STOP
PRESS
20 Feb
Long gone are the days in which the CBD looked like a brave David trying the
fight theWTO-Goliath. It looks that way if you read the texts of Decisions
coming from COP 7: the World Trade Organization appears finally to be in charge
of the Convention on Biodiversity.
For example, the measures taken by this COP to conserve the biodiversity of
our great mountains that are the source of life for many countries and oceans
have become tainted by trade rules. "…activities, measures,
programmes and policies implemented to support the goals of the programmes of
work on mountain biological diversity need to RESPECT other international
obligations of the Parties, INCLUDING THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION, so that
these activities, programmes, policies and incentives do not....cause
distortion to the production and international trade of commodities" So
any measure or policy biodiversity policy-makers would like to make that might
be distorting trade in commodities has been declared illegal from now on!
The TRIPs agreement (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)
of the WTO is becoming the defining agreement for biodiversity access and
benefit sharing. Why? TRIPs is under review, its Life patent's clause (27.3(b))
is still in dispute and the WTO is paralysed after the Cancun collapse.
Why have the CBD negotiators finally decided to sell out all biodiversity
interests to the WTO? It is clear that WTO rules promote monoculture and still
allow dumping of agricultural produce on developing countries that disrupts
local biodiversity-friendly markets. They promote exports, not food security.
They promote GMOs, not organic produce.
The WTO is biodiversity-blind and in no way supports sustainable agriculture
and that is why, ultimately, the WTO rules should no longer apply to food and
agriculture. UN-based alternative negotiations are needed to reduce unfair and
inequitable dumping practices that are inequitable, unjust and damage
livelihoods, landscapes and life on Earth.
Adapted from Article by Simone Lovera, FOEI, published in
ECO 10
During a press conference at the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UK
Minster for Environment, Elliot Morley said that there were no plans to promote
GM crops in developing countries as part of the roll-out of GM crops in the UK.
"It is up to individual countries to make a decision whether or not they
want to grow GM crops. That's a matter for them and we don't believe that those
kind of decisions should be forced on them," he said.
This contrasts with the leaked intentions
published yesterday in the UK Media which said: “A presentational strategy
for the public and through briefing sympathetic MPs in advance of a statement
to Parliament is discussed. This includes using examples of where GM crops are
used in developing countries and in aid projects.”
Elliot Morley, UK
Minister, in Kuala Lumpur today (20 Feb), responding to questions about the
‘leaked’ Cabinet Committee decision on presentation of the case for
GM crops
During a press conference at the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the UK Minster for Environment, Elliot Morley said
that there were no plans to promote GM crops in developing countries as part of
the roll-out of the decision on GM crop commercialisation in the UK.
“It is up to individual countries to
make a decision whether or not they want to grow GM crops. That’s a matter
for them and we don’t believe that those kind of decisions should be
forced on them… to try and present that the UK government is some kind of
international advocate for GM crops is complete nonsense,” he said.
This contrasts with the leaked intentions
published yesterday in the UK Media which said: “A presentational strategy
for the public and through briefing sympathetic MPs in advance of a statement
to Parliament is discussed. This includes using examples of where GM crops are
used in developing countries and in aid projects.”
ELLIOT MORLEY ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES and
GM CROPS
“It is not for us or anybody else to
advocate or force GM technology upon other countries. It’s a matter for
them. We have no presentation strategy in terms of being advocates for GM
technology internationally. That’s not a matter for the UK
government.”
“It is up to individual countries to
make a decision whether or not they want to grow GM crops. That’s a matter
for them and we don’t believe that those kind of decisions should be
forced on them.”
“In terms of Developing Countries we
have the Cartagena Protocol [on Biosafety] which addresses the issue of
biotechnology in relation to Developing Countries. Whether or not developing
countries want to use GM is a matter for them in relation to the assessments
that they want to take. Countries like ourselves are also very happy to share
[information].”
Question from Jim Thomas ETC group
“The leak of the meeting of the
Cabinet committee which you attended did say that the presentational strategy
of the government intends to present argument in terms of world Hunger –
you talk about this long process you are probably aware that BOAG agencies and
all the development groups in the UK have made a very strong statement saying
that they would not accept the UK government presenting the GM crops case in
terms of world hunger and we have heard from a number of delegates here,
particularly from the African Group, that they see GM crops actually as a
threat to their own food security. Do you intend to listen to those comments?
“
Elliot Morley
See Video of Elliot Morley Press Conference
“Of course we intend to listen to those
comments. I come back to the point that it is not for us or anybody else to
advocate or force GM technology upon other countries. It’s a matter for
them. We have no presentation strategy in terms of being advocates for GM
technology internationally. That’s not a matter for the UK government.
“
“In terms of the advice we have
received on this is taken from DFID. DFID’s view is that GM technology
may have some benefits for developing countries. But the case
should be examined carefully and I come back to the point that this is a
decision for the individual countries.”
“But to try and present that the UK
government is some kind of international advocate for GM crops is complete
nonsense.”
WITH REFERENCE TO UK COMMERCIALISATION
“There will be no blanket approval of
GM crops [in the UK]”
“There is an issue of chemical
management that we will want to take further.”
“Our official position is that we are
neither for or against GM technology. Our position is that we are applying the
scientific tests on a case by case basis and we consider each individual
application on its merits.… That depends on the regimes that are being put
in place in the EU and the UK, which are not yet finalised, incidentally. We
have not yet finalised our coexistence rules. We haven’t addressed the
issue of whether there may be a liability issue.”
“There is still uncompleted work in the
UK. We are not yet in a position for GM commercialisation.”
Referring to the GM debate in the UK, Dr
Ricarda Steinbrecher (Econexus, UK) explained that "for years industry and
the UK government have claimed that GM crops are a vital tool to feed the
hungry of the world, and a crucial technology for developing countries to get
food security. Such claims have no scientific basis, and are merely used to
blackmail a well meaning public into acceptance of GM crops."
On different occasions, members of the
cabinet have made claims that GM crops are needed to feed the hungry.
Challenged by this statement in the press conference, Mr Morley stated:
"You will not hear me saying this." He assured that it was not the UK
government position that GM crops are necessarily needed for food security, and
that there were other options than GM technology.
Dr Tewolde B.G. Egziabher, spokesperson for
the African Group at COP7 strongly objects the argument of world hunger for the
introduction of GM crops and stated that GM varieties only bring in new
vulnerabilities. The problems of food shortage in developing countries are
mulitfaceted and the absence of high yielding varieties is rarely a cause. The
real reasons are economic and political. This complex situation cannot be
solved through biotechnology; as everyone knows, a single technology does not
constitute development.
In full, he said: "The problems of food
shortage in developing countries are mulitfaceted and the absence of high
yielding varieties is rarely a cause. The real reasons are economic and
political. The ability to store fore in good years of harvest to use in bad
years is very low. There often is not enough money or infrastructure to buy,
store, transport and distribute to those whose harvest has failed. Even when
distribution is possible, the hungry are too poor to buy it. This complex
situation cannot be solved through biotechnology, as everyone knows, a single
technology does not constitute development. To cap it all, ther is no evidence
that GM varieties produce better or more than their non-GM counterparts. They
only bring in new vulnerabilities."
Dr. Tewolde B. G. Egziabher is Director
General of Environmental Protection Authority, Ethiopia and Spokesperson for
the African Group at COP7/MOP1 of CBD.
19 Feb
From report by Isabella Masinde, ITDG East Africa who is on the Kenyan
Delegation to COP 7.
The use of Terminator Technologies and GURTs was discussed at COPs 4,
5 and 6 and a moratorium was declared until further studies have been carried
out. The issue came up again at this COP and an ad hoc expert group will
further consider GURTs and report at COP 8.
However, this is now being taken up in the work programme on Article 8j.
Somehow, Working Group 1 that was dealing with agricultural biodiversity was
overpowered by some countries who are pro-GURTs.
The African group and Phillipines want to raise the issue of GURTs in
Plenary.
On Technology Transfer and Cooperation, ITDG was identified by the
Government of Kenya as experts and l was accredited by the President to help
Kenya articulate the issues on TT in the context of the CBD. Articles 16-19 of
the Convention deal with this matter but reference must be made to other
Articles such as Information Exchange, Capacity Building, Education and
Awareness, Clearing House Mechanisms etc.
Most of the discussions focused on technology flowing from north to south
and disregarding local innovations and the needs of local groups. In the Kenyan
Minister's speaking notes, included are: demand driven needs; development of
skills and capacity to assess, select and adapt; information exchange that is
not only internet based but also unrestricted by IPRs and so on.
Today there is the danger that there will be the inclusion of WTO in the
Mountain Ecosystem work programme where they want inclusion of
references to trade on production and products.
We are still fighting on specific wording in the Decision texts for
Technology Transfer and Access and Benefit Sharing that are being
discussed this morning and this afternoon.
More tomorrow
17 Feb
Discussions on Access and Benefit sharing are not progressing well with
Indigenous Peoples Rights and benefits being eroded in favour of text favouring
access by industrialised countries.
There is unlikely to be any call for a ban on terminator technologies /
GURTs but the text now "urges" (rather than requests) the
inter-sessional group to consider the potential "adverse"
socio-economic impacts GURTS - 'adverse' is a new word. However, the Life
Sciences corporations - the only beneficiary of a technology that, by
definition, increases their control over seeds - may now have a seat at the
negotiating table.
Technology transfer discusssions are mired in demands that the South opens
up to proprietary technologies that will force recipients to repatriate funds
to the Northern Life Sciences corporations that own the patents. for more on
Technology Transfer see the report on the
Lunchtime Event organised by the CSO collective on 12 Feb in the Community
Kampung Space
Edward Hammond writes about the state of the negotiations
on Technology Transfer at COP 7 in
ECO No. 7 on 17
Feb
Technology Transfer: Removing Bias and
Restoring Balance to the "Enabling Environment"
Edward Hammond - The Sunshine Project
The technology transfer text continues to
read more like a blueprint for a patent and biotech invasion of the South than
a programme of work consistent with the CBD's objectives. A number of
developing countries made some headway, however, in improving the draft
decision on Monday, when the Chair's text (WG.2/CRP.1) came up for discussion
in Working Group 2.
One of the most amended areas of the draft
decision and Programme of Work was Program Element 3, on the creation of
"enabling environments" for technology transfer. The "enabling
environments" text is controversial because of its imbalance against
developing countries. It has been strongly criticized by NGOs because it lays
the burden of creating an "enabling environment" on the South and
contains paragraphs that will enable attacks on the South's law and policy
instead of enabling transfers in accordance with the South's needs and the
Convention's objectives.
