1. The Ninth Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture met in Rome, Italy, from 14-18 October 2002. The list of delegates and observers is attached as Appendix I.
2. Mr. Javad Mozafari Hashjin (Iran), Vice-Chair of the Commission, welcomed the delegates and observers on behalf of the outgoing Chair, Mr. Fernando Gerbasi (Venezuela). He invited nominations for the Chair and Vice-Chairs. The Commission elected as Chair Mr. Robert Bertram (United States of America), and as Vice-Chairs Ms. Kristiane Herrmann (Australia), Mr. Javad Mozafari Hashjin (Iran), Mr. Innocent Mokosa Mandende (Democratic Republic of Congo), Ms. Hilda Gabardini (Argentina), Mr. Eng Siang Lim (Malaysia), and Mr. Nikolaos Stavropoulos (Greece). Mr. Baldev Singh Dhillon (India) was elected Rapporteur. In taking up his office as Chair, Mr. Bertram noted that the Commission owed very much to the work of the out-going Chair, Mr. Fernando Gerbasi, and he hoped to build on that.
3. The Commission adopted the Agenda, as given in Appendix A.
4. Mr. David Harcharik, the Deputy Director-General, welcomed the delegates and observers, and the five new members of the Commission: Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, San Marino, São Tomé and Principe, and Saudi Arabia; and these additions have brought the total membership to 165. The list of Members of the Commission is attached as Appendix B. He noted that the Commission had, for almost 20 years, addressed the burning issues of the day, with respect to biodiversity, biotechnology and ethics and their interface, and through negotiations had reached consensus on important policies and priorities. Mr. Harcharik noted advances in the development of a Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources and the first report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources. Following the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture—one of the greatest accomplishments of the Commission—he suggested there might be an opportunity to review the elements of the Global System, to serve the needs of the Treaty. He noted that the Commission would for the first time consider a report on the relevant FAO Priority Areas for Inter-disciplinary Action (PAIAs). It could also consider the Code of Conduct on Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer, for possible revision in line with the Treaty. Mr. Harcharik noted that the Commission would also consider the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of the new biotechnologies, at a time of new promises and challenges.
5. The Commission considered the Report of the Second Session of the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,1 which had met from 4-6 September 2000 in Rome. Ms. Elzbieta Martyniuk (Poland), the Chair of the Working Group, presented the outcome of the Session, as given in Appendix D. The Commission endorsed the same, and thanked the Chair and Members of the Working Group for their work.
6. The Director of the Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, introduced a Progress Report on the development of the First Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources in the context of the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources,2 and an information document on the Further Development of the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources.3
7. The Commission expressed concern about the erosion of animal genetic resources and agreed with the Working Group that further urgent action should be taken, including training, technical support and research, to assist developing countries and countries with economies in transition to conserve their animal genetic resources, and better use these resources to enhance agricultural production and productivity.
8. The Commission accepted the process for preparing the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources, on the basis of Country Reports, which should be used to develop the report on Strategic Priorities for Action. The Commission emphasized the need to complete the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources by 2006.
9. The Commission acknowledged that in addition to Regular Budget, extra-budgetary resources would be necessary to support further preparation of the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources, and recommended that FAO more clearly identify such financial needs, in order to better engage donors and stakeholders in the process. A number of countries stressed the continuing need for financial support in the process of developing their Country Reports. The Commission recognized that the training and resources provided by FAO had been extremely valuable in supporting the crucial first stage of work, and appealed for the resources necessary to continue such support to be made available.
10. The Commission stressed the importance of a regional focus, through networking and training, and agreed that regional efforts should continue where required, using existing structures to support overall preparation of the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources.
11. The Commission stressed the need to continue to involve relevant international organizations and non-government organizations in the preparation of the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources, and recommended that they be officially invited by FAO to contribute reports on animal genetic resources.
12. The Commission considered that the experience gained in the country-driven process addressing the development of the first Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources, through the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, could provide a number of lessons for the process to develop the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources, but stressed the need to take into account the specific features of animal genetic resources.
13. The Commission considered the possibility of completing the process for the development of the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources at a first international technical conference on animal genetic resources, which could provide a framework for advancing the conservation and sustainable use of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture; it decided to keep this possibility under review for a decision later on. Pros and cons were expressed on the possible need for a Treaty on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Pending the completion of the above-mentioned report, the issue was left open for consideration in future sessions of the Commission.
