Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Eighth Regular Session
Rome, Italy April 19-23, 1999

A Conference Report

Table of Contents

1. Statement of the Problem
2. Conference Participants and Their Roles
3. International Institutions and Agreements Impacting Agriculture
4. Negotiations on the International Undertaking

Farmers’ Rights

Multilateral System of Access

5. Global Plan of Action

7. Appendices

0. Relationship of the Major International Agricultural Institutions
1. Timetable of Negotiations
2. Farmers’ Rights - Composite Text of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources incorporating Chairman’s Elements
3. Farmers’ Rights - Proposed Text from the Negotiating Sessions
4. Farmers’ Rights - Proposed Text from the NGOs
5. My Conference Remark
6. Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing - Proposed Text from the Negotiating Sessions
7. International Seed Bank Collections (IARCs)
8. Regional Seed Bank Collections
9. National Seed Bank Collections

The conservation of plant genetic diversity is critical for the survival of the human species. Throughout history mankind has cultivated or collected 7,000 plants for food out of 30,000 edible plants. Today only 30 crops provide 95% of our daily caloric intake.

A catastrophic loss of biodiversity is occurring worldwide. Species, gene combinations and alleles are being lost forever. Some biologists estimate that 15-20% of all plant species will become extinct by the year 2000 (Lugo, 1988, 60). The loss of plant genetic diversity, individual genes or gene combinations within a species, is estimated at 25-30% (Lugo, 1988, 60). It is the loss of genetic diversity that is particularly critical for mankind since genetic variability gives us a treasure chest of gene combinations for adaptation to varied environments, resistance to disease and food security.

Genetic erosion is the result of a number of factors, including habitat fragmentation, over-exploitation (overgrazing and excessive harvesting), competition from exotics (accidental and planned introductions), changes in land use (deforestation and land clearance), population growth, and climate change. The main cause of genetic erosion among edible plants in the last 40 years has been the spread of modern, commercial agriculture and the replacement of diverse farmer plant varieties with modern, hybrid varieties. In Mexico, only 20% of the maize varieties reported in 1930 now exist. 10,000 wheat varieties were present in China in 1949, by 1970 only 1000 varieties remained (UNFAO Report, 1996, 22). In the Philippines several thousand rice cultivars existed before the introduction of high-yield varieties. Currently, a few hundred upland traditional cultivars are left in the fields (Salazar, 1992, 18).

Traditional agricultural systems have evolved over thousands of years giving us all the major food crops in the world today. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) cover the diversity of resources used for food, fodder, fuel, and pharmaceuticals. PGRFA can be grouped into three categories — traditional and modern cultivars, crop wild relatives and wild plant species.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has as one of its mandate the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. The Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture had as its primary objective revision of the International Undertaking, one of the principal agreements covering access to and benefit sharing of PGRFA.

The Eighth Regular Session of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture met in Rome, Italy from April 19-23, 1999. The Conference was attended by Commission members and observers. Members of the Commission included 175 country delegations staffed by representatives of government, universities and research institutes. United Nations observers were present from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the World Bank. Fifteen non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were represented as well as observers from industry and the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCS) (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.21, 1999).

The Conference was organized around two parallel processes — plenary sessions and negotiating sessions. The plenary sessions were open to all Members and observers. The plenary session agenda consisted of reports on past work and proposals for future work. The negotiating sessions were open to members of the ‘Contact Group’, the twenty Commission delegations that had been selected to negotiate the revised text of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.

The NGOs, of which I was a member, are observers from civil society. They were active participants during the Conference even though they were not invited to the negotiating sessions nor allowed to vote in the plenary sessions. Their primary task during the Conference was to inform, educate and represent the interests of civil society. This was accomplished through talking with delegates on specific issues, organizing seminars over lunch, preparing press briefings, and speaking during the plenary sessions. Many of the NGO representatives know the delegates personally and have worked with them in different capacities in the field so we knew what was under discussion and what forces were organizing within the Contact Group.

In addition to participating in the Conference, NGO representatives frequently are commissioned by the FAO or country delegations to prepare background papers or proposals on different subjects.

During the last fifteen years two agendas have reshaped many of the international institutions and agreements impacting agriculture. The environment and trade agendas have changed how agriculture is perceived and valued. Three institutions play a critical role in this process — the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Appendix A shows the relationships between these institutions. The FAO and the CBD have been developing an international framework for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources. The WTO has been developing an agenda for the extension of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to living forms, including plants, plant varieties and their genetic information. Most nations of the world are members of all three organizations. As we near the 21^st century critical negotiations are underway to resolve conflicts that may exist between different agreements effecting the world’s farmers and the world’s agricultural biodiversity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization was founded after World War II and currently has 175 member states. The FAO is the organization responsible for developing international programs for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity. In 1983 the FAO established the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The Commission drafted the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU) which was formally adopted in 1989. The IU is a non-binding agreement, adhered to on a voluntary basis by its signatories. The agreement addresses three major areas — farmers’ rights, rights over plant genetic resources (PGR) and access to PGR.

