| SUNDAY 1 July 2001,
2:00 a.m. GMT
The text of a weak, empty, potentially
patent-ridden IU was adopted at 3:00 a.m. Rome time. The half-hearted applause
that greeted the announcement by the Chair was indicative of the lack of
support from within the room - what chance of support once outside?
The IU is weak because
- [Patents on derived material ALLOWED] - but the good news is that this is
still bracketed.
- [the IU is subordinate to the WTO] - but the good news is that this is
still bracketed
- Farmers' Rights SUBJECT to National Laws and therefore to UPOV + Patents -
but the good news is that the preambular text still leaves room for reopening
discussion on this key issue and after Ethiopia's (Dr Tewolde Egziabher's)
impassioned and ultimately successful interventions, the applause was
substantial - the only significant applause of the week!
- That Commercial Benefit Sharing will yield very little - but the good news
is that it is mandatory and agreed by all countries including the USA
- Mainly because of these weakenesses a very small list of crops has been
agreed (about 34 crops and 29 forages) - but the good news is that the EU has
argued to keep the list open, at least until November.
- Added to this are the desires of some tropical countries, including Brazil,
to keep some crops off the list in the hopeless belief they can make more money
bilaterally.
The whole week was dominated by disagreements - much of it in closed sessions.
A flawed process? Did it yield an IU that is just, equitable and comprehensive?
The answer is clearly no and much work needs to be done over the next few
months.
But what does this really mean?
That despite all the rhetoric, the OECD countries will not give up the
possibility of monopoly rights over crop seeds and their genes in the public
interest: profits before people...
The best news, though, is that the contentious issues raised by PGRFA are not
side-lined and they will dominate the World Food Summit - five years later. All
Members of FAO, at their Conference, and the many who will join in the Summit
will have opportunities to revisit the outstanding issues and challenge the
dominance of Patents, TRIPs and the WTO over the food and environmental
security of the peoples of the world.
Over the past 8 hours progress has been
made. Articles 11, 15 and many administrative articles - including agreement to
use consensus for decision making.
FARMERS' RIGHTS:
The Preamble required more time. As CSOs had warned, the issue of Farmers'
Rights needed specific time for debate. Although Article 9 sailed through and
was agreed in record time, Ethiopia asked to reserve the right to bring up the
issue later; no provision was made for this specific negotiating time. Thus,
when Farmers' Rights appeared in the Preamble, all the issues - suppressed in
the 8th Commission meeting - resurfaced in an attack lead by Canada and the
USA. The Canadian Delegate was even devious enough to mislead the meeting by
failing draw delegate's attention to an obvious typo in the draft text which
gave the reference to the now celebrated FAO resolution 5/89 on Farmers'Rights,
which had been written down in error as 4/89. He said that the text of 4/89 had
nothing to do with the realisation of Farmers'Rights and then proceeded to read
the text from a screen on his computer which had, at the bottom, the text of
5/89 which, of course does! So much for the spirit of increasing understanding.
Luckily the Chair spotted the error before it erupted into a row, as Ethiopia
was on the point of intervening on this very issue.
Ably defended by Ethiopia on behalf of
most of G77, the proposed text was debated for 90 minutes. In the end, the text
was strengthened and the preamble (which has no legally-binding status anyway)
was approved.
OLD TEXT [with brackets around text that
was changed or deleted]:
Affirming that the past, present and future contributions of farmers in
all regions of the world, particularly those in centres of origin and
diversity, in conserving, improving and making available these resources, is
the basis of Farmers' Rights [as unanimously agreed through resolution [4/89]
5/89 of the twenty-fifth session of the FAO Conference].
Affirming also that the rights [ ]
to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other propagating material
[without restriction] and to participate in decision making regarding[,] and in
the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from[,] the use of plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture, are fundamental to the realization
of Farmers' Rights [and should be monitored] [ ] at national and international
level[s];
NEW TEXT [additions
underlined]:
Affirming that the past, present and future contributions of farmers in
all regions of the world, particularly those in centres of origin and
diversity, in conserving, improving and making available these resources, is
the basis of Farmers' Rights.
Affirming also that the rights
recognised in this Undertaking to save, use, exchange and sell
farm-saved seed and other propagating material and to participate in decision
making regarding, and in the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising
from, the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, are
fundamental to the realization of Farmers' Rights as well as the promotion
of Farmers' Rights at national and international levels;
Quite some improvement, although not
legally-binding...
SATURDAY 30 June
2001
The Chair is rumoured to have stormed out
of the FAO building after a collapse of talks concerning the Article on the
CGIAR gene banks - Brazil was being intransigent. Talks nearly collapsed.
Plenary then resumed at 16:00 for the last
time in a 7 year process, and merely had to deal with all the contentious
articles...
...but, as an optimistic FAO official was
heard to say in the corridors: "the glass is half full, but I don't know
of what liquid"
Heavy pressure was brought to bear on
Brazil which then remained silent when Article 15 was brought before the
Plenary and approved.
This week
watch out for 6 things:
1. Position
of US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan - will they scupper the
negotiations?
2. Article
12 on Access - will this ban IPRs on material received from the multilateral
system
3. Farmers'
Rights (Article 9) - will they have a high profile?
4. Benefit
sharing Article 13 - will this really mean what it says - who will benefit, and
how? Will farmers in developing countries see a reasonable return on the food
industry's $2 trillion annual turnover and a good slice of the seed industry's
profits?
5. The list
of crops in the Annex - will these expand significantly towards the 100 key
crops and their genepools and also cover all the crops in the CGIAR gene banks
(see Article 14)?
6. Will this
treaty have precedence over Trade agreements in areas concerning crop genetic
resources and food security? (Article 4)
FRIDAY 29 June
2001
This evening, the plenary looked at the
contentious articles on Designation, Access, and Definitions.
A good part of the session was wasted on the question of whether they needed to
agree things by consensus!
This was capped by inarticulate and language-challenging misinterpretations by
Brazil of whether the word 'such' referred to what had just been mentioned in
the earlier paragraph or meant something completely different - another hour
gone...
Not to be outdone, the last hours of interpretation were spent in debating the
meaning of PGRFA.
The Canadian delegate helpfully clarifed this by declaring that his government
recognised that plants did in fact contain genes - something that Canadian
farmer, Percy Schmeiser, victim of Monsanto's gene pollution, confirmed!
The US delegate said that her government was not able to deliver genes -
presumably this service has been privatised and is now being delivered by
Monsanto.
Today's special NGO Lunchtime Briefing
with Percy Schmeiser (www.percyschmeiser.com), the Canadian
farmer who was the victim of Monsanto's genetic pollution was held in the
Austria room.
More than 80 delegates and FAO staff
attended a packed NGO lunchtime meetinghosted by IATP and chaired by ITDG:
"[in the form] received": implications of Global IPR systems at the
farm level"
Percy Schmeiser was the keynote speaker.
He is a Canadian farmer who is the victim of Monsanto's contamination of his
fields and crops by roundup-ready canola (oil seed rape) plants. This canola
has spread involuntarily into his fields but Monsanto claim that they own his
crops because their intellectual property is contained in them. As a
consequence, they claim his crop and all profits from it. He is appealing a
decision by the Canadian courts that he is guilty of patent infringement. The
discussion raised important issues of direct relevance to the IU negotiations
and Farmers' Rights.
Patrick Mulvany, ITDG, updated delegates
on the NGO's perspective of the progress of the IU negotiations, summarised in
Friday's pessimistic Press Release circulated to delegates. He urged Delegates
to negotiate constructively to achieve a just, equitable and comprehensive IU.
He emphasised the importance of these negotiations and the wider programme of
work on agricultural biodiversity, managed by FAO, to food security and
livelihoods: it is one of the most important areas of work of the FAO, he
concluded.
NGOs put out a Press Release Friday
lunchtime.