14. The Commission agreed that the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources should meet in regular sessions in 2003 and 2005, to continue guiding the Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources process, and the further development of the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. If necessary, and subject to the availability of extra-budgetary resources, the Working Group should also meet in 2004.
15. The Commission stressed the crucial importance of data and information-sharing for the conservation and sustainable use of animal genetic resources, and in order to share solutions to common challenges. It agreed that the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) should be further developed for this purpose.
16. The Commission elected the members of the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources, as given in Appendix C.
17. The Commission considered the report of the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,4 endorsed the same, and thanked its Chair, Mr. Eng Siang Lim (Malaysia), and Members of the Working Group for their work.
18. The Commission considered the Country progress report on the state of implementation of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.5 It noted that the majority of national activities reported were funded from national sources. The absence of adequate external financing was cited as a major constraint. The importance of promoting the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, including through germplasm characterization, evaluation and enhancement, plant breeding (including participatory plant breeding), and seed production and distribution; and its contribution to food security, was emphasized. Some countries pointed out the need for a more complete analysis of the information collected, taking into account a broader and relevant range of considerations, in addition to statistical indicators.
19. The Commission highlighted the importance of monitoring the implementation of the Plan through a country-driven and flexible system that could respond to different and evolving national and regional needs and priorities, while ensuring the necessary level of standardization. The importance of simplicity and clarity in the list of indicators, and in the reporting format, was emphasized. This would encourage the participation of all countries and stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society organizations. In this regard, the Commission supported the establishment, at national level, of processes to share information among stakeholders on the implementation of the Plan, and supported the proposal for a pilot testing phase. The list of indicators and reporting format developed by the Secretariat, with inputs from an expert group6 was considered to be useful, but should be further refined, through pilot testing in a number of countries. The Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources should continue working toward the final list of core indicators. Various countries indicated their interest in participating in the pilot exercise. These indicators should be developed, keeping in view the work being done by other international organizations. The Commission recognized that some developing countries and countries with economies in transition, especially least developed countries, would need technical and financial support to enable their participation in the pilot phase. It was agreed that the surveys in 2003 and 2005 would be carried out on the basis of the methodology currently in use, integrating the lessons learned from the pilot exercises. While appreciating the national and regional needs and priorities, the Commission also suggested that higher order indicators be developed, and, in this regard, welcomed the inter-sessional work carried out by the Secretariat. Such higher order indicators would facilitate a more general analysis of the state of genetic resource conservation and use, and the sharing of such information with other forums, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Commission on Sustainable Development and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
20. The Commission agreed that work should progress on the development of the second report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, on the basis of the proposals in Preparation of the Second Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,7 and considered that the timetable was realistic. It stressed that the preparatory process for the second report should be fully integrated with the process of monitoring the implementation of the Global Plan of Action. In emphasising the country-driven nature of the preparatory process, the Commission requested that countries be given an opportunity to review the guidelines for country reporting, prior to their finalization. The Commission agreed that priority should be given to updating the report, focusing, as far as possible, on changes that had occurred. The thematic studies proposed8 would be carried out, as far as resources allowed.
21. The Commission recognized that extra-budgetary resources would be required to ensure the full participation in these processes of developing countries and countries with economies in transition, especially the least developed countries, and appealed to donors to make such resources available.
22. The Commission agreed that adjustment of the rolling Global Plan of Action was not needed at this time, and could be considered at a later stage.
23. The Commission reaffirmed the important role of the World Information Early Warning System (WIEWS) as a metadata information-provider, and welcomed proposals for its further development, to contribute to the Global Information System of the Treaty, including the envisaged consultations. The role of WIEWS in updating the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; monitoring the implementation of the Global Plan of Action; and, through its global network, in supporting national Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture programmes to establish a national mechanism to exchange information on the implementation of the Global Plan of Action, was emphasized. Countries that had not yet nominated National Focal Points or had not taken appropriate action towards the exchange of information were encouraged to do so.
24. The Commission recognized the important role of networks in promoting cooperation between countries in the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Commission encouraged countries to provide further information on the networks in which they participate, in order that the inventory of relevant networks may be completed. It was agreed that the effectiveness of networks should be assessed, and that synergy between different networks should be promoted. Cooperation with the Man and the Biosphere programme on in situ management was discussed. It was agreed that the Inter-governmental Technical Working on Plant Genetic Resources should consider these matters at its next meeting, with a view to furthering the contribution of networks to the implementation of the Global Plan of Action, and the International Treaty, on its entry into force.
25. The Commission suggested, that, in future sessions of the Commission, a summary document be prepared, providing an overview of the various components of the Global System, and their potential contribution to the implementation of the International Treaty.
26. The need for increased efforts, to promote implementation of the Global Plan of Action was reaffirmed. Many Members recalled the need for new and additional resources, and international efforts, in the way expressed in the results of the Leipzig International Technical Conference.
27. It was noted that FAO’s Medium Term Plan provided for the development of a mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the Plan by all stakeholders. The Commission stressed that the implementation of the Plan should be country-driven, but efforts should also focus on facilitating the provision of technical and financial resources to developing countries—especially least developed countries, and to countries with economies in transition—to address national priorities for implementing the Plan. High priority should also be given to enhancing or creating partnerships for implementation of the Plan, promoting linkages among plant genetic resources management, plant breeding and seed sector, and networking, and facilitating communication with international organizations and donors. The Commission welcomed the proposed partnership with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
28. Some Members expressed concern that the advice and options provided to FAO by the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture had not been reflected in the document, A facilitating mechanism for the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture;11 and further consideration should be given to these. The Commission recommended that the future development of the facilitating mechanism be guided by the Commission and its Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The Commission supported the proposal for a consultation to gather the views of stakeholders, on the possible activities of the facilitating mechanism, in line with International Treaty and the Plan, as well as the priorities established by the Commission.
29. The Commission considered that renewed efforts to promote implementation of the Plan, through the development of the facilitating mechanism, should build upon the momentum created by the adoption of the Treaty. The facilitating mechanism should give high priority to assisting in the development of the funding strategy to be adopted by the Governing Body of the International Treaty. The experience gained would facilitate implementation of the Treaty, on its entry into force, and, as appropriate, could contribute to the development of its funding strategy. However, the Commission noted that there should be no ambiguity in the roles of the Commission and the Governing Body of the International Treaty, or duplication of activities under the facilitating mechanism and the funding strategy of the International Treaty.
30. The Commission considered the Report on the International Network of Ex Situ Collections under the Auspices of FAO.12 The Commission expressed its appreciation and satisfaction with the operation of the International Network. It noted that there had been over 700,000 transfers of genetic material under the Centres’ Agreements with FAO, underlining their importance in the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
31. A number of countries expressed concern over cases involving the inappropriate granting of intellectual property rights over materials from the International Network, noting, however, that such cases had all been attended to. The Commission was informed of ongoing litigation by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), for the re-examination of US patent number 5,894,079 on the “Enola Bean”, on the grounds that it might restrict the use in plant breeding in the United States of America of materials from the International Network. Some Members of the Commission expressed concern that inappropriate granting of intellectual property rights could jeopardize public confidence in the in-trust collections held by the Centres within the International Network, and requested the Director-General of FAO to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the World Trade Organization, and to forward the documents, Report on the International Network of Ex Situ Collections under the Auspices of FAO13 and Report on the International Network of Ex Situ Collections under the Auspices of FAO: further information provided by CIAT, regarding a request for the re-examination of US Patent No. 5,894,079,14 to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and its various Committees, with a request that WIPO cooperate with FAO in preparing a study on how intellectual property rights may effect the availability and use of material from the International Network and the International Treaty. Other Members noted that the material had not in fact come from the in-trust collections, and that the FAO had already supported CIAT’s claim against the Patent.
32. Members also expressed concern that geneflow from transgenic crops could jeopardize the integrity of genetic resources, in particular in the centres of origin, and in the collections of the Centres. Careful studies and observations on the issues are requested. FAO should continue to provide science-based advice in such matters.
33. The Agreements, by which the International Agricultural Research Centres of the CGIAR had brought their ex situ collections under the auspices of FAO, originally signed on 26 October, were to be automatically renewed for a period of four years, from 26 October 2002.
34. At its Sixth Extraordinary Session, the Commission requested preparation of a revised Material Transfer Agreement (MTA), for use by the Centres when making available materials under their Agreements with FAO, in the period until they had concluded Agreements with the Governing Body of the International Treaty, following its entry into force. The Commission reviewed and proposed amendments to a draft revised MTA, which had been jointly prepared for its consideration by the FAO and the Centres. It endorsed this amended revised MTA, in Appendix E, and recommended that this MTA be adopted by the Centres. This amended MTA is without prejudice to the development of any MTA to be adopted by the Governing Body of the Treaty.
35. The Commission reviewed the Steps to be taken to implement the new CGIAR System-wide MTA endorsed by the CGIAR Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources in January 1999, and strongly recommended their full implementation by the Centres.
36. The Commission recommended that the IARCs should take appropriate measures, in accordance with their capacity, to maintain effective compliance with the conditions of the MTA, and report on such measures to the Commission at its next regular session.
37. The Commission elected the members of the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources, as given in Appendix C.
38. The Commission agreed that the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources should meet to examine issues related to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture use through strengthening germplasm conservation, plant breeding capacities and seed systems, and to provide further guidance: on the preparation of the second report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the process for monitoring of the Global Plan of Action; advising the facilitating mechanism; on the development of plant genetic resource networks, and the assessment of their effectiveness; and on the possible need to update elements of the Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer.
39. The Commission considered a Progress report on the development of a network of in situ conservation areas,16 which provided information on an FAO/United Nations Environment Programme Global Environment Facility project on globally important ingenious agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS), and a Progress report on the development of a network of In Situ conservation areas: the in situ conservation of forest genetic resources.17 It was informed that the GIAHS project aims at the conservation and continuous co-adaptation and development of plant and animal genetic resources, together with related traditional knowledge and local technologies, in the agro-ecological areas where they have co-evolved. Funding for this project would be provided for developing countries and economies in transition.
40. The Commission noted the importance of in situ conservation. Some Members expressed support for the approach, which they considered innovative, in particular regarding in situ conservation efforts building on local and indigenous knowledge systems. Attention was also drawn to other existing networks that support in situ conservation. Some members suggested that it should be referred to the Inter-Governmental Technical Working Groups. Other Members raised a number of concerns and pointed out uncertainties related to the project concept and stressed that it needed to be reviewed, through consultations with Members and additional information. In implementing in situ projects, the Commission stressed the need to respect national sovereignty, including national legislation. Some Members stressed that such projects should not lead to nor justify trade-distorting measures, including subsidies.
41. The Commission considered Reports from FAO on its policies, programmes and activities on agricultural biological diversity, covering sectorial matters,18 cross-sectorial matters,19 and the Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs).20
42. The Commission welcomed the opportunity to comment on the broad range of FAO’s programmes relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture. Noting that the Programme of Work and Budget is agreed by the Conference, on the advice of the Council and its Committees, the Commission highlighted the importance of adequate financial resources for all sectors of genetic resources. The secretariat was requested to provide the Commission regularly with up-to-date information on allocations of Regular Programme resources to relevant activities.
43. The Commission welcomed the innovative work carried out by FAO on various aspects of agricultural biodiversity, through the PAIAs. A number of areas for possible further study were suggested, including: good agricultural practices, understanding the contribution of genetic resources to the economies of Member countries, the impact of agricultural subsidies on biodiversity, and the competitiveness of organic agriculture.
44. A number of Members expressed concern with some definitions in the FAO’s biotechnology glossary, and offered technical support to assist the Secretariat to continue to improve the accuracy of the biotechnology glossary, stressing the need to maintain high standards of scientific and technical publications, and requested that terms be in harmony with those used in relevant international agreements. A number of Members also stated that FAO’s work on ethics might be considered a low priority area. Another Member supported the relevance of the Ethics Panel’s activities.
45. The Commission recognized that FAO should continue to provide science-based advice to governments for national decision-making on the use and safety of food containing genetically-modified products. Some countries expressed concern in relation to the distribution of transgenic food aid without the prior informed consent of the beneficiary countries, and the possible implications to their in situ plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
46. The Commission welcomed the reports from International Inter-governmental Organizations, CGIAR Centres, Non-Governmental Organizations, and other organizations, on their policies, programmes and activities.21 The list of organizations presenting reports to the Commission is contained in Appendix G. The Commission considered it important to continue to receive reports from these and other organizations.
47. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) noted the active and positive collaboration between the WIPO and FAO Secretariats. WIPO welcomed the requests and suggestions that had been made by delegations in the course of this week, that it work jointly with the FAO to address the IP-specific aspects that arise in the work of the Commission.