The International Undertaking was the first international agreement to state that "nations have sovereign rights over their plant genetic resources" (Correa, 1994, 5). The agreement acknowledged the critical link between world food security and free and open access to plant genetic material stating "nations may impose only minimum restrictions on the free exchange of materials covered by Article 2.1(a)" (Correa, 1994, 5). Free access was limited to scientific research, plant breeding and conservation uses. Access for commercial purposes or seed propagation was excluded from the agreement. The IU also gave formal definition and recognition to Farmers’ Rights stating:

In 1996 the FAO convened an International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig, Germany. In preparation for the Conference member states prepared detailed reports on the status of plant genetic resources within their countries. These reports were compiled into the first comprehensive document providing information on agricultural biodiversity and the state of ex situ and in situ conservation efforts throughout the world. The Conference formally adopted the Leipzig Declaration. The 158 signatory countries are committed to implementation of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA). The major aims of the GPA are to:

• Ensure conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) as a basis for food security;
• Promote sustainable utilization of PGRFA in order to foster development and reduce hunger and poverty;
• Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of PGRFA, recognizing the desirability of sharing equitable benefits from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of PGRFA and their sustainable use;
• Assist countries and institutions responsible for conserving and using PGRFA to identify priorities for action;
• Strengthen national, international and regional programs including education and training to enhance institutional capacity.

In 1994 negotiations began to revise the International Undertaking to make it a legally-binding agreement and bring it into ‘harmony’ with the CBD. The negotiations cover the scope of the Undertaking, rules governing access to genetic resources for food and agriculture, benefit sharing, and Farmer’s Rights. By the end of 1998 member states had agreed to make the Undertaking a binding agreement. The agreement would cover all PGRFA managed under a system of facilitated access. The most recent negotiations conducted in April 1999 at the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources focused on the two remaining elements of the agreement — the multilateral benefit sharing system and implementation of Farmer’s Rights. The International Undertaking is scheduled for submission to the CBD in 2000.

The Convention on Biological Diversity was formally adopted in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. The CBD has 175 member nations but seven, including the United States, have not ratified the Convention. The legally-binding aims of the CBD are "the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including appropriate access to genetic resources and appropriate transfer of relevant technologies" (UNEP CBD, 1992, Article 1). The Convention

• Recognizes the sovereign rights of states over their biological and genetic resources (Articles 3 and 15);
• Stipulates that access can only occur on mutually agreed terms and with the ‘prior and informed’ consent of states (Article 15.5). These rules do not apply to seed in gene banks collected prior to the date the CBD was adopted;
• Requires signatories to protect and promote the rights of communities, farmers and indigenous peoples vis-à-vis their customary use of biological resources and knowledge systems (Article 8j and 10);
• Requires each Party to facilitate access by other Parties for environmentally sound use (Article 15.2);
• Requires the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the commercial use of communities’ biological resources and local knowledge (Article 15.7);
• Asserts that intellectual property rights must be supportive and not run counter to the objectives of the CBD (Article 16.5).

The World Trade Organization with 134 members was created in January 1995 to implement the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The Uruguay Round expanded previous GATT agreements to include issues that had been in the domain of domestic policy, including investment, occupational and consumer safety standards, intellectual property rights, and the ‘harmonization’ of regulatory standards for imports and exports (Dawkins, 1999b, 4). The WTO was created to oversee and enforce the new global trade rules. Two agreements within the WTO influence agricultural policy — the Agreement on Agriculture and the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement.

The Agreement on Agriculture seeks to liberalize trade by opening new markets to food imports and removing barriers to trade. The United States has used the WTO to challenge many environmental and health policies as unfair barriers including the European Union’s ban on the importation of hormone-treated beef. Most national subsidies to farmers have also been targeted as trade barriers. In the United States, the 1996 "Freedom to Farm Act" rewrote agricultural policy to conform to the WTO’s trade liberalization agenda.

The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement establishes minimum national standards for levels of protection for the creators of intellectual property. By placing IPRs in the WTO and making them subject to its binding disputes procedure, non-compliant Members can face trade sanctions in any area if they fail to live up to the rules (Tansey, 1999, 6). Article 27.3 of TRIPs requires WTO members to make patents available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology. Article 27.3(b) specifically covers the patenting of life forms, the most contested part of the TRIPs agreement. It states:

Because of the bitterly contested negotiations on the Agreement on Agriculture and the TRIPs agreement both were temporary deals. Review and re-negotiation of the patenting of life forms under TRIPs is scheduled for 1999. The remainder of TRIPs and the Agreement on Agriculture are scheduled for review in 2000. Appendix B shows the timetable for upcoming negotiations.

Recent agricultural negotiations show a hardening of positions. Last February in Cartegena, Columbia negotiations were undertaken to formulate a Biosafety Protocol, an amendment to the Convention on Biological Diversity, governing the movement of genetically-modified organisms across national boundaries. Five nations (United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Uruguay) blocked the accord. The lack of an agreement raises serious questions regarding the future of multilateral agricultural accords.

In conclusion, most nations of the world are signatories to the FAO, CBD and WTO agreements. Conflicts exist between the obligations they have entered into. Many issues and questions remain: Which agenda, trade or the environment, will take precedence? Under what conditions? Will elements of the CBD and FAO become exemptions to the WTO agreements? Will a convergence on agricultural policy occur or will multilateral agreements on agriculture become impossible? The critical negotiations to address these issues are underway. The outcome will undoubtedly impact food security, agricultural biodiversity and the future of farming.

The Eighth Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture had the revision of the International Undertaking (IU) as one of its primary objectives. Negotiations have been underway for the past two years and while many contentious issues remain it is in the interest of all Member states of the FAO to reach a multilateral accord. A multilateral accord is important because it will maintain open access and exchange of plant genetic resources (PGR), maintain PGR in the public domain, reduce the number of bilateral negotiations, and minimize national and racial issues. Developing countries are interested in an accord to minimize the impact of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture and the United States is interested in an accord to avoid the CBD taking over the process.[1]

Farmers’ Rights and the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing (MLS) are the two remaining items under discussion. This paper will examine the history of access to plant genetic resources, positions of the interested parties and the current status of negotiations.

