MINUTES OF THE GENETIC RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEE (GRPC) 27th Session, Bioversity, Rome, May 5-7, 2010

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE GENETIC RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEE (GRPC) 27th Session, Bioversity, Rome, May 5-7, 2010 Members present: Excused absences: Members of Secretariat: Resource Persons: Observers: Carlos Correa (Chair) Emile Frison (Committee Secretary) Carl-Gustaf Thornström (CGIAR member) Bryan Harvey (Alliance Board) Shadrack Moephuli (CGIAR member) Orlando de Ponti (Private sector) Dan Leskien (FAO Observer) Benito Odala Eliasi (Farmers Organizations) Teresita Borromeo (NARS) Mahmoud Solh (Alliance Executive) Sirkka Immonen (Science Council), Chee Yoke Ling (NGOs) Michael Halewood, Gerald Moore, Isabel Lopez Noriega (Bioversity) Victoria Henson-Apollonio (CAS-IP) Daniele Manzella, Secretariat of the International Treaty; Manny Lantin, Fund Office. Wednesday 5 May 2010 A. Welcome, introductions, logistics, and adoption of the agenda The GRPC Chair, Carlos Correa, welcomed the new Alliance Board representative, Bryan Harvey. The agenda was adopted; it is included as Appendix 1 to these minutes. The Chair introduced document A.2. which summarizes issues that the Executive Committee of the Inter Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR) wanted to bring to the Committee s attention. B. Overview of activities from GRPC 25 work plan Michael Halewood summarized progress to date on the work plan developed by GRPC26. C. Report on intersessional activities leading to the 4 th Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty Daniele Manzella provided an update on the state of the implementation of the International Treaty and ongoing intersessional activities. In particular, he illustrated progress with the work of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on the Standard Material 1

2 Transfer Agreement and the Multilateral System, which is advising the Secretary of the Treaty on implementation questions raised by users of the SMTA. He noted that some of the questions before the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee are directly relevant to matters that the GRPC is dealing with, particularly those under agenda item I. below. The next meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee will probably be in September The Fourth Session of the Governing Body will be held in Bali, Indonesia, in March D. Report concerning the Twelfth Session of the CGRFA and intersessional activities leading to the Thirteenth Session Dan Leskien provided a summary of the outcomes of the Twelfth Regular Session of the Commission, October He noted that the Commission had managed to achieve all outputs and milestones foreseen for that session, including, in the follow-up to the Interlaken Conference, the adoption of a Funding Strategy for the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources. With regard to the issue of access and benefit-sharing for GRFA, a number of research papers on use and exchange of genetic resources for food and agriculture had been prepared in advance of the 12th session. SGRP had coordinated development of a paper on the impact of climate change on countries interdependence on GRFA which included written contributions from several CGIAR Centres. Ultimately, CGRFA 12 had agreed a resolution on the issue of access and benefit sharing which served as the basis for the FAO Conference 18/2009, Policies and arrangements for access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture. At CGRFA12, the Commission had also endorsed the Second Report on the State of the World s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and created the ITWG forest genetic resources (which will meet for the first time in March 2011 (tentative)). The Commission, at its Thirteenth Regular Session (to be held on July 2011), will consider, among other things a) biotechnology and b) climate change and genetic resources for food and agriculture. Depending on the outcome of CBD COP 10 and the adoption of the CBD protocol on ABS, the next session may once again consider ABS issues. It will also consider the draft updated Global Plan of Action on PGRFA and draft revised Genebank Standards. The 13 th Regular Session of the Commission will be preceded by a one-day special information event on climate change and GRFA. The State of the World s Forest Genetic Resources is foreseen to be submitted to the Commission, for consideration at its 14 th Regular Session in The presentation of The State of the World s Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture could be postponed until the 15 th session of the Commission in The Committee highlighted the importance of focusing efforts on conserving crop wild relatives, given threats to their loss, and the improved technological ability to take advantage of their traits. 2

