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

UNCLAS  ROME 001057 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR E, EB, OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC 
AND IO/EDA - KOTOK 
USDA FOR DHEGWOOD, FAS - BRICHEY LREICH AND RHUGHES 
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK 
USAID FOR EGAT/ESP - MOORE AND BERTRAM 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID SENV KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT:  PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES TREATY LIKELY TO ENTER 
INTO FORCE IN JUNE 2004, RAISING QUESTION OF U.S. 
RATIFICATION 
 
REF:  (A) ROME 0280;     (B) 03 ROME 5197; 
      (C) 03 ROME 2210 
 
Sensitive but unclassified -- please handle accordingly. 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  According to the FAO Secretariat, 36 
countries have now submitted ratification instruments for 
the International Treaty (IT) for Plant Genetic Resources 
for Food and Agriculture.  Anticipated action by EU 
member states by March 31 would likely take the number of 
ratifications over 40, triggering entry into force 90 
days later.  Meanwhile, FAO still lacks $1.2 million in 
voluntary contributions to hold three important IT- 
related meetings in 2004.  In addition, the IT Governing 
Body (GB) will have to hold its first meeting within two 
years of the treaty's entry into force.  Although some 
developing countries may press for an early meeting of 
the GB, senior officials responsible for plant genetic 
resource issues in the FAO Secretariat prefer to allow 
more time for preparatory work and to wait until a larger 
number of countries have ratified and can participate in 
the GB.  The USG needs to decide soon whether we want to 
ratify the IT and participate fully in the process, or 
whether our interests are better served as marginalized 
observers.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U)  On March 16, Alternate Permrep discussed 
progress on the IT with Jose Esquinas-Alcazar, Secretary 
of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and 
Agriculture.  The Commission serves inter alia as the 
Interim Committee for the IT.  (Background:  The IT will 
be the principal international legal instrument governing 
transfers of plant genetic material for food and 
agriculture.  It establishes a multilateral system for 
facilitated access and benefit sharing that applies to 35 
crops and a number of forages.  Conditions of access and 
benefit sharing requirements will be specified in an as- 
yet undrafted Material Transfer Agreement [MTA].) 
 
¶3.  (U)  Entry into Force:  Esquinas reported that 36 
countries had already submitted their instruments of 
ratification.  He said that the EU Council of Ministers 
for Fisheries and Agriculture meeting on February 24 
agreed that the EC and all member states ready to do so 
would submit their instruments of ratification by 
March 31.  Action by the EU en bloc will take the number 
of ratifications above the minimum number of 
ratifications (40), thereby triggering entry into force 
90 days thereafter -- probably sometime in late June 
¶2004. 
 
¶4.  (U)  Planned Meetings in 2004:  At present, the FAO 
Secretariat envisions holding three IT-related meetings 
 
SIPDIS 
in 2004, subject to available funds.  In mid July there 
would be held the First Meeting of the Expert Group on 
the Standard MTA and the First Meeting of the Open-ended 
Working Group on Rules of Procedure, Financial Rules and 
Compliance.  In November, there would be the Second 
Meeting of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food 
and Agriculture acting as the IT Interim Committee. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Funding:  Holding the above three meetings would 
cost $1.6 million, including interpretation, translation 
and developing country participation costs, according to 
Esquinas.  Thus far FAO has received about $280,000 in 
voluntary contributions, of which $25,000 has already 
been spent on preparatory work.  (The contributors thus 
far are Japan, Spain, Canada, USA, Ireland and Norway.) 
An additional $180,000 is available from FAO's regular 
program budget.  That leaves a shortfall of about 
$1.2 million.  Esquinas is hopeful that the flurry of 
ratification activity in the EU this month will bring in 
additional contributions, but he remains concerned that, 
if FAO does not receive adequate funding commitments 
within a week or so, the July 2004 meetings will have to 
be further postponed. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  Governing Body:  The first GB will have to 
decide on a number of important questions, including the 
level, form and manner of monetary payments upon 
commercialization; the standard MTA; compliance 
mechanisms; and the funding strategy.  The IT text does 
 
not specify explicitly how soon after entry into force 
the GB must be held, but Article 19.9 requires that the 
GB must meet at least every two years.  FAO's Legal 
Department has therefore concluded that the GB meeting 
should take place within two years of the IT's entry into 
force.  According to Esquinas, some developing countries 
have already expressed a preference for an early meeting 
of the GB.  Under Article 19.10, a special session of the 
GB must be held if one-third of the countries that have 
ratified the IT so request.  If FAO's Africa Regional 
Group (which would represent about half of the countries 
that have ratified the IT) were to decide to request an 
early GB meeting, the FAO Secretariat would be bound to 
honor that request. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  GB Timing:  Esquinas said he personally favors 
holding off on a GB meeting for two reasons. 
 
-- First, a lot of important preparatory work still 
remains to be done; probably two Interim Committee 
sessions and several MTA meetings would be desirable 
before the first GB. 
 
-- Second, it is important that the GB be as broadly 
representative as possible, and this will only be the 
case after significantly more than 40 countries have 
ratified; this could take months if not years. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Involvement of Other Fora:  That said, 
Esquinas added that he came away from the recent 
Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD) in Kuala Lumpur with the realization 
that, if the IT process does not get off the ground 
relatively quickly, it will leave a vacuum that might be 
filled -- unhelpfully -- by CBD discussions on access and 
benefit sharing.  He noted that the World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO) also is getting involved -- 
specifically this week's Intergovernmental Committee on 
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional 
Knowledge and Folklore.  Esquinas sees a danger in the 
involvement of other organizations and bodies, since in 
his view the issues surrounding plant genetic resources 
for food and agriculture are very different from those 
related to natural genetic biodiversity. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  Comment:  As long as the IT process remains in 
the hands of the 165-member Interim Committee, the USG 
(which is a member of the Interim Committee and has 
signed -- but not ratified -- the IT) will continue to be 
able to influence the discussion.  Thereafter, we risk 
being marginalized as observers, as has been the case in 
the CBD.  Another concern is that small developing 
countries are disproportionately represented among the 
early ratifiers, and their interests may differ from 
ours.  If we want to be full participants in the key 
early deliberations of the IT, a decision on whether the 
U.S. ratifies the IT needs to be made in near future. 
 
Cleverley 
 
 
NNNN 
	2004ROME01057 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED