patent seed!"

Comment, when talking about Farmers' Rights, by Franklin Moore, black US Senior Biodiversity Advisor in the N. American /NGO meeting

Delegations felt good at the end of the week having achieved a consolidated text (with the qualifications noted above in the summary) and agreed to 2 further extraordinary sessions in 1998 (the second dependent on extra-budgetary funds) before the 8th regular session in May 1999. There really is a chance of the text being fully negotiated in time for the 1999 FAO Conference, something that was almost inconceivable 6 months ago - at the end of the May meting.

The EU under the leadership of the Netherlands has been pushing hard for progress and it was at their insistence that this meeting was held at all. The Norwegians and the Swedes and the Germans who have continued to put up money. Even the Swiss are (usually) supportive if their home-grown biotech and pharmaceutical industry allows them. Then there are the majority of the countries of G77, which are fighting for sui generis options that respect the rights of their farmers, perhaps with the exception of a few Mercocsur countries e.g. Argentina., and Brazil, which plays its own canny role, not wanting anything here to conflict with the scope of the CBD - so they are firmly fixed on the Genetic Resources of the major food crops - punto final...

But the spokespeople of, particularly, Ethiopia (Tewolde Egziabher), India (P L Gautam), Malaysia (Engsiang Lim), Philippines (Rene Salazar) and Zambia (Godfrey Mwila) and many other countries are very confident and can dominate OECD countries' arguments.

The UK is biding its time awaiting the EU presidency with some trepidation, knowing that the sentence will likely be for a year as they will shadow (or dominate) the Austrian presidency in the second half of 1998.

This time most delegations were falling over themselves to be diplomatic, polite, courteous, conciliatory and even accommodating. RAFI on behalf of public interest NGOs had written to the Chairs of all the Regional Groups to ask for Observer status at their meetings and to meet with them to discuss our concerns. While we were not permitted to observe their private sessions, all except GRULAC (Latin America) invited us to meet with them and we had between half and one hour with each Group. Some memorable contributions were made and there was a willingness to try and find areas of compromise, and certainly improve understanding. The issue of the European Patent Directive dominated most sessions and the EU was caught on the defensive, agriculture Ministries for the most part not being in favour of the Directive and some countries (The Netherlands) voting against and others (Italy and Belgium) abstaining from the vote in the Council of Ministers. All were interested, however, in what we had to say and were relatively open about their concerns.

But still, the USA had difficulties with 'the concept of farmers' rights' as ever. Argentina played their games and rubbed salt into the wound by achieving non-recognition of the whole CGRFA Undertaking process by Argentine President Menem when he came to speak to FAO Permanent Representatives, by chance half way through the meeting. And even Dr Diouf (FAO Director General) in his presentation to Menem also managed to miss out a reference to this aspect of FAO's work (the Open Working Group had been temporarily suspended in the Conference Room because the President's visit had prior claim on the interpreters), despite a wide-ranging presentation from Food Security to Sustainable Fisheries. Australia just continued to be difficult - even using up about half an hour of full plenary debating the text relating to the date of the next meeting. And they protected their precious [ blank space in the negotiating text!

What do we learn for the future? To provide even more background briefing for G77 delegates - especially making the links with the parallel negotiations of the CBD, WTO and so on. To improve the briefing of NGO and Farmers' and Indigenous Peoples' Organisations and seek wider 'representation' of views at the meeting or in pre-meetings. To ensure that this briefing focuses on achievable outcomes and helps the negotiating process, strengthening the position of the guardians of these resources. To focus our efforts on the medium and long-term desired outcomes, including in practical sustainable use and conservation issues (such as in the European Symposium) as well as lobbying on Trade, IPR and policy issues. Pyrrhic victories of a word here and a phrase there in a soon-to-be-forgotten text achieve little. In a world of failing democracies, in which short-termism dictated by the headlong rush to trade, market-domination by TNCs and their subsidiaries, all of whom are on very short time-scales for survival, Civil Society is the only group which could (and should) have a long vision. It is this that needs to be captured and projected into these negotiations.

THE CONFERENCE,  

Considering the importance given in Agenda 21 to promoting the conservation and utilization of biotic and abiotic resources for sustainable agricultural development of the world and the role of genetic resources for the promotion of sustainable agriculture and rural development;  

Considering that conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity is a key issue for sustainable agriculture and food security, and therefore an integral part of the policy for sustainable agriculture and rural development;  

Recalling Decision III/11 of the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Buenos Aires, November 1996) which highlighted the importance of biological diversity for agriculture, the interrelationship of agriculture with biological diversity; the development of a multi-year programme of activities on agricultural biological diversity aiming to promote:

NORTH AMERICA DOESN'T FOLLOW

"North America is more than about 5 hours behind us, it seems like it's about 5 light years." Muttered one delegate leaving last night's contact group meeting. The sentiment isn't a new one. At the end of the last Commission meeting North America and Australia, especially the US, looked (and felt) isolated. Some EU members were not so subtly signalling they were ready to move ahead without them. 

"Let 'em eat dust," says Liz Hosken of the UK's Gaia Foundation, "Uncle Sam will eventually catch up and join the club." It took 8 years for the chronically-challenged US to join the Commission. "They never even formally adhered to the old Undertaking," says ITDG's Patrick Mulvany, "so instead of putting key parts of the Undertaking on hold, let's put the North Americans - and the Australians - in brackets."  

Leaving the US behind wouldn't even be unusual. In fact, you could argue it's the norm. In addition to all the delays at FAO, the US had a nine-member delegation to the CBD's recent meeting on Article 8(j) in Madrid, despite never having ratified the convention. "This meeting reminds me of COP II," says one Southern delegate, "in Jakarta some countries wanted to wait around for the US; but if we had listened to them, where would we be now?"

Cynics have even sarcastically suggested that the US, and maybe Canada and Australia here, are just playing a perverse financial game. At the current rate of genetic erosion at almost 2% a year, if they delay the revision of the Undertaking long enough, so the rumor goes, the costs of joining the club will be lower.  

While the US pattern of delay continues in Rome, this month in Ottawa, another international conference is meeting to adopt the international convention banning land mines. The United States will not be among the signatories - even though one of its own citizens won a Nobel Peace Prize for her role in creating the treaty. Recently, too, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went on US television to denounce US tardiness in repaying its long overdue UN fees. US delegate Benjamin Franklin Moore denies that there are plans being developed to establish a debt for nitro swap. According to Moore, "There is no substance to rumors that there's a deal for the UN to reduce our unpaid dues by a dollar for each land mine we turn in."

Via Campesina is a group of 65 national organizations from 40 countries working together for the defense of campesino rights and the implementation of public policies that benefit the small farmers that protect natural resources. We work for policies to improve conditions of rural life and that permit greater democracy and social participation. Among the principal themes on which we work are food security, technology transfer, rural finance, democracy, the rights of women, and rural education and training.

The rational conservation, use, and development of genetic resources is not possible without an international framework in the revised Undertaking that seriously supports us, small farmers.

Yes. Fundamental to understanding Farmers' Rights is being clear they are not just a question of money. Recognizing them is not an exercise in establishing a financial value of the PGRFA in farmers' hands and/or the value of resources and knowledge developed by us. People who think this are questioning our dignity. Among the most important elements of Farmers' Rights is recognition that Farmers' Rights precede others. They are historic rights. Farmers' Rights are collective rights of communities and peoples. They are rights to resources and associated knowledge. They are rights to decide the use and utilization, now and in the future, of our genetic resources. They include rights to appropriate technology and research. And, of course, they include our right to grow, keep, and exchange germplasm without restrictions. They support a model of sustainable development that rationally and intelligently uses natural resources.

It would be insulting - like walking into a home without asking the permission from the people who live there. If you're going to open access to our genetic resources to transnationals, it's only just that we get free access to their technology, research, and resources.