for ood and a · 2021. 2. 8. · august 2018 cgrfa/eg-migr-1/18/inf.4 commission on genetic...

August 2018 CGRFA/EG-MIGR-1/18/Inf.4

COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES

FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Item 3 of the Provisional Agenda

EXPERT GROUP ON MICRO-ORGANISM AND INVERTEBRATE

GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

First Meeting

Rome, 3–5 October 2018

ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING FOR GENETIC RESOURCES

FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE: SURVEY FINDINGS

Note by the Secretariat

At its Sixteenth Regular Session, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the

Commission) agreed to produce non-prescriptive explanatory notes to complement the ABS Elements.

The explanatory notes aim to describe the distinctive features and specific practices of different

subsectors of GRFA within the context of the ABS Elements. As input for developing the explanatory

notes, the Commission requested the Secretariat to collect survey-based information on:

1. use and exchange practices, relevant voluntary codes of conduct, guidelines and best

practices, and/or standards and community protocols as well as model contractual clauses

on ABS specifically addressing GRFA;

2. how prior informed consent (PIC) or approval and involvement of indigenous and local

communities is obtained under their jurisdictions and on experiences with the

implementation of any relevant ABS measures in the case of GRFA;

3. experiences and views of relevant indigenous and local communities and other

stakeholders regarding how countries can consider approaching PIC or approval and

involvement of indigenous and local communities in the case of GRFA and associated

traditional knowledge;

4. experiences with the use of the ABS Elements; and

5. existing practices in the different subsectors with regard to different uses of GRFA to

which ABS measures apply.

This document reports on the results of two separately conducted surveys, one targeted to all National

Focal Points/Coordinators (NFPs/NCs) of the Commission for the different subsectors to collect

information related to numbers 1, 2 and 4 and the second to all stakeholders of the Commission for the

different subsectors to collect information related to numbers 1, 3 and 5.

The survey was developed over the course of several months with input from multiple experts. It was

carried out by Mr Sélim Louafi, Centre International de recherche agronomique pour le

développement (Cirad), France and Mr Eric Welch, Center for Science, Technology & Environmental

2 CGRFA/EG-MIGR-1/18/Inf.4

Policy Studies, Arizona State University, USA. Survey administration included an advance email

notification, an official invitation and three reminder notices. As part of the administration, the survey

team responded to enquiries from invited participants and assisted with troubleshooting of any

problems. No significant problems were reported during administration.

CGRFA/EG-MIGR-1/18/Inf.4 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5

II. PART 1 STAKEHOLDER AND ILC SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................... 7

2.1 Characteristics of the respondents ............................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 General overview ............................................................................................................ 7

2.1.2 Information, awareness and involvement of stakeholders and ILCs on ABS .................. 8

2.2 Stakeholders’ GRFA exchange and ABS experiences ............................................................ 10

2.2.1 Exchange experience .................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Access process ............................................................................................................. 18

2.2.3 Benefit-sharing ............................................................................................................. 20

2.2.4 Level of satisfaction with ABS ....................................................................................... 24

III. PART 2 NFP SURVEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 26

3.1. Characteristics of respondents ................................................................................................ 26

3.1.1 General overview ......................................................................................................... 26

3.1.2 Information, awareness and involvement of NFPs on ABS ......................................... 26

3.1.3 Level of involvement of GRFA stakeholders as reported by NFPs .............................. 31

3.2 Status of ABS activities for GRFA in countries ..................................................................... 32

3.2.1 Status of ABS implementation ...................................................................................... 32

3.2.2 Level of consideration for GRFA in ABS .................................................................... 34

3.3 Experiences with PIC implementation ................................................................................... 36

3.4 Subsector specificities ............................................................................................................ 38

3.4.1 General considerations ................................................................................................ 38

3.4.2 Subsectors considerations in ABS measures ................................................................ 41

VI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX: GENERAL OVERVIEW OF IPLC RESPONSES ................................................... 44


LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Stakeholder affiliation (%) ...................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Stakeholders most familiar GRFA subsector (% yes) ............................................................ 8

Figure 3: Stakeholder involvement in ABS-related activities ................................................................. 9

Figure 4: Stakeholder involvement in ABS activities (OECD/non-OECD) .......................................... 9

Figure 5: Frequency of domestic and foreign exchange........................................................................ 10

Figure 6: Frequency of domestic exchange by subsectors .................................................................... 11

Figure 7: Frequency of international exchange by subsectors .............................................................. 11

Figure 8: Type of domestic partners for GRFA exchange .................................................................... 12

Figure 9: Type of foreign partners for GRFA exchange ....................................................................... 13

Figure 10: Type of domestic partners (OECD/non-OECD) ................................................................. 13

Figure 11: Type of foreign partners (OECD/non-OECD) .................................................................... 14

Figure 12: Collaboration pattern with domestic and foreign partners ................................................... 14

Figure 13: Collaboration pattern with foreign partners (OECD/non-OECD) ...................................... 15

Figure 14: Collaboration pattern with domestic partners by sectors ..................................................... 15

Figure 15: Collaboration pattern with foreign partners by sectors ........................................................ 15

Figure 16: Stakeholders use of instruments for GRFA exchange ........................................................ 16

Figure 17: Stakeholders’ use of instruments by sectors ........................................................................ 17

Figure 18: Stakeholders’ use of instruments (OECD/non-OECD) ...................................................... 17

Figure 19: Approval process before providing GRFA .......................................................................... 18

Figure 20: Approval process before providing GRFA by sectors. ....................................................... 19

Figure 21: PIC procedures established by stakeholders’ organization .................................................. 20

Figure 22: Type of benefits received .................................................................................................... 21

Figure 23: Type of benefits received by sectors ................................................................................... 21

Figure 24: Type of benefits received (OECD/non-OECD) .................................................................. 22

Figure 25: Type of benefits provided in return for TK associated for GRFA ...................................... 22

Figure 26: Type of benefits provided in return for TK associated for GRFA (OECD/non-OECD) .... 23

Figure 27: Allocation of benefits (OECD/non-OECD) ........................................................................ 23

Figure 28: Allocation of benefits by sectors .......................................................................................... 24

Figure 29: Level of satisfaction with access procedures ....................................................................... 25

Figure 30: level of satisfaction with benefits ........................................................................................ 25

Figure 31: Involvement in ABS-related activities ................................................................................. 27

Figure 32: Involvement in ABS-related activities (by sectors) ............................................................ 28

Figure 33: Involvement in development, revision or implementation of ABS measures...................... 28

Figure 34: Source of information on ABS ............................................................................................ 29

Figure 35: Awareness of FAO’s ABS Elements ................................................................................... 30

Figure 36: Relevance of ABS Elements in guiding policy interactions ................................................ 30

Figure 37: Stakeholder consultations in development, revision or implementation of ABS measures . 31

Figure 38: Level of stakeholder consultation on ABS (% yes) ............................................................ 32

Figure 39: Status of ABS policy process ............................................................................................... 33

Figure 40: Status of ABS policy process in country, OECD/non-OECD ............................................. 33

Figure 41: Existence of ABS subsector-specific measures ................................................................... 34