Global seed treaty hangs in the balance
The achievement
At 3.00 a.m. on 1 July 2001, 161 governments of the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) agreed nearly all of the text of a
legally-binding agreement that will govern the use of crop seed varieties and
genetic resources that underpin food security. The agreement is needed to
counter the rapid loss of these varieties from farmers' fields – more than
90 per cent in the past century – and also to limit the increasing use of
intellectual property rights (IPRs) to claim sole ownership over crop
seeds and genes, which is further restricting farmers’ access.
The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (IU), covers major food crops developed in farmers' fields and
stored in public gene banks. It aims to ensure the conservation, sustainable
use and ‘free flow’ of the genetic resources of these crops so that
they are "preserved… and freely available for use, for the benefit
of present and future generations". It recognizes Farmers' Rights
to access, use and sell seeds, although these are subordinate to national
laws and hence plant variety protection and patent law. It also ensures that
when these genetic resources are used commercially, farmers in developing
countries receive a share of the profits generated, in return for their
contribution to the crops’ development.
The Problems
Most of the text of the new IU was agreed even though some articles, for
example on ‘consensus decision making’ are severely flawed,
but there are still three decisive issues outstanding that will have to be
resolved at the FAO Conference and the World Food Summit - Five years
later in November 2001. These are:
· the extent to which IPRs can be applied to genetic resources covered
by the IU
· the relationship between the IU and other international agreements,
most notably the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement on Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
· the food crops, forages and their 'wild' relatives to be included in
the IU.
Access and IPRs
IPR regimes create private ownership rights which remove locally adapted
varieties and their genetic traits from communal ownership and exchange,
threatening future development of these varieties. NGOs and many Southern
governments think the IU should keep these genetic resources for food and
agriculture free of IPRs and hence any limitations to access. This should apply
to seeds, vegetatively reproducing material, and also the genes they contain
which express the special traits that farmers have bred into their crops.
The USA, in support of the seed industry, is negotiating hard to reduce the
scope of article 12 that defines access rules by specifying that
any derived material (varieties, genes and gene sequences) can be patented.
It is agreed, however, that mandatory commercial benefit sharing is based
only on the use of material covered by the IU by the plant breeding industry.
Thus, only if terms of access are attractive to Industry will there be
commercial use and hence benefits. But these benefits to farmers will in any
case be a tiny fraction of the US$ 2 trillion annual turnover of the food
industry.
Relationship with other international agreements
Convention on Biological Diversity: Some Latin American
countries, especially Brazil, fail to recognize the imperative for a
multilateral agreement to cover the complex international composition and
origin of most crop plants' genes. These countries prefer bilateral deals,
within the scope of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
despite the fact that the purpose of this renegotiation has been to bring the
IU into harmony with the CBD.
World Trade Organization: USA pressure is trying to make this treaty
subordinate to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and especially TRIPS.
This is part of an attempt to further weaken the IU.
The list of crops
At present, the IU only covers 35 food crops and 29 forages, representing a
small proportion of the 100 food crops of importance to food security and
18,000 forages of value to food and agriculture. Soya, sugar cane, oil
palm and groundnut are among important crops missing from the list.
Without a significant expansion of the list of crops and forages, the European
Union will probably not agree to the IU in November.
The Challenge - final negotiations in November 2001
The FAO Conference and World Food Summit - Five years later
will be the forum for the final decision on whether the IU is adopted. It is
imperative that agreement is reached not only for food security and
farmers’ livelihoods but also the future of the international gene banks
and public agricultural research. The implementation of the 1996 Leipzig
Global Plan of Action on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
also depends on a successful outcome. Failure to reach an agreement could
damage the credibility of the FAO as it hosts the high profile food summit.
The IU has the potential to be a prime example of responsible global
governance, ensuring that those genetic resources which underpin social needs
are maintained in the public domain. This agricultural biodiversity provides
security against future adversity, be it from climate change, war, industrial
developments or ecosystem collapse.
An agreement in the public interest rather than for private profit would
ensure the genetic resources that underpin food security are safeguarded in
perpetuity.
From 2 to 13 November, in Rome, Italy, 180 governments will be
responsible for the final negotiations of the IU at the FAO Conference and the
World Food Summit - Five years later.
Patrick Mulvany, Intermediate Technology Development Group
(ITDG),Email: Patrick_Mulvany@CompuServe.com
CSO Letter to Delegates to the negotiations of the
International Undertaking and FAO Permanent Representatives
From: Civil Society Organizations participating as observers to these
negotiations
Date: July 23, 2001
Dear Madam/Sir,
First of all we would like to congratulate you with the progress made in the
negotiations to agree on a new IU at the last meeting of the Commission on
PGRFA, held 25-30 June in Rome. Important progress was made to wrap up these
negotiations, and the establishment of a new legally binding treaty on
agricultural biodiversity is now within reach.
While we are overall very happy with the progress made, we also have a
number of serious concerns about the final outcome of the negotiations. Please
find attached a short briefing on the outcome of the negotiations drawn up by
GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International) – that summarise them well.
In our opinion the single most important outstanding (and still bracketed)
issue is whether the IU will unequivocally prohibit intellectual property on
the seeds and their “parts and components” of the materials shared
under the Multilateral System. We think that if it does, then the new treaty
will be comprehensive, cover many crops, and contribute to ensure the continued
availability of genetic resources for further breeding by all. It will then
become a milestone in the struggle for sustainable and biodiversity-based
agriculture. However, if it does not, then the IU will contribute to the
further privatisation and erosion of biodiversity – and thus undermine its
own objectives.
We attach high importance to a strong, effective and successful Undertaking
and very much hope that you will make the right decision in Rome next November
– when the final text of the treaty will be negotiated. We will be there
to support you in that decision.
We would very much appreciate your feedback on these ideas and
perspectives. Also, as CSO observers to the IU negotiations, we are
considering to open an informal electronic discussion forum about the IU
during the months of September and October in order allow for a free
exchange of ideas and proposals before the November Summit. Please let us
know if you are interested in being part of such a forum - and thus receive
the online discussion via Email - by replying affirmatively to this message
Signed,
Action Aid
Berne Declaration
Crocevia
Gaia Foundation
GRAIN
Greenpeace International
IATP
ITDG
RAFI
Via Campesina
The IU Hanging on its Last Brackets: A Brief
Assessment
GRAIN
July 2001
A new global treaty which aims to ensure food security through the
conservation, exchange and sustainable use of plant genetic resources was
roughly agreed to on 1 July 2001 at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO) in Rome. But a number of crucial issues are still unresolved. These will
have to be dealt with in November at a high-level meeting that will assess
progress since the World Food Summit that was held five years ago. At stake is
whether the world's agricultural biodiversity is nurtured to provide private
gains for a few or food security for all.
The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (IU) has been under negotiation for the past seven years. An
earlier voluntary version of the IU had been agreed to by the member states of
FAO back in 1981, framing genetic resources as a common heritage of humanity
which needs to be protected from further erosion and loss. But that agreement
was overrun by the new political reality of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, which reaffirmed that States have sovereign rights over their own
biological resources and linked access to these resources with the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits from them. The underlying objective of the IU
-- to ensure the continued availability of genetic resources for food and
agriculture -- has not changed in those twenty years. It has only become more
urgent.
The new IU will be a legally-binding treaty with its own governing body. Its
overall focus encompasses all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
But its core provisions on “access” and “benefit sharing”
will apply to a specific list of crops. The genetic resources of those crops
will be pooled into a “multilateral system” that will operate under
IU rules.
Although the text of the new Undertaking was roughly finalised last week,
there are still a number of crucial issues that remain in brackets, i.e. not
yet agreed to. The most important ones are: whether and to what extent
monopolistic intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be applied to genetic
materials accessed through the multilateral system; the relationship between
the IU and other international agreements, most notably the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, and what crops are included in the IU
The main lines
The new IU basically establishes the following:
- The contracting parties will make specific efforts to conserve and promote
the good use of genetic resources for food and agriculture. Good use includes
agricultural policies that don’t undermine biodiversity and support for
the role of farmers.
- The IU provides for a multilateral system that sets common rules for
access to, and the sharing of benefits from, crop genetic resources. This
system applies only to a specific list of crops -- some 35 (+29 Forages) as of
now. This list can grow if parties agree, but the crops that fall outside the
list will be treated bilaterally on a case-by-case basis according to the
provisions of the Convention on Biodiversity.
- Access to genetic resources under the IU will be multilateral. In other
words, countries commit all materials of the agreed crops into a common pot
that parties can then draw from under the same rules.
- Financial benefits from the use of IU-governed genetic resources will be
shared through a compulsory mechanism that draws on the revenues generated from
their commercialisation.
- Whether and to what extent the multilateral system will allow for
intellectual property rights on genetic materials in the common pot is still
undecided. The current text is in brackets, leaving the possibility wide open.
- Farmers’ rights, in the meantime, will be promoted internationally
but subject to national law (such as the prohibition to save seed if the seeds
are protected at the national level by IPR).
The watering down process
As often happens in the course of such negotiations, a number of OECD
countries led by the United States managed to insert some last minute changes
in the text that could make the IU less effective and less comprehensive:
- Only those genetic resources that are in the public domain will be subject
to the rules of the multilateral system. Companies and other private holders of
crop germplasm are merely ''invited'' to contribute the materials they
maintain. In essence, this allows private entities to be parasites on the
system.
- The requirement to share financial benefits only applies if the recipient
of the multilateral germplasm limits access to the genetic product he or she
sells. Furthermore, this benefit-sharing can only be realised through
individual contractual agreements -- not necessarily based on new national
legislation -- which could turn it into an unworkable and untraceable system.
- The current list of crops to which the multilateral system will apply is
ridiculously small. If the treaty is to contribute seriously to food security,
it has to apply to many more crops and not only the major commodities.
- The implementation of the IU, and any follow-up action that countries
might want to develop under it, will be governed by consensus. In practice,
this means that any country can veto any proposal and potentially block the
meaningful execution of the treaty.
Despite the successful efforts to weaken the text during the final days of
negotiation last week, the new treaty with its governing body is probably a
good thing to have. As the multilateral system is meant to facilitate a wide
exchange of crop germplasm -- and to share the benefits from it fairly -- it
could help prevent a “Wild West” scenario of purely bilateral
wheeling-and-dealing from completely taking over. The governing body that will
manage the Undertaking, and the multilateral system, should provide a political
platform where issues related to crop genetic resources can be dealt with
openly at the international level. Everybody, but especially farmers at the
local level in need of continued access to agricultural biodiversity, stands to
win from such a system.
However, whether these laudable functions will actually materialise depends
to a great extent on two things. One is whether the treaty will be able
effectively to stop the further privatisation of genetic resources through
IPRs. The other is whether the IU will manage to hold its own ground against
the imposition of other rules and agreements, such as those implemented by the
WTO, that ruthlessly prioritise commercial and international trade interests
over and above agriculture and local food security. These are precisely the two
issues that are still outstanding and hanging in brackets.
Final showdown at November’s food security summit
"The treaty fails in many respects," Patrick Mulvany of the
UK’s Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) said at the closing
the negotiating session last weekend. “It is not fair: although Farmers'
Rights are recognised, they will be subordinate to national laws protecting the
plant breeding industry. It is not equitable: mandatory benefits returned to
farmers in developing countries through this treaty will be a minuscule
fraction of the food industry's US$2 trillion annual turnover. And it is not
comprehensive: it will apply to a mere 34 food crops and a derisory 29 forages,
unless more are added before November."
We agree. The IU only weakly reflects the expectations and demands that 400
civil society organisations from 63 countries put on the table. But the real
test for the treaty is still to come.
Countries now have to decide whether the IU will prohibit intellectual
property on the “parts and components” (the genes and traits in
crops) of the materials shared from the common pot. If it does, then the treaty
will contribute to ensure the continued availability of genetic resources for
further breeding, and will become a milestone in the struggle for sustainable
and biodiversity-based agriculture. If it does not, then the IU will contribute
to the further privatisation of biodiversity and will be seen rather as an
international “undertaker” for plant genetic resources. Because it
would then create a legally-binding system that removes biodiversity further
away from the control of farmers themselves. It would allow powerful
corporations to privatise the shared germplasm and enhance genetic erosion. No
developing country will want to contribute genetic resources to a mechanism
that allows the materials to be siphoned off as intellectual monopolies in the
North. It would be both destructive and wrong.
The final showdown will take place during the first week of November in
Rome, when the FAO Conference meets and will also take stock of how far things
have come five years after the World Food Summit of 1996. At that gathering,
the final version of the IU is due to be negotiated, adopted and signed. We
expect that unless there is strong public pressure to push the IU in the right
direction, then the commercial interests pushing it in the opposite direction
could very well prevail and the IU will fail.
For further information see these UKabc pages: ITDG is maintaining a
section of the UK Food Group's website entirely on the IU negotiations. It is
loaded with press materials, position papers, campaign resources, contacts and
links to official documents.
UN COMPROMISO INTERNACIONAL ENTRE CORCHETES
Breve evaluación de Grain
Julio de 2001
El 1º de julio de 2001, en la sede de la Organización de las
Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), en Roma, se
acordó un nuevo tratado mundial cuyo objetivo declarado es el de
garantizar la seguridad alimentaria a través de la conservación,
el intercambio y el empleo sustentable de los recursos fitogenéticos.
Pero todavía quedan pendientes varios temas cruciales, que serán
tratados en noviembre en una reunión de alto nivel que evaluará
los avances realizados desde la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación,
realizada cinco años atrás. Lo que está en juego es si la
biodiversidad agrícola mundial está enfocada a ofrecer ganancias
privadas a unos pocos o seguridad alimentaria para todos.
El Compromiso Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos para la
Alimentación y la Agricultura (CI) ha sido objeto de negociaciones en
los últimos siete años. En 1981, los estados miembros de la FAO
adoptaron una versión anterior del CI, de carácter no vinculante,
que enmarcaba a los recursos genéticos dentro del concepto de patrimonio
común de la humanidad, y en tal carácter debían ser
protegidos de la erosión y la pérdida. Pero la nueva realidad
política del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, que
redefinió los recursos genéticos integrándolos al concepto
de soberanía nacional, y vinculó el acceso a los mismos con la
participación justa y equitativa de los beneficios de ellos derivados,
superó ese acuerdo. El objetivo subyacente del CI –asegurar el
acceso continuado a los recursos genéticos para la alimentación y
la agricultura- no ha cambiado en estos veinte años. Siquiera, se ha
vuelto más urgente.
El nuevo CI será un tratado jurídicamente vinculante con un
organismo rector propio. Su foco de atención en general abarca todos los
recursos fitogenéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura.
Pero sus disposiciones centrales sobre “acceso” y
“participación de los beneficios” se aplicarán a una
lista específica de cultivos. Los recursos genéticos de esos
cultivos serán incluidos en un “sistema multilateral” que
funcionará conforme a las normas del CI.
Si bien el texto del nuevo Compromiso fue concluido prácticamente la
semana pasada, todavía quedan una serie de temas importantes que siguen
entre corchetes, es decir sobre los cuales no hay acuerdo. Los más
importantes se refieren a si los derechos de propiedad intelectual
monopólicos pueden ser aplicados a materiales genéticos a los que
se accede a través del sistema multilateral, y en tal caso, hasta
qué grado; y la relación entre el CI y otros acuerdos
internacionales, en especial el acuerdo de la Organización Mundial de
Comercio (OMC) sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual
relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC / TRIPs).
Los lineamientos principales
El nuevo CI establece básicamente lo siguiente:
- Las partes contratantes harán esfuerzos concretos por conservar y
promover el buen empleo de los recursos genéticos para la
alimentación y la agricultura. El buen empleo incluye las
políticas agrícolas que no socaven la biodiversidad y apoyen el
papel de los agricultores.
- El CI brinda un sistema multilateral que establece normas comunes para el
acceso a los beneficios derivados de los recursos genéticos de cultivos
y la participación equitativa de los mismos. Este sistema se aplica
únicamente a una lista específica de cultivos –por el
momento alrededor de 35-. La lista puede crecer en la medida que las partes
estén de acuerdo, pero los cultivos que caen fuera de la lista
serán tratados bilateralmente, caso por caso, conforme a las
disposiciones del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica.
- Conforme al CI, el acceso a los recursos genéticos será
multilateral. En otras palabras, los países se comprometen a entregar
todos los materiales de los cultivos acordados a una “canasta” de la
que luego podrán efectuar retiros de acuerdo a las mismas reglas.
- Los beneficios financieros derivados del empleo de recursos
genéticos regidos por el CI serán compartidos a través de
un mecanismo obligatorio que se nutrirá de los ingresos generados de su
comercialización.
- Todavía no se ha decidido si el sistema multilateral
permitirá que se detenten derechos de propiedad intelectual en los
materiales genéticos de la “canasta” común, y en tal
caso, en qué medida. El texto actual está entre corchetes, lo que
deja abierta la posibilidad.
- Mientras tanto, se promoverán internacionalmente los derechos de
los agricultores pero sujeto a las legislaciones nacionales (tales como la
prohibición de guardar semillas si en el ámbito nacional
éstas son protegidas por DPI).
Como ocurre a menudo, en el curso de las negociaciones varios países
de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo
Económicos (OCDE), encabezados por Estados Unidos, se las ingeniaron
para insertar, a último momento, cambios en el texto, que podrían
quitarle efectividad y amplitud al CI:
- Únicamente los recursos genéticos que están en el
dominio público quedarán sujetos a las normas del sistema
multilateral. A las compañías y a otros poseedores privados de
recursos fitogenéticos se les hace una mera
“invitación” a contribuir con los materiales que conservan. En
esencia, esto permite que las entidades privadas sean parásitos del
sistema.
- El requisito de compartir los beneficios financieros se aplica
únicamente en caso de que el receptor del germoplasma multilateral
limite el acceso al producto genético que vende. Además, esta
participación de los beneficios puede realizarse a través de
acuerdos contractuales individuales –no necesariamente basados en una
nueva legislación nacional- que a su vez podrían convertirse en
un sistema inoperante y que haga imposible seguir el rastro de los recursos
genéticos.
- La lista actual de cultivos a los cuales se aplica el sistema multilateral
es irrisoriamente pequeña. Si el tratado aspira a contribuir en serio a
la seguridad alimentaria, debe aplicarse a muchos más cultivos y no
sólo a los principales cultivos comerciales básicos.
- La aplicación del CI y cualquier acción de seguimiento que
los países puedan querer emprender dentro de los términos por
él fijados, serán regidos por consenso. En la práctica,
esto significa que cualquier país puede vetar cualquier propuesta y
potencialmente bloquear la ejecución significativa del tratado.
A pesar de que la semana pasada, en los en últimos días de las
negociaciones, los intentos por debilitar el texto tuvieron éxito,
probablemente sea bueno tener este nuevo tratado con su organismo rector. La
intención del sistema multilateral es facilitar un vasto intercambio de
recursos fitogenéticos –y que exista una participación
equitativa de los beneficios sobre él-, por lo que podría ayudar
a impedir que se entre en un proceso feroz de negociaciones bilaterales de toma
y daca. Tanto el organismo rector que se encargará del Compromiso como
el sistema multilateral deberían ofrecer una plataforma política
en que los temas vinculados a los recursos fitogenéticos puedan ser
manejados a escala internacional. Todos tienen para ganar con un sistema de
este tipo, pero más aún los agricultores locales que necesitan un
acceso continuado a la biodiversidad agrícola.
Que esas funciones loables finalmente se materialicen depende en gran medida
de dos cosas. Una, si el tratado podrá efectivamente frenar la
privatización de los recursos genéticos a través de los
DPI. La otra es si el CI logrará mantenerse firme contra la
imposición de otras normas y acuerdos, como las aplicadas por la OMC,
que, sin consideración alguna, dan prioridad a los intereses comerciales
internacionales por encima de la agricultura y la seguridad alimentaría.
Esos son precisamente los dos temas que siguen pendientes y entre corchetes.
Desenlace final en noviembre, en la cumbre de la seguridad
alimentaria
“El tratado es defectuoso en varios aspectos”, declaró
Patrick Mulvany, del Grupo de Desarrollo de Tecnologías Intermedias
(ITDG), del Reino Unido, la semana pasada, en la clausura de la sesión
de negociaciones. “No es justo: si bien se reconocen los Derechos de los
Agricultores, quedarán subordinados a las leyes nacionales que protegen
la industria fitomejoradora. No es equitativo: los beneficios obligatorios que
se devengará para los agricultores de los países en desarrollo a
través de este tratado serán una fracción minúscula
de los 2 millones billones (o trillones - un l millon por un millon) de
dólares de dividendos anuales de la industria de la alimentación.
Y no es amplio: se aplicará apenas a unos 34 cultivos alimenticios y
unos 29 forrajes - sino mas estén agregados antes de noviembre”.
Coincidimos. El CI apenas si refleja débilmente las expectativas y
demandas puestas sobre la mesa por más de 400 organizaciones de la
sociedad civil de 60 países. Pero todavía no ha llegado la hora
de la verdad para el tratado.
Los países tienen que decidir ahora si el CI prohibirá la
propiedad intelectual sobre las “partes y componentes” de los
materiales compartidos de la “canasta” común. Si se pronuncia
por la positiva, entonces el tratado contribuirá a asegurar el acceso
continuado a los recursos genéticos para continuar su mejoramiento, y
pasará a ser un hito en la lucha por una agricultura sustentable y
basada en la biodiversidad. Si se pronuncia por la negativa, entonces el CI
contribuirá a profundizar la privatización de la biodiversidad y
será el artífice de la destrucción de los recursos
fitogenéticos. En ese caso crearía un sistema
jurídicamente vinculante que apartará aún más la
biodiversidad del control de los agricultores. Permitiría que poderosas
empresas privatizaran el germoplasma compartido y agravaran la erosión
genética. Ning&ua;cute;n país en desarrollo deseará
contribuir con recursos genéticos a un mecanismo que permite que los
materiales sean pirateados bajo la forma de monopolios intelectuales del Norte.
Podría ser destructivo y equivocado.
El desenlace final tendrá lugar durante la primera semana de
noviembre, en Roma, cuando la Conferencia de la FAO se reúna a evaluar
hasta dónde han llegado las cosas cinco años después de la
Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación de 1996. En esa reunión
deberá negociarse, adoptarse y firmarse la versión final del CI.
Por cierto que a menos que exista una fuerte presión pública para
impulsar el CI en la dirección correcta, es muy posible que prevalezcan
los intereses comerciales que empujan en la dirección opuesta.
Por mayor información:
El ITDG mantiene una sección del sitio Web de Food Group, del Reino
Unido, totalmente dedicada a las negociaciones del CI. Hay abundante material
de prensa, documentos de posición, recursos de campaña, contactos
y enlaces a documentos oficiales
Por información en español, la página Web de GRAIN
está disponible en http://www.grain.org/sp/front/index.cfm,
y también se encontrará en la página Web
http://biodiversidadla.org
Les dernières incertitudes pesant sur
l’Engagement international :
Une vue d’ensemble
GRAIN – Genetic Ressources Action International
Juillet 2001
Un nouveau traité mondial qui a pour but de garantir la
sécurité alimentaire grâce la conservation,
l’échange et l’utilisation durable des ressources
phytogénétiques a été accepté dans ses
grandes lignes le 1er juillet 2001 au siège de la FAO (Organisation des
Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture) à Rome.
Cependant, des questions fondamentales ne sont toujours pas résolues.
Une solution devra être trouvée en novembre lors d’une
réunion d’experts chargés d’évaluer les
progrès réalisés depuis le Sommet mondial de
l’alimentation tenu il y a cinq ans. Il s’agit de déterminer
si la biodiversité agricole mondiale doit être
préservée pour assurer des profits privés à
quelques uns ou la sécurité alimentaire de tous.
Les négociations sur l’Engagement international sur les
ressources phytogénétiques alimentaire et agricole (Engagement)
durent depuis sept ans. Une première version volontariste de
l’Engagement a été acceptée par les Etats membres de
la FAO en 1981, définissant les ressources génétiques
comme l’héritage commun de l’humanité à
préserver alors qu’elles sont menacées par
l’érosion et l’extinction. Cependant, cet accord a
été dépassé par la nouvelle réalité
politique de la Convention sur la diversité biologique, qui
considère que les ressources génétiques tiennent de la
souveraineté nationale et qui lie leur accès au partage juste et
équitable des bénéfices retirés. L’objectif
sous-jacent de l’Engagement (préserver la disponibilité des
ressources génétiques alimentaires et agricoles) n’a pas
changé en vingt ans. Il est simplement devenu plus urgent.
Le nouvel Engagement sera un traité légalement contraignant
doté de son propre organe exécutif. Son objectif
général englobe toutes les ressources
phytogénétiques alimentaires et agricoles. Mais le centre de ses
dispositions, « l’accès » et le « partage des
bénéfices », s’appliquera à une liste
spécifique de cultures dont les ressources génétiques
seront intégrées dans un « système
multilatéral » qui fonctionnera selon les règles de
l’Engagement.
Bien que le texte du nouvel Engagement a été finalisé
dans ses grandes lignes la semaine dernière, certaines questions
fondamentales restent en suspens, ne sont pas résolues. Les plus
importantes d’entre elles sont les suivantes : premièrement, les
Droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) s’appliqueront-ils
aux boutures obtenues grâce au système multilatéral et si
oui, dans quelle mesure ? Deuxièmement, quelles seront les relations
entre l’Engagement et les autres accords internationaux, en particulier
l’accord de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) sur les Aspects
des Droits de propriété intellectuelle liés au commerce ?
Les principes de base
Le nouvel Engagement établit les principes de base suivants :
- Les parties contractantes s’attacheront à conserver et
promouvoir l’utilisation raisonnable des ressources
génétiques alimentaires et agricoles. Il s’agit notamment de
mettre en place des politiques agricoles qui ne mettent pas en danger la
biodiversité et soutiennent le rôle des agriculteurs.
- L’Engagement offre un système multilatéral qui
établit des règles communes pour l’accès et le
partage des bénéfices tirés des ressources
génétiques cultivées. Ce système s’applique
seulement à un certain nombre de cultures, environ 35 aujourd’hui.
Cette liste peut être élargie si les parties le désirent.
Les plantes qui n’en font pas partie seront traitées
bilatéralement, au cas par cas selon les dispositions de la Convention
sur la biodiversité.
- L’accès aux ressources génétiques dans le cadre
de l’Engagement sera multilatéral. En d’autres termes, chaque
pays confie tous les éléments constitutifs des plantes
concernées dans un pot commun que les parties pourront ensuite
prélever selon des règles identiques.
- Les bénéfices financiers tirés de l’utilisation
des ressources génétiques régies par l’Engagement
seront partagés grâce à un mécanisme contraignant de
prélèvements des revenus de leur commercialisation.
- On ne sais pas encore si le système multilatéral autorisera
les Droits de propriété intellectuelle sur le matériel
génétique tiré du pot commun. Le texte actuel est mis
entre parenthèses, laissant la possibilité grande ouverte.
En attendant, les droits des agriculteurs seront promus internationalement
mais soumis à la loi nationale (notamment à l’interdiction
de conserver des semences si celle-ci sont protégées
nationalement par des Droits de propriété intellectuelle).
Un projet édulcoré
Comme souvent au cours de telles négociations, certains pays de
l’OCDE conduits par les Etats-Unis, ont réussi à introduire
des changements de dernière minute dans le texte. Ces modifications
pourraient rendre l’Engagement moins efficace et moins complet :
- Seules les ressources génétiques qui sont dans le domaine
public seront soumises aux règles du système multilatéral.
Les compagnies et autres détenteurs privés de boutures sont
simplement « invités » à contribuer. En fait, cela
permettra aux entités privées de parasiter le système.
- L’obligation de partager les bénéfices financiers ne
s’applique que si le détenteur de bouture limite l’utilisation
du matériel génétique qu’il ou elle vend. De plus, ce
partage peut être effectué par le biais d’accords
contractuels individuels, pas nécessairement basés sur la
nouvelle législation nationale, qui pourraient conduire à un
système ingérable et indécelable.
- La liste actuelle des cultures concernées par le système
multilatéral est ridiculement limitée. Si le traité doit
véritablement favoriser la sécurité alimentaire, il doit
s’appliquer à bien d’autres plantes et non aux principaux
produits de base seulement.
- L’application de l’Engagement, ainsi que toute action
ultérieure que les différents pays voudraient appliquer par la
suite, devra faire l’objet d’un consensus. En pratique, cela signifie
qu’un seul pays peut opposer son veto à toute proposition et
bloquer de fait la bonne exécution du traité.
Malgré les tentatives réussies pour affaiblir le texte pendant
les derniers jours de la négociation la semaine dernière, la mise
en place de ce nouveau traité et de son organe exécutif est
semble-t-il une bonne chose. Comme le système multilatéral a pour
but de faciliter un large échange des boutures (et de partager
équitablement les bénéfices qui en découlent), il
devrait permettre la mise en place d’une « jungle » où
les magouilles bilatérales règnent en maître. L’organe
exécutif chargé de gérer l’Engagement et le
système multilatéral, devrait offrir une plate-forme politique
où les questions liées aux ressources
phytogénétiques peuvent être étudiées
ouvertement au niveau international. Tout le monde, et en premier les
agriculteurs locaux qui doivent conserver l’accès à la
biodiversité agricole, devrait gagner avec un tel système.
Cependant, ces fonctions louables ne pourront se réaliser
qu’à deux conditions. La première c’est que le
traité permette réellement d’enrayer la privatisation des
ressources génétiques à travers les Droits de
propriété intellectuelle. La seconde c’est que
l’Engagement réussisse à faire valoir son propre point de
vue face aux autres règles et accords, tels que ceux de l’OMC, qui
donne implacablement la priorité aux intérêts mercantiles
et ceux du commerce international au détriment de l’agriculture et
de la sécurité alimentaire. Ce sont précisément ces
deux questions qui sont encore en suspens et laissés entre
parenthèses.
Le combat final prévu pour Sommet sur la sécurité
alimentaire en novembre
Patrick Mulvany, de l’Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITGD)
du Royaume Uni a déclaré à la fin de la session de
négociation le week-end dernier que « le traité est
insuffisant sur de nombreux points ». « Il n’est pas juste :
bien que les droits des agriculteurs sont reconnus, ils seront soumis aux lois
nationales qui protègent l’industrie d’obtention. Il
n’est pas équitable : les bénéfices qui doivent
obligatoirement être redistribués aux agriculteurs des pays en
voie de développement d’après le traité, ne
représenteront qu’une infime partie du chiffre d’affaires de
l’industrie alimentaire évaluée à 200 milliards de
dollars par an. Il est incomplet : il ne s’appliquera qu’à
seulement 34 cultures alimentaires et à 29 plantes fourragères,
c’est dérisoire ».
