Index

Expert Opinion: The Andean Experience on Capacity Building

By Luisa Elena Guinand and María Elena Gutiérrez

The trade and environment negotiations underway in the World Trade Organization (WTO) underscore the need of the Andean countries to assess the implications of the negotiations and to strengthen their capacity to design and implement public policies on trade, environment and development. The Andean Community’s member countries— Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela—have responded to the challenge, given the significant issues at stake for the sub-region.

The Andean countries are considered to be “the global epicenter of biodiversity” and biodiversity issues are particularly important to these countries. Together, the five Andean countries shelter approximately 25 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity and are centers of origin of important phytogenetic resources. They are also home to various indigenous communities, which for years have preserved and used these resources and developed a rich base of traditional knowledge. With the progress of biotechnology and the opening of new markets for biodiversity-derived products, the granting of patents for inventions in developed countries is increasing, without necessarily fully complying with multilateral biodiversity agreements. Significant efforts are being made by Andean countries to clarify the debate on biodiversity-related issues and to put forward specific proposals in the WTO trade negotiations.

Capacity building efforts in the Andean subregion have concentrated on issues related to biodiversity, especially those surrounding intellectual property rights (IPRs), genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Initiatives by the General Secretariat of the Andean Community (CAN) have focused on fostering dialogue among relevant authorities in Andean countries by strengthening the Andean Committee on Genetic Resources, undertaking regional projects, and positioning the region in international negotiation fora, specifically with respect to defining an international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing.

In coordination with the Andean Development Corporation (CAF), a program to support Andean negotiators was launched in 2001 focusing on access to genetic resources, protection of traditional knowledge and intellectual property in various negotiating fora. In this context, workshops have been conducted to encourage dialogue between representatives of intellectual property and environmental institutions in Andean countries. A guidebook prepared by Andean experts was published to provide technical support for Andean negotiators on access to genetic resources and protection of traditional knowledge. The subregion has been investing in capacity building to empower indigenous experts from Andean countries to participate in the policy-making process on traditional knowledge and biodiversity- related issues. The importance of this effort lies in its value at the level of the Andean Community, whereby the formulation of policies and regulations is conducted from the bottom up, thus ensuring that stakeholders’ interests are represented from the outset.

Another area of regional capacity building within the Andean Community is Biotrade. Biotrade involves the collection or production, processing, and sale of goods and services derived from native biodiversity (species, genetic resources and eco-systems) under environmental, social and economic sustainability criteria. This can represent an important source of income for countries with vast natural wealth, such as those in the Andean Community. Biotrade activities are aimed at preserving biodiversity while promoting the development of the local population that depends on these resources. The development of Biotrade National Programs started in 1997. During the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, a triple partnership was consolidated between CAF, CAN and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to launch the Andean Biotrade Program. Capacity building activities to stimulate biotrade have focused on enhancing the dialogue and joint actions between stakeholders to promote exports.

Although the Andean countries have made capacity enhancement a priority, a number of challenges remain. First, there are very few institutions and individuals knowledgeable on the issues that are of high priority in these countries. Second, there is a lack of human and financial resources, not only within these countries but also internationally. Third, because of the high political instability in these countries, key individuals tend to move from one job to another and built capacities are lost. Fourth, defining the key priorities and getting consensus on these priorities itself requires significant effort. Fifth, trade institutions and decision-makers tend not to interact with environmental institutions and decision-makers. Sixth, the capacity building programs of international agencies tend to focus on their own agendas rather than on the activities of interest to Andean countries, and particularly to local communities. Finally, funding for capacity building tends to be scarce, unpredictable and short-term.

As one looks towards the future, it is clear that the demand from Andean countries for capacity building on trade and environment will increase. As the Andean environmental agenda develops, so will capacity building needs expand to include issues such as climate change, water management and the relationship between trade and investment. The most important lesson that has been learnt is that capacity building efforts will be most successful when they are country-driven. When the agenda on trade and environment is set by stakeholders in a participative manner, the probability that countries will adopt a proactive role in trade negotiations is enhanced.

Thus, capacity building efforts have an important role to play in developing a participatory, multi-stakeholder agenda. However, given that this is a lengthy process, capacity building programs need to be designed for the medium term, assigning predictable resources in coordination between agencies. For example, the Andean process on biodiversity and IPRs took four years to reach consensus on a regional position on biodiversity. This process involved linking biodiversity issues with trade negotiations, disseminating knowledge on these links between national environmental and trade authorities (specifically intellectual property authorities), positioning the issue at the subregional level so that it could be presented in bilateral, regional and multilateral negotiations, and, finally, reaching agreement among Andean countries to jointly negotiate at the WTO to amend the TRIPS Agreement to include the requirements of disclosure of origin, benefit sharing and prior informed consent.

Luisa Elena Guinand, from Venezuela, is the Coordinator for Environment and Sustainable Development at the General Secretariat of the Andean Community,

María Elena Gutiérrez, from Peru, studies sustainable development and conservation biology at the University of Maryland, U.S.