3 L. Potential significance of the CBD Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing for the CGIAR Centres Michael Halewood summarized the outcomes of the last two negotiating sessions of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. He stressed that with only six negotiating days left, there is still a great deal of disagreement on fundamental issues. He highlighted disagreements on the issues of scope of the international regime, particularly with respect to whether a) there will be explicit recognition of the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and b) there will be explicit mention of the future development of specialized ABS arrangements on a sectoral basis. He detailed plans for the introduction of technical inputs from the Centres to the next session of the WG-ABS9 resumed, July 2010, Montreal. The Committee recognized the potentially very serious consequences for the Centres if the relationship between the IR and the Treaty is not clearly defined. E. Regulatory, stewardship and liability issues Orlando de Ponti introduced the item, stressing that access to improved technologies is not limited only by patents. He gave the example of the first generation of patents on Bt that are about to expire. Companies will likely seek to exploit the fact that they own the regulatory dossiers for these technologies in the countries concerned, and without them, other users of the technologies will face significant challenges to getting through the very heavy battery of regulatory standards and processes. If companies owning the regulatory dossiers choose not to maintain their dossiers, then other users will find their freedom to operate circumscribed. Also Centres will likely be affected by this. Cooperation of companies owning those dossiers will be necessary. The Centres are going to need the support of professionals to address these issues. Victoria Henson Apollonio recalled that the Private Sector Committee, CAS-IP, and Science Council organized a Workshop on Public Private Partnerships November 2009, in Zurich, Switzerland. It involved CGIAR Centre Research Directors, donors, and representatives of the private sector. Orlando de Ponti attended on behalf of the GRPC. Guat Hong Teh and Victoria attended on behalf of CAS-IP; Victoria made a presentation. It was noted that with CAS-IP input on the design and ToRs of the studies, the Science Council had commissioned background papers to work towards developing an understanding of stewardship and liability issues and options for dealing with these issues from the CGIAR Centre perspective. One of the conclusions of the meeting was that the Centres would like to have case studies on stewardship situations from Centre experiences. Case studies should reflect experiences with biotechnology and beyond, e.g. concerning non-gm issues, i.e., whenever the Centres reputations are potentially affected. At the meeting, many Centres expressed an interest in guidelines being developed, based on Centres practical experiences. The meeting report and other documentation are available at The examples of AATF and PIPRA were noted as organizations providing services in terms of developing agreements that address stewardship and liability issues. It was noted 3

4 that compliance with stewardship and liability issues is so costly, that it is necessary for Centres to partner with private partners with the competence to address the issues. It was noted that the Centres need to develop a centralized competence, system-wide, to address stewardship and liability issues. If the system does not have competence to address these issues, Centres will not be able to develop partnerships effectively. It was noted that in the CGIAR reform, there will be an increased expectation that the Centres will have unified, system-wide policies on liability, stewardship, management of intellectual assets and so on. J. Patenting Trends Orlando and Victoria lead the session, providing highlights of recent decisions by courts in the United States. The powerpoint presentation by Victoria is included as Appendix 2. Orlando highlighted a study that has recently been forwarded by the Dutch Government to the Dutch parliament regarding the impacts of patents on the plant breeding industry. The government recommends to amend the Netherlands patent law along the lines of Germany and France to allow breeders full freedom to make crosses using varieties containing patented traits, though not to commercialize the resulting products incorporating the patented trait without permission of the patent holder. In addition it will bring this reform to the attention of the European Commission, with the possibility that it will influence an eventual revision of the EU Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Orlando noted that there is an increasing level of critical awareness in many parts of the world that patent law is not necessarily delivering on its promised benefits. The Committee noted that it is important for the CGIAR to continue monitoring patenting developments, explore potential of the patent data bases available to Centres, and possibly train staff how to use those databases. It was noted that there is considerably less freedom to operate than in the past in the field of plant breeding, and that the CGIAR needs capacity to assess freedom to operate or risks making mistakes that could have negative consequences. G. Outstanding draft policies, legal instruments, from the GRPC to the Consortium The Committee identified the proposed guidelines, policies and related legal instruments that should be included in a compilation of documents to be forwarded to the Consortium Board. The Secretariat will assemble the package and write a first draft of the overall introduction. CAS-IP will provide short summaries for the individual documents. Once assembled, the text will be forwarded to the Committee members for approval on a nonobjection basis before it is forwarded to the Consortium Board. 4