Nous sommes d’accord. L’Engagement international ne répond
que faiblement les attentes et les demandes que 400 organisations de la
société civile de 60 pays avaient mis sur la table. Mais le
véritable test du traité est encore à venir.
Les pays doivent maintenant décider si l’Engagement interdira la
propriété intellectuelle sur « les parties et composants
» du matériel partagé dans le pot commun. Dans
l’affirmative, le traité permettra d’assurer que les
ressources génétiques restent disponibles et accessibles aux
obtenteurs et il marquera un jalon dans le combat en faveur de
l’agriculture durable et biodiversifiée. Dans le cas contraire,
l’Engagement contribuera au processus de privatisation de la
biodiversité et il sera plutôt considéré comme le
« fossoyeur » international des ressources
phytogénétiques, parce qu’il créerait alors un
système légalement contraignant qui éloigne encore plus le
contrôle des agriculteurs eux-mêmes sur la biodiversité. Il
permettrait à de puissantes corporations de privatiser les boutures et
les semences partagées et favoriserait l’érosion
génétique. Aucun pays en voie de développement ne voudra
offrir ses ressources génétiques à un mécanisme qui
permet d’alimenter l’exclusivité intellectuelle du Nord. Ce
serait à la fois destructeur et mal.
Le combat final se déroulera la première semaine de novembre
à Rome quand la Conférence de la FAO se rencontrera pour
évaluer comment les choses ont évolué cinq ans
après le Sommet mondial de l’alimentation de 1996. Lors de cette
réunion, la version finale de l’Engagement doit être
négociée, adoptée et signée. Si la pression
populaire pour faire pencher l’Engagement dans la bonne direction
n’est pas assez forte, il est fort à craindre que les
intérêts commerciaux poussant dans la direction opposée
pourraient prévaloir.
Global Seed Treaty endangered by crafty US delegation
The final round of the international negotiations on a Global Seed Treaty
("International Undertaking“) being held from 25 to 30 June at the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), have reached a critical
stage. The treaty is to agree a legal framework for the conservation and
sustainable use of the seed and germplasm of crop plants. It is being torpedoed
by commercial interests, and the basis for food security is sinking fast.
Are the negotiators living up to the challenge posed by 400 Civil Society
organisations from more than 60 countries? Is this agreement equitable, just
and comprehensive? Score so far - 0 out of 3.
Greenpeace said today: „Industry's agenda is killing the Treaty. They
are demanding the right to claim patents over any genetic resources of food
crops that they can identify and modify. This is destabilising the negotiations
and could lead to the collapse of this Treaty. If delegations don't take a
strong stand today, the Treaty is dead.“
One of the biggest problems of the negotiations is the strategy of the USA
to delay discussions by presenting new wording that undermines already weak
text. New text on Access introduced by the USA now explicitly states that
patents can be claimed on genetic parts and components that have been modified
or isolated from the original seeds. The US also argues that it cannot rule
over the seeds that are in the hands of its big biotech industry - which would
amount to giving that industry a free ride and exempt it from any obligations
under this treaty.
Patrick Mulvany of ITDG in the UK said "If it goes this way, this
treaty is becoming a charter for biopiracy - it is irresponsible and
unacceptable."
"Concern is building in the US Congress", said Todd Leake of the
Farmers' Union of the USA. "Senator Wellstone wants to know if the US
delegation is doing all it can to bring about a treaty in the best interests of
family farmers in the USA and worldwide." Leake added " A new US Farm
Bill is being prepared this month by Congress - international agreements such
as this are a cornerstone for the future of farming in the USA. I am incensed
that the US negotiating team is undermining the Undertaking. Who are they
working for - the biotech industry or US family farmers?"
There are no plenary sessions. Instead regional meetings are distracted into
discussing phrases which were primarily meant to delay the negotiations. Were
this to continue, there will be no agreed text by Saturday. If this is the
case, most experts are warning, it is likely that this might be the end of the
Global Seed Treaty - a shameful end to seven years of negotiation.
The question whether plants and seeds can be patented has big impact on a
lot of delegations from other countries. Some developing countries - including
Brazil and Colombia - are pushing the line that biodiversity will make them
money and aim to bilateralise the already weak multilateral framework of the
IU. They are eager to sell genetic resources exclusively to some companies and
therefore not subjecting them to the multilateral system, which will provide
access to all the 160 contracting parties.
'There is still one day to go in these negotiations' says Silvia Rodriguez
of Costa Rica's Programma Cambios. 'The best thing to do is to leave behind the
few countries that are pushing their narrow commercial interests, and get the
treaty agreed by the vast majority of the countries that are interested in a
fair and comprehensive deal. The United States and a few others won't join
anyway, so we might as well stop them from further obstructing the
negotiations''
Action Aid, Berne Declaration, Crocevia, GAIA, GEN, GRAIN, Greenpeace, IATP,
ITDG
One delegate took exception to Sunday's
report of the error made by the Zimbabwean delegate in Council when he sided
with the USA in proposing that the IU negotiations be delayed beyond the
November FAO Conference. This delegate left a note on the door of the NGO room
accusing us of incorrectly stating the facts. Whoever this person is, s/he
should look at the record of Council in document CL 120/PV/8 towards the end
where the exact words of the Zimbabwean delegate are recorded. The truth is out
there!
Update: THURSDAY 27 June
2001
It's Thursday night, the eve of the
penultimate day of the 'last' meeting of a 7 year process and nothing would
suggest a deal is about to be struck...
Today, there was no plenary. The only open session was a redundant and final
meeting of the List working group which met, disagreed about what crop
relatives should be included in the Crop genera already 'agreed' in Spoleto,
could not bring themselves to add any new crops onto the list - so no onions,
peanuts, soya...
There was only one glimmer of light, the whole Brassica family (Cruciferae)
is included in all its splendour (with the exception of one relative found in
the Andes)...
The key process is being conducted behind
closed doors, with rumours and counter-rumours leaking out. First, the Benefit
Sharing article is 'agreed' then Industry presents the 'Friends of the Chair'
with a new 'Access' article that makes no reference to keeping the genetic
parts and components in the material out of the clutches of IPRs; then Article
15 on the CG Gene Banks is being reformulated. For most delegates, this lack of
transparency is leading to a lack of trust.
If a smallholder farmer and her household,
the supposed beneficiaries of all this effort, looked in on what is happening,
she would cry. All this effort, for what? A nearly empty food basket with some
healthy cabbages and a miserably narrow set of other crops, genetically
weakened by inbreeding, but a whole set of genes that are now the property of a
distant corporation...
Have negotiators lived up to the challenge
posed by Civil Society? Is this agreementequitable, just and comprehensive?
Score so far - 0 out of 3.
If nothing happens on Friday the IU is
probably dead - there would be no chance of concluding everything on Saturday
alone, and more negotiating time is unlikely. The Treaty will have been
timed-out!
Watch out for the Blame Game, tomorrow...
in this game of 'pass the parcel of blame' who will be left holding the parcel
when the money runs out?
NGOs circulated their
letter to the CGRFA signed by nearly 400 non-governmental organisations from 63
countries that responded to an email request for sign-ons (See paper copies
on desks and doors - and www.ukabc.org/iu3c.htm)
Update: WEDNESDAY 28 June
2001
Well, Wednesday has come and gone and it
is still CGRFA business as usual…
...governments are teetering on the edge of a precipice, being urged forward
"in the name of progress" by one region while another region is
challenging the very basis of the IU - the list of crops and forages - and is
eating the cliff face from under the feet of the negotiators. And while
countries hesitate on the brink of the abyss of food insecurity, some are
considering how to retreat to the safety of a system based on
interdependence.
