FAO / CGRFA 14

CGRFA 14 report selcted excerpts

Selected Excerpts from Report of CGRFA 14

Opening Remarks:

Braulio (Exec Sec CBD) : informed the Commission that the CBD and FAO had agreed on several areas for advanced cooperation to promote biodiversity for food security and sustainable production , based on proposals from the CBD and from FAO's Interdepartmental Working Group on Biodiversity.

…reiterating the CBD's commitment to efforts in this area and drawing the Commission's attention to further opportunities to look at agriculture in a landscape setting; and access and benefit sharing,

Brad Faleigh (Chair CGRFA Bureau): special information seminar Biodiversity for food and agriculture: taking stock for the future , which the Commission Secretariat had organized on 13 April 2013. He noted that the event had been attended by more than 120 participants from a broad range of backgrounds. Participants had reflected on the values of biodiversity for food and agriculture in all its forms and dimensions, noting that the important contributions of genetic resources are often invisible and that the preparation of The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture would be an opportunity to showcase them. Participants had emphasized the important roles of small-scale producers in the management of biodiversity for food and agriculture.

SoW-BFA

14. The Commission requested FAO to prepare The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture , for consideration at its Sixteenth Regular Session [2017] , according to the process identified in document CGRFA-14/13/3. It stressed that the process for preparing The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture should be based on information from country reports and should also draw on thematic studies, reports from international organizations and inputs from other relevant stakeholders, including centres of excellence from developing countries. It stressed that The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture should focus on the interactions between sectors and on cross-sectoral matters, taking full advantage of existing information sources , including sectoral assessments. It also suggested that priority be given to key supplementary information not available in existing sources.

17. The Commission invited countries each to officially nominate a National Focal Point to lead the preparation of country reports, and to communicate the name and contact details of the National Focal Point to the Secretary of the Commission by 30 November 2013 . It requested FAO to finalize the draft guidelines for the preparation of country reports by 30 November 2013.

ABS

39. The Commission considered the document “The need for and modalities of access and benefit-sharing arrangements for genetic resources for food and agriculture” . The Commission agreed that it was premature to negotiate an international agreement or agreements on access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture.

Biodiversity and Nutrition

43. The Commission requested FAO to further develop its work on biodiversity and nutrition, recognizing the importance of linking food biodiversity and the environment sector to human nutrition and healthy diets, and of the concept that nutrients in food and whole diets, as well as food, should be explicitly regarded as ecosystem services.

49. The Commission suggested that additional priority areas of work could include characterization, utilization and consumption of food biodiversity; breeding efforts to develop improved agronomic characteristics of nutrient-rich food biodiversity; diversification of agriculture and diets to address malnutrition in all its forms, with special regard to micronutrient deficiencies; and in situ conservation, traditional knowledge and improved market access.

AnGRFA

61. The Commission requested FAO to identify the nature of ecosystem services provided by livestock species and breeds kept by all livestock keepers, with special consideration to the important contributions of small-scale livestock keepers and pastoralists , and to report back to the Commission at its Fifteenth Regular Session.

AqGRFA

76. The Commission stressed that work towards the preparation of The State of the World's Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture should link to and build on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Commission decided that the scope of the report would be farmed aquatic species and their wild relatives within national jurisdiction . Countries were also invited to provide a species list of nationally important aquatic genetic resources of capture fisheries within national jurisdiction.

82. The Commission requested FAO to prepare an overview of drivers affecting aquatic genetic resources, including information on how to address them . The Commission requested that this be done in consultation with countries and taking advantage of intergovernmental mechanisms.

Micro-Organisms

92. The Commission requested FAO to address, where relevant, the role of micro-organisms and invertebrates in , inter alia , the delivery of ecosystem services for food and agriculture, human nutrition and health, sustainable agriculture, pollination and soil biodiversity in The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture .

PGRFA

96. The Commission emphasized the importance of in situ conservation and on-farm management of plant genetic resources and requested FAO to prepare a concept note detailing the governance, structure, functions and financial implications of the establishment of either a global network for in situ conservation and on-farm management, or two networks separately addressing these areas , for consideration by the Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources and the Commission at their next regular sessions. The Commission stressed that the concept note should also consider means of improving and strengthening national and regional networks and means of avoiding the duplication of efforts.

98. The Commission requested FAO to continue collaborating with partners in capacity development in the areas of plant breeding and seed systems and called upon donors to provide extra-budgetary resources for these areas of work. The Commission stressed the importance of implementing these efforts in synergy with the Programme of Work on Sustainable Use of the International Treaty. It requested its Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources to review the Draft Guide for National Seed Policy Formulation for consideration by the Commission at its Fifteenth Regular Session.

Transfer of Tasks to IT PGRFA

108. The Commission noted that there was no consensus among its Members on the transfer of the tasks or activities set forth in paragraph 15 of the document CGRFA-14/13/23 at this point in time and agreed to keep the matter under review.

MYPOW

114. The Commission welcomed the proposal for a ten-year cycle for the launch of State of the World Reports, with the exception that it requested FAO to launch both The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture and The State of the World's Aquatic Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture at its Sixteenth Regular Session [2017] .

International Organisations

115. The Commission requested FAO to strengthen existing, and establish new, cooperative arrangements with relevant international organizations to support the implementation of the Strategic Plan 2014-2023 and invited UN and other intergovernmental organizations; international agricultural research institutes and scientific organizations; civil society organizations, producer organizations and the private sector; focal points and regional networks for genetic resources for food and agriculture; and relevant funding agencies to contribute actively to the implementation of the MYPOW and to use the Strategic Plan 2014-2023 as a vehicle in the planning of their activities.

118. The Commission considered the document Cooperation with international instruments and organizations . It took note of the information documents Submissions by international organizations [including CSOs] on the prioritised themes of the session

119. The Commission thanked the international instruments and organizations for their submissions and commended their work in supporting the activities of the Commission. It requested its Secretary to continue to seek inputs on the prioritized themes of the regular sessions from international instruments and organizations and to make them available to the Commission for its information.

Expo 2015

125. Mr Rojas-Briales noted that the theme of the Expo 2015 would be “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life” and that participants would focus on issues that are directly linked to the work of FAO and the Commission, such as biodiversity, food security and best practices for sustainable development. Mr Rojas-Briales further noted that around 140 countries were expected to take part in Expo 2015, including around 80 developing countries, and that civil society would also be present.

Next Session

126. The Commission agreed that its Fifteenth Regular Session would be convened in Rome, Italy in 2015, at a suitable date before the next meeting of the FAO Conference. Taking this into account, the Secretary announced that the Commission's Fifteenth Regular Session would be held from 19 to 23 January 2015.

New Bureau

127. The Commission elected its Chair and Vice-Chairs for its Fifteenth Regular Session. Mr Amar Tahiri (Morocco) was elected as Chair. Mr K.C. Bansal (India), Ms Paula Rassi Brasil (Brazil), Ms Christine Dawson (United States of America), Ms Elzbieta Martyniuk (Poland), Mr Javad Mozafari Hashjin (Islamic Republic of Iran) and Mr William Wigmore (Cook Islands) were elected as Vice-Chairs. Ms Elzbieta Martyniuk was elected Rapporteur .

XIX. CLOSING STATEMENTS

128. Regional representatives took the floor to thank the Chair, the Bureau, the Secretariat and the support staff and to express their satisfaction with the outcomes of the meeting. Thanks were also expressed to the governments that had provided financial assistance to support the attendance of delegates from developing countries.

129. A representative of Practical Action, on behalf of civil society organizations present at this session of the Commission, noted the important role of the Commission in providing overarching governance for all biodiversity for food and agriculture. He welcomed the forthcoming preparation of The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture and emphasized the importance of involving small-scale producers from all subsectors in the process and of ensuring that their views and perspectives were included. He also commented on the need to develop targets and indicators that account for the roles of small-scale producers, on the need to support farmers' organizations and farmer-led research, and on the need for national seed policies that reflect the contributions of biodiverse food systems to nutrition and resilience to climate change.

130. He called on the Commission to improve its engagement with civil society organizations, especially international and regional organizations and social movements of farmers and other small-scale producers.

CGRFA 14 report now online - cites Joint CSO statement to Final Plenary

XIX. CLOSING STATEMENTS

128. Regional representatives took the floor to thank the Chair, the Bureau, the Secretariat and the support staff and to express their satisfaction with the outcomes of the meeting. Thanks were also expressed to the governments that had provided financial assistance to support the attendance of delegates from developing countries.

