2 February 2006
Revised Biodiversity Draft Meets Strong Developed Country Opposition
GRANADA, Spain — A revised draft proposal for an international regime governing the use of genetic resources presented here on 2 February at a Convention on Biological Diversity negotiating session is meeting with strong opposition from developed countries.
The new draft includes a proposal from Brazil on the disclosure of origin of genetic material in patent applications, although it remains in brackets, indicating that there is not yet consensus.
The first draft was published by the meeting chairwoman on 1 February and comments were submitted by meeting participants during that day, providing the basis for the revised 2 February draft. The new draft is thus more detailed and longer, and at five pages, two pages longer than the first draft.
In order to address disagreements, the meeting broke for an extended period midday on 2 February. The chairwoman will meet with two people from each of the 10 represented regions over lunch to discuss what to do with the draft, according to sources.
Instead of discussing the content of the revised draft, developed countries appears to be trying to halt the process by saying that they cannot support it, saying that their comments made on 1 February are not reflected in the revised version. It was not clear what specific comments they are seeking to be included.
Developing countries welcomed the revised draft and what they see as progress made towards an international regime for access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, such as plants used for pharmaceutical products. The meeting has a mandate to develop such a regime given to it two years ago by the CBD conference of parties, which consists of the countries having ratified the CBD (IPW, Biodiversity, 2 February 2006).
On behalf of the African Group, Ethiopia applauded the chairwoman for “excellent work done.”
But developed countries such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Japan and New Zealand said they could not support the draft as they felt it did not reflect their comments from 1 February. Some of these countries suggested that the entire document should be put in brackets as nothing was yet agreed to and it was a draft from the chairwoman.
Many developed countries also said the nature of the text is unclear, and questioned the procedure used. For instance, they said it is unclear whether the draft will be forwarded to the next conference of parties, and requested further studies before moving forward.
But Malaysia said it “supports entirely” the revised draft and it was an exaggeration that the developed countries’ views had not been reflected as they would have been the ones suggesting brackets around Brazil’s suggestions about disclosure of origin.
Malaysia also said that the entire document could not be put in brackets, as has been suggested by some developed countries, as this was a negotiation on the CBD and there was a mandate to develop such a regime. Colombia also questioned the developed countries’ suggestion to put brackets around the entire text.
The delegate said that developing countries have made especially great efforts to come to Granada and had come here to work, not talk about further analysis. India said the meeting should not waste time discussing square brackets.
Categories: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, English, News, Patent Policy, Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge, United Nations
Print This Post
