In October 1993, the Andean Pact countries Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela approved a common plant breeders rights statute. Simultaneously, they set themselves the target to establish common policies towards biosafety and access to genetic resources within a year. These three issues were seen as necessary components of a coherent legal framework consonant with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The responsibility of preparing a draft directive for the access of genetic resources was assigned to the Junta del Acuerdo de Cartagena (JUNAC), the administrative body of the Andean Pact. JUNAC contracted the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the Peruvian Center for Environmental Law, a private consultant, for this job. First, they convened a small meeting of experts in Lima to gather ideas. In July 1994, a larger meeting was held in Colombia to discuss a draft proposal. This last meeting was attended by representatives of environmental NGOs, indigenous people organizations and government experts.
The strategy chosen by JUNAC has been criticized because of a perceived lack of consultation with the individual countries, particularly with Colombia where the Ministry of Environment is also working on a proposal. The meeting in Colombia was taken over by the participants, who, instead of discussing and amending the IUCN proposal, changed the original agenda in order to discuss more general issues of genetic resources management. At a second meeting, hosted by the Ministry of Environment of Venezuela in August 1994, the Colombian draft which set the basis for a common Venezuelan­Colombian proposal was discussed. This last document was one of the drafts presented to a meeting of government representatives.
The whole discussion process revealed several differences of opinion:

• Both the IUCN and Colombian draft proposals emphasize the equitable distribution of benefits to indigenous people of resources they traditionally use. Although they did not ignore the rights of indigenous people, many participants considered other problems, such as management of ex situ collections and control of scientific investigations, more concrete and urgent.
• The discussions revealed strong nationalistic positions regarding genetic resources management, and deep suspicion about motives and urgency to facilitate access.
• Many participants believed that the proposals serve commercial interests more than conservationist ones, since the decision to establish a common policy was taken by the Ministers of Trade and Industry who represent the countries at the JUNAC.
• There is consensus on the assignment of a strong role to the state in the control of access, an aspect which was perceived as inadequate in the proposal prepared by IUCN. Many strongly opposed intellectual property protection, as they link protection with appropriation of the resources.
• The representatives of the indigenous communities consulted by IUCN were unfamiliar with the issues discussed. They subscribed to the importance of genetic resources for themselves but saw no urgency to establish an access regime quickly. Persons working directly with genetic resources (such as plant breeders, ex situ collection managers) on the other hand, saw a rapid arrangement of the access to genetic resources as important. They expressed dismay and frustration about the political and philosophical tone of the debate, which they would like to see in more technical terms.