129. A representative of Practical Action, on behalf of civil society organizations present at this session of the Commission, noted the important role of the Commission in providing overarching governance for all biodiversity for food and agriculture. He welcomed the forthcoming preparation of The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture and emphasized the importance of involving small-scale producers from all subsectors in the process and of ensuring that their views and perspectives were included. He also commented on the need to develop targets and indicators that account for the roles of small-scale producers, on the need to support farmers' organizations and farmer-led research, and on the need for national seed policies that reflect the contributions of biodiverse food systems to nutrition and resilience to climate change.

130. He called on the Commission to improve its engagement with civil society organizations, especially international and regional organizations and social movements of farmers and other small-scale producers.

Download CGRFA 14 Report

Joint CSO statement to Final Plenary by IPC for Food Sovereignty and others

CGRFA 14: Civil Society Statement to Final Plenary

Statement by Patrick Mulvany, Practical Action / IPC for Food Sovereignty

Thank you Chair. I am making this statement on behalf of CSOs* who have been present here at CGRFA 14, and who have presented the results of our own deliberations in statements in many Agenda items.**

Chair, we recognise the importance of the Commission in providing overarching governance for all biodiversity for food and agriculture and in this context we wou ld like to make four brief points:

• SOW-BFA : We welcome your commitment to a State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture that is integrative and cross-sectoral and emphasises the interaction of genetic resources with ecosystem functions, and the role of people in sustaining agricultural biodiversity especially for food provision. We reiterate the need for the full participation in the methodology and preparation of the SoW-BFA by those who are at the heart of the maintenance, use and development of agricultural biodiversity – the countless men and women small-scale farmers, gardeners, pastoralists, fishers, forest dwellers, indigenous peoples and other small-scale food providers and micro- entrepreneurs. This should result in the inclusion of their views and perspectives in the report.
• Targets and Indicators: We repeat the need for you to seriously consider as a target or indicator, the number, and the genetic diversity, of small, mixed farms worldwide and the number of small-scale farmers assisted in maintaining genetic diversity. We urge countries to conduct a study to assess impacts of patents and intellectual property rights on GRFA including the on small-scale farmers and local and indigenous communities.
• On-farm conservation, climate change and nutrition: We welcome that work concerning on-farm conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA, especially for sustaining nutritious crops, locally, is to be carried out by FAO. T he framework for action on these issues should be designed to strengthen small-scale farmers' organisations and support research that is led by these farmers who sustain agricultural biodiversity on-farm, respecting their knowledge generation, and should be guided by local/ traditional knowledge and culture. More biodiverse food systems are also more resilient to Climate Change threats, and improve nutrition. National Seed Policies should reflect these imperatives.
• Engagement: In conclusion, we call on the Commission to improve its engagement with CSOs, especially the international and regional organisations and social movements of farmers and other small-scale food providers, whose policy proposal of food sovereignty realises much of what the Commission seeks to accomplish . In this context, we are willing to support the work of the Secretariat, the new Bureau and Working Groups inter-sessionally in any way that will help advance the important work that needs to be done – especially with regard to the preparation of the State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (SoW-BFA).

Many thanks.

* IPC for Food Sovereignty, AIAB, CENESTA, Crocevia, etcGroup, MAELA, Practical Action, Oxfam, SEARICE, USC Canada

** Our statements are available online at ukabc.org/cgrfa14.htm

Agenda 5.1 Status of preparation of The State of the World's Aquatic Genetic Resources

Statement by Patrick Mulvany, Practical Action

Chair, thank you for allowing me a second opportunity to address the Commission today.

Again, I am speaking on behalf of Practical Action and the IPC for Food Sovereignty. I hope I can refresh the conversation and inject a view informed by the needs of small-scale fishers who provide much of the fish for human consumption and who depend on aquatic biodiversity.

We welcome the contributions by FAO on this issue and the consistent high quality information it provides on aquatic biodiversity – especially in relation to sustaining the harvest and production of species destined for direct human consumption. This is a key source of protein and oils for healthy nutrition – the provision of much of which is ‘invisible', being harvested, processed and traded by artisanal fishers and therefore not collected by most official statistics. As members of this Commission will realise, and as highlighted by GRULAC, the preparation of this report will be in the context of the multiple challenges to, and governance structures for, the world's fisheries, within and beyond national jurisdiction, due to excessive industrial fishing and pollution, among other threats. This is covered to some extent in the document for your next agenda item Scoping policy analysis: Gaps and opportunities related to aquatic genetic resources ( CGRFA-14/13/18 ) .

