Keeping free access to the world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKING WHICH IS BEING NEGOTIATED BY THE COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (CGRFA) OF THE UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO)

Click Here for Latest on IU Negotiations - 6th Contact Group meeeting

A Call for Action on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources

Download "Call to Action" as PDF file

The negotiations on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU) are at a critical stage and need extra efforts to ensure they are completed in time for presentation to CBD/COP 6.

As public awareness of the implication of patents, corporate ownership of living organisms and genetic engineering becomes more sophisticated, the paradigm offered by the IU promises to be both inspirational and popular. It should be championed as a first, fundamental and practical step for a positive and more equitable system for sustaining life on this planet.

We would urge you to interest those working on TRIPs and GE issues to make the links with the IU negotiations, emphasising its importance for sustainable agriculture and as a model for keeping genetic resources in the public domain.

If we want to defend farmers’ interests and follow through our commitments made over the last two decades, not least in the 1996 NGO lobbies in Leipzig and elsewhere which promoted Farmers’ Rights, we have to work in favour of the rapid conclusion of the negotiations on the IU and its presentation as a legally-binding instrument to the CBD at its next Conference (COP 6) in 2002.

A lot of pressure must be brought to bear on governments to complete negotiations of an effective IU during the next twelve months. This will build on statements made by NGOs to governments at both the Global Forum on Agricultural Reasearch (GFAR), Dresden and the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/COP 5) in Nairobi in May 2000(1). See "Seeds for All" an NGO Position Paper on the International Undertaking developed at these meetings. Farmers' organisations, research institutions and NGOs worldwide should work together to raise the political profile of the IU, to inform the media and to build up pressure for an effective and legally-binding IU.

A public campaign for an International Undertaking is needed

The International Undertaking is the principal international agreement that could:

• protect the rapidly eroding genetic resources which underpin global food security
• recognise the ongoing contributions of farmers and provide incentives
• keep PGRFA and the genes in them in the public domain, not permitting either patents or other IPRs such as UPOV convention on these resources. An IU defined in this way will be in harmony with the CBD and will respond to the demands of southern countries for the revision of the World Trade Organization's agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO/TRIPs) Article 27.3(b) to include widening of the scope of exclusions from patentability to cover all life forms (and their comonents) and for a sui generis system in which the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the promotion of Farmers' Rights are fully taken into account.

The IU is the world’s best hope for providing protection for these vital resources against the spread of unsustainable agricultural technologies and practices. These pose a major threat to genetic resources for food and agriculture and the wider environment. The increasingly powerful trans-national ‘Life Industry’ is making multi-billion investments in these technologies and inputs including genetic modification and is able to protect their investments through patents and Plant Variety Protection. The IU would go some way towards helping to protect PGRFA from this corporate threat.

If we want an effective International Undertaking there is a lot of work to do to convince governments that a rapid conclusion of these negotiations is necessary, that Farmers’ Rights must be recognised and that tangible and real benefits must be provided back to farmers so that their work in developing and sustaining these resources will continue.

Farmers, research institutions and NGOs worldwide should work together to make the IU a topic of public concern, to inform the media in order to build up political pressure for an effective IU.

While the IU’s capacity to be a functioning part of international initiatives for defending plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and farmer practices, it will depend on the political and economic support of richer nations (defined by both their financial and germplasm reserves). The embodiment of the IU’s principles within the context of the CBD will greatly enhance the exploration of innovative models of democratic and practical resource sharing.

The inclusion of these principles in the CBD will encourage a broader approach to sustaining agricultural biodiversity outside of the constraints of outmoded, commercial laws on IPR, which are based on, and more suited to, mechanical concepts of invention.

An International Undertaking, in harmony with the CBD would ensure:

• Multilateral access to these genetic resources for current and future generations, outlawing Intellectual Property claims on any of the material, the genes they contain or knowledge in the system;
• Benefits are linked to the commercial use of the resources for:
• Plant breeding - to produce seeds and other propagating material that will enhance food security
• Food - some contribution directly or indirectly from consumers to reflect the contribution that PGRFA has made to the food they eat
• Benefits to farmers are commensurate with and compensate them for their historical contribution to developing the resources for global food security
• Farmers’ Rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds and other propagating material and, in the case of seeds and other material restricted by national law, the right to sell them in their customary manner and markets;
• Committed financing for the IU and for associated programmes such as the Leipzig Global Plan of Action.

We must convince all governments that it is in everyone's interests to complete the IU negotiations

Proposed Actions:

We invite NGOs, Farmers institutions and other Civil Society Organisations to:

• Adopt the Position Paper "Seeds for All"
• Circulate this Call to Action, the Position Paper "Seeds for All" and related information (e.g. GRAIN paper on the IU) to other interested NGOs
• Lobby both Agriculture and Environment Ministers to support the points raised in the Position Paper and urging them to find sufficient funds to enable rapid completion of the negotiations within a timeframe that allows its adoption by CBD/COP 6 (for detailed demands see: "Seeds for All" - A Position Paper on the International Undertaking)
• Follow the negotiations of the FAO/CGRFA and publicise these through email and websites in order to identify where pressure needs to be brought to bear
• Interest media in the importance of the IU, as a countervailing force to Patenting and GE, for protecting these resources for food security.

Contact:

Patrick Mulvany (mailto:Patrick_Mulvany@CompuServe.com) of the ITDG (Intermediate Technology Development Group) in the UK, or François Meienberg (mailto:food@evb.ch) of the Berne Declaration in Switzerland.

Also see:<www.ukabc.org/IU.htm>, <www.evb.ch/bd/food.htm> and <www.grain.org>.

SEEDS for ALL

Download position paper "Seeds for All" as PDF file

A CSO Position Paper on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources

A legally-binding International Undertaking on plant genetic resources (IU), linked to both the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is essential for global food security. It is the only agreement that could ensure the conservation and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits back to farmers, arising from the use of these resources.

It would:

• assure global food security in the long term.
• reward the enormous contribution that farmers all over the world have made to the conservation and development of plant genetic resources, and ensure the continuity of this work in the future.
• give traditional knowledge the same status as scientific plant breeding.
• include the distinctive requirements of PGRFA in the Convention on Biological Diversity.
• conserve the enormous but rapidly decreasing diversity of PGRFA developed by farmers over centuries
• keep PGRFA in the Public Domain.

Because of the above and the interdependence on PGRFA between countries and the impossibility for bilateral tracking of origin and use of these resources, the IU is an indispensable instrument for these resources. NGOs are calling for the rapid conclusion to the negotiations on the International Undertaking.

We all benefit from the contribution that the diversity of PGRFA has made to food security, but the farmers who developed and sustain this diversity have received little recognition and no incentives.

The NGOs and Farmers' Organisations that participated in the Global Forum on Agricultural Research, held in Dresden in May 2000, adopted a statement which called, among other things, for 'the immediate completion of the International Undertaking', taking into account 'the contributions to the world's food system and the research needs of farming communities'.

At the same time, NGOs participating in the COP-V of the Convention on Bioogical Diversity in Nairobi issued similar calls: “The Parties to the Convention must send a strong message to FAO to rapidly complete the harmonisation of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources with this Convention to include forceful Articles on Farmers’ Rights; a multilateral system of Access, outlawing proprietary ownership through patents and Plant Variety Protection of all designated materials and the genes they contain; and Benefit Sharing related to end use i.e. food security.”

History

The 1983 voluntary IU is being renegotiated by countries through the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to bring into harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a legally-binding instrument. As such, it will necessarily contribute to the objectives of the CBD through its focus on the conservation and the sustainable use of PGRFA, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of PGRFA.

But, given the distinctive nature, origin and problems of PGRFA and the farmers’ knowledge embodied in these, the IU will need to provide a framework which simultaneously permits free and facilitated access and exchange, through a multilateral system of access to the resources, and recognises and provides incentives to farmers and their communities for their historical and current contributions to the development of PGRFA, through the implementation of internationally recognised Farmers’ Rights.

For the last five years there have been ongoing negotiations to try to secure an international agreement on access to and use of the Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA), developed in farmers’ fields and stored in national, regional and international genebanks. The Intergovernmental Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), housed within the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, is charged with leading these negotiations. The aim is to secure an International Undertaking (IU), adapted to be in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

During this time, the mandate and scope of these negotiations, as agreed by the FAO and supported by Decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP Decisions II/15, III/11, IV/6, V/9)(1) has been constantly questioned by some countries. The conflict is largely between those who wish to see farmers and other stakeholders have free multilateral rights of access to, and benefit sharing from, genetic resources they have developed and use to maintain food security; and those who support bilateral arrangements and the encroachment of intellectual property rights and law into these areas.

Demands for an IU that will make a difference

In general:

• We need a clear political statement for new and additional funding to implement the IU.
• We demand that serious, legally binding benefit sharing, in accordance with the CBD, is implemented in the IU.
• Because there are many lessons to be learned, the IU needs a mechanism for reviewing the agreement. With fixed reviews, the IU could be signed earlier, because some questions, which cannot be solved now, could be negotiated in the following years.
• The IU needs a strong, independent and open-ended Commission, with representation from Farmers' Groups and Civil Society Organisations, to control the implementation.
• No Patents or IPRs as defined in the UPOV system, should be taken out on the material, including the germplasm and the genes it contains, received through the multilateral agreement.
• An obligation to implement Farmers Rights in all countries.

Specifically:

1. Legal Character

The IU should be a legally binding instrument adopted as a protocol to the CBD and under the auspices of the FAO. Where other existing international agreements are in conflict with the objectives of the IU and could cause damage or threat to PGRFA, the IU has to have precedence.

2. Coverage of the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing

The multilateral system should cover all PGRFA, especially that which is of importance to food security in any specific locality. A clear demarcation between PGRFA and other genetic resources that are regulated under the CBD could be achieved by listing the species or genera that should be included in the IU.

3. Access and Benefit-Sharing and Financial Incentives

Access and benefit-sharing should be regulated within a multilateral system which is part of the IU.

Access to germplasm, facilitated through the multilateral system, would itself be a major benefit to all stakeholders. To do so, access has to be provided to all PGRFA, in situ and ex situ, acquired both before and after the coming into force of the CBD. To guarantee a facilitated access to all germplasm exchanged through the multilateral system, the material, germpalsm, genes and derivatives thereof, should be excluded from patenting and from IPRs like the UPOV system. If Access is facilitated in this way, future breeding work and Farmers' Rights will be supported.

Benefits should be shared through the fair and equitable sharing of the results of research and development, incentives and other public sector measures and the benefits arising from commercial utilisation of PGRFA for plant breeding and food. In addition, extra financial incentives could be secured through a global fund resourced from government grants and intergovernmental programmes.

These grants, income and revenues should be under the political control of the Conference of the Parties to the IU and be used to contribute to agreed plans and programmes to implement Farmers' Rights and to support PGRFA conservation and sustainable use (e.g. the Leipzig Global Plan of Action) in particular in developing countries.

4. Farmers' Rights

The Farmers' Rights are crucial for the conservation and development of PGRFA. The wording of the composite draft text, adopted by the eight regular session of the commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture (CGRFA, April 99) is as yet incomplete as it:

• does not provide international rules on Farmers’ Rights (the present draft still makes them subject to National legislation). Such rules should include the prohibition of any biological methods (e.g. Terminator Technologies) that prevent farmers from saving seeds.
• does not guarantee farmers their inalienable rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds and other propagating material and, in the case of seeds and other material restricted by national law, the right to sell them in their customary manner and markets.

Timetable

The CBD has reiterated its willingness to consider the renegotiated IU as a legally-binding instrument linked to FAO and the Convention, possibly as a Protocol. (Decisions III/11 and V/9). The CBD also calls upon "…Parties to coordinate their positions in both forums." (Decision V/9). The timetable for achieving this before COP 6 in 2002 is tight and requires agreement of the finalised text at FAO's Council in November 2000, so that it can be discussed by SBSTTA 6 in 2001. An alternative timetable might be its adoption by the FAO Conference in November 2001 and its presentation directly by the FAO Conference to the CBD, as originally called for in CBD Decsison III/11. This still gives little negotiating time for completion - the pressure is on. Donor governments are therefore urged to find sufficient funds to enable rapid completion of the negotiations within this timeframe.

Position paper written by Patrick Mulvany (ITDG) and François Meienberg (Berne Declaration), June 2000. Grateful thanks to all who commented on the early drafts, especially Joyce Hambling, Pat Mooney, Dan Leskien, Henk Hobbelink, Peter Einarsson, Jan Boring, Christine von Wiezäcker and Kristin Dawkins

Contacts:

Patrick Mulvany (mailto:Patrick_Mulvany@CompuServe.com) of the ITDG (Intermediate Technology Development Group) in the UK, and François Meienberg (mailto:food@evb.ch) of the Berne Declaration in Switzerland.

Also see:<www.ukabc.org/IU.htm>; <www.evb.ch/bd/food.htm> and Last Chance for an Open Access Regime? Paper by GRAIN.

(1) The landmark 1996 Buenos Aires COP Decision III/11 on the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity echoes the three objectives of the CBD and contains paragraphs that include inter alia decisions on a multi-year Programme of Work to promote the positive and mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural practices on biological diversity in agro-ecosystems and their interface with other ecosystems and promote the objectives of the CBD with respect to genetic resources for food and agriculture. In Annex 1, it describes the problems and possibilities for agricultural biodiversity in different agricultural systems. The Decision also highlights the need to establish a relationship with WTO on matters concerning trade and agricultural biodiversity, and it encourages the FAO to complete the negotiations on the International Undertaking to be in harmony with the CBD.

Notes on the 8th Session of the CGRFA, 19-23 April 1999 by Patrick Mulvany, ITDG*

The opportunity to develop a legally-binding status for the IU, preferably a Protocol to the CBD, will depend on how effective and united the Contact Group is in September 1999. Europe should side with Africa in ensuring a credible, internationally-recognised and legally binding agreement, so long as its provisions on access, benefit sharing (including new money available in the financial mechanism) and Farmers’ Rights are in the best interests of the farmers and communities who developed the resource.

The completion of inter-governmental negotiations for the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources [IU] in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity was the main item on the agenda. This was not achieved and Farmers' Rights were poorly treated but there was a welcome commitment by Governments to meet again… "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", however, so there are still opportunities in another set of negotiating sessions to ensure that the International Undertaking is a document that will have weight, credibility and value for the sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture with full implementation of Farmers' Rights.

There was some progress but there were set-backs. There continues to be a wide consensus that the IU should take the form of a legally-binding instrument, closely linked to FAO and the Convention on Biodiversity. Some progress was made on two Articles- Articles 11 (Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing) and 12 (Coverage of the Multilateral System). The Commission noted that, in discussing Article 13 (Facilitated Access within the Multilateral System) it had been agreed to integrate Annex II of the Composite Draft Text into the text of the Article, although there is no agreement on which species should be included in the Annex.

On Article 15 (Farmers' Rights) there was late-night agreed text but disagreements about the implications of this - Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) were very dismissive of the outcome of this negotiation and would urge countries to re-open the debate. (For details on these articles see appended text)

CSOs stressed the imperative that the IU includes implementation of legally-binding, internationally recognised and meaningful Farmers' Rights, not a watered-down acknowledgement of Farmers' Rights and that they should be only in the gift of Governments. The CGRFA agreed UPOV-like wording that is not acceptable as it stands. Negotiations on this should be reopened.

The 'progress', as measured by seasoned insiders, is slow. The revised IU - the first international instrument to regulate access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the sharing of benefits derived from them - will not be ready for adoption by the FAO Conference in November 1999, as planned. Rather, resources are being sought for meetings of the 40 Country (+ the EU) Contact Group this year, and possibly a further meeting / Extraordinary Session of the CGRFA before May 2000. We would urge that increased effort and priority be given to these ‘landmark’ negotiations in order that they are completed before CBD/COP V. Although the results would not be formally presented then, it would assist governments in their negotiations on the implementation of the CBD to know that the IU negotiations were finalised. It would also assist in other negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, especially on TRIPs, and in the CSD, which is reviewing the Land Chapters of Agenda 21 at its 8th session in April/May 2000.

CSOs want to see a strong agreement, favourable to the millions of farmers who have contributed their knowledge, innovations and practices to the development of these plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. It should ideally be Protocol to the CBD, but perhaps administered by the FAO. But whatever the arrangements, some internationally-recognised and legally binding agreement, so long as its provisions on access, benefit sharing (including new money available in the financial mechanism) and Farmers’ Rights are in the best interests of the farmers and communities who developed the resource.

For further information see Links to IU Web Resources (below)

July 1999

Excerpts from Appendix E of the Draft FAO/CGRFA 8 Report.

