This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS  ROME 005197 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC 
AND IO/EDA - KOTOK 
USAID FOR EGAT/ESP - MOORE AND BERTRAM 
USDA FOR FAS - REICH AND HUGHES 
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK 
 
FROM FODAG 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT:  PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES: INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, 5-7 NOVEMBER 2003 
 
¶1.  Summary:  Participants in the FAO Commission for 
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) 
Intergovernmental Technical Working Group (ITWG) made 
progress in setting guidelines for implementing the 
Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and 
Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for 
Food and Agriculture (GPA) at their Second Meeting in 
Rome on November 5-7 2003.  Efforts to debate political 
subjects such as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies 
(GURTs) were, for the most part, successfully evaded by 
the Chair.  The Secretariat noted that 33 countries had 
ratified the International Treaty on Plant Genetic 
Resources for Food and Agriculture (IT), increasing the 
likelihood that it would enter into force during the 
first half of 2004.  Since the developed countries are 
lagging in ratifications, the IT Governing Body may 
initially be dominated by developing countries, whose 
actions may not reflect the consensus of those 
governments that have signed the treaty.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------ 
Second Meeting of the ITWG and 
Preceding Technical Workshop 
------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  The Second Meeting of the ITWG took place at the FAO 
Headquarters in Rome on November 5-7.  Participants 
included representatives from Algeria, Angola, Australia, 
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, 
Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Germany, Italy, Norway, 
Poland, Portugal, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, 
Egypt, Iran, Canada, and the United States.  The 
Malaysian delegate was elected as chair and kept the 
three days of discussions flowing smoothly.  Norway and 
Angola were selected as vice chairs, and Iran as 
rapporteur. 
 
¶3.  A November 4 Technical Workshop of experts preceded 
the ITWG and provided it with input on how to integrate 
most efficiently the information-gathering activities 
associated with monitoring the GPA and with writing the 
Second Report of the State of the World's Plant Genetic 
Resources for Food and Agriculture (SoW).  The experts 
agreed on a schedule for completing the first draft of 
the SoW, and for conducting GPA monitoring. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Progress in Implementing the GPA 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  The ITWG discussed and made recommendations regarding 
several papers prepared by the FAO that addressed the 
means for implementing the GPA.  The "Strengthening Plant 
Breeding" paper paralleled closely an existing US 
national study on this topic, and was well received by 
the ITWG.  The "Strengthening Seed Systems" paper was 
controversial.  Australia expressed strong concerns that 
much of the work proposed in the preceding paper 
duplicated existing regulatory frameworks (e.g., OECD) 
and information currently available as documents or via 
Internet websites.  Canada, Portugal, and the US recorded 
similar concerns.  India, Norway, and Angola articulated 
the need for seed systems research and development 
tailored to developing nations' conditions.  Oddly, 
representatives from the International Seed Federation 
(ISF) were silent regarding this topic, even when asked 
by the Chair for their views.  An FAO representative 
clarified the scope of the proposed work, suggesting that 
it was not duplicative and filled a serious gap.  FAO 
will reformulate and rewrite the paper, presumably for 
presentation to the Commission on Genetic Resources for 
Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) in 2004. 
 
¶5.  Discussion of the role and nature of the Facilitating 
Mechanism for the IT revealed polarized views. 
Developing nations wanted it to serve essentially as a 
funding mechanism, whereas developed nations and, 
seemingly, the FAO Secretariat viewed it more as an 
"information clearing house" that would assist nations in 
identifying resources (financial and otherwise) for 
implementing the GPA.  The ITWG failed to reach consensus 
regarding the objectives of the Facilitating Mechanism, 
so the Chair will forward this topic to the CGRFA for 
resolution.  Surprisingly, the ITWG did make considerable 
progress in reaching consensus about the activities the 
 
 
Facilitating Mechanism should undertake, and its 
operational structure. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
Avoiding GURTs, Revising the Code of Conduct, 
and Other Political Issues 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  The Chair steered the discussion on revising the 
current Code of Conduct for Plant Exploration and 
Transfer away from issues that might affect the terms of 
the standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) of the IT 
that has yet to be negotiated.  When the discussion 
began, Angola proposed that the Code be revised 
immediately.  Germany, Portugal, Norway, Canada, US, and 
India suggested that such a revision be considered only 
after the upcoming negotiations on the MTA are concluded. 
The Chair quickly recognized this position as the 
consensus.  Some representatives from other governments 
suspected that the FAO had worked behind the scenes to 
dissuade the developing nations from using a discussion 
of Code revision as an opportunity to influence the MTA. 
Interestingly, Cuba and Iran were absent from the room 
during this discussion. 
 
¶7.  The Chair ably sidelined efforts by some 
representatives, especially Cuba, to politicize the 
proceedings. For example, in discussions on the SoW, 
Cuba, with support from Iran and Angola, requested the 
inclusion of information on GURTs.  The US requested and 
received clarification that such information would be 
from extant documents, rather than from new, additional 
studies.  The Chair specified further that such 
information would only be from "scientific and 
authoritative studies." 
 
¶8.  The roles that biotechnology and genetic engineering 
methods may play in crop improvement surfaced at several 
points during the meeting. Cuba, Angola, and India 
requested that the "Strengthening Seed Systems" paper 
prepared by FAO discuss the eventuality that genetically- 
engineered seeds might be transferred, either 
deliberately or inadvertently, to developing nations as a 
result of famine relief programs.  The US suggested this 
topic was a seed quality issue, which was already 
addressed at length in the paper. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
The IT - Initial Domination by Developing Countries? 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶9.  At the end of the meeting, FAO representatives made a 
pitch for contributions to support the implementation of 
the IT, specifically for discussions on the MTA, rules of 
procedure, financial terms and compliance.  Announcements 
that the US had contributed funds for supporting the 
Experts Groups Meeting for the MTA, and for the Global 
Crop Diversity Trust, were well received.  The FAO is 
gratified and surprised by the speed of IT ratifications; 
thirty-three governments have ratified to date.  The IT 
is expected to enter into force during the first half of 
2004, ninety days after the required forty ratifications. 
 
¶10.  An FAO official told U.S. reps on that sidelines 
that he did not expect the European Union to be among the 
forty initial IT ratifications - only five EU states have 
ratified the IT so far.  Therefore, the initial IT 
Governing Body is likely to be dominated by developing 
countries and its actions may reflect their concerns 
rather than those of the broader FAO membership.  The FAO 
will not seek an early meeting of the Governing Body, in 
the hopes that the MTA and other issues can first be 
resolved at Expert Group meetings, and by the more 
broadly based CGRFA, which includes 150+ nations.  But 
the timing of a Governing Body meeting may be out of the 
FAO's hands, because a quorum of one-third of the parties 
to the IT can call a meeting.  In any event, devising a 
standard MTA may take some time, because so far few 
countries have developed definitive positions on key 
issues that the MTA will resolve. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
 
¶11.  The G-77's interventions regarding GURTs and other 
biotechnology issues at the ITWG and elsewhere suggest a 
coordinated campaign, waged simultaneously across several 
multilateral forums.  The ultimate aim of this effort may 
be to regulate (or in the case, of GURTs, ban outright) 
agricultural biotechnologies via resolutions in 
"multilateral environmental agreements" (e.g., CBD, FAO- 
IT) rather than via the actions of more technical 
regulatory bodies or agreements (e.g., IPPC, Codex 
Alimentarius). 
 
Hall 
 
 
NNNN 
	2003ROME05197 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED