Mutually supportive implementation of the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol A report on ‘The International Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol : A tandem workshop for National Focal Points’, 3 - 9 June 2014, FAO, Rome, Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014, Bioversity International and the ABS Capacity Building Initiative led a series of interactions on the mutually supportive implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). These interactions included a survey among national focal points of both international agreements in 15 African countries, a four-day workshop, and a follow up analysis of inputs provided by workshop participants. This publication is the report of the four-day workshop held on 3-6 June 2014, at FAO, Rome, with 75 participants, including experts and representatives of stakeholder groups (farmers, academia, governments, regional governmental organizations), national focal points for the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol and the ITPGRFA, and members of the Secretariats of the CBD and the ITPGRFA. The core of these events were the ‘tandems’: pairs or small teams of national focal points for the Nagoya Protocol and the ITPGRFA from a single country working together. The workshop included presentations by independent experts and stakeholders whose daily activities are affected by access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regulations, and discussions on small working groups on hypothetical scenarios that evidenced overlaps and grey areas in the implementation of the ITPRGFA and the Nagoya Protocol. The ‘tandem’ approach and the work through hypothetical scenarios led to interesting reflections and proposals on the mutually supportive implementation of both international agreements. A publication that draws on the scenarios and the discussions held at the workshop was released in English, French and Spanish in 2017, Russian in 2018 and Arabic in 2019, with the title “Mutually supportive implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty: Scenarios for consideration by national focal points and other interested stakeholders”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".