia.pdf Regassa Feyissa, 2006. Farmers’ Rights in Ethiopia: A Case Study. The Farmers’ Rights Project, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, FNI report 7/2006, 64 pp.	588 kB

12.00 – 14:00

Lunch break

14.00 – 15:15

Synthesis – African options for a Certificate of “???”

Facilitator: Peter Munyi

Over lunch break the three rapporteurs and some participants were requested to synthesise the results of the three groups into a first proposal of elements for an African position on the certificate of "???".

Members of this task force representing different stakeholder groups:

Dr. Abebe Demissie, Freddy Magagula, Dr. Marcelin Tonye Mahop, Ramatou Njanzou, Dr. Gemedo Dalle, Prof. Johnson Ekpere, Dr. Dominique Byaraguba, Lucy Mulenkei, Kabir Bavikatte

After lunch Prof. Ekpere presented the synthesised results of the three working groups to the plenary, which were written on metaplan boards.

Participants were invited by Peter Munyi to a "silent discussion", i.e. provide written comments on the metaplan boards, of this first proposal of elements for an African position on the certificate of "???".

15:15– 15:30

Coffee break

15:45 - 16:45

Final discussion: Synthesis – African options for a Certificate of “???”

Facilitator: Peter Munyi

After a discussion of the written comments the following text was agreed upon as elements for an African position on the Certificate of "???":

Rationale:

A certificate of [Origin and Source OR Origin and/or Source] is required in order to address the inadequacy of national ABS legislation and enhance the implementation of Article 8j and 15 of the CBD. The rationale of the certificate is to:

1. Require of disclosure of source and origin and other information as appropriate;
2. Identify countries, communities and localities;
3. Ensure legal certainty;
4. Facilitate benefit sharing;
5. Enhance and facilitate the conservation, sustainable use of biological resources; and
6. Monitor and facilitate access to genetic resources and scientific research.

Name:

Option 1: Certificate of Origin and Source

Option 2: Certificate of Origin and/or Source

Remark: Participants agreed that an explanation should be added in the final document (for download below) by the task team to provide an explanation of the difference od these two options.

Characteristics and Features

• Nature:

Mandatory and binding

• Scope:

1. TK, innovations and practices should be covered by the certificate;
2. Annex 1 species under the ITPGRFA should be excluded if used for food and agriculture;
3. Certificate must include: ex-situ collections;
4. Certificate must include derivatives and new products;
5. Certificate should cover GR and associated CK, innovations and practices for research; and
6. Certificate should cover intended use.

• Content and Format:

The Certificate should

1. State details of the holder of the certificate, applicant and user;
2. Specify country of origin and source;
3. Specify knowledge holders and countries of origin of TK, innovations and practices;
4. Specify conditions of transfer to third parties;
5. Specify that PIC has been obtained and potential benefits of research;  
6. Where possible, indicate the scientific name and/or local name of the biological material.

• Procedure:

1. Applications should be submitted to the Competent National Authorities;
2. Procedure for PIC of communities should be established in provider countries; 
3. Establishment of an international Clearing House Mechanism; and  
4. Checkpoints should be established in both provider and user countries and at international and regional level.

Implementation Challenges:

1. Establishing and harmonising ABS regimes in provider and user countries;
2. Defining the period of validity;
3. Interpretation and understanding of other int’l agreements in relation to certificate of O/S;
4. Capacity to monitor and trace the G and implementation of the ABS system;
5. Awareness Creation and information sharing;
6. Adjudication of disputes relating to certificate of O/S;
7. Heavy costs involved;
8. Transboundary, shared resources and migratory species;
9. Participation of relevant stakeholders during negotiations for ABS; and
10. Availability of updated data / database.

16:45 – 17:10

Follow-up towards ABS-WG 6 in Montreal (October 2007) and workshop evaluation

Facilitator: Suhel al-Janabi

Follow-up:

Dr. Andreas Drews explained that these results will be fed into the preparatory process of the African Group for the next meeting of the CBD Worksing Group on ABS in Montreal in October 2007. Additionally an Information Document will be prepared and submitted to the Secretariate of the CBD. 

Workshop evaluation:

Participants were requested to tick on a scale of 1 to 4 their satisfaction with key elements of the workshop and to write on cards

• what they liked most and
• what they disliked or requires improvement.

17:10 – 17:15

Words of farewell !!