The State of the World's Aquatic Genetic Resources ( CGRFA-14/13/16 ) will provide an excellent opportunity to draw together the diversity and multiple dimensions of aquatic biodiversity and other related agricultural biodiversity and ecosystem functions in aquatic and terrestrial biomes. Not only should this cover aquatic biodiversity in marine waters, lakes, rivers and ponds, but also, as we learnt at the GIAHS Side Event on Wednesday, in fish/rice polycultures and similar protein-rich terrestrial food production systems. The report should not be limited solely to aquaculture – a heavily industrialising sector – it should cover all aquatic biodiversity.

As was discussed in the Special Information Seminar last Saturday, the lead taken by the fisheries sector in providing a comprehensive ecosystem approach to the consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of aquatic diversity, both inland and marine, is exemplary. Other sectors could, we believe, learn from this approach. As was discussed at the Special Information Seminar, the approaches currently taken by other sectors are increasingly limited in scope as one moves from Forestry to Livestock to Crops. Further, as was also observed at the Special Information Seminar, the inclusion of the views of artisanal fishers and peasant farmers, will greatly strengthen the report, and we welcome Chapter 5 dedicated to their views. We also expect the report will refer appropriately to the relevant Code of Conduct and Voluntary Guidelines with respect to small-scale fisheries.

The approach taken by the fisheries sector, if applied across all sectors, and in the consideration of the critically important biodiversity of microbial and invertebrate biodiversity, will improve the understanding of the status and trends of all biodiversity for food and agriculture and what actions are necessary to improve the conservation and sustainable use of all agricultural biodiversity and related ecosystem functions .

Chair, we hope that the Commission will heartily endorse FAO's preparation of a State of the World's Aquatic Biodiversity with its holistic and integrated approach to including all components of the productive ecosystem, an approach, that could be significantly enhanced by the decisive inclusion of the views, concerns and contributions of the organisations and social movements of artisanal fishers and peasant farmers, whose specialised organisations should also be invited to your proposed Working Group. We also hope that the information that will be published in the report be provided in time for the preparation of the keystone State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.

Thank you

Agenda Item 7.1 & 7.2. Report of Working Group and Global Plan of Action on PGRFA: on-farm conservation of farmers' varieties

Intervention by Faris Ahmed, USC Canada (on behalf of Practical Action)

Thank you Chair,

We welcome the report of the Sixth Session of the Working Group (ITWG PGRFA 6), and the recommendations. We particularly welcome paragraph 16 in document CGRFA-14/13/20 , and Section Roman ii of document CGRFA-14/13/21 , which describe the recognition given by the Working Group to the importance of, and need for, on-farm management and conservation of PGRFA, as well as the critical need for knowledge sharing and networks, at the national and especially the community level.

The best strategy to do this, we suggest, is to go the centre of the action – which is the farmers' fields. In other words, to strengthen the farmer organizations that are working to select, breed, and nurture a wide range of plant crops and their wild relatives on-farm. In doing so, they are not only maintaining biological diversity but actually increasing it.

Farmers are breeding these varieties in their own research teams, using participatory breeding and varietal selection methodologies, based on their own knowledge and criteria. As I described yesterday, Chair, farmers in Honduras have successfully bred more than 150 varieties of beans, and farmer researchers in Ethiopia have bred more than 60 varieties of sorghum, based on such criteria as – the ability to withstand changing climate, soil and growing conditions, higher nutrition content, cultural value, and of course higher yields. Seeds are conserved in seed and gene banks that are managed by farmers' communities, and shared widely at the village and community level, allowing the community to retain control and access to genetic materials, and keeping seeds in farmers' hands.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, on-farm conservation is critical to PGRFA, as it addresses the issues at the heart of the Commission, the Treaty, and the Convention on Biological Diversity – namely conservation, sustainable use, and equity. We should dedicate every possible resource to strengthening the work of those who are leading this effort – namely, small-scale farmer organizations.

Finally, Chair, we look forward to the development of the concept note containing details of the global network for in situ and on-farm management of PGRFA to strengthen national and regional networks – as mentioned in the guidance sought.

Thank you.

Agenda Item 4.3: updating the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources

Statement by Practical Action (NGO Observer)

Chair, thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission on this important matter.

I am speaking on behalf of Practical Action and the IPC for Food Sovereignty.

We would also like to thank FAO for the presentation of the comprehensive papers on livestock genetic resources including on In Vivo conservation ( CGRFA-14/13/ Inf.18) . We commend the inclusion of the paper on the “ Roles of Small-Scale Livestock Keepers in the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Animal Genetic Resources ” (CGRFA-14/13/Inf.17 ) and the reference to the FAO publication “ Invisible guardians – women manage livestock diversity ”.