In the 10,000 years that humans have practiced agriculture, they have developed the original domesticated plants into complex populations with tremendous genetic diversity. Until about thirty years ago, crop seeds were a ‘free’ resource existing in the public domain. Seeds were grown, exchanged, selected, and bred by farmers throughout the world. Formal plant breeding was a public service function performed in universities and government experimental stations. Seeds were made available at the cost of production and the benefits accruing from their use were widely and fairly distributed among farmers, industrial processors of agricultural products and consumers (CGRFA-8/99/8, 1999, 5).

The growth of the commercial seed industry and privatization of research has changed this by applying claims of ownership to plant genetic resources and restricting their access. The commercialization of plant breeding in industrial countries led to the development of Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) legislation. PBR is a right granted by a government to plant breeders to exclude others from producing and selling propagated material of a protected variety for a period of 15 to 30 years. Two exemptions exist within current PBR legislation, the Breeders’ Exemption which allows plant breeders to use protected varieties in breeding and Farmers’ Privilege which allows farmers to produce seeds of protected varieties for their own use or use in their communities (Hardon, 1994, 4).

Patent protection in the form of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) takes claims of ownership and restrictions on access a step further. A patent is a right granted by a government to inventors that exclude others from imitating, manufacturing, using or selling a patented process or product for commercial use for a period of 17 to 20 years. Patent law contains a provision known as the Research Exemption which allows others to study the protected variety, but not to reproduce it or multiply it in any form (Hardon, 1994, 5).

In 1989 the FAO formally recognized Farmers’ Rights by acknowledging the contributions of generations of farmers to the development of landrace varieties. Landraces are crop populations that have evolved through a combination of natural and farmer selection. They form the genetic base for all breeding and as such have been replaced, relocated and introduced to many different regions of the world. Unlike PBR, Farmer’s Rights can seldom be attributed to an individual farmer or a farming community. In an effort to compensate farmers for their ongoing contributions, the FAO proposed a sustained trust fund aimed at strengthening and supporting community management and innovation in plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA).

In 1992 the Convention on Biological Diversity again stressed the importance of Farmers’ Rights and recognized national sovereignty over PGRFA. The implication being that national governments have responsibility to reward farmers for their contributions, regulate the collection of PGRFA within their national boundaries and enter into agreements on the use and benefits derived from PGRFA (Hardon, 1994, 7).

While there is general recognition and acceptance of the concept of Farmers’ Rights there are differences of opinion on what those rights should be. The revision and negotiations on the International Undertaking are attempts to resolve these differences and ‘harmonize’ the IU and the CBD Agreements. Proposed text can be found in the Appendices. Appendix C is the Chairman’s Text prepared for the negotiations, Appendix D is text initially accepted in the Negotiating sessions and Appendix E is the NGO text. Appendix F is the text of my Conference remarks. Differences in the text reflect divergent views on two key issues — the immutability of Farmers’ Rights and the right to sell farm-saved seeds of protected varieties.

The current Negotiating text recognizes Farmers’ Rights, but makes them subject to national legislation. The NGO text has taken a position that Farmers’ Rights should be internationally guaranteed rights immutable to national legislation. Historically, multilateral accords have played an important role in emphasizing and supporting the rights of local groups and indigenous people who are often subjected to racism and discrimination in their native countries (Brush, 1994, 34). Leaving Farmers’ Rights to the discretion of national assemblies opens the door for negotiating away these rights in exchange for favorable trade conditions or other strategic interests.

The right to sell protected varieties in customary markets is also a contentious issue. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of the planting material used by poor farmers is derived from seed and germplasm they produced, selected, saved or exchanged through farmer to farmer seed exchanges (Huvio, 1999, 9). These seeds are mainly local landraces but could also be modern varieties. The latter are normally maintained on the farm and will eventually be mixed up and modified by local seed selection and thus evolve into new landraces. In 1997 an FAO Conference on Food Security in Developing Countries recommended strengthening of the informal seed sector as one of two steps in improving food security (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.17, 1997, 2).

The current Negotiating text recognizes the right to sell protected varieties, but makes these rights subject to national legislation. This condition makes Farmers’ Rights weaker than many national laws and weaker than what is permitted under current PBR legislation. Interestingly, representatives of FIS/ASSINSEL (International Seed Federation/International Association of Plant Breeders) had no issue allowing farmers to continue their customary exchanges. Nevertheless governments of many industrialized countries, including the United States, resisted compromise in this area. The general consensus among the NGOs is the United States will use this as a bargaining chip in later negotiations on the Multilateral System.

Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are the essential raw material for the plant breeder. Most countries are dependent on germplasm that originated elsewhere for their agricultural production and food security (CGRFA-8/99/8, 1999, 1). Given this an open system of access is critical to global food security.

Numerous studies have shown that the ability to benefit from access to a resource is a function of the ability to use that resource. Nations with a greater scientific capacity have the greatest opportunity to benefit. These same nations also tend to have the weakest genetic endowment. The gap in deriving benefit has been widening with the introduction of genetic engineering techniques (CGRFA-8/99/8, 1999, 2).

Historically, two different approaches have been taken on how to address the inequities. To some, equity and compensation refer to treatment of farmers and nations that have given their genetic resources in the past. To others, equity and compensation refer to the basis for future relationships. Given the difficulty of tracing ownership and the potential for conflict over who should rightly benefit, the international community has rejected the retrospective approach to compensation and equity (Brush, 1994, 13).

Negotiations on the Multilateral System (MLS) need to address three areas — the PGR included in the open access system, the status of current collections and financing mechanisms. The current proposal under review by the FAO’s Commission on Plant Genetic Resources uses a multilateral list-based approach for determining access to PGR. Two criteria were used to establish the current Tentative List of Crops, namely "their importance for food security at local and global levels and countries’ interdependence with respect to plant genetic resources" (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.3, 1998, 4). Appendix G is text initially accepted in the Negotiating sessions. The United States position favors a broad comprehensive list of germplasm in the open access system. Many developing countries are becoming increasingly restrictive in their germplasm distribution policy because of ownership claims applied to germplasm collected from their countries (Berg, 1994, 4). During the negotiating sessions Brazil was pushing a smaller list feeling they could negotiate more favorable terms for their own germplasm through bilateral contracts.

The status of the current CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) collections remains an issue. CGIAR seed banks contain approximately 600,000 accessions. These accessions were placed in the International Network of Ex Situ Collections under the trusteeship of the FAO in 1994. CGIAR agreed to hold the designated germplasm "in trust for the benefit of the international community", and "not to claim ownership, or seek intellectual property rights over the designated germplasm and related information". They also undertake that "where samples of the designated Germplasm and/or related information are transferred to another person or institutions, the Centre shall ensure that such person or institution and any further entity receiving samples of the germplasm" are bound by these conditions (CGRFA-8/99/7, 1999, 5). During 1998 several ‘biopiracy’ scandals occurred when third parties sought intellectual property rights over germplasm from the CGIAR collections. As a result, some countries are calling for a system to monitor use of CGIAR germplasm.

The status of private collections is also an issue. Most of these collections are controlled by private industry in industrialized countries and governments do not have any rights to negotiate access to this germplasm.

Several proposals have been made for financing the multilateral system. At the Fifth Extraordinary Session in June 1998 the FAO Commission requested the Secretariat to:

The Secretariat’s study evaluated a number of indicators including macroeconomic (GDP, GNP, and the FAO Scale of Contributions), agricultural (Agricultural Value Added and Value of Agricultural Production), scientific capacity (Scientists and Engineers in Research and Development, Research and Development Expenditures, Patents Granted to Residents and Royalty and License Fees Received) and two indicators related directly to PGRFA (PBR Registration by Residents and Commercial Seed Trade). The study concluded that there was an apparent isomorphism of macroeconomic indicators and indicators specific for PGRFA and suggested that macroeconomic indicators might prove to be the most broadly acceptable (CGRFA-8/99/8, 1999, 12).

Other financial options under consideration include the expansion in the scope of Multilateral Trade Agreements (MTAs). MTA’s are currently used for transferring germplasm from the International Network. The United States delegation suggested MTA’s might be expanded to invoke benefit sharing in cases of exclusive use, i.e. when patents are taken on traits or genetic materials derived form the Multilateral System (Shands, 1999, 1).

The trust fund created from the Multilateral System is targeted to the aims of the Global Plan of Action (GPA) for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Activities of the GPA include in situ conservation and development, ex situ conservation, sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources, and institution and capacity building (UNFAO, GPA, 1996, 1-10).

In conclusion, negotiations on the revision to the International Undertaking are continuing. A strong commitment exists to sign an accord by the end of the year in spite of continuing differences on Farmers’ Rights and the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing. Many questions remain: Will the International Undertaking be a limited agreement? What will be left in the open access system? Who will negotiate or give on which points? What bargaining chips will be used? What international guarantees will farmers have?

The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was adopted at the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig, Germany in June 1996. 150 countries committed themselves to take the necessary steps to implement the Global Plan of Action (GPA) in accordance with their national capacities (Leipzig Declaration, 1996). The plan was later endorsed by the FAO Council and Conference in 1997, the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1996 and the World Food Summit in 1996. It has become the main framework for activities related to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture nationally and internationally (CGRFA-8/99/7, 1999, 1).

The GPA contains twenty priority activities. Activities 1-4 relate to in situ conservation and development. Activities 5-8 relate to ex situ conservation. Activities 9-14 relate to utilization of plant genetic resources. Activities 15-20 relate to institutions and capacity building. In this series of papers I would like to focus on ex situ conservation, in situ conservation and capacity building to assist farmers in restoring agricultural systems following disasters.

Ex situ conservation is the conservation of components of biological diversity outside their natural habitats (Maxted, 1997, 25). Seeds are removed from their habitat to conserve and protect them from genetic erosion and genetic vulnerability (a condition that results when a widely planted crop is uniformly susceptible to a pest, pathogen or environmental hazard because of its genetic constitution). Ex situ collections are stored in seed genebanks, field genebanks and in vitro.

N.I. Vavilov, often referred to as the father of ex situ conservation, directed expeditions throughout the world during the 1920s and 1930s. Vavilov collected seeds of wheat, rye, potato, barley, and other grains. His studies led him to formulate a hypothesis for the ‘centres of origin’ for crop plants. The theory states "for each crop species there are one or more centres of origin where the crop was domesticated. This is usually the primary centre for in situ diversity for that crop" (UNFAO State, 1996, 10). These Vavlovian ‘centres of origin’ have become a focal point for conservation efforts.