5 Thursday 6 May 2010 I. SMTA issues Distribution of materials to farmers for direct use Gerald Moore introduced a background paper being developed as a contribution to the next meeting of the Treaty Advisory Committee on the Multilateral System and the SMTA, concerning distributions to farmers for direct use in cultivation. The Committee considered the paper, and suggested numerous modifications, including defining direct use and limiting the scope of the paper to issues of direct use only. The paper will be circulated back to the Centres for further consideration before being submitted to the Advisory Committee. Repatriation of germplasm Gerald Moore introduced a background paper on repatriation of germplasm. The paper will be modified following the Committee s discussions and will be circulated to the Centres for further consideration before being submitted to the Treaty Advisory Committee. Distribution of materials to non-contracting partners Gerald Moore introduced the issue of the distribution by Centres of materials from the multilateral system to non-parties to the Treaty. The Committee recommended that the policy regarding Centres making PGRFA available to non-contracting Parties as well as Contracting Parties stated at the time of the signature of the Agreements with the Governing Body should not be changed. H. GRPC recommendations to the Consortium Board for the effective management of GR, IP and legal matters by the Consortium Board and the Consortium Office. The Committee agreed upon the basic structure of a document and developed a first draft. The Secretariat will further revise, edit and format the document, following recommendations from the members, and circulate it back to members for approval, on a non-objection basis, by 14 May. It will then be forwarded as part of a letter from the GRPC Chair to the Consortium Board Chair in time to be considered at its meeting May. Since there are so many issues for the Consortium Board to address in its May meeting, it is anticipated that protracted consideration of the GRPC s recommendations will be postponed until the Consortium Board s October 2010 meeting. (The document, as approved by the committee on May 14, is included in Appendix 4.) Meanwhile, the Chair of the GRPC will contact the Chair of the Consortium Board to discuss the need for competence within the CGIAR system to address genetic resources policy issues. 5

6 Friday 7 May 2010 M and N. Review/update of the GRPC work plan, and adoption of main conclusions. The Committee amended the GRPC work plan, which is attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes. O. The Chair expressed his thanks to the members of the committee for their hard work and dedication to the committee. He noted with appreciation the role of the Director General of Bioversity, Emile Frison, as the Secretary to the committee, and Bioversity staff providing secretariat services. The members thanked the Chair, expressing their appreciation for his leadership and guidance throughout the committee s work. 6

7 Appendix 1: GRPC 27/A.1 Wednesday 5 May GENETIC RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEE 27 th Session Bioversity International Rome, Italy 5-7 May 2010 AGENDA * 9:00 9:30 A. Welcome, introductions, logistics, adoption of agenda. (Introduced by Carlos Correa, Emile Frison) Documents A.1. Agenda A.2. ICWG-GR teleconference concerning GRPC 26 report and GRPC 27 agenda 9: B. Overview of activities from GRPC 26 work plan (Introduced by Michael Halewood) Documents B.1. GRPC 26 work plan (annotated) 10:00 10:30 Coffee/Tea break C. Report on intercessional activities leading up to the 4th Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty (Introduced by Daniele Manzella) D. Report concerning 12 th session of Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and intercessional activities leading to the 13 th session (Introduced by Dan Leskien) L. Potential significance of the CBD Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing for the CGIAR Centres (Introduced by Michael Halewood) Documents L.1. ABS draft protocol text L.2. Report on the 8 th and 9 th meeting of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing, Montreal, Canada, November 2009 and Cali, Colombia, March E. Regulatory, stewardship and liability issues * Version 5 May 2010, as adopted at GRPC27 7