Figure 42: Consideration of the different purposes of GRFA use in ABS measures ............................ 35

Figure 43: Use of specific instruments for managing ABS for GRFA ................................................. 36

Figure 44: Experience with PIC implementation ................................................................................. 37

Figure 45: PIC approval for GRFA and TK on GRFA held by IPLC ................................................... 37

Figure 46: PIC process for GRFA and TK on GRFA held by IPLC ..................................................... 38

Figure 47: General agree/disagree statements about GRFA by subsector ............................................ 39

Figure 48: General agree/disagree statements about GRFA by subsector ............................................ 40

Figure 49: Agree/disagree statements about use and exchange of GRFA by subsector ....................... 40

Figure 50: GRFA considerations in ABS policy process (by subsectors) ........................................... 41


LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Stakeholder exchange of GRFA ............................................................................................... 8

Table 2: Percent who never negotiate terms of access and benefit-sharing, by subsector .................... 19

Table 3: PIC procedures established by stakeholders’ organization (OECD/non-OECD) .................. 20

Table 4: Percent responses by type of NFP/NC ................................................................................... 26

Table 5: How involved are you or have you been in the development, revision or

implementation of ABS measures in your country? (Scale: not involved (1), slightly

involved (2), moderately involved (3), involved (4), very involved (5)) ..................................... 27


I. INTRODUCTION

At its Sixteenth Regular Session, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the

Commission) agreed to produce non-prescriptive explanatory notes to complement the ABS Elements.

The explanatory notes aim to describe the distinctive features and specific practices of different

subsectors of GRFA within the context of the ABS Elements. As input for developing the explanatory

notes, the Commission requested the Secretariat to collect survey-based information on:

6. use and exchange practices, relevant voluntary codes of conduct, guidelines and best

practices, and/or standards and community protocols as well as model contractual clauses

on ABS specifically addressing GRFA;

7. how prior informed consent (PIC) or approval and involvement of indigenous and local

communities is obtained under their jurisdictions and on experiences with the

implementation of any relevant ABS measures in the case of GRFA;

8. experiences and views of relevant indigenous and local communities and other

stakeholders regarding how countries can consider approaching PIC or approval and

involvement of indigenous and local communities in the case of GRFA and associated

traditional knowledge;

9. experiences with the use of the ABS Elements; and

10. existing practices in the different subsectors with regard to different uses of GRFA to

which ABS measures apply.

This document reports on the results of two separately conducted surveys, one targeted to all National

Focal Points/Coordinators (NFPs/NCs) of the Commission for the different subsectors to collect

information related to numbers 1, 2 and 4 and the second to all stakeholders of the Commission for the

different subsectors to collect information related to numbers 1, 3 and 5

NFP/NC Survey

The first NFP survey was implemented electronically between 2 and 28 December 2017. Given the

information requested, it was determined that the NFPs and NCs for the different subsectors of GRFA,

biodiversity and the Commission constituted a set of individuals with significant expertise and access

to current in-country information. Therefore, the sample frame consists of all known NFPs for plant,

forest and aquatic genetic resources, the NCs for animal genetic resources, and the NFPs for

biodiversity for food and agriculture and the Commission. Contact information for all NFPs/NCs was

obtained from the Commission and was updated by official enquiry by the Commission to the member

countries. The final list of NFPs/NCs consisted of 624 individuals from 189 countries. (Note: not all

countries have designated individuals for all NFP/NC positions and some individuals serve in multiple

capacities.)

The survey was developed over the course of several months with input from multiple experts,

including the Commission Secretariat. The survey was administered online during December 2017.

Administration included an advance email notification, an official invitation and three reminder

notices. As part of the administration, the survey team responded to enquiries from invited

participants and assisted with troubleshooting of any problems. No significant problems were reported

during administration.

In total, 280 individuals from 136 countries responded to the survey, resulting in an individual

response rate of approximately 45 percent.

Stakeholders Survey

The second survey was implemented electronically between 4 and 27 April 2018. The list of

stakeholders and indigenous people and local communities for the different subsectors of GRFA was


developed based on a specific request in the NFP survey to name two or more experts for each of the

six subsectors (animals, plants, aquatics, forest, microbes and insects). For the indigenous people and

local communities (IPLC) group, additional names were extracted from the list of observers in

selected and relevant international forums (the Commission, International Treaty on Plant genetic

Resources for Food and Agriculture [ITPGRFA], WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on

Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore , Convention on

Biological Diversity [CBD]). The final list of stakeholders and indigenous people and local

communities consisted of 517 individuals from 90 countries and global indigenous people’s

organizations.

The survey was developed over the course of several months with input from multiple experts,

including the Commission Secretariat. The survey was administered online during April 2018.

Administration included an advance email notification, an official invitation and two reminder notices.

As part of the administration, the survey team responded to enquiries from invited participants and

assisted with troubleshooting of any problems. No significant problems were reported during

administration.

In total, 146 stakeholder individuals from 69 countries responded to the survey, resulting in an

individual response rate of approximately 28.2 percent. As for IPLC, only 11 individuals (out of 100

names collected) responded. This low response rate means that the sample is not sufficiently

representative of the population of ILC actors. As a result these data are not reported in the body of

this report. Instead, an appendix provides a general overview of the 11 responses.

The surveys were conducted in close collaboration with Mr Selim Louafi, Senior Research Fellow,

Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (Cirad),

France, and Mr Eric Welch, Professor and Director of the Center for Science, Technology &

Environmental Policy Studies, Arizona State University (ASU), United States of America.

This report is divided into two main parts: stakeholder and ILC survey findings, and NFP/NC survey

findings. The first part includes two sections: (1) characteristic of the sample, in particular the

individual experience of respondents with ABS; (2) GRFA exchange experiences. The second part

includes four sections: (1) characteristic of the sample, in particular the individual experience of

respondents with ABS; (2) status of ABS activities for GRFA in countries; (3) country experiences

with PIC implementation; and (4) subsector perspectives. A conclusion to the study is presented after

the findings.


II. PART 1 STAKEHOLDER AND ILC SURVEY FINDINGS

2.1 Characteristics of the respondents

2.1.1 General overview

The survey captured a wide range of type of stakeholders, the highest percentage of which are public

research organizations (39.7 percent, Figure 1: Stakeholder affiliation (%)Figure 1). Only 13

respondents (9 percent) are ILC organizations. Almost 72 percent of respondents are from non-

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) countries, while about half of all

respondents spend more than 20 percent of their work time on GRFA issues.

When asked to select their most knowledgeable sector, most respondents selected the plant subsector

(50.4 percent), followed by the animal subsector (Figure 2).

Plant, and then technical knowledge (TK) associated with GRFA, animal and forest, are the most

commonly exchanged GRFA. More than one-third of stakeholder respondents (37 percent) use or

exchange multiple GRFA for research and development (Table 1). Although other subsectors, such as

invertebrates, micro-organisms and TK, could be exchanged on their own, they are most often

associated to plant or animal in our respondents’ population. There is consequently limited

representation from invertebrates and micro-organisms. This indicates that consideration of subsectors

as independent does not reflect reality; many respondents are active in multiple subsectors.

