The agricultural biotech sector is committed to increasing yields and to the technological development of essential crops — such as soybean, cotton, corn, and canola — that feed us, clothe us, provide energy, and help improve our lives. In order, however, to commit resources to expensive innovation efforts, we need practical, science-based, and transparent rules to be able to assess risk and make the correct business decisions that can benefit all.

Our members believe any discussion of certificates or the disclosure of the source or origin of a genetic resource must address the significant practical complexities of how genetic resources are actually accessed and used. Utilising genetic resources in the field of agricultural biotech is a complex process. At COP-9, we will be premiering our new Plant Breeders Guide that will encourage an understanding of how our industry uses genetic resources. Unfortunately, during these important practical discussions on access, there are often calls to link disclosure of source or origin of a genetic resource to patentability. We maintain that any discussion of patents is the mandate of World Iintellectual Property Organization, not the CBD.

Definitions
The 2010 Biodiversity Target is rapidly approaching and we have reached the point in discussions where defining the terms of an Access Benefit-sharing agreement are critical. Unfortunately, many essential terms remain undefined; among them are international regime and derivatives. We call for substantive discussions regarding the definitions of these terms, and we are ready to provide our expertise and practical knowledge to these discussions. We are co-sponsoring two side-events at COP-9 that will provide insight into overcoming some of these challenges. The first, on 22 May, will focus on sustainable agriculture in conjunction with the IBD. The second, on 28 May, will focus on defining terms of the CBD.

Our members firmly believe that the Convention’s efforts must work in tandem with existing international agreements. Most significantly for us is the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Specifically, its Standard Material Transfer Agreement can be a valuable source to satisfy concerns being raised in CBD discussions and most significantly in the certificates debate.

As the Convention begins to address the more practical challenges of its issues, we all need to focus more on cost-benefit analysis, gap analysis, and the burden of documentation and administrative bureaucracy.

Agricultural biodiversity
We are also concerned with discussions on the agenda about agricultural biodiversity, including the in-depth review of the Programme of Work. We intend to work with the Food and Agriculture Organization and other bodies in clarifying our position as regards agricultural biodiversity.

The plant science industry is committed to playing an important part in the conservation on biodiverse resources. In recognition of the essential links between biodiversity and sustainable food and non-food crop production, we can contribute expertise and experience to these efforts. We aim to improve agricultural productivity, promote a life-cycle approach to our products, integrate biodiversity objectives within research and development programmes and support the further creation of seed bank collections that will ensure biodiversity in the future. With plant biotechnology, losses to destructive insects are reduced by targeting specific pests without harming non-target animals or plants. Farmers growing biotech crops report increased numbers of beneficial insects and associated biodiversity, such as songbird and hawks. What’s more, plant biotechnology and herbicides have supported the widespread adoption of no-till weed control, which helps to conserve soil quality, moisture content and biodiversity.

The current emphasis on approaches that limit access undermine key discussions on important issues in benefit sharing, such as the development of effective national ABS regimes, material transfer agreements, capacity building; and the management of commensurate required resources.

The Bonn Guidelines offered a good roadmap to help develop and maintain national ABS regimes, but we believe the current proposals have strayed from the spirit of these guidelines. The relationship with the national regimes, a founding principle of ABS, should be formalised at the Bonn meeting and in the agreement set to be signed in 2010.

We believe that the involvement of industry at all levels of the negotiations is a crucial component to the creation of a successful international agreement on ABS that safeguards the planet’s biodiversity.

Aaron Smethurst is Intellectual Property Policy Officer and Keith Jones is Stewardship and Sustainable Agriculture Officer, CropLife International (CLI).