ITDG, voicing the concerns of all CSOs
present at the CGRFA, made a plea to the Plenary that delegations move forward
by expanding the list of crops and forages on the List in Annex 1 and by not
allowing late proposals to derail the negotiations. The importance of the IU
for food security and livelihoods cannot allow it to be held hostage to
industry's proprietorial advances: material in the mutilateral system, and its
genetic parts and components, must not be subject to IPRs. The farmers of the
world deserve better for the work they do on behalf of humanity: they deserve
recognition and reward. If
Wednesday was signposted, incorrectly, as the day of decision - make no mistake
about Thursday. If G77 does not give clear signals about the List of Crops and
Forages, and if the European Region does not give clear signals that they may
consider the one US contribution (on an MTA-based commercial benefit sharing
system) but no more, then the deal is off: there will be no IU.
The Canadian Co-chair of the List of Crops
and Forages working group made an impassioned plea to delegates to get serious.
To consider the import of what they are deciding for the future of humanity,
livelihoods and starvation. The CGIAR equally stressed that if crops, genrea
and genepools are not given priority by governments then these genera will
become extinct, internationally. Ther can be no moment more serious than this
in terms of the food security of all of us, at local, national, regional and
global levels
So, Thursday is decision day(?)
But watch this space for an update tomorrow...
... and visit
www.percyschmeiser.com for a
preview of Friday's open meeting at 12:45 in the Austrian room.
TUESDAY 26 June
2001
A TREATY THAT'S NOT EVEN WORTH
PEANUTS
Western hemisphere regions together could
kill the IU.
In the Red corner - late bombshell
proposals on commercial benefit sharing are leaking out into the foyers. These
would take weeks of negotiating time (probably years - at current rates of
progress), and will 'talk out the treaty'! The US, in the spirit of 'being
helpful' (sic) wants to rewrite text in several Articles and keep clauses that
would make the whole IU essentially voluntary... US industry quite pleased -
European counterparts unhappy.
And in the Green corner - knives are out
to reduce the crop and forages genera in the IU from some 18,000 known genera
to a laughable list of 20 - even Arachis the peanut genus was deleted by
Bolivia (not even in the Working Group) but then axed by Argentina. This does
not give much credibility to any government hoping for supposed green gold from
hay? Are they awaiting a latter-day Rumplestiltskin to weave his magic - who
would this be and what future reward will he exact?
Wednesday will be the decider - will the
combined effects of the battles in Red and Green rooms ditch the Treaty?
Do nations want an agreement - or do they
just want to go on losing the world's extinguishing agricultural biodiversity
whilst negotiators sit and spin in Roman luxury?
Decisions will have to be taken on whether
the Chair's admitedly-not-completely-satisfactory compromise text, with all its
subtle nuances and ambiguities, will be the basis for an agreement; Also,
whether the IU will have a list of genera and crop and forage genepools that
will really underpin food security in all countries and regions; And, if they
want the safety net of International Collections of seeds of all important food
crop genepools kept in genebanks as well as provisions for real benefits to
farmers that would provide incentives for sustainable use and further
development of the resources in farmers' fields...
or if they would rather let time and the genetic resources of the world, that
are the raw material with which to confront the scourge of hunger, slip through
their hands.
Governments - You decide!
there are only 4 days left...
your credibility is on the line with FAO's and the CGRFA's.
Other matters covered on Tuesday included
a race through many, less contentious but none the less important Articles,
with a brief pause for breath on Farmers' Rights (Article 9) - agreed as it
stands with all its flaws but which the Africa Group reserved the right to come
back to later in the week. Even Financing was agreed.
But even if the hurdles of Commercial
Benefit Sharing and the List of Crops and Forages can be jumped, there still
remain a number of sticky issues on Access, the Gene bank collections and Scope
of the IU.
... and the NGOs held a Lunchtime
Briefing: [...parts or components,] -
stories from the real world, from 12:45 - 13:30 pm in the refurbished Austria
Room for about 50 delegates. Greenpeace, Action Aid and US National Farmers'
Union spoke. Chaired by GRAIN/GAIA. Much focus on effects of IPRs on farmers
and the pending appeal in Canada by Percy Schmeiser.
Watch this space - Percy hits town tomorrow!
UPDATE: Monday 25 June 2001
Amb. Gerbasi
opened the meeting at 10:00am, presented the programme and, after a couple of
formalities, adjourned the plenary until Tuesday at 9:30 am. Louise Fresco, ADG
for FAO Agriculture, welcomed delegates on behalf of the Director General and
urged delegates to complete the IU as requested by the 119th and 120th Councils
in time for the FAO Conference in November.
The CBD
reminded delegates that the CBD COP 5 last May had asked FAO to complete the IU
negotiations as quickly as possible. They would welcome an agreement in harmony
with the CBD under any governance structure thought appropriate by the
Commission - under Article 14 of the FAO or as a Protocol to the CBD. Amb.
Gerbasi asked all regional groups to consider these options and report later
today.
The only
unexpected intervention was by The Netherlands which requested that the Working
Groups be opened to Observers. This was granted by the Chair - Observers will
be able to attend the meetings of the Crop List working group and the
Definitions working group. This means that the workings of the Commission will
be more transparent - however the 'Friends of the Chair' meeting is less
publicised and some delegations wonder what schemes are being hatched by these
'unknown' friends.
The list of
crops and forages under discussion is expanding. Expert panels have advised on
how the list of crops and forages could be developed to include those that are
most important for food security and helpful suggestions were made by the
working group this evening to further expand the list - to include not just the
crop genera but also wild relatives and related crops. And even Breadfruit
might join the ranks... Watch this space!
But
underlying all the negotiations are worries that there are too many
difficulties being raised by a few countries and industry. The European Region
and most countries in G77 are in favour of an agreement and will respect the
Chair's call for understanding, creativity and flexibility during the week.
But all eyes
are on the few countries that will need to show increasing openness and
interest in completing negotiations this week - at least not standing in the
way of progress. We are watching - but won't be waiting for long...
NGOs hosted
a Press Conference in the International Press Centre at midday today. Lots of
interest generating on the IU. More copy expected as the world's eyes focus on
the deliberations here in Rome. The negotiations cannot fail...
UPDATE: Sunday 24 June 2001
Totti's Team
Torpedoes Treaty Talks
Roma won the
Italian football Scudetto - the league championship - and the city is in
jubilant chaos. Ben Hur's Circo Massimo, just beside FAO's fascist facade, is
the venue for a party thrown by the city authorities this evening for 1 million
people. Under the weight of such popular pressure FAO is closed and all
regional meetings on the IU that should have been held today are cancelled.
The pressure
on the negotiators from 160 governments will spill over into the deliberations
this week. Less time to agree on key outstanding issues may help energise the
process, but a gift to those who want to filibuster and talk out the treaty -
delay proceedings so that agreement cannot be reached. All participants will be
watching and listening closely and noting those delegations that delay
progress.
In the FAO
Council the European Region including Switzerland robustly defended the IU and
called for its finalisation this week. The US, supported by Canada, Australia
and Japan (and somehow also ventriloquised by a sleepy Zimbabwean delegate who
read out the note sent to him by the US!), called for a delay until all aspects
of the IU could be fully understood and negotiated - they needed more time (and
this after 7 long years of stilted negotiations).
Behind the
scenes, progress has been made since Spoleto with useful bilateral and
inter-regional discusssions. Also expert advice on the crop list will help the
Commission expand the list of crops to some 40 to 50 genera plus a whole range
of forages. Still a long way short of the 100 or more crops important for food
security, as identified in the FAO's 1996 State of the World's Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture. And still lacking are many genera that are
important for local nutritional security (protein, minerals, vitamins), health
cures and rural livelihoods.