Figure 1: Stakeholder affiliation (%)

39.7

11.0

4.8

5.5

8.9

8.2

6.2

4.8

11.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Public research organization

Private company

Ex situ (genebank) collection

Farm or Farmer/Fisher/Livestock keeper/Forester organization

Indigenous people and local community organization

NGO

Professional association

University

Other


Figure 2: Stakeholders most familiar GRFA Subsector (% yes)

Table 1: Stakeholder exchange of GRFA

Current stakeholders and IPLC Percent respondents

Animal GRFA 29.5

Plant GRFA 45.9

Aquatic GRFA 15.1

Forest GRFA 24.7

Micro-organism GRFA 9.6

Invertebrate GRFA 2.7

TK associated with any above 30.1

None of above 13.0

2.1.2 Information, awareness and involvement of stakeholders and ILCs on ABS

To understand the involvement of stakeholders and ILCs in ABS issues in their countries, the survey

asked respondents to indicate if they had undertaken a range of different types of associated activities.

Figure 3 shows that the respondent sample comprises a range of different experiences with ABS. One-

third of forest GR stakeholders are involved in R&D projects that exchange GRFA. On average across

subsectors, less than one-fifth of respondents are embedded in policy activities (consultations and

advice to policy-makers). Most respondents have very little direct experience with material transfer

agreements (MTAs), though experience with MTAs is greater in the plant subsector.

There seems to be no significant differences between OECD and non-OECD countries (Figure 4),

except for participation in international negotiations, where OECD countries report higher levels, and

participation in R&D projects, where non-OECD countries report higher levels.

24.8

50.4

8.8

12.8

1.6

1.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Animal GRFA

Plant GRFA

Aquatic GRFA

Forest GRFA

Micro-organism GRFA

Invertebrate GRFA


Figure 3: Stakeholder involvement in ABS-related activities

Figure 4: Stakeholder involvement in ABS activities (OECD/non-OECD)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Participated in theABS consultation

process in mycountry

Advised policymakers on ABS

issues

Advised otherstakeholders on

ABS about sendingGRFA to other

countries

Signed a materialtransfer

agreement (MTA)

Participated inR&D project thatexchanged GRFA

and/or associatedTK with other

countries

Participated in anexpert meeting on

ABS

Which of the following ABS-related activities have you performed? (% Yes)

Animal GRFA Plant GRFA Aquatic GRFA Forest GRFA

15.0

13.1

7.5

9.3

1.9

8.4

13.1

12.1

7.5

12.1

17.3

11.7

10.8

10.8

2.6

5.6

9.5

16.0

2.6

13.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Participated in the ABS consultation process in mycountry

Advised policy makers on ABS issues

Advised other stakeholders on ABS about sending GRFAto other countries

Advised other stakeholders on ABS about receiving GRFAfrom other countries

Signed a prior informed consent (PIC)

Negotiated mutually agreed terms (MAT)

Signed a material transfer agreement (MTA)

Participated in R&D project that exchanged GRFA and/orassociated TK with other countries

Participated in international negotiations on ABS

Participated in an expert meeting on ABS

Which of the following ABS-related activities have you performed? (% yes)

OECD Non-OECD


2.2 Stakeholders’ GRFA exchange and ABS experiences

To understand existing practices in the different subsectors with regard to different uses of GRFA to

which ABS measures apply, the survey asked respondents to indicate their experience with material

they sent to and/or received from people and organizations (both domestic and foreign) during the last

two years.

2.2.1 Exchange experience

Frequency of exchange

Respondents are more likely to report that infrequent exchanges (once or twice a year) are with foreign

rather than domestic entities, while the reverse is true for more frequent exchanges. More people

report never exchanging internationally than domestically.

Figure 5: Frequency of domestic and foreign exchange

There are no major differences in the pattern between OECD and non-OECD countries. Both groups

report that around one-fourth of domestic exchanges occur on a regular basis (more than once a

month) as compared with 10 percent of foreign exchanges that are regular.

20.026.4

32.0

21.6

35.539.5

15.39.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

Never Once or twice a year Three or four times ayear

More than once a month

During the past two years, how often have you exchanged GRFA within and outside your country? (%)

Domestic Foreign


Figure 6: Frequency of domestic exchange by subsectors

Figure 7: Frequency of international exchange by subsectors

Forest and plant subsectors report more domestic exchanges (Figure 6) while plant and aquatic

subsectors exchange more frequently with foreign entities (Figure 7). The animal and forest sectors are

the two sectors that report least foreign exchanges (Figure 7).

Type of partners

Results of domestic exchange experience according to type of partners show that the animal sector has

fewer public sector partners. Along with the aquatic sector, the animal sector is heavily involved in

exchanges with farmers’ communities or organizations (Figure 8).

An important proportion of exchange of forest genetic resources is with private companies, possibly

for direct use through plantations.

Exchange with ex situ collections is important mainly for plant and completely absent for forest.

13.3

12.3

18.2

23.1

36.7

26.3

36.4

7.7

20.0

43.9

9.1

53.8

30.0

17.5

36.4

15.4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Animal GRFA

Plant GRFA

Aquatic GRFA

Forest GRFA

During the past two years, how often have you exchanged GRFA within your country? (%)

Never Once or twice a year Three or four times a year More than once a month

43.3

28.1

18.2

38.5

40.0

42.1

54.5

38.5

13.3

19.3

23.1

3.3

10.5

27.3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Animal GRFA

Plant GRFA

Aquatic GRFA

Forest GRFA

During the past two years, how often have you exchanged GRFA outside your country? (%)

Never Once or twice a year Three or four times a year More than once a month


Figure 8: Type of domestic partners for GRFA exchange

Patterns of exchange differ quite substantially between domestic and foreign partners. Foreign

exchanges are mainly with public research organizations. This pattern is similar across subsectors.

Domestic and foreign exchange with private companies is the most prominent for animal and forest

genetic resources. Animal and aquatic domestic and foreign exchange is higher with farmers’

organizations or communities than it is with plants and forest. This pattern is especially evident for

domestic exchange.

Finally, almost 15 percent of forest genetic resources international exchanges take place with ex situ

collections whereas such exchanges do not exist for aquatic and animal.

19.2

11.5

9.6

42.3

13.5

31.2

16.5

14.7

18.3

12.8

31.3

6.3

6.3

37.5

18.8

38.1

23.8

0.0

23.8

14.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Public researchorganization

Private companies

Ex situ (genebank)collections

Farm orFarmer/Fisher/Liv

estock…

Indigenous peopleand local

community…

During the last two years, with which of the following domestic partners have you exchanged GRFA? (%)



Figure 9: Type of foreign partners for GRFA exchange

Comparison between OECD and non-OECD countries display interesting differences. For example, at

the domestic level, there is more exchange reported by non-OECD countries with local communities

and farmers’ organization and by OECD countries with genebanks and private companies (Error! Not

a valid bookmark self-reference.). At the international level, more exchange is reported by non-

OECD countries with public research organizations and by OECD countries with genebanks and

private companies (Figure 11).