During the 1970s and 1980s a concerted effort was made to collect and conserve plant genetic resources before they disappeared. Experts believed — with good reason — that they had very little time in which to collect and safeguard these resources from extinction in the field (UNFAO Report, 1996, 20). In 1974 the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) was established with a mandate to coordinate plant genetic resource programs. Collecting missions were accelerated and new genebanks constructed. Today’s genebank system and their collections are largely a result of these efforts. In 1996 estimates put the number of collections at 1300 with approximately 6.1 million accessions stored worldwide (UNFAO State, 1996, 280).

The genebank system consists of 12 International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) managed by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), 5 Regional Seed Banks and 15 National Seed Banks. Appendices H, I and J show the capabilities and primary focus of the seed banks.

"Mandate" crops have been assigned to each of the CGIAR centres in an effort to ensure seeds are collected for the majority of the world’s staple foods. The FAO’s Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources has identified significant gaps in the international collections. Foods that are regionally significant are often under represented. Cassava, for example, supplies over half of plant-related energy for Central Africa though it contributes only 1.6 percent globally. Groundnut, pigeon pea, lentils, and cowpea while significant in many areas of the developing world are poorly collected and documented in the CGIAR collections (UNFAO Report, 1996, 9).

The chart below shows the contribution of major food crops to all ex situ collections. Over 55 percent of all global accessions are cereals and legumes. Vegetables, tubers, fruits, and forages account for less than 10%. Medicinal, spice, aromatic, ornamentals, and aquatic plants are almost non-existent. Globally 48 percent of accessions are advanced cultivars, 36 percent landraces and 15 percent wild or weedy plants and relatives (UNFAO Report, 1996, 22).

Conditions of seed storage also limit the type of germplasm that can be conserved. The majority of seeds are either from temperate zones, where dormancy is enforced by cold winters, or from arid zones, where dormancy is enforced by long dry spells (Prance, 1997, 8).

Today’s genebanks face a number of challenges. Easy access to germplasm for plant breeders has been a major advantage of genebanks. The genebank collections are divided into "base collections" for long term storage and "active collections" for shorter term storage (Berg, 1994, 2). Seeds in "active collections" are meant for distribution. Traditionally access to plant germplasm has been unrestricted, but recent changes in international law, specifically the World Trade Organization’s agreement on patenting of plants, introduces new claims of ownership and complicates access to the genebank collections.

In 1994 the 12 CGIAR centres signed legal agreements with FAO placing their collections "in trust for the benefit of the international community" (CGRFA-8/99/7, 1999, 5). Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) are now used to manage the transfer of all germplasm from CGIAR centres. The MTAs prevent recipients from making ownership claims over the designated germplasm. In 1998, however, a number of problems arose when third parties sought patent protection on germplasm from the CGIAR collections (CGRFA-8/99/7, 1999, 3). Most countries are waiting for the revision of the International Undertaking to be completed before placing any additional germplasm in the International Network.

Limited utilization of seed bank germplasm continues to be a problem. Conventional approaches to conservation and use of germplasm have resulted in conserving much and utilizing little (Berg, 1994, 14). Of the 122,000 samples distributed each year from the CGIAR collections about 50 percent are distributed outside the CGIAR centres, primarily to National Agricultural Research Services (NARS). Only 3 percent of germplasm is distributed to the private sector (UNFAO State, 1996, 281). Utilization is limited by the lack of passport data (data on taxonomy, how and where germplasm was collected), the lack of cultural data (data on the cultural context and potential uses of the germplasm) and poor integration between genebanks and potential germplasm users.

In the last ten years genetic resource conservation has been increasing worldwide as a reaction to genetic erosion (environmental movements) or to modern industrial agriculture (organic farming movements). This new genetic conservation movement has significant capacity for conservation and use of crop genetic diversity. In many developing countries non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are working with traditional farmers in on-farm conservation activities to preserve and enhance landrace varieties. In many industrial countries ‘seed saver’ exchanges, focused on heirloom fruits and vegetables, have expanded as well as organic farming. Many of these groups have reactivated local germplasm that was about to vanish (Berg, 1994, 10). Linking up with seed banks could help reintroduce varieties that have disappeared from their communities, increase utilization of seed bank germplasm and make these conservationists bona fide users of genebank accessions.

In conclusion, significant effort has been invested in developing the genebank system. Even with its current limitations the system has preserved germplasm that would have been lost forever. Successful completion of the International Undertaking and the establishment of links with the new conservation movements are critical to increasing genebank utilization and the diversity of planted varieties.

In 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) called for the development of in situ conservation strategies to complement ex situ collections. The Convention on Biological Diversity defines in situ conservation as "the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings. In the case of domesticates or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties" (UNEP CBD, 1992, Article 8).

Populations maintained in situ undergo evolutionary change as they adapt to disease, pests, farming systems, and environmental change. The geographical origins of resistant material are often "hot spots" where both the pathogen and the host plant are present with a large and actively evolving diversity (Berg, 1994, 2). Allowing continued evolution in the host population makes it a permanent source of resistance to evolving pathogens. Evolutionary adaptation is particularly important given the current increase in carbon dioxide levels worldwide.

Two conservation strategies have emerged from the in situ debate. One strategy focuses on the creation of ‘landrace reserves’ where farmers are paid to continue growing traditional varieties. The other is concerned with on-farm management, a "dynamic form of plant genetic resource management which allows the natural and artificial (farmer) selection to continue" (Huvio, 1999, 8).