Chair, we would like to draw attention of the Commission to the following four points concerning the 2nd State of the World report and that it shall indeed be comprehensive in its coverage of the issues, policies and people concerned with the conservation and sustainable use of livestock genetic resources:

• With regard to the people who conserve and sustainably use the widest range of livestock diversity, it is the herders and small-scale livestock keepers, especially women, who maintain in situ in their farms and on the range in grazing lands, their diverse livestock breeds, as defined by the livestock keepers themselves. A review of those institutions, organisations and projects that are supporting this approach, would be welcome. The decisive inclusion of the views and organisations of these maintainers of livestock diversity is essential.
  
• The comprehensive coverage of the updated State of the World report is commendable. We would urge the Commission to ensure that its contents will make the greatest possible contribution to the State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (SoW BFA) by including data on the status and trends on the broadest range of agricultural biodiversity and associated ecosystem functions related to livestock production. This could include animals, forage and other animal feed plants and crops, and associated soil and other agricultural biodiversity, as well as rumen microflora and species associated with pest and disease control and human health.
  
• We hope that the State of the World report will highlight innovative mechanisms for recognising the importance of, and defending, local livestock diversity actions through, for example, the development of Biocultural Protocols.
  
• We expect the report will highlight the rapidly increasing concentration of control over livestock genetic resources in the commercial sector with a handful of corporations not only owning the genetic base but also controlling research, and the vertical integration of the livestock industry. We call on the Commission to ask FAO to prepare a special report on these issues.

Chair, we are deeply concerned that not only should the range of livestock diversity be maintained and that breed extinctions are further prevented, but also we urge the Commission considers the impacts of the very narrow genetic base being used in commercial industrial livestock production – a trend now being expanded to fisheries and aquaculture production – on global livestock diversity, and the impact that this has on wider agricultural biodiversity through the destruction of agricultural biodiversity on land and among the aquatic resources used in providing livestock feed.

Thank you

April 17th - Day of the Peasant Struggle

Via Campesina is organsing activities across the world on this day of the Peasant struggle, in memory of the 22 peasants murdered on this day in 1996 in Carajas, Brazil. The injustice continues both physically and legally. Across Latin America, new draft legislation has been sprouting up throughout the continent, attempting to legalize and mass-produce transgenics while placing obstacles for the use and exchange of our own traditional seeds – which has led to a rise in the criminalization of peasants' struggles and creates a major threat to local seeds.

See also: Tunis 2013: If we rely on corporate seed, we lose food sovereignty

Agenda Item 2.5 Agricultural Biodiversity and Nutrition

Statement by Faris Ahmed, USC Canada (on behalf of Practical Action)

I echo the sentiments of many delegates, in welcoming the document and the presentation (CGRFA14/13/8, Review of Key Issues in Biodiversity and Nutrition), that firmly establishes the critical role of ecosystem diversity in addressing the full spectrum of human nutritional needs.  In this regard we particularly note the statements in paragraphs 4,5,10,16 and 24(iii) of the document.

Even as a wide ranging body of knowledge and experience exists in the area of nutrition and dietary diversification, the global community has chosen to dedicate far more resources to more short term solutions in addressing micronutrient malnutrition.  While short and medium term measures such as supplementation and food fortification are useful, they must not replace longer term diet and agriculture based solutions.  Furthermore they do not always reach the neediest and most nutritionally vulnerable populations who need them most.

Mr. Chair, biodiverse agro-ecosystems that nurture a wide range of plants, animal and fish diversity are highly capable of providing micronutrient, Protein Energy, and other types of nourishment through a varied diet.  

Healthy soils, diverse forests and waters, and rich pastures are necessary for good nutrition.  Biodiversity providers often live and work in such integrated food systems, consisting of farm, fishery, and forest, all in one.  They are in the best position to understand and convey to us the full picture of nutrition available from varied agro-ecosystems, including the characteristics and inter-actions between species, and particularly the wide range of nutritional differences within species, of plants, animals and fish, how they perform under different conditions, their adaptability, their wild relatives, their conservation and most importantly their sustainable use, so that we may obtain the full array of nutritional benefits they offer.