Deregulation and drastic new requirements
for intellectual property laws in the South are not an environment for
technology transfer consistent with the Convention. And, unlike how the present
text reads, technology transfer problems aren't just the South's. For example,
wider diffusion of many types of harmful biotechnology (such as GURTs) will not
support the Convention's goals. The North has other important failures in
creating an enabling environment, including the denial of technology transfer
through the imposition of Australia Group export controls and intellectual
property laws that make technology proprietary and expensive.
On Monday afternoon in Working Group 2,
developing countries came forward to address some of these problems. The
Philippines proposed changes (in paragraph 3.1.2a) that will make the decision
fairer for the South. Under the proposal, parties will consider not only the
situation in the South; but what the North is failing to do to encourage
technology transfer consistent with the Convention's goals. Peru drove this
latter point home by proposing amendments to the same paragraph that make clear
that technology should be transferred in accordance with the needs identified
by developing country parties (and not the needs of the biotechnology
industry). The Africa Group, supported by others, voiced concern about unusual
and inconsistent language on "absorption" and "adaptation"
of technology, new and confusing terms which seemed to impose new burdens on
the South. Africa proposed that instead of the new phrases that mysteriously
cropped up in the draft decision, text should be used that was agreed to at the
WSSD.
Developing countries were also concerned
about the inconsistent and inadequate ways in which the draft decision linked
technology transfer to the objectives of the Convention. At issue is ensuring
that transfer, including transfer of technology related to genetic resources,
is not harmful and does not work against the objectives of Convention.
Important changes were proposed that should be reflected in the next draft
decision.
Too few parties have paid too little
attention to the technology transfer decision, a major reason why the text has
arrived at this late stage with the kinds of inconsistencies and prejudices
pointed out by Parties on Monday. Delegations are stretched thin by the many
issues on the COP's agenda, but Monday's developments should focus more effort
on improving the decision. Look for a new draft to be tabled on Tuesday, when
ensuring the inclusion of amendments and going further to correct biases in the
decision should be a top priority. A balanced decision is required to make
technology transfer under the CBD safe and effective
16 Feb
Fisherfolk urge recognition of their rights
in order to sustain coastal and marine biodiversity
There are over 200 million people worldwide
who depend on inland and marine fisheries and fish farming for a livelihood.
Most of them are in the artisanal and small-scale sector in the tropical
multi-species fisheries of the developing world, and are among the poorest and
most vulnerable sections of society.
As "beacons of the sea", coastal
fishing communities have taken up resource management initiatives to nurture
and rejuvenate their ecosystems. They can thus become powerful allies in the
efforts to conserve, restore and protect coastal and marine biodiversity.
17 non-governmental and fishworker
organizations urged the Seventh Conference of Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to recognize, protect and strengthen the rights of
coastal fishing communities to access and use coastal and marine biodiversity
in a responsible manner, to pursue sustainable livelihoods, and to participate
in decision-making and resource management processes at all levels.
They also pointed to the environmental
sustainability of the traditional fishing gear used in artisanal and
small-scale fisheries and noted that traditional ecological knowledge systems
(TEKS) have contributed to sustain both the livelihoods of communities and the
integrity of ecosystems.
In their statement they called on the Parties to
recognize the preferential rights of coastal fishing communities to use and
access coastal and marine resources to pursue their livelihoods. Protecting and
supporting sustainable livelihoods in the artisanal and small-scale fisheries
sector would also help achieve international commitments on poverty alleviation
outlined in the Millennium Development Goals.
Update on CBD/COP 7
by
Patrick Mulvany
Senior Policy Adviser
ITDG
13 February 2004
COP 7’s ability to occupy and absorb
the time of a record number of delegates has reached new heights. Each item of
an expanding agenda spawns its own contact group that works out detailed text
for Decisions and for the Report. Each is also paralleled by multiple side
events and meetings, conferences and bilateral briefings that include a
non-Party and Industry spoilers.
This Convention was set up to stem
biodiversity loss and has a renewed unattainable target of achieving this by
2010. It was also to realise the Rights of biodiversity managers and
developers, especially Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities. The
spoilers, however, are ensuring that nothing in this Convention or its
Biosafety Protocol shall impede the race to limit access, privatise and profit
from biopiracy, genetic modification, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and
Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs).
But beware their disguise as green Trojans
secreted in the belly of broad partnerships. Ever bolder after the World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, they are forming alliances
commanding billions of dollars to secure green credentials that will make the
biocolonial agenda acceptable.
In the past three days there have been many
meetings at which this agenda has been exposed.
The Community Biodiversity Development and
Conservation programme (CBDC) with SEARICE have organised an International
Technical Farmers’ conference. ITDG provided a background paper
“Farmers Sustaining the Web of Life” <link>. Speakers from
communities around the world presented documented evidence of their significant
contributions to the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural
biodiversity. They also denounced the increasing contamination of agricultural
landscapes by patented genes and GMOs. Protection against such
biodiversity-eroding species is what the CBD and its Biosafety Protocol should
be providing.
At a Side Event, a film on biodiversity
“The Woods were Lovely Dark and Deep” was shown. It was made by
Dinesh Lakhanpal principally at CBD / COP V in the year 2000 at which ITDG
played a leading role with farmers’ groups in promoting a farmers’
agenda that resulted in Decision V/5 on agricultural biodiversity. In the film,
Patrick Mulvany of ITDG briefly describes the importance agricultural
biodiversity and the necessity for keeping it free from restrictive IPRs. He
was asked by the film-maker to present further ideas about these key issues at
the Side Event.
The India headquartered International
Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) together with Thai fisherfolk
presented the most delightful of all Side Events on community management of
marine ecosystems. Former ITDG Fisheries Specialist now works for ICSF in its
Brussels office. The Thai fishworkers presented case studies which showed the
interdependence of aquaculture and fisheries with all terrestrial ecosystems
from mountains at the top of watersheds, through agricultural and urban lands
to the coastal commons, now degraded by shrimp farming and tourism. This
highlighted the need for integrated action across ecosystems, communities and
governance systems. This was followed by a beautifully articulated film
“Under the Sun” which followed the tragedy of Indian fishworkers on
the Bay of Bengal whose access to traditional safe havens was stopped by
over-zealous bureaucrats invoking planning controls on island development. The
outcome is loss of life as boats are forced to ride out storms at sea and loss
of livelihoods as traditional seasonal fish drying sites are closed down.
Another example of inappropriate “protection” of nature. ICSF, a
member of the IPC for Food Sovereignty, will be making the case for fishworkers
in the agenda item on marine and coastal ecosystems.
Tewolde Egziabher of Ethiopia chaired a
meeting at which the Secretary to the FAO-based Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) presented a report on progress in the
implementation of the International Seed Treaty (ITPGRFA). He was quizzed on
the likely interpretation of the ambiguous clause concerning Intellectual
Property Rights on agricultural seeds covered by the Treaty’s MultiLateral
System of Access and Benefit Sharing (Article 12.3.d). He stated that it will
be up to the Governing Body to determine whether or not the genes covered by
the Treaty can be privatised. He defended the Treaty’s Article 9 on
Farmers’ Rights after criticism from The Philippines which has neither
signed nor ratified the Treaty as they see it as potentially regressive.
Tewolde Egziabher, whose country, Ethiopia has ratified the Treaty, said it was
a mystery to him why some countries seem not to like their farmers and so will
not enact legislation that will sustain their Farmers’ Rights to save, sow
and sell any seeds they grow.
ITDG, while concurring with many
disappointments about the Treaty, expressed support for it and noted that it
may come into force in July 2004. He asked if there were real possibilities
that a legally binding agreement for Animal Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture that would recognise and implement Livestock Keepers’ Rights,
would be negotiated by the CGRFA. This call was made in the Karen Commitment to
Livestock Keepers Rights <link>.
ITDG also invited people at the Side Event
to comment on a paper written by Stuart Coupe of ITDG that discusses the
history of the Treaty and the role of research of all types in informing the
outcome of the negotiations
www.itdg.org/advocacy/cop7_treaty.htm.
What was claimed by one of the participants
as one of the best lunchtime events and with the best food ever at a COP event,
was the event on Technology Transfer and Agricultural Biodiversity organised by
Civil Society Organisations and chaired by ITDG with a presentation of an ITDG
Case Study. At this event there was a presentation of the
CSO booklet of best and worst case studies on Protected Areas
and Technology Transfer.
Check back here next week for a
report on the Technology Transfer lunchtime event and on
the winners of the
Captain Hook awards for biopiracy and COG Awards for those
who have defended the genetic resource commons and local communities (Michael
Meacher was nominated by ITDG for the latter category), presented on Friday
13th. Also further updates on the debates on the Precautionary
Principle, Technology Transfer and GURTs among other biodiversity related
topics being addressed by COP 7.
10 Feb: Invasive
Australian Subversion (IAS!)
The status of the CBD and the Precautionary Principle was brought to the
brink on Tuesday at COP 7, as the Dutch former President of COP 6 presented
compromise text that attempted to resolve the impasse resulting from his bad
decision in The Hague in 2002. On the face of it, the Australians have
presented a legitimate concern that their interests in the control of Invasive
Alien Species (IAS) were not reflected in the COP 6 decisions. Under this,
though, is their attempt to undermine the Precautionary Principle as defined in
the Biodiversity Convention and the Biosafety Protocol and make CBD decisions
subordinate to Trade agreements such as the WTO.
The former President of COP implored Parties to accept his compromise text
by acclamation but delegation after delegation, led by the African Group’s
spokesman, Tewolde Egziabher of Ethiopia, demanded time to consider and reflect
on the text dumped on the COP in its first days. Australia is threatening that
if its demands are not met they will wreck this COP. The majority will resist
this threat and this issue promises to dominate the meeting.
NB The USA, which is not a Party to the Convention, has sent 40 people to
COP 7 and the following meeting of the Biosafety Protocol. The USA, as a
non-Party, can only operate through others. Australia is often its proxy.
The Editorial in Wednesday 11th Feb ECO provides more insight
into this problem and the possible outcomes. (See
ECO 3)
Technology Transfer
The first discussions on technology transfer identified a split in
delegations. A number of delegations raised issues such as local knowledge,
South-South exchanges, and broad definitions of technology. However another
group, mostly ‘megadiverse’ countries, wanted a focus on delivery of
environmentally sound technologies by Industrialised Countries – their
unfulfilled commitment as agreed in the CBD.
Kenya went further and asked that references to incentives for (subsidised)
opening up developing countries to patented technologies be deleted. If not
deleted this would result in reverse flows of royalty payments to the
industrialised countries and become a burden rather than a benefit.
The Chair will deliver revised text for negotiation in the next day or two.
At this point the positions of delegations will become clearer and it is
expected that the industrialised countries will attempt to forestall
commitments to net flows of resources and technologies to Developing Countries,
which, in turn, will demand benefits now. Lost in between these positions will
be the opportunity to spearhead a process for recognising the values of local
communities and enhancing the technology capabilities of countries and
communities to make improved assessments before technologies are developed,
promoted or disseminated.
Technology Transfer will be the subject of a lunchtime event organised by
ITDG for the Civil Society Organisations at COP to be held on Thursday
12th February in the Community Kampung Space.
Terminator Technologies
The issue of Terminator Technologies and GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction
Technologies) rumbles around the meeting. They affect: Indigenous Peoples
Rights, the subject of Article 8j; Access and Benefit sharing; Agricultural
Biodiversity; LMOs and Biosafety; among others. Some have accused the FAO of
promoting GURTs because of the paper, with an Annex by the USA, that they have
circulated.
Sweden, in the EU, is taking the issue very seriously and is prepared to
join with the African Group, India and others to call for a moratorium on
development and commercialisation of the technology and a ban on Terminator
seeds.
Agricultural Biodiversity Research
IPGRI organised a Side Event on the research agenda for Agricultural
Biodiversity. After introductory remarks by IPGRI on the outcome of the
Nairobi workshop , excellent keynote presentations by
ITDG’s Anil Subedi (Director ITDG Nepal), on experiences in local and
national initiatives in Nepal, and Isabella Masinde (ITDG East Africa) on the
criteria for good agricultural research, opened up a lively discussion.
Participants identified the need for research to be focused on the articulated
needs of local communities, respecting their rights and customary laws and
practices. ITDG expressed the need for the research agenda to focus on
developing tools that could be used by the farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk
themselves that would help them manage their agricultural biodiversity and
measure changes in diversity and ecosystem function. There was a call for
increasing awareness and the uptake of good local practices. As an example of
this, Anil Subedi reported on the success in Nepal with incorporating
farmers’ varieties in formal seed legislation and the recognition of
participatory plant breeding in national agricultural research and extension
systems.
In terms of taking forward this research agenda, the Director General of
IPGRI made it clear that while IPGRI is initiating this work and organised the
preparatory workshop in Nairobi, neither IPGRI nor the CGIAR’s System Wide
Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) have ownership over the process and will
welcome others to take the lead. IPGRI is willing to host a facilitation unit
but will not control the process. It was said that an indicator of success
would be if there were significant CSO and farmer organisation response to this
challenging agenda.
Global Crop Diversity Trust
Tewolde Egziabher from Ethiopia and member of the interim Executive board of
the Trust introduced a brief Side Event on this new Trust. The Global Crop
Diversity Trust has been set up to develop an Endowment fund of $260m that will
support international and national genebanks of the world’s most important
agricultural seeds. It was clarified, in response to questions by Patrick
Mulvany, ITDG , that only about 10% of this fund has been collected to date
with another similar amount available from this year for direct funding of work
on the conservation ex situ of the genebanks in most urgent need for
upgrading. Further, that the donors of these funds, including the Life Sciences
agribusiness Syngenta, would have no influence on the way I which the genetic
resources would be used. However, a fear was expressed that this Trust will
facilitate biopiracy.
It was stressed, though that the policy under which the Trust will operate will
be determined by the International Seed Treaty, whose Chair is also Chair of
the interim Executive Board. But where are the donors of the seeds – the
farmers – in the future governance of the Trust? A further concern is that
the Trust will divert funds from the equally if not more important need for
funding the conservation and sustainable use of farmers varieties of seeds on
their farms – a priority of the CBD, the Treaty and the Leipzig Global
Plan of Action.
STATEMENT BY PATRICK
MULVANY, ITDG, to WORKING GROUP 1
Agenda Item – Progress report on
Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the
opportunity to speak.
ITDG (Intermediate Technology Development Group) has been
working on Agricultural Biodiversity issues since the Rio Earth Summit and the
birth of this Convention.
ITDG considers Agricultural Biodiversity,
developed by people over millennia, in its broadest sense, recognising its
contribution, at genetic, species and ecosystem levels, not only to food and
nutrition but also to Livelihoods, Life and Landscapes (and aquatic
ecosystems).
Agricultural Biodiversity is thus one of the
most important components of biodiversity covered by the CBD as it cuts across
a very wide range of ecosystems and issues and is of direct relevance to human
welfare and managing the biosphere.
ITDG is an international NGO that works in
alliance with many other Civil Society Organisations, including those that have
a formal relationship with the FAO through the
IPC for Food
Sovereignty, on issues concerning access to and the conservation and
sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.
ITDG undertakes practical work with farmers,
herders/pastoralists and fisherfolk in a wide range of activities that include
strengthening seed security, participatory plant breeding and ethnoveterinary
systems.
In October last year ITDG helped to organise
a meeting in Karen, Nairobi, Kenya with pastoralists' organisations and other
traditional livestock keeper associations, CSOs, donors, academics, FAO and
research institutions including ILRI (International Livestock Research
Institute), which resulted in the
Karen Commitment to
Livestock Keepers' Rights. This urges FAO to develop a legally binding
instrument, in harmony with the CBD, which will recognise and implement
Livestock Keepers' Rights. We hope that this will be brought to a later COP for
your consideration.
For these reasons, we are very supportive of
the joint FAO/SCBD Multi-Year Programme of work on Agricultural Biodiversity
and will be pleased to continue to collaborate during its extended current
phase We also welcome
the
new research initiative on Agricultural Biodiversity with its proposed
Facilitation Unit to be initiated by IPGRI (The International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute).
We would therefore urge FAO to intensify its
work up to and beyond the 2-year extension of the timetable for its next
report, incorporating relevant new activities as and when they arise.
ITDG is pleased that the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) is likely
to come into force in July 2004. It will provide the legal framework for the
conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and the fair and equitable sharing of
benefits arising from its use as well as the legal obligation to implement the
Leipzig Global Plan of Action on PGRFA. We urge the Governing Body of the
Treaty to ensure that the Treaty will provide for the free-flow of all Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, unrestricted by intellectual
property rights. The Treaty will also implement Farmers' Rights as embodied in
Article 9 of the Treaty.
In this context, we join with the Indigenous
Peoples' organisations, ETC group, many delegations at this meeting of the COP
and the countless organisations worldwide who are not here today but have also
expressed their deep concern, in calling for an immediate ban on Terminator
Technology and Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS).
Thank you.
Press Release
CBD urged to recognize rights of coastal
fishing communities
Kuala Lumpur, 13 February 2004
See also ICSF website
A group of non-governmental, including
fishworker, organizations today urged the Seventh Conference of Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to include in its Programme of Work
agenda a call to recognize, protect and strengthen the rights of coastal
fishing communities to access and use coastal and marine biodiversity in a
responsible manner, to pursue sustainable livelihoods, and to participate in
decision-making and resource management processes at all levels.
These recommendations formed part of an
intervention by seventeen non-governmental and fishworker organizations on the
Conference's Agenda Item 18.2, "Thematic Programme of Work: Marine and
Coastal Biodiversity".
The statement called on the Parties to
recognize the preferential rights of coastal fishing communities to use and
access coastal and marine resources to pursue their livelihoods. It also
pointed to the environmental sustainability of the traditional fishing gear
used in artisanal and small-scale fisheries. The statement noted that
traditional ecological knowledge systems (TEKS) have contributed to sustain
both the livelihoods of communities and the integrity of ecosystems.
Recognizing such sustainable practices, the
statement said, would be consistent with Article 10 (c) of the CBD, which
highlights the need to “protect and encourage customary use of biological
resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible
with conservation or sustainable use requirements.”
The statement noted that there are over 200
million people worldwide who depend on inland and marine fisheries and fish
farming for a livelihood. Most of them are in the artisanal and small-scale
sector in the tropical multi-species fisheries of the developing world, and are
among the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. Protecting and
supporting sustainable livelihoods in the artisanal and small-scale fisheries
sector, the statement added, would also help achieve international commitments
on poverty alleviation outlined in the Millennium Development Goals.
As "beacons of the sea", the
statement noted, coastal fishing communities have taken up resource management
initiatives to nurture and rejuvenate their ecosystems. They can thus become
powerful allies in the efforts to conserve, restore and protect coastal and
marine biodiversity, the statement concluded.
The statement was signed by the following
organizations:
World Forum of Fisher People’s (WFFP)
National Fishworkers’ Forum (NFF),
India
Tambuyog Development Centre, The Philippines
JALA, Advocacy Network for North Sumatra
Fisherfolk, Indonesia
Penang Inshore Fishermen Welfare Association
(PIFWA), Malaysia
Masifundise Development Organization, South
Africa
CeDePesca, Argentina
Yadfon Association, Thailand
Sustainable Development Foundation, Thailand
Southern Fisherfolk Federation, Thailand
Instituto Terramar, Brazil
National Fisheries Solidarity (NAFSO), Sri
Lanka
Bigkis Lakas Pilipinas, The Philippines
Asian Social Institute (ASI), The
Philippines
International Collective in Support of
Fishworkers (ICSF)
Kalpavriksh, India
Forest Peoples Programme, United Kingdom
Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP7)
9 to 20 February 2004, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
AGENDA ITEM 18.2: THEMATIC PROGRAMME OF
WORK: MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY
STATEMENT
 Download full statement
We welcome and support the attention being
given by the Seventh meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity towards development of the elaborated programme of work on
marine and coastal biological diversity.
Over 200 million people worldwide are
estimated to depend on inland and marine fisheries and fish farming for a
livelihood. Most of them are in the artisanal and small-scale sector in the
tropical multispecies fisheries of the developing world. While the artisanal
and small-scale sector contributes significantly to the economy and to food
security, there is enough evidence to indicate that a high proportion,
especially in developing countries, continue to be among the poorest and most
vulnerable sections of society.
Coastal and indigenous fishing communities
have a long-term stake in the conservation and protection of biodiversity,
given their reliance on coastal and marine biodiversity for livelihoods and
income. Generations of close interaction with the coastal ecosystem have led to
well-developed traditional ecological knowledge systems (TEKS). This knowledge
is manifested in numerous ways, as in the diversity, selectivity and ecological
sophistication of the craft and gear used, in the intimate knowledge of weather
and climate-related factors, and in the varied ways in which coastal resources
are used for medicinal and other purposes. Such TEKS have contributed to
sustain both the livelihoods of these communities and the integrity of the
ecosystems.
Today, however, coastal and marine
biodiversity, including mangrove forests, are under serious threat from various
sources, important among which are the uncontrolled expansion of industrial
fisheries and the use of non-selective and destructive fishing gear and
practices such as bottom trawling, push-nets, dynamiting and cyanide poisoning,
particularly in tropical multi-species fisheries. Unregulated forms of
industrial aquaculture and pollution from land and sea-based sources also
exacerbate this threat.
For coastal fishing communities, the
implications of these developments are severe. As “beacons of the
sea”, they have, in recent decades, been consistently drawing attention to
such negative developments and, in many cases, have taken up resource
management initiatives to nurture and rejuvenate their ecosystems.
Coastal fishing communities can be powerful
allies in the efforts to conserve, restore and protect coastal and marine
biodiversity. Critical to this involvement, however, is the need to recognize,
protect and strengthen their rights to access and use biodiversity in a
responsible manner, to pursue sustainable livelihoods, and to participate in
decision-making and resource management processes at all levels.
Recognition of these rights would provide an
enabling framework for coastal fishing communities to fulfil their
responsibilities towards biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use, and
would contribute to the overall objectives of the CBD, namely, the conservation
of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic
resources.
Moreover, protecting and supporting
sustainable livelihoods in the artisanal and small-scale fisheries sector
— a sector known for its high levels of vulnerability and poverty —
would also help achieve international commitments on poverty alleviation
outlined in the Millennium Development Goals. It is well accepted that
eradication of poverty is an indispensable prerequisite for sustainable
development.
In view of the above, we urge the Parties,
other governments and relevant organizations to pay special attention to the
following aspects while developing the elaborated programme of work on marine
and coastal biological diversity:
Recognize the preferential access rights
of coastal fishing communities
The preferential rights of coastal fishing
communities to responsibly and sustainably use and access coastal and marine
resources, should be recognized by putting in place systems that promote legal
security of tenure. This would also be in keeping with Article 6.18 of the FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries that encourages States to
“…appropriately protect the rights of fishers and fishworkers,
particularly those engaged in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries,
to a secure and just livelihood, as well as preferential access, where
appropriate, to traditional fishing grounds and resources in the waters under
their national jurisdiction.”
Recognize the use of sustainable
traditional fishing gear and practices
Traditionally, coastal fishing communities
have used a range of selective fishing gear and practices to target fisheries
resources, including highly migratory fish stocks. The use of such gear and
practices has been consistent with the principles of sustainable use of
biodiversity. The rights of artisanal and small-scale fishworkers to pursue
their livelihoods using such forms of selective gear, under effective
management systems, including in all categories of protected areas, should be
recognized, as a means of attaining the objectives of the Convention. This
would be consistent with Article 10 (c) of the Convention that highlights the
need to “protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in
accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with
conservation or sustainable use requirements.” Further, positive
incentives should be provided to promote the use of selective gear and
practices, as through social labelling and ecolabelling. Alternative livelihood
opportunities, including community-based tourism, should be promoted with a
view to phasing out destructive fishing practices and gear.
(3) Prioritize the livelihood interests
of natural-resources-dependent communities
The importance of stakeholder participation
is well recognized in the Convention and in its programmes of work. It is,
however, imperative to recognize and prioritize, in all management initiatives
and decision making processes, including in the establishment and management of
protected areas, and within the framework of sustainable resource use, the
interests and participation of traditional and local communities who depend on
the natural resource base for a livelihood.
(4) Recognize and support community-based
management initiatives and their diversity
Coastal fishing communities in several parts
of the world have traditionally been regulating use of coastal and marine
resources. In more recent years, in view of the degradation of coastal and
marine ecosystems, coastal communities have taken up diverse initiatives, such
as setting up zones of strict protection, for managing coastal and marine
resources, through the establishment of community conserved areas. The
plurality within traditional and other community-based management initiatives
must be documented and accorded legal, institutional, financial and other forms
of recognition.
We draw attention to the fact that the work
on marine and coastal protected areas is considered as an integral part of the
Convention’s work on protected areas, and urge Parties to incorporate
programme element 2 of the programme of work on Protected Areas on Governance,
participation, equity and benefit sharing into programme element 3 under the
programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity.
The integration of the above aspects into
the Decisions and programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity
would be effective in meeting both the objectives of the Convention and the
livelihood interests of coastal fishing communities. It would ensure that
coastal and indigenous fishing communities become powerful allies in
conserving, restoring and protecting coastal and marine biodiversity.
SIGNATORIES (as above)
Transferring Technology: To
the Benefit of Whom?
Side Event Report
MovementsMedia
Adapted from original article downloaded
from Biotech IndyMedia
A
Technology
Transfer lunchtime event was organised by the CSO collective in the Kampung
space at the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The event formed part of the Community
Kampung's Agricultural Biodiversity Day on 12 February and launched the CSO
booklet on
Towards Better Practice in Protected Areas and Technology
Transfer, edited by Rosario Ortiz and team.
Speakers at the event were
- Chee Yoke Ling (Third World Network), who
spoke about the technology transfer issues that the COP should be considering,
how important it was that there were real benefits flowing from the CBD to
developing countries and their communities, how the technology transfer issue
was being deliberately confused with spreading biotechnology in the South and,
thus, how important it was to keep the Precautionary Principle and Biosafety at
the centre of this issue;
- Hope Shand (The ETC Group), who described
bad corporate practices in technology transfer and gave the example of the
control of seeds through Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Terminator
Technologies / Genetic Use Restriction Technologies that increased
concentration of corporate power and eliminated Farmers' Rights;
- Isabella Masindi (ITDG East Africa), who
described good community practices by local farmers working with NGOs and gave
the example of the control of Tsetse flies by the community in Kathekani, Kenya
who had adapted a fly trap that resulted in signficant reductions in
trypanosomosis; and the event was chaired by
- Patrick Mulvany (ITDG), who provided an
overview of the comprehensive nature of agricultural biodiversity and its
importance to the CBD and how it has been developed over millennia through
effective technology transfer, not 'technodumping' and that the free exchange
of genetic resources for food and agriculture between communities and countries
is threatened by industrial agriculture, patented seeds and now GM crops,
livestock and fish. He called for greater Technology Democracy.
Technology transfer has become a larger
issue than many expected of something with such an ubiquitous term. The
transfer of technology, or technology transfer (TT), is seen by some as the
benevolent transfer of so called modern technology by richer nations and their
corporations, to poorer countries. The aim is to modernize economies and
transform the way products are produced so countries become more efficient and
productive within the global market system. The technology to be transferred is
said to not only benefit large scale production, but also to assist small
producers and manufacturers of goods, be they in the agricultural sector or
otherwise.
But the reality of technology transfer is
that it often poses a larger threat to the welfare of their recipients rather
than a solution to their problems. New tools don’t always deserve the name
of being technology, because a technology is only useful if it is suitable to
communities as whole and not only parts of it. The technologies that are
transferred in the name of sustainability are often more destructive than
beneficial, and what is actually needed, is ecosystem enhancing technology.
Moreover, the technology that is transferred must also mean the transfer of
knowledge to the recipients, rather than making people dependent on continued
outside inputs and help. Lastly, a new technology must be socially acceptable
and beneficial on many levels, adding to the overall capacity of communities to
maintain healthy and sustainable livelihoods.
Yet within the CBD text on TT, governments
should promote technology absorbtion, as if people are sponges and ready to
suck it up regardless of its effects. Technology comes with social
conditioning, which can threaten societies and ecosystems that otherwise live
in harmony. In this sense, technology can be seen as a serious threat from the
outside, and whatever promises of increased and efficient production, it could
change communities for ever.
The most dominant model of technology
transfer today is biotechnology. Pushed in the name of sustainability,
corporations proudly announce that one third of the 68 million ha. of
genetically modified crops is grown in the developing world in 11 different
countries. Yet these crops are the most inappropriate technology for the
development and sustainability of communities. It is a technology, which is
highly protective, controlled by a handful of corporations, threatens local
agricultural biodiversity and ecosystems, destroys farmers knowledge and
traditions, and makes seed saving a crime because of the conditions attached to
the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Moreover, corporations moniter
farmers, and as witnessed in North America have begun to take people to court
for alleged misuse of their seeds.
Monsanto, along with other corporations,
have developed terminator technology, which strips seeds of their traits to
reproduce, rendering them sterile, something which would massively favour the
seed sales of the corporations while leaving farmers completely dependent on
them. Monsanto has recently pulled out of one of the biggest growers of
genetically engineered foods, Argentina, because of a loss in sales due to
‘illegally’ sold and planted seeds and is therefore pushing very hard
for the commercialization of this dangerous technology. The biotechnology
corporations are now calling this technology bio-containment, arguing that it
stops the gene flow from one variety to another, thereby hindering
contamination. Yet while this is only an excuse to protect their business,
farmers are loosing the right to develop their crop diversity and being able
maintain a sound relationship with the land.
At the CBD, many voices say that the
development of the biotechnology industry is but only an extension of the green
revolution. This introduction of a highly mechanized agriculture into the
developed world during the 1960s and 1970s, not only brought with it rural
dislocation and the destruction of local markets and products, but an increase
in diseases due to toxic chemical use of pesticides as well as soil degradation
and erosion. Many examples exist of what different kinds of ‘modern’
and ‘developed’ agriculture have done to societies and ecosystems in
the Global South. More than often, these ‘wonder’ technologies drive
people into poverty rather than the opposite. Furthermore, women have been the
most effect have been the main conservationists of seeds, the agriculturalists
who breathe in the toxic pesticides, and yet are left the most marginalized.
Corporate sales pitches of modernized technologies take no note of the position
of the woman in upholding not only agricultural biodiversity and production,
but the bonds between the land and the culture of their people’s.
‘Modernity’ and
‘development’ is in the eye of the beholder, and it seems that
governments need to be educated about what technology is. In the Phillipines,
most of the rainforests have disappeared, and of the little that is left, 81%
is in the hands of Indigenous People. The technology that cut down the forests
was no match for the technologies of the islands original inhabitants.
With the threat of terminator seeds more
imminent than ever before, the governments of our planet need to make wise
choices. Yet beyond genetically engineered seeds more technologies have yet to
be invented. Therefore, there is a need for a way to foresee, assess and
evaluate the impact of new technologies as they appear. But more importantly,
we need to build capacity around the proven sustainable technologies that
already exist. New partnerships have emerged between communities, scientists,
NGOs and other institutions that have pooled together knowledge from different
knowledge systems from around the world. These genuine partnerships seek to
create enabling environments for communities to improve their livelihoods
through sound technological advances, which have social and ecological concerns
as their main concerns. Such partnerships are far away from the fake Monsanto,
Syngenta and United Nations partnerships that have been the recent fashion in
the corporate multilateral institution world. These are certainly not in the
interests of people and planet, as impotence and sterility have nothing to do
with the conservation of biological diversity.
e-mail:
cbd@movementsmedia.org
See also:
video interviews
of various specialists on GMOs, Terminator, Pesticides and Biosafety
|
![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}
![Open Directory Project for links on Agricultural Biodiversity [Artisanal fisherfolk launching boat in Kerala, India]](gif_jpg/ICSFcat-c.jpg){kind=small}
files