Forum for Food Sovereignty Biodiversityukabc.org/accessgenres.pdf · 2007-01-13 · Forum for Food Sovereignty Sustaining agri bio COVER 11/6/02 8:01 am Page 2. Sustaining Agricultural

SustainingAgriculturalBiodiversity

and the integrity andfree flow of GeneticResources for Food forAgriculture Link to UKabc World Food Summit Pages

Forum for Food Sovereignty

Sustaining agri bio COVER 11/6/02 8:01 am Page 2

http://www.ukabc.org/wfs5+.htm

Sustaining AgriculturalBiodiversityand the integrity and free flow of Genetic Resources for Food for Agriculture

Soutien à la biodiversité agricoleet la intégrité et libre-circulation des ressources génétiquespour l’alimentation et l’agriculture

Para mantener labiodiversidad agrícolay la integridad y el libre acceso a los recursos genéticos para laagricultura y la alimentación

biodiversity report 11/6/02 8:00 am Page 1

• two


three •

CONTENTS:

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page four

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page seven

Some NGO/CSO activities since 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page nine

Agenda for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page fifteen

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page nineteen

Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page twenty-one

Resumen: español . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page twenty-two

Résumé: français . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page twenty-four


• four

Food sovereignty and security, l ivel ihoods,landscapes and environmental integrity areunderpinned by agricultural biodiversity and itscomponent genetic resources for food andagriculture. These have been developed byindigenous peoples and women and men farmers,forest dwellers, livestock keepers and fisherfolk overthe past 12,000 years through the free exchange ofgenetic resources across the world. Since theadvent of industrial agriculture and the increasingglobalisation of markets, tastes and cultures, muchof this wealth of agricultural biodiversity is being lostboth on-farm and in genebanks and increasingly theintegrity of these resources is being compromisedby genetically modified organisms. The World FoodSummit - five years' later and the World Summit onSustainable Development could play an importantrole in reversing these trends by deciding on actionsto support three important internationalagreements.

■ The free flow of seeds could be enhanced by theFAO International Seed Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture(ITPGRFA), so long as it unambiguouslyimplements the clause that prohibits claims ofintellectual property rights on, and outlawsbiopiracy of, these resources – including theirgenes – and ensures rights and rewards tofarmers.

■ The Leipzig Global Plan of Action on plantgenetic resources for food and agriculture, couldfacilitate implementation of existing FAO and CBDagreements and decisions, including theAgricultural Biodiversity Decisions of theConvention on Biological Diversity, of relevantFAO Conference decisions and Commitment 3 ofthe World Food Summit Plan of Action onsustainable agriculture. These wil l enableimproved conservation and sustainable use ofplant genetic resources for food and agricultureand would contribute to reversing the decline inagricultural biodiversity.

■ The integrity of these genetic resources could begiven some protection by mandatory decisions ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity. Thisincludes implementation of the BiosafetyProtocol with strict liability clauses, that wouldoblige owners of the intellectual property rights ofgenetically modified organisms to provide fullcompensation for any untoward outcomesresulting from GMOs in food, seed, grains or theenvironment.

Civil Society and Farmers' Organisations, agreed atthe 1996 World Food Summit NGO Forum tosupport a wide range of policy measures andresearch and development activities that wouldenhance diversity, r ights and local food andlivelihood security. Some examples of theirsuccessful achievements in work with localcommunities over the past five years are highlightedin this paper: maintaining crop diversity; conservingdomestic animal diversity; restoring marine diversity;developing agro-ecotourism; facilitating farmers'voices in the genetic engineering debate;challenging perverse patents; protecting Farmers'Rights; and monitoring Intellectual Property Rights(IPR) encroachment.

Governments, however, have implemented few ofthe activities in Commitment 3 on SustainableAgriculture in the 1996 World Food Summit Plan ofAction. Rather, they have been promoting orfacilitating, or at best tolerating corporate sectorinvolvement in, a wide range of actions that areundermining diversity, threatening access to geneticresources, undermining rights, spreading geneticpollution and compromising food sovereignty forexample by:

■ Allowing spread of GMOs and genetic pollutioneven in Centres of Origin and Diversity, despiteagreeing the Biosafety Protocol

■ Allowing ongoing research into, patents on andlicensing of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies(GURTs), especially Terminator technologies

■ Promoting globalisation of markets through WTOrules that reduce local options for socially andenvironmentally sustainable production thatsustains local diversity

■ Failing to implement a substantive review ofWTO/TRIPs Article 27.3(b) that would outlawpatents on genetic resources

■ Tolerating widespread patent abuse andbiopiracy

■ Allowing unparalleled increase in corporate powerin the Life Sciences industry

■ and failing to implement fully those decisions,plans and programmes that are purposeful interms of conservation and sustainable use.

The importance of these issues was underscoredby Civi l Society's World Forum on FoodSovereignty, a preparatory meeting for the WorldFood Summit: five years later, held in Havana inAugust 2001:

Summary


five •

"Genetic resources are the result of millennia of

evolution and belong to all of humanity. Therefore,

there should be a prohibition on biopiracy and

patents on l iving organisms, including the

development of sterile varieties through genetic

engineering processes. Seeds are the patrimony of

all of humanity. The monopolisation by a number of

transnational corporations of the technologies to

create genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

represents a grave threat to the peoples' food

sovereignty. At the same time, in light of the fact

that the effects of GMOs on health and the

environment are unknown, we demand a ban on

open experimentation, production and marketing

until there is conclusive knowledge of their nature

and impact, strictly applying the principle of

precaution."

This paper concludes with a list of priorities fromCSOs and Farmers' Organisations for changes in arange of activities, policies and instruments at local,national and international levels. These changeswould effectively protect the genetic integrity of, andopen access to, the agricultural biodiversity neededto sustain livelihoods, landscapes and life on earth.

Box 1:International threats andopportunitiesThe international agenda on genetic resources forfood and agriculture has been dominated since1996 by the negotiation of the International Treatyon Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture - the "International Seed Treaty".

The negotiations took place in the negative contextof:

■ an increase in patenting of genetic resourcesand concomitant biopiracy

■ a rapidly expanding area sown to geneticallymodified crops,

■ the development of 'Terminator Technologies'and GURTs (Genetic Use RestrictionTechnologies),

■ the stalled negotiations on the revision of Article

27.3(b) of the WTO Agreement on Trade Relatedaspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)that concerns patents on genetic resources,

■ an increasing number of countries signing up tothe UPOV convention on plant breeders' rights.

More positively, however,

■ the Africa Union's draft model legislation onCommunity Rights was adopted by AfricanHeads of State in 1999,

■ the Biosafety Protocol on international trade inGMOs / LMOs was adopted in Jan 2000 and

■ FAO and CBD agreed a series of Decisions onagricultural biodiversity (CBD/COP DecisionsIII/11, IV/6, V/5, VI/11 and VI/12; FAO CouncilDecisions) which include further commitments tothe implementation of the 1996 Leipzig GlobalPlan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture and other actions.


• six

The International Seed Treaty aims to conserve andsustainably use the genetic resources of the world’sfood crops and to ensure that benefits from theircommercial use are returned to farmers indeveloping countries, the original source of most ofthese resources. It will implement a “MultilateralSystem” (as opposed to the existing CBD“Bilateral System”) of access to a list of some of themost important food and fodder crops essential forfood security and interdependence for thosecountries that ratify the treaty. It will implementFarmers' Rights to access genetic resources, touse, save and sell seeds and participate in decisionmaking, although these Rights will be subordinateto national laws. A governing body and a financialmechanism will ensure its operation.

The Treaty has the potential to be a prime exampleof responsible global governance, ensuring thatthose genetic resources that underpin social needsare maintained in the public domain. Theseresources are our ‘life insurance’ against futureadversity be it from a new disease or insectchallenge, a biotechnological disaster or fromclimate change, war, industrial developments,ecosystem collapse or other calamity. It will help to'future-proof' the genetic resources of the world'scrops.

The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture completed the negotiations in2001 and the 184 nation FAO Conference adoptedthe Treaty on 3 November 2001 with only twocountries abstaining - USA and Japan. The Treatyis now open for signatures. Early ratification isencouraged as the first 40 countries to ratify theTreaty will form its Governing Body. At its firstmeeting, the Governing Body will have to deal withoutstanding issues that were incompletely dealtwith in the negotiations.

■ Intellectual Property Rights: Will the Treatyallow new crop varieties or genes from foodcrops, if extracted, transformed or modified andincluded in new varieties, to be patented andhave other intellectual property rights claims? Ifpermitted this would facilitate removal of thesevital genetic resources from the public domain.

The spread of patented genes in theenvironment would undermine Farmers' Rights.For example the disputed case of PercySchmeiser v Monsanto, which is claiming a$26,000 'technology fee' because their geneshave polluted his Canola crop in Canada, showshow quickly Farmers' Rights can be eroded byperverse Patent Law;

■ Relationship with the WTO: Will the Treaty berecognised as the competent authority to dealwith plant genetic resources for food andagriculture and take precedence over the WorldTrade Organisation and especially its Agreementon Trade Related aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPs)?

■ Benefits and financing: Will the Treaty providebenefits and funding commensurate with thecontribution that farmers have made over pastcenturies to the development of the diversity ofcrops. Will the "Material Transfer Agreement "(MTA) that has to be developed be equitable andprotect crop genetic resources fromprivatisation?

■ Farmers' Rights: Will the Treaty's GoverningBody insist on full recognition of Farmers'Rights?

The International Seed Treaty has been welcomedby the Convention on Biological Diversity whichrecognises the Treaty as the agreement that willdeal with all issues concerning plant geneticresources for food and agriculture. It is now up togovernments to ratify the Treaty, form theGoverning Body and ensure that in itsimplementation the Treaty is

■ just – ensures a level playing field on accessrules without any threat of privatisation andbiopiracy, and full international recognition ofFarmers' Rights.

■ equitable – provides reasonable benefits topoor farming communities in developing countries,and

■ comprehensive – contributes to keeping thegermplasm of all crops and their 'wild' relatives inthe public domain. (See www.ukabc.org/iu2.htm)

Box 2:International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture (ITPGRFA)‘International Seed Treaty’


seven •

1 The World Food Summit: five years' later (WFS:fyl) is the principal UN preparatory conference on food and agriculture issues forthe World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Resolutions and agreements at the WFS: fyl will be forwarded to theWSSD.2 Agricultural Biodiversity comprises the diversity of genetic resources, varieties, breeds, sub-species and species of crops,livestock, forestry, fisheries and micro-organisms used for food, fodder, fibre, fuel and pharmaceuticals. Agricultural biodiversityresults from the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and the land and water resources management systemsand practices used by culturally diverse peoples, for food production.

Agricultural Biodiversity,including geneticresources for food andagriculture, will commandattention at the WORLDFOOD SUMMIT: five yearslater and WSSD1

"Agricultural Biodiversity encompasses the variety

and variabil ity of animals, plants and micro-

organisms which are necessary to sustain key

functions of the agroecosystem, its structure and

processes for, and in support of, food production

and food security" (FAO, 1999).

Since the dawn of agriculture 12,000 years ago,humans have nurtured plants and animals toprovide food. Careful selection of the traits, tastesand textures that make good food resulted in amyriad diversity of genetic resources, varieties,breeds and sub-species of the relatively few plantsand animals humans use for food and agriculture -agricultural biodiversity2. Agricultural biodiversityalso includes the diversity of species that supportproduction – soil biota, pollinators, predators and soon – and those species in the wider environmentthat support diverse agroecosystems - agricultural,pastoral, forest and aquatic ecosystems. Thesediverse varieties, breeds and systems underpin foodsecurity and provide insurance against futurethreats, adversity and ecological changes.Agricultural biodiversity is the first link in the foodchain, developed and safeguarded by indigenouspeoples, and women and men farmers, forestdwellers, l ivestock keepers and fisherfolkthroughout the world. It has developed as result ofthe free-flow of genetic resources between foodproducers.

This agricultural biodiversity is under threat. Animalbreeds, plant varieties and the genetic resourcesthey contain are being eroded at an alarming rate.More than 90% of crop varieties have been lostfrom farmers' fields in the past century and livestockbreeds are disappearing at the rate of 5% per yearand aquatic l i fe is similarly threatened. Soilbiodiversity including microbial diversity and thediversity of pollinators and predators are also under

serious threat. Urgent actions are needed to reversethese trends in situ and on-farm. Also there is aneed to implement actions to protect the geneticresources stored in ex situ public genebanks, whichare often poorly maintained. Threats to theseresources, both in situ and ex situ, also includepollution by genetically modified material and theincreasing use of intellectual property rights (IPRs)to claim sole ownership over varieties, breeds andgenes, which thereby restricts access for farmersand other food producers. This loss of diversity isaccelerating the slide down the slippery slope offood insecurity that today sends more than 1.2billion people to bed, hungry.

The discourse on Access to Genetic Resources isthus wider than concerns at a genetic level. Itshould be widened to include all of agriculturalbiodiversity, for it is the whole interdependentcomplex, developed through human activity innatural resource management for food andagricultural, livestock and fisheries production, thatis under threat.

The way forward is to work with and for all users ofnatural resources - farmers, livestock keepers,forest dwellers who are the principal managers ofterrestrial ecosystems and artisanal fisherfolk whosafeguard aquatic resources, in developingsustainable agroecological production systems thatenhance diversity. In 1996 the CSO Forum at theWorld Food Summit agreed that Farmers' Rightsshould be the “fundamental pre-requisite to the

conservation and sustainable uti l isation of

agricultural biodiversity”. Ways must be found forsociety to recognise the contribution of theseproducers and their communities to food securityand ecosystem management, as well as torecognise their inalienable rights of access to anduse of the resources. They have a right, too, toshare in the benefits arising from the commercialuse of these resources by others – after all, theUS$2 trillion food industry derives all its incomefrom the use of these genetic resources.

International actions related to genetic resources bygovernments and corporations over the past 5years (see Box 1) have rendered more or lessineffective the implementation of any of the

Context


• eight

proposals concerning access to and thesustainable use of genetic resources agreed by thesame governments at the 1996 World FoodSummit. (Commitment 3 of the Plan of Action onSustainable Agriculture). Of especial concern is thefailure of governments to take a strong standagainst genetic pollution by GMOs, especially inCentres of Origin and Diversity and their failure toban Terminator Technologies.

In contrast, Civil Society Organisations, as theyagreed in their parallel NGO Forum in 1996, havebeen active both in successfully supporting localfarming communities in sustaining their agriculturalbiodiversity and in challenging the expansion ofcorporate power over genetic resources and theresearch agenda dominated by Genetic Engineeringtechnologies.

Many CSOs also actively participated in thenegotiations on the International Seed Treaty (seeBox 2), which culminated in November 2001. This

Treaty could ensure the free-flow of geneticresources for food and agriculture, subject topositive interpretation of ambiguous clauses by theTreaty's Governing Body and its equitableimplementation by all governments with a resultantstrengthening of its benefits and coverage. There isan imperative for signing the Treaty and thenratification of the Treaty by 40 governments so thatthe Governing Body can be formed and the Treatycome into force in order that these contentiousissues can be resolved.

Given this context, the World Food Summit -five years later and the World Summit onSustainable Development could be dominatedby discussion on the use and abuse of geneticresources, IPRs, the International Seed Treatyand wider issues affecting the sustainable useof agricultural biodiversity by and for farmersand other users.


nine •

Despite hesitant progress by governments andintergovernmental bodies on some aspects ofconservation and sustainable use of geneticresources the overwhelming trends have beennegative as broadly unregulated corporateagribusinesses increase their stranglehold on theseresources, eliminating diversity. It has been left toCivil Society - farmers and other users, theirorganisations and NGOs/CSOs - to keep thisdiversity alive. Over the past 5 years there havebeen many activities in all continents led by localcommunities and supported by CSOs. Of particularnote is the “Growing Diversity” project and theCommunity Biodiversity Development andConservation Programme (CBDC). A few more arehighlighted below.

Maintaining crop diversityCelebrating Seed Diversity:

Seed Fairs in Zimbabwe and Kenya 3

Seed fairs are increasingly popular events forpromoting diversity. African interest in these wasrekindled by exchange visits in the 1990s betweenZimbabwe and Peru, where Seed Fairs are atraditional, spiritual and cultural mechanism forkeeping seed diversity alive. Zimbabwean Seed Fairsare now annual events in many villages and the wordspread to many countries throughout the continent.This has been achieved by informal informationexchange, publications and through some formalNGO networks, such as PELUM. In Tharaka, Kenya,for example, they are called Seed Shows and havebeen held annually since 1996, when they wereinitiated in an NGO project development area. In1998, 29 women and 47 men as well as somecommunity groups mounted displays. A panel ofjudges evaluates the displays and the most diverseare awarded prizes. The total number of crop varietiesdisplayed increased in 1998 to 149 from 134 in 1997.In 2001, 46 farmers displayed 206 varieties.Participants like the seed show for many reasons:farmers can obtain rare crop varieties; they identifyseed sources; it is a good forum for exchange ofideas on farming and exchange of seeds; farmers areexposed to national agricultural research work; thespirit of competition boosts farmer's morale andmotivates farmers to diversify their crops indirectly

enhancing food security; and it is a platform forinteraction between farmers, students, researchers,extension staff and other development agents. ITDG

Emergency Seeds for Agricultural Recovery inTanzania 4

The Lake Zone and Arusha Region are among theareas that were hard affected by the 1999 – 2000drought. From mid-2000, CRS Tanzania startedreceiving requests for food assistance from theabove-mentioned dioceses. However, it was alreadyevident that free relief distribution is no longer thebest option to help people recover from disasters.Therefore, CRS agreed with the affectedhouseholds in communities to help them recover byproviding them with seeds as a more sustainableway to produce not only their own food but alsotheir own seeds for the coming seasons. The mostvulnerable households were provided with vouchersto buy seeds at special seed fairs that wereorganised within their respective villages. On theone hand, local farmers and seed vendors wereencouraged to bring whatever good seed they hadfor sale at the fair sites. On the other hand,beneficiaries of the vouchers were left free to buyseed of their choice, suitable for their farms and forthe nutritional or economic needs of their families.Although the project areas had had severe droughtsand crops failures, it was surprising to discover thatcertain community members had quantities of goodseeds to sell at the fairs. The main lesson learnt isthat the traditional seed system is very resilient andable to withstand even four years of drought.

The seed fairs showed that even though the seedcoping mechanisms had collapsed for the morevulnerable in the community, there were still seedsavailable in the community to meet their needs.

CRS Tanzania

Community Seed Banks. in Paraíba, Brazil 5

The north-eastern region of Brazil is known for itsdramatic periods of drought. At the state of Paraíba,the lack of water available to small farms representsa major constraint on the food security of the localcommunity. In these systems6, diversity issynonymous with food security.

Some NGO/CSO activities since 1996

3 See www.ukabc.org/abc.htm4 Interim Report on Emergency Seeds for Recovery Projects, CRS Tanzania, Edward W Charles (Programme Representative) andJuvenal Kabligi (Senior Project Manager) CRS Tanzania. [email protected]; Juvenal @ crstanzania.org5 From AS-PTA Brazil [email protected] Family farms units are composed of home gardens, crop areas (corn, bean and cassava, mainly), pastures and orchards (esp.banana and citrus)


• ten

Farmer access to seeds has been very difficult. Theregion's precipitation regime allows only one cropcycle per season and the reduced areas of thefarms (most are under 5ha) do not provide enoughseed production for feeding the family and keepingseeds for the next crop. Because of this, some localvarieties have been lost.

Two other factors contribute negatively to geneticerosion:

■ farmers need to adopt crop varieties to meetmarket demands;

■ government seed programmes where only a fewcommercial varieties are distributed.

This collective seed supply and husbandry throughCommunity Seed Banks (CSBs) is being builtthrough participatory approaches and has furtheredfarmers' autonomy by timely provision of seeds andconservation of agricultural biodiversity. AS-PTA andother local organisations have trained farmers whoby 2000 had organised 220 CSBs, benefiting 6,920families, storing over 80 tons seeds of the maincrop varieties, including 67 varieties of threedifferent bean species. AS-PTA

Conserving domestic animal diversityReintroduction of Polish Red Cattle 7

Polish Red cattle is an old local race that is veryuseful in some specific conditions especially in hillyand mountainous regions where controlled grazingprotects slopes against erosion. They are beingreplaced by supposedly higher potential animals,which are often not suitable for the local conditions.To protect this local breed, Heifer International’soffice in Poland worked with the community ofZegocina to revitalise and increase the population ofPolish Red Cattle in the region. 79 head werereintroduced to local farms. Farmers appreciatethese cattle, because of their high productivity andresistance to disease. As a result Zegocina hasalso retained its beautiful landscape that attractsmany visitors, supporting agro-tourismdevelopment. Moreover, the cattle constitute a veryvaluable genetic resource. In the year 2000 National

Livestock Show, a Polish Red cow from Zegocinawas awarded the National Vice–Championship.

Heifer International Poland

Participatory breed improvement of the Chiapas sheep 8

Over the last four centuries, Tzotzil women inMexico have developed the Chiapas sheep – a veryhardy breed producing about 1.2 kg of wool peryear. As this is low compared to typical woolbreeds, extension services tried several times toimprove wool production through crossbreedingwith exotic breeds. However, all attempts failedbecause the introduced animals died or producedlittle in the harsh mountainous environment.

During the last 10 years, the Institute of IndigenousStudies at the University of Chiapas has beenimplementing a programme to improve the woolproduction of the Chiapas sheep. Selection ofbreeding animals is based on the criteria of Tzotzilwomen who regularly participate in evaluating fleecequality. The selected sheep are taken to theuniversity farm where they produce offspring. Ofthese, the rams undergo a two-year evaluationprogramme before they are assigned tocommunities. The selection programme hasresulted in significant increases in quality andquantity of wool. At the university farm, selectedrams produce twice as much wool as village ramsof similar age and under similar management. Theacceptance of the ‘improved Chiapas sheep’ by theTzotzil women has been high because the animalscommonly adapt to local conditions within threedays and Tzotzil women are involved throughout allproject phases.

Institute of Indigenous Studies, University of

Chiapas, Mexico

Simple interventions with great impact:Conserving Aseel poultry 9

The Aseel is a chicken breed in India. For centuries,Adivasi communities living in the East GodavariDistrict have reared and selectively shaped thisbreed especially for its meat. Today, infectiousdiseases, high production losses and governmentpolicies promoting non-local breeds threaten itsexistence. In 1996, a group of organisations studied

7 Contact Katarzyna Malec HI Poland [email protected] Gomez, T, Castro, H and R Perezgrovas. 2001. The real sheep of the Tzotzil shepherdesses. Compas.9 Ramdas, Sagari. 2001. Conserving the Aseel poultry. Ecology and Farming 27: 12-14


eleven •

the local production system in 24 vil lages. Anumber of improvements were initiated: promotionof local fodder crops to improve feeding; training ofvillage animal health workers and introduction ofbasic healthcare practices such as vaccinations andregular deworming; and education of women – whoare responsible for the poultry – in improved animalhusbandry. A follow-up survey conducted a yearlater revealed that overall mortality had fallen from70% to 17%. The following year (1998-99) themortality was down to 6% and the number of Aseelpoultry had trebled. A further mechanism to enlargethe population was the revival of ‘vaata’, atraditional system of sharing and asset building.Initially, 196 women in 20 villages received 200 hensand 67 cocks. Within one year, the birds hadproduced more than 1414 chicks and the initialinvestment of 60,000 Rs. could be recovered. Themain problems faced by the project were thedifficulty in obtaining vaccines in small quantities,difficult access to markets and policies that favourcrossbreeding.

Anthra, Yakshi, Girijana Deepika, and Womens

Gottis of East Godavari Adivasi Areas, Andra

Pradesh.

Restoring marine diversityConstructing Artificial Reefs10

In Kerala, SW India, local CSOs have worked withartisanal fishing communities to restore aquaticbiodiversity in their fishing grounds. The solutionwas the construction of simple artificial reefs byvillage fishermen in response to loss of fishinggrounds through destructive effects of trawling.India is the world's 7th largest producer of fishproducts and one quarter of India's catch is fromthe artisanal fishermen of Kerala who use verysimple craft and gear. In the 1960's Norwegianfishery advisors advocated the introduction oftrawlers. The vi l lage fishermen survive atsubsistence levels and did not have the capital toinvest in this technology. They saw the market priceof their catch collapse, fall in catches throughoverfishing and destruction of natural reefs. Militantactions were taken to keep trawlers away and as aresult Kerala f ishing policy was changed,introducing a closed season for trawlers.

The fisherfolk also took long-term actions

themselves. Artificial reefs were constructed usingany available materials: rocks, coconut palmstumps, tyres, concrete well rings and later triangularferro- concrete units cast on the beach. These haverestored aquatic ecology and fish breeding sites,provided inshore fishing sites (especially valuable fortraining youngsters and providing continuingoccupation for elderly fishermen), made the fisherymore reliable (with attendant financial benefits forsubsistence economy) and created a sense ofownership and stewardship for the resource. Theunmarked reefs also protect the artisanal fishinggrounds by erecting on the sea floor a significantdisincentive to trawlers whose nets snag on theunderwater obstructions.

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

(ICSF)

Challenging the introductionof GM fishTransgenic Salmon in Chilean Waters 11

The North American company Antifreeze Protein

(A/F Protein) based in Waltham, Massachusetts,has produced between 10,000 and 20,000genetically engineered “super Atlantic salmon”, andcould in the near future begin commercialproduction of eggs for the salmon farmingindustries in Chile, Canada, New Zealand and theUSA.

The “super-salmon”, created by A/F Protein andchristened “Frankenfish” by Time magazine, areadapted to l ive in marine environments withextremely low temperatures, thanks to an anti-coagulating protein produced by a gene taken frompolar region fish. In addition to this they can growtwice as fast as traditional salmon, and are highlycompetitive and disease resistant.

Scientists, fishworkers and environmentalists havesounded the alarm about the potential impacts thatcould be caused by introducing these transgenicsalmon. They are considered to be “a biologicaltime-bomb”, capable of destroying the wildpopulations of salmon in the Northern hemisphere,and upsetting the balance in populations of nativeaquatic species and the structure of communitieswhere they are introduced.

In Chile there are also as yet unevaluated

10 Contact ICSF [email protected] URL: www.geocities.com/ecoceanos Valparaiso, Chile


• twelve

environmental, health and social impacts caused bythe numbers of farmed salmon that escape annuallyinto the wild. They prey on local marine fauna,where many species comprise the basis ofimportant commercial fisheries, essentially artisanalin nature.

As far as transgenic salmon are concerned, no oneknows what impacts would be caused by theirescape into the wild. At present agreements existthat prevent the use of these types of products.However, given the combination of the current crisisin producing fishmeal for salmon feed, and theestimated 10% increase in the world demand forsalmon over the next 5 years, the use of thesetransgenic fish in the highly competitive salmonindustry may not be so far off.

CENTRO ECOCEANOS, Chile

Developing agro-ecotourismPromoting on-farm conservation of Andeantubers through agro-ecotourism, Peru 12

Cusco is important for tourism in Peru because it isthe centre of pre-Hispanic Inca culture; however,the rural population benefits only marginally. Onesource of income is through the sale of theirproduce, mostly derived from the unique biologicalresources of the region. In recent years there hasbeen a loss of traditional conservation practices andother customs (food, dress, etc.).This has beenmainly because of the expansion of the use of high-yielding species and varieties in commercialagriculture, climatic factors, pests and diseases,inappropriate agrarian policies and developmentactivities and poverty, which increase the migrationof indigenous youth (with their knowledge,experience and customs of traditional Andeanagriculture).

In the communities included in the present initiative,it is the local farmers who have conserved the widerange of local varieties of Andean root crops onfarm. Rather than maximisation of yield or incomethey recognise the need to spread risks by plantingmixtures of species on their small parcels of land toguarantee a harvest every year. The incentiveprovided by the development of agro-ecotourismcould facilitate new mechanisms for promotingtraditional conservation and sustainable usepractices.

During guided tours to the communities, tourists willsee the remarkable morphological and agronomicvariety of Andean plants and tubers indemonstration plots, a potato museum andrestaurants with menus based on traditional Andeanproduce. This proposed initiative intends to supporta school education programme about Andeancrops and culture and the participation of the youngpeople in agro-ecotourism in order to reducemigration.

ANDES/IPBN

Facilitating farmers’ voicesin the biotech debateCitizens’ Juries on GMOs 13

ActionAid recently began a series of Citizens’ Juriesthat are bringing the perspectives of the developingworld’s farmers to national and global debates onGM crops. Instead of experts from the developedworld telling the people of the developing worldwhat is good for them, a jury composed of Indianfarmers who could be affected by GM crops judgedwhether such crops could make their livelihoodsbetter, or whether they would increase their povertyand insecurity. The jury demonstrated that thepoorest farmers can have a sophisticatedknowledge of the way new types of crop canimpact on their l ives. They saw interl inkagesbetween different elements of new agriculturaltechnologies that scientists and other specialistsoften miss.

Based on their mixed experience of the GreenRevolution, the farmers were sceptical of GM crops,with a majority of two to one saying they did notwant to grow them. They also called for a 5–10 yearmoratorium on the commercial release of GM seedsand for a system of insurance to protect theirlivelihood from the increased risks they would face.They had some useful suggestions for how thepotential of future crop technologies could beimproved, especially by becoming more farmer-led.ActionAid is repeating this process in other parts ofthe world so that the views of those with a real,practical knowledge of ‘feeding the world’ are put intheir proper place at the forefront of thebiotechnology debate.

ActionAid

12 Summary available at http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0066.htm13 Full report on http://www.actionaid.org/pdf/jury.pdf


thirteen •

Challenging perversepatentsPatent challenge on Basmati rice 14

In September 1997 a Texas-based company,RiceTec Inc., won a controversial US patent (No.5,663,484) on basmati rice lines and grain. Basmatirice has been grown for centuries in what was theGreater Punjab region, now divided between Indiaand Pakistan. Farmers in this region have selectedand maintained Basmati rice varieties that arerecognised worldwide for their fragrant aroma, longand slender grain and distinctive taste. RiceTec'sbasmati patent has become widely known as aclassic case of 'biopiracy.' Not only does the patentusurp the basmati name, it also capitalises on thegenius of South Asian farmers. The patent applies tobreeding crosses involving 22 farmer-bred basmativarieties from Pakistan and India. The sweepingscope of the patent extends to such varieties grownanywhere in the Western Hemisphere (although thepatent is valid only in the US).

There are numerous legal and technical concernswith respect to RiceTec's patent and its use of thename basmati. Ultimately, RAFI, the BerneDeclaration and the Gene Campaign conclude thatthe core issue is morality. Farmers have selectedand bred aromatic rice over generations. It isindecent and unacceptable for the genius ofmillennia to be usurped by a US-based company(controlled by European royalty). RiceTec's patent ispredatory on the rights and resources of SouthAsian farmers, and it should be abandoned.

ETC Group (formerly RAFI)

Protecting farmers’ rightsContamination of crops with GM genesbecomes farmer’s crime 15

Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, is the victim ofMonsanto's contamination of his fields and cropsby Roundup-Ready canola (oil seed rape) plants.This canola has spread involuntarily into his fieldsbut Monsanto claim that they own his cropsbecause their intellectual property (Round-up Readygenes) is contained in them. As a consequence,they claim his crop and all profits from it. He isappealing a decision by the Canadian courts that heis guilty of patent infringement. If Monsanto wins, itcould claim any crop that becomes contaminated.

Of even greater concern than the harm done toPercy and Louise Schmeiser, is how this decisionwill affect all western Canadian farmers - regardlessof whether they even grow canola, let alone GMcanola. Land can be contaminated with proprietaryseed in other ways. Intentionally planted RR canola(or any other herbicide tolerant (HT) canola), willlead to soil contaminated with shattered RR seedwhich might germinate not only the next year but insubsequent years. Emergence of ‘volunteer’ canolain subsequent crops is nothing new in westernCanada - but what is new is that the volunteerplants bear proprietary genes and are tolerant toone or more common herbicides. Crosscontamination of seed crops with GM seed is nowso pervasive that seed companies will no longerguarantee "100% GM-free" even in the seed theysell to farmers, for any field crop that has beensubject to genetic modification.

IATP and others

Contamination of centres ofdiversity by GMOsCivil Society alerts CIMMYT to danger ofpollution of Mexican maize 16

Mexico is the birthplace of maize. To preserve thisgene reservoir, the government banned planting ofGM crops in 1998. However, contamination by GMmaize imported from the USA has been found in awide area of Oaxaca and Puebla states. At first,Mexico rejected the claims of contamination, but havelatterly confirmed that there is contamination on alarge scale. The worst contamination, 10% - 15 %,has been found near main roads. In remote areas,contamination is less at between 1% and 2%. Therevealing factor is the presence of the cauliflowermosaic virus, which is used widely in GM crops as apromoter to "switch on" insecticidal properties ofgenes which have been inserted into them. Monsanto,Syngenta and Aventis all use the same technology.

Although three rounds of investigation at theInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Centerin Mexico (CIMMYT - one of the 16 CGIARinternational agricultural research centres) hadrevealed no contamination of their maize genebank,the Director has confirmed that the presence of GMcontamination in the environment means that it willbe only a matter of time before contamination

14 See http://64.4.69.14/web/docus/pdfs/basmatiupFD.pdf accessible also through www.etcgroup.org15 See www.percyschmeiser.com16 See www.ukabc.org/cop6.htm


reaches the genebanks unless strict quarantinemeasures are taken.

Early in 2002, many leading Farmers' and other CivilSociety Organizations joined together to write toJacques Diouf, the Director-General of the UN Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO) and IanJohnson, the World Bank Vice-President who chairsthe Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) to ask them to call for amoratorium on the shipment of GM seed or graininto their Centers of Genetic Diversity. Greenpeacesubsequently stopped a shipment of contaminatedmaize destined for the port of Veracruz. Then, at ameeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity,CSOs, in support of the African Group, called ongovernments to implement an immediatemoratorium on the importation of any seeds, feeds,grains of genetically modified crops in their Centresof Origin - Maize in Mexico, Potatoes in Peru,Wheat in the Fertile Crescent, Rice in SoutheastAsia, Rape/Canola in northern Europe (see Annex).

No conclusive actions have yet been taken bygovernments nor the CGIAR, but CSOs arecontinuing to raise awareness of the dangers of thiscontamination to future food security.

Food First, ETC Group / formerly RAFI, CSOs at

CBD/COP 6

Monitoring IPRenccroachmentTRIPs-plus 17

A limited, sample survey of bilateral agreementsbetween developed and developing countries in fiveareas has been carried out to see how TRIPS-plusstandards, with respect to biodiversity, are beingimposed on developing countries. Five types oftreaties were examined: trade, investment, aid,science and technology, and IPR. By far the mostspecific, in terms of TRIPS-plus measures are thebilateral trade and IPR agreements. The bilateralinvestment treaties, by contrast, are far less explicitbut potentially even more damaging.

The criteria for what constitutes a TRIPS-plus treatywith respect to biodiversity are laid out in Table 1.

Using the TRIPs-plus criteria described above, andlooking at only a portion of these agreements, 23cases of bilateral or regional treaties betweendeveloped and developing countries that should beclassed as TRIPS-plus as far as IPR on life forms isconcerned, have been identified. These agreementsaffect more than 150 developing countries,suggesting that there is a deliberate process beingpursued to appropriate developing countries’ IPRs.

GRAIN

17 See http://www.grain.org/docs/trips-plus-en.pdf

SubjectmatterPlants

AnimalsMicroorganisms

Biotech

TRIPS-Plus provisionsencounteredExtension of standardsof protection, such as:• reference to UPOV• no possibility ofmaking exclusions frompatentability for life forms• reference to ‘highestinternational standards’

Same as plantsRequirement to accedeto the Budapest Treaty

Requirement to protect‘biotechnologicalinventions’

Why this is TRIPS-plus

• UPOV is not mentioned in the TRIPS agreement. There is noexplicit measuring stick for ‘effective sui generis system’ anddeveloping countries believe that they have options aide fromUPOV.

• TRIPS allows countries to exclude plants and animals frompatent protection.

• ’Highest international standard’ is vague and there is noindication that it refers to TRIPS. While not automaticallyTRIPS-plus, it is highly suspect, particularly in the context ofMost Favoured nation treatment of investments under thebilateral investment treaties.

Same as plantsThere is no reference to Budapest Treaty in TRIPs. This treatyobliges parties to recognise the physical deposit of samples ofmicro-organisms, in lieu of full written disclosure of theinvestion, through an international depository authority.There is no reference to ‘biotechnology’ in TRIPS. Thisintroduces a new category for intellectual property protection.It also very strongly implies, where it is not stated, theavailability of patent protection for plants and animals.

Table 1: Criteria for TRIPS-plus status of bilateral treaties

• fourteen


Governments, while negotiating the InternationalSeed Treaty, have themselves been promoting orfacilitating, or at best tolerating corporate sectorinvolvement in, a wide range of actions that areundermining diversity, threatening access to geneticresources, destroying rights and spreading geneticpollution.

Concerted actions by CSOs and Farmers’Organisations are therefore required across a rangeof activities, policies and international instruments.

Genetically modifiedorganismsGenetic pollution and the Biosafety Protocol

An ever-larger area is being sown to GM crops,increasingly in developing countries. More alarmingis the spread of genetic pollution into conventionallybred crops and wild relatives. GM contamination oflocal varieties of Maize/Corn in Mexico, its centre oforigin, brings into question the viabil ity ofguaranteeing the genetic integrity of on-farm and exsitu collections in Mexico, including those inCIMMYT. North American and European fields arepermanently contaminated with GM rape/canolaand, in Europe, this wil l spread to local wildpopulations in its centre of diversity. Rio Grande doSul State in Brazil wants to keep GM free status,especially of Soya beans, but is being threatened byGM pollution and federal policy. .

The strategy by the large companies producing GMseeds would appear to be one of deliberatepollution on-farm or in the seed processing plantsso that in the end it will no longer be possible toclaim any foods or crops are GM free. Industry andregulators are pushing for acceptance of GMpollution, even in 'organic' and 'GM free' foods.

Farmers and consumers are unwilling victims of thispollution. Local varieties of crops may well becomecontaminated through cross-pollination, mixed seedstock, illegal imports of GM seed or contaminatedfood aid grain being unwittingly used as seed.Contaminated GM fish stock are escaping into thewild. GM trees are long-term producers of GMpollution.

GM pollution is the latest threat to food sovereigntyand should be addressed with utmost urgency byall competent intergovernmental, international andnational bodies. The effects of GMOs on health andthe environment are unknown. There is a lack of

reliable information about how agricultural GMOsfunction, what their impacts are within the genome,between varieties and species and on theenvironment and human health and a lack ofconclusive confirmation that they will not causeharm in the long-term. Until more information isavailable there should be a ban on field experiments,production and marketing of agricultural GMOs. Theprecautionary principle should be strictly applied.There should also be rapid ratification and fullimplementation of the Biosafety Protocol ontransboundary movements of GMOs, capacitybuilding to enable communities and countries tomake sound judgements about the technology andits possible social, technological, environmental andeconomic impacts, and agreement to implementclauses on liability and redress. The BiosafetyProtocol should be especially vigilant on releases ofGM seeds in Centres of Crop Diversity.

Terminator Technologies and other GURTs

Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) havebeen developed by the seed and biotechnologyindustry and one government for the principalpurpose of restricting use of, and limiting access to,genetic resources. The purpose of GURTS isrestricting such access and use to technologyowners or licensed users who purchase seed eachyear or who buy proprietary chemicals that wouldchange traits in these GM plants. Almost all of themajor companies that control the agriculturalbiotechnology market have patents on GURTs. InAugust 2001, the USA licensed the first V-GURT(Terminator technology) application, in which it alsohas a financial interest. GURTs are a clear threat tofood security, food sovereignty and agriculturalbiodiversity and, in the case of V-GURTs, denyFarmer’s Rights by preventing farmers from savingseeds.

In concert with many countries, CSOs demandthat V-GURTs be banned outright, and patentsdenied, for moral and ethical (Ordre Public)reasons. Also, as called for by CSOs andIndigenous Peoples in CBD/COP 6 in April 2002,and in accordance with the Precautionary Principle,genetic trait control technologies (T-GURTs),should not be approved for field testing orcommercial use until in-depth, independentenvironmental, socio-economic, and potential"military" impact assessments have been

Agenda for action

fifteen •


• sixteen

carried out. The Africa Group, India,Philippines at CBD/COP 6 again called for aban on V-GURTs without any further delay butthis was unsuccessful. CBD/COP 6 called forfurther studies.

TradeWTO

Some countries have proposed that a new WTOAgreement on Agriculture (AoA) should benegotiated. Others favour evaluating the existingAgreement's impacts on food production,livelihoods and the environment first, before anynew set of rules is developed. The unqualifiedpromotion of globalisation of markets through WTOrules that reduce local options for socially andenvironmentally sustainable production that sustainslocal food security and diversity, has impoverishedmany communities. There should be no furtherliberalisation through the AoA, andconsideration given to taking agriculture out ofthe WTO.

Food dumping

Cheap imports of food can provide relief duringemergency food shortages or a way to lower foodprices for consumers or local food processorswithout spending any public funds. Somedeveloping country governments have thereforechosen to accept dumping for short-term reasons.

However, cheap imports of food sold at below thefull costs of production in either the exporting orimporting country, send the wrong message to theimporting country’s agricultural sector, resulting inlong term damage to production. Developingcountries have often ignored agricultural sectorsand the natural resources on which they are based,or have even indirectly taxed them, in order toprotect industrial development. The result has beena loss of productivity in agriculture, and thusdepressed farm incomes, in these countries. Thisonly exacerbates the need for future imports, whichmay or may not be available at "dumped" prices.For their part, spokespeople for the U.S.government have been explicit in their use of foodaid and other dumped exports to create futuremarkets that will eventually commit countries tobuying their food from U.S. exporters

Dumping is clearly only one of several factorsaffecting food security, but the weight of evidence

suggests the long-term impact on food security,livelihoods and the environment is negative anddifficult to reverse.

WTO rules should allow, especially poorcountries, to protect their own food producers,agricultural biodiversity and local trade.

Intellectual property rights and biopiracyThe diversity, development and sustainable use ofthe wide range of biological resources developed byfarmers is severely threatened by industrialintellectual property systems that will reduce freeaccess and availability of resources. These systemsfacilitate biopiracy as exemplified by headline casesof Basmati rice, Quinoa, Neem and Llacon. TheSeed Treaty may also, if it does not reject IPRs onthe genetic resources in the Multilateral System,increase biopiracy by increasing access to geneticresources that can subsequently be privatised. Toconfront these threats four actions must be taken:

■ TRIPs Art. 27.3(b) that deals with patents on lifemust be substantially reviewed to permitcountries to argue for all genetic resources forfood and agriculture and plant varieties to beexcluded from obligatory patentability. It must bemade explicit that the International Union for theProtection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)Convention is not the only sui generis alternativeto patents on plant varieties.

■ The World Intellectual Property Organisation's(WIPO) "Intergovernmental committee onintellectual property and genetic resources,traditional knowledge and folklore" will considerrights to genetic resources for food andagriculture. The committee must facilitaterecognition of other systems, e.g. theAfrican Union's Model Legislation onCommunity Rights as an alternative toTRIPs.

■ The International Seed Treaty must notfacilitate biopiracy. It must be unequivocal inits rejection of IPRs on material in theMultilateral System.

■ The legal right to patent mere discoveries ofgenes and gene sequences, and varietiesand breeds that are distinguished by traitsfound in existing farmers' and genebankmaterial, must be revoked by Patent Offices.


seventeen •

Concentration of powerCorporate control of life sciences

The past five years has seen unparalleled increasesin Corporate power in the Life Sciences industry.For example, only 10 companies control a third ofthe global seed industry. Tacit and informalinterpretations of the WTO / TRIPs agreementArticle 27.3(b) are encouraging countries to join theUPOV convention, which will further strengthenPlant Breeders' Rights that favour industry. Theagricultural Research and Development agenda isdominated by a few private sector agribusinesses,with funding several orders of magnitude higherthan public sector research, that are prioritising GEtechnologies, protected by gene patents. Thereshould be increased regulation anddemocratic controls over the ownership,investment in and activities of the LifeSciences industry to prevent their dominationof agricultural research, genetic resources andagricultural practices.

Genetic resourceconservation anddevelopmentInternational Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture –"International Seed Treaty"

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are urginggovernments to ratify the International Seed Treatyso that the Governing Body can be formed and canaddress the outstanding issues (see Box 3, below).The Governing Body wil l have to deal withinterpretations of the text on IPRs, relationship withthe WTO, benefits and financing. CSOs insist thatthe Treaty must not only ensure guaranteed accessto the genetic resources for food and agriculturerequired by farmers and the implementation ofFarmers' Rights, but also it must ensure that theseresources and their "parts and components" cannotbe privatised through IPR systems. Geneticresources for food and agriculture should bekept in the public domain and biopiracyoutlawed, otherwise why should farmers andtheir communities provide access to theirresources, only to see them privatised?

The Treaty must deliver benefits to farmers indeveloping countries, through mandatory paymentsand the financial mechanism, that are

commensurate with the benefits humankind derivesfrom the use of plant genetic resources for food andagriculture. All the food we eat comes from theseresources and farmers expect a reasonable share ofthe benefits that rich consumers derive.

It is imperative to ratify the Treaty and bring it intoforce as it will keep political space open for theintergovernmental discussion of these vital issues.As GRAIN notes "The governing body that will

manage the Treaty, and the multilateral system,

should provide a political platform where issues

related to crop genetic resources can be dealt with

openly at the international level. Everybody, but

especially farmers at the local level in need of

continued access to agricultural biodiversity, stands

to win from such a system."

Global Conservation Trust to protectgenebanks

With its 11 genebanks and 600,000 seed samples,the CGIAR holds at least one-third of the world'sunique and internationally accessible cropgermplasm reservoir. The new International SeedTreaty re-enforces a 1994 FAO-CGIAR Accord thatformally placed almost all CGIAR genebank materialunder the auspices of FAO and gave control for thecollections to FAO. When 40 countries have ratifiedthe new Treaty, the 1994 agreement wil l berenegotiated to strengthen the Treaty's governanceover the CGIAR banks. CGIAR has been lookingtowards the concept of a Global ConservationTrust, a perpetual endowment to safeguard themost important national and international genebank,in perpetuity. As a 'trust' incorporated under USlaw, the endowment will have a board composed ofsome governments and private non-profitfoundations, as well as a formal representative ofFAO or the Treaty. It is likely that the UN foundation(a creation of Ted Turner of AOL - T imeWarner/CNN) will host the Trust in New York. TheUS, which is not a party to the Treaty, may see theTrust as a way to gain control of the CGIARgenebanks by creating a public-private mechanismthat will become the genebanks' main funder. It willbe important to pay close attention to theorganisational and political details of the Trust andthe conditions it imposes on recipients of its fundsso that all parties are comfortable with it and that itdoes not become an alternative governancemechanism to the International Seed Treaty.


• eighteen

Porto Alegre Treaty to share the global geneticcommons

At Porto Alegre in February 2002 CSOs from morethan 50 nations announced their support for a treatyto protect the global commons. The Porto Alegretreaty already has the support of over 335organisations. CSOs are working with political partiesto introduce the Treaty in parliaments around theworld over the next year. In August/September 2002,CSOs will demand that government delegates to theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development inJohannesburg endorse the Treaty and make it thecentrepiece of future biodiversity conservation efforts.The proposed Treaty, as a strategy against patentingliving matter and the creation of monopolies ongenetic resources; aims to restore the situation whichprevailed for millennia, when the sharing of geneticresources and associated information took placefreely, leading to the development of a wide range ofagricultural biodiversity. The Treaty has twofundamental principles:

■ First, genetic resources are a patrimonial heritageof humanity: they are part of the global commons,a shared legacy and collective responsibility;

■ Secondly, genetic resources and the informationrelating to them cannot be privatised or sold: freeaccess should be sustained.

Genetic resources and agricultural biodiversity programmes

Little progress has been made by governments inimplementing the Leipzig Global Plan of Action onplant genetic resources for food and agriculture, theGlobal Strategy for the Management of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources and the Agricultural Biodiversitydecisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) and FAO. Substantial reform of the CGIAR isseen by Civil Society and Farmers' organisations tobe essential in order to protect publicly-funded,farmer-centred research and development andsafeguard the 600,000 accessions in its genebanksprovided by farmers over many decades. TheInternational Seed Treaty may prove its salvation, if itcan effectively provide an intergovernmentalgovernance structure, especially for the genebanks.

Increased funding should be provided for this work,and increasingly directly to Civil Society and FarmersOrganisations, through bilateral and multilateralsources, for example, by the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), which has budget lines for theconservation and sustainable use of genetic

resources for food and agriculture. This shouldinclude providing further funds for internationalagricultural research - a preferable option to corporatesector funding through a proposed endowment fund(see above).

Governments must give greater priority toprogrammes for the conservation and sustainable useof genetic resources and agricultural biodiversity. Inpart this will be achieved through the FinancialMechanism of the International Seed Treaty, in part byGEF and in part by new funds from the public sector.

Farmers’ rights and the right to food sovereignty

Farmers' Rights are under threat from nationallegislation, IPRs, Trade Rules, GMOs, GURTs and yetare the "fundamental pre-requisite for the conservationand sustainable utilisation of agricultural biodiversity".CSOs call for the need for Farmers' Rights to berecognised internationally and legally protectedunder the auspices of UNHCHR. The Rights toFood Sovereignty and Farmers' Rights areinseparable. Food is a basic Human Right and theRight to Food Sovereignty includes the right of accessto productive resources, including genetic resourcesand agricultural biodiversity.

Livestock keepers’ rights

190 million pastoralists throughout the world arestewarding breeds with some of the most valuablegenes for specific ecosystems. The value of theirstewardship is recognised by the InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI) of the CGIAR toscreen these breeds for genetic traits that can beused to increase the disease resistance of highperformance breeds. One example is provided by theRed Maasai sheep whose genetic worm resistance isbeing sought to be transplanted into western sheepbreeds that have become resistant to antihelminthics(dewormers). However the ownership of the geneticresources and purity of these indigenous breeds iscoming under increasing pressure from the expansionof industrialised animal production into developingcountries. Provisions must be made tocompensate pastoralists for the service theyprovide to humanity at large by husbandingbreeds with traits that have disappeared fromthe genetic make-up of the high performancebreeds. An international Treaty on Livestock-keepers Rights is necessary to safeguard theirrights and prevent further acceleration of theloss of indigenous breeds.


The August 2001 World Forum on FoodSovereignty, a preparatory CSO and Farmers'meeting for the World Food Summit: five years later,concluded:

"Genetic resources are the result of millennia of

evolution and belong to all of humanity. Therefore,

there should be a prohibition on biopiracy and

patents on l iving organisms, including the

development of sterile varieties through genetic

engineering processes. Seeds are the patrimony

of all of humanity. The monopolisation by a

number of transnational corporations of the

technologies to create genetically modified

organisms (GMOs) represents a grave threat to

the peoples' food sovereignty. At the same time,

in light of the fact that the effects of GMOs on

health and the environment are unknown, we

demand a ban on open experimentation,

production and marketing until there is conclusive

knowledge of their nature and impact, strictly

applying the principle of precaution."

The World Food Summit - five years later providesan opportunity to send clear messages about theimportance of the International Seed Treaty, integrityof genetic resources and the global geneticcommons to the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) in Johannesburg inSeptember 2002.

The challenge for governments is quite simply this:is the world's agricultural biodiversity is to benurtured to provide profit for a few or food for all?The International Seed Treaty, while not perfect,could provide the start of an answer and theSummit, although potential ly distracted bydevelopment targets, biotechnology and food aid,could be the medium to promote this globalinstrument.

Continued access to genetic resources andconservation and development of agriculturalbiodiversity are essential components in thefight for food sovereignty. The governmentsparticipating in the World Food Summit - fiveyears later and the World Summit onSustainable Development must committhemselves to action. Farmers, theirorganisations and the CSOs that supportthem, will continue to do their part, butnegative and perverse policies andprogrammes of the formal sector willconstantly undermine their efforts.

The time to act is long overdue.

Actions are needed now to stem thehaemorrhage of agricultural biodiversity andensure the integrity of, and continued openaccess to, a wide diversity of geneticresources for food and agriculture in order toensure food sovereignty and food security.

Conclusion

18 Contact [email protected]

nineteen •

Paper compiled by ITDG (Patrick Mulvany18 and Rachel Berger), with assistance, advice and contributions

from ETC Group (Pat Mooney), GRAIN (Henk Hobbelink), Joyce Hambling, Ilse Koeller-Rollefson and Kristin

Dawkins and many others who provided comments, contributions and case study material, not all of which

could be included.

May 2002


• twenty

Box 3:CSO Statement on Agricultural Biodiversity and theInternational Seed Treaty (ITPGRFA)

Presented at CBD/COP6, 10 April 2002

We welcome the long-awaited conclusion ofnegotiations of the International Seed Treaty. Thesecurity of these crops and forages is now onestep closer. They are important not only toproduce the food we eat but also form part of theworld's agricultural biodiversity and sustainagricultural landscapes. Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture sustain the lives andlivelihoods and ecosystems of the majority of theworld's population especial ly marginalisedcommunities.

Thus the Treaty stands at the crossroads ofAgriculture, Trade and Environment. We join withothers in applauding the hard work the FAOCommission, especially the Secretariat and ChairGerbasi, in achieving this historic agreement.

Our support is qualified, however.

Civil Society organisations, many of whom cannotbe with us today, have worked for more than 20years to get to this point, but it is only a first stepin securing all genetic resources for food andagriculture - ensuring their sustainable use,conservation and continued open access byfarmers, herders and fisherfolk, free of intellectualproperty rights restrictions.

As with the Biosafety Protocol we eagerlyanticipate rapid ratification of the Treaty by 40countries so that it can come into force. However,we urge the COP to put continued pressure onthe Treaty's Governing Body to address theoutstanding issues on intellectual property rights,relationship with the WTO especially TRIPs,material transfer agreements, financing, andstrengthening the international implementation ofFarmers' Rights.

The Treaty recognises Farmers' Rights to save,exchange and sell seeds but subordinates theseto National Laws some of which are restrictivethrough recognition of patents and other IPRs onplant genetic resources. Other laws, such as theAfrican Union Model Law on Community Rightsdoes not subordinate Farmers' Rights butrecognises them as inalienable.

Taking our inspiration from the preambularcomment in your Convention:

"...that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attackthe causes of significant reduction or loss ofbiological diversity at source"

Agricultural biodiversity is in such a perilous state.Losses of more than 90% of crop varieties fromfarmers' fields in the past century are acceleratingas the globalisation of trade, consumer culturesand patenting bites deeper.

Civil Society joins with others to call on the COPto underscore the importance of this Treaty,perhaps by making it the basis of a separatelyidentifiable Decision.

Throughout these negotiations we have taken aconsistent position in opposition to IntellectualProperty Rights on genetic resources, and willcontinue to do so in defence of farmers andfarming communities.

We would urge countries to make especial effortsto sign the Treaty before the World Food Summit:five years later in June this year and to ratify it bymid 2003. The issues this Treaty deals with arefundamental to food sovereignty, food securityand the environment, but discussions need tocontinue in the political space created in theGoverning Body to ensure that these resourcesare secured in the public domain in perpetuity.

Statement supported by 200 organisations worldwide – see www.ukabc.org/cop6.htm


twenty-one •

An Open Letter from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

To Ambassador Philemon Yang of Cameroon, Chairman Third Meeting ofthe Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety (ICCP3) – 22-26 April 2002 – The HagueDear Ambassador Yang,

On the eve of the Third Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety(ICCP3), civil society organizations request urgently that the serious threat to biological diversity from geneticcontamination in crop centers of origin and/or diversity be placed on the agenda of the ICCP3.

We note that the legally-binding Protocol on Biosafety, now gaining momentum towards its entry into force,aims to ensure the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modernbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity. The Protocol emphasizes the special roleand importance of crop centers of origin and/or diversity , and also promotes a precautionary approach as theguiding principle for biosafety. These crucial elements of the Protocol reinforce the need for ICCP3 urgently toconsider the issue of genetic contamination and its implications for farmers and food security as well as in-situ,on-farm, and ex-situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

In recent months, enormous controversy has erupted over evidence that the Mesoamerican Center of CropGenetic Diversity has been contaminated with genetically modified (GM) maize material. These findings arealarming, not only because it is illegal to grow GM maize in Mexico, but especially because Mexico is theprimary center of maize genetic diversity. Maize varieties developed over millennia by indigenous farmers, aswell as maize ancestors, represent one of the world's most vital and indispensable reservoirs of geneticmaterial for future plant breeding and the basis of food security.

In September 2001, Mexico's Ministry of Environment first reported that extensive GM maize contaminationhad been found in farmers' maize varieties in two states. Earlier this year, Mexico's Environment Ministry re-confirmed that GM contamination of farmers' varieties of maize had been found at contamination rates of up to35% in remote villages of Oaxaca and Puebla. Recent articles in scientific journals have squabbled over themethodology used to characterize GM contamination in Mexico, but not over the fact that this contaminationhas occurred. Virtually all scientists agree that this Center of Crop Genetic Diversity has been contaminatedwith DNA from genetically modified plants.

We wish to emphasize that debate on this issue must not focus on the methodologies of detectingcontamination, but on the more urgent matter of how to respond. Genetic contamination in crop centers oforigin and/or diversity and its potential impact on farmers, food security and the biological diversity of allcountries must be addressed as a matter of priority.

We call upon ICCP3 to:

■ Acknowledge that GM contamination poses a potential serious threat to biological diversity in crop centers oforigin and/or diversity;

■ Propose an immediate moratorium, in accordance with the precautionary approach, on the release of livingmodified organisms for food, feed and processing (GM seeds and grain) or for research in those countries orregions that form part of the crop centers of origin and/or diversity for that species. Rigorous studies -excluding all trials in the open environment - on the risks and impacts of GM contamination must provebiosafety before this moratorium should be lifted;

■ Initiate a process leading to rigorous studies on a crop-by-crop and region-by-region basis to determinewhat impact GM contamination may have in crop centers of origin and/or diversity supplying the world'sfood systems.

In addition, we call upon ICCP3 to initiate a process with the Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to:

Annex


• twenty-two

■ Undertake an investigation of how to ensure the integrity of germplasm held under the FAO-CGIAR TrustAgreement and that there are, and will be, no intellectual property claims pertaining to any of the Trustgermplasm;

■ Incorporate mechanisms in the FAO Code of Conduct on Biotechnology to control the diffusion of GMmaterials, whether through commercial trade or overseas development assistance, to ecologically and socio-economically vulnerable regions, and to guarantee that the burden of ecosystem restoration andcompensating affected farmers and nations rests with the manufacturers and/or patentholders of theseproducts;

■ Examine the need to integrate rules and procedures to mitigate and prevent any further GM contamination inthe legally-binding International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Signed by: ETC Group (formerly RAFI), Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), Greenpeace,

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), FoodFirst, Econexus, Genetic Engineering Network (GEN),

Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Diverse Women for Diversity (DWD) and the Federation of German

Scientists... on behalf of the NGO Caucus at the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological

Diversity.

Para mantener la biodiversidadagrícola, y la integridad y el libre

acceso a los recursos genéticos parala agricultura y la alimentación

La soberanía y seguridad alimentaria, los medios devida, los paisajes y la integridad ambiental, estánapuntalados por la biodiversidad agrícola y suscomponentes - los recursos genéticos para laalimentación y la agricultura. Estos han sidodesarrollados, desde hace más de 12,000 años, porpueblos indígenas y hombres y mujeres agricultores,habitantes de los bosques, cuidadores de ganado ypescadores, utilizando el libre intercambio de losrecursos genéticos en todo el mundo. Desde eladvenimiento de la agricultura industrial y el aumentode la globalización de los mercados, los gustos y lasculturas, mucha de esta riqueza de la biodiversidadagrícola se está perdiendo tanto en las fincas como enlos bancos genéticos, y la integridad de estos recursosestá puesta en mayor peligro por los organismosgenéticamente modificados.

La Cumbre Mundial sobre la Alimentación: cinco añosdespués y la Cumbre Mundial sobre el DesarrolloSustentable, podrían jugar un papel importante pararevertir estas tendencias decidiendo acciones paraapoyar tres importantes acuerdos internacionales.

■ El libre intercambio de semillas puede ser reforzadopor el Tratado Internacional de la Semilla de la FAO(Tratado Internacional sobre los Recursos

Fitogenéticos para la Agricultura y la Alimentación),en tanto que inequívocamente prohíba lasdemandas de derechos de propiedad intelectualsobre estos recursos y asegure los derechos yrecompensas a los agricultores.

■ El Plan Global de Acción de Leipzig sobre losrecursos fitogenéticos para la agricultura y laalimentación podría facilitar la ejecución de losacuerdos y decisiones existentes de la FAO y delConvenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB) ycontribuiría a revertir la decadencia de labiodiversidad agrícola.

■ Se podría dar cierta protección a la integridad deestos recursos genéticos con decisionesobligatorias del Convenio sobre la DiversidadBiológica, incluyendo la ejecución del Protocolosobre Bioseguridad.

La Sociedad Civil y las Organizaciones de Agricultoresacordaron, en el Foro de las ONGs de la CumbreMundial sobre la Alimentación en 1996, apoyar unamplio rango de medidas de política e investigación asícomo actividades de desarrollo que fortalecieran ladiversidad, los derechos y la alimentación local, y laseguridad del sustento diario. Algunos ejemplos desus realizaciones exitosas en el trabajo concomunidades locales en poco más de cinco años sedestacan en este documento: al mantener ladiversidad de cultivos; al conservar la diversidad de losanimales domésticos; al recuperar la diversidadmarina; el desarrollo del agro-ecoturismo; al permitir

Resumen: español


twenty-three •

Résumé: français

que las voces de los agricultores se escuchen en eldebate sobre la ingeniería genética; al desafiar laspatentes perversas; al proteger los Derechos delAgricultor; y al controlar la invasión de los derechos depropiedad intelectual.

Los gobiernos, sin embargo, han ejecutado pocas delas actividades contenidas en el Compromiso 3 sobrela Agricultura Sustentable del Plan de Acción de laCumbre de la Alimentación de 1996. Ellos han estadopromoviendo o facilitando, o en el mejor de los casos,tolerando el envolvimiento del sector corporativo en unamplio rango de acciones que están socavando ladiversidad, amenazando el acceso a los recursosgenéticos, minando los Derechos inalienables delAgricultor a guardar semillas, extendiendo lacontaminación genética y comprometiendo lasoberanía alimentaria.

Este documento concluye con una Agenda para laAcción de las organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil y lasOrganizaciones de Agricultores para que se dencambios en un ámbito de actividades, políticas einstrumentos en los niveles local, nacional einternacional. Estos cambios protegeríanefectivamente la integridad genética de, y el accesolibre a la biodiversidad agrícola necesaria parasustentar los medios de vida, los paisajes y la vida enla tierra. La Agenda de Acción incluye llamados para:

■ Una moratoria en la liberación de las semillas decultivos genéticamente modificados en los Centrosde Origen o Diversidad de estos cultivos.

■ La prohibición de la tecnología del uso de restriccióngenética, incluyendo las tecnologías "terminator".

■ Sacar el tema de la agricultura y especialmente el delos recursos genéticos para la agricultura y laalimentación dentro de la esfera de la OrganizaciónMundial del Comercio (OMC)

■ Terminar con el "dumping" o venta de alimentossubsidiados que castigan a los pobres.

■ Prohibir la biopiratería y excluir a los recursosgenéticos para la agricultura y la alimentación de lapatentabilidad.

■ Regular el poder corporativo sobre los recursosgenéticos y el sistema de alimentación.

■ Mejorar la conservación y desarrollo de los recursosgenéticos incluyendo la ratificación del "TratadoInternacional de la Semilla", la protección de losbancos genéticos públicos en el dominio público y laejecución de los planes de acción acordados.

■ Hacer cumplir el Derecho a la Soberanía Alimentariay los Derechos de los Agricultores, los Cuidadoresde Ganado y los Pescadores Artesanales a losrecursos que requieren para mantener labiodiversidad agrícola y los medios de vida.

La Cumbre Mundial sobre la Alimentación – cinco añosdespués, da la oportunidad de enviar mensajes clarossobre la importancia del Tratado Internacional de laSemilla, la integridad de los recursos genéticos y losrecursos genéticos globales comunes a la CumbreMundial sobre Desarrollo Sustentable a celebrarse enJohannesburgo en agosto y septiembre de 2002.

El desafío para los gobiernos es bastante simple: ¿Labiodiversidad agrícola del mundo se nutre para otorgarganancia a unos cuantos o alimento para todos? Serequieren de acciones ahora para parar la hemorragiade la biodiversidad agrícola y para asegurar laintegridad de, y el acceso abierto y continuo a, unaamplia diversidad de recursos genéticos para laagricultura y la alimentación con el fin de asegurar lasoberanía y la seguridad alimentaria.

Soutien à la biodiversité agricole etla intégrité et libre-circulation des

ressources génétiques pourl'alimentation et l'agriculture.

La souveraineté et la sécurité alimentaire, les moyensde subsistence, les paysages et l’intégrité del’environnement sont renforcés par la biodiversitéagricole et ses composants génétiques pourl’alimentation et l’agriculture. Ceux-ci ont étédéveloppés depuis 12,000 ans par des indigènes,hommes et femmes, fermiers, habitants des forets,

éleveurs de bétails et pêcheurs artisanaux, par le libre-échange de ressources génétiques a travers le monde.Depuis l’avènement de l’agriculture industrialisée et dudéveloppement de la globalisation des marchés, desgouts et des cultures, une grande part de la richessede cette biodiversité agricole est en train de se perdrea la fois in situ et dans les banques des gènes. De plusen plus les organismes génétiquement modifiéscompromettent l’intégrité de ces ressources.

Le Sommet Mondial de l’Alimentation: cinq ansaprès et le Sommet Mondial sur leDéveloppement Durable pourraient jouer un rôle


• twenty-four

important dans le revirement de ces tendances endécidant de soutenir trois accords importantsinternationaux:

■ La libre-circulation des semences pourrait etreaméliorée par le Traité International desSemences de la FAO (Traité international sur lesressources phytogénétiques pour l'alimentation etl'agriculture) a condition d’interdire sans équivoquepossible toute réclamation des droits de propriétéintellectuelle de ces ressources et d’assurer lesdroits et rémunérations des agriculteurs.

■ Le Plan d’Action Global de Leipzig sur lesressources phytogénétiques pour l’alimentationet l’agriculture pourrait facil iter la mise enapplication des accords et décisions pris par laFAO et la CDB et contribuerait a contrecarrer ledéclin de la biodiversité agricole.

■ L’intégrité de ces ressources génétiques pourraitêtre protégée par certaines décisions mandatéespar la Convention sur la Diversité Biologiqueincluant la mise en application du Protocole surla prévention des risques biotechnologiques

Les Organsations de Société Civile (OSCs) et lesOrganisations des Agriculteurs se sont accordées,en 1996 lors du Forum ONG du Sommet Mondialde l’Alimentation, a soutenir une vaste gamme demesures politiques et d’activités de recherche-développement visant a améliorer la diversité, lesdroits et la sécurité alimentaire et des moyensd’existence. Quelques exemples de leur réussite,ces cinq dernières années, en conjonction avec lescommunautés locales, sont soulignés dans cetdocument: maintien de la diversité des cultures,préservation de la diversité des animauxdomestiques, restauration de la diversité marine,développement de l’agro-tourisme écologique,facilitation de la participation des agriculteurs auxdébats relatifs a la biotechnologie, lutte contre lesbrevets pervers, protection des Droits desAgriculteurs, controle de l’empiétement des droitsde propriété intellectuelle (DPI).

Toutefois les gouvernements n’ont appliqué que peudes activités de l’Engagement 3 (AgricultureDurable) du Plan d’Action du Sommet Mondial del’Alimentation de 1996. Au contraire, ils ont eux-mêmes promu, facilité ou, au mieux, toléré laparticipation du secteur des grandes sociétés, a desvastes actions qui nuisent a la diversité, menacentl’accès aux ressources génétiques, détruisent lesDroits inaliénables des Agriculteurs a préserver lessemences, propagent la pollution génétique etcompromettent la souveraineté alimentaire.

Cet document se termine par une Programme d’Action

créé par des OSCs et Organisations d’Agriculteurs, enfaveur de changements dans un champ d’activités, demesures politiques et de procédures légales au niveaulocal, national et international. Ces changementsprotégeraient avec efficacité, et l’intégrité génétique et lelibre accès a la biodiversité agricole nécessaire aumaintien des moyens d’existence, des paysages et dela vie sur terre. Ce Programme d’Action comprend lesexigences suivantes:

■ Un moratorium de l’émission de grains ousemences OGM dans les Centres d’Origine oude Diversité de ces récoltes;

■ La prohibition des technologies de restrictiond’utilisation des ressources génétiques (GURTs) ycompris les technologies "Terminator";

■ Le retrait de l’agriculture et spécialement desressources génétiques pour l’alimentation etl’agriculture de la responsabilité du OMC;

■ La fin de l’écoulement a bas prix de stocksalimentaires pénalisant les pauvres; La prohibitionde la biopiraterie et l’interdiction d’obtention debrevet pour les ressources génétiques pourl'alimentation et l'agriculture;

■ La réglementation du pouvoir des sociétés sur lesressources génétiques et le système alimentaire;

■ L’amélioration de la préservation et dudéveloppement des ressources génétiquescomprenant la ratification du Traité International desSemences, assurant la protection des banquespubliques de genes dans le domaine publique et lamise en application des Plans d’Action décidés;

■ La mise en application du Droit a la SouverainetéAlimentaire et des Droits des Agriculteurs, desÉleveurs et des Pecheurs Artisanaux a accéder auxressources nécessaires pour le maintien de labiodiversité agricole et de leurs moyens d’existence.

Le Sommet Mondial de l’Alimentation – cinqans après permet d’envoyer un message précisquant a l’importance du Traité International desSemences, de l’intégrité des ressources génétiques,et du patrimoine génétique commun, au SommetMondial pour un Développement Durable(WSSD) de Johannesburg en septembre 2002.

Le défi pour les gouvernements est très simple: labiodiversité agricole mondiale doit-elle etre encouragéepour profiter a une poignée d’individus ou pour subveniraux besoins alimentaires de tous? Des actions sontmaintenant impératives pour enrayer l’hémorragie dontsouffre la biodiversité agricole et assurer l’intégrité etl’accès a une large diversité de ressources génétiquespour l’alimentation et l’agriculture, afin d’assurer lasouveraineté et la sécurité alimentaire.


Produced for the Forum for Food Sovereignty by:

ETC Group (formerly RAFI)478 River Avenue, Suite 200WINNIPEG, MB R3L 0C8

CANADATel: +1 204 453-5259

Fax: +1 204 284-7871Email: [email protected]:www.etcgroup.org

GRAIN (Genetic ResourcesAction International)

Girona 25, pral., 08010BARCELONA

SPAINTel: +34 93 301 13 81Fax: +34 93 301 16 27Email: [email protected]:www.grain.org

ITDG (Intermediate TechnologyDevelopment Group), Schumacher Centre

Bourton,RUGBY CV23 9QZ,

UKTel: +44 1926 634400Fax: +44 1926 634401Email:[email protected]

Web:www.itdg.org

Food sovereignty and security, livelihoods, landscapes and environmental integrity are underpinnedby agricultural biodiversity and its component genetic resources for food and agriculture. These havebeen developed by indigenous peoples and women and men farmers, forest dwellers, livestockkeepers and fisherfolk over the past 12,000 years through the free exchange of genetic resourcesacross the world. Since the advent of industrial agriculture and the increasing globalisation ofmarkets, tastes and cultures, much of this wealth of agricultural biodiversity is being lost both on-farm and in genebanks and increasingly the integrity of these resources is being compromised bygenetically modified organisms. The World Food Summit: five years' later and the World Summit onSustainable Development could play an important role in reversing these trends.

This paper provides examples of successful work by CSOs with local communities over the pastfive years are highlighted in this paper: maintaining crop diversity; conserving domestic animaldiversity; restoring marine diversity; developing agro-ecotourism; facilitating farmers' voices in thegenetic engineering debate; challenging perverse patents; protecting Farmers' Rights; monitoringIntellectual Property Rights (IPR) encroachment. It concludes with an Action Agenda from CSOs andFarmers' Organisations for changes in a range of activities, policies and instruments at local, nationaland international levels. These changes would effectively protect the genetic integrity of, and openaccess to, the agricultural biodiversity needed to sustain livelihoods, landscapes and life on earth.

Pat

rick

Mul

vany

ITD

G

Sustaining agri bio COVER 11/6/02 8:01 am Page 1

Documents

Forum for Food Sovereignty Biodiversityukabc.org/accessgenres.pdf · 2007-01-13 · Forum for Food Sovereignty Sustaining agri bio COVER 11/6/02 8:01 am Page 2. Sustaining Agricultural