Figure 10: Type of domestic partners (OECD/non-OECD)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Private companies

Ex situ (genebank) collections

Farm or Farmer/Fisher/Livestock keeper/Foresterorganization


During the last two years, with which of the following foreign partners have you exchanged GRFA? (%)


30.4

23.2

16.1

23.2

3.6

3.6

28.2

11.4

9.4

28.2

18.1

4.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


Private companies


Farm or Farmer/Fisher/Livestock keeper/Forester organization


Other

During the last two years, with which of the following domestic partners have you exchanged GRFA? (%)

OECD Non-OECD


Figure 11: Type of foreign partners (OECD/non-OECD)

Collaboration patterns

To understand the collaboration patterns, the survey asked respondents to indicate if their exchanges

were generally embedded within a larger collaborative relationship or agreement. The results show

that it is most often the case that respondents exchange as part of a collaborative relationship. This is

true for domestic and foreign, country grouping (OECD/non-OECD) and all subsectors (see Error!

Not a valid bookmark self-reference. to Figure 15).

Figure 12: Collaboration pattern with domestic and foreign partners

38.9

22.2

19.4

13.9

2.8

2.8

50.0

14.6

14.6

9.8

4.9

6.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


Private companies


Farm or Farmer/Fisher/Livestock keeper/Foresterorganization


Other

During the last two years, with which of the following foreign partners have you exchanged GRFA? (%)

OECD Non-OECD

63.1

19.4

12.6

4.9

65.1

18.1

9.6 7.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes, in most cases Sometimes Rarely Don't know

Are the exchanges with dometic/foreign partners part of an ongoing collaborative relationship or agreement with you? (%)

Domestic Foreign


Figure 13: Collaboration pattern with foreign partners (OECD/non-OECD)

Figure 14: Collaboration pattern with domestic partners by sectors

Figure 15: Collaboration pattern with foreign partners by sectors

52.6

10.5

26.3

10.5

67.2

22.4

5.2 5.2

0

20

40

60

80


Are the exchanges with foreign partners part of an ongoing collaborative relationship or agreement with

you? (%)

OECD Non-OECD

61.5

61.2

66.7

60.0

26.9

14.3

22.2

30.0

7.7

16.3

11.1

10.0

3.8

8.2

Animal GRFA

Plant GRFA

Aquatic GRFA

Forest GRFA

Are the exchanges with dometic partners part of an ongoing collaborative relationship or agreement with

you? (%)


58.8

68.3

66.7

50.0

29.4

12.2

11.1

37.5

11.8

9.8

22.2

9.8

12.5

Animal GRFA

Plant GRFA

Aquatic GRFA

Forest GRFA

Are the exchanges with foreign partners part of an ongoing collaborative relationship or agreement with

you? (%)



Instruments for exchange

The survey asked respondents about the instruments being used to help them exchange GRFA.

Findings show that there is a variety of instruments being used (Figure 16). Several respondents also

reported using multiple instruments.

Figure 16: Stakeholders use of instruments for GRFA exchange

Findings by subsector indicate that, as expected, the plant sector relies heavily on the standard material

transfer agreement (SMTA) while all other sectors are much more dependent on guidelines, best

practices and, to a lesser extent (except for aquatic), codes of conducts (Figure 17). The proportion of

stakeholders who make use of any instrument is very high in the forest, animal and aquatic sectors.

This seems to indicate that many exchanges in non-plant subsectors still remain ad hoc or informal in

nature.

Community protocols seem to be more developed in the animal sector than in the other sectors (though

their use still remains quite limited, around 10 percent). Aquatic stakeholders reported the use of

standard PIC but again only for a small proportion of users (12 percent).

26.7

8.2

15.1

11.0

6.8

8.2

6.2

6.2

26.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA)

Voluntary codes of conduct for ABS

Guidelines for ABS

Best practices for ABS

Standards PIC

Community protocols

Model contractual clauses on ABS specifically…

Other

None of above

When providing or receiving GRFA, have you ever made use of any of the following? (%)


Figure 17: Stakeholders’ use of instruments by sectors

Comparison across countries shows that guidelines and best practices seem to be quite developed in

OECD countries whereas ad hoc or informal exchanges are more common in non-OECD countries

(Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.).

Figure 18: Stakeholders’ use of instruments (OECD/non-OECD)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

StandardMaterialTransfer

Agreement(SMTA)

Voluntarycodes of

conduct forABS

Guidelinesfor ABS

Bestpractices for

ABS

StandardsPIC

Communityprotocols

Modelcontractualclauses on

ABSspecificallyaddressing

GRFA

Other None ofabove

When providing or receiving GRFA, have you ever made use of any of the following? (%)


21.7

4.3

17.4

15.2

4.3

8.7

4.3

8.7

15.2

24.0

8.3

11.6

7.4

6.6

6.6

5.8

4.1

25.6

0 10 20 30

Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA)

Voluntary codes of conduct for ABS

Guidelines for ABS

Best practices for ABS

Standards PIC

Community protocols

Model contractual clauses on ABS specifically addressing GRFA

Other

None of above

Stakeholders' use of instruments by countries

OECD Non-OECD


2.2.2 Access process

2.2.2.1 Approval procedures

The survey asked respondents about their access procedures. Error! Not a valid bookmark self-

reference. shows that almost all respondents need approval from other individuals before providing

GRFA to others (only three individuals reported that they do not need the approval of anyone). This

confirms that very few respondents have full control on the material they hold. The majority needs

approval of the head of their organization. Other groups often consulted for approval are

representatives of the central government, genebank managers, public research organizations and other

members of the respondent’s organization.

Differences by subsectors confirm the importance of genebanks in the approval process for plants

(Figure 20). Farmers’ organizations and local communities are more often consulted for animal GR

access; to a lesser extent this is also true for aquatic GR access. Notably, local government

representatives are more important for animal and forest access than for plant or aquatic access.

Finally, public research organizations are less important for the animal sector.

Figure 19: Approval process before providing GRFA

47.6

61.7

28.2

27.5

53.0

38.5

13.7

51.2

48.1

20.3

16.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

The members of your organization

Only the leader of your organization

Representatives of the local government(s)

Representatives of the regional (or state) government(s)

Representatives of the central (or federal) government

Farmer/Fisher/Livestock keeper/Forester organizations

Other civil society organizations

Gene banks & collections’ manager

Public research institutions and universities

Private-sector entities

Other

Before providing GRFA to others (individuals or organizations), which of the following must first give approval? (%)


Figure 20: Approval process before providing GRFA by sectors

Findings also show that one-fifth to one-third of respondents never negotiate directly the terms and

conditions of access and benefit-sharing. This means conversely that almost 70 percent are involved at

some point.

Findings by subsector show substantial differences (Table 2): the proportion of respondents never

involved in negotiating is substantially higher for plant and forest subsectors than for aquatic and

above all animal subsectors.

Table 2: Percent who never negotiate terms of access and benefit-sharing, by subsector

Animal GRFA Plant GRFA

Aquatic

GRFA Forest GRFA

Never

negotiate 10.7 38.9 18.2 30.8

2.2.2.2. Experience with PIC

Only a small proportion of stakeholders in OECD countries and a little more than one-third in non-

OECD countries indicated that they had established PIC procedures (Table 3). This instrument seems

more developed in the aquatic subsector, followed by the plant and animal subsectors. It is almost

absent in the forest subsector.