8 12:30 14:00 Lunch (Introduced by Orlando de Ponti) J. Patenting Trends (Introduced by Victoria Henson-Apollonio and Orlando de Ponti) Documents J.1. Patenting trends, with special emphasis on developing countries J.2. The coexistence of breeder s rights and patents, chapter 3 of the ISF View on Intellectual Property. 14:30 15:30 G. Outstanding draft policies, legal instruments, from the GRPC to the Consortium (Introduced by Emile Frison) Documents G.1 Package of outstanding draft policies and legal instruments 15:30 16:00 Coffee/Tea break 16:00 17:30 H. GRPC recommendations to the Consortium Board for the effective management of GR, IP and legal matters by the Consortium Board and the Consortium Office (Introduced by Carlos Correa) Thursday 6 May 8:30 10:00 I. SMTA issues including distributing materials to farmers for direct use and repatriation of germplasm. (Introduced by Michael Halewood or Gerald Moore) Documents I.1. Non paper on distributing materials to farmers for direct use I.2. Centres responses to questions about direct use 10:00-10:30 Coffee/Tea break H revisited. GRPC recommendations to the Consortium Board for the effective management of GR, IP and legal matters by the Consortium Board and the Consortium Office 12:30 14:00 Lunch H revisited. GRPC recommendations to the Consortium Board for the effective management of GR, IP and legal matters by the Consortium Board and the Consortium Office 8

9 15:30 16:00 Coffee/Tea break H revisited. GRPC recommendations to the Consortium Board for the effective management of GR, IP and legal matters by the Consortium Board and the Consortium Office Group dinner Friday 7 May 08:30-10:00 M. Review/update of the GRPC work plan (Introduced by Emile Frison) Documents M..1 Minutes GRPC 25 10:00-11:30 N. Adoption of main conclusions, action list and report 11:30-12:00 O. AOB, closing 12:00-13:30 Lunch 9

10 Appendix 2: In the US Patent Update, 2010 GRPC 26, 5 May, Rome V. Henson Apollonio, CAS IP Congress The Courts All Parties seem to Agree: There s a need for patent reform Association of Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Patent Nos. 5,747,282; 5,837,492; 5,693,473; 5,709,999; 5,710,001; 5,753,441; and 6,033,857. Assigned to Myriad Genetics 15 Claims in these patents Composition Claims Methods Claims Final Minutes of the 27th Session of the GRPC 10

11 Appendix 2: Composition examples in Decision An isolated DNA coding for a BRAC1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID: No2 Any DNA molecule coding for mutants of BRAC1 isolated from cancer tissue, e.g. associated with a predisposition to breast cancer Methods Claims example A method of detecting a germline alteration in a BRAC1 gene, said alteration selected from a group consisting of the alterations set forth in Table 12A, 14, 18, or 19 in a human which comprises analyzing a sequence of a BRAC1 gene or a BRAC1 RNA from a sample or analyzing a sequence of BRAC1 cdna made from a mrna from said germline alteration is not a deletion of 4 nucleotides corresponding to base number of SQ ID NO:1 Courts have the mandate to Interpret the meaning of Claims What is isolated DNA Decision:..meaning of the term isolated DNA is therefore construed to refer to a segment of DNA nucleotides existing separate from other cellular components..include both DNA originating from a cell as well as DNA synthesized through chemical or heterologous biological means. BRAC1 is therefore construed to refer to a human gene, normally integrated into Chromosome 17, some alleles of which cause susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. 35 USC 101 Patentable subject matter The Courts have previously ruled that: Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held to not be patentable Chakrabarty decision:..the hand of man an engineered bacterium that is not naturallyoccurring Decision: the patents issued by the USPTO are directed to a law of nature and were therefore improperly granted..isolation and sequencing of DNAfrom a human sample,..would represent nothing more that a data gathering step Final Minutes of the 27th Session of the GRPC 11