But all eyes
are on the US... Will they topple the treaty or will they remain silent in the
knowledge that it will be many years before they will get round to ratifying
the treaty - they said as much in Spoleto. And will their behaviour be
moderated by the new power structure in the US Senate, now increasingly hostile
to Bush.
<ends>
PRESS RELEASE
GRAIN, ITDG, BERNE DECLARATION
Immediate release, 18.00 GMT, Sunday 1 July 2001
TREATY TO PROTECT MAJOR FOOD CROPS SURVIVES
- BUT ISSUES ON PATENTING AND TRADE STILL UNDECIDED
The flawed text of a new global treaty which could ensure future food
security by conserving and protecting the genetic resources of the major food
crop and forage species has finally been agreed, with reservations, at the 11th
hour of a 7 year long marathon of negotiations in the Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.
The treaty is the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture, or IU. It is designed to conserve and protect the key
food and forage crops which underpin food security; to keep open access to
these for all who need them for plant breeding, agricultural research and
development and for farming livelihoods; and to ensure that benefits from the
commercial use of seeds flow back to these farmers.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) immediately criticised it for
providing yet further evidence of OECD countries' priority to support private
profit rather than food security and making everything subordinate to the trade
rules of the WTO and TRIPs.
OECD countries have reluctantly agreed to this treaty so long as it does not
challenge existing intellectual property laws and have ensured that they will
not be obliged, by this treaty, to rule over the seeds that are in the hands of
big biotech industry. If the still undecided text is not challenged, rich seed
and biotechnology corporations would increasingly be able to get hold of crop
genes for a minimal payment and then privatise them.
"This amounts to giving that industry a free ride and exempting it
from obligations under this treaty." Said Henk Hobbelink of GRAIN.
“The rich countries have asserted their corporations’ right to
'privatise genes’ over the rights to food and environmental
security of poor people in developing countries. It is patents and profits
before people and the environment.”
Loss of access to these vital resources and their use in fields, especially
by the smallholder farmers in developing countries who develop and conserve
them on behalf of humanity, will increasingly lead to their extinction.
Although concerned not to challenge TRIPs and European patent laws, European
countries joined with some of the G77 developing countries in recognising the
imperative of having the seed conservation elements in the Treaty in order to
ensure long-term food security, and fought hard to keep it alive.
"But the treaty fails in many respects". Patrick Mulvany of
the UK’s Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) said:
“Farmers, developing countries and many European countries
desperately wanted an effective treaty, and are relieved it has survived this
make or break meeting. But this falls far short of the fair, equitable and
comprehensive agreement that 400 civil society organisations from 60 countries
demanded.
· It is not fair - although Farmers' Rights are recognised they will
be subordinate to national laws protecting the plant breeding industry.
· It is not equitable - mandatory benefits returned to farmers in
developing countries through this treaty will be a miniscule fraction of the
food industry's $2 trillion annual turnover. and
· It is not comprehensive - it will apply to a mere 34 food crops
and a derisory 29 forages, unless more are added before November".
The OECD changes to text on access and benefit sharing undermined the
confidence of developing countries, where most of this agricultural
biodiversity is located, that they would get a fair return from this
multilateral system for putting their resources into it. Led by a troublesome
Brazil, who want most plant species to be traded bilaterally, they witheld many
species from the central list, making the IU far less comprehensive than civil
society organisations had wanted.
François Meienberg of the Berne Declaration said today:
“There are not that many key crop species – only about 100
– that provide food for all. Some countries have held back crops that
originated in their territories many thousands of years ago, with an idea that
they might profit more from selling them through bilateral deals, but we
consider this a dangerous illusion.
However, the key issue is get fairness and justice back into the IU in
November. If there is justice, more crop species will be forthcoming.”
The NGOs noted that not only can more crops be added to the list, the most
threatening text on Intellectual Property Rights and relations with the WTO is
still to be agreed when the treaty goes for adoption to the intergovernmental
Conference of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in November 2001 on the
fifth anniversary of the World Food Summit.
Christoph Then of Greenpeace said today: “There should be no patents
on life and especially none on the genes and seeds that feed us. The IU was,
and still is, an opportunity for the first time to exempt a category of genes
from private ownership, and to put agricultural biodiversity before trade. We
must keep up the pressure."
<ends>
For further information:
4.See http://www.ukabc.org/ for Background Briefings, NGO news and views and
the joint letter signed by about 400 civil society organisations from 63
countries, presented to the FAO Commission on Tuesday 26 June as well as links
to official documentation
Notes to Editors:
A strong NGO presence observed and lobbied negotiations in Rome of the FAO
Commission on Plant Genetic Resources from 25-30 June. The meeting concluded at
3 am local time on Sunday 1 July.
Interviewees from the above organisations are available.
Call Lucja Wisniewska on +44 (0) 7780 997489
NB:
In the last century an estimated 90 per cent of varieties of more than 100
crop species available to farmers have been lost, and the increasing rate of
patenting and privatisation is threatening to the global public interest
because it:
- removes resources from the public domain
- threatens farmers’ livelihoods as their access to crop varieties
becomes restricted, and these are replaced by a very small number of commercial
seeds
- undermines local and international food security, which is largely based
on free use and exchange of seeds
- reduces the agricultural biodiversity which is managed by farmers on the
world’s behalf
The IU will eventually be legally binding, once ratified by 40 countries,
and will establish a multilateral system for access to and exchange of the
plant genetic resources for food and agriculture which appear on a list of
inclusions. The IU also provides a mechanism whereby a share of the wealth
generated from any commercial use of these resources is paid back to developing
country farmers (‘benefit sharing’).
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS MUST TAKE A CLEAR POSITION IN THE
FINAL STAGES OF THE IU NEGOTIATIONS:
- Clear
political commitment to complete the IU negotiations and its subsequent
implementation
- The IU to
be the predominant international agreement on plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture (PGRFA) -- and as such to influence interpretation of WTO
rules, where these conflict
- The
exemption of PGRFA from all forms of intellectual property rights - meaning not
only the intact material, but also the germplasm and genes it contains - once
the IU comes into force
- An
internationally-enforced obligation to implement Farmers' Rights in all
countries
- Access
arrangements to cover all the varieties of all the crops covered by the IU
including those on farms, in research institutes, public and private
collections &c,
- Legally-binding benefit-sharing from the use of any resources
that are currently privatised, and a direct consumer-producer link through
contributions from the food industry
(From ITDG Briefing Paper)
Background Papers are available at: <www.ukabc.org/IU.htm>; <www.evb.ch/bd/food.htm>, <www.grain.org>, <www.rafi.org>
For more information, please contact: Patrick Mulvany (mailto:Patrick_Mulvany@CompuServe.com)
of Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) in the UK, or
François Meienberg (mailto:food@evb.ch
) of the Berne Declaration in Switzerland.
|
![UKabc Noticeboard, Latest Updates [Alpacas watching out]](gif_jpg/alpacas-c.jpg){kind=small}
![Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity, Agro-ecosystems and Production. & Introduction to Agricultural Biodiversity issues [Maragwa Seed Show 1998, Kenya]](gif_jpg/pmm4-c.jpg){kind=small}
![Governance and Advocacy: the International Agricultural Biodiversity Agenda [Logos of FAO, WTO, CBD, CSD]](gif_jpg/IntLogos2.gif){kind=small}
![Regulating Genetic Engineering, Biotechnology and Biosafety [GenetiX symbol in sunflower]](gif_jpg/Sunflr-c.gif){kind=small}
![Benefit Sharing, Intellectual Property, TRIPs [Women sorting seed potatoes in Peru]](gif_jpg/Potato_Peru5-c.jpg){kind=small}
![Links to Google Web Directory for Agricultural Biodiversity [Artisanal fisherfolk launching boat in Kerala, India]](gif_jpg/ICSFcat-c.jpg){kind=small}
files
28k RealAudio Link
"Governing Genetic Resources"
profit for a few or food for all