Da Paula : pagina creata giovedi 30 maggio alle 14.16. La pagina riguarda testi stranieri da tradurre in italiano soprattutto per agevolare chi fa trasmissioni e cose varie per il Forum e per il Vertice. Marta aggiunge italiano 3 maggio ore 13.30
Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 29th May 2002 VIA CAMPESINA CALLS FOR PARTICIPATION IN RALLY IN ROME ON JUNE 8 2002, BEFORE THE FAO SUMMIT Via Campesina supports fully the call to participate in the rally for "Land and dignity" made by our friends, men and women, leaders of our movements that are at the moment in jail or that suffer repression in their country. Vía Campesina demands at the occasion of this FAO Summit the immediate release of these persons. We expect national governments to move on these important issues and show their political will to come to positive changes regarding the democratic rights of our organizations and farmers' rights to food production and access to productive resources. Via Campesina also takes up its three central demands related to productive resources that were communicated to our governments on the 17th of april, the international day of farmers' struggle: 1) A total ban on "Terminator Technologies" (the production of sterile seeds) and other Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) that control the traits in plants and animals, 2) A full investigation led by FAO of the transgenetic contamination of international gene banks and the genetic contamination of Centres of Diversity and concrete measures to avoid this contamination, 3) Concrete steps towards a total abolition of patents on living organisms on the national and international levels. The FAO must forbid CGIAR centers to apply for patents on any genetic resources or their parts and components and the FAO Summit must call upon national governments to ban patents on genetic resources. We expect these concrete commitments to be agreed internationally at the FAO World Food Summit: five years' later in Rome in June and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in August/September 2002. Via Campesina will be in Rome with an international delegation of ca 100 people. To contact Via Campesina in Rome: For the press: (+39-) 333 1893 512 For organisational questions: (+39-) 338 5898 207 Place we stay: Hotel Domus Pacis, Via di Torre Rossa 94, Rome, Tel +39 06 6627758 By Email: email@example.com
1) A total ban on "Terminator Technologies" (the production of sterile seeds) and other Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) that control the traits in plants and animals, 2) A full investigation led by FAO of the transgenetic contamination of international gene banks and the genetic contamination of Centres of Diversity and concrete measures to avoid this contamination, 3) Concrete steps towards a total abolition of patents on living organisms on the national and international levels. The FAO must forbid CGIAR centers to apply for patents on any genetic resources or their parts and components and the FAO Summit must call upon national governments to ban patents on genetic resources. We expect these concrete commitments to be agreed internationally at the FAO World Food Summit: five years' later in Rome in June and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in August/September 2002. Via Campesina will be in Rome with an international delegation of ca 100 people. To contact Via Campesina in Rome: For the press: (+39-) 333 1893 512 For organisational questions: (+39-) 338 5898 207 Place we stay: Hotel Domus Pacis, Via di Torre Rossa 94, Rome, Tel +39 06 6627758 By Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 29 maggio 2002, Via Campesina supporta nella sua completezza la chiamata alla partecipazione alla marcia per 'Terra e Dignità' fatta dai nostri amici, uomini e donne, leader dei nostri movimenti che al momento sono in carcere o che soffrono la repressione nei loro paesi.Via Campesina richiede, con l'occasione di questo summit FAO, l'immediato rilascio di queste persone. Aspettiamo che i governi nazionali si muovano su queste importanti questioni e mostrino la loro volontà politica di arrivare a cambiamenti positivi che riguardino i diritti democratici per le nostre organizzazioni e i diritti degli agricoltori alla produzione di cibo e accesso alle risorse produttive. Via Campesina espone inoltre le tre principali richieste in relazione alle risorse produttive,che sono state presentate al nostro governo il 17 aprile, giornata internazionale della lotta degli agricoltori: 1) Un divieto totale delle 'Terminator Technologies' (la produzione di semi sterili) e altri Restrizioni nell'uso di Tecnologie Genetiche (GURTs) che controllano le proprietà di piante e animali, 2) Una indagine completa, guidata dalla FAO sulle contaminazioni transgeniche della banca internazionale del genee le contaminazioni genetiche dei Centri della Diversità e misure concrete per evitare queste contaminazioni, 3) Passi in avanti concreti verso una totale abolizione delle patenti sugli organismi viventi a livello nazionale ed internazionale. La FAO deve vietare centri CGIAR per l'applicazione delle patenti in ogni risorsa genetica o le loro parti e componenti e il Summit FAO deve richiamare i governi nazionali per bandire le patenti nelle risorse genetiche. Ci aspettiamo che a livello internazionale e al World Food Summit della FAO si aderisca a questi impegni concreti: cinque anni dopo a Roma in Giugno e all'Incontro Mondiale per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (WSSD) a Johannesburg in Agosto/Settembre 2002. Via Campesina sarà a Roma con una delegazione di circa 100 persone. Per contattare Via Campesina a Roma: Per la stampa (+39)333 1893512. Per questioni organizzative: (+39) 338 5898207. Alloggeremo all'Hotel Domus Pacis,Via di Torre Rossa 94, tel.06 6627758. Per e-mail email@example.com
Via Campesina supporta nella sua completezza la chiamata alla partecipazione alla marcia per 'Terra e Dignità' fatta dai nostri amici, uomini e donne, leader dei nostri movimenti che al momento sono in carcere o che soffrono la repressione nei loro paesi.Via Campesina richiede, con l'occasione di questo summit FAO, l'immediato rilascio di queste persone. Aspettiamo che i governi nazionali si muovano su queste importanti questioni e mostrino la loro volontà politica di arrivare a cambiamenti positivi che riguardino i diritti democratici per le nostre organizzazioni e i diritti degli agricoltori alla produzione di cibo e accesso alle risorse produttive. Via Campesina espone inoltre le tre principali richieste in relazione alle risorse produttive,che sono state presentate al nostro governo il 17 aprile, giornata internazionale della lotta degli agricoltori:
1) Un divieto totale delle 'Terminator Technologies' (la produzione di semi sterili) e altri Restrizioni nell'uso di Tecnologie Genetiche (GURTs) che controllano le proprietà di piante e animali, 2) Una indagine completa, guidata dalla FAO sulle contaminazioni transgeniche della banca internazionale del genee le contaminazioni genetiche dei Centri della Diversità e misure concrete per evitare queste contaminazioni, 3) Passi in avanti concreti verso una totale abolizione delle patenti sugli organismi viventi a livello nazionale ed internazionale. La FAO deve vietare centri CGIAR per l'applicazione delle patenti in ogni risorsa genetica o le loro parti e componenti e il Summit FAO deve richiamare i governi nazionali per bandire le patenti nelle risorse genetiche. Ci aspettiamo che a livello internazionale e al World Food Summit della FAO si aderisca a questi impegni concreti: cinque anni dopo a Roma in Giugno e all'Incontro Mondiale per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (WSSD) a Johannesburg in Agosto/Settembre 2002. Via Campesina sarà a Roma con una delegazione di circa 100 persone. Per contattare Via Campesina a Roma: Per la stampa (+39)333 1893512. Per questioni organizzative: (+39) 338 5898207. Alloggeremo all'Hotel Domus Pacis,Via di Torre Rossa 94, tel.06 6627758. Per e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
(da Giangi): qui di seguito metto i testi dei 9 documenti-base (indicati dal Comitato organizzatore del forum ONG/OSC) che il gruppo traduttori cercherà di tradurre (una sintesi) entro Sabato sera, in modo da consentire una lettura utile a tutt* le/gli redattrici/ori di radio GAP prima e durante gli incontri e le assemblee.
- Hasta pronto
(da ameba00X): TRADUZIONE DEL DOCUMENTO SULLA SOVRANITA' ALIMENTARE spero che sia chiaro, o fatto del mio meglio ma il linguaggio e soprattutto i periodi erano abbastanza complicati..... ci vediamo domenica mattina @
BREVE SINTESI: Il concetto di sovranità alimentare si lega a quella della sicurezza alimentare, quest'ultimo significa la certezza di avere qualcosa da mangiare, il primo significa avere la facoltà di poter gestire questa sicurezza in ambienti locali, regionali e nazionali. Secondo il WTO le esportazioni dovrebbero pagare le importazioni, per cui uno stato potrebbe essere una monocultura e raggiungere lo stesso una sicurezza alimentare. In pratica ciò non è reale. Le Ong si sbattono per far discutere al WFS e all'agenda del WTO alcuni punti importanti, come la creazione di una riserva mondiale di alimenti per le situazioni emergenziali, una legislazione e una trasparenza su chi gestisce quelli già presenti, una legislazione contro il dumping agricolo che di fatto spinge l'agricoltura a produrre beni destinati all'esportazione anziché al mercato interno, e di conseguenza gli agricoltori migrano in città. Ma in realtà non c'è assolutamente una volontà politica a grossi livelli che ha come obiettivo di guardare la sicurezza alimentare come ad un diritto inviolabile. Chiarificatore di come funzionino le cose il messaggio iniziale di Mr. Cespuglio!!!
"La sovranità alimentare nell'era della liberalizzazione del commercio: i mezzi multilaterali sono possibili? Steve Suppan, direttore dell'istituto di ricerca sulle politiche agricole e commerciali
"E' importante per la nostra nazione di costruire, di far crescere generi alimentari, per sfamare la nostra gente. Potete immaginare un paese incapace di far crescere abbastanza cibo per sfamare il proprio popolo? Sarebbe una nazione soggetta a una pressione internazionale. Sarebbe una nazione a rischio. E quindi quando parliamo di agricoltura americana, stiamo parlando di una questione di sicurezza nazionale." ""Gorge Bush, nel discorso ai futuri agricoltori americani, 27 luglio 2001"" 1. Il programma del summit mondiale sull'alimentazione (WFS - World food summit) non menziona il termine "sovranità alimentare" come lo si vorrebbe. Le politiche delle ONG propongono una determinazione nazionale e locale per un'autosufficienza alimentare e una conservazione delle risorse legate a questa in risposta alle politiche neoliberiste riguardanti gli scambi commerciali sull'agricoltura. Via Campesina (organizzazione mondiale di contadini), in preparazione al summit dichiarava: " Siamo determinati a creare un economia rurale, basata sul rispetto di noi stessi e della terra, sulla sovranità alimentare e su un commercio equo."
- Questa determinazione si scontra con le politiche agricole non mirate primariamente ad assicurare la sicurezza alimentare ma mirate a creare indicatori di crescita macroeconomica che pretendono di essere distribuiti in maniera da dare l'opportunità di accrescere la sicurezza alimentare attraverso le importazioni pagate dalle entrate delle esportazioni che diventano cosi una moneta forte e preziosa sul mercato.
Corollario a questa tesi, rappresentanti delle multinazionali agricole affermano che l'ineguale distribuzione delle risorse naturali per la produzione di cibo indica che le "naturali" nazioni esportatrici devono approvvigionare di cibo le nazioni povere di risorse naturali per una propria agricoltura. In un recente documento del Consiglio politico internazionale per l'Agricoltura, cibo e commercio (IPC) contesta che "nel passato, i problemi di sicurezza alimentare, spesso espressi nel bisogno di un autosufficienza alimentare, sono stati usati per prevenire la liberalizzazione del commercio. Paesi sviluppati ed in via di sviluppo hanno discusso similmente che la produzione domestica di cibo era necessaria per assicurare l'autosufficienza e quindi la sicurezza alimentare. Questa teoria è difettosa perché le risorse per un autosufficienza alimentare non corrispondono alla distribuzione demografica della popolazione e quindi alla richiesta di cibo." L'IPC incontrerà i delegati nazionali in ottobre a Ginevra, per far accettare i loro argomenti alle politiche del WTO, in maniera che anche paesi non "esportatori naturali" (US, Australia, Argentina) entrino nel giro. Comunque, all'interno dell'IPC sono le multinazionali e non i paesi che commerciano. I rappresentanti dell'IPC possono offrire alle delegazioni di paesi in via di sviluppo quello che ONG e gruppi di agricoltori non possono, cioè la possibilità di comprare, quando necessario, il margine per raggiungere la sicurezza alimentare anche se l'agricoltura domestica (sviluppata) potrebbe colmare quel margine.
3. Gli economisti si sono trattenuti dall'analizzare il ruolo giocato dalle compagnie di scambi internazionali, mentre si sono impegnati nel capire come mai il mercato dei prodotti e le politiche di scambi agricoli non funzionino secondo le teorie economiche. Malgrado i fondi pubblici per trasporto, assicurazioni e crediti di esportazione forniti a queste compagnie, i dati delle loro transazioni è stimato da tutte le maggiori nazioni come privato e quindi il loro impatto globale difficile da analizzare.
4. Forse solo il 10% della produzione globale di cibo è scambiato. Nella maggior parte dei paesi la sicurezza alimentare (quando presente) è assicurata dalla produzione domestica, spesso da agricoltori di sussistenza senza fondi di assistenza tecnica per il pagamento di tasse, sussidi e crediti offerti invece agli agricoltori in larga scala e alle multinazionali dell'agribusiness. Malgrado la piccola percentuale di scambi nel settore agricolo, le politiche agricole sono sempre più rivolte verso le politiche di scambi commerciali, particolarmente in paesi dove la domanda domestica è lungamente accolta, per esempio negli US i prodotti destinati all'esportazione sono stati detassati, tirandosi dietro numerose critiche. Non è infatti sensato che gli agricoltori vendano alle grosse aziende esportatrici o a quelle che trasformano il prodotto, a prezzi notevolmente più bassi di quelli di produzione (Dumping). Comunque è vantaggioso per le grosse aziende fare questo anche perché non ostacolate dalle leggi del WTO che condannano il dumping. Ancora più vantaggioso per queste compagnie l'obbligazione di una nazione (dettata dal WTO) ad importare anche una piccola percentuale di prodotti agricoli, anche se questi prodotti non servono, questo assicura un continuo mercato per le multinazionali.
5. Questo documento contesta che le politiche che stanno affondando gli scambi agricoli non sussidiati, la prosperità per la maggior parte degli agricoltori e l'accrescimento della sicurezza alimentare, non possono essere analizzate solamente in termini di mercato. Il libero scambio propugna come rivendicazione che "il WTO si occupa di scambi. Niente di più". Codeste rivendicazioni del WTO non solo ignorano gli "affari non-commerciali" ma essendo non vincolanti a nessuna legge del WTO vengono usati da quest'ultimo per dichiarare che c'è bisogno d'accordi vincolanti, ma la cosa più importante è che il WTO ignora i ben documentati impatti delle loro vincolanti leggi che di fatto impediscono gli "affari non-commerciali". Questo documento rielabora gli aspetti relativi al commercio nelle commissioni del WFS, gli impatti del commercio agricolo sotto le leggi del WTO sull'agricoltura (AoA Agreement on Agricolture), le proposte di membri del WTO sulla riduzione dell'insicurezza alimentare, e se ci sono possibili soluzioni politiche multilaterali all'insicurezza alimentare. Considereremo solo tre possibili soluzioni politiche: 1) riserve di beni di base regionali 2) una convenzione globale per assicurare la sicurezza alimentare 3) leggi del WTO che eliminino il dumping nell' agricoltura
Sovranità alimentare al WFS
6. I delegati governativi hanno riconosciuto nella "Dichiarazione romana sulla sicurezza alimentare mondiale" che ha coniato il significato di sicurezza alimentare, che "è un complesso compito nel quale la prima responsabilità rimane ai governi individualmente", come risultato i delegati sono stati d'accordo che "Il cibo non può essere usato come strumento per pressioni politiche o economiche", visto che questo uso sorvolerebbe sulle responsabilità di un governo di non attuare programmi per assicurare la sicurezza alimentare. Questo linguaggio fu un compromesso tra Cuba, Iraq, Iran e Libia da una parte e gli Stati Uniti dall'altra. Il forum delle ONG si pone verso il WFS con queste parole: "né cibo né fame possono essere usati come un arma politica nazionale o internazionale, gli embarghi economici o sanzioni internazionali che colpiscono la popolazione sono incompatibili con il concetto di sicurezza alimentare. Quelli attualmente in atto devono terminare immediatamente"
7. La presuntuosa sovranità dei governi di mettere in pratica gli impegni del WFS è implicitamente condizionata nel Piano di Azione dagli impegni di quei governi che sono parte di accordi che richiedono il cambiamento, l'abrogazione o l'aggiunta di leggi nazionali in modo da rispettare gli accordi internazionali. Gli accordi menzionati nel Piano di Azione sono per lo più gli accordi del WTO (specialmente nel commitment 4) , le cui condizioni vincolanti sono rinforzate da sanzioni commerciali che possono essere evitate in accordo al relativo potere economico e politico dei membri del WTO. L'accordo sull'agricoltura (AoA) effettivamente afferma un diritto vincolante all'esportazione verso un minimo mercato richiesto. La grande maggioranza delle nazioni sviluppate sono più o meno autosufficienti in cibo, la percentuale di questa sicurezza data dal commercio è piccola, ma politicamente potente per coloro che possono determinare i prezzi e i termini per prevenire un agitazione politica dovuta a scarsezza di cibo. L'importazione vincolante del 4-5% di cibo è un accordo presente nell'AoA, e previene l'autosufficienza alimentare di una nazione, e forse la sovranità anche per nazioni capaci di raggiungere questa sovranità. Per nazioni capaci di essere auto-sufficienti questa legge vincolante è una distorsione del concetto di sicurezza alimentare.
8. Invocati sia nella dichiarazione del WFS sia nel Piano di Azione ci sono accordi riguardanti la Dichiarazione dei diritti umani, da li il "diritto di non soffrire la fame" concetto espresso nella dichiarazione di Roma. La natura non vincolante di quest'accordo la si nota non solo tra quelli che non l' hanno firmato, come gli US, ma anche nella loro interpretazione, cioè "uno scopo o un'aspirazione da realizzare progressivamente, che non da origine a nessuna obbligazione internazionale."(espresso da delegati US)
9. Interpretare gli impegni del WFS come non obbligatori crea un conflitto riguardante il commitment 4 (di base le leggi del WTO) per cui l'accordo non è equamente vincolante per tutte le nazioni. Comunque il piano di azione sottolinea che "e' essenziale che tutti i membri del WTO rispettino ed eseguano gli impegni dell'Uruguay round. Uruguay round è una serie di trattati economici sul commercio mondiale che offre le possibilità ai paesi sviluppati e in via di sviluppo di beneficiare di appropriate politiche di commercio. Si prospetta che tutti i membri abbiano un ritorno economico.
10. L'impegno 4 crede che l'uruguay round porterà ad una crescita economica in modo che tutte le nazioni possano essere auto-bisognose in cibo mediante una dipendenza dalle importazioni. Uno studio su sedici paesi ha evidenziato che nonostante questi importassero le loro esportazioni non aumentavano, quindi neanche la loro economia, questo studio allegato ad una proposta di ?implementare il Documento di Marrakech è stata ignorata dalle maggiori nazioni esportatrici. Questo rifiuto è l'immagine più eclatante della non eseguibilità degli impegni del WFS.
I PUNTI 11 & !" NON MI SONO PER NIENTE CHIARI, SCUSATE
11. Il WFS chiese l'implementazione del documento di Marrakech dopo che uno studio constatò che il 14% di 10 billioni di dollari di spese di importazione di cibo fatti dal LIFDC (Paesi con un basso reddito e mancanza di cibo) era dovuto alle misure dell'Uruguay round, l'IMF contesta questo studio affermando che Uruguay Round non c'entra e quindi l'accordo di Marrakech non viene implementato dal Comitato dell'agricoltura del WTO, , i paesi in via di sviluppo spaventati dall' aumento vertiginoso dei prezzi aderiscono all'AoA (accordo sull' agricoltura del WTO) pensando che questo stabilizzi i prezzi , comunque non c'è stata nessuna volontà politica dei paesi sviluppati per attivare l' Accordo di MArrakech, anche di fronte ad altissimi costi di importazione da parte dei paesi del NIFDCS, é chiaro che quest' accordo ??????
12. La grossa questione dei prezzi non ha toccato solo il cibo ma numerosi prodotti agricoli, per esempio dal 1996 al 2000 i prezzi durante la riforma agricola, secondo il Dipartimento dell'agricoltura US, sono scesi, grano 33%, mais 42%, soya 34% e riso 42%. La divisione tra il supporto all'agricoltura per il fabbisogno domestico
Sovranità alimentare, commercio agricolo e riunione di Seattle del WTO: il modello americano fallisce, babyl0n is falling down
13. La legislazione "Freedom to farm" negli Stati Uniti, ha depresso i prezzi permettendo all'agrobusiness di gestire le risorse immettendole sul mercato e appoggiando i proprietari terrieri finanziandoli per acri coltivati e non per tipo di coltivazione. I finanziamenti dati ai contadini hanno raggiunto quota $28 billioni, e sono stati definiti un ostacolo al libero commercio dal WTO. Il congresso US sta cercando di far accettare al WTO i finanziamenti almeno nei momenti quando i contadini sono in difficoltà per i prezzi bassi.
14. I prezzi cosi bassi, i finanziamenti dati a certi contadini per coltivare certi raccolti, i finanziamenti per l'esportazione (tutto negli US) hanno portato il Messico a protestare col WTO per questa politica che favorisce il dumping dei prezzi. Soya, cotone e grano sono stati venduti tutti sotto il prezzo di costo dal 1998. Non c'è comunque alcuna volontà politica che mette in relazione questa crisi del settore con Accordo sull'agricoltura (AoA) che di fatto impoverisce i contadini dei paesi sviluppati e non crea sicurezza alimentare nei paesi in via di sviluppo.
Gli impegni del Summit mondiale sul cibo alla riunione del WTO in Qatar
15. I paesi in via di sviluppo hanno presentato delle ricerche fatte da: OECD: Organizzazione per la cooperazione economica e lo sviluppo FAO : Organizzazione per il cibo e l'agricoltura UNCTAD : Conferenza delle UN per lo sviluppo e il commercio Queste ricerche dimostravano il dumping dei beni agricoli da parte delle multinazionali dell'agrobusiness, ai danni di piccoli produttori nazionali. Questo ha portato all'obiettivo di ridurre i crediti per l'esportazione di beni alimentari.
16. Nessuno ha dimostrato che esportare tanto fa guadagnare altrettanto , per cui i paesi in via di sviluppo di fatto non possono raggiungere l'auto-sufficienza con le importazioni. Dal 95 al 99 US ed Europa hanno usato speciali "protezioni" dell' AoA per salvaguardare i loro beni dalle importazioni, questo ha portato minori esportazioni dalle nazioni del LDC, il che è una sconfitta agli obiettivi del WFS. Teoricamente i paesi in via di sviluppo hanno come unico mercato quello dove è evidente la loro forza.
17. la mancanza di benefici ed opportunità nell'accordo del WFS numero 4, hanno portato i paesi in via di sviluppo a chiedere una modifica per bilanciare i benefici tra tutti i membri del WTO. In 50 documenti dei paesi in via di sviluppo, si legge la volontà di diventare auto-sufficienti per le i bisogni alimentari primari e di avere più entrate dalle esportazioni, anche agricole. Obiettivi anche delle ONG sono la creazione di discipline contro la manipolazione delle tariffe, l'esenzione dei requisiti per accedere al mercato dei raccolti garanti la sicurezza alimentare, revisione dell'AoA per prevenire le ondate di importazioni nei prodotti alimentari base, la possibilità di avere prodotti e non-prodotti garanti della sicurezza alimentare in quantità in eccesso.(non si sa mai)
18. Non molte di queste proposte sono state neanche introdotte nell'agenda del WTO, alcune sono state dichiarate per future negoziazioni, ma solo quelle che interessavano da un punto di vista economico i paesi sviluppati (politiche di competizione, investimenti e procure di governo).