Just to provide 2 quick examples Mr. Chair, through in situ conservation, participatory plant breeding, and varietal selection, based on farmers' varieties, farmers in the Yoro region in Honduras have produced more than 150 varieties of beans, with very wide ranging nutritional properties, including a species called Agro Salud which is high in zinc and other micronutrients.  In Ethiopia, farmer researchers in the Wollo region have selected and bred more than 60 varieties of sorghum, also with varying nutritional content.

It is therefore critical that our research on biodiversity and nutrition further emphasize on-farm, in situ knowledge, sustainable use and conservation.

Finally, in this context, Mr. Chair, we also look forward to a comprehensive treatment of in situ biodiversity and nutrition in all its forms, in the upcoming SoW Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture report.

Statement by Cristina Grandi, IFOAM on the document “Review of key issues relating to biodiversity and nutrition”

Thank you, Chair, I am speaking on behalf of IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, representing 800 organizations in more than 100 countries.

First, I congratulate the Secretariat for the document as it highlights that the solution to malnutrition, caused by lack of micronutrients, is to promote biodiversity in the diet, not only at inter-species levels but also at intra-species levels.

It is an urgent issue to address because it affects the health of 2 billion people, a third of the humanity, including in both rich and poor countries.

This situation is the result of a model of production based on monocultures, and the selection of varieties, cultivars, and breeds, based on ‘productivity' without taking into account the nutritional needs of human beings, and the knowledge of traditional agriculture. This is the model that the organic agriculture movement, as well as many social movements, have been claiming for many decades lies at the heart of unsustainable and harmful nutrition..

The situation is serious; it concerns the health of billions of people. To address this, it is necessary to promote production models based on agricultural biodiversity and an ecosystem approach, such as organic farming, agroecology, indigenous agriculture, and the like. These models are successfully practiced across the world. They are sustainable not only from an environmental point of view but also economically and socially.

Specifically, we propose a participatory process at both national and local levels, to address the issues of nutrition, biodiversity and agricultural models, which will include all stakeholders, local governments, peasants, local communities, universities, genetic research institutes, consumers, parents' associations, organisations dealing with food security, agroecology, organic agriculture and the environment.

What is needed is a process which leads to identifying local solutions for the promotion of models of farming, processing and consumption that will improve people's nutrition through the sustainable use of biodiversity.

Thanks again Chair

Agenda Item 2.4 Access and Benefit Sharing

Statement by Maria Noel Salgado, MAELA

Thank you, Chair. My name is Maria Noel Salgado, my organization is MAELA which is the
Agroecological Movement of Latin America and the Caribbean representing 2 million small-scale farmers and peasants in 20 countries on the continent. But I am speaking in the name of the IPC for Food Sovereignty, which is a global network facilitating the engagement of 300 million small-scale food producers worldwide.

First, we want to reframe the concept of ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING, and we would like to propose that we talk about the RESTITUTION OF FARMERS' RIGHTS TO GENETIC RESOURCES for food and agriculture. This concept is broader than talking in terms of the distribution of economic benefits, because we believe that genetic resources for food and agriculture are much more than a commodity.

Secondly, it is key that farmers have access to the full range of genebank holdings including animals, plants, forest and fisheries genes that are in public control and that this is realised in each country in the context of their national sovereignty. So we encourage countries that have not yet done this to agree policies in this regard.

Thirdly, national policies are needed to protect local agri-cultures to develop their food systems and collective community systems for the in situ conservation and development of GRFA, without being restricted by current or future technologies or patents

Fourthly, we emphasize that countries need funds to support these measures, in the context that genetic resources are public property and it is the duty of each State protect them. Small-scale farmers and peasants have developed them collectively for centuries, in situ , so there need to be policies that should ensure the strengthening of this work and farmers' rights. This issue should be a priority AND WE ENCOURAGE States, in addition to their usual plans, funded from various sources, could also tax commercial seed sales, by which they could generate new funds to ensure the implementation of such policies.

Intervention by Nori Ignacio, SEARICE

SEARICE commends the Commission for convening the First Ad Hoc Working Group on ABS for GRFA that came up with various suggestions on how ABS can be attained in the conservation and use of GRFA.

However, we need to remind ourselves that the discussion on ABS should benefit small farmers, who need access to GRFA for further breeding activities, and who need to benefit from diverse GRFA.