12 Appendix 2: Additional Current Issues False Marking as a way to pester inaccurate use of patent marking of products More international cooperation among patents offices this time includes Korea and China WIPO finally getting serious about access to professional patent databases Thank you! Victoria v.henson-apollonio@cgiar.org Final Minutes of the 27th Session of the GRPC 12

13 Appendix 3: GRPC Work Plan (as amended at GRPC 27) Issue Activity/Input Outputs Timetable Package of GRPC documents for the Consortium Board Secretariat with inputs from CAS-IP to put together the package and circulate to members for approval. Package of GRPC documents End of June 2010 Recommendations to the Consortium Board Package will be forwarded to the Consortium Board Secretariat to make further revisions following directions from Committee, and edit the document, then circulate it back to Committee members for approval. Package will be forwarded to the Consortium Board. Letter 14 May

14 Appendix 4: GRPC recommendations to the Consortium Board for the effective management of GR, IP and legal matters by the Consortium Board and the Consortium Office. Original Message From: Carlos M Correa [mailto:quiess@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, :55 PM To: Pérez Del Castillo, Carlos (Consortium Board); Consortium Board Cc: Thompson, Helen (Bioversity); Frison, Emile (Bioversity); Solh, Mahmoud (ICARDA); GRPC (LISTSERV); Halewood, Michael (Bioversity) Subject: Re: [Grpc] GRPC draft letter to consortium Dear Carlos and Consortium Board members, Pls. find attached for your consideration a letter prepared by the Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC) at its last meeting (May 5 7) regarding a number of policy issues that are critical for the current operations and future activities of the CGIAR. Regards, Carlos Correa GRPC Chair Dear Carlos and Consortium Board members: The Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC) was created to provide the CGIAR Chair with advice on policy issues related to genetic resources and intellectual property. With the dissolution of the position of CGIAR Chair, the committee has no one to formally report to. It is for this reason that the Committee considers that its meeting earlier this month, May 5-7, was its last, and that this letter is sent to the attention of the Consortium Board. At its last meeting, the GRPC considered two questions which are the subject of this letter. First, it considered how to ensure system-wide consideration of those draft policies, guidelines and legal instruments developed by the Committee which are still pending because the Alliance Executive and/or the CGIAR did not have ample opportunity to consider them under the old system. These draft policies and legal instruments are very important, responding to repeated requests for guidance by the Centres, and addressing issues that are at the very heart of how the CG system perceives itself, and how it will be perceived by others. It is now up to the Consortium Board to consider them and decide if they are appropriate for system-wide adoption. To facilitate this process, the Committee is compiling those pending draft policies, guidelines, and legal instruments - along with introductions into a single document, which it will forward to the Consortium Board in June. It is the committee s sincere hope that the Consortium Board will make consideration of those documents one of its top priorities. 14

15 Second, the Committee also considered whether there was a continued need within the reformed CGIAR for a body with the collective competence and role of the GRPC. In the Committee s opinion, the overall mix of policies and laws (and political uncertainties) affecting the way Centres can operate is far more complex and changing far more rapidly than in 1994, when the Committee was originally created to advise the CGIAR Chair. Furthermore, with the creation of the Consortium of CGIAR Centres, there are increased opportunities that the CG System will address genetic resources and intellectual property related policy issues in a more harmonized fashion than in the past. People outside the CGIAR are certainly expecting more clarity and harmony than previously. Ultimately therefore, the Committee recommends that some mechanism should be created to advise the Consortium on genetic resources and intellectual property related issues. In the following paragraphs, we provide some background information about the history and role of the GRPC. We also provide more details about some of the particularly important genetic resources policy and intellectual property related issues that the Centres will need to address in the upcoming years, and the competencies that need to be maintained and strengthened within the CGIAR system to address those crucial issues. The GRPC s role and contributions Genetic resources are essential to accomplish the CGIAR mission. The Centres collectively hold one of the world s largest collections of plant genetic resources and produce a wide range of intellectual assets associated with them (e.g., improved germplasm, technologies and scientific publications). A dramatic shift has been taking place in the last twenty years in relation to access, utilization and intellectual property protection over genetic resources that requires coherent policies and practices at the CGIAR system level. The recognition of national sovereign rights over genetic resources, developments in biotechnology, the expansion and the adoption of new international standards of intellectual property rights, concerns about possible misappropriation of traditional knowledge, the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the International Treaty) and extended public and private partnerships, have given rise to a number of complex issues that need increased attention and guidance at the system level in the new CGIAR. To complement the work of the Technical Advisory Committee (later Science Council), the CGIAR established the GRPC in 1994, in the same year that the CGIAR Centers ex situ crop and forage collections were placed under trustee arrangements with FAO. 2 The creation of the Committee reflected the CGIAR s recognition of the need for greater coherence among the Centres with respect to genetic resources and intellectual property related practices and policy issues, The Committee s primary purpose was to advise the CGIAR on policy matters regarding genetic resources issues and to assist the Chair of the CGIAR in his leadership role in this area. 3 The Committee provided the CGIAR with the 2 Minutes of all GRPC meetings are available at 3 ToRs of the GRPC 15

