| Political Declaration and Extracts from ECO 7, 3 Sept
2002
Draft Political Statement was published last night...
<
http://www.joburgmedia.net/docs/200209021757169804.pdf
>
Of particular note is the para on Trade that avoids mentioning TRIPs...
Para 39: We agree that an equitable,
comprehensive, rule-based and predictable multilateral trading system is an
essential means of implementing the Johannesburg Commitment.
ECO 7 recommends adding to this para 39:
"In this regard, we agree that there should be a review of the WTO
Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) at the
Cancún WTO Ministerial meeting in 2003."
Full Text: <
www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/24639/0/issue_seven_with_insert.pdf >
More from ECO 7, 3 Sept 2002
Report from Farmers' Convergence
At the NGO Forum at Nasrec, farmers are represented as a major group in the
International Steering Group. Here, small-scale farmers have finally spoken,
and are being heard. It will not, however, end with the summit. Through their
organisations and PELUM, the farmers will build stronger alliances and
partnerships, and continue to lobby government and international organisations
for change.
A Farmer's Bad Dream
By PELUM's Small Farmer
Convergence at the WSSD
PELUM Association is an indigenous network of civilsociety organisations in
East and Southern Africa, learning, advocating and striving for food security,
fair trade, community empowerment and ecological land-use management. Through
workshops in preparation for the WSSD, the farmers have expressed the issues
facing them through this little story.
I Mirembe, a small-scale farmer from Mubende, had a dream. I was on my way
to Mubende Health Facility, pregnant with my third child. I was anxious
following the loss of my two eldest sons to HIV/AIDS who used to help me in the
field. When I got to the clinic, there was no qualified doctor. Only someone
who did not have a clue what he was doing.
I did not know where to go instead. Of course, we had no phone, and our
roads were in a poor condition. In this dream, although I had a wealth of
experience of farming and indigenous knowledge, I had very little money and
could not afford alternative services.
And as I waited for the nurse, I prayed that the child in my womb would one
day have access to training and extension services in agriculture to be able to
afford a better life than mine. It was hot, but there was no shade under which
I could rest as all the trees had been cut or burnt down for charcoal In this
heat, I really needed to drink something. But the nearest source of water 12
kmaway was dirty. Our crops were drying because of lack of water, now, this is
unbearable! I suddenly find myself waking up with burning thirst..
The only difference between my dream and my reality is that I am not
pregnant. And I think to myself:
"What can I do for my children and their children?" Who can I tell
about my bad dream? Who will listen to me?
Daniella Rosche with leaflet she was arrested for
distributing at Earth Summit
(from Greenpeace site)
Extracts from ECO 6, 2 Sept 2002
Full Text: <
www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/24639/0/issue_six_with_insertb.pdf >
Congratulations to Norway, Switzerland, Hungary, St.
Lucia (CARICOM), Tuvalu, and, especially, Ethiopia (and, yes, the G77 + China
and the EU too) for eliminating that abhorrent "WTO consistency"
text.
BIODIVERSITY
The agreed text on biodiversity is weaker than the
language "have instruments in place to stop and reverse the current
alarming biodiversity loss… by the year 2010" adopted by the same
ministers in April 2002 at the 6th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention
on Biological Diversity. At a minimum, governments should re-commit to what
they agreed to only six months ago. However, the text still refers to a target,
and with the US accepting this, it would seem a logical next step for them to
ratify the convention. The paragraph on access and benefit- sharing may
represent a positive step as long as the role of the WTO in the "Means of
implementation" does not interfere with the negotiations called for in
this paragraph.
The agreement on rebuilding fish stocks (paragraph 30 (a)) may well
undermine the past 10 years of international agreements on sustainable
fisheries and the protection of marine biodiversity, in particular the 1995 UN
Fish Stocks Agreement. It also appears to treat the minimal obligations for
fisheries conservation in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea as being
merely voluntary, and only to be implemented by 2015 "where
possible". The setting of a date to rebuild the world's fisheries and
marine ecosystems is a laudable goal, but the target chosen to rebuild fish
stocks, "maximum sustainable yield", almost guarantees the continued
depletion of the world's fisheries and marine biodiversity.
At the same time there is good text calling for the elimination of subsidies
that contribute to illegal and unregulated fishing and excess fishing capacity
and for the development and use of the ecosystem approach and networks of
marine protected areas to protect biodiversity in the marine environment.
