Genetic Resources & Traditional Knowledge at International Fora

Brief approach to some related issues by Teodora Zamudio

Relevant terms................................................................................................... 1
A. Genetic Resources...................................................................................... 1
B. Traditional Knowledge.................................................................................2
C.B.D.................................................................................................................. 3
Genetic resources........................................................................................... 3
Traditional knowledge..................................................................................... 5
F.A.O. Genetic Resources for Food & Agricultural...............................................6
W.I.P.O. Intellectual Property Rights....................................................................9
The Committee on GR, TK & F.......................................................................10
W.T.O./ T.R.I.P.s Agreement & the Doha Round.................................................14
At the present, some main issues ................................................................18

Relevant terms
Here a glossary of the prevalent use of relevant terms, according to the
international treaties and documents1
A. Genetic Resources
In the context of discussions on genetic resources, relevant terms have been
defined by international fora working on this theme. In keeping with that prevalent
use of terms, for the purposes of WIPO documents and unless expressly otherwise
stated:
(i)
(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

genetic resources means genetic material of actual or potential value 2

genetic material means any material of plant, animal, microbial or other
origin containing functional units of heredity. Functional units of heredity
are considered to include whole organisms, parts of organisms, and
biochemical extracts from tissue samples that contain deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) or, in some cases, ribonucleic acid (RNA), such as genes, plasmids,
etc. The functionality of a unit of heredity is a matter of interpretation
which is highly dependent on the evolution of modern biotechnology 3
biological resources means genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof,
populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or
potential use or value for humanity4 Genetic resources form one category
of biological resources.
plant genetic resources means germplasm or genetic material of actual or
potential value in the context of international rules for the exploration and
collection of plant genetic resources 5 The terms genetic material or plant

Extracted from WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/3

Article 2, CBD.
3
Article 2, CBD. While it is not specified which actual or potential value of the resource is
meant, a range of qualities are listed which confer value to the components of biodiversity,
including genetic resources: the Contracting Parties adopted the CBD conscious of the
ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and
aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components. (Preamble, CBD, first recital).
The implied distinction between genetic material and genetic resource maybe therefore of a
merely theoretical nature
4
Article 2, CBD. Whereas genetic resources are defined as being of actual or potential
value, biological resources are defined as resources with actual or potential use or value
for humanity.
2

6
(v)

germplasm in this context mean reproductive or vegetative propagating

material of plants6
in the area of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), the
term plant genetic resources 7 means the reproductive or vegetative
propagating material of the following categories of plants:
(a)
cultivated varieties (cultivars)8 in current use and newly developed
varieties;
(b)
obsolete cultivars;9
(c)
primitive cultivars (landraces); 10
(d)
wild and weed species,11 near relatives of cultivated varieties; and
(e)
special genetic stocks (including elite and current breeders lines 12 and
mutants13).

B. Traditional Knowledge
In the context of discussions on traditional knowledge, relevant terms have been
defined by international fora working on this theme. In keeping with that prevalent
use of terms, for the purposes of WIPO documents and unless expressly otherwise
stated:
(i)
(ii)

indigenous knowledge refers to the knowledge held by indigenous

peoples.14
indigenous communities, peoples and nations means those which, having
a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that
developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other
sectors of the societies now prevailing in those countries, or parts of them.
They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to
preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral
territories, and their ethnic identities, as the basis of their continued
existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social
institutions and legal systems.15

FAO International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer (1993),
Article 2.8
6
Ibid., Article 2.9
7
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (1983), Article 2.1(a)
8
Cultivars, or cultivated varieties, are varieties of a plant produced by selective breeding,
which has been specifically improved for agricultural or horticultural purposes and is grown
in cultivated conditions.
9
Obsolete cultivars refers to formal and informal cultivated varieties which have fallen into
disuse and are no longer on the list of traded varieties in those countries which maintain
such lists. This does not necessarily correspond to the formal lists for seed certification.
10
Primitive cultivars, or landraces, are crops grown under traditional agricultural systems,
which have not undergone much improvement and which, in many cases, have developed
from landraces selected by farmers. They are often associated with a specific region or
indigenous or local communities and are identifiable by vernacular names.
11
Weeds are plant species which are adapted to grow in disturbed or open habitats.
12
The terms current breeders line and elite lines are overlapping, since, in plant
breeding, a line refer to a group of genetically uniform individuals formed from the selfing
of a common homozygote parent and an elite refers to germplasm which has been
manipulated for use in breeding programs, including advanced, inbred and pure lines.
13
Mutants, i.e. plants which have acquired a heritable variation as a result of mutation,
are created by mutation breeding through the use of mutagenic genetics and are used to
create variability within a species and alter characteristics.
Some of the altered
characteristics may be agriculturally useful and can be further selected by the breeder.
14
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Preamble, XI paragraph
15
Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4, Study of the Problem of Discrimination
Against Indigenous Populations, prepared by Jose Martnez Cobos, Special Rapporteur of
the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities, Mr. J. Martnez Cobo. Further definitions of the terms indigenous peoples and
tribal peoples are contained in Article 1 of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of

19
(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

traditional medicine means the sum total of the knowledge, skills and
practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to
different cultures, whether explicable or not, used in the maintenance of
health, as well as in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of
physical and mental illnesses. The terms complementary/alternative/nonconventional medicine are used interchangeably with traditional medicine in
some countries.16
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities
embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity or abbreviations of this term generally
refer to Articles 8(j), 10(c), 17.2 and 18.4 of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), but are not defined in Article 2, CBD. However, in this
context traditional knowledge has been noted by the Executive Secretary
of the CBD as a term used to describe a body of knowledge built by a group
of people through generations living in close contact with nature. It includes
a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local
environment, and a system of self-management that governs resource use.
[] In the context of knowledge, innovation is a feature of indigenous and
local communities whereby tradition acts as a filter through which innovation
occurs. In this context, it is traditional methods of research and application
and not always particular pieces of knowledge that persist. Practices should
therefore be seen as the manifestations of knowledge and innovation. 17
local and traditional knowledge18 and traditional and local technology,
knowledge, know-how and practices19 generally refer to Articles 16(g),
17.1(c), 18.2(a)-(d) of the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or
Desertification, Particularly in Africa. In this context, traditional knowledge
means subject matter which consists of practical (instrumental) and
normative (enabling) knowledge about the ecological, socio-economic and
cultural environment. Traditional knowledge is people-centered (generated
and transmitted by people as knowledgeable, competent and entitled
actors), systemic (inter-sectorial and holistic), experimental (empirical and
practical), transmitted from one generation to the next and culturally
valorized. This type of knowledge promotes diversity; it valorizes and
reproduces the local (internal) resources. 20
traditional knowledge, innovations and creativity, refers to the creative and
innovative aspect of traditional knowledge systems and a preliminary
working definition of this term has been used by WIPO for the purposes of its
own work from an intellectual property point of view. 21

the International Labor Organization (ILO) (ILO Convention 169). As in document

E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4, self-identification as indigenous or tribal is regarded as a
fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of the term apply
(ILO Convention 169, Article 2).
16
See WHO General Guidelines for Methodologies on Research and Evaluation of Traditional
Medicine. Document WHO/EDM/TRM/2000.
17
See, UNEP/CBD/TKBD/1/2: paragraphs 84 and 86, emphasis added.
18
Article 16(g), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (1994) (the
UNCCD).
19
Articles 17.1(c), 18.2(a) and (b), UNCCD.
20
See Common Understanding of the Term Traditional Knowledge.
Document
ICCD/COP(4)/CST/2, paragraph 30.
21
See, Chapter 5 on Terminology of the FFM Report.

6
C.B.D.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 22 entered into force on 29 December
1993. It has 3 main objectives: (a) To conserve biological diversity; (b) The use
biological diversity in a sustainable fashion; and (c) To share the benefits of
biological diversity fairly and equitably. Parties commit themselves to a more
effective and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the Convention, to
achieve by 2010
The Convention Bodies are: Conference of the Parties; Scientific Body (SBSTTA);
Working Group on the Review of Implementation (WGRI); Working Group on ABS;
Working Group on Article 8(j); Working Group on Protected Areas. Two of these
bodies: (Working Group on ABS and Working Group on Article 8(j)) work, mainly,
with two clauses of the Convention: Article 15 and Article 8 (j)
Genetic resources
Article 1523 (referred to Access to Genetic Resources24) recognizes the sovereign
rights of States over their natural resources 25, what means that:
the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the
national governments and is subject to national legislation; but
the States shall attempt to create conditions to facilitate access to
genetic resources for environmentally uses by other Contracting Parties 26 and

22

For the history of this convention see http://www.cbd.int/convention/history.shtml

Article 15. Access to Genetic Resources: 1. Recognizing the sovereign rights of States
over their natural resources, the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests
with the national governments and is subject to national legislation. 2. Each Contracting
Party shall endeavor to create conditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for
environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties and not to impose restrictions that
run counter to the objectives of this Convention. 3. For the purpose of this Convention, the
genetic resources being provided by a Contracting Party, as referred to in this Article and
Articles 16 and 19, are only those that are provided by Contracting Parties that are
countries of origin of such resources or by the Parties that have acquired the genetic
resources in accordance with this Convention. 4. Access, where granted, shall be on
mutually agreed terms and subject to the provisions of this Article. 5. Access to genetic
resources shall be subject to prior informed consent of the Contracting Party providing such
resources, unless otherwise determined by that Party. 6. Each Contracting Party shall
endeavor to develop and carry out scientific research based on genetic resources provided
by other Contracting Parties with the full participation of, and where possible in, such
Contracting Parties. 7. Each Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or policy
measures, as appropriate, and in accordance with Articles 16 and 19 and, where necessary,
through the financial mechanism established by Articles 20 and 21 with the aim of sharing
in a fair and equitable way the results of research and development and the benefits arising
from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources with the Contracting Party
providing such resources. Such sharing shall be upon mutually agreed terms.
24
Titles are always of importance (relative or fundamental) for interpretation, so keep
them in mind such in case you need to fix the limit of the scope
25
Before this Convention, nature was a mankinds common patrimony, because that it was
understood that it and its compounds (like genetic resources) where in free disposition for
whoever wanted to access them (think that the richest countries in biodiversity assets are
the poorest in others; so, what the richest took from the nature of the poorest became more
wealth for the first ones without any compensation for the second ones, read below The
Committee on GR, TK & Fs starting points)
26
Two points here: one it is never going to be a Party (a State) who ask for access but a
private company or university (so, was it a type mistake or and the unpredictable
development of business?) and second, USA is not Party but most of the accesses has
been asked by American companies (so, they would not have the right to get a facilitate
access or companies do not have nationality (it is a legal doctrine also in some countries)?
23

19
not to impose restrictions that run counter to the objectives27 of the
Convention28
Getting into the access issues For this Convention, the genetic resources are
those ones that are provided by:
1. the countries that are countries of origin 29 of such resources; or,
2. the Parties that have acquired 30the genetic resources in accordance with this
Convention.
What means according to the next requirements
The requirements for this kind of access (in accordance with CBD) are two:
a. subject to prior informed consent [PIC] of the Contracting Party providing
such resources, unless otherwise determined by that Party 31
b. share in a fair and equitable way the results of research and development
and the benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic
resources with the Contracting Party providing such resources. Such sharing
shall be upon mutually agreed terms [MAT]
Traditional knowledge
Besides, the CBD rules in Article 8. Conservation in situ32, section (j) as a
new asset: the traditional knowledge of the local and indigenous communities.
Actually the text imposes to the Parties that, subject to their national legislation:
respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of
indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity 33
27

Article 1. Objectives. The objectives of this Convention, to be pursued in accordance with

its relevant provisions, 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 by appropriate access to genetic resources
and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over
those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.
28
This condition will not apply for indigenous and local communities approval!!, just for
Parties, and they (the Member-Parties) shall, as far as possible and as appropriate promote
their (Traditional Knowledge) wider application with the approval and involvement of the
holders [from Article 8 (j)]. So, the Party shall create the legal conditions, the rules but the
communities may say NO
29
Because that, many people think about a certification of origin (what might be confused
with another issue of the Intellectual Property Right, in accordance with TRIPs or some
Free Trade Agreements; so, I do not advice to keep that denomination for the CBD
certificate)
30
But it never will be a Party but an institution addressed in that Party i.e. think in the Kew
Garden or in any Zoo Did they acquire the genetic resource within the plants/animals they
got? What about the fito/zoo collection scientists like so mucho to share and even to gift
each others, especially when they retire and/or die? Do those acts include the genetically
active properties of those individuals? Another situation could show up if the access is made
through the ex situ collections of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture held by
the International Agricultural Research Centers of the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research administered by F.A.O.
31
So, it is pretty dangerous for a Party that does not rule this Access because could it be
understood that that country gives up its sovereign rights? or that in use of its sovereign
rights decides to leave its resource for free to anybody?
32
Some experts want to include the TK collected in libraries or data bases that is not in
situ but ex situ and scope seems to be ruled differently for genetic resources than for
traditional knowledge
33
To get within the CBD, the knowledge shall be related to biodiversity, if it is not associated
it will not be protected by its statements

6
promote their wider application34 with the approval35 and involvement of
the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and
encourage the equitable36 sharing of the benefits37 arising from the
utilization38 of such knowledge, innovations and practices
[GR & TK are also relevant for Climate Change. So, natural and cultural heritages
are debated at that Forum because their potential positive roles for disaster
reduction as part of sustainable development] 39
F.A.O. Genetic Resources for Food & Agricultural
At present, under the provisions of Article XIV of the FAO Constitution, 16 approved
conventions or agreements are in force 40. Among these, The FAO Conference, at its
Thirty-first Session (November 2001), through Resolution 3/2001, approved the
34

Which means that only the knowledge in commerce would considered under this section.
The sacred, secret knowledge is out of the question, and might be protected by other kind
of treaties such as the UNESCOs treaties: Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions (2005); Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003);
Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001); Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage (1972); Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Cultural Property (1970); Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
(1954).
See
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=34328&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
35
After all these years experts, negotiators and others arrived to the (for me, wrong) point
to consider that it was going to be stronger if it would be understood that approval
include PIC. I will try to explain my point: APPROVAL is a unilateral manifestation of will, and
then it does not endure any other persons action/decision/manifestation/feeling/
whatsoever but PIC is another thing (this concept is not just the result of the simple
addition of the concepts of the three words). PIC is a bioethical concept that was built up
within the doctor-patients relationship it includes a strong presence of the concept of
competence (ability, skills) to understand the matters to structure a vital decision, then if
the person is not considered to have this competence shall be substitute by another one
that represents his/her interests; so, i.e., the isolated indigenous communities (of Brazil or
Peru) will be substitute in their PIC- by the State, in that case it would be necessary to find
out if they (the States) are under the compromising condition to facilitate of Article 15.
Anyway PIC is installed so we have to go on with this concept and build up a new
content/essence for it to do not get invaded by the bioethical one
36
What is EQUITABLE? It is too hard and vane to try to choose a definition, so see by your
own at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory
37
The same with BENEFIT (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benefit). Once, I was talking to
my students about this issue and I asked What a shaman will do with 2 millions dollars in
the middle of the jungle? (to show them the ridiculous it was to share money) and one of
my students replied: He could quit being a shaman and go to live in Miami Beach. After
you stop laughing, just think again it is stupid to think that money is something equitable to
share, which is my point of view; then again it is necessary a lot of creativeness to imagine
benefits to share between the people involved in this kind of deal. Business people do not
have imagination or what is worse they do not have anything else to share but money; sad,
isnt it? And do not think that giving them back their own lands, granting them education
and/or health could be an answer, because beyond their indigenous or local identity they
already have those rights because their citizenships or residencies (at least in Latin
America), so if they already have those rights you cannot pay them back for their TK with
those benefits the floor is open to suggestions
38
ACCESS and USE are not similar. For example, maybe you will need access first to know if
the resource (genetic and/or cultural) is useful for you. So, I propose two instances (if it is
necessary), especially for the certificate expedition. The first one for access will allow just
that and it wont give you rights to build on it any further rights such as IP, commercial
exploitation, etc.; the second one (for industrial/commercial uses) will give full use and
will contain not only PIC but benefic-sharing agreement (whatsoever it is understood by
benefit). Some access will be asked just for academic reasons (i.e. a PhD research) then it
could be difficult to share the benefits coming out of that work
39
World Heritage Decision 31 COM 7.2, 4 and WHC-07/31,COM/7.2 Strategy for Risk
Reduction
at
World
Heritage
Properties
http://whc.unesco.org/download.cfm?

19
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 41;
having reached the required number of instruments in order for the Treaty to enter
in force on the 29th of June 200442
This legally-binding Treaty covers all plant genetic resources relevant for food and
agriculture, it provides in its Article 15 that the Contracting Parties:
(i)

(ii)
(iii)

recognize the importance of the ex situ collections of plant genetic

resources for food and agriculture held by the International Agricultural
Research Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research, and other International Institutions; and
call upon the International Agricultural Research Centers to sign
agreements with the Governing Body of the Treaty with regard to such ex
situ collections. At present, 15 agreements have been signed 43.
also recognizes the contribution that farmers and their communities have
made and continue to make to the conservation and development of
plant genetic resources. This is the basis for Farmers' Rights, which
include the protection of traditional knowledge, and the right to
participate equitably in benefit-sharing and in national decision-making
about plant genetic resources.

id_document=8864
40
Conventions and Agreements concluded under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution:
Agreement for the Establishment of the Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (1948) Constitution
of the International Rice Commission (1948) Agreement for the Establishment of a General
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (1949) Amended text approved by FAO Council
at its 113th Session (November 1997) International Plant Protection Convention (1951)
Constitution of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (1953)
Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific Region (1955) Convention Placing the
International Poplar Commission within the framework of FAO (1959) Agreement for the
Establishment of an FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in South-West Asia
(1963) Agreement for the Establishment of a Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust
in the Central Region (1965) Agreement for the Establishment of a Commission for
Controlling the Desert Locust in North-West Africa (1970) Agreement for the Establishment
of a Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (1973)
Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (1993) Agreement for the Establishment of
the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (1993) Agreement for the Establishment of the Regional
Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI) (1999) Agreement for the Establishment of a Commission
for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Western Region (2000) International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2001)
41
See the text of the Treaty at http://www.fao.org/Legal/treaties/033t-e.htm
42
Member who ratified it so far: (56): Angola Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bhutan
Brazil Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Canada Central African Republic Costa Rica Cte
d'Ivoire Cuba Cyprus Denmark Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Ethiopia Finland Gabon Ghana
Germany Greece Guatemala India Iran, Islamic Republic of Ireland Italy Jordan Lebanon
Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Mali Morocco Namibia Niger Norway Peru Senegal Spain
Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Togo Tunisia Turkey United Kingdom
Uruguay Venezuela Zambia Zimbabwe
43
Agreements concluded under Article 15 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture subscribed in 2006: Tropical Agricultural Research and
Higher Education Center Africa Rice Center |Bioversity International |International Centre for
Tropical Agriculture |International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center |International
Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas |International Crops Research Institute for
the Semi-Arid Tropics |International Institute of Tropical Agriculture |International Livestock
Research Institute |International Potato Center |International Rice Research Institute |
World Agroforestry Centre; and in 2007: International Coconut Genetic Resources Network |
International Coconut Genebank for the South Pacific | Division mixte FAO/AIEA des
techniques nuclaires

6
However, in my opinion this treaty fails somehow to be realistic in terms of the
implementation of its proposed measures related with CBDs statements, for
instance and just as examples:
Inventory and collections: Article 6.2 (b) refers to strengthening research
which enhances and conserves biological diversity by maximizing intra- and
inter-specific variation for the benefit of farmers Before this can happen,
there needs to be greater knowledge of what diversity currently exists and
why farmers may or may not continue to use it, particularly if they have
sustained loss of diversity.
Farmers can only be introduced to Farmer Participatory Breeding (see Article
6.2 (c))44, which has proved so successful in other regions of the world if
knowledge exists about landraces to be utilized.

44

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Article 6
Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources. 6.1 The Contracting Parties shall develop and
maintain appropriate policy and legal measures that promote the sustainable use of plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture. 6.2 The sustainable use of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture may include such measures as: (a) pursuing fair
agricultural policies that promote, as appropriate, the development and maintenance of
diverse farming systems that enhance the sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity
and other natural resources; (b) strengthening research which enhances and conserves
biological diversity by maximizing intra- and inter-specific variation for the benefit of
farmers, especially those who generate and use their own varieties and apply ecological
principles in maintaining soil fertility and in combating diseases, weeds and pests; (c)
promoting, as appropriate, plant breeding efforts which, with the participation of farmers,
particularly in developing countries, strengthen the capacity to develop varieties
particularly adapted to social, economic and ecological conditions, including in marginal
areas; (d) broadening the genetic base of crops and increasing the range of genetic
diversity available to farmers; (e) promoting, as appropriate, the expanded use of local and
locally adapted crops, varieties and underutilized species; (f) supporting, as appropriate, the
wider use of diversity of varieties and species in on-farm management, conservation and
sustainable use of crops and creating strong links to plant breeding and agricultural
development in order to reduce crop vulnerability and genetic erosion, and promote
increased world food production compatible with sustainable development; and (g)
reviewing, and, as appropriate, adjusting breeding strategies and regulations concerning
variety release and seed distribution

19
While agreement of the Parties has been reached over farmers rights 45,
access to PGRFA46 and benefit sharing47, it is apparent that the consequences
of these agreements do not easily filter down to individual farmers [see
below, next paragraphs].
The questions also deal with farmer incentives for keeping and sustainably
using diverse PGRFA. For this question to be addressed with any chance of a
positive outcome for local farmers, a dialogue between scientists and
farmers needs to take place.
The Governing Body adopted, in particular, the Standard Material Transfer
Agreement48, that is the legal instrument by which plant genetic resources for
food and agriculture under the Treatys Multilateral System of Access and
45

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Article 9
Farmers Rights 9.1 The Contracting 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. 9.2 The Contracting 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 Contracting 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; and (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. 9.3 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
46
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Article 12
Facilitated access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture within the Multilateral
System [] 12.3 Such access shall be provided in accordance with the conditions below: (a)
Access shall be provided solely for the purpose of utilization and conservation for research,
breeding and training for food and agriculture, provided that such purpose does not include
chemical, pharmaceutical and/or other non-food/feed industrial uses. In the case of
multiple-use crops (food and non-food), their importance for food security should be the
determinant for their inclusion in the Multilateral System and availability for facilitated
access. (b) Access shall be accorded expeditiously, without the need to track individual
accessions and free of charge, or, when a fee is charged, it shall not exceed the minimal
cost involved; (c) All available passport data and, subject to applicable law, any other
associated available non-confidential descriptive information, shall be made available with
the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture provided; (d) Recipients shall not claim
any intellectual property or other rights that limit the facilitated access to the plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture, or their genetic parts or components, in the form
received from the Multilateral System; (e) Access to plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture under development, including material being developed by farmers, shall be at
the discretion of its developer, during the period of its development; (f) Access to plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture protected by intellectual and other property
rights shall be consistent with relevant international agreements, and with relevant national
laws; (g) Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture accessed under the Multilateral
System and conserved shall continue to be made available to the Multilateral System by the
recipients of those plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, under the terms of this
Treaty; and (h) Without prejudice to the other provisions under this Article, the Contracting
Parties agree that access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture found in in situ
conditions will be provided according to national legislation or, in the absence of such
legislation, in accordance with such standards as may be set by the Governing Body. []
47
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Article 13 Benefit-sharing in the Multilateral System [] 13.2 The Contracting Parties agree that
benefits arising from the use, including commercial, of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture under the Multilateral System shall be shared fairly and equitably through the
following mechanisms: the exchange of information, access to and transfer of technology,

6
Benefit-Sharing can be accessed, and which makes provision for the fair and
equitable sharing of the commercial benefits resulting from the use of such
resources.
The Standard Material Transfer Agreement provides for payment to the
Treatys Funding Strategy of 1.1% of the sales of a commercialized product,
such as a new crop variety, which incorporates material accessed from the
Multilateral System, when there are restrictions such as patent protection,
that result in the product not being freely available to others for research and
breeding.
Users of the Multilateral System can also opt for a crop-based payment
system, whereby they pay at a lower rate (0.5%), on all their commercialized
products of a particular crop, regardless of whether material from the
Multilateral System is incorporated in those products, and whether or not
they are freely available to others for research and breeding.
At its ninth session, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
CGRFA requested that WIPO cooperate with FAO in preparing a study on how
intellectual property rights might affect the availability and use of material from the
International Network and the International Treaty. In response to this request,
WIPO and FAO have cooperated to analyze how IP rights might affect the
availability and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture 49
(i)

(ii)

The first report from WIPO only considered patents, rather than
intellectual property more generally. One initial pathway to gaining
insights on this question was to build up an information base on relevant
patents and patent applications50.
In 2006, WIPO provided a second progress report on the follow-up work
identified in its first findings to the first session of the Governing Body of

capacity-building, and the sharing of the benefits arising from commercialization, taking into
account the priority activity areas in the rolling Global Plan of Action, under the guidance of
the Governing Body: [] (d) Sharing of monetary and other benefits of commercialization:
(i) The Contracting Parties agree, under the Multilateral System, to take measures in order
to achieve commercial benefit-sharing, through the involvement of the private and public
sectors in activities identified under this Article, through partnerships and collaboration,
including with the private sector in developing countries and countries with economies in
transition, in research and technology development; (ii) The Contracting Parties agree that
the standard Material Transfer Agreement referred to in Article 12.4 shall include a
requirement that a recipient who commercializes a product that is a plant genetic resource
for food and agriculture and that incorporates material accessed from the Multilateral
System, shall pay to the mechanism referred to in Article 19.3f, an equitable share of the
benefits arising from the commercialization of that product, except whenever such a
product is available without restriction to others for further research and breeding, in which
case the recipient who commercializes shall be encouraged to make such payment. The
Governing Body shall, at its first meeting, determine the level, form and manner of the
payment, in line with commercial practice. The Governing Body may decide to establish
different levels of payment for various categories of recipients who commercialize such
products; it may also decide on the need to exempt from such payments small farmers in
developing countries and in countries with economies in transition. The Governing Body
may, from time to time, review the levels of payment with a view to achieving fair and
equitable sharing of benefits, and it may also assess, within a period of five years from the
entry into force of this Treaty, whether the mandatory payment requirement in the MTA shall
apply also in cases where such commercialized products are available without restriction to
others for further research and breeding. []
48
See complete text at ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/gb1/SMTAe.pdf
49
CGRFA/MIC-2/04/Inf.5, ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/mic2/m2i5e.pdf
50
The main insight from these preliminary sample searches was to illustrate the choices
involved in developing a search method, and the type of data that might be obtained
through its use

19
the International Treaty51
This Progress Report contained a factual
description of the international patent landscape surrounding gene
promoters relevant to rice52. The Report noted that similar searches
would be conducted for maize, potato and soybean, and would
subsequently be added to the Report.
W.I.P.O. Intellectual Property Rights
The need for international protection of intellectual property became evident when
foreign exhibitors refused to attend the International Exhibition of Inventions in
Vienna in 1873 because they were afraid their ideas would be stolen and exploited
commercially in other countries53. The negotiations that followed determined that in
1883, 14 countries54 gave birth to the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, the first major international treaty designed to help the people
of one country obtain protection in other countries for their intellectual creations in
the form of industrial property rights, known as: inventions (patents) trademarks
industrial designs. In 1886, copyright entered the international arena with the
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 55.
WIPO was established by the WIPO Convention in 1967. In 1974, WIPO became a
specialized agency of the United Nations system, with a mandate to administer
intellectual property matters recognized by the member States of the UN.
Nowadays, WIPO administers 24 treaties.
The rationale of the IP system is quite simple: if something an immaterial thingis useful, it has to have an owner (that person who developed the something)
with property rights to exploit it exclusively and exclude others to do so without
his/her permission and paying him/her for that use. There are several categories
within the IP system for each kind of immaterial, useful something they had
started as exceptions, as sui generis56 rights, and then they consolidated their legal
and economical existence as they got used: innovation, trademark, model of utility,
design and industrial model, software, integrated circuit, new plant varieties, etc.
each category has its own requirements according with the subject each one
protects. These rights are not absolute and endure just for certain amount of time;
also, they are not easy to obtain (the something has to responds to specific
requirements57 and proceedings of evaluation) and each country has its own
51

Progress Report on Work Towards the Assessment of Patent Data Relevant to Agricultural
Biotechnology and the Availability and Use of Material from the International Network of
ex-situ Collections Under the Auspices of FAO and the International Treaty: A Draft Patent
Landscape Surrounding Gene Promoters Relevant to Rice IT/GB-1/06/Inf.17.
52
Rice had been selected by FAO and WIPO for the draft patent landscape because of its
crucial importance for food security. FAO selected gene promoters as an illustrative
technology for the initial set of patent searches and analysis. Gene promoters regulate the
transcription of genetic information from DNA (gene expression), and are therefore key tools
in agricultural biotechnology and in the use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture in research and development
53
An old film A Breath of Scandal (1960) with Maurice Chevalier, Sophia Loren and John
Gavin (it was not a good performance from any of them) placed a romance in the middle of
that historical battle.
54
Belgium, Brazil, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia & United
Kingdom
55
See more about WIPOs history at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/general/
56
Sui generis is a neo-latin expression, literally meaning of its own kind/genus or unique in
its characteristics. The expression was effectively created by scholastic philosophy to
indicate an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept
57
To obtain a Patent the product or process (the something) shall have: novelty non
obviousness industrial application. Apparently quite simple, but For instance, what is
new? something unknown (or unregistered) till the moment the inventor vindicate it?, or
something that did not exist before?... when you have to demonstrate that you invention
is new the difference matters a lot

6
registering, interpretative and enforcement rules here is the main importance of
international treaties: try to put together all those national regulations without hurt
the nationals sovereignties, about this point WTO/TRIPs went further and deeper
than WIPOs treaties58
WIPOs treaties have two characteristics that make them soft:
Parties may declare reserves to some rules of the treaties they sign and
ratify; so, not all their clauses might be binding for every Party in the same
scale.
The WIPOs treaties do not have a Dispute Settlement Body for the
Resolution of Conflicts and Differences. If a Party does not accomplish the
compromises they assumed, the legal proceedings shall take place at the
International Court of Justice of La Hague.
Those characteristics59 finally convinced developed countries to include IP in the
Uruguay Round of the GATT Negotiations 60 and in 1996 WIPO entered into a
cooperation agreement with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
But the challenges for WIPO were far to end At the beginning of the IXX century,
intellectual property issues related to genetic resources, traditional knowledge
and folklore have emerged in a wide range of policy areas, including food and
agriculture, biological diversity and the environment, human rights, cultural policy,
trade and economic development.
Discussions about such uses of genetic
resources, traditional knowledge and folklore have linked the protection of
intellectual property to policy objectives as diverse as the promotion of free trade,
environmental conservation, food security, cultural diversity, etc. These linkages,
established by discussions in other international fora (such as CBD first and right
after in WTO, FAO and others) have significant technical, administrative and policy
implications for the intellectual property system. So, the WIPO General Assembly,
at its Twenty-Sixth Session, held in Geneva from September 26 to October 3, 2000,
established an Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (the Committee).
Three primary themes were identified:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing,

the protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and creativity, and
the protection of expressions of folklore, including handicrafts

As you may notice the scope is much broader since the considered issues which
include not only the TK related to genetic (or biological) resources but all TKs
expressions
The Committee on GR, TK & F
The document prepared by the Secretariat 61 for the first meeting of the Committee
gave certain basis of why the three themes [genetic resources, traditional
knowledge and folklore] should be treated altogether. From the intellectual
property point of view, these themes share according to WIPO- certain common
characteristics62.

58

WIPO had the brain WTO put the muscles!!!

And for some experts there was a third ideological circumstance: since the 60 till the 80,
WIPOs meeting and assemblies were the third position countries -they were called the
Group of the 70s- showed to be a hard floor to deal with, and other scenario was
necessary
60
Where TRIPs is a binding agreement for Members -without any possibility to make
reserves- and it has structured an Dispute Settlement Body, I will come back over this
Agreement, later
61
See document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/3, from where I transcribe the next concepts in the text,
with my comments in footnotes or into brackets.
59

19
I.

The first common characteristic of the three themes before the Committee is
that the concept of common heritage has been applied to genetic
resources63, traditional knowledge64, and folklore65. The intangible elements
of this common heritage were available for use and, from the intellectual
property point of view, were considered to be in the public domain66. The
primary international policy objective was the preservation of the common
heritage. Other creators and innovators could freely utilize elements of this
heritage from the public domain in their creations and innovations, which
might then give rise to intellectual property rights.
In recent years, new technologies and scientific discoveries have
generated unprecedented ways for creators and innovators to utilize
certain elements of this common heritage, and consequently attention
has shifted from the preservation towards the utilization of such
heritage. Certain elements of the common heritage are now seen as
resources (i.e., material of actual or potential value) which are
provided to the innovator or creator, rather than being freely available
to him in the public domain. Hence the public domain [as in free
disposition] status of the material has been called into question.
The equity of intellectual property rights is discussed not only
in the balance between the rights of the creator and society as
the user of his creation, but also in the balance of rights
between the creator and society as the provider of heritage
resources which he utilizes in his creation. This is the case
especially where the provider has conserved the common heritage for
generations under in-situ conditions, i.e. in the surroundings where the
resource developed its distinctive properties. This principle concerning
the equity of intellectual property is now applied in the discussions on
genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore.

II.

62

The second common characteristic of genetic resources, traditional

knowledge and folklore is that they constitute subject matter which
transforms and evolves beyond the logic of individualized human intellectual
activity. Genetic resources complicate the boundaries of human innovation,
because they are self-replicating, living resources. Similarly, the traditions
which underlie traditional knowledge and folklore evolve across individuals

See document WO/GA/26/10, paragraphs 50, 54, 59. See also A Policy and Action
Agenda for the Future. Meeting Statement. WIPO Inter-Regional Meeting on Intellectual
Property and Traditional Knowledge, Chiang Rai, Thailand, November 9 to 11, 2000 (the
Chiang Rai Statement).
63
Genetic resource policy was based on the universally accepted principle that plant
genetic resources are a heritage of mankind and consequently should be available without
restriction (Article 1, International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (1983))
64
For example, [m]ovable cultural property representing the different cultures forms part
of the common heritage of mankind. (Preamble, Recommendation for the Protection of
Movable Cultural Property (1964))
65
For example, folklore forms part of the universal heritage of humanity (Recommendation
on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore (1989), Preamble); folklore
represents an important part of the living cultural heritage of the nation (UNESCO-WIPO
Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore for Illicit
Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions (1982), Preamble)
66
Thats why I rejected to use that concept: if we keep using concepts from the old times of
the IP and scientific freedom to research with any purposes we could never be in condition
to establish an adequate scope to protect economic rights for the TKs holders which allow
some balance between providers and users anyway it is a task within restrictively
economic considerations and I am afraid they would not be enough (or the right ones)
Trying to be clearer: I do not think these economic equations would be enough (or the right
ones) to preserve TK and/or its holders and I do not think those equations would be enough
(or the right ones) to compensate them

6
III.

and generations. In both contexts, human creativity and innovation create

considerable value. However, in both cases the resource reproduces and
transforms itself in a logic that lies beyond, and is independent of, the
individualized creativity and innovation from which existing intellectual
property rights result. Because of this distinctive quality, there have been
discussions under each theme about a possible need to establish new and
specific intellectual property standards, which address their unique nature.
The third common characteristic is that each theme cuts across a spectrum
between formal and informal innovation and creativity. Informal innovators
and creators have raised new claims for intellectual property protection 67.
The cross-cutting nature of the subject matter has increasingly introduced a
new quid-pro-quo68 rationale into the discussion on intellectual property in
these areas. According to this reasoning, the creation of new intellectual
property rights for formal innovations in a certain subject matter is seen as
contingent upon the creation of cognate rights for informal innovations
relating to the same or similar subject matter. An early expression of this
rationale occurred in 1989 in the field of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture, in the form of two simultaneously adopted resolutions, one
recognizing farmers rights and the other recognizing plant breeders rights 69.
Since then, this rationale has been extended to the three themes of genetic
resources, traditional knowledge and folklore in a variety of international fora
and processes70.

Nowadays, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic

Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore -fourteenth Session in Geneva, June
29 to July 3, 200971- has covered three main areas:
67

Informal innovators have been defined as countries, communities and individuals,

generally working at the local level, that have through generations developed and
conserved local technologies and products including plant genetic resources without having
obtained formal recognition of their innovative labor or right related to it.
The
complementary definition of formal innovators includes a reference to intellectual property
rights: each physical or juridical person developing new technologies and products, that
could be a private or a researcher working in formally recognized governmental or nongovernmental institutions whose inventions may be formally recognized through the
intellectual property rights system. See, Article 3, draft FAO International Code of Conduct
on Plant Biotechnology as it affects the Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic
Resources (the FAO Code of Conduct on Plant Biotechnology).
68
A Latin phrase meaning "something for something". This term is typically used in financial
circles to describe a mutual agreement between two parties in which each party provides a
good or service in return for a good or service. Quid pro quo agreements are sometimes
viewed negatively. For example, in a quid pro quo agreement between a large financial
house and a company, the financial house might alter poor stock ratings in exchange for
company business. A positive example of a quid pro quo agreement is a soft money
agreement. In a soft money agreement, one firm A uses another firm Bs research. In
exchange, Firm B executes all of Firm A's trades. This exchange of services is used as
payment in lieu of a traditional, hard money payment
69
See, Resolutions 4/89 and 5/89, adopted by the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO
Conference, Rome, November 11 to 29, 1989, and incorporated into the International
Undertaking as Annexes I and II, respectively.
70
The FAO Code of Conduct on Plant Biotechnology has as one of its objectives to balance
the rights of formal and informal innovators (Article 1.5). The revision of the International
Undertaking recognizes modern intellectual property rights as well as the enormous
contribution which farmers of all regions of the world, particularly those in the centers of
origin and crop diversity, have made and will continue to make for the development of
plant genetic resources (Chairmans Elements Derived from the Monteux Meeting, 19-22
January 1999, element 5).
71
The
pre-documents
coming
out
of
this
meeting
are
on-line
at
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/es/details.jsp?meeting_id=17452 (the conclusions will be online soon, I guess) and also if you want to follow up the whole process since 2001 see
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/es/topic.jsp?group_id=110. In a very brief extraction it could

19
(i) defensive protection of genetic resources;
(ii) IP aspects of access to genetic resources and equitable benefit-sharing
arrangements that govern use of genetic resources;
(iii)disclosure requirements in patent applications for information related to
genetic resources and traditional knowledge used in the claimed invention
and alternative proposals for dealing with the relationship between IP and
genetic resources.
Also the Committee was considering -at this meeting- the protection of traditional
knowledge (TK) through three related and complementary processes:
(i) consideration of an agreed List of Issues concerning the protection of TK;
be told that the objectives and principles built on the Committees work on the elements of
protection of TK that commenced in 2001: (a) Second session (December 2001):
Delegations of the African Group, Venezuela, supported by the Delegations of Brazil,
Ecuador and Egypt, request the preparation of a document with elements for a possible sui
generis system [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, paragraphs 188, 189, 190, 191;
recorded in
Chairmans Conclusions, paragraph 194] (b) Third session (June 2002): the Committee
considered Elements of a Sui Generis System for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge,
which set out eight core elements. [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/8, paragraphs 29 to 57 (V. Elements
of a Sui Generis System for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge)] Based on these
elements, the Delegation of Norway proposed to provide protection for TK using Article
10bis [of the Paris Convention] as a model when considering the framework of a sui generis
system for TK and to have a general international norm that obliged the States to offer
protection against unfair exploitation of TK supplied with internationally agreed
guidelines on how to apply the norm. [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/17, paragraph 227]
The
Committee decided to prepare an amended version of the document taking into
account the suggestion made by the Delegation of Norway [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/17,
paragraph 249, item 3] and to discuss whether it would be possible to provide protection
for TK along similar lines as in article 10bis of the Paris Convention concerning unfair
competition. [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/17, paragraph 249, item 3] The Committee invited written
comments on the contents of sui generis TK systems and, based on the comments,
requested a revised draft text on the core elements of TK protection; [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/17,
paragraph 249, items 2 and 4] (c) Fourth session (December 2002): the Committee
considered a revised version of the core elements [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/8], which incorporated
the Norwegian proposal and the comments and observations of Committee members. It
decided to incorporate the core elements of sui generis systems for TK into a composite
study, aiming for a more concrete analysis of specific options [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15,
paragraph 163(i)]; (d) Fifth session (July 2003):
the Committee conducted a comparative
analysis of ten existing sui generis TK laws, [Including those of the African Union, Brazil,
China, Costa Rica, India, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Thailand and the United States of
America: see WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/6 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/7]. It
also heard a Panel on national experiences with these laws, which became the basis for the
development of the draft objectives and principles; (e) Sixth session (December 2003): the
Committee welcomed an African Group proposal on Objectives, Principles and Elements of
an International Instrument, or Instruments. [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/12] Support was expressed
for ten key principles and objectives of TK protection. [For the ten key principles of TK
protection see WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/4, paragraphs 17 to 28;
and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14,
paragraph 109] The Committee agreed to develop first drafts of an overview of policy
objectives and core principles of TK protection; [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/4, paragraph 104, and
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, paragraph 109] (f) Seventh session (November 2004): the Committee
considered draft objectives and principles on the protection of TK, based on proposals,
discussion
and
documented
approaches
from
the
previous
five
sessions.
[WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/5] (maybe you would like to read the proposals made by Kyrgyz Republic
|Brazil |Ghana |Belize |Colombia |European Community and its Member States |African
Group |Switzerland |United States of America |Australia |Turkey |Japan |Russian Federation |
Peru on behalf of Andean Community |Islamic Republic of Iran, available at
http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/genetic/proposals/index.html) The Committee agreed that the
draft should provide a basis for preparing further drafts of the objectives and principles
[WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/15, paragraph 149] and called for comments on the draft including
specific suggestions for wording within an agreed timeframe, which would provide the

6
(ii) consideration of a draft set of Revised Objectives and Principles for the
Protection of Traditional Knowledge (Objectives and Principles) 72; and
(iii)a draft gap analysis on the protection of TK.
In final words; the recurring issues in this Forum- include the following:
a) nature of the subject matter of TK, and possible descriptions or definitions;
b) criteria for protection of subject matter;
c) identity of owners, bearers or custodians of TK, or other beneficiaries of
protection;
d) nature of protection, including the possible need for formalities and the
possible role of registration and other forms of official notice;
e) scope of rights and exceptions;
f) duration of protection;
g) role of government agencies or other authorities;
h) relationship with conventional IP protection, and international and national
legal measures concerning the recognition of farmers rights and the in-situ
conservation of biodiversity, including the preservation, promotion and
protection of biodiversity-related TK, and legal frameworks regulating access
to genetic resources and benefit-sharing;
i) transitional measures, retroactivity of protection and the role and status of
the public domain;
j) international and regional protection;
k) recognition of foreign right holders and other foreign beneficiaries of
protection.
W.T.O./ T.R.I.P.s Agreement & the Doha Round
The World Trade Organizations was created by the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) of
GATT (General Agreements on Trade and Taxes) and it launched on January 1 st of
1995. WTO is the world multilateral trading system, based on several agreements 73,

basis for the preparation of the next draft. [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/15, paragraph 150] Extensive
comments were provided, [WIPO/ GRTKF/IC/8/INF/4] including specific suggestions for
wording, on the draft Objectives and Principles on the protection of TK and TCEs. As noted,
these comments were integrated into the revised draft provisions for consideration at the
eighth session. (g) Eighth session (June 2005):
after reviewing this revised draft
(WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/5), the Committee concluded that there was broad support for the
process and work it was undertaking on TK [WIPO/ GRTKF/IC/8/15 Prov, paragraph 162] but
noted the diverse views expressed on this issue. [WIPO/ GRTKF/IC/8/15 Prov, paragraph
163] The WIPO General Assembly subsequently agreed in October 2005 to renew the
mandate of the Committee to continue its current mandate for the 2006 2007 biennium.
(h) Ninth session (April 2006): on taking up its renewed mandate, the Committee continued
its review of the draft objectives and principles (reissued unaltered as the annex to
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5), and commissioned a further intersessional commentary process.
72
The draft objectives and principles comprise: (i) policy objectives, which could set
common general directions for protection and provide a consistent policy framework; (ii)
general guiding principles, which could ensure consistency, balance and effectiveness of
substantive principles; and (iii) specific substantive principles, which could define the legal
essence of protection. These principles should be respected to ensure that the specific
substantive provisions concerning protection are equitable, balanced, effective and
consistent, and appropriately promote the objectives of protection: (a) Principle of
responsiveness to the needs and expectations of traditional knowledge holders (b) Principle
of recognition of rights (c) Principle of effectiveness and accessibility of protection (d)
Principle of flexibility and comprehensiveness (e) Principle of equity and benefit sharing (f)
Principle of consistency with existing legal systems governing access to associated genetic
resources (g) Principle of respect for and cooperation with other international and regional
instruments and processes (h) Principle of respect for customary use and transmission of
traditional knowledge (i) Principle of recognition of the specific characteristics of traditional
knowledge (j) Principle of providing assistance to address the needs of traditional
knowledge holders

19
negotiated and signed by a large majority of the worlds trading nations 74, and
ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for
international commerce.
The agreements were negotiated and signed by governments. But their purpose is
to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their
business. Virtually all decisions in the WTO are taken by consensus among all
member countries and they are ratified by members' parliaments. Essentially, the
system:
binds governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to
everybodys benefit.
routes trade friction into the WTO's dispute settlement process where the
focus is on interpreting agreements and commitments, and how to ensure
that countries' trade policies conform to them.
In 2001, the Declaration of the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha 75, Qatar,
provides the mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects which include those
on agriculture and services, which began in early 2000. In Doha, Ministers also
approved a linked decision on implementation problems of the developing
countries. The original mandate has now been refined by work at Cancn in 2003,
Geneva in 2004, and Hong Kong in 200576. The Paragraph 1977 has broadened the
discussion about the PIC&ABS/CBD and TRIPs:
73

The Legal Texts is a daunting list of about 60 agreements, annexes, decisions and
understandings. In fact, the agreements fall into a simple structure with six main parts: an
umbrella agreement (the Agreement Establishing the WTO); agreements for each of the
three broad areas of trade that the WTO covers (goods, services and intellectual property,
the reasons for including an Agreement about IP has been told above in the paragraph
dedicated to W.I.P.O. Intellectual Property Rights); dispute settlement; and reviews of
governments trade policies. The agreements for the two largest areas goods and
services share a common three-part outline, even though the detail is sometimes quite
different. See more at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm1_e.htm
74
Members (153): Albania Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia
Austria Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Benin Bolivia
Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon
Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Congo Costa
Rica Cte d'Ivoire Croatia
Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the
Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador
Estonia European Communities Fiji Finland Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM) France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala
Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland India
Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kenya Korea, Republic of Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lesotho Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao, China
Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova
Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands For the
Kingdom in Europe and for the Netherlands Antilles New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria
Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland
Portugal Qatar Romania Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent & the
Grenadines Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia
Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland
Chinese Taipei Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda
Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Zambia Zimbabwe. And observers (30):
Afghanistan Algeria Andorra Azerbaijan Bahamas Belarus Bhutan Bosnia and Herzegovina
Comoros Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Holy See (Vatican) Iran Iraq Kazakhstan Lao People's
Democratic
Republic Lebanese Republic Liberia, Republic of Libya Montenegro Russian
Federation Samoa Sao Tom and Principe Serbia Seychelles Sudan Tajikistan Uzbekistan
Vanuatu Yemen.
75
See it at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min03_e/min03_e.htm
76
See
brief
summaries
about
these
Declarations
at
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm

6
T.R.I.P.s Council should also look at the relationship between the T.R.I.P.s
Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the protection of
traditional knowledge and folklore (this last issue is not include in CBD since
it is not related to biodiversity, but to WIPOs approach).
T.R.I.P.s Councils work on these topics has to be guided by the T.R.I.P.s
Agreements objectives78 and principles79, and must take development issues
fully into account.
Different views have been expressed about linkages between the issues of
Geographical Indicators extension & Register and T.R.I.P.s/CBD 80 disclosure
(required for patents) and also between these issues and work elsewhere 81.
77

Ministrial Declaration of Doha. Paragraph 19. We instruct the Council for TRIPs, in
pursuing its work program including under the review of Article 27.3(b), the review of the
implementation of the TRIPs Agreement under Article 71.1 and the work foreseen pursuant
to paragraph 12 of this declaration, to examine, inter alia, the relationship between the
TRIPs Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protection of
traditional knowledge and folklore, and other relevant new developments raised by
members pursuant to Article 71.1. In undertaking this work, the TRIPs Council shall be
guided by the objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement
and shall take fully into account the development dimension.
78
TRIPs. Article 7 Objectives. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and
dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of
technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to
a balance of rights and obligations
79
TRIPs. Article 8 Principles. 1. Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and
regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to
promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and
technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions
of this Agreement. 2. Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the
provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property
rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or
adversely affect the international transfer of technology.
80
Draft modalities for TRIPs related issues submitted on 17 th July 2008 by Albania, Brazil,
China, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Communities, Iceland, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz
Republic, Liechtenstein, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan, Peru, Sri
Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the ACP Group and the African Group + Croatia +
Georgia + Moldova. GI-Register: draft Modality text: Members agree to establish a register
open to geographical indications for wines and spirits protected by any of the WTO
Members as per TRIPS. Following receipt of a notification of a geographical indication, the
WTO Secretariat shall register the notified geographical indication on the register. The
elements of the notification will be agreed. Each WTO Member shall provide that domestic
authorities will consult the Register and take its information into account when making
decisions regarding registration and protection of trademarks and geographical indications
in accordance with its domestic procedures. In the framework of these procedures and in
the absence of proof to the contrary in the course of these, the Register shall be considered
as a prima facie evidence that, in that Member, the registered geographical indication
meets the definition of "geographical indication" laid down in TRIPS Article 22.1. In the
framework of these procedures, domestic authorities shall consider assertions on the
generalness exception laid down in TRIPS Article 24.6 only if these are substantiated. Text
based negotiations shall be intensified, in Special Sessions of the TRIPS Council and as an
integral part of the Single Undertaking, to amend the TRIPS Agreement in order to establish
the Register accordingly. TRIPS/CBD disclosure: draft Modality text: Members agree to
amend the TRIPS Agreement to include a mandatory requirement for the disclosure of the
country providing/source of genetic resources, and/or associated traditional knowledge for
which a definition will be agreed, in patent applications. Patent applications will not be
processed without completion of the disclosure requirement. Members agree to
define the nature and extent of a reference to Prior Informed Consent and Access and
Benefit Sharing. Text based negotiations shall be undertaken, in Special Sessions of the
TRIPS Council, and as an integral part of the Single Undertaking, to implement the above.

19
This disclosure -when claiming for a patent- would be a new clause (Article 29
bis) for the TRIPs which would require evidence of the PIC/BS and MAT 82 to
consider any claim of patent on biotechnological inventions 83.
The debate focuses on how the TRIPS Agreement relates to the Convention on
Biological Diversity84. The ideas put forward include:
1. Disclosure as a TRIPS obligation: A group represented by Brazil and
India and including Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Peru, Thailand, and supported by the African group and
some other developing countries, wants to amend the TRIPS
Agreement so that patent applicants are required to disclose the
country of origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge
used in the inventions, evidence that they received prior informed
consent (a term used in the Biological Diversity Convention), and
evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing.
Additional elements contained in members' proposals, such as PIC and ABS as an integral
part of the disclosure requirement and post grant sanctions, may also be raised and shall be
considered in these negotiations. GI-Extension: draft Modality text: Members agree to the
extension of the protection of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to geographical indications
for all products, including the extension of the Register. Text based negotiations shall be
undertaken, in Special Sessions of the TRIPS Council and as an integral part of the Single
Undertaking, to amend the TRIPS Agreement in order to extend the protection of Article 23
of the TRIPS Agreement to geographical indications for all products as well as to apply to
these the exceptions provided in Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement mutatis mutandis.
Special and Differential treatment shall be an integral part of negotiations in the three areas
above, as well as special measures in favor of developing countries and in particular leastdeveloped countries.
81
Geographical indications. Extending the higher level of protection to other
products. The TRIPs Agreement provides a higher level of protection to geographical
indications for wines and spirits. This means they should be protected even if there is
no risk of misleading consumers or unfair competition. However, in some cases,
geographical indications do not have to be protected or the protection can be limited.
Among the exceptions that the agreement allows are: when a name has become the
common (or generic) term (for example, cheddar now refers to a particular type of
cheese not necessarily made in Cheddar, in the UK), and when a term has already been
registered as a trademark. A number of countries want to negotiate extending this higher
level to other products. Others oppose the move, and the debate in the TRIPs Council has
included the question of whether the relevant provisions of the TRIPs Agreement provide a
mandate for extending coverage beyond wines and spirits. The Doha Declaration notes that
the TRIPs Council will handle this under the declarations paragraph 12 (which deals with
implementation issues). Paragraph 12 offers two tracks: (a) where we provide a specific
negotiating mandate in this Declaration, the relevant implementation issues shall be
addressed under that mandate; (b) the other outstanding implementation issues shall be
addressed as a matter of priority by the relevant WTO bodies, which shall report to the
Trade Negotiations Committee [TNC], established under paragraph 46 below, by the end of
2002 for appropriate action. In papers circulated at the Ministerial Conference, member
governments expressed different interpretations of this mandate
82
That evidence should perfectly be satisfied by the CBD Certificate that would be include
in the International Regime to be discussed in the COP10
83
Till now, a States or an indigenous or local community who understand that their rights
under the CBD were violated, shall go to the courts to ask for the revocation of the patent
see the judicial decision at http://www.tk.bioetica.org/biblioteca/neem.pdf -. If the TRIPs is
modified no more patent without the evidence of a regular access according with Articles
15 and 8 (j) of CBD should be attended. Moved the horse before the cart (what I want to
say is put the things in the right place and at the right time!)
84
(a) How to deal with the commercial use of traditional knowledge and genetic material by
those other than the communities or countries where these originate, especially when these
are the subject of patent applications; and, (b) how to ensure that the TRIPS Agreement and
the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) support each other

6
2. Disclosure through WIPO: Switzerland has proposed an amendment to the
regulations of WIPOs Patent Cooperation Treaty (and, by reference, WIPOs
Patent Law Treaty) so that domestic laws may ask inventors to disclose the
source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge when they apply for
patents. Failure to meet the requirement could hold up a patent being
granted or, when done with fraudulent intent, could entail a granted patent
being invalidated.
3. Disclosure, but outside patent law: The EUs position includes a proposal to
examine a requirement that all patent applicants disclose the source or
origin of genetic material, with legal consequences of not meeting this
requirement lying outside the scope of patent law.
4. Use of national legislation, including contracts rather than a disclosure
obligation: The United States has argued that the Convention on Biological
Diversitys objectives on access to genetic resources, and on benefit sharing,
could best be achieved through national legislation and contractual
arrangements based on the legislation, which could include commitments on
disclosing of any commercial application of genetic resources or traditional
knowledge.
For the States supporting the first position of the listed above, the nature of the
legal effect of not providing evidence of prior informed consent and the benefit
sharing according with mutually agreed terms will depend on whether it is at the
pre- or post-grant stage:
Where it is determined that genetic resource and/or traditional knowledge
was used in an invention but no evidence of prior informed consent has been
furnished as required before the examination or grant of a patent, the legal
effect could be that the application would not be processed any further until
the submission of the necessary declaration and evidence.
Where the failure to provide
WTO-Joint
FTA-USA
Megadiver
evidence of prior informed consent Proposal
se
is discovered after the grant of a Argentina
Australia
Australia
patent, the legal effect could Australia
Bahrain
Brazil
include: (1) Revocation of the Canada
Canada
China
patent. In addition to revocation, Chile
Chile
Colombia
criminal
and/or
administrative Costa Rica
Dominican
Costa Rica
Republic
Congo
sanctions may also follow, though Dominican
El
Salvador
Ecuador
outside the patent system, in Republic
Guatemala
India
particular, to ensure adequate Ecuador
Honduras
Indonesia
compensation where it is eventually El Salvador
Israel
Madagasc
determined that no prior informed Guatemala
Jordan
ar
consent was obtained; (2) Criminal Honduras
Mexico
Malaysia
and/or civil sanctions, including the Japan
Morocco
Mexico
of
possibility of punitive damages, Republic
Nicaragua
could follow, again outside the Korea
Singapore
patent
system,
where
it
is Mexico
USA
determined that the patent holder in New Zealand
Nicaragua
fact obtained prior informed consent
Paraguay
but did not provide the evidence in Chinese Taipei
the application.
South Africa

On July 2008, a group of WTO members USA

GRULAC
called for a procedural decision to
negotiate three intellectual property issues
in parallel: two Geographical Indications issues (register and extension) and the
disclosure proposal

19
A large number of Members85 who are proponents of Geographical Indicators
extension and a new T.R.I.P.s disclosure requirement have proposed that
these issues, together with that of the Geographical Indicators register 86,
should be part of the horizontal process in order to have modality texts that
reflect Ministerial agreement on the key parameters for negotiating final
draft legal texts with respect to each of these issues as part of the Single
Undertaking87.
A number of other Members have expressed their strong opposition to this
proposal and their conviction that it would substantially set back efforts to
arrive at a viable way forward for the Doha negotiations. They reject what
they consider to be an artificial parallelism being made in the proposal
between the T.R.I.P.s issues cited, saying that each has its own terms of
reference and subject-matter, many technical issues remain, and the interest
of Members in each varies considerably
At the present, some main issues
Among others also important issues:
What is a genetic resource? The answer will set the matter under the
Convention for ABS/PIC since the States rights under CBD are just over genetic
resources some countries -moved by the interests of researchers and
business88, and also by theirs local rules 89- reject to include/make extensive the
concept to natural and/or biological resources as well. Others want not only
to reach the biological90 resources but also the "concerns", "derived from" and
"developed with"91 those biological resources and/or associated traditional
knowledge.
85

By November 2008, they were already 110 members out of 153 supporting it
Geographical Indicators (GI) register negotiations are not part of the mandate relating
to outstanding implementation issues in paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Ministerial
Declaration and therefore not a subject of this report.
87
TN/C/W/52 19 July 2008 Communication from Albania, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador,
the European Communities, Iceland, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand,
Turkey, the ACP Group and the African Group The following communication is being
circulated at the request of the Delegations of Brazil, the European Communities, India and
Switzerland. Proponents of the TRIPS related issues under the Doha Work Program (GI
Register, TRIPS disclosure requirement and GI Extension) agree to include these issues as
part of the horizontal process in order to have modality texts that reflect Ministerial
agreement on the key parameters for negotiating final draft legal texts with respect to each
of these issues as part of the single undertaking. The central objective of the proponents
remains the adoption of a procedural decision that would open up the way for negotiations
on the three issues
88
In those cases the difference would make it possible to push the feeble line to go beyond
the CBD Convention and to avoid the PIC/ABS requirements even if there would be others
imposed by national laws and what could be more important: if WTO finally adds the
Article 29 bis to TRIPs will take the language and interpretation from CBD imposing the
formal requirement of the certificate in the terms and cases rule by CBD; so, is it going to be
asked when the invention comes out from a biological resource or just from a genetic
resource?
89
For instance, Argentinas Constitution Law recognizes the original domain of its Provinces
over their natural resources so the extension of the concept will put the issue under their
jurisdiction rather than the national
90
The CBD recognizes that "States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources...". Thus, the power enjoyed by the States is not limited to regulation of genetic
resources. Accordingly, the fact that Article 15 of the CBD addresses "access to genetic
resources" should not be interpreted as preventing States from regulating access and
benefit-sharing relating to biological resources. IP/C/W/475. Communication from Brazil to
the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 26 July 2006.
86

6
What relationship has to have the traditional knowledge to be
considered as traditional knowledge related to the biological resource 92
and, then, under the rule of PIC/ABS? The question is if the use the
local/indigenous people give to a biological resource is not the same for what
the resource will be collected, but that use is an indicator of some property that
at the view (or further investigation) of the researcher could be pointing some
other appliance93 shall it be compensated to and approved for ILC [indigenous
and local communities]?
Which is going to be the text of the PIC/ABS Certificate for it be
internationally legally binding? That Certificate shall be the EVIDENCE to
accomplish the requirement asks by several national legislations 94 (and that the
proposed Article 29 bis for TRIPs would extent as a formal requirement- to the
153 Members legislations). It could essentially be the written decision of
a national competent authority granting the providers PIC/ABS were
accomplished according with the national laws; this certificate shall be
internationally binding through the Apostille Convention95 procedure96 or other
to be created under the CBD. Also, how certificates would be applied to genetic
91

These three triggers seek to encompass the relevant situations in which biological
resources and/or associated traditional knowledge contributed to reaching an invention,
while providing a margin of flexibility for the national competent authorities of the country
where the patent is sought to define whether the applicant has effectively complied with
the rule or not. Two of the triggers "concerns" and "derived from" have meanings that
are already known to Members who have used them in their legislation. IP/C/W/475.
Communication from Brazil to the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights 26 July 2006
92
I full agree with what you said about that indigenous and local people get related with the
biological resource and most of the times they even ignore there is a genetic resource
involved!!
93
What is to be understood by the term associated traditional knowledge? The proponents
intend to give its ordinary meaning to the term traditional knowledge (TK). The word
"associated" is prefixed to TK in order to restrict the disclosure to TK that has some
relevance to the biological resources used in developing or concerning the subject matter of
the invention. Therefore, not all forms of traditional knowledge are covered IP/C/W/475.
Communication from Brazil to the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights 26 July 2006
94
Among others: Brazil. Resolution 23 (10/11/2006). The Andean Community Members
(Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia) Decision 456. Denmark. Act 412 (31/5/2000) amending
the Patent Act (consolidated Patent Act 926 22/9 2000). Egypt Law No. 82 on the Protection
of Intellectual Property Rights March 6, 2002. Norway. Patents Act (Act No. 9 of Dec. 15,
1967) as last amended by Act No. 20 of May 7, 2004 Added by Act No. 127 of December 19,
2003. South Africa. The Patents Amendment Act No. 20 of 2005
95
The Apstille Convention. Abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public
documents. The Hague, 5 October 1961 Entry into force: 24-I-1965. Facilitates the
circulation of public documents executed in one State party to the Convention and to be
produced in another State party to the Convention. It does so by replacing the cumbersome
and often costly formalities of a full legalization process with the mere issuance of an
Apostille (also called Apostille Certificate or Certificate). The Hague Apostille Convention
only applies between States parties Members-States (69 so-far): Albania Argentina Australia
Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria China, People's Republic of
Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany
Greece Hungary Iceland India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic of Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Mexico Monaco Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Norway Panama
Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain
Suriname Sweden Switzerland The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Turkey Ukraine
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Venezuela
96
For the legalization of foreign documents and the Apstille Convention Article 2 says
that the legalization produced on the document certify the authenticity of the signature, the
capacity in which the person signing the document has acted and, where appropriate, the
identity of the seal or stamp which it bears

19
resources that are located in ex situ collections or in F.A.O.s International
Agricultural Research Centers of the Consultative Group shall be decided.