19.la resistenza delle nazioni sviluppate a riconoscere il fallimento dell'Uruguay Round sembra non dare speranza per la nascita di misure atte ad assicurare la sicurezza alimentare, almeno all'interno del WTO. Sembra quindi inutile continuare a cercare di cambiare l'AoA per garantire la sicurezza alimentare.
Mezzi multilaterali per la sovranità alimentare: a non sequitur?
20. La sovranità alimentare è in maggioranza assicurata da produttori locali e propone mezzi regionali e locali per incoraggiare la sicurezza alimentare.Gli accordi del WTO impediscono di fatto il raggiungimento del livello di autosufficienza nei prodotti alimentari di base per colpa di requisiti minimi di accesso al mercato. Non c'è nessun volere politico da parte delle nazioni esportatrici di intendere il mercato alimentare con lo scopo di raggiungere la sicurezza alimentare, soprattutto l'AoA non è interessata a questo. Per questo è importante considerare i mezzi multilaterali per provvedere alla sicurezza alimentare non basata sul commercio, e non sottoposta a sanzioni dagli stessi interessi commerciali. Tre possibili mezzi: 1)riserve di beni primari regionali 2)una convenzione globale sulla sicurezza alimentare 3)Leggi del WTO per evitare il dumping agricolo(vendita di beni sottocosto) Non sono i soli mezzi, inoltre richiedono grossi investimenti di risorse per avere un certo successo.
21. Una questione di basilare importanza è : come garantire le scorte di cibo in emergenze causate da guerre, disastri naturali, raccolti andati a male ed epidemie? Refugee international, un ONG americana, al forum americano del WFS, dichiarò che molte ONG e l'alta commissione per i rifugiati dell'ONU hanno fatto un buon lavoro nelle crisi passate ma che ogni risposta risoluta alle emergenze viene ritardata e ostacolata da dibattiti perditempo, scarne risoluzioni e appelli a contributi. La stessa ONG ha proposto una "riserva globale di beni alimentari per le emergenze umanitarie", cosi da non discuterne e non entrare nel business delle emergenze. Questa proposta non è stata adottata nel documento US , i cui delegati al WFS preferiscono che siano i singoli paesi a organizzare le riserve di beni alimentari.
22. Per quanto riguarda gli stock alimentari che non rientrano nelle emergenze umanitarie, e quindi non limitati a programmi locali o nazionali, l'ONG regionali Consultation for Europe proposero che la FAO includesse uno studio urgente su chi detiene tali stock, chi li gestisce, chi sono i produttori e quale ruolo giocheranno quindi nel futuro della sicurezza alimentare, addirittura anche gli Stati Uniti accolsero questo studio che però il Comitato della sicurezza alimentare mondiale della FAO non ha mai commissionato. Sarebbe un passo importante verso l'organizzazione di riserve di alimenti. Un altro vantaggio sarebbe quello avere delle riserve disponibili e sempre pronte, diminuendo la possibilità che aiuti alimentari oltrepassino le regole del WTO, come l'Europa ha più volte contestato agli Stati Uniti.
23. Le ONG dovrebbero quindi lavorare più sull'instaurazione di riserve regionali e mondiali di derrate alimentari per emergenze oppure per bisogni generali di sicurezza alimentare? Molte difficoltà, tra cui la non ultima degli organismi geneticamente modificati, difatti molti paesi beneficiari di aiuti alimentari hanno sollevato il problema che paesi donatori inviavano cibi OGM senza informare, quindi mettendo a rischio la biodiversità in questi paesi i quali non hanno la possibilità si ben isolare questi OGM. IL protocollo di Cartagena ha cominciato a tessere le basi della biodiversità ma non è ancora completo.
24. Accordi multilaterali e finanziari per la creazione di riserve regionali di alimenti sono complesse tanto quanto la negoziazione di una convenzione per la sicurezza alimentare globale per il WFS. Questa convenzione firmata da 1200 organizzazioni da 80 paesi. Questa convenzione dice: "La FAO assieme all'ONU devono stipulare una convenzione del genere e considerare prioritario il problema della sicurezza alimentare all'interno di una politica alimentare internazionale." La convenzione dovrebbe esentare la sicurezza alimentare dalle regole del WTO (che superano quelle dei singoli paesi) e coordinare la creazione e il controllo di un network internazionale di organismi locali, nazionali e regionali di riserve di alimenti.
25. Una tale convenzione darebbe fastidio a molti, agli interessi di governi che usano le entrate delle esportazioni per pagare creditori internazionali, ai paesi che commerciano internazionalmente a cui l'AoA garantisce un minimo mercato, ai governi che usano l'alimentazione come arma. Per questi motivi governi e multinazionali rendono il cammino di questa convenzione molto difficile.
26. l'ultimo mezzo che consideriamo è la possibilità che il WTO elimini il dumping sui prodotti alimentari, considerando che vendere sottocosto è il maggior inibitore del libero commercio non si capisce come mai il GATT/WTO non si muova in questa direzione, anche perché la legislazione è debole essendo considerato dumping quando il prezzo dell'esportazione è minore del prezzo del mercato domestico, ma non si sa se il prezzo del mercato domestico rifletta in realtà i veri costi di produzione. Questa mancanza fa si che le esportazioni siano aiutate da sussidi, crediti e altri mezzi.
27.I costi di produzione interna sono difficili da calcolare poiché anche in questi esistono sussidi, detrazioni di tasse e scappatoie per cui il costo di produzione è falsato, secondo lo IATP (Istituto di politiche agricole e commerciali) il dumping va calcolato tra il prezzo all'esportazione e il pieno costo di produzione interno, questo costo è calcolato sommando il costo della produzione pagato dal coltivatore + il PSE (producer subsides Equivalent) pagato dal governo + i costi di trasporto. Non è una formula che realmente riflette il costo, poiché trascura la ricerca,lo sviluppo e le ispezioni, ma è una metodologia stabilita e adottabile. Se l'esportazione costa di meno è soggetta ad un rincaro pari alla mancanza. Questa metodologia per essere adottata dai paesi ha bisogno di una legislazione che assicura il pieno costo di produzione calcolato contando il costo del marketing ed un ragionevole profitto. E' un metodo che prenderebbe molti anni prima di raggiungere un reale costo di produzione mondiale, che tenga conto di tutti questi fattori, ma che potrebbe essere facilitato se tutti i paesi esportatori riportassero annualmente al WTO i singoli costi.
28. Se il dumping agricolo è accertato e facilitato dall'AoA causerà devastazioni economiche sociali e ambientali. Il dumping agricolo è senza mezzi termini la sola causa degli aggiustamenti strutturali dell'agricoltura che costringono alla migrazione dalla campagna alla città, che non assicura lavoro né servizi pubblici agli ex agricoltori. I governi dovranno in futuro considerare se i benefici ricavati dal dumping varranno la pena di creare popolazioni "galleggianti" senza lavoro e senza casa che potranno mettere in discussione la sicurezza nazionale con ripercussioni internazionali.
ALTERNATIVE MODELS (OR APPROACHES) TO FOOD PRODUCTION
Jules Pretty and Rachel Hime, University of Essex, UK Jean Marc von der Weid, AS-PTA, Brazil
1- World Food Summit resolutions revisited:
The text of Commitment Three of the WFS Plan of Action was carefully worded but remains undefined and unclear on the most important issue: What is sustainable or unsustainable in agriculture?
Several expressions have been used to qualify agriculture or technology: sustainable; appropriate; conserving natural resources and reducing environmental degradation; up-to- date; modernized; based on holistic approaches; intensified; optimized; diversified; employing integrated plant nutrition, improved seeds and breeds, mixed farming, small- scale irrigation, organic farming, intensified rainfed agriculture, plant breeding which broadens the genetic base of crops; mobilizing farmer's knowledge; etc.
In spite of these concepts, which point to an agroecological development approach, it is not clearly stated in the Commitment that conventional, agrochemical agriculture has not proved adequate for small-scale farming all over the world. Agroecology as a concept is not used either, even though a lot of its components and techniques are included in the text.
Participation is also an important concept in the text, including with reference to research and development agenda identification and extension, but not very significantly in research itself.
Clarity and precision in sustainability definitions is of the utmost importance for the implementation of Commitment Three proposals, since experience has shown how difficult it is to change the focus of development approaches of government officials and international cooperation agencies. Since Rio '92 there has been a change in the "politically correct" wording on agricultural development, but very little progress in implementation.
WFS-96 represented a step forward as compared to WFS-74 regarding the strategy for overcoming world hunger. In '74 the dominant proposal was to increase production in the North and to guarantee food access in the poor South through food aid (paid for by the petro dollars, in Henry Kissinger's proposal). In '96 emphasis was given to increasing production in the South, balancing the efforts between the high and low potential areas. On the other hand, 1974 resolutions took for granted that green revolution technology was the only possible issue for agricultural development, whereas in 1996 the concept of sustainable agriculture was an important feature of the debate, even though it was insufficiently defined.
2- Review of government and international organizations activities to implement Commitment Three proposals since WFS-96:
Resources for agricultural development in the developing world, either from national governments or international cooperation, have dwindled continuously in the last five years, following a pattern already established in the eighties and early nineties. Moreover, these shrinking resources have been mostly used to promote unsustainable development approaches, bringing the already critical situation of small farmers to an extremely serious point. Migration to urban areas due to a combination of incorrect policies, natural resource depletion, environmental disruption and climate factors represent a net transfer of misery and hunger from the rural areas, without any reasonable perspective of finding alternative employment and revenues in industry or services.
Positive relevant government initiatives are few. The most important of all are the IPM programs in Asia, now extending to Africa, programs that were already in execution before '96 with substantial support from the World Bank and technical guidance from FAO. In the CSOs' evaluation, the most relevant feature of these programs is the methodological approach adopted, the Farmer Field Schools, which have evolved in many places from dealing with pest management to treating other problems in agricultural production, like fertility and genetic resource improvement.
In Indonesia, the banning by the government of 57 pesticides applied currently in rice production, combined with the participation of some 1 million farmers in 55 000 Farmer Field Schools have produced spectacular results. 25% of all rice small farmers have totally eliminated the use of pesticides. Overall reduction of pesticide use has been around 70% and average applications have dropped from 2.9 to 1.1 per season with increases in rice yields.
Another initiative highlighted as a major success is the minimum tillage technology which is being promoted by many governments with support from international organizations like CIMMYT or the French cooperation agency CIRAD. The Brazilian experience is seen as the most advanced one, but it highlights some limitations of this approach. In Brazil, very few small farmers adopted minimum tillage since it requires intensive use of expensive herbicides. On the other hand, the very fact that this technology (in the way it is being promoted) depends on chemical inputs indicates its limitations as a sustainable alternative.
Many governments and international research centers are betting more and more on the new GMO technology and accepting an increasing role of TNCs as a solution for agriculture development, disregarding both the environmental and health risks of this technology and its inappropriateness for small farming.
3- Review of CSOs' activities to implement the Roman Forum '96 proposals for sustainable agriculture.
CSOs define sustainable agriculture as an approach that seeks to make the best use of nature's goods and services as functional inputs. It does this by integrating regenerative processes (such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies of pests) into food production processes. It minimizes the use of inputs that damage the environment or human health. It builds on farmers' knowledge and skills, and seeks to make productive use of social capital (namely people's capacity for collective action) as well as pest, watershed, irrigation and forest management.
Sustainable agriculture relies on agroecological approaches to food production and has proved to respond to the crucial questions today:
1) To what extent can farmers improve food production with low-cost, low-risk, locally available technologies and inputs? 2) To what extent can they do this without causing environmental damage?
The University of Essex recently completed an audit of progress towards sustainable agriculture in 52 developing countries and concluded that improvements in food production are occurring through one or more of four mechanisms:
1) intensification of a single component of the farm system - such as homegarden intensification with vegetables and trees, vegetables and rice bunds or a dairy cow; 2) addition of a new productive element to the farm system, such as fish in a paddy rice or agroforestry, which provides a boost to total farm food production and/or income but which does not necessarily affect cereal productivity; 3) better use of natural capital to increase total farm production, especially water (by water harvesting and irrigation scheduling), and land (by reclamation of degraded land), thus leading to additional new dry land crops and/or increased supply of water for irrigated crops; 4) improvements in per hectare yields of staples through the introduction of new regenerative elements into farm systems (e.g. legumes, integrated pest management), and/or locally appropriate crop varieties and animal breeds.
Thus a successful sustainable agriculture project may substantially improve domestic food consumption through home gardens or fish in rice fields, or better water management, without necessarily affecting the per hectare yields of cereals. Nevertheless the study presents reliable data on per hectare yields change for 89 projects. These illustrate that agroecological approaches have led to an average 93% increase in per hectare food production. As will be shown later, most successful projects have attained up to 500% increases.
However, food outcomes are not the only measures of success. A selection of the kinds of impact reported in these sustainable agriculture projects and initiatives include:
1) improvements to natural capital, including increased water retention in the soils; improvements in water table (with more drinking water in the dry season); reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in the soils, leading to better carbon sequestration; and increased agro-biodiversity; 2) improvements to social capital, including more and stronger organizations at local level; new rules and norms for managing collective natural resources; and better connectedness to external policy institutions; 3) improvements to human capital, including more local capacity to experiment and solve problems; reduced incidence of malaria in rice-fish zones; increased self esteem in formerly marginalized groups; increased status of women; better child health and nutrition, especially from more food in dry seasons; and reversed migration and more local employment.
There are four types of agroecological improvements that have played substantial roles in these food production increases:
1) improvement to soil health; 2) more efficient water use in both dry land and irrigated farming; 3) pest and weed control with a minimum or zero pesticide use; 4) whole system redesigns.
The following examples taken from the report illustrate the impact obtained by CSOs' agroecological projects and indicate the potential of this approach to helping solve the hunger problem in the developing world:
1) Soil health improvements:
As pointed out before, the most widespread agroecological technique for soil regeneration/conservation is the zero tillage. In Brazil only there are 12 million hectares under ZT, up from 100 000 hectares in a decade. Most of this acreage is found in large and middle size farms with intensive use of herbicides, but AS-PTA's experience in the southern state of Paraná, involving 5000 small farmers has succeeded in developing a ZT without herbicides. This technique, combined with the use of green manuring and cover crops, biofertilizers, rock phosphate and selection of adapted traditional seeds has succeeded in trebling the average yields for black beans, reaching up to 500% increases in the best cases.
In Senegal, the Rodale Institute Regenerative Agriculture Research Center, working with 2000 farmers organized into 59 groups, is improving soil quality by integrating stall-fed livestock into the crop systems, adding legumes and green manures, increasing the use of manures, composts and rock phosphate and developing water harvesting systems. The result has been a 75 to 195% improvements in millet yields and 100 to 300% increases in groundnut yields. Yields are also less variable year on year, with consequent improvements in household food security.
In Kenya, the Association for Better Land Husbandry found that the farmers who constructed double-dug beds in their gardens could produce enough vegetables to see them through the hungry dry season. According to a review of 26 communities, 75% of the households are now free from hunger during the year, and the proportion of households buying food fell from 85% to 11%.
2) Improved water efficiency:
In northern India the KRIBHCO Rainfed Farming project works with 230 local groups in 70 villages on water harvesting, tree planting and grazing land improvements. Basic grain yields of rice, wheat pigeonpeas and sorghum have increased from 400 kg/ha to 800 kg/ha (100% increase) and increased fodder grass production from the terrace bounds are valued highly. With the improved water retention, water tables have risen by one meter over the past three years, meaning that an extra crop is now possible for many farmers, turning an unproductive season into a productive one with a sharp decrease in seasonal out-migration.
In central Burkina Faso, 100 000 hectares of abandoned and degraded lands have been restored with the adoption of methods of water harvesting called tassas and zaï. Yields have jumped from 150/300 kg/ha to 700/1000 kg/ha (a 330 to 560% increase). The average family in Burkina Faso using these technologies has shifted from being in annual cereal deficit amounting to 644 kg (equivalent of 6.5 months of food shortage) to producing a surplus of 153 kg per year.
In semi-arid northeastern Brazil underground dams that cost 500,00 USD permit a farmer to have half a hectare to one hectare of moist soil during the dry season, which is used to produce cereals, vegetables, fruits and fodder guaranteeing food security in critical periods.
3) Zero pesticide farming.
Integrated pest management has also been used by CSOs throughout Asia as well as by government programs. In Indonesia, the NGO Gita Pertiwi has worked in Central Java with 17 hamlets mobilizing 2 152 farmers, 21% of whom were women. The use of pesticides has decreased from 75 to 100% and an increase in production between 26 and 55% has been noted.
In Bangladesh, a combined aquaculture and integrated pest management program is being implemented by CARE. Some 6000 farmer field schools have been completed with about 150 000 farmers adopting more sustainable rice production on 54 000 hectares. The program also emphasizes fish cultivation in paddies, made possible with the abandonment of pesticide use, and vegetable cultivation on rice field dikes. Rice yields have improved by only 5 to 7 %, but costs of production have fallen sharply owing to pesticide suppression. Each hectare of paddy, though, yields 750 kg of fish, an extraordinary increase in total system productivity for poor farmers with very few resources.
In East Africa, the vutu sukuma system (push-pull in Swahili) redesigned maize fields to control the stem borer. Napier and Sudan grasses are introduced to attract the pest whereas the molasses grass and the legume Desmodium repel it. Besides, Desmodium is a nitrogen fixing plant and is also allelopathic to the parasitic witchweed, Striga hermonthica. 2000 farmers have adopted this technique in western Kenya eliminating the use of pesticides and increasing maize yields by 60 to 70%.
4) Whole system synergies.
In Madagascar, the NGO Association Tefy Saina developed a revolutionary system of rice intensification. The system has improved yields from about 2 tones per hectare to 5, 10 and even 15 tones per hectare (250, 500 and 750% increases). This has been achieved without the use of purchased inputs like pesticides and fertilizers, with the use of only 7-kg of seeds per hectare instead of 100 kg/ha and with a strong economy in water use. 20 000 farmers have adopted this technique up to now, whereas another 100 000 are experimenting with components of the system. The technique is being adopted in many other countries like China, Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal, Cote d'Ívoire, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Sierra Leone and Bangladesh. In China, for example, yields of 9-10.5 t/ha were achieved in the first year, compared with a national average of 6 t/ha.
Integrated farm fish ponds systems in Malawi have permitted to recycle wastes from agriculture and household enterprises, leading to steadily increasing productivity over time With tiny ponds of 0.02 - 0.05 ha farmers have reached outputs of 1450 kg/ha, almost doubling their initial outputs in a five year span.
4- Limiting factors for agroecological development programs:
The introduction of one agroeocological technique or another has certainly produced more sustainable agricultural systems and better incomes and/or food availability for family farmers, but the best results have been achieved when traditional or conventional systems were redesigned to adopt an integrated agroecological approach. Nevertheless, transforming these systems is not an easy task for it requires specific designs for each particular farmer system. Whereas a conventional approach implies the dissemination of uniform technological packages, agroecology demands a more complex extension approach. Participatory generation/dissemination of technology is the answer CSOs have found to this challenge, with a strong component of farmers' education in agroecological principles and not just training in the use of one technology or another.
The participatory approaches, in the best cases, show that it is possible to handle an enormous diversity of technological problems with a minimum investment in technical staff. Massive experimentation by hundreds and sometimes thousands of farmers in a given local development area, combined with intensive exchanges of experiences among them, has produced impressive results in terms of both yield increases, food availability, income generation, costs and risks reductions and sustainability. In the case of AS-PTA's experience in Paraná, in southern Brazil, for instance, only 3 technical staff managed to foster agroecological change in some 10 000 family farms in a 7 year span.
Agroecological participatory systems transformation demands, on the other hand, a very dynamic social organization and material support for the transaction costs of collective appraisals, experimentation and exchanges. In AS-PTA's case this cost amounted to some 35 USD per farmer per year, whereas conventional approaches disseminating conventional (green revolution) techniques in Brazil costs 500 USD per farmer per year.
It derives from the above that agroecological development requires a radical change in extension service approaches as well as the necessary technical recycling of extensionists and investment in the transaction costs of the social dynamics that assumes most of the effort of the generation/dissemination of technology.
Another major limitation of the agroecological development is the current orientation of credit systems, almost completely geared to financing the use of chemical inputs, improved seeds and machinery. Agroecology requires few and low cost inputs, normally in the first stages of transition. However, low resource farmers may still need credit either for adoption of new technology or for a quicker expansion of its employment in the system.
Agricultural research has contributed to agroecological development even though it is not oriented according to this paradigm. Nevertheless, it is clear that a major shift in research agendas and paradigms is needed to foster agroecological development. Farmer's research has given and can give essential contributions to technological innovation, but it is certainly not enough to produce the maximum potential of small farmers' agroecosystems. It is unfortunate that many of the international and national agricultural research centers are being attracted by the idea that biotechnological innovations can solve the major problems of food production in the world.
Last but not least, improved agroecological systems do not guarantee by themselves a better position in the market systems unless they can find a specific market niche not controlled by intermediaries. Furthermore, large scale agroecological programs cannot sustain themselves through market niches which are, in general, too narrow in developing countries; they have to compete in conventional markets and so have to fight the same problems of all family farmers, control by middleman. On the other hand, trade liberalization can undermine all advantages in costs and quality obtained by agroecological systems with unfair competition from subsidized food imports.
5- Proposals for public policies that support agroecological food production:
Several things are now clear with respect to sustainable agriculture:
1) The technologies and social processes for local-level sustainable agriculture are well- tested and established; 2) The social and institutional conditions for spread are less well-known, but have been established in several contexts, leading to very rapid spread in the 1990s; 3) The political conditions for the emergence of supportive policies are least well established, with only a very few examples of real progress.
As has been indicated earlier, agroecology can contribute significantly to increased food production, as well as make a significant impact on rural peoples' welfare and livelihoods. But without appropriate policy support at a range of levels, these improvements will remain localised in extent at best or, at worst, wither away. Clearly much can be done with existing resources. A more sustainable agriculture will not, however, happen without some external help and money. There are always transition costs in learning new knowledge, in developing new or adapting old technologies, in learning to work together, and in having to break free from existing patterns of thought and practice. It also costs time and money to rebuild depleted natural and social capital.
Most of the agroecological improvements seen in the 1990s have arisen despite existing national and institutional policies, rather than because of them. Nonetheless, the 1990s have seen considerable global progress towards the recognition of the need for policies to support agroecology. In a very few countries, this has been translated into highly supportive and integrated policy frameworks. In most, however, sustainable agriculture policies remain at the margins, with recognition of need not yet translated into actual policies.
Although almost every country would now say it supports sustainable agriculture, the evidence points towards only patchy reforms. Only two countries have given explicit national support for sustainable agriculture - putting it at the center of agricultural development policy and integrating policies accordingly. These are Cuba and Switzerland. Cuba has a national policy for alternative agriculture; and Switzerland has three tiers of support for both types of sustainable agriculture and rural development. A much larger number of countries have reformed elements of agricultural policies through new regulations, incentives and/or environmental taxes, and administrative mechanisms, and these are having considerable, though partial, effect. But none of these countries has yet explicitly put sustainable agriculture at the center of their policy frameworks. An even larger set of countries have seen some progress on sustainable agriculture at project and program level - but this still remains largely despite, rather than because of, explicit policy support. Most reforms, though, remain piecemeal, with sustainable agriculture still largely at the margins of conventional policy processes and aims.
The most important policy change for agroecological development is a clear rejection of green revolution technology and the adoption of the agroecological paradigm and a participatory approach that would ensure the farmer's place in the definition of research and development agenda as well as in all implementation steps. This radical shift in food production and rural development policies would require other changes in credit facilities, technical staff training, university curricula, etc. It is not an easy task since it confronts the ideological reaction of many scientists and technicians, who perceive their own present knowledge as the only true agronomic science and, above all, the powerful interests of input producing corporations, particularly the multinationals which have invested billions of dollars in biotechnology development.
ALTERNATIVE MODELS (OR APPROACHES) TO FOOD PRODUCTION 9 NGO/CSO FORUM WFS::fyl - Civil Society Input/Case Studies by Jean Marc von der Weid, Jules Pretty and Rachel Hime _ ALTERNATIVE MODELS (OR APPROACHES) TO FOOD PRODUCTION 1 NGO/CSO FORUM WFS::fyl - Civil Society Input/Case Studies by Jean Marc von der Weid, Jules Pretty and Rachel Hime
2002 Rome NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty
Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and the integrity and free flow of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
8 - 13 June 2002
SUMMARY Food sovereignty and security, livelihoods, landscapes and environmental integrity are underpinned by agricultural biodiversity and its component genetic resources for food and agriculture. These have been developed by indigenous peoples and women and men farmers, forest dwellers, livestock keepers and fisherfolk over the past 12,000 years through the free exchange of genetic resources across the world. Since the advent of industrial agriculture and the increasing globalisation of markets, 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 by genetically modified organisms. The World Food Summit - five years' later could play an important role in reversing these trends by deciding on actions to support three important international agreements. * The free flow of seeds could be enhanced by the FAO International Seed Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), so long as it unambiguously implements the clause that prohibits claims of intellectual property rights on, and outlaws biopiracy of, these resources - including their genes - and ensures rights and rewards to farmers. * The Leipzig Global Plan of Action on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, could facilitate implementation of existing FAO and CBD agreements and decisions, including the Agricultural Biodiversity Decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, of relevant FAO Conference decisions and Commitment 3 of the World Food Summit Plan of Action on sustainable agriculture. These will enable improved conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and would contribute to reversing the decline in agricultural biodiversity. * The integrity of these genetic resources could be given some protection by mandatory decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This includes implementation of the Biosafety Protocol with strict liability clauses, that would oblige owners of the intellectual property rights of genetically modified organisms to provide full compensation for any untoward outcomes resulting from GMOs in food, seed, grains or the environment. Civil Society and Farmers' Organisations, agreed at the 1996 World Food Summit NGO Forum to support a wide range of policy measures and research and development activities that would enhance diversity, rights and local food and livelihood security. Some examples of their successful achievements in work with local communities over the past five years are highlighted in this paper: maintaining crop diversity; conserving domestic animal diversity; restoring marine diversity; developing agro-ecotourism; facilitating farmers' voices in the genetic engineering debate; challenging perverse patents; protecting Farmers' Rights; monitoring Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) encroachment.
- Governments, however, have implemented few of the activities in Commitment 3 on Sustainable Agriculture in the 1996 World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rather, they have been promoting or facilitating, or tolerating corporate sector involvement in, a wide range of actions that are undermining diversity, threatening access to genetic resources, destroying rights, spreading genetic pollution and compromising food sovereignty for example by:
? Allowing spread of GMOs and genetic pollution even in Centres of Diversity, despite agreeing the Biosafety Protocol ? Allowing ongoing research into, patents on and licensing of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs), especially Terminator technologies ? Promoting globalisation of markets through WTO rules that reduce local options for socially and environmentally sustainable production that sustains local diversity ? Failing to implement a substantive review of WTO/TRIPs Article 27.3(b) that would outlaw patents on genetic resources ? Tolerating widespread patent abuse and biopiracy ? Allowing unparalleled increase in corporate power in the Life Sciences industry ? and failing to implement fully those decisions, plans and programmes that are purposeful in terms of conservation and sustainable use.
- The importance of these issues was underscored by Civil Society's World Forum on Food Sovereignty, a preparatory meeting for the World Food Summit: five years later, held in Havana in August 2001:
"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 living 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 from CSOs and Farmers' Organisations for changes in a range of activities, policies and instruments at local, national and international levels. These changes would effectively protect the genetic integrity of, and open access to, the agricultural biodiversity needed to sustain livelihoods, landscapes and life on earth.
GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE AND THE AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY AGENDA WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD FOOD SUMMIT: five years later "Agricultural Biodiversity encompasses the variety and variability 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 to provide food. Careful selection of the traits, tastes and textures that make good food resulted in a myriad diversity of genetic resources, varieties, breeds and sub-species of the relatively few plants and animals humans use for food and agriculture - agricultural biodiversity1. Agricultural biodiversity also includes the diversity of species that support production - soil biota, pollinators, predators and so on - and those species in the wider environment that support diverse agroecosystems - agricultural, pastoral, forest and aquatic ecosystems. These diverse varieties, breeds and systems underpin food security and provide insurance against future threats, adversity and ecological changes. Agricultural biodiversity is the first link in the food chain, developed and safeguarded by indigenous peoples, and women and men farmers, forest dwellers, livestock keepers and fisherfolk throughout the world. It has developed as result of the free-flow of genetic resources between food producers.
- This agricultural biodiversity is under threat. Animal breeds, plant varieties and the genetic resources they contain are being eroded at an alarming rate. More than 90% of crop varieties have been lost from farmers' fields in the past century and livestock breeds are disappearing at the rate of 5% per year. Soil biodiversity including microbial diversity and the diversity of pollinators and predators are also under serious threat. Urgent actions are needed to reverse these trends in situ and on-farm. Also there is a need to implement actions to protect the genetic resources stored in ex situ public genebanks, which are often poorly maintained. Threats to these resources, both in situ and ex situ, also include pollution by genetically modified material and the increasing use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to claim sole ownership over varieties, breeds and genes, which thereby restricts access for farmers and other food producers. This loss of diversity is accelerating the slide down the slippery slope of food insecurity that today sends more than 1.5 billion people to bed, hungry. The discourse on Access to Genetic Resources is thus wider than concerns at a genetic level. It should be widened to include all of agricultural biodiversity, for it is the whole interdependent complex, developed through human activity in natural resource management for food and agricultural, livestock and fisheries production, that is under threat. The way forward is to work with and all users of natural resources - farmers, livestock keepers, forest dwellers who are the principal managers of terrestrial ecosystems and artisanal fisherfolk who safeguard aquatic resources, in developing sustainable agroecological production systems that enhance diversity. In 1996 the CSO Forum at the World Food Summit agreed that Farmers' Rights should be the "fundamental pre-requisite to the conservation and sustainable utilisation of agricultural biodiversity". Ways must be found for society to recognise the contribution of these producers and their communities to food security and ecosystem management, as well as to recognise their inalienable rights of access to and use of the resources. They have a right, too, to share in the benefits arising from the commercial use of these resources by others - after all, the US$2 trillion food industry derives all its income from the use of these genetic resources. International actions related to genetic resources by governments and corporations over the past 5 years (see Box 1) have rendered more or less ineffective the implementation of any of the proposals concerning access to and the sustainable use of genetic resources agreed by the same governments at the 1996 World Food Summit. (Commitment 3 of the Plan of Action on Sustainable Agriculture). Of especial concern is the failure of governments to take a strong stand against genetic pollution by GMOs, especially in Centres of Diversity and their failure to ban Terminator Technologies. In contrast, Civil Society Organisations, as they agreed in their parallel NGO Forum in 1996, have been active both in successfully supporting local farming communities in sustaining their agricultural biodiversity and in challenging the expansion of corporate power over genetic resources and the research agenda dominated by Genetic Engineering technology. Many CSOs also actively participated in the negotiations on the International Seed Treaty (see Box 2), which culminated in November 2001. This Treaty could ensure the free-flow of genetic resources for food and agriculture, subject to positive interpretation of ambiguous clauses by the Treaty's Governing Body and its equitable implementation by all governments with a resultant strengthening of its benefits and coverage. There is an imperative for signing the Treaty - perhaps in a ceremony at the World Food Summit: five years later - and then ratification of the Treaty by 40 governments so that the Governing Body can be formed and the Treaty come into force in order that these contentious issues can be resolved. Given this context, the World Food Summit - five years later could be dominated by discussion on the use and abuse of genetic resources, IPRs, the International Seed Treaty and wider issues affecting the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity by and for farmers and other users.
SOME NGO/CSO ACTIVITIES SINCE 1996 Despite hesitant progress by governments and intergovernmental bodies on some aspects of conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources the overwhelming trends have been negative as broadly unregulated corporate agribusinesses increase their stranglehold on these resources, eliminating diversity. It has been left to Civil Society - farmers and other users, their organisations and NGOs/CSOs - to keep this diversity alive. Over the past 5 years there have been many activities in all continents lead by local communities and supported by CSOs. A few of these are highlighted below. MAINTAINING CROP DIVERSITY Celebrating Seed Diversity Seed Fairs in Kenya2 Seed fairs are increasingly popular modes of promoting diversity. In Tharaka, Kenya, they have been held annually since 1996, having been initiated in an NGO project development area. In 1998, 29 women and 47 men as well as some community groups mounted displays. A panel of judges evaluates the displays and the most diverse are awarded prizes. The total number of crop varieties displayed 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 identify seed sources; it is a good forum for exchange of ideas on farming and exchange of seeds; farmers are exposed to national agricultural research work; the spirit of competition boosts farmer's morale and motivates farmers to diversify their crops indirectly enhancing food security; and it is a platform for interaction between farmers, students, researchers, extension staff and other development agents. ITDG East Africa Emergency Seeds for Agricultural Recovery in Tanzania3 The Lake Zone and Arusha Region are among the areas that were hard affected by the 1999 - 2000 drought. From mid-2000, CRS Tanzania started receiving requests for food assistance from the above-mentioned dioceses. However, it was already evident that free relief distribution is no longer the best option to help people recover from disasters. Therefore, CRS agreed with the affected households in communities to help them recover by providing them with seeds as a more sustainable way to produce not only their own food but also their own seeds for the coming seasons. The most vulnerable households were provided with vouchers to buy seeds at special seeds fairs that were organised within their respective villages. On one hand, local farmers and seed vendors were encouraged to bring whatever good seed they had for sale at the fair sites. On the other hand, beneficiaries of the vouchers were left free to buy seed of their choice, suitable for their farms and for the nutritional or economic needs of their families. Although the project areas had had severe droughts and crops failures, it was surprising to discover that certain community members had quantities of good seeds to sell at the fairs. The main lesson learnt is that the traditional seed system is very resilient and able to withstand even four years of drought. The seed fairs showed that even though the seed coping mechanisms had collapsed for the more vulnerable in the community, there were still seeds available in the community to meet their needs. CRS Tanzania Community Seed Banks. in Paraíba, Brazil4 The north-eastern region of Brazil is known for its dramatic periods of drought. At the state of Paraíba, the lack of water available to small farms represents a major constraint on the food security of the local community. In these systems5, diversity is synonymous of food security. Farmer access to seeds has been very difficult. The region's precipitation regime allows only one crop cycle per season and the reduced areas of the farms (most are under 5ha) does not provide enough seed production for feeding the family and keeping seeds for the next crop. Because of this, some local varieties have been lost. Two other factors contribute negatively to genetic erosion: ? farmers need to adopt crop varieties to meet market demands; ? government seed programmes where only a few commercial varieties are distributed. This collective seed supply and husbandry through Community Seed Banks (CSBs) is being built through participatory approaches and has furthered farmers' autonomy by timely provision of seeds and conservation of agricultural biodiversity. AS-PTA and other local organisations have trained farmers who by 2000 had organised 220 CSBs, benefiting 6,920 families, storing over 80 tons seeds of the main crop varieties, including 67 varieties of three different bean species. AS-PTA
CONSERVING DOMESTIC ANIMAL DIVERSITY Reintroduction of Polish Red Cattle6 Polish Red cattle is an old local race that is very useful in some specific conditions especially in hilly and mountainous regions where controlled grazing protects slopes against erosion. They are being replaced by supposedly higher potential animals, which are often not suitable for the local conditions. To protect this local breed, Heifer International's office in Poland worked with the community of Zegocina to revitalise and increase the population of Polish Red Cattle in the region. 79 head were reintroduced to local farms. Farmers appreciate these cattle, because of their high productivity and resistance to disease. As a result Zegocina has also retained its beautiful landscape that attracts many visitors, supporting agro-tourism development. Moreover, the cattle constitute a very valuable genetic resource. In the year 2000 National Livestock Show, a Polish Red cow from Zegocina was awarded the National Vice-Championship. Heifer International Poland
Participatory breed improvement of the Chiapas sheep7 Over the last four centuries, Tzotzil women in Mexico have developed the Chiapas sheep - a very hardy breed producing about 1.2 kg of wool per year. As this is low compared to typical wool breeds, extension services tried several times to improve wool production through crossbreeding with exotic breeds. However, all attempts failed because the introduced animals died or produced little in the harsh mountainous environment. During the last 10 years, the Institute of Indigenous Studies at the University of Chiapas has been implementing a programme to improve the wool production of the Chiapas sheep. Selection of breeding animals is based on the criteria of Tzotzil women who regularly participate in evaluating fleece quality. The selected sheep are taken to the university farm where they produce offspring. Of these, the rams undergo a two-year evaluation programme before they are assigned to communities. The selection programme has resulted in significant increases in quality and quantity of wool. At the university farm, selected rams produce wool twice as much as village rams of similar age and under similar management. Up to date the acceptance of the 'improved Chiapas sheep' by the Tzotzil women is high because the animals commonly adapt to local conditions within three days and Tzotzil women are involved throughout all project phases. Institute of Indigenous Studies, University of Chiapas, Mexico Simple interventions with great impact: Conserving Aseel poultry8 The Aseel is a chicken breed in India. For centuries, Adivasi communities living in the East Godavari District have reared and selectively shaped this breed especially for its meat. Today, infectious diseases, high production losses and government policies promoting non-local breeds threaten its existence. In 1996, a group of organisations studied the local production system in 24 villages. A number of improvements were initiated: promotion of local fodder crops to improve feeding; training of village animal health workers and introduction of basic healthcare practices such as vaccinations and regular deworming; and education of women - who are responsible for the poultry - in improved animal husbandry. A follow-up survey conducted a year later revealed that overall mortality had fallen from 70% to 17%. The following year (1998-99) the mortality was down to 6% and the number of Aseel poultry had trebled. A further mechanism to enlarge the population was the revival of 'vaata', a traditional system of sharing and asset building: Initially, 196 women in 20 villages received 200 hens and 67 cocks. Within one year, the birds had produced more than 1414 chicks and the initial investment of 60,000 Rs. could be recovered. The main problems faced by the project were the difficulty to obtain vaccines in small quantities, difficult access to markets and policies that favour crossbreeding. Anthra, Yakshi, Girijana Deepika, and Womens Gottis of East Godavari Adivasi Areas, Andra Pradesh.
RESTORING MARINE DIVERSITY Constructing Artificial Reefs9 In Kerala, SW India, local CSOs have worked with artisanal fishing communities to restore aquatic biodiversity in their fishing grounds. The solution was the construction of simple artificial reefs by village fishermen in response to loss of fishing grounds through destructive effects of trawling. India is the world's 7th largest producer of fish products and one quarter of India's catch is from the artisanal fishermen of Kerala who use very simple craft and gear. In the 1960's Norwegian fishery advisors advocated the introduction of trawlers. The village fishermen survive at subsistence levels and did not have the capital to invest in this technology. They saw the market price of their catch collapse, fall in catches through overfishing and destruction of natural reefs. Militant actions were taken to keep trawlers away. Kerala fishing policy was changed, introducing a closed season for trawlers. But the fisherfolk took long-term actions themselves.
- Artificial reefs were constructed using any available materials, rocks, coconut palm stumps, tyres, concrete well rings and later triangular ferro- concrete units cast on the beach. These have restored aquatic ecology and fish breeding sites, provided inshore fishing sites (especially valuable for training youngsters and providing continuing occupation for elderly fishermen), made the fishery more reliable (with attendant financial benefits for subsistence economy) and created a sense of ownership and stewardship for the resource. The unmarked reefs also protect the artisanal fishing grounds by erecting on the sea floor a significant disincentive to trawlers whose nets snag on the underwater obstructions.
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)
CHALLENGING THE INTRODUCTION OF GM FISH Transgenic Salmon in Chilean Waters10 The North American company Antifreeze Protein (A/F Protein) based in Waltham, Massachusetts, has produced between 10,000 and 20,000 genetically engineered "super Atlantic salmon", and could in the near future begin commercial production of eggs for the salmon farming industries in Chile, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.
- The "super-salmon", created by A/F Protein and christened "Frankenfish" by Time magazine, are adapted to live in marine environments with extremely low temperatures, thanks to an anti-coagulating protein produced by a gene taken from polar region fish. In addition to this they can grow twice as fast as traditional salmon, and are highly competitive and disease resistant. Scientists, fishworkers and environmentalists have sounded the alarm about the potential impacts that could be caused by introducing these transgenic salmon. They are considered to be "a biological time-bomb", capable of destroying the wild populations of salmon in the Northern hemisphere, and upsetting the balance in populations of native aquatic species and the structure of communities where they are introduced. In Chile there are also as yet unevaluated environmental, health and social impacts caused by the numbers of farmed salmon that escape annually into the wild. They prey on local marine fauna, where many species comprise the basis of important commercial fisheries, essentially artisanal in nature. As far as transgenic salmon are concerned, no one knows what impacts would be caused by their escape into the wild. At present agreements exist that prevent the use of these types of products. However, given the combination of the current crisis in producing fishmeal for salmon feed, and the estimated 10% increase in the world demand for salmon over the next 5 years, the use of these transgenic fish in the highly competitive salmon industry may not be so far off.
CENTRO ECOCEANOS, Chile
DEVELOPING AGRO-ECOTOURISM Promoting on-farm conservation of Andean tubers through agro-ecotourism, Peru11 Cusco is important for tourism in Peru because it is the centre of pre-Hispanic Inca culture; however, the rural population benefits only marginally. One source of income is through the sale of their produce, mostly derived from the unique biological resources of the region. In recent years there has been a loss of traditional conservation practices and other customs (food, dress, etc.).This has been mainly because of the expansion of the use of high-yielding species and varieties in commercial agriculture, climatic factors, pests and diseases, inappropriate agrarian policies and development activities and poverty, which increase the migration of indigenous youth (with their knowledge, experience and customs of traditional Andean agriculture).
- In the communities included in the present initiative, it is the local farmers who have conserved the wide range of local varieties of Andean root crops on farm. Rather than maximisation of yield or income they recognise the need to spread risks by planting mixtures of species on their small parcels of land to guarantee a harvest every year. The incentive provided by the development of agro-ecotourism could facilitate new mechanisms for promoting traditional conservation and sustainable use practices. During guided tours to the communities, tourists will see the remarkable morphological and agronomic variety of Andean plants and tubers in demonstration plots, a potato museum and restaurants with menus based on traditional Andean produce. This proposed initiative intends to support a school education programme about Andean crops and culture and the participation of the young people in agro-ecotourism in order to reduce migration.
FACILITATING FARMERS' VOICES IN THE BIOTECH DEBATE Citizens Juries on GMOs12 ActionAid recently began a series of Citizens' Juries that are bringing the perspectives of the developing world's farmers to national and global debates on GM crops. Instead of experts from the developed world telling the people of the developing world what is good for them, a jury composed of Indian farmers who could be affected by GM crops judged whether they could make their livelihoods better, or whether such crops would increase their poverty and insecurity. The jury demonstrated that the poorest farmers can have a sophisticated knowledge of the way new types of crop can impact on their lives. They saw interlinkages between different elements of new agricultural technologies that scientists and other specialists often miss.
Based on their mixed experience of the Green Revolution, the farmers were sceptical of GM crops, with a majority of two to one saying they did not want to grow them. They also called for a 5-10 year moratorium on the commercial release of GM seeds and for a system of insurance to protect their livelihood from the increased risks they would face. They had some useful suggestions for how the potential of future crop technologies could be improved, especially by becoming more farmer-led. ActionAid is repeating this process in other parts of the world so that the views of those with a real, practical knowledge of 'feeding the world' are put in their proper place at the forefront of the biotechnology debate.
ActionAid CHALLENGING PERVERSE PATENTS Patent challenge on Basmati rice13 In September 1997 a Texas-based company, RiceTec Inc., won a controversial US patent (No. 5,663,484) on basmati rice lines and grain. Basmati rice has been grown for centuries in what was the Greater Punjab region, now divided between India and Pakistan. Farmers in this region have selected and maintained Basmati rice varieties that are recognised worldwide for their fragrant aroma, long and slender grain and distinctive taste. RiceTec's basmati patent has become widely known as a classic case of 'biopiracy.' Not only does the patent usurp the basmati name, it also capitalises on the genius of South Asian farmers. The patent applies to breeding crosses involving 22 farmer-bred basmati varieties from Pakistan and India. The sweeping scope of the patent extends to such varieties grown anywhere in the Western Hemisphere (although the patent is valid only in the US).
There are numerous legal and technical concerns with respect to RiceTec's patent and its use of the name basmati. Ultimately, RAFI, the Berne Declaration and the Gene Campaign conclude that the core issue is morality. Farmers have selected and bred aromatic rice over generations. It is indecent and unacceptable for the genius of millennia to be usurped by a US-based company (controlled by European royalty). RiceTec's patent is predatory on the rights and resources of South Asian farmers, and it should be abandoned.
ETC Group (formerly RAFI)
PROTECTING FARMERS' RIGHTS Contamination of crops with GM genes becomes farmer's crime14 Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, is the victim of Monsanto's contamination of his fields and crops by roundup-ready canola (oil seed rape) plants. This canola has spread involuntarily into his fields but Monsanto claim that they own his crops because their intellectual property (round-up ready genes) is contained in them. As a consequence, they claim his crop and all profits from it. He is appealing a decision by the Canadian courts that he is guilty of patent infringement. If Monsanto wins, it could claim any crop that becomes contaminated.
- Of even greater concern than the harm done to Percy and Louise Schmeiser, is how this decision will affect all western Canadian farmers - regardless of whether they even grow canola, let alone GM canola. Land can be contaminated with proprietary seed in other ways. Intentionally planted RR canola (or any other herbicide tolerant (HT) canola), will lead to soil contaminated with shattered RR seed which might germinate not only the next year but in subsequent years. Emergence of 'volunteer' canola in subsequent crops is nothing new in western Canada - but what is new is that the volunteer plants bear proprietary genes and are tolerant to one or more common herbicides. Cross contamination of seed crops with GM seed is now so pervasive that seed companies will no longer guarantee "100% GM-free" even in the seed they sell to farmers, for any field crop that has been subject to genetic modification.
IATP and others
CONTAMINATION OF CENTRES OF DIVERSITY BY GMOs Civil Society alerts CIMMYT to danger of pollution of Mexican maize15 Mexico is the birthplace of maize. To preserve this gene reservoir, the government banned planting of GM crops in 1998. However, contamination by GM maize imported from the USA has been found in a wide area of Oaxaca and Puebla states. At first, Mexico rejected the claims of contamination, but have latterly confirmed that there is contamination on a large scale. The worst contamination, 10% - 15 %, has been found near main roads. In remote areas, contamination is less at between 1% and 2%. The revealing factor is the presence of the cauliflower mosaic virus, which is used widely in GM crops as a promoter to "switch on" insecticidal properties of genes which have been inserted into them. Monsanto, Syngenta and Aventis all use the same technology.
- Although three rounds of investigation at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico (CIMMYT - one of the 16 CGIAR international agricultural research centres) had revealed no contamination of their maize genebank, the Director has confirmed that the presence of GM contamination in the environment means that it will be only a matter of time before contamination reaches the genebanks unless strict quarantine measures are taken. Early in 2002, many leading Farmers' and other Civil Society Organizations joined together to write to Jacques Diouf, the Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Ian Johnson, the World Bank Vice-President who chairs the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to ask them to call for a moratorium on the shipment of GM seed or grain into their Centers of Genetic Diversity. Greenpeace subsequently stopped a shipment of contaminated maize destined for the port of Veracruz. Then, at a meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CSOs, in support of the African Group, called on governments to implement an immediate moratorium on the importation of any seeds, feeds, grains of genetically modified crops in their Centres of Origin - Maize in Mexico, Potatoes in Peru, Wheat in the Fertile Crescent, Rice in Southeast Asia, Rape/Canola in northern Europe (see Annex). No conclusive actions have yet been taken by governments nor the CGIAR, but CSOs are continuing to raise awareness of the dangers of this contamination to future food security.
Food First, ETC Group / formerly RAFI, CSOs at CBD/COP 6
MONITORING IPR ENCROACHMENT TRIPs-plus16 A limited, sample survey of bilateral agreements between developed and developing countries in five areas has been carried out to see how TRIPS-plus standards, with respect to biodiversity, are being imposed on developing countries. Five types of treaties were examined: trade, investment, aid, science and technology, and IPR. By far the most specific, in terms of TRIPS-plus measures are the bilateral trade and IPR agreements. The bilateral investment treaties, by contrast, are far less explicit but potentially even more damaging. The criteria for what constitutes a TRIPS-plus treaty with respect to biodiversity are laid out in Table 1. Using the TRIPs-plus criteria described above, and looking at only a portion of these agreements, 23 cases of bilateral or regional treaties between developed and developing countries that should be classed as TRIPS-plus as far as IPR on life forms is concerned, have been identified. These agreements affect more than 150 developing countries, suggesting that there is a deliberate process being pursued to appropriate developing countries' IPRs.
Table 1: Criteria for TRIPS-plus status of bilateral treaties
SUBJECT MATTER TRIPS-PLUS PROVISIONS ENCOUNTERED WHY THIS IS TRIPS-PLUS Plants Extension of standards of protection, such as: - reference to UPOV - no possibility of making exclusions from patentability for life forms - reference to "highest international standards" - UPOV is not a reference in the TRIPS agreement. There is no explicit measuring stick for "effective sui generis system" and developing countries believe that they have options aside from UPOV. - TRIPS allows countries to exclude plants and animals from patent protection. - "Highest international standard" is vague and there is no indication that it refers to TRIPS. While not automatically TRIPS-plus, it is highly suspect, particularly in the context of Most Favoured Nation treatment of investments under the bilateral investment treaties. Animals same as plants same as plants Micro-organisms Requirement to accede to the Budapest Treaty There is no reference to Budapest Treaty in TRIPS. This treaty obliges parties to recognise the physical deposit of samples of micro-organisms, in lieu of full written disclosure of the invention, through an international depository authority. Biotech Requirement to protect "biotechnological inventions" There is no reference to "biotechnology" in TRIPS. This introduces a new category for intellectual property protection. It also very strongly implies, where it is not stated, the availability of patent protection for plants and animals.
AGENDA FOR ACTION17 Governments, while negotiating the International Seed Treaty, have themselves been promoting or facilitating, or tolerating corporate sector involvement in, a wide range of actions that are undermining diversity, threatening access to genetic resources, destroying rights and spreading genetic pollution. Concerted actions by CSOs and Farmers' Organisations are therefore required across a range of activities, policies and international instruments.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
GENETIC POLLUTION and the BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL An ever-larger area is being sown to GM crops, increasingly in developing countries. More alarming is the spread of genetic pollution into conventionally bred crops and wild relatives. GM contamination of local varieties of Maize/Corn in Mexico, its centre of origin, brings into question the viability of guaranteeing the genetic integrity of on-farm and ex situ collections in Mexico, including those in CIMMYT. North American and European fields are permanently contaminated with GM rape/canola and, in Europe, this will spread to local wild populations in its centre of diversity. Rio Grande do Sul State in Brazil wants to keep GM free status, especially of Soya beans, but is being threatened GM pollution and federal policy. . The strategy by the large companies producing GM seeds would appear to be one of deliberate pollution on-farm or in the seed processing plants so that in the end it will no longer be possible to claim any foods or crops are GM free. Industry and regulators are pushing for acceptance of GM pollution, even in 'organic' and 'GM free' foods. Farmers and consumers are unwilling victims of this pollution. Local varieties of crops may well become contaminated through cross-pollination, mixed seed stock, illegal imports of GM seed or contaminated food aid grain being unwittingly used as seed. Contaminated GM fish stock are escaping into the wild. GM trees are long-term producers of GM pollution. GM pollution is the latest threat to food sovereignty and should be addressed with utmost urgency by all competent intergovernmental, international and national bodies. The effects of GMOs on health and the environment are unknown. There is a lack of reliable information about how agricultural GMOs function, what their impacts are within the genome, between varieties and species and on the environment and human health and a lack of conclusive confirmation that they will not cause harm in the long-term. Until more information is available there should be a ban field experiments, production and marketing of agricultural GMOs. The precautionary principle should be strictly applied. There should also be rapid ratification and full implementation of the Biosafety Protocol on transboundary movements of LMOs, capacity building to enable communities and countries to make sound judgements about the technology and its possible social, technological, environmental and economic impacts, and agreement to implement clauses on liability and redress. The Biosafety Protocol should be especially vigilant on releases of GM seeds in Centres of Crop Diversity.
GURTs Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) have been developed by the seed and biotechnology industry and one government for the principal purpose of restricting use of and limiting access to, genetic resources. The purpose of GURTS is restricting such access and use to technology owners or licensed users who purchase seed each year or who buy proprietary chemicals that would change traits in these GM plants. Almost all of the major companies that control the agricultural biotechnology market have patents on GURTs. In August 2001, the USA licensed the first V-GURT (Terminator technology) application, in which it also has a financial interest. GURTs are a clear threat to food security, food sovereignty and agricultural biodiversity and, in the case of V-GURTs, deny Farmer's Rights by preventing farmers from saving seeds. In concert with many countries, CSOs demand that V-GURTs be banned outright, and patents denied, for moral and ethical (Ordre Public) reasons. Also, as called for by CSOs and Indigenous 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 or commercial use until in-depth, independent environmental, socio-economic, and potential "military" impact assessments have been carried out. The Africa Group, India, Philippines at CBD/COP 6 again called for a ban on V-GURTs without any further delay but this was unsuccessful. CBD/COP 6 called for further studies.
WTO Some countries have proposed that a new WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) should be negotiated. Others favour evaluating the existing Agreement's impacts on food production, livelihoods and the environment first, before any new set of rules is developed. The unqualified promotion of globalisation of markets through WTO rules that reduce local options for socially and environmentally sustainable production that sustains local food security and diversity, has impoverished many communities. There should be no further liberalisation through the AoA, nor indeed a new Round, until the impacts of the current Agreement are assessed, including impacts on agricultural biodiversity.
FOOD DUMPING Cheap imports of food can provide relief during emergency food shortages or a way to lower food prices for consumers or local food processors without spending any public funds. Some developing country governments have therefore chosen to accept dumping for short-term reasons.
- However, cheap imports of food sold at below the full costs of production in either the exporting or importing country, send the wrong message to the importing country's agricultural sector, resulting in long term damage to production. Developing countries have often ignored agricultural sectors and the natural resources on which it is based, or have even indirectly taxed them, in order to protect industrial development. The result has been a loss of productivity in agriculture, and thus depressed farm incomes, in these countries. This only exacerbates the need for future imports, which may or may not be available at "dumped" prices. For their part, spokespeople for the U.S. government have been explicit in their use of food aid and other dumped exports to create future markets that will eventually commit countries to buying their food from U.S. exporters Dumping is clearly only one of several factors affecting food security, but the weight of evidence suggests the long-term impact on food security, livelihoods and the environment is negative and difficult to reverse.
WTO rules should allow, especially poor countries, to protect their own food producers, agricultural biodiversity and local trade.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and BIOPIRACY
The diversity, development and sustainable use of the wide range of biological resources developed by farmers is severely threatened by industrial intellectual property systems that will reduce free access and availability of resources. These systems facilitate biopiracy as exemplified by headline cases of Basmati rice, Quinoa, Neem and Llacon. The IU may also, if it does not reject IPRs on the genetic resources in the Multilateral System, increase biopiracy by increasing access to genetic resources that can subsequently be privatised. To confront these threats four actions must be taken: ? TRIPs Art. 27.3(b) that deals with patents on life must be substantially reviewed to permit countries to argue for all genetic resources for food and agriculture and plant varieties to be excluded from obligatory patentability. It must be made explicit that the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention is not the only sui generis alternative to patents on plant varieties. ? The World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO) "Intergovernmental committee on intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore" will consider rights to genetic resources for food and agriculture. The committee must facilitate recognition of the African Union's Model Legislation on Community Rights by other regions as an alternative to TRIPs. ? The International Seed Treaty must not facilitate biopiracy. It must be unequivocal in its rejection of IPRs on material in the Multilateral System. ? The legal right to patent mere discoveries of genes and gene sequences, and varieties and breeds that are distinguished by traits found in existing farmers' and genebank material, must be revoked by Patent Offices.
CONCENTRATION OF POWER
CORPORATE CONTROL OF LIFE SCIENCES The past five years has seen unparalleled increases in Corporate power in the Life Sciences industry. For example, only 10 companies control a third of the global seed industry. Tacit and informal interpretations of the WTO / TRIPs agreement Article 27.3(b) are encouraging countries to join the UPOV convention, which will further strengthen Plant Breeders' Rights that favour industry. The agricultural Research and Development agenda is dominated by a few private sector agribusinesses, with funding several orders of magnitude higher than public sector research, that are prioritising GM technologies, protected by gene patents. There should be increased regulation and democratic controls over the ownership, investment in and activities of the Life Sciences industry to prevent their domination of agricultural research, genetic resources and agricultural practices.
GENETIC RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
INTERNATIONAL TREATY on PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES for FOOD and AGRICULTURE - "International Seed Treaty" Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are urging governments to ratify the International Seed Treaty so that the Governing Body can be formed and can address the outstanding issues (see Box 3, below). The Governing Body will have to deal with interpretations of the text on IPRs, relationship with the WTO, benefits and financing. CSOs insist that the Treaty must not only ensure guaranteed access to the genetic resources for food and agriculture required by farmers and the implementation of Farmers' Rights, but also it must ensure that these resources and their "parts and components" cannot be privatised through IPR systems. Genetic resources for food and agriculture should be kept in the public domain and biopiracy outlawed, otherwise why should farmers and their communities provide access to their resources, only to see them privatised. The Treaty must deliver benefits to farmers in developing countries, through mandatory payments and the financial mechanism, that are commensurate with the benefits humankind derives from the use plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. All the food we eat comes from these resources and farmers expect a reasonable share of the benefits that rich consumers derive. It is imperative to ratify the Treaty and bring it into force as it will keep political space open for the intergovernmental 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 PROTECT GENEBANKS With its 11 genebanks and 600,000 seed samples, the CGIAR holds at least one-third of the world's unique and internationally accessible crop germplasm reservoir. The new International Seed Treaty re-enforces a 1994 FAO-CGIAR Accord that formally placed almost all CGIAR genebank material under the auspices of FAO and gave control for the collections to FAO. When 40 countries have ratified the new Treaty, the 1994 agreement will be renegotiated to strengthen the Treaty's governance over the CGIAR banks. CGIAR has been looking towards the concept of a Global Conservation Trust, a perpetual endowment to safeguard the most important national and international genebank, in perpetuity. As a 'trust' incorporated under US law, the endowment will have a board composed of some governments and private non-profit foundations, as well as a formal representative of FAO or the Treaty. It is likely that the UN foundation (a creation of Ted Turner of AOL - Time Warner/CNN) will host the Trust in New York. The US, which is not a party to the Treaty, may see the Trust as a way to gain control of the CGIAR genebanks by creating a public- private mechanism that will become the genebanks' main funder. It will be important to pay close attention to the organisational and political details of the Trust and the conditions it imposes on recipients of its funds so that all parties are comfortable with it and that it does not become an alternative governance mechanism to the International Seed Treaty.
PORTO ALEGRE TREATY to SHARE the GLOBAL GENETIC COMMONS At Porto Alegre in February 2002 CSOs from more than 50 nations announced their support for a treaty to protect the global commons. The Porto Alegre treaty already has the support of over 335 organisations. CSOs are working with political parties to introduce the Treaty in parliaments around the world over the next year. In August/September 2002, CSOs will demand that government delegates to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg endorse the Treaty and make it the centrepiece of future biodiversity conservation efforts. The proposed Treaty, as a strategy against patenting living matter and the creation of monopolies on genetic resources; aims to restore the situation which prevailed for millennia, when the sharing of genetic resources and associated information took place freely, leading to the development of a wide range of agricultural biodiversity. The Treaty has two fundamental principles: * First, genetic resources are a patrimonial heritage of humanity: they are part of the global commons, a shared legacy and collective responsibility; * Secondly, genetic resources and the information relating to them cannot be privatised or sold: free access should be sustained.
GENETIC RESOURCES & AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMMES Little progress has been made by governments in implementing the Leipzig Global Plan of Action on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources and the Agricultural Biodiversity decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and FAO. Substantial reform of the CGIAR is seen by Civil Society and Farmers' organisations to be essential in order to protect publicly-funded, farmer-centred research and development and safeguard the 600,000 accessions in its genebanks provided by farmers over many decades. The International Seed Treaty may prove its salvation, if it can effectively provide an intergovernmental governance structure, especially for the genebanks.
- Increased funding should be provided for this work, and increasingly directly to Civil Society and Farmers Organisations, through bilateral and multilateral sources, for example, by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which has budget lines for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture. This should include providing further funds for international agricultural research - a preferable option to corporate sector funding through a proposed endowment fund (see above).
Governments must give greater priority to programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources and agricultural biodiversity. In part this will be achieved through the Financial Mechanism of the International Seed Treaty, in part by GEF and in part by new funds from the public sector.
FARMERS' RIGHTS & THE RIGHT TO FOOD SOVREIGNTY
Farmers' Rights are under threat from national legislation, IPRs, Trade Rules, GMOs, GURTs and yet are the "fundamental pre-requisite to the conservation and sustainable utilisation of agricultural biodiversity". CSOs call for the need for Farmers' Rights to be recognised internationally and legally protected under the auspices of UNHCHR. The Rights to Food Sovereignty and Farmers' Rights are inseparable. Food is a basic Human Right and the Right to Food Sovereignty includes the right of access to productive resources, including genetic resources and agricultural biodiversity.
LIVESTOCK KEEPERS' RIGHTS 190 million pastoralists throughout the world are stewarding breeds with some of the most valuable genes for dryland areas. The value of their stewardship is recognised in the ongoing work by geneticists of the International Livestock Research Centre (ILRI) of the CGIAR to screen these breeds for genetic traits that can be used to increase the disease resistance of high performance breeds. One example is provided by the Red Maasai sheep whose genetic worm resistance is being sought to be transplanted into western sheep breeds that have become resistant to antihelminthics (dewormers). However the purity of these indigenous breeds is coming under increasing pressure from the expansion of industrialised animal production into developing countries. Provisions must be made to compensate pastoralists for the service they provide to humanity at large by husbanding breeds with traits that have disappeared from the genetic make-up of the high performance breeds. An international Treaty on Livestock-keepers Rights is necessary to safeguard their rights and prevent further acceleration of the loss of indigenous breeds.
The August 2001 World Forum on Food Sovereignty, 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 living 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 provides an opportunity to send clear messages about the importance of the International Seed Treaty, integrity of genetic resources and the global genetic commons to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in September 2002. The challenge for governments is quite simply this: is the world's agricultural biodiversity is to be nurtured 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 the Summit, although potentially distracted by development targets, biotechnology and food aid, could be the medium to promote this global instrument. Continued access to genetic resources and conservation and development of agricultural biodiversity are essential components in the fight for food sovereignty. The governments represented at the World Food Summit - five years later must commit themselves to action. Farmers, their organisations and the CSOs that support them will continue to do their part, but negative and perverse policies and programmes of the formal sector will constantly undermine their efforts. The time to act is long overdue. Actions are needed now to stem the haemorrhage of agricultural biodiversity and ensure the integrity of and continued open access to a wide diversity of genetic resources for food and agriculture in order to ensure food sovereignty and food security.
Paper compiled and revised by Patrick Mulvany18 and Rachel Berger, ITDG, with assistance, advice and contributions from Pat Mooney, 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.
Box 3: CSO Statement on Agricultural Biodiversity and the International Seed Treaty (ITPGRFA) Presented at CBD/COP6, 10 April 2002
We welcome the long-awaited conclusion of negotiations of the International Seed Treaty. The security of these crops and forages is now one step closer. They are important not only to produce the food we eat but also form part of the world's agricultural biodiversity and sustain agricultural landscapes. Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture sustain the lives and livelihoods and ecosystems of the majority of the world's population especially marginalised communities.
- Thus the Treaty stands at the crossroads of Agriculture, Trade and Environment. We join with others in applauding the hard work the FAO Commission, especially the Secretariat and Chair Gerbasi, in achieving this historic agreement. Our support is qualified, however. Civil Society organisations, many of whom cannot be with us today, have worked for more than 20 years to get to this point, but it is only a first step in securing all genetic resources for food and agriculture - ensuring their sustainable use, conservation and continued open access by farmers, herders and fisherfolk, free of intellectual property rights restrictions. As with the Biosafety Protocol we eagerly anticipate rapid ratification of the Treaty by 40 countries so that it can come into force. However, we urge the COP to put continued pressure on the Treaty's Governing Body to address the outstanding issues on intellectual property rights, relationship with the WTO especially TRIPs, material transfer agreements, financing, and strengthening the international implementation of Farmers' Rights. The Treaty recognises Farmers' Rights to save, exchange and sell seeds but subordinates these to National Laws some of which are restrictive through recognition of patents and other IPRs on plant genetic resources. Other laws, such as the African Union Model Law on Community Rights does not subordinate Farmers' Rights but recognises them as inalienable. Taking our inspiration from the preambular comment in your Convention:
"...that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at source"
- Agricultural biodiversity is in such a perilous state. Losses of more than 90% of crop varieties from farmers' fields in the past century are accelerating as the globalisation of trade, consumer cultures and patenting bites deeper. Civil Society joins with others to calls on the COP to underscore the importance of this Treaty, perhaps by making it the basis of a separately identifiable Decision. Throughout these negotiations we have taken a consistent position in opposition to Intellectual Property Rights on genetic resources, and will continue to do so in defence of farmers and farming communities. We would urge countries to make especial efforts to sign the Treaty before the World Food Summit: five years later in June this year and to ratify it by mid 2003. The issues this Treaty deals with are fundamental to food sovereignty, food security and the environment, but discussions need to continue in the political space created in the Governing Body to ensure that these resources are secured in the public domain in perpetuity.
An Open Letter from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) To Ambassador Philemon Yang of Cameroon, Chairman Third Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP3) 22-26 April 2002 The Hague Dear 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 genetic contamination 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 modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity. The Protocol emphasizes the special role and importance of crop centers of origin and/or diversity , and also promotes a precautionary approach as the guiding principle for biosafety. These crucial elements of the Protocol reinforce the need for ICCP3 urgently to consider 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 Crop Genetic Diversity has been contaminated with genetically modified (GM) maize material. These findings are alarming, not only because it is illegal to grow GM maize in Mexico, but especially because Mexico is the primary center of maize genetic diversity. Maize varieties developed over millennia by indigenous farmers, as well as maize ancestors, represent one of the world's most vital and indispensable reservoirs of genetic material for future plant breeding and the basis of food security. In September 2001, Mexico's Ministry of Environment first reported that extensive GM maize contamination had 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 to 35% in remote villages of Oaxaca and Puebla. Recent articles in scientific journals have squabbled over the methodology used to characterize GM contamination in Mexico, but not over the fact that this contamination has occurred. Virtually all scientists agree that this Center of Crop Genetic Diversity has been contaminated with DNA from genetically modified plants. We wish to emphasize that debate on this issue must not focus on the methodologies of detecting contamination, but on the more urgent matter of how to respond. Genetic contamination in crop centers of origin and/or diversity and its potential impact on farmers, food security and the biological diversity of all countries 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 of origin and/or diversity; * Propose an immediate moratorium, in accordance with the precautionary approach, on the release of living modified organisms for food, feed and processing (GM seeds and grain) or for research in those countries or regions 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 prove biosafety before this moratorium should be lifted; * Initiate a process leading to rigorous studies on a crop-by-crop and region-by-region basis to determine what impact GM contamination may have in crop centers of origin and/or diversity supplying the world's food systems. In addition, we call upon ICCP3 to initiate a process with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to: * Undertake an investigation of how to ensure the integrity of germplasm held under the FAO-CGIAR Trust Agreement and that there are, and will be, no intellectual property claims pertaining to any of the Trust germplasm; * Incorporate mechanisms in the FAO Code of Conduct on Biotechnology to control the diffusion of GM materials, whether through commercial trade or overseas development assistance, to ecologically and socio-economically vulnerable regions, and to guarantee that the burden of ecosystem restoration and compensating affected farmers and nations rests with the manufacturers and/or patentholders of these products; * Examine the need to integrate rules and procedures to mitigate and prevent any further GM contamination in the 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 1 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 biodiversity results from the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and the land and water resources management systems and practices used by culturally diverse peoples, for food production. 2 See <www.ukabc.htm/abc.htm> 3 Interim Report on Emergency Seeds for Recovery Projects, CRS Tanzania, Edward W. Charles (Programme Representative) and Juvenal Kabiligi (Senior Project Manager) CRS Tanzania Edward@crstanzania.org; Juvenal@crstanzania.org 4 From AS-PTA Brazil <email@example.com> 5 Family farms units are composed by home gardens, crop areas (corn, bean and cassava, mainly), pastures and orchards (esp. banana and citrus) 6 Contact Katarzyna Malec HI Poland <firstname.lastname@example.org> 7 Gomez, T. Castro, H. and R. Perezgrovas. 2001. The real sheep of the Tzotzil shepherdesses. Compas Magazine for Endogenous Development 5:29-31. ETC, Leusden, The Netherlands. 8 Ramdas, Sagari. 2001. Conserving the Aseel poultry. Ecology and Farming 27:12-14.
9 Contact ICSF <email@example.com> 10 URL: www.geocities.com/ecoceanos Valparaíso, Chile
11 Summary available at< http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0066.htm> 12 Full report on http://www.actionaid.org/pdf/jury.pdf 13 See <http://126.96.36.199/web/docus/pdfs/basmatiupFD.pdf> accessible also through <www.etcgroup.org> 14 See <www.percyschmeiser.com> 15 See <www.ukabc.org/cop6.htm> 16 See <http://www.grain.org/docs/trips-plus-en.pdf> 17 Sources are available from the author 18 Contact <firstname.lastname@example.org> CSO / NGO Forum for Food Sovereignty - World Food Summit/five years later Access to Genetic Resources Paper (version 5, May 2002)