48. The Commission welcomed, in particular, the detailed information provided in the reports from the International Agricultural Research Centres, which showed the invaluable work they have performed in different areas. It requested that future reports provide more detailed information on the contributions of national institutions to joint programmes with the Centres.
49. The Commission heard a presentation from the Director General of IPGRI, Mr. Geoffrey Hawtin, on the joint efforts of FAO and the CGIAR to establish a Global Conservation Trust, to provide, in perpetuity, a flow of funds for ex situ conservation by national and international institutions, and for relevant capacity-building. The Trust would operate in the framework of the International Treaty, and be an essential element of its funding strategy. The overall policy guidance for the Trust would come from the Governing Body of the Treaty.
50. This initiative was universally appreciated and supported, and appeals were made to donors to assist in the establishment of the Trust. The Trust would, it was hoped, attract new and additional funds from a wide-range of donors. The Commission stressed the need for the Governance of the Trust to work in a transparent and efficient manner, as proposed, and requested progress regarding the Trust to be reported at sessions of the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources. Mr. Hawtin’s report is in Appendix F.
51. A number of International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations informed the Commission about their work and policies. The Commission recognized their thoughtful contribution to efforts for the conservation and sustainable utilization of agricultural biodiversity. For future sessions of the Commission, it suggested that the Secretariat consider creating opportunities to stimulate greater interaction between Members and the organizations.
52. The Commission considered the document, Cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity.22 It thanked the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for its support for the process of the negotiation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, most recently through its Decision VI/6, which had appealed to Governments to give priority consideration to ratifying the Treaty, so that it might enter expeditiously into force. The Conference of the Parties had recognized the important role that the Treaty would play in the conservation and sustainable utilization of agricultural biodiversity, facilitated access to these resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their utilization.
53. It welcomed the growing cooperation between the FAO and its Commission and the CBD, on a wide range of sectorial and cross-sectorial activities, which included the Commission’s work towards the first Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, noting that the Conference of the Parties had invited its financial mechanism to support countries in this important process; and the ongoing secondment by FAO of an Agricultural Biodiversity Officer to the CBD Secretariat. This cooperation could assist Members of both organizations to avoid duplication of efforts. Of particular importance were initiatives, in areas of interest to the food and agriculture sector, to harmonize reporting on genetic resources for food and agriculture. It requested FAO to transmit to the Executive Secretary of the CBD the indicators that had been developed to assist reporting on the implementation of the Global Plan of Action, with a request that these—supplemented by higher order, synthetic indicators—be used to promote harmonized reporting. This would facilitate collaboration at the national level, especially between Ministries of Agriculture and Ministries of the Environment.
54. The Commission considered the document, Potential Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) on Agricultural Biodiversity and Agricultural Production Systems: Follow-up to the First Session of the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.23
55. The Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD had invited FAO to further study the potential implications of GURTs for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity and the range of agricultural production systems in different countries, to identify relevant policy questions and socio-economic issues that may need to be addressed, and inform the Conference of the Parties. The Technical Study, Potential Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) on Agricultural Production Systems: Technical Study, had been prepared and submitted to the Inter-governmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources at its First Session. The Technical Study had been updated in the light of its comments, and written comments subsequently submitted by Members, and was now before the Commission.24
56. The Commission agreed that the Technical Study (with paragraph 50 removed) should be forwarded to the next Conference of the Parties, for information. Some Members stressed that, in doing so, it should be made clear that genetic use restriction technologies are currently in a period of research and development, are not currently available commercially, and may never be. One Member expressed concern at the lack of balance in the updated study, requested to append additional written comments to the study, and was invited to do so.
57. Some Members of the Commission expressed the concern that GURTs are in contradiction to the spirit of the International Treaty and the sharing of genetic resources. Members of the Commission also expressed concern regarding the possible effects on developing countries and their farmers, and on food security and rural development. They indicated the need to better understand any possible adverse impacts on the environment, and the implications for agriculture. The Commission agreed that FAO should play a role in sharing information and experience regarding genetic use restriction technologies, particularly by inviting Members to provide information on any relevant national regulatory decisions, and making them available.
58. The Commission considered the document, Report on the Status of the International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer,25 and discussed the possible need to update elements of the Code in the light of the adoption of the International Treaty and other relevant developments.
59. The Commission noted that the Code had been widely used by governments in providing guidance for collecting missions. Elements of the Code had been used in formulating national legislation. The Code continues to be of useful in such contexts.
