In Brief

CONTROVERSIAL MONSANTO SOY PATENT REVOKED

The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a patent held by Monsanto on a technique for the genetic modification of soybean plants. In a decision on 3 May in Munich, an EPO appeal board ruled that the patent lacked "novelty" as well as sufficient disclosure, a designation that indicates that a skilled person could replicate the patent.

The far-reaching patent has been opposed since its inception 13 years ago, and is credited with giving Monsanto unprecedented control over the production and sale of GM soybeans. Applying to all species of soybean, it covered a technique for genetically modifying soybean without identifying the gene sequences in question. The patent was protected in 13 of the 32 EPO member states.

Dr Christopher Then, a patent expert for Greenpeace, said the case had shown that "the [EPO] is granting patents covering broad sectors of agricultural diversity with no real invention to back them up."

The patent was first granted to US biotech company Agracetus in 1994 and was at once "vigorously and formally" opposed by Monsanto itself, along with various environmental groups and agribusiness firms. In 1996, however, Monsanto acquired Agracetus and took control of the patent, which helped them corner 90 percent of the world's GM soybean market.

The challenge that led to the patent being overturned was launched by the ETC Group, an international civil society organisation based in Canada, with supporting statements from an unlikely combination of Greenpeace, "No Patents On Life!", and multinational firm Syngenta. The forceful arguments that Monsanto contributed to the original case in 1994 are understood to have been employed against it in the appeal. One such argument came from a top Monsanto scientist who described the patent disclosure as insufficient to allow its replication, which is one of the criteria of patentability,

Since the patent is due to expire in 2008, Monsanto commented that they "do not expect this decision to have an impact" on their business. However, Rainer Osterwalder of the EPO stressed that the ruling will set a precedent for other GM technology patents because "case law is important."

"GM Patent Rejected After 13 Years," NATURE, 4 May 2007; "Revoked!! Monsanto Monopoly Nixed in Munich," ETC GROUP RELEASE, 3 May 2007.

CTE: MEMBERS DISCUSS ORGANIC STANDARDS

Discussions at a recent meeting of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), described as "uneventful" by participants, focused mainly on environmental requirements and market access issues, particularly standards in organic agriculture. During the brief meeting on 2 May, many Members said they saw organic standards as an opportunity, but also recognised the difficulties sometimes faced by developing countries in particular in achieving conformity with organic standards. Discussions, according to one trade source, took place in a 'solutions-oriented' mode.

At the meeting, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) gave a presentation on technical assistance and capacity building carried out by the UNCTAD-UNEP Capacity Building Task Force related to the development of an East African Organic Standard. A number of developing countries, including China and India, welcomed such initiatives. The US also presented its experience with the Energy Star Labelling programme to highlight the benefits of labelling and the growing acceptance of certain labels.

The WTO secretariat provided an informal document containing a list of environmental impact assessments of trade liberalisation under multilateral, regional and bilateral initiatives being carried out in a number of developing countries. The document was submitted to Members for comments, and will be further discussed in the future.

The Basel Convention applied for observership status at the regular session of the CTE.

Additional resources

The East African Organic Standard (final draft) is available at http://www.unep-unctad.org/CBTF/events/nairobi4/EAOS%20final%20draft%2015%20Jan%202007.pdf.

ICTSD reporting.

COMPLIANCE, EFFECTIVENESS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TOP CHEMICALS MEETING AGENDA

Delegates meeting for the third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) spend a significant amount of energy trying to bridge differences over how to monitor and enforce compliance. Meeting in Dakar, Senegal, from 30 April - 4 May, they also discussed, inter alia, issues related to the review of the effectiveness of implementation, and technical assistance -- including the provision of financial resources.

Thierno Lô, Senegalese Minister of Environment and Protection of Nature, stressed that efficient implementation of the Stockholm Convention "requires financial resources and a compliance procedure to be applied to all parties." Financing for developing countries comes mainly through the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the meeting called on the GEF to, among other, support Best Available Technologies and Best Environmental Practice to minimise and eliminate releases of POPs, including demonstration projects.

Participants did not agree on a compliance mechanism, since some parties were wary of the intrusion other parties or the secretariat through party-to-party and secretariat triggers of non-compliance procedures. Others felt triggers of this kind were important to give the compliance system teeth. The issue will be further dealt with at the next COP meeting.

The Stockholm Convention includes 12 harmful chemicals, which do not break down through normal processes but accumulate in the body fat of people, marine mammals and other animals and thus can enter the food chain. There is a review process under that convention that allows for the addition of new chemicals to it.

COP-3 was the last of the annual conferences, with the next COP scheduled to take place in 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland.

"Lack of funding hampers Stockholm Convention on POPs," ANGOLAPRESS, 9 May 2007; "Summary Of The Third Meeting Of The Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants," EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN VOL. 15 NR. 154, 7 May 2007.

A STEP TOWARDS A MECHANISM OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE ON BIODIVERSITY

Recent discussions have added perspectives on how to move forward on a mechanism that would strengthen the link between science and policy with regard to biodiversity protection.

A European regional consultation on the development of an International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) was held in Geneva, Switzerland on 26-28 April. Meeting participants, which included government representatives, international and non-governmental organisations, and scientific institutions, identified the current needs for such a mechanism, analysed how an IMoSEB might meet those needs, and established goals and guiding principles for a strategy to communicate scientific information on biodiversity.

The concept of an IMoSEB was first launched at an international conference entitled "Biodiversity: Science and Governance," held in January 2005 in Paris, France. Global biodiversity policy-making lacks an institution similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the independent scientific body examining and synthesising the findings of global climate research. The IMoSEB would not necessarily take the form of the IPCC, although this is one of the options considered.

On the first day of the regional consultation in Geneva, introductory presentations addressed biodiversity and sustainability, as well as the science-policy interfaces for biodiversity in Europe. Following the presentations, roundtable discussions addressed the issue of scientific expertise necessary for effective biodiversity policy, the consultative process towards an IMoSEB in regards to the outcomes of previous regional consultations, and the integration of biodiversity into business strategies.

On the second day, meeting participants split into working groups to have more in-depth discussions about the needs and options for a possible IMoSEB. Working group participants also sought to establish goals and principles for the communication of scientific information on biodiversity. The discussions were based on a document prepared by the Executive Committee following the first phase of consultation. The outcomes of the working group discussions were examined in a final plenary session and were included in a text that might eventually become a concrete and workable proposal for an IMoSEB.

The workshop followed consultations held in North America and Africa, and additional workshops are being considered for Asia, South America, and possibly Oceania in the coming months. The Executive Secretariat will present the results of the regional consultations at the upcoming session of the Convention on Biological Diversity subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advise.

Additional resources

International Steering Committee Members Responses "Needs & Options" Document: http://www.imoseb.net/content/download/1319/6766/version/5/file/Needs%26Options_EC_ISC_V6.doc.

Connecting Biodiversity Knowledge and Decision-making http://www.imoseb.net/content/download/1289/6601/version/5/file/CN_IMoSEB-Eng.doc.

Other documents on the European regional consultation on an IMoSEB (including the final report not yet available) http://www.imoseb.net/regional_consultations/europe.

A comprehensive summary report by IISD's Earth Negotiations Bulletin is available at http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/imoseb3/.

ICTSD reporting.