TEXT FOR ARTICLES 11, 12 AND 15, ESTABLISHED BY THE CONTACT GROUP DURING THE EIGHTH REGULAR SESSION OF THE COMMISSION

PART IV - MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING

Article 11 - Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing

11.1 In their relationships with other States, Parties recognize the sovereign rights of States over their own plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, including that the authority to determine access to those resources rests with national governments and is subject to national legislation.

11.2 In exercise of their sovereign rights, Parties agree to establish a multilateral system, which is efficient, effective, and transparent, to facilitate access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and to share, in a fair and equitable way, the benefits arising from the utilization of these resources.

Article 12 - Coverage of the Multilateral System

12.1 In furtherance of the objectives of conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of their use, as stated in Article 1, the multilateral system shall cover the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I, established according to criteria of food security and interdependence.

[12.2 The multilateral system shall also cover: (a) material held in ex situ collections by International Agricultural Research Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [international centres] that accept the provisions of [Annex V to] this Undertaking; [(b) material held in collections of other international institutions that accept the provisions of this Undertaking, and with the agreement of the Governing Body of this Undertaking.]E2 CGRFA-8/99/Rep

12.3 The Governing Body6 shall keep Annex I under periodic review as well as Annexes II, III and IV on the conditions of access, benefit-sharing and financial resources respectively, taking into account the inter-relationship among those annexes.]

PART V - FARMERS' RIGHTS

Article 15 - Farmers' Rights

15.1 The Parties recognize the enormous contribution that the local and indigenous communities and farmers of all regions of the world, particularly those in the centres of origin and crop diversity, have made and will continue to make for the conservation and development of plant genetic resources which constitute the basis of food and agriculture production throughout the world.

15.2 The Parties agree that the responsibility for realizing Farmers' Rights, as they relate to Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, rests with national governments. In accordance with their needs and priorities, each Party should, as appropriate, and subject to its national legislation, take measures to protect and promote Farmers' Rights, including:

(a) protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;

(b) the right to equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;

(c) the right to participate in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

15.3 Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted to limit any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material, subject to national law and as appropriate.

Commentary on Article 15 by CSOs:

The following segments of key text on Article 15 (Farmers’ Rights) show the changes made to Article 15.

At the beginning of the week, the draft included an additional point in 15.2

"… the right to use, exchange, and, in the case of landraces and varieties that are no longer registered, market farm-saved seeds…"

On Wednesday night, the diplomats deleted the text in 15.2 and inserted 15.3:

"Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted to limit any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material, subject to national law and as appropriate."

On Thursday, farm and rural advocacy groups (CSOs) proposed alternative new wording in 15.2 and deletion of 15.3:

"…the right to save, use, exchange and sell seeds and other propagating material and, in the case of seeds and other propagating material restricted by National law, the right to sell them in their customary manner and markets…"

Links to IU Web Resources

The history and progress of negotiations on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources [for Food and Agriculture] (IU) is provided through a series of reports and papers and related agreements, linked from this page. They guide the reader to selected texts and sites where further information on the FAO International Undertaking can be found. They are not exhaustive but provide a selection of the material available on the Internet in English. From many of these pages, links to related information, for example reports of other meetings, other Codes of Practice, progress reports and so on are also linked.