60. The Commission requested its Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to consider the Code at its next session, and make recommendations to the Commission at its next regular session, regarding the possible need to update elements of the Code. Member countries were invited to submit information on measures taken at national level to implement the Code. The Secretariat was requested to compile this information for the Working Group.
61. The Commission considered the document, The Status of the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it Relates to Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Report of Surveys of FAO Members and Stakeholders.26 It noted that the Commission had requested the Code of Conduct on Biotechnology in the late 1980s, and that, in 1991, the FAO Council agreed to the request of the Commission to prepare a draft Code. The preliminary draft Code was prepared, which was then considered by the Commission in 1993.27 The Commission had agreed that the objectives of the preliminary draft Code should be to help maximize the positive effects of biotechnology, and to minimize any potential negative effects, especially in developing countries”. In 1995, the Commission decided to postpone further development of this preliminary draft Code, until the negotiations then underway for the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (now the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture) had been concluded. It also noted the request of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, at its Sixth Meeting in 2002, to deal with genetic use restriction technologies in the context of this FAO Code of Conduct.
62. The document, The Status of the Draft Code of Conduct, is based on the responses of FAO member countries and a large number of stakeholders to a survey carried out by the Secretariat on the need for, and the possible updating of, the components of the 1993 preliminary draft Code. The Commission was requested for guidance on how to proceed further.
63. The Commission held a positive and intensive discussion. It was noted that the 1993 preliminary draft Code had already accomplished much, as a far-sighted source of inspiration in the development of international agreements, such as the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
64. The Commission recognized the challenges and opportunities posed by the rapid pace of development in biotechnology. Some Members recognized that poor countries and poor farmers have not yet benefited from new biotechnologies. The Commission recognized the need to go ahead with the aim to maximize the positive effects of biotechnologies and minimize any potential negative effects or risks, and that the focus should be on biotechnologies related to genetic resources for food and agriculture. Some Members considered that the best way to address the challenges and opportunities was through the rapid revision and updating of the preliminary draft Code, whereas others preferred a phased approach, with consideration of additional options.
65. Some Members considered all issues and concerns in the document to be important. In order to avoid duplication of efforts and identify existing gaps, the Commission requested the Secretariat to prepare a study, in order to identify what is done in other forums, what remains to be done on the issues raised in the document, and which issues were relevant to FAO and in particular its Commission. In the preparation of the study, there should be consultations, as appropriate, with relevant international organizations. The study would help the Commission to identify issues on which it should concentrate in the future, with respect to a code, guidelines, or other courses of action. In addition, a review of national legislations related to biotechnologies applied to food and agriculture was requested by some Members.
66. It was further suggested that the Secretariat keep close contact with the Secretariats of relevant organizations and international agreements, especially the Biosafety Protocol and the Inter-governmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol, and that the Commission be represented, and its views made known, in these forums.
67. The Commission recognized and supported the important public research on biotechnologies and biosafety carried out by the International Agricultural Research Centres of the Consultative Group and appealed to donors and interested parties to support the efforts of the Centres, with a focus on improving permanently their capacity in these areas, within the framework of the policies, strategies and programmes of collaboration with the national systems of developing countries.
68. The Commission agreed to hold its Tenth Regular Session in late 2004.
1 CGRFA-9/02/3.
2 CGRFA-9/02/4.
3 CGRFA-9/02/Inf.3.
4 CGRFA-9/02/5.
5 CGRFA-9/02/6.
6 CGRFA-9/02/7 and CGRFA-9/02/Inf.2.
7 CGRFA-9/02/8.
8 Listed in Annex 2 of CGRFA-9/02/8.
9 CGRFA-9/02/10.
10 CGRFA-9/02/12.
11 CGRFA-9/02/9.
12 CGRFA-9/02/11.
13 CGRFA-9/02/11.
14 CGRFA-9/02/Inf.7
15 CGRFA-9/02/20.
16 CGRFA-9/2/13.
17 CGRFA-9/2/13/Add.1.
18 CGRFA-9/02/14.1.
19 CGRFA-9/02/14.2.
20 CGRFA-9/02/14.3.
21 CGRFA-9/02/15.1, 15.2, 15.3 and 15/Add 1.
22 CGRFA-9/02/16.
23 CGRFA-9/02/17.
24 CGRFA-9/02/17 Annex.
25 CGRFA-9/02/19.
26 CGRFA-9/02/18.
27 CGRFA-9/02/18 Annex.