"A major challenge for in situ conservation is the development of the knowledge needed in national programmes to determine where, when and how in situ conservation will be effective" (IPGRI, 1999, 2). The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), an institute of the CGIAR centres, has undertaken a global project to "strengthen the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity" (IPGRI, 1999, 2). The project will operate from 1997 to 2001 and involve nine national partners — Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Peru, Turkey and Vietnam. Data is being collected and analyzed by gender, age and ethnic group in the following areas:

• socioeconomic, cultural and biological influences on farmer decision-making;
• farmer selection of agromorphological characters;
• population structure of local cultivars, including population size, isolation, geneflow between and within cultivars and crop wild relatives;
• environmental selection by agro-ecosystems including natural factors (soil, precipitation, temperature, disease) and managed factors (fertilizer application, irrigation, weeding and harvesting practices);
• seed/germplasm supply systems and;
• adding value through participatory plant breeding, market, non-market and consumer incentives and agricultural policy.

Participatory work with farm families is critical to the success of in situ conservation. Today over one billion people live in farming families where responsibility for managing plant genetic resources (PGR) rests with the family itself. They decide when to plant, harvest and process their crops. They also decide how much of each crop to plant each year, the percentage of seed or germplasm of their own production to save and which parts to buy or exchange. All of these decisions affect the total amount of genetic diversity that is conserved and used (Huvio, 1999, 10).

SEAGA (Socioeconomic and Gender Analysis), an organization of the FAO, is completing a guide to On-Farm Plant Genetic Resource Management. This guide will be a tool for conducting participatory planning and integrating socioeconomic and gender issues into the planning process for on-farm conservation.

Understanding gender issues and the role of rural women in traditional agriculture is particularly important to conservation and sustainable use of PGR. Through their daily work women have accumulated intimate knowledge and skills concerning their ecosystems, local crop varieties, cropping systems, nutritional attributes of various under-utilized plants, and the maintenance of scarce resources. Women also play an important role in the production, processing, preservation, preparation, and sale of crops (Huvio, 1999, 11).

The Convention on Biological Diversity recognized the value of indigenous knowledge on biological resources in its preamble by noting "farmers that grow traditional varieties are not only custodians of a wealth of genetic resources, but also carriers of knowledge which may be equally valuable" (UNEP CBD, 1992, Preamble). The FAO has identified types of indigenous knowledge of critical importance to in situ conservation including the location of areas of high plant diversity, classification systems for germplasm, identification of useful germplasm, and characteristics used in farmer selection procedures (UNFAO State, 1996, 54).

Participatory plant breeding is another component of in situ conservation. The International Agricultural Research Centres have been trying to improve the linkage with farmers and change the focus of plant breeding from producing ready-made varieties to the production of relevant diversity. This shift in focus is necessary to breeding success in complex farming systems located in diverse and marginal environments. Crops of Third World farmers may cope well under local stress conditions but need an infusion of new germplasm and refinement of selection methods to realize their productive potential (Berg, 1994, 14).

A number of NGOs have been doing on-farm conservation work for many years. The Plant Genetic Resources Centre/Ethiopia (PGRC/E) was probably the first genebank to assign an active role to farmers for genetic resource conservation (Berg, 1994, 9). In 1988 the project distributed landrace germplasm back to farming communities where it had previously been collected. Farmers worked with the germplasm to improve it. Similar projects have developed in the Philippines with rice, in Brazil with maize, in Peru with potatoes, and in Malawi and Rwanda with cowpeas.

Community seed banks have also emerged in the past fifteen years. Survivors of the 1984/1985 famine in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia decided to work for the revival of vanishing seed selection skills as one of several disaster prevention measures. Supported by REST (Relief Society of Tigray), Community Seed Banks were organized with the dual purpose of developing skilled seed selection and providing credit in the form of selected seeds. These seed banks were organized as community undertakings, owned and managed by community assemblies. Local seeds were the only available genetic resources and local knowledge was the only available technology platform. The communities identified the best traditional seed selectors and purchased seeds for lending according to their advice and selection. Unlike genebanks these community seed banks do not "save" or "conserve" seeds but they do maintain considerable genetic diversity in evolving landraces adapted to local conditions (Berg, 1994, 6).

In conclusion, international recognition and support for in situ conservation has emerged in the last ten years. Methodologies are being developed acknowledging the interdisciplinary nature of in situ work. The methodologies take into account soci-economic, gender and cultural issues in addition to botany and agronomy. NGOs are continuing to work with farming communities to develop the infastructure and practices to facilitate conservation and preserve the diversity of PGR that currently exists. Many questions remain: What level of support will the international community provide for these efforts? Will participatory plant breeding become an integral component of agricultural research or be implemented on a project by project basis? How can ex situ and in situ conservation efforts enhance and support each other?

The problem of world food security is worsening, particularly in developing countries. Due to the increased frequency and severity of natural and man-made disasters in recent years, farmers often do not have seed or planting material of adapted varieties available when needed (CGRFA- 8/99/Inf.17, 1997, 1). Natural disasters such as drought, flood and fire are at record levels in the 1990s. In the 1960s only 16 natural disasters were recorded, the number rose to 29 in the 1970s and 70 in the 1980s. According to the United Nations Department of the Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA) the number of disasters occurring in the 1990s is more than double the 1980s. It is clear that the world is facing ecological problems that could affect millions of farming communities if appropriate measures are not taken. The frequency of war and civil strife is also on the rise in the 1990s. The United Nations has reported that 23 countries are either in current states of war or civil strife or have been in one in the 1990s (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.17, 1997, 2).