16 capacity to monitor developments and react to dynamic changes in the policy environment associated with the implementation of the CBD by national governments, the re-negotiation of the International Undertaking leading to the International Treaty, and the parallel developments in other international fora affecting genetic resources and intellectual property (e.g. UPOV, WTO, WIPO). At the same time, the CGIAR requested Bioversity (then IPGRI) to strengthen its capacity in legal and policy issues related to plant genetic resources to serve the needs of the system, which resulted in the creation of the Policy and Law Unit. The Central Advisory Service Intellectual Property (CAS-IP) was also created to strengthen the Centres capacity to address intellectual property issues. Since the Committee was reconstituted in 2003, its agenda has largely focused on issues that relate to CGIAR Centers role in implementing the International Treaty, given its extraordinary potential to support the Centres mission. To this end, the Committee monitored the negotiations of the text of the agreements that Centers signed with the Treaty s Governing Body in 2006; conducted assessments of the suitability of those agreements for the Centres, wrote background information documents about the agreements for the Centres Boards, and developed the text of the interpretive statement issued by the centres when they signed the agreements. The Committee later developed material transfer agreements (MTAs) for Center-developed germplasm, for crops and forages not included in the Treaty s multilateral system of access and benefit sharing, for materials that will be used for non-food/non-feed purposes (e.g. biofuel related research). The Committee also developed a proposal for a policy for system-wide adoption, concerning the Centres management of their intellectual assets; guidelines for Centers germplasm acquisition; and guidelines for how Centres should access and use traditional knowledge. The Committee led a process which culminated in the adoption of guidelines for the Centres to address the risk of unintended introgression of transgenes (GMOs) into centres PGRFA collections. The Committee has continually monitored developments in intellectual property (IP) and access and benefit sharing laws (ABS) and considered strategic options for how the Centres can best address those developments. Pressing GR and IP policy issues the Consortium needs to address soon Perhaps the most immediately pressing issue concerns the ongoing negotiations of a protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity regarding access and benefit sharing. There is a risk that the protocol could undermine or replace the multilateral system of access and benefit sharing established by the International Treaty, with serious negative impacts on the CGIAR Centres ability to produce and disseminate improved germplasm and other international public goods. The CGIAR needs to monitor those negotiations, make technical inputs to highlight the importance to food security of the International Treaty, and be ready to respond if indeed the protocol s relationship to the International Treaty is vague, or worse still, if it overrides the International Treaty. Other important issues concern the Centres freedom to operate within evolving regulatory and legal frameworks, guidelines and or best practices with respect to stewardship and liability and rules of the game for partnership with both private and 16