• GRAIN - The IU: time to draw the line on IPRs. April 2001
• RAFI Briefing Paper: Frequently Unasked Questions about the international Undertaking. April 2001
• RAFI Briefing Paper: The Other Biosafety Protocol. Analysis of current negotiations.
• ITDG Briefing Paper "WHO WILL OWN THE GENES IN OUR FOOD?
• Greenpeace Briefing on the IU
• THE INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKING: NOW OR NEVER. LAST CHANCE FOR AN OPEN ACCESS REGIME? GRAIN
• The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: is it now or never? by Jan Borring, Norway
• MAFF: Commercial Benefit Sharing Workshop
• Agricultural Biodiversity Sustainable Use for Food Security: UKabc Home Page: Links to information on agricultural biodiversity, genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRFA), biotechnology, biosafety, life patenting and so on (July 1999)
• CBD/COP Decision III/11 on Agricultural Biodiversity Main CBD Decision (November 1996) with preamble linking back to the Nairobi Final Act and forward (para 19) to the completion of the IU negotiations.
• CBD: Report from the fourth Conference of the Parties (COP IV) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 4- 15 May 1998. Progress on implementing Decision III/11 and new decision IV/6 which urges rapid cxompletion of the IU by end of 1999 (updated July 1998)
• Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB): Brief Introduction to negotiations on Plant Genetic Resources: ENB Briefing (May 1999)
• ENB Linkages: Summaries CGRFA negotiations Prepared for the 5^th Extraordinary Session (June 1998)
• ENB Linkages: 3^rd Extraordinary Session of the CGRFA (Dec 1996)
• ENB Linkages: 7th Session of the CGRFA: (May 1996)
• Exchange of Genetic Resources and the Biodiversity Convention World Resources Institute briefing (Dec 1998)
• FAO briefing on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA): FAO briefing on PGRFA
• FAO CGRFA: Description of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA)
• FAO CGRFA: Original Voluntary Int'l Undertaking 1983+
• FAO CGRFA3 Ex: Via Campesina - Statement on Farmers' Rights: Delivered to the 3^rd Extraordinary Session of the CGRFA in December 1996
• FAO CGRFA4 Ex: Notes from FAO 4th Extraordinary CGRFA Session
• FAO CGRFA5 Ex "Let Nature's Harvest Continue" Statement by African Delegates to the FAO CGRFA against Monsanto's "Let the Harvest Begin" advertising campaign
• FAO CGRFA5 Ex: Notes from FAO 5th Extraordinary CGRFA Session
• FAO CGRFA8: CSO Press Release - Governments Terminate Farmers' Rights? Press release from CSOs at the 8^th FAO CGRFA
• FAO CGRFA8: Papers for, and Draft FAO Report of, 8th Session of FAO-CGRFA
• FAO CGRFA8: Notes on FAO CGRFA 8th Session, Rome 19-23 April 1999
• FAO Links to relevant International Agreements and Guidelines, including FAO/CGIAR Accord, Codes of Conduct on collecting and transfer and regeneration of ex situ collections
• FAO GPA: Leipzig Declaration
• The Leipzig Commitment to Agricultural Biodiversity Resolution from the "In Safe Hands: Communities Safeguard Biodiversity for Food Security" NGO/CSO conference (Jun 1996)
• Farmers' Rights RAFI Communique - Bioserfdom: Technology, Intellectual Property and the Erosion of Farmers' Rights in the Industrialized World (Mar 1997)
• Farmers Rights - Uganda Farmers Rights & Intellectual Property Rights - from "The Rural News" by Wamusiru Mundaka; Programme Manager Agriculture and Extension (1998)
• Smallholder Farmers', Pastoralists' and Artisanal Fisherfolk's Intellectual Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity, in Kenya: IT Kenya paper on Community Rights (1997)
• 1999 - a last minute prospect for Farmers’ Rights? Allegorical endpiece (31 Dec 1998)
• GRAIN Seedling - March 1996: "1996: The Year of Agricultural Biodiversity?"
• GRAIN Seedling - March 1997: The Year of Agricultural Biodiversity Revisited
• GRAIN Seedling - March 1998: The Chickpea Scandal: Trust or Consequences? by RAFI
• GRAIN: Signposts to Sui Generis Rights TRIPS and the Protection of Community Rights by Carlos M. Correa (1998)
• IATP Biotech & Biodiversity Resource Center Web resources on current issues
• RAFI: Issues for the FAO CGRFA RAFI Paper (May 1997)
• RAFI: Repeat the Term! Analysis of FAO's progress in negotiating the International Undertaking (June 1998)
• Strategis Briefing: FAO, The Biodiversity Convention, Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources: Canadian Intellectual Property Policy Directorate. Publication Date - 1998-05-12
• Trade, Intellectual Property, Food and Biodiversity : Quaker briefing on Review of TRIPs Article 27.3(b) (February 1999)
• TRIPs Review 27.3(b) Capacity Building Priorities for review of TRIPs Article 27.3(b): Commonwealth Secretariat Discussion Paper
• World Bank CBD-PGR news report: Continuing the Dialogue on Plant Genetic Resources (1994)
• Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development: FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway (1998/9)
• Yours for Food: Plant Genetic Resources and Food Security: APRODEV paper published by Christian Aid (1996)

ITDG, Schumacher Centre, Bourton, RUGBY, CV23 9QZ, UK

Tel: +44 1788 661100, Fax: +44 1788 661101, Email: itdg@itdg.org.uk