Restoration of agricultural systems following disaster is a critical component of any strategy for maintaining agricultural biodiversity. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been charged with establishing agreements between aid agencies for the "rapid acquisition and multiplication, restoration and provision of (planting) materials to countries in need" (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.17, 1997, 6). In 1997 the FAO organized a conference to examine the current system of disaster response and made a series of recommendations.

Historically three approaches have been used to restore agricultural systems — providing emergency seed, providing seed from seed stock reserves and providing seed from genebanks. None of these strategies has had much success and in many cases the agricultural systems are worse off after the assistance. The introduction of emergency seed supplies had a number of undesirable consequences in Angola in the 1980s. Introduced varieties cross-pollinated with the remaining local varieties increasing genetic erosion. Subsequent crop yields were reduced due to the appearance of new diseases and pests for which there was no resistance. The use of seed stock reserves has been equally problematic. The majority of seed reserves are certified commercial varieties not useful to Third World farmers growing crops in marginal environments. In 1997 in Rwanda the national genebank reintroduced bean seeds that had been previously collected from the area. The reintroduction, however, was ineffective because the seeds were no longer adapted to current cropping conditions (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.16, 1998, 10).

Based on these experiences, the Commission determined that any successful seed strategy program needed to be organized at the community level. Since 90 percent of the planting material used by poor farmers is derived from local seeds and germplasm, a successful seed security strategy needs to protect local diversity and strengthen the informal seed supply sectors (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.17, 1997, 2). The Commission further determined that a significant amount of local varieties could be protected from disaster if:

• an early warning system is established that could forewarn of imminent problems related to seed security rescue operations;
• an institution is created that is capable of a rapid response before, during and after disasters. This institution would be responsible for collecting, transporting to safer areas, reproducing after the disaster, and distributing the seeds back to farmers; and
• traditional or other household and community seed security practices are strengthened and promoted. In Ethiopia farmers have long-term underground seed stores where seeds can remain viable for years (CGRFA-9/99/Inf.17, 1997, 4).

The FAO has already established a World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) that is designed to monitor the changing situation with plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, genetic erosion in the natural environment, and threats to in situ and ex situ collections (CGRFA-8/99/6, 1999, 1). The current plan is to extend WIEWS to cover the needs of agricultural restoration. The FAO is also committed to help build a rapid response team. The rapid response team’s mission includes, among other things, increasing awareness among relief agencies of the problems associated with supplying inappropriate seed varieties and monitoring the spread of seed and planting material to ensure there is a fair and equitable approach to seed distribution.

Given the increase in disasters impacting many agricultural systems it is imperative that an effective strategy is developed for restoring the productivity and biodiversity of these systems. Experience shows that reintroduction strategies need to be rooted in the needs of local communities. Too often well intentioned people have taken actions that are counter-productive.

The loss of biological diversity has become a global concern in the past 20 years. The Convention on Biological Diversity has been the main international agreement to codify the obligations nations have to protect and preserve biological diversity. The Food and Agriculture Organization has responsibility for the conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The International Undertaking and the Global Plan of Action are the primary agreements defining how the FAO will implement its conservation responsibilities.

Currently there is tremendous pressure to complete the revision of the International Undertaking. The environmental forces (primarily developing countries, Europe and many NGOs) want a strong agreement going into the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations. The trade forces (primarily industrial countries and industry groups) want a weaker agreement, but one strong enough to avoid the Convention on Biological Diversity taking over the process. An agreement on the International Undertaking will help determine funding levels for the in situ conservation, ex situ conservation and capacity-building objectives of the Global Plan of Action.

1999 and 2000 will be pivotal years for agricultural negotiations. Many issues remain on the table: What are legitimate barriers to trade? Can a nation subsidize its farmers because it believes a diverse agricultural economy is in the interest of national food security? Is conservation of biological diversity a legitimate trade barrier? Can farmers be subsidized for conservation activities, for continuing to plant traditional varieties? Can a nation restrict the import of genetically-modified organisms because they are concerned about genetic pollution? Will the international community be able to negotiate an equitable benefit sharing system to maintain open access to plant genetic resources? The outcome of these negotiations will help determine the number of small farmers that remain in agriculture, the foundation of global food security and the extent of biological diversity in the global food system.

Sources: http://www.wto.org/; http://www.biodiv.org/; http://www.fao.org/; Dawkins, 1998; Mulvany, 1998.

0. The Parties recognize the enormous contribution that 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.
1. 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:

1. the right to use, exchange, and, in the case of landraces and varieties that are no longer registered, market farm-saved seeds;
2. protection of traditional knowledge;
3. the right to equitably participate in benefit-sharing;
4. 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.

0. 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.
1. 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:

1. protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
2. the right to equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
3. 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.

1. 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.

0. 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 security and agriculture production throughout the world.
1. 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, consistent with the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The Parties shall take measures to protect and promote Farmers’ Rights, including:

1. 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;
2. rights to territories, land and water to maintain their production systems, agro-ecosystems and livelihoods;
3. the protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, cultures and world views related to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
4. the right to equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
5. the right to information on matters related to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
6. the right to participate in decision making at the local, national and international levels on matters related to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing me to speak. On behalf of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy I would like to express extreme concern about Article 15.3 on Farmer’s Rights. I am a United States citizen. I grew up on a family farm and have worked as a farmer many years of my life. I am very concerned about the loss of plant genetic diversity in the U.S. industrial agricultural system and its impact on the family farmer and food security.

In northern Minnesota, we have created a monoculture of our native wheat variety and as a result Minnesota wheat can no longer grow in Minnesota. Blight and pests have spread throughout the area for the last seven years driving farmers out of business.

In southern Minnesota, farmers plant corn and soybeans. They do not save seed. They are completely dependent on a limited number of commercial varieties of seed for their crops. Here too the lack of genetic diversity is causing productivity problems.

We need to ensure that what has happened to Minnesota farmers does not happen to the world. To guarantee sustainable production and food security we need genetic diversity in our seed varieties. To help ensure diversity and protect the world’s farmers we need to make the farmer’s right to save and sell their own seeds an internationally guaranteed human right. We hope there is an opportunity to revisit Article 15 and to firmly establish Farmer’s Rights at the international level.

We would like to congratulate the Commission on the hard work that has been done and on the progress they have made. We look forward to the next meetings on this exceedingly important issue.

Thank you

0. 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 the national governments and is subject to national legislation.
1. 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.

0. 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.
1. The multilateral system shall also cover:

1. material held in ex situ collections by International Agricultural Research Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research[2] [international centres][3] that accept the provisions of [Annex V to] this Undertaking.
2. 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.[4]

0. The Governing Body[5] 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 the annexes.][6]

Berg, Trygve. 1994. Dynamic Management of Plant Genetic Resources: Potentials for Emerging Grass-Roots Movements. Center for International Environment and Development Studies. Norway.

Brush, Stephen. 1994. Providing Farmers’ Rights Through In Situ Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources prepared for the First Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. November 7-11, 1994.

Correa, Carlos. 1994. Sovereign and Property Rights Over Plant Genetic Resources prepared for First Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy. November 1994.

Dawkins, Kristin. 1999. Trade Strategy of U.S. - Analysis of Current Agricultural Policy prepared for the Seminar on GATT and WTO, Schwerin, Germany. January 8, 1999.

Dawkins, Kristin and Kraker, David. 1999. The Continuing Threat from Trade Negotiations. In Dollars and Sense: 222. March/April 1999.

Hardon, J.J., Vosman, B. and van Hintum, Th. J.L. 1994. Identifying Genetic Resources and Their Origin: The Capabilities and Limitations of Modern Biochemical and Legal Systems prepared for the First Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. November 7-11, 1994.

Huvio, Tiina. 1999. SEAGA Sector Guide: On-Farm Plant Genetic Resources Management. Working Draft.

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 1999. Strengthening the Scientific Basis of In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity On-Farm. Rome, Italy.

Lugo, A.E. 1988. Estimating Reductions in the Diversity of Tropical Rain Forest Species. In Diversity, ed. E.O. Wilson, 58-70. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. and Hawkes, J.G. 1997. Complementary Conservation Strategies. In Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach, ed. N. Maxted, B.V. Ford-Lloyd and J.G. Hawks, 15-39. London: Chapman & Hill.

Mulvany, Patrick. 1998. TRIPs, Biodiversity and Commonwealth Countries: Capacity Building Priorities for the 1999 Review of TRIPs Article 27.3(b) prepared for the Commonwealth Secretariat and Quaker Peace & Service. November 1998.

Non-Governmental Organizations. 1999. Proposed Alternative Text Article 15 - Farmer’s Rights prepared for the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.

Prance, G.T. 1997. The Conservation of Botanical Diversity. In Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach, ed. N.Maxted, B.V. Ford-Lloyd and J.G. Hawks, 3-14. London: Chapman & Hill.

Salazar, Rene. 1992. Community Plant Genetic Resources Management: Experiences in Southeast Asia. In Growing Diversity: Genetic Resources and Local Food Security, ed. David Cooper, Renee Vellve and Henk Hobbelink, 17-29. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Shands, Henry. 1999. U.S. Negotiating Position for FAO’s International Undertaking. Memorandum. March 5, 1999.

Tansey, Geoff. 1999. Trade, Intellectual Property, Food and Biodiversity: Key Issues and Options for the 1999 Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement. London: Quaker Peace and Service.

United Nations Environment Program. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity Text and Annexes. Geneva, Switzerland.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 1996. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany. June 17-23, 1996.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 1996. Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany. June 17-23, 1996.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 1996. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany. June 17-23, 1996.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/CG REPORT). 1999. Report of the Contact Group: Texts of Articles 11, 12 and 15 prepared for the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/6). 1999. Progress Report on the World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources (WIEWS) prepared for the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/7). 1999. Progress Report on the International Network of Ex Situ Collections Under the Auspices of the FAO Resources prepared for the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/8). 1999. Possible Formulas for the Sharing of Benefits Based on Different Benefit-Indicators prepared for the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/13 Annex). 1999. Composite Draft Text of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources incorporating the Chairman’s Elements prepared for the Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.3). 1998. Exploring Options for the List Approach Within the Multilateral System of Facilitated Germplasm Exchange Within the Revised International Undertaking. Report of an Informal Workshop of Experts on Behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Florence, Italy. October 1-3, 1998.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.16). 1999. Report on the International Workshop on Developing Institutional Agreements and Capacity to Assist Farmers in Disaster Situations to Restore Agricultural Systems and Seed Security Strategies, Rome, Italy. November 3-5, 1998.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.17). 1997. Developing Food Security Strategies and Programmes for Food Security in Developing Countries prepared for International Workshop on Seed Security for Food Security, Florence, Italy. November 30 - December 1, 1997.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (CGRFA-8/99/Inf.21). 1999. List of Delegates and Observers prepared for Eighth Regular Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy. April 19-23, 1999.