We need to rethink IPRs and PBRs and to this end, we urge that in ABS discussions in the Commission, a review be conducted on how intellectual property rights impact on farmers' rights, GRFA conservation, development and use; and agricultural biodiversity. Paragraph 5d of Decision X/34 of the CBD encourages the CBD, FAO and CGIAR to “review the trends on the extent of patents and other intellectual property rights, such as plant variety protection, applied for and granted over plant, animal and microbial genetic resources ... including the impacts of such property rights on local and indigenous communities, and small-scale farmers in developing countries…”

SEARICE encourages the Commission to seriously heed this call.

Agenda Item 2.3 ROADMAP ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Statement by Nori Ignacio, SEARICE

SEARICE proposes that the objectives of the roadmap include, “to improve recognition of the continuing role of farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk around the world in the maintenance of biodiversity for food and agriculture, most especially within the context of climate change”. The report on SOW on biodiversity and agriculture already includes this objective.

We reiterate the call of civil society organizations during the  2 nd Global Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in Hanoi, Vietnam, on September 3-7, 2012, that “climate-smart agriculture,” as mentioned in CGRFA-14/13/Inf. 10, and the terms “green growth” and the “landscape approach” have not been sufficiently considered from the perspective of small-scale producers, who are at the frontlines of climate change.

Furthermore, we caution against the roadmap endorsing a greater role for the private sector to invest in schemes that will commodify natural resources and disenfranchise local communities. Open and critical review is needed in adopting carbon markets and market-based approaches. Carbon markets have repeatedly failed to deliver real funds to projects on the ground.

The IAASTD stresses that adaptation is imperative and “actions directed at addressing climate change and sustainable development share some important goals such as equitable access to resources and appropriate technologies.” The Conference should emphasize identified adaptation priorities of developing countries and the provision of steady and reliable public finance to developing countries that will have to cope with the worst consequences of climate change. 

Also, the roadmap emphasizes productivity, highlighting the need for agricultural technologies to feed the world's growing population amid the rigors of climate change. IAASTD finds increased productivity as a narrow focus and instead recommends a “more holistic integration of natural resource management (NRM) with food and nutritional security.”

We continue to believe that small scale farmers, laborers, indigenous peoples, women and civil society organizations engaged on issues of food security, food sovereignty, the right to food, and the preservation and use of traditional knowledge are essential to this debate. They provide practical, just and affordable solutions to the problems of food security and climate change. They need to be heard. No process that ignores their voices can be considered legitimate.

Thank you.

Agenda 2.1 Preparation of the State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture

Statement by Nori Ignacio, SEARICE

As an organization devoted to the implementation of farmers' rights, we commend the CGRFA in including as one of the report's objective the 3 rd objective; which is to “improve recognition of the continuing role of farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk around the world in the maintenance of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and of the contribution that it makes to their livelihoods.” (See CGRFA 14/13/3, page 2)

While this was stated as an objective of the report, however, there is no more mention of how this objective will be achieved in the preparation of the report. We strongly suggest, that a whole chapter be devoted to this objective in the report. We have often acknowledged the crucial role of small food producers, yet they continue to be marginalized and socially excluded, even in reports. If not, reports only highlight how GRFA benefit farmers, but not how small food producers manage PGRFA for the benefit of all humanity. We need to remind everyone that it is the 85% of the world's small food producers that feed the world. Yet, previous state of the world reports on PGRFA do not report on their perspectives, strengths, weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats to small farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk in continuing their work in agricultural biodiversity and in feeding the world. The interlocked relationship of agricultural biodiversity and small men and women farmers in the conservation, development and sustainable use, most especially of domesticated PGRFA, deserves a key area in the report.

Furthermore, we need to include in the future agenda in Chapter 6, ways of improving recognition of, and support for, the roles and contributions of small men and women food producers. (Chapter 6, p8 only adopts as future agenda, “[W]ays of improving recognition of, and support for, the roles and contributions of women”). But we need to go beyond recognition. We need to implement their rights as pronounced in Article 9 of ITPGRFA. We need to realize that implementing and enforcing farmers' rights is implementing our right to food. Our right to food are human rights, hence farmers' rights are our human rights .

To ensure full recognition of small farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk, we start off by encouraging their full and genuine participation in the report . We need to include farmers' perspectives, and farmers' voices in all the chapters of the report. Since they have been nurturing biodiversity for food and agriculture for thousands of years, they need to be considered experts and enjoy the same standing and respect as governments, scientists, policymakers and other persons in authority in this room.

We acknowledge the perceived difficulty in including the perspectives and voices of small food producers in preparing for the World's State of Biodiversity in Food and Agriculture. To this end, and to halt their continuing marginalization and social exclusion, we urge the CGRFA to call on an international decade dedicated to small farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk.