AGRICULTURE
While the agreed text acknowledges that agriculture is
inextricably linked to poverty eradication, that's where it ends. It does not
sufficiently recognize the scope and scale of challenges facing current
agricultural production systems, either environmental or social. It contains no
action plan to ensure that agricultural production systems are transformed to
become vehicles for food security, environmental sustainability, or poverty
reduction. It contains no commitments to provide new resources to combat
declining levels of public support for agriculture transformation.
Finally, the Summit has dropped positive references from Bali to support new
and emerging opportunities to diversify and develop agricultural niche markets
(i.e. fair trade and organic) - arguably the best examples of sustainable
agriculture around. Finally, the text does not define sustainable agriculture
so as to address the question of GM crops, leaving open the possibility that
the precautionary principle is undermined, and GM crops considered
"sustainable" solutions for poverty and environmental
degradation… All in all, a poor showing, and hardly Summitworthy.
TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Scrap the text and start again! Eco has consistently held that governments
must recognise that globalised market liberalisation does not lead to
equitable, just or environmentally sustainable development. Economies must be
managed as a tool to achieve sustainable development.
Sustainable development must circumscribe trade and WTO rules - not the
other way around. Unless this relationship is clearly set out by the Summit,
the legal precedent set will spell the demise of the Kyoto Protocol, the
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, the Stockholm POPs convention, and virtuually
every other agreement in future. Not to mention the fact that WTO rules would
continue to take precedence over sustainable livelihoods and human development.
CHEMICALS
The current draft has no reference to the precautionary principle, and the
target date of 2020 refers to risk management, rather than the phase-out and
elimination of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). This is clearly weaker
than the POPs Treaty agreed in Stockholm last year.
Extracts from ECO 5, 30 August 2002
MIDSUMMIT REPORT
[Extracts]
Full Report: <
http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/23906/0/issue_five_with_insert.pdf
>
The spirit of Rio certainly does NOT live on in Joburg. The legally binding
conventions agreed ten years ago contain more substantive language on
principles than the non binding draft Johannesburg Implementation Plan. Sad but
true.
Governments need to re-read agreements they have already signed up to-
hopefully before they head back into the negotiating sessions.
Biodiversity: Down the Drain?
The CBD was one of the three international framework Conventions signed at
Rio in 1992. It has been ratified by 185 countries, most, if not all, present
here. Commitments made by party states to this Convention include:
The Precautionary Principle is included in the
Convention on Biological Diversity and its related Protocol on Biosafety. The
Protocol develops the principle in this case to facilitate implementation by
stating that, "Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant
scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential
adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import…shall not
prevent that Party from taking a decision…in order to avoid or minimize
such potential adverse effects." In spite of this, the current bracketed
text includes waffle words such as, "[based on sound science, risk
assessment and principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development [and other [relevant] international instruments]]. The bracketed
text in paragraph 23 is the same as the CBD.
The 2000 Conference of Parties in Nairobi adopted the ecosystem approach as
the primary framework for action under the Convention. In paragraph 23 of the
WSSD text, the bureaucrats' here have bracketed the ecosystem approach. Have
185 countries been overruled?
Negotiators Trading away Precaution?
At the 1992 Earth Summit, the Precautionary Principle was adopted in
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, bringing to the global stage an emerging
paradigm shift. Following Rio, a number of conventions and other soft law
agreements incorporated the precautionary approach into their provisions, and
still other agreements were actually negotiated on a precautionary basis,
including the Climate Change Convention. Precaution is embedded in a growing
number of legally binding international agreements, involving toxic chemicals,
fisheries, climate, fish stocks and biodiversity.
However, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, where precaution
should be at the very heart of agreements-including with respect to natural
resources, chemicals and trade- governments are trading this principle away.
Precaution was a part of Rio. This is an implementation conference. When do
we get to implementation?
But There's Been No Back- Sliding on
Trade!
The latest draft Means of Implementation text
on Trade and Finance mentions:
4"The
Doha work programme" 22 times.
4 "In
a manner consistent with WTO rights and obligations" three times (
in crucial places!)
4"Public-private" 14 times.
In sharp contrast, where are the earlier references to:
4Promoting
initiatives to ensure coherence between the rules of the multilateral trading
system and multilateral environmental agreements "consistent with the
goals of sustainable development." (see Bali text para. 122 (c))?
4Apply
"in decision-making" the precautionary principle as established in
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development "and further developed
in international law in order to protect health and environment." (see
Bali text para. 45 (e) alt.)?
4An
"international mechanism" to stabilise commodity prices for coping
with the instability of commodity prices and declining terms of trade (see Bali
text para. 82)?
Extracts from ECO 3, 28 Aug
2002
The Perils of Setting a Biodiversity
Target
After Monday's lengthy discussions on the importance of biodiversity, based
on the useful
WEHAB paper on the topic, it may come as a surprise that
the only meaningful implementation target on the issue is in deep trouble.
And the trouble is coming from a surprising source. Even the US, famously
recalcitrant on many other targets, has indicated its willingness to accept the
goal of reversing the current decline in biodiversity by the year 2010.
But now the G-77, which of course includes the most megadiverse nations, is
having second thoughts. The group has offered an alternative biodiversity text
that eliminates any notion of reversing the decline of biodiversity entirely,
and has also questioned the ecosystem approach. This is all ironic on three
accounts: the same countries have of course accepted the goal and the approach
in the CBD itself, and the ecosystems approach is essential for poverty
alleviation.
Some explanation is called for. It appears a number of countries are
concerned that the financial boon they hoped would issue from the CBD's access
and benefit sharing provisions has not, in fact, occurred. Perhaps they are
waiting to see what efforts, in addition to the recent decision to increase the
Global Environment Fund replenishment, the rich countries are willing to put
forward.
But blocking a target on these grounds will ultimately be self-defeating,
because without a specific goal, the effort to mobilize financial resources for
biodiversity conservation will be even harder.
There is a ray of hope, however. In late night discussions of the natural
resources chapeau, the EU, displaying the kind of determination we'd dearly
like to see on other issues, has defended both a biodiversity target and the
ecosystem approach. So it's still possible that the heads of state of the
world's most megadiverse countries will not, at the end of the day, have to
explain the extinction of the WSSD's only real biodiversity target.
EU-US: Sleeping With the Enemy?
There is more about this Summit that is reminiscent of Seattle than the
circling helicopters and search-lights. Increasingly, it seems, we are
negotiating a trade text, with other issues relegated to the periphery. Are
environmental and poverty reduction interests once again being hijacked by the
short-term demands of trade ministries and special- interest lobbyists?
As reported in Monday's Eco, the US Trade Representative and EU DG Trade
cooked up a closed-room deal a few weeks ago. Many delegates (including G77 and
European environment ministry officials) negotiating in good faith didn't
realize that the text they were first presented over the weekend was
underpinned by this deal. This is supposedly the first ever multi-stakeholder
Summit. And yet the single most important document generated in the run up to
the Summit is a secret paper negotiated behind closed doors! Remember the
attempt by US and EU trade officials to subvert the development of a biosafety
protocol in Seattle - through the establishment of a Biotechnology Working
Group in the WTO.
The poor understanding of and disinterest in trade officials of sustainable
development issues was striking in Doha. Here it threatens to strike a heavier
blow. It could result in an action plan for poverty reduction and environmental
conservation that leaves MEAs at the mercy of the WTO and rich countries free
to subsidise unsustainable production and consumption - with devastating
consequences for the poor. The deadlock resulting from the apparent EU-US
pre-agreement has prompted the erosion of some of the best remaining text since
Bali; the G-77 and the new EC-US bloc are now reduced to trading amongst one
another their responsibilities to the environment and the poor. Language to cut
environmentally harmful subsidies is dropped in return for removal of language
in support of biodiversity conservation, for example. This rift between the
sustainable development and trade agendas was only too apparent in Seattle.
Once again, we are witnessing a widening gap - ironically, through t he
negotiation of a text at a World Summit on Sustainable Development.
The EU-US alliance here in Joburg is weird considering that Washington
appears to be on the brink of war -a new trade war with Europe. Announcing the
opening salvo, the UK's Independent on Sunday (25 August 2002) reports that
"…US trade representative, Robert Zoellick, is putting in a complaint
to the World Trade Organisation claiming that the EU moratorium on GM imports
and crop-testing is a restraint of trade. His action is being backed by
Monsanto, the US biotechnology group that has been at the centre of the
development of GM crops."
This news brings us back to an issue at this summit: the relationship
between trade and environmental rules. Since its creation two years after Rio,
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has been used to challenge the right of any
country to take measures to protect its environment and its people. When a
country feels threatened economically by a trade-restricting measure of another
country, it may request a legally binding ruling by a WTO dispute settlement
panel. The trouble is that WTO dispute settlement panels do not have competence
on environmental issues, especially concerning the decision-making importance
of the precautionary principle - the science-based approach enshrined in
Principle 15. The threat of WTO sanctions against environmental measures also
has had a so-called chilling effect on the development and ratification of
major environmental agreements, most notably the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change and the Biosafety Protocol on GMOs.
Since the GM food controversy received attention and public concern in the
mid- 1990s, the WTO has been one of the main weapons used by the US to fight GM
crops and food having a special regulatory treatment. In February 1999, the US
together, with Canada and Australia, formed a cartel of grain-producing
countries known as the Miami Group to prevent the adoption of the Biosafety
Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Their goal was to prevent,
with threats of WTO sanctions, the adoption of a protocol recognising the right
of any country to say no to GMOs on the basis of the precautionary principle.
They managed to delay the adoption of the Biosafety protocol, and tried instead
to create a WTO working party in Seattle. The tactic sank together with the
Seattle conference, and the Biosafety protocol was adopted eight weeks later at
a meeting in Montreal in January 2000. The US (which is still not a party to
the CBD, and therefore is not entitled to sign its Biosafety Pro tocol)
continues to undermine this instrument.
As an example, when Sri Lanka decided in 2001 to ban GMOs in food and
agriculture in order to protect its biodiversity and competitiveness in world
markets (given the increasing consumer demand for GM-free food), the US Embassy
in Colombo threatened with economic retaliations, including a WTO dispute
settlement panel. The thought of being condemned by the WTO and having to pay a
fine for compensation is scary for a small country like Sri Lankan, and the Sri
Lankan parliament was forced to "suspend" the law against GMOs.
A dispute against the EU takes more effort, even for the US. The news of
this new US-EU trade war should trigger a reconsideration of the EU position at
this summit. The US has already proven a false friend with steel tariffs. While
the EU and the US plot together to impose the WTO agenda here in Joburg, the
Bush administration is plotting against the EU behind its back. If it wants to
protects itself against the arbitrary nature of the US, the EU would be better
off proposing here in Johannesburg that negotiations on trade and the
environment take place under the aegis of the UN ECOSOC, and not within the WTO
where there is an obvious bias against sustainability and environmental
measures.
The Johannesburg Declaration on
Biopiracy, Biodiversity and Community Rights
This declaration was developed before and during the Second South-South
Biopiracy Summit in Johannesburg. Please distribute and sign on by the end of
the Earth Summit. It can then be presented as an outcome of the Summit.
Please distribute widely. An English and Spanish version is available. We
will shortly distribute a French version. You can also access the declaration
on the following website:
www.biowatch.org.za
Elfrieda
**********************
The Johannesburg Declaration on Biopiracy, Biodiversity
and Community Rights
 Download full text as PDF file
We, representatives of local communities, civil society organisations and
NGOs from around the world, gathered around the world and at the Earth Summit
in Johannesburg, held in August and September 2002, discussed issues relating
to the privatisation of our biological resources and the protection of the
rights of holders of indigenous knowledge and technologies, especially as
related to biodiversity.
Mindful that the content and spirit of this declaration is a culmination of
a decade of resistance to the privatisation of our food, water and
biodiversity;
Recognising that human beings are an integral part of the web of life on
Earth and that our well-being is derived from and depends on the health of our
ecosystems and species;
Determined to ensure that human actions do not destroy this web of mutually
enhancing ecological relationship;.
Conscious and proud of the fundamental role played by local communities,
indigenous peoples, farmers and in particular women, and their traditional
knowledge in the conservation and management of biological diversity to ensure
food and health security in the past, the present and the future;
Mindful of the inextricable links between bioprospecting and genetic
engineering;
Reminding everyone that the current dominant models of development driven by
economic liberalisation and corporate control, reinforce social inequalities
throughout the world and undermine the sovereignty of nation states to take
care of their people;
Aware that the increasingly powerful multinational companies are destroying
local communities and their natural resource base by privatising biological,
land and water resources and that a potent instrument in this destruction is
the patenting of living organisms;
Realising that communities have not benefited from bioprospecting, that it
has not delivered on its promises as a tool for biodiversity conservation,
social justice, and poverty alleviation, and that it has legitimised the unfair
appropriation of biological resources and knowledge.
WE DECLARE
That local communities, indigenous peoples and farmers are custodians of
biodiversity, and that they have the inalienable right and responsibility to
continue to manage, save, exchange and further develop the biodiversity under
their custody, over and above any external commercial interests.
Similarly, we consider food sovereignty - the right of people to sufficient
and healthy food at all times and access to natural resources - as a central
principle, which should not be subject to other interests or considerations.
People also have a basic right to accessible and affordable healthcare and to
the biological resources from which they derive health benefits.
We oppose the current push towards globalisation that is driven
predominantly by commercial interests and which undermines our cultures and our
capacity to sustain and control our livelihoods.
We oppose biopiracy and the patenting of our biological resources and
knowledge because it goes against our human and cultural rights and identity.
We firmly believe that benefit sharing is possible without patents.
We believe the protection of human subjects in genetic research is a human
rights issue, requiring carefully crafted social policies and laws which are
stringently monitored and enforced to protect individuals and groups from
exploitative research and practices.
We declare our opposition to the patenting of life and to the patenting of
crops and seed, because we are concerned about the removal of control of food
production from local communities and farmers to multinational corporations.
We declare that genetic engineering in food and farming presents serious and
irreversible environmental and health risks.
We believe that community rights over biodiversity and indigenous knowledge
are collective in nature, and therefore cannot be privatised or individualised.
Intellectual property rights as applied to biodiversity and traditional
knowledge are private and monopolistic in nature and therefore incompatible
with community rights. IPRs cannot exist within a traditional knowledge system
and attempts to bring these two worlds together are misguided and unacceptable.
In this context, we declare that the initiative of the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) to develop systems for the protection of
traditional knowledge is highly inappropriate. WIPO should work to stop
biopiracy that occurs because of biodiversity patents, and not to define the
rights of communities which should be done by the communities themselves.
WE PROPOSE THAT
Concern over food and health security and the environment should take
precedence over international trade interests. The WTO is not the place to
decide on these issues. Neither should regional or bilateral trade agreements
affect local biodiversity management.
Governments should have the central responsibility to develop and implement
policies, legislation and research and to redirect these towards a holistic
approach to development, the promotion of local control over resources, and the
active participation of local communities, farmers and indigenous peoples in
decision making.
We call on the international community to initiate a process to negotiate a
legally binding agreement under the CBD to prevent biopiracy, to ensure
national sovereignty over biological and genetic resources, and to protect the
rights of indigenous and local communities over their resources and knowledge.
Access to biological and genetic resources and knowledge should only be
permitted with the prior informed consent of indigenous peoples and local
communities, on the basis of the terms and conditions they set. This should be
a prerequisite for benefit sharing. Groups and individuals potentially impacted
by genetic research have a right to full and transparent disclosure of the
benefits and risks of such research, and to either give their consent or refuse
to participate.
Biodiversity based and sustainable agricultural systems which are under the
control of local communities, should be adopted and promoted as the principal
mode of agricultural and other food production.
Our governments should ensure an environment free of GMOs in our countries
and in our farming systems and should support our efforts to raise awareness
amongst farmers and consumers about the real and potential impact of GE to the
environment and to human health.
There should be a total ban on the patenting of life forms and the use of
any IPRs on biodiversity and traditional knowledge. We want to see the
strengthening of community rights and Farmers Rights in the relevant
international agreements and at national level to ensure that local communities
and farmers can continue to save, exchange, nurture, use and further develop
biological resources.
African governments should to take steps to implement the African Model Law
for Community Rights at the national level. We also urge the global community
to support the implementation of this law and to desist from any activities or
policies that directly or indirectly undermine its adoption and operation by
African countries.
We call on WTO members to amend TRIPs to reflect that all life forms and
living processes cannot be patented in any member state. We also call on WTO
members to allow countries maximum flexibility to establish sui generis systems
of protection for plant varieties that protect the rights of farmers and
indigenous communities to their resources and their traditional
knowledge."
WE COMMIT OURSELVES
To strengthen our efforts and campaigns to stop the patenting of life forms
and to secure our right to an environment free of GMOs.
To strengthen and promote the role of local communities, indigenous peoples,
farmers and women in biodiversity conservation and use, and to protect and
insist on their rights to do so.
To protect and enrich our local knowledge systems about biodiversity and to
actively promote diversified integrated farming and food production systems
based on biodiversity in our communities and organisations.
We promise to be as generous as the Earth, clear as the water, strong as the
wind, and as far and as close as the sun. And we pledge to exchange our seeds
of knowledge and wisdom passed on from generation to generation.
This declaration is a compilation of two recent civil society declarations:
The Valley of 1000 Hills Declaration, made KwaZulu Natal, South Africa in
March 2002, by 40 community and NGO participants from Africa.
The Rio Branco Commitment, made in Rio Branco, Brazil in May 2002, by 100
community and NGO participants from around the world.
It also reflects the viewpoints expressed by the majority of participants at
the Second South-South Biopiracy Summit, hosted in Johannesburg in August 2002.
Send signatures to: biowatch@mweb.co.za
Statement of solidarity with Southern
African nations over GM food and crops
Delegates to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, We the
undersigned, as representatives or advocates of the people of the Global South,
hereby declare our condemnation of the coercive techniques being used by the
United States of America to force the nations and people of the South to accept
genetically modified food in food aid shipments.
We condemn the United States' use of Food Aid as a tool of propaganda to
force acceptance of GM food and crops by Southern nations on the eve of the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).
Peasant farmers and indigenous peoples in many Southern nations are opposing
GM crops and condemning GM contamination of their land whilst the recipients of
food aid are protesting the dumping of GM food that have not undergone
independent safety testing.
We decry the bio-imperialism of dumping food aid in Africa, the endangerment
of food sovereignty and security and the deviation from principles of
self-determination*.
It further subsidizes the US farm system, provides a handy market for
dumping grain not wanted elsewhere and is a thinly disguised attempt to pollute
the sub continent's grain stocks with patented genetically modified varieties.
We support the governments of Zambia and Mozambique for protesting about the
inclusion of genetically modified shipments of maize in food aid.
The United States' Department of State is clearly using emergency food aid
shipments for starving people in southern Africa as a political tool to force
acceptance of genetically modified foods. This exploitative policy makes it
clear that the United States is not interested in staving off famine.
The United States is forcing the people of southern African nations to
accept genetically modified food aid or risk widespread starvation, and has
been unwilling to listen to the legitimate concerns.
Genetically modified crops, such as GM coffee and Bt cotton - and the
corporations that market them - will only exacerbate rural unemployment and
social and economic inequalities, and spur further environmental degradation.
We encourage governments and people around the world to initiate a boycott
of genetically modified food products from the United States to demonstrate
support not only for southern African nations who are being used as political
pawns in a dire situation, but to show support for all the countries of the
world that have been threatened with trade sanctions by the United States for
regulating or labeling genetically modified foods.
Finally, we urge governments of the world to reject the inclusion of any
language in the WSSD declaration that presumes genetically modified foods will
be a solution to world hunger
US using WSSD to force GMOs on the world
See http://www.joburgmedia.net/docs/200208261251519251.txt
The US is using the dire humanitarian disaster in southern Africa as a way
of forcing GMOs and Genetic Engineering on the world. It sees the World Summit
on Sustainable Development (WSSD) as its platform to get moral approval of
biotechnology, backed by three US-inspired pro-biotechnology reports. On Friday
the US launched a trade war against the EU over its refusal to accept GM foods
and seeds. The solutions lie elsewhere, as identified in ITDG's background
paper "Preserving the Web of Life", released today in Johannesburg
World Summit on
Sustainable Development
Draft Plan of Implementation for the World Summit on
Sustainable Development
Extracts (paras 23 - Protecting and managing the natural resource base of
economic and social development; 38 - Agriculture; & 42 - Biodiversity)
from:
Note the lack of explicit linkages between Agriculture, Biodiversity and
the Precautionary Principle. This leaves the door wide open for imposition of
Genetic Engineering for 'Sustainable Development'.
Also See: Bali Prep Comm IV
NB the following sub-paras:
Precautionary
Principle
23 Human activities are having an increasing impact on the
integrity of ecosystems that provide essential resources and services for human
well-being and economic activities. [As the natural resource base is vital for
sustainable development, the current trend in loss of natural resources must be
halted and reversed, where appropriate, at global and national levels by
2015.]/[Managing the natural resources base in a sustainable and integrated
manner is essential for sustainable development.] In this regard, it is
necessary to implement strategies [which apply the precautionary principle]
[based on an ecosystem approach] to protect all [types of]/[classes of]
ecosystems and to achieve integrated management of land, water and living
resources, while strengthening regional, national and local capacities.
[Concerns related to the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources
should be integrated in all sectoral policies, strategies and programmes as
well as in sustainable development strategies or, where applicable, poverty
reduction strategies. Relevant existing environmental agreements and related
instruments should be implemented fully and in a coherent manner.]
38 (r) [Agreed]
Invite countries that have not done so to ratify the International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture;
42 (q)
[Agreed] Promote practicable measures for access to the results and benefits
arising from biotechnologies based upon genetic resources, in accordance with
articles 15 and 19 of the CBD, including through enhanced scientific and
technical cooperation on biotechnology and biosafety, including the exchange of
experts, training human resources and developing research oriented
institutional capacities;
42 (t)
[Agreed] Invite all states, which have not already done so, to ratify the CBD,
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and other biodiversity-related agreements,
and for those that have done so, promote their effective implementation at the
national, regional and international levels and support developing countries,
as well as countries with economies in transition, technically and financially
in this regard.
ADVANCE UNEDITED TEXT 12 June 2002
38. [Agreed] Agriculture plays a crucial role in addressing the needs
of a growing global population, and is inextricably linked to poverty
eradication, especially in developing countries. Enhancing the role of women at
all levels and in all aspects of rural development, agriculture, nutrition and
food security is imperative. Sustainable agriculture and rural development are
essential to the implementation of an integrated approach to increasing food
production and enhancing food security and food safety in an environmentally
sustainable way. This would include actions at all levels to:
(a) [Agreed] Achieve the Millennium Declaration target to halve by the year
2015, the proportion of the world's people who suffer from hunger and realize
the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
themselves and their families, including food, including by, promoting food
security and fighting hunger in combination with measures which address
poverty, consistent with the outcome of the World Food Summit and, for State
Parties, with their obligations under Article 11 of the Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.
(b) [Agreed] Develop and implement integrated land management and water-use
plans that are based on sustainable use of renewable resources and on
integrated assessments of socio-economic and environmental potentials, and
strengthen the capacity of Governments, local authorities and communities to
monitor and manage the quantity and quality of land and water resources;
(c) [Agreed] Increase understanding of the sustainable use, protection and
management of water resources to advance long-term sustainability of
freshwater, coastal and marine environments;
(d) [Agreed] Promote programmes to enhance in a sustainable manner the
productivity of land and the efficient use of water resources in agriculture,
forestry, wetlands, artisanal fisheries and aquaculture, especially through
indigenous and local community-based approaches;
(e) [Agreed] Support efforts of developing countries to protect oases from
silt, land degradation and increasing salinity by providing appropriate
technical and financial assistance;
(f) [Agreed] Enhance the participation of women in all aspects and at all
levels relating to sustainable agriculture and food security;
(g) [Agreed] Integrate existing information systems on land-use
practices by strengthening national research and extension services and farmer
organizations to trigger farmer-to-farmer exchange on good practices, such as
those related to environmentally sound, low-cost technologies, with the
assistance of relevant international organizations;
(h) [Agreed] Enact, as appropriate, measures that protect indigenous
resource management systems and support the contribution of all appropriate
stakeholders, men and women alike, in rural planning and development;
(i) [Agreed] Adopt policies and implement laws that guarantee well defined
and enforceable land and water use rights, and promote legal security of
tenure, recognizing the existence of different national laws and/or systems of
land access and tenure, and provide technical and financial assistance to
developing countries as well as countries with economies in transition that are
undertaking land tenure reform in order to enhance sustainable livelihoods;
(j) [Agreed] Reverse the declining trend in public sector finance for
sustainable agriculture, provide appropriate technical and financial
assistance, and promote private sector investment and support efforts in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition to strengthen
agricultural research and natural resource management capacity and
dissemination of research results to the farming communities;
(k) [Agreed] Employ market-based incentives for agricultural enterprises and
farmers to monitor and manage water use and quality, inter alia by
applying such methods as small-scale irrigation and wastewater recycling and
reuse;
(l) [Agreed] Enhance access to existing markets and develop new markets for
value-added agricultural products;
(m) [Achieve substantial improvements in market access; reductions of,
with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial
reductions in trade distorting domestic support for agricultural products;]
(n) [Agreed] Increase brown-field redevelopment in developed countries and
countries with economies in transition, with appropriate technical assistance
where contamination is a serious problem;
(o) Enhance international cooperation to combat illicit [use of]/[drug]
crops, taking into account their negative social, economic and
environmental impacts and the need for countries strongly committed to
combating cultivation of these crops to gain enhanced access to international
markets for regular goods in order to help them to cope with the substantial
economic loss such illicit crops engender;
(p) [Agreed] Promote programmes for the environmentally sound,
effective and efficient use of soil fertility improvement practices and
agricultural pest control;
(q) [Agreed] Strengthen and improve coordination of existing initiatives to
enhance sustainable agricultural production and food security;
(r) [Agreed] Invite countries that have not done so to ratify the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture;
(s) [Agreed] Promote the conservation, and sustainable use and management of
traditional and indigenous agricultural systems and strengthen indigenous
models of agricultural production.
**************************
42. Biodiversity, which plays a critical role in overall sustainable
development and poverty eradication, is essential to our planet, human
well-being and to the livelihood and cultural integrity of people. However,
biodiversity is presently being lost at unprecedented rates due to human
activities; this trend can only be reversed if the local people benefit from
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, in particular in
countries of origin of genetic resources, in accordance with Article 15 of the
CBD. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the key instrument for the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the fair and
equitable sharing of benefits arising from use of genetic resources.
[Achieving a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss
[by 2010] includes actions at all levels to]/[With a view to having instruments
in place to stop the current alarming biodiversity loss [by 2010], actions are
required at all levels to]:
(a) [Agreed] Integrate the objectives of the CBD into global, regional and
national sectoral and cross-sectoral programmes and policies, in
particular in the programmes and policies of the economic sectors of countries
and international financial institutions;
(b) [Agreed] Promote the ongoing work under the CBD on the sustainable use
on biological diversity, including on sustainable tourism, as a cross-cutting
issue relevant to different ecosystems, sectors and thematic areas;
(c) [Agreed] Encourage effective synergies between the CBD and other
multilateral environmental agreements, inter alia, through the
development of joint plans and programmes, with due regard to their respective
mandates, regarding common responsibilities and concerns;
(d) [Agreed] Implement the CBD and its provisions, including active
follow-up of its work programmes and decisions through national, regional and
global action programmes, in particular the national biodiversity strategies
and action plans, and strengthen their integration into relevant cross-sectoral
strategies, programmes and policies, including those related to sustainable
development and poverty eradication, including initiatives which promote
community-based sustainable use of biological diversity;
(e) [Agreed] Promote the wide implementation and further development of the
ecosystem approach, as being elaborated in the on-going work of the CBD;
(f) [Agreed] Promote concrete international support and partnership for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including in ecosystems,
World Heritage sites and for the protection of endangered species, in
particular through the appropriate channelling of financial resources and
technology to developing countries, as well as to countries with economies in
transition;
(g) [Agreed] To effectively conserve and sustainably use biodiversity,
promote and support initiatives for hot spot areas and other areas essential
for biodiversity and promote the development of national and regional
ecological networks and corridors;
(h) [Agreed] Provide financial and technical support to developing
countries, including capacity building, in order to enhance indigenous and
community based biodiversity conservation efforts;
(i) [Agreed] Strengthen national, regional and international efforts
to control invasive alien species, which are one of the main causes of
biodiversity loss, and encourage the development of effective work programme on
invasive alien species at all levels;
(j) [Agreed] Subject to national legislation, recognize the rights of local
and indigenous communities who are holders of traditional knowledge,
innovations and practices, and, with the approval and involvement of the
holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices, develop and implement
benefit-sharing mechanisms on mutually agreed terms for the use of such
knowledge, innovations and practices;
(k) [Agreed] Encourage and enable all stakeholders to contribute to the
implementation of the objectives of the CBD and recognize in particular the
specific role of youth, women and indigenous and local communities in
conserving and using biodiversity in a sustainable way;
(l) [Agreed] Promote the effective participation of indigenous and local
communities in decision and policy making concerning the use of their
traditional knowledge;
(m) [Agreed] Encourage technical and financial support to developing
countries, as well as countries with economies in transition, in their efforts
to develop and implement, as appropriate, inter alia, national sui
generis systems and traditional systems according to national priorities and
legislation, with a view to conserving and sustainable use of biodiversity;
(n) [Agreed] Promote the wide implementation of and continued work on the
Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing
of Benefits Arising out of their Utilization of the CBD, as an input to assist
Parties when developing and drafting legislative, administrative or policy
measures on access and benefit-sharing, and contract and other arrangements
under mutually agreed terms for access and benefit-sharing;
(o) [Negotiate the creation of an international regime to effectively
promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
the use of biodiversity and its components;]
(p) [Agreed] Encourage successful conclusion of existing processes under the
World Intellectual Property Organization Intergovernmental Committee on
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore, and in the ad hoc open-ended working group on article 8 (j) and
related provisions of the CBD;
(q) [Agreed] Promote practicable measures for access to the results and
benefits arising from biotechnologies based upon genetic resources, in
accordance with articles 15 and 19 of the CBD, including through enhanced
scientific and technical cooperation on biotechnology and biosafety, including
the exchange of experts, training human resources and developing research
oriented institutional capacities;
(r) [Agreed] With a view to enhancing synergy and mutual
supportiveness, taking into account the decisions under the relevant
agreements, promote the discussions, without prejudging their outcome, with
regard to the relationships between the obligations of the CBD and of
agreements related to international trade and intellectual property rights, as
outlined in the Doha Ministerial Declaration;
(s) [Agreed] Promote the implementation of the programme of work of the
Global Taxonomy Initiative;
(t) [Agreed] Invite all states, which have not already done so, to ratify
the CBD, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and other biodiversity-related
agreements, and for those that have done so, promote their effective
implementation at the national, regional and international levels and support
developing countries, as well as countries with economies in transition,
technically and financially in this regard.
****************************
|
![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}
FORCE-FEEDING THE WORLD: America's 'GM or
Death' ultimatum to Africa reveals the depravity of its GM marketing policy.
Robert Vint, Genetic Food Alert. 