Genetic resources for food and agriculture

emryologistromanianBiotechnology

Oct 22, 2013 (3 years and 5 months ago)

96 views

Genetic resources for food and agriculture -options and challenges under the Nagoya Protocol
-what is the room for an umbrella under the FAO’s Commission
for genetic resources for food and agriculture Ane Jørem and Morten Walløe Tvedt,
Fridtjof Nansen Institute
Genetic resources -a treasure trove for the future?
Workshop 22th and 23th November 2012, Kringler, Norway
New ELSA-NFR project: Bleu and green:
Biotechnology in Agriculture and Aquaculture –
Effects of Intellectual Property Rights in the Food
Production Chain
WP 1. The state of IPRs applied to and available for biotechnology in the four
sectors: farm animals, forests, fish and plants.
WP 2. Interaction between evolving institutions, law and policies relevant to
IPR at international, regional (European) and national (Norwegian) levels.
WP 3. IPRs interrelate to other parts of law and policy, such as ABS under
the CBD and regulations and policies under the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO).Partners: Norsvin, AkvaforskGenetics Center, NOFIMA, WageningenUR Livestock
Research, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute(Norwegian GR Centre),
Noragric(UMB)
New ELSA-NFR project: Bleu and green:
Biotechnology in Agriculture and Aquaculture –
Effects of Intellectual Property Rights in the Food
Production Chain
WP 1. The state of IPRs applied to and available for biotechnology in the four
sectors: farm animals, forests, fish and plants.
WP 2. Interaction between evolving institutions, law and policies relevant to
IPR at international, regional (European) and national (Norwegian) levels.
WP 3. IPRs interrelate to other parts of law and policy, such as ABS under
the CBD and regulations and policies under the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO).Partners: Norsvin, AkvaforskGenetics Center, NOFIMA, WageningenUR Livestock
Research, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute(Norwegian GR Centre),
Noragric(UMB)
WP 3. IPRs interrelate to other parts of law and
policy, such as ABS under the CBD and
regulations and policies under the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Is there a need for a new negotiation on this
matter now? Or can the NP be used?
The Nagoya Protocol and Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture:
Discussing the needs for a new legal
instrument under CGRFA
Background:
•CBD regulates all ABS including food GR
•The Nagoya Protocol (2010)
•Mandate under the CGRFA (July 2011)
•CGRFA 2013 -
Potential in the NP for Agricultural GR
NP Art 4.2. Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the Parties from developing
and implementing other relevant international agreements, including other
specialized access and benefit-sharing agreements, provided that they are
supportive of and do not run counter to the objectives of the Convention and
this Protocol.
NP Article 19, which talks about Model Contractual Clauses:
1. Each Party shall encourage, as appropriate, the development, update and
use of sectoraland cross-sectoralmodel contractual clauses for mutually
agreed terms.
2. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this
Protocol shall periodically take stock of the use of sectoraland cross-
sectoralmodel contractual clauses.
Objectivs for ABS in the food sector:
Six sectors:
Animal genetic resources
Aquatic GR
Microorganisms (8 diff uses)
Invertebrate
Food security
Facilitate continuous access
Global governance
Forest GR (biofuel and CO2
Storage)
Plants outside ITPGRFA/ MLS
Special features for GRFA?
Incremental improvements
Multiple sources –no “one GR –one product”
Products are resources
Users can become providers
Case for plants
These features need to be assessed for each groups
To what extent do these characteristics apply?
Special features for Salmon breeding?
Incremental improvements
The breeding of new lines of salmon is divided from the
user/farmer.
Multiple sources –no “one GR –one product”
Each breeder takes material from various sources, but mainly
Norwegian sources –so no global multiple sources
Products are resources
Not an adequate characteristic
Users can become providers (very difficult)
Special features for micro-organisms?
Incremental improvements
Very seldom breeding of micro-organisms
Multiple sources –no “one GR –one product”
A typical ABS case as one bacteria/virus very often lead to
one product
Products are resources
The product here a vaccine or a pesticide seldom the source
for new research
Users can become providers
One example: micro-organisms and aqua
Virus patent –a naturally occurring virus
(Pandcreas Disease):
The virus and its use as a basis for a vaccine
Then a new virus strain was identified in Norway
Used for developing a new vaccine; covered by the patent
because both viruses caused the similar symptoms in the
salmon
Illustrates: one GR-one product
Typical for micro-organisms –challenge
Patent law is more important than ABS/NP
Special features for AnGR(FA)?
Incremental improvements
Depends on the species
Multiple sources –no “one GR –one product”
At the breeder-level yes/perhaps
Products are resources
Not the case in poultry/swine more the case for cattle
Users can become providers
By principle yes, but less adequate in practice
In the FAO the special features leads to the
following normative arguments:
Simple, transparent and light structure
Keep sufficient flexibility
Build upon existing practice of exchange
Pooling of the resource (not in the interest of
Norway for salom or cattle or swine)
Decoupling/ detatching benefit sharing from
–Individual provider
–Individual GR
FAGR Umbrella in the CGRFA
Expanding the Annex to the plant treaty
Making use of NP Art 4
–Special light regime for AnGR, FGR, AqGR,
MicGR, Invertebrates
–Model clause MTA for each area
Where is the focus on IPR and the
balancing effect of CBD/NP in this respect
Thank you for your attention –we hope that
you will contribute to further work
Ane Jørem, aej@fni.no
Morten Walløe Tvedt, mwt@fni.no,
www.fni.no