Thank you.

Statement by Maryam Rahmanian, CENESTA

I am Maryam Rahmanian, representing the Centre for Sustainable Development and Environment, an Iranian NGO. My participation here today is facilitated by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty.

I would like to support the comments of SEARICE.

The SoW-BFA is badly needed, long overdue and a very important initiative. We are glad to see broad support by governments for the initiative. The concerns expressed seem to more on finances and budget and we hope that by the end of this week governments will come to some agreement in order not to miss this important opportunity.

As I have said before, the most important contribution of the SoW-BFA is the holistic and integrative approach that it will take. We know this is not easy and therefore it is very important for FAO to articulate the methodology that it will use to elaborate the report.

Methodologies for understanding complexity recognise the importance of the participation of all knowledge holders, including in this case the countless farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists and forest dwellers who are important knowledge holders.

Taking a lesson from the HLPE, it is important to note - as we saw on Saturday - that some issues can be very controversial and it is more helpful for moving forward on policy to articulate the controversies that exist, and look at the evidence behind all sides, rather than ignoring them.

We would support the suggestion of Ecuador to include one thematic study on climate change and biodiversity.

Lastly, we are puzzled by the comment of the United States that a chapter on sustainable use would be overly ambitious. A lot of information already exists on sustainable use, we have to take stock of it. One of the stated objectives of the SoW-BFA is to contribute to sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture.

Statement by Gine Zwart, OXFAM Novib

Thank you. We would like to congratulate the commission to take the initiative of this important report, and we would like to support the statement of Searice about the importance to ensure the interests of small-scale producers (agriculturalists, livestock keepers and fisherfolk) are duly addressed.

We see the report as a great opportuity to look at agricultural biodiversity from an integrated, holistc ad systems point of view. As Maryam also just pointed out, surely not an easy task. We do trust the FAO will be able to do a great job and break through the various silos that exist at the moment on this subject and produce a truly cross-sectoral analysis. We trust the report will not be as people free as the current logo of the commission suggests, as it are people that are at the heart of agricultural biodiversity and food and the complexity of all the linkages.

Thank you 

Agenda Item 2.2: TARGETS AND INDICATORS FOR BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Statement by Nori Ignacio, SEARICE

SEARICE commends the Commission, working with various agencies, in coming up with targets and indicators to determine if the Global Plans of Action, strategic plans and various targets, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets are met.

However, please allow us to bring your attention to Appendix 1 of CGRFA-14/13/4.1 Rev.1. ( Draft Revised Indicators For Monitoring The Implementation Of The Second Global Plan Of Action For Plant Genetic Resources). The Commission, FAO, the Committee on Food Security, the IASSTD and several other international instruments and bodies have long recognized that small, mixed farms that are sustainably managed by small men and women farmers has the most possibility to contribute to sustainable biodiversity for food and agriculture. This is the reason why we appreciate Priority Areas 1 to 4. However, we need to seriously consider as a target or indicator, the number of small mixed farms worldwide, and the genetic diversity in these small mixed farms. We also need to target the number of small farmers assisted in terms of maintaining the genetic diversity of their small farms. This will provide a link between the crucial role of small farmers and agricultural biodiversity, which is not captured with the present targets and indicators discussed in this paper. We need to highlight this missing link, so we will be able to look at farmers' perspectives and listen to farmers voices in conserving agricultural biodiversity for the past ten thousand years.

On Priority Activity 11, “[ P]romoting development and commercialization of all varieties, primarily farmers' varieties/landraces and underutilized species”, we express serious concern if such commercialization would lead to decline in agricultural biodiversity. Commercialization must be secondary to the goals of agricultural biodiversity, agroecology, food security and a balanced and healthy environment.

Thank you very much.

The INTERNATIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE ON FOOD SOVEREIGNTY (IPC) urged emphasizing small
producers’ knowledge and informal seed systems.

Overview of theCommission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA 14)

The CGRFA meets every two years. The agenda of CGRFA 14 follows the MultiYear Programme of Work (MYPOW) agreed 2 sessions ago and reviewed subsequently. It covers many topics including regular reviews of the status and needs (and plans of action for addressing these ) of the genetic resources for food and agriculture of different sectors - plants, livestock, forests, aquatic, microbial and invertebrates. Also it includes consideration of a number of cross-sectoral matters:

