WORKSHOP organised by DGXI and the German Federal Ministry of
the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Cordoba, Spain, January 15, 16 1998

Attended on behalf of the WFCC by Barbara Kirsop, Chair WFCC
Biodiversity Committee, with sponsorship by the Workshop
Organisers

A background document had been prepared by 3 authors at Bonn,
Germany, and this was generally accepted by the participants,
with some minor changes. A draft Summary and Recommendations
document was also distributed, but this was considerably
revised following discussions by participants. On the second
day of the workshop the group divided into 'users' and
'providers' and considered the uncertainties of each with
regard to access and benefit sharing (ABS) and recommendations
to COP4 regarding resolving the uncertainties.

The Workshop output will be provided to COP4 for its
consideration (Bratislava, 1998).

BK will find out when the documents can be made publically
available and will ensure that they are transmitted to WFCC as
soon as possible. This may not be until after the Parties to
the Convention have received them.

The WFCC InfoDoc was distributed to all participants and other
WFCC material also.
--------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS

The Workshop participants were from botanical gardens,
universities and industry. The emphasis was on commercial use
because this is where 'access and benefit sharing (ABS)'
issues are most relevant (but see below).

- Microorganisms seemed to be high on the agenda once more.
There was discussion about natural products v combinatorial
chemistry and people generally felt that the natural products
were always likely to be required for industry and certainly,
of course, for other uses (research, education).

- There was some discussion about the ubiquity of
microorganisms, and some misunderstanding. BK was able to
point out the uncertainties of reisolation, the importance of
the strain, the rapid generation times, the loss of some
strains that only occurred in habitats now lost etc etc. Much
of this as written in the WFCC InfoDoc.

- Although much of the workshop emphasis was on the industrial
use of microorganisms, since this is where monetary benefit
sharing is most likely to occur, BK and others emphasised that
there were other 'users' with other 'benefits' to be shared
and the free exchange of research/educational material was
vital to preserve and mechanisms have to be introduced to make
this happen.

This is generally accepted, and one of the Recommendations put
forward was that the different kinds of users be recognised by
PArties to the CBD and their different needs addressed, ie
users are not only commercial, benefits are not only monetary.
It is good that this is being dsicussed.

- Although mostly at such meetings there is discussion about
botanical gardens and not CCs, the term 'ex-situ providers'
was introduced as one that would include microbial resource
centres. Maybe WFCC can begin to use this term in CBD meetings
etc.

- The need to track movement of microbial resources that pass
through the 'intermediaries' (ie ex-situ providers) was raised
by BK as, without this, there is no record of the country of
origin, the collection number, the recipient(s) etc, and
therefore CCs could not comply with the CBD when cultures are
supplied. This mechanism has to be very simple, not an
administrative burden (as we have discussed in WFCC circles).
BK explained how various groups were beginning to consider how
this can best be done (WFCC, MOSAICC, UK CCs etc).

The concept of tracking was strongly opposed by industry. In
the case where a company has an agreement with a single
provider Institute, all parties know exactly where/what was
being transferred and a tracking mechanism is indeed not
required. This is a specific situation. However, industry
seems not to understand that there are also many other
categories of providers/users where movement of resources is
not so defined. For example, the world's CCs are distributing
hundreds of resources daily and this is a quite different
situation and we need to devise mechanisms that suit the needs
and capabilities of the ex-situ providers.

There was concern by industry that Universities may be
'passing on' strains to 3rd parties inadvertantly (or
deliberately). BK felt that a simple tracking mechanism (for
eg a Form that followed the transfer of any resource) could
help this situation also since a resource could not finally be
developed unless the associated Transfer Document was also
available to prove its origins. This clearly needs thinking
through among WFCC and other groups. The CITES system already
uses such a tracking mechanism and it seems that it works
well.

- BK had a good discussion with Professor Zakri, Malaysia, now
Chair SBSTTA. He was interested in the case of microorganisms
and wonders whether he should suggest to SBSTTA the formation
of a Focus Group for microorganisms. BK suggested that this
could be very helpful in resolving the current uncertainties,
finding solutions, developing mechanisms etc.

- There was discussion about the present IPR system, and the
need to develop alternative lower cost systems for DCs. On the
whole it was felt that this complex issue was not appropriate
for discussion by the workshop.

The final Recommendations include a list of uncertainties felt
by users and providers and that need to be addressed by COP4.
Some of these are listed below, in no order of importance:

Users uncertainties included:

need for clear contact points and competant authorities in
countries;

clarity of legal rights over resources;

need for corporate ABS policies;

lack of legal and negotiating experience in provider
countries.
.......


Provider uncertainties included:

need to establish a mechanism to provide evidence of prior
informed consent;

value of resources;

lack of control once resources outside area of providers'
jurisdiction (hence need for tracking system);

need to clarify position regarding non-commercial use;

lack of confidence, especially re IPRs;

lack of negotiating experience and knowledge of market
structure for genetic resources.

Recommendations to COP will ask that some of these
uncertainties are addressed.

SUMMARY

It is good that the situation regarding microorganisms is
better understood now; also the needs of the different user
communities is being recognised (ie research/teaching). It
could be useful if some Parties (Countries) are encouraged to
ask COP that these uncertainties be resolved and maybe WFCC
members can put this forward to their national delegates for
COP4. (It seems that the Philippines well recognises research
needs and the legal departments are using scientists in an
advisory capacity to ensure these needs are not impaired).

The commercial ABS issues seem to be more in perspective now
and expectations not so high. Companies are developing access
policies and trying to find the best regions to collaborate
with (ie those with well defined procedures that are
flexible).

This workshop was encouraging for WFCC in that participants
seem increasingly attuned to microbiological issues; no
measures were discussed that adversely affect our activities
and aims. We need to continue to ensure that the message is
spread to our governments and others at all opportunities.