17 public institutions. A more comprehensive list of policy and IP issues that require attention is included in the appendix. Capacities and competences that are necessary within the CGIAR system to identify and respond to future policy challenges related to GR and IP To effectively carry out the work of the CGIAR, there is an ongoing need for appropriate competence within the CGIAR to be able to deal with technical and policy issues, while simultaneously strengthening a global outlook and presence in international fora. It is particularly important to maintain the capacity to develop consistent guidelines, policies and legal instruments for use by the Centres, address technical intellectual property and technology transfer problems, including related legal and regulatory issues and to represent the CGIAR system at international policy making processes, and to craft technical inputs to those processes drawing on scientific products from the Centres and their experiences. A more comprehensive list of necessary competencies is included in the appendix. Apart from the advisory capacity of the GRPC, capacity within the system to address these issues has resided principally within the Policy and Law Unit of Bioversity and CAS-IP. The Committee recommends that these competencies be maintained and strengthened. The Committee notes that its own competence was greatly enhanced by the fact that it included representatives from stakeholders groups outside the CG system: i.e., farmers and civil society organizations, private sector, northern and southern country governments. These members have strengthened the Committee s ability to take the temperature of policy-related developments outside the CGIAR, and help the system anticipate new developments. The Committee recommends that some similar form of regular consultation on genetic resources policy and intellectual property issues with representatives from these stakeholder groups should be structured into the functioning of the reformed CGIAR system. Of course, the Committee could elaborate much further on all of the points raised above. For the time being, however, we realize that the Consortium Board is under considerable time constraints, and probably will not be able to consider most of these issues in depth until its October meeting. Meanwhile, as Chair of the GRPC, I will be contacting the Consortium Board Chair to follow-up on this message personally. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Carlos Correa Chair-GRPC 17

18 Appendix Pressing GR and IP policy issues the Consortium needs to address soon Perhaps the most immediately pressing issue concerns the ongoing negotiations of a protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity regarding access and benefit sharing. There is a risk that the protocol could undermine or replace the multilateral system of access and benefit sharing established by the International Treaty, with serious negative impacts on the CGIAR Centres ability to produce and disseminate improved germplasm and other international public goods. The CGIAR needs to monitor those negotiations, make technical inputs to highlight the importance to food security of the International Treaty, and be ready to respond if indeed the protocol s relationship to the International Treaty is vague, or worse still, if it overrides the International Treaty. Other important issues concern: addressing ongoing challenges with respect to how the Centres should execute their responsibilities under their agreements with the Governing Body of the International Treaty ensuring Centres freedom to operate within evolving regulatory and legal frameworks developing system-wide standards, guidelines and legal instruments related to: accessing and using others proprietary technologies in Centres research and product development; making Centres own intellectual assets available developing common standards, guidelines and or best practices with respect to stewardship and liability standards and best practices regarding confidentiality, data management and use incorporating these standards, guidelines, or best practices into contracts and licenses and material transfer agreements with public and private partners, and other parties providing or receiving technologies and know how to and from the Centres monitoring developments in international negotiations which will affect Centres access to and use of genetic resources for food and agricultural other than those included in the International Treaty s multilateral system (e.g., crops not included in the International Treaty, treed, animal, microbial, and aquatic genetic resources) developing common guidelines and practices with respect to how Centres access and use traditional knowledge Capacities and competences that are necessary within the CGIAR system to identify and respond to future policy challenges related to GR and IP To effectively carry out the work of the CGIAR, there is an ongoing need for appropriate competence within the CGIAR to be able to deal with technical and policy issues, while simultaneously strengthening a global outlook and presence in international fora. It is particularly important to maintain capacity to: identify the Centres interests in the way policies, regulations and laws are evolving at national and international levels, 18

19 represent the CGIAR system, as a collective entity, at international policy making processes, and to craft technical inputs to those processes drawing on scientific products from the Centres and their experiences concerning the impacts of international laws on their research and development work develop consistent guidelines, policies and legal instruments for use by the Centres that are consistent with their international obligations concerning genetic resources, and to protect the system from liability address technical intellectual property and technology transfer problems, including related legal and regulatory issues development of effective and consistent rules of the game for partnership with both private and public institutions working with NARS partners to strengthen their capacity to address GR and IP policy and related issues, particularly in areas of joint concern with CG Centres 19