0

5

10

15

20

Before providing GRFA to others (individuals or organizations), which of the following must first give approval? (%)



Figure 21: PIC procedures established by stakeholders’ organization

Table 3: PIC procedures established by stakeholders’ organization (OECD/non-OECD)

OECD Non-OECD

Yes 14.3 37.8

No 71.4 47.6

I don’t know 14.3 14.6

2.2.3 Benefit-sharing

The survey asked respondents about their benefit-sharing practices. Findings show that, generally

speaking, monetary benefits are not often provided in exchange for GRFA. Flowback of information

from work done on the material received is the most typical type of benefit received (Error! Not a

valid bookmark self-reference.).

Plant subsector respondents reported very few monetary returns, whereas monetary returns are of

greater importance in the animal subsector (Figure 23). Flowback of information is more important in

plant and forest sectors and technology transfer is more important in the aquatic subsector. Capacity

building is particularly important in the plant subsector, but has little importance in the forest

subsector.

31.8

53.6

14.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No I don't know

Have you or your organization established PIC procedures for providing GRFA? (%)


Figure 22: Type of benefits received

Figure 23: Type of benefits received by sectors

Comparison between types of countries shows significant differences in practices (Figure 24).

Feedback information is provided more often to OECD countries, while capacity building and

technology transfer are more often provided to non-OECD countries.

43.6

68.0

38.9

16.7

13.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Capacity building/training activities

Information from work or research done on thematerial received

Transfer of or access to technology

Monetary amount

Other

Have you received one or more of the following in return for providing GRFA? (% yes)

22.7

36.4

20.5

15.9

30.1

45.2

21.9

2.7

20.0

35.0

30.0

10.0

11.8

52.9

23.5

11.8

0 10 20 30 40 50


Information from work or research done on the materialreceived


Monetary amount

Have you received one or more of the following in return for providing GRFA? (%)



Figure 24: Type of benefits received (OECD/non-OECD)

Benefits provided by stakeholders in return for using TK are mainly provided as capacity building,

feedback information and transfer of technology (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.).

Comparison between countries shows that users from OECD countries favour flowback of information

and monetary payments whereas non-OECD stakeholders favour capacity building and technology

transfer (Figure 26).

Figure 25: Type of benefits provided in return for TK associated for GRFA

6.9

55.2

17.2

17.2

3.4

37.6

19.8

31.7

7.9

3.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0


Information from work or research done on thematerial received


Monetary amount

Other

Have you received one or more of the following in return for providing GRFA? (% yes)

Yes: OECD Yes: NonOECD

64.3

64.5

59.3

15.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Information from work or research done on the TKreceived


Monetary amount

Other

Have you provided one or more of the following in return for TK associated with genetic resources that was held by an ILC? (% yes)


Figure 26: Type of benefits provided in return for TK associated for GRFA (OECD/non-OECD)

Finally, the survey asked respondents to specify which groups are entitled to receive benefits

according to their ABS agreements. Findings show that benefits are distributed to different ranges of

individuals but also, to a lesser extent, to some sector-level, country or global pools (Error! Not a

valid bookmark self-reference.). Comparison across subsectors indicates that only plant and forest

subsectors make use of a global multilateral fund (presumably the one of the ITPGRFA) and that

forest and animal subsectors are more inclined to redistribute to individual providers of the material

(Figure 28). The aquatic sector stakeholders report more use of country-level funds. Finally,

comparison across country type indicates that non-OECD countries give less importance to the

individual provider than to governmental-level benefits or country-level funds.

Figure 27: Allocation of benefits (OECD/non-OECD)

16.7

50.0

16.7

16.7

32.7

32.7

28.8

5.8

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0


Information from work or research done on the TKreceived


Monetary amount

Other

Have you provided one or more of the following in return for TK associated with genetic resources that was held by an ILC? (% yes,

N=31)

Yes: OECD Yes: NonOECD

36.4

21.218.2

3.0 3.0

18.2

24.8

16.8

32.7

8.912.9

4.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

The individualwho providedthe GRFA or

associated TK

The IPLC whichprovided the

GRFA orassociated TK

The governmentof the provider

country

Subsector-levelcollections (or

pools) ofbenefits for

redistribution

Country-levelfund

Globalmultilateral fund

For the ABS agreements you have or your organization has established, who is entitled to receive the benefits from research

and innovation? (%)

OECD Non-OECD


Figure 28: Allocation of benefits by sectors

2.2.4 Level of satisfaction with ABS

The survey asked respondent stakeholders about their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ABS.

The level of dissatisfaction is the highest concerning the time required to obtain GRFA but, overall,

dissatisfaction is expressed for only about one-fourth of respondents for all access procedures (Figure

29). The majority of respondents do not have strong opinions. The same pattern was found for the

level of satisfaction with benefit-sharing (Figure 30).

35.5

16.1

25.8

9.712.9

22.119.1

29.4

8.87.4

13.2

20.0

6.7

40.0

6.7

26.7

40.0

20.0

33.3

6.7

0

10

20

30

40

The individualwho providedthe GRFA or

associated TK

The IPLC whichprovided the

GRFA orassociated TK

Thegovernment of

the providercountry

Subsector-levelcollections (or

pools) ofbenefits for

redistribution

Country-levelfund

Globalmultilateral

fund

For the ABS agreements you have or your organization has established, who is entitled to receive the benefits from research and innovation?

(%)



Figure 29: Level of satisfaction with access procedures

Figure 30: level of satisfaction with benefits

21.926.8

21.6

14.3

41.739.2

44.3

71.4

36.534.0 34.0

14.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Process to obtain priorinformed consent

Time required to obtainGRFA/associated TK

Conditions for access toGRFA/associated TK

Other

When obtaining GRFA and/or associated TK from others, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you usually with the following? (%)

Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Very satisfied/Satisfied

19.824.5 23.8

21.4

42.6 42.2 42.6

71.4

37.633.3 33.7

7.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Getting adequate return Ability to monitor use ofGRFA provided

Information received onresults derived from

research using the GRFAprovided

Other

When providing GRFA, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you usually with the following? (%)

Very dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Very satisfied


III.PART 2 NFP SURVEY FINDINGS

3.1. Characteristics of respondents

3.1.1 General overview

Most NFPs respondents identify as either plant genetic resource NFPs or animal genetic resource NCs

because they are more represented in the sample frame. Almost one-fourth of the respondents (22.1

percent) identified more than one subsector for which they serve as NFP/NC. The average years

served as a NFP or NC is just over six years.

Table 4. Percent responses by type of NFP/NC

Current NFP/NC Percent

Respondents

NFP Commission 20.7

NC AnGR 26.8

NFP PGR 27.1

NFP AqGR 8.6

NFP FoGR 12.1

NFP Biodiversity 16.8

None of the above 10.0

3.1.2 Information, awareness and involvement of NFPs on ABS

To understand the involvement of NFPs/NCs in ABS issues in their countries, the survey asked

respondents to indicate if they had undertaken a range of different types of associated activities. Figure

31 shows that a majority of NFP/NC respondents are involved in ABS consultation and policy advice,

while just under half have advised others on sending or receiving GRFA internationally.

Approximately 40 percent are or have been involved in international R&D in which GRFA are

exchanged. This confirms that NFPs/NCs in the food and agriculture sector are not limited to

administrative functions but are often directly involved in GR use and exchange. This dual function is

definitely an asset upon which the agriculture sector could build to design efficient and operational

ABS rules.


Figure 31: NFP/NC involvement in ABS-related activities

There are substantial differences among subsectors with regard to their level of involvement in ABS-

related activities (Figure 32). The plant sector is much more involved than the other subsectors. The

forest sector is also quite involved in policy-related activities at national level. Except for plants,

involvement in policy-related activities at international level is quite low. Almost one-third of

respondents in all subsectors have practical experience in exchanging GRFA in the context of R&D

projects. As shown in Table 5, OECD country respondents report greater involvement than non-

OECD country respondents, though the difference is slight.

Table 5: How involved are you or have you been in the development, revision or implementation of ABS measures in

your country? (Scale: not involved (1), slightly involved (2), moderately involved (3), involved (4), very involved (5))

OECD Non-OECD

Number of responses 61 148

Mean 2.98 2.89


Figure 32: Involvement in ABS-related activities (by sectors)

For those individuals who indicated that their country had begun to undertake ABS discussions and

policy, Figure 32: Involvement in ABS-related activities (by sectors)Figure 32 shows that more than

one-third of the respondents report being involved or very involved in ABS development, revision or

implementation. Less than 18 percent are not involved at all.

Figure 33: Involvement in development, revision or implementation of ABS measures

The survey sought to understand whether NFPs/NCs recalled receiving information about ABS, what

the source of the information was, and whether it was considered useful. Further, given the objectives

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Participated in theABS consultationprocess in your

country

Advised policymakers in yourcountry on ABS

issues

Advisedstakeholders on

ABS about sendingGR to other

countries

Participated in aninternationalresearch anddevelopment

(R&D) project thatexchanged GR

with othercountries

Participated in aninternationalnegotiation

process on ABS

Negotiatedmutually agreed

terms (MAT)

Which of the following ABS-related activities have you done?

Percent Yes AnGR Percent Yes PGR Percent Yes AqGR Percent Yes FGR

16.3

21.118.7

26.3

17.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Very Involved Involved Moderatelyinvolved

Slightly involved Not involved

Per

cen

t

How involved are you or have you been in the development, revision or implementation of ABS measures in your country?


of FAO’s ABS Elements to facilitate the development of ABS measures, NFPs/NCs were asked

whether they were familiar with the Elements. Findings show areas for improvement for both (Figure

34). Approximately 85 percent of all respondents reported receiving some form of written information

on ABS during the last two years, 62.5 percent of the respondents reported receiving information on

ABS from FAO and almost half (45.5 percent) received information from their government, with

lower percentages reporting other sources. (Note: respondents were able to check multiple categories.)

Additionally, almost 50 percent of the respondents are not aware of the existence of the ABS Elements

(Figure 35). It is possible that there is some misunderstanding about what the Elements are and how

they are referred to. Nevertheless, there is significant opportunity for increased awareness and

dissemination of FAO-produced information.

Figure 34: Source of information on ABS

62.5

23.5

45.5

13.3 17.4

0

20

40

60

80

FAO Other internationalorganizations (UN,

CGIAR, WorldBank, etc.)

Your government Civil society organizations

(NGO, professional associations…)

Other

During the last two years, have you received written information regarding ABS from any of the following sources? (percent yes)


Figure 35: Awareness of the FAO’s ABS Elements

Finally, the survey asked NFPs/NCs who were familiar with the Elements whether they had been

useful for guiding interactions on ABS policy development with various stakeholders, including

government ministries and departments, IPLCs and others. Two-thirds indicated that the Elements

were important or very important for guiding discussions with government, while about one-third

considered the Elements important or very important for discussions with IPLCs and others (Figure

36). The survey did not ask respondents for additional information about why the Elements were or

were not important, but this could be important to explore for the development of the Notes.

Figure 36: Relevance of ABS Elements in guiding policy interactions

11.3%

49.3%

39.2%

Percent I don't know

Percent No

Percent Yes

Are you familiar with the 'Elements to Facilitate Domestic Implementation of Access and Benefit-Sharing for Different Subsectors of Genetic Resources for

Food and Agriculture' (ABS Elements)?

36.1

20.4

6.6

30.1

11.6

29.7

17.5

16.1

17.6

8.3

19.4

13.2

7.2

21.5

33.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Government ministries and departments

Indigenous people and local communitites

Other relevant stakeholders

Based on what you know, how important have the ABS Elements been in guiding interactions on ABS policy development with the following stakeholders?

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important I don't know


3.1.3 Level of involvement of GRFA stakeholders as reported by NFPs

Respondents reported extensive consultation with various stakeholders on the development, revision

and implementation of ABS measures (Figure 37). These consultations frequently include

coordination among national governmental entities, but also include non-governmental stakeholders

providing or utilizing GRFA, including farmers and IPLCs, genebanks and collections, research

institutions and private-sector entities. Comparing across OECD and non-OECD country respondents

shows that while there are some differences – national level governments are consulted more in OECD

countries and farmers and local governments are consulted more in non-OECD countries – the

differences across groups are not substantial (Figure 38).

Figure 37: Stakeholder consultations in development, revision or implementation of ABS measures

85.5

75.6

67.4

56.6

52.5

48.9

45.6

45.2

37.4

13.6

2.5

5.1

13.5

17.0

16.0

17.2

25.3

26.6

31.8

17.0

12.0

15.3

19.2

26.4

31.5

33.9

29.1

28.3

30.7

69.5

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

National (or federal) government

Public research institutions and universities

Gene banks and collections

Farmers, livestock keepers, pastoralists, foresters,…

Private-sector entities

Other civil society organizations

Indigenous people and local communities

Regional (or provincial) government(s)

Local government(s)

Other

Based on what you know, which of the following stakeholders have been consulted for the development, revision, or implementation of ABS measures?

Percent Yes Percen No Percent I don't know


Figure 38: Level of stakeholder consultation on ABS (% yes)

3.2 Status of ABS activities for GRFA in countries

3.2.1 Status of ABS implementation

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows that the majority (73.4 percent) of respondents

indicated that their country had initiated ABS activities. More than 40 percent of respondents reported

that ABS measures have been adopted and are being implemented. Only one-fifth reported no ABS-

related activities have begun in their country. When broken down by country type, OECD countries

tend to report higher levels of implementation compared with non-OECD countries, though these

differences are relatively small. (

Figure 40).


Figure 39: Status of ABS policy process

Figure 40: Status of ABS policy process in country, OECD/non-OECD


3.2.2 Level of consideration for GRFA in ABS

Of the 191 individuals indicating that ABS had begun in their country, nearly 81 percent confirm that

ABS discussions and consultations consider GRFA. About 10 percent responded that their country had

not considered GRFA, while the remainder were unsure.

Fewer respondents confirmed ABS measures had been adopted, implemented or were being reviewed

in their country (148 of the 191, or about half the total sample). Of the 148, about two-thirds (100

respondents) indicated the measures include GRFA. Less than one-fifth (18.9 percent) indicated that

GRFA was not included in ABS measures. The rest were unsure.

In addition, the survey also asked whether ABS measures specifically mention some subsectors of

GRFA (e.g. plant or animal GRFA). Of the 100 who confirmed the existence of ABS measures in their

countries, 92 responded to this question. Of those, 82.6 percent responded that specific subsectors

were included. This indicates that countries undertaking ABS measures that include GRFA are also

considering subsector-level detail.

Down from 100 who said that measures in their country would include consideration of GRFA, and 92

who said there are sector considerations, only 84 respondents (about 30 percent of all the respondents)

have specified subsector level GRFA measures in their countries (Figure 41). Plants are most

frequently identified (81 percent), followed by FGR (57 percent), AnGR (56 percent), AqGR (42

percent), Micro-organism GR (25 percent) and invertebrates (18 percent).

Figure 41: Existence of ABS subsector-specific measures

In summary, about half of all respondents confirm that ABS measures are at least adopted in their

countries, while only about one-third of all respondents confirm ABS measures for GRFA, most of

which are subsector-specific.

81.0

57.1 56.0

41.7

25.017.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Plant Forest Animal Aquatic Microbial Invertebrates

To the best of your knowledge, for which GRFA subsectors are there specific ABS measures in your country? (percent yes)


3.2.2.1 Legal, policy and administrative measures

The survey asked respondents about the purposes and uses considered by existing ABS measures,

including R&D for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Findings show that nearly all ABS

measures accommodate research and breeding, while lower non-research purposes and food

production are less likely to be covered (Figure 42).

Figure 42: Consideration of the different purposes of GRFA use in ABS measures

In addition to specific administrative or legal measures covering subsectors such as PGRFA, it is

increasingly common for GRFA stakeholders to develop specific practices for the use and exchange of

genetic resources for research and development purposes. Survey findings show (Figure 43) that

standard PIC or MTA and best practices initiatives are reported as the most commonly used

instruments to facilitate ABS implementation. However, the findings also confirm that 40 percent of

respondents are making use of the ABS Elements and that other tools are also in evidence.

57.1

58.4

86.9

85.5

75.9

24.7

23.4

7.1

10.8

14.5

18.2

18.2

6.0

3.6

9.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use as commodity (i.e. for food production)

Purposes other than breeding and research

Research and breeding for food and agriculture

Research and development for noncommercialpurposes

Research and development for commercialpurposes

Do ABS measures in your country specifically address access to GRFA for any of the following purposes?

Percent Yes Percent No Percent I don't know


Figure 43: Use of specific instruments for managing ABS for GRFA

3.3 Experiences with PIC implementation

The survey sought to obtain insights on how countries approach PIC or approval and involvement of

IPLCs in the case of GRFA and associated TK.

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows that almost one-third of respondents reported the

existence of PIC procedures in place for access to GRFA held by IPLCs and TK on GRFA. There

seems to be no significant differences between the physical material and the knowledge associated

with it held by IPLCs.

In addition, the survey also asked about the approval process for PIC. Of the respondents who reported

on existence of PIC procedures, the majority of respondents indicated that PIC is sought from a

community-designated committee or the community leader and to a lesser extent (approximately 30

percent) from the entire community (Figure 45). Consultations and meetings are by far the main

vehicles used to obtain PIC from IPLCs (Figure 46).

Finally, 46.6 and 40 percent of respondents reported on the existence of measures or procedures to

redistribute benefits to IPLCs arising from, respectively, the use of GRFA and the use of TK on GRFA

held by IPLCs.

9%

15%

17%

19%

20%

30%

39%

40%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Model ABS clauses for cross-sectoral…

Model ABS clauses for within-sector…

ABS voluntary code of conduct

Other initiatives relevant to ABS

Community-led protocol(s) for GRFA

Best practice initiatives

Standard PIC or MTA

FAO ABS Elements

Based on your knowledge or experience, have any of the following been used to manage ABS for GRFA in your country?


Figure 44: Experience with PIC implementation

Figure 45: PIC approval for GRFA and TK on GRFA held by IPLC

35.6%

32.8%

36.4%

33.6%

27.9%

33.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PIC for GRFA held by IPLC

PIC for TK on GRFA held by IPLC

Is access to GRFA and to traditional knowledge associated with GRFA held by IPLCs subject to PIC in your country?

Percent yes Percent no Percent I don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

I don't know

A community member other than the…

Other

The entire community

The community leader

A community-designated committee

Who of the following must provide consent in your country prior to access to GRFA and to TK on GRFA held by IPLCs?

PIC for TK on GRFA held by IPLC PIC for GRFA held by IPLC


Figure 46: PIC process for GRFA and TK on GRFA held by IPLC

3.4 Subsector specificities

3.4.1 General considerations

To ascertain consistency across subsectors, the survey collected subsector-level responses to several

agree/disagree questions about the characteristics of GRFA. Respondents were first asked to identify

the subsector with which they were most familiar. All respondents were then asked three sets of

agree/disagree questions with the specific subsector embedded within the question text (here noted as

xxGR). Findings are presented in Figure 47, 48 and 49. The scale for all three sets of questions is:

strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; neither agree nor disagree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5.

The first set of general questions (Figure 47) shows relatively consistent question-level responses

across subsectors, although respondents from the plant subsector are consistently more in agreement

that GR are of exotic origin, have been shaped over generations and are essential for achieving food

security. Differences across questions are consistently more striking with stronger agreement that GR

are essential for achieving food security than for the other two statements.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Opinion polls

Vote

Others

Consultations or meetings

Based on your experience or understanding, what process is used in your country to obtain consent to access GRFA or TK

on GRFA held by IPLCs?

PIC for TK on GRFA held by IPLC PIC for GRFA held by IPLC


Figure 47: General agree/disagree statements about GRFA by subsector

Figure 48 shows responses to a set of questions concerning the holders, users and exchange process of

the particular subsector. These questions demonstrate consistency regarding the importance of

traditional knowledge for R&D, as well as of in-situ and on-farm conservation. As expected, animal

subsector respondents are in stronger agreement on the importance of in-situ and on-farm

conservation, while plant subsector respondents agree more with the importance of ex-situ

conservation and access. Animal GRFA are more likely to be privately held, while plant respondents

are more likely to agree that the subsector relies on cross-border exchange. Across questions, all

respondents are generally more likely to agree on the importance of traditional knowledge for

research, in-situ conservation and the diversity of stakeholder holdings of GRFA than with the other

three questions.

Respondents were also asked about the innovation process and benefit-sharing at the subsector level.

Findings, presented in Figure 49, show generally a lower level of agreement with all questions across

all subsectors as average question responses rarely reach four (agree) on the five-point scale. Across

subsectors, plant experts are more likely to find that products are developed from a range of GRFA

inputs and that stakeholders are both providers and recipients. Aquatic experts are more likely to find

it difficult to assess the contribution of GRFA in a final product and country of origin.

0 1 2 3 4 5

xxGR are essential for achieving food security.

Many xxGR have been shaped, developed, diversified andconserved through human activities and practices over

generations.

A high proportion of xxGR used is of exotic origin.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about xxGR?

Forest Aquatic Animal Plant


Figure 48: General agree/disagree statements about GRFA by subsector

Figure 49: Agree/disagree statements about use and exchange of GRFA by subsector

0 1 2 3 4 5

The xxGR subsector relies on cross-border exchange.

xxGR are held by a broad range of very diversestakeholders (public, private, communities).

A significant amount of xxGR is privately held.

An important part of xxGR is held and can be accessed exsitu.

An important part of xxGR is conserved in situ and onfarm.

The traditional knowledge associated with xxGR is crucialfor the use of the genetic resources for research and

development.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the nature of the holders and users and the exchange process of xxGR?


0 1 2 3 4 5

Most stakeholders are both recipients and providersof xxGR.

It is difficult to identify the country of origin or thecountry that has legally acquired xxGR.

One product (variety, race…) is developed out of a broad range of xxGR inputs.

It is difficult to assess the contribution of one xxGR in afinal product.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the nature of the innovation process and the benefits generated

with the use of xxGR?



3.4.2 Subsectors considerations in ABS measures

As shown in Figure 50, all subsectors for food and agriculture report a fair level of specific

consideration of their subsector in the initial phase of the ABS policy process (planning and

discussion). The animal and aquatic sector representatives report the least subsector consideration at

most stages of the ABS policy process. However, with the exception of the plant sector, the level of

subsector consideration drops, sometimes by half, at the stage of review or implementation of ABS

measures. In part this may be because many counties are in an earlier stage of ABS policy

development. However, subsector consideration may also be eliminated as part of the policy process.

Figure 50: GRFA considerations in ABS policy process (by subsectors)


IV.GENERAL CONCLUSION

Given the substantial amount of information produced by the two surveys, it is helpful to conclude the

report with some highlights of the findings. The focus here is on the topics of greatest interest to the

Commission and its membership, and to respond to five areas of enquiry useful for the development of

the explanatory notes. A section on limitations of the study is also included.

Awareness, involvement in ABS activities

Overall, the results tend to show a fair level of NFPs’/NCs’ awareness about ABS and involvement in

ABS policy-related activities. Representatives from the plant subsector remain by far those more

heavily involved in ABS policy-related activities. Interestingly, approximately 40 percent of

respondents are or have been involved in international R&D in which GRFA are exchanged. This

confirms that NFPs/NCs in the food and agriculture sector are not limited to administrative functions

but are often directly involved in GR use and exchange. This dual function is definitely an asset upon

which the agriculture sector could build to design efficient and operational ABS rules.

Exchange practices and sector specificities

Stakeholders and NFPs/NCs identify similar perceptions about exchange practices and specific

characteristics of their own subsector. The survey results showed that respondents exchange GRFA

from different subsectors. This means that treating subsectors as silos in which actors are only

involved with plants or microbes, for example, is not realistic. Many people exchange both plants and

microbes.

Exchange practices and use of instruments

A large proportion of stakeholders exchange GRFA as part of ongoing collaborations rather than as

one-off transactions. This may indicate that, in designing and implementing specific ABS mechanisms

for GRFA, use of legally-binding mechanisms should be complemented by socially-binding

mechanisms.

Stakeholders make use of a variety of instruments for ABS, but the level of use of such instruments is

low. Besides, only a small proportion of stakeholders use specific ABS mechanisms such as PIC or

MTA. As a result, stakeholders in subsectors other than plants would probably benefit from receiving

more information and guidance.

Experience with PIC

PIC for GRFA or TK on GRFA are not fully in place in most situations, as reported in the NFP/NC

survey. Findings from the stakeholder survey show important differences among sectors with regard to

development of PIC procedures. PIC seems more developed in the aquatic subsector, followed by the

plant and animal subsectors. It is almost absent in the forest subsector. Similarly, important differences

exist among countries: only a very small proportion of OECD countries have established PIC

procedures.

Experience with PIC implementation would benefit from case study analysis to draw lessons from

concrete experience and foster exchange of information.

Status of ABS implementation

About half of all NFP/NC respondents confirm that ABS measures have been adopted in their

countries, while only about one-third of all NFP/NC respondents indicate that ABS measures

specifically address GRFA. Results also indicate that countries with ABS measures that specifically


address GRFA often also consider subsector-level specific detail, e.g. for animal, forest or aquatic

genetic resources.

ABS Elements

Findings from the NFP/NC survey indicate that about half of the respondents were aware of the

existence of the ABS Elements and 40 percent are actively using the ABS Elements. Of those who

were aware of the ABS Elements, two-thirds consider them important or very important for guiding

discussions with the government, and about one-third consider them important or very important for

discussions with IPLCs and other stakeholders.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this study. First, the sample frame of the NFP/NC survey is limited to

individuals who have defined roles in the Commission and therefore are more likely to understand

ABS policy processes in their countries than other government or non-governmental actors.

The findings may overstate the status of ABS policy globally as those countries that have not begun

ABS policy processes might be less likely to respond. Nevertheless, the survey received responses

from 136 countries, which is a high percentage of the Commission’s membership. As for the

stakeholder survey, the sample frame was based on nominations provided by the NFP/NC respondents

as well as individuals who attend relevant meetings and events. To a large degree, the sample frame is

probably overly representative of individuals involved in research and policy. In addition, the survey

does not include a large number of IPLCs and is likely not sufficiently representative of the population

of IPLC actors. Finally, there is low representation of the micro-organism and invertebrate subsectors

in both surveys. As a result, survey instruments are a less viable option for data collection in these two

subsectors.


APPENDIX: GENERAL OVERVIEW OF IPLC RESPONSES

Indigenous people and local communities (IPLC) respondents are mainly knowledgeable about

traditional knowledge (TK) associated with plant and forest genetic resources. The majority of the

respondents have participated in ABS consultations and expert meetings in their countries or at the

international level. Most of the respondents have either a leading role or an advisory role within their

IPLC community or organization.

There are no major differences in the domestic or foreign pattern of exchange of TK associated with

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GRFA). The majority of exchange domestically takes

place with other IPLC or famers’ organizations.

Slightly more than half of respondents have developed prior informed consent (PIC) procedures for

providing GRFA and associated TK. Almost all these PIC procedures are included and/or recognized

within the regulatory framework of their country. These PIC procedures are all based on a consultation

processes involving the entire community. In some cases, a community-designated committee is

consulted to provide consent to access to GRFA and associated TK. Increased support and capacity

building activities as well as development of community protocol to engage with other interested

parties such as research organizations, universities, governments and private companies were

identified as ways to improve current PIC processes.

With regard to benefits received from providing TK associated with GRFA, respondents mainly

reported capacity building and training activities and, to a lesser extent, flowback information and

monetary amounts.

for ood and a · 2021. 2. 8. · august 2018 cgrfa/eg-migr-1/18/inf.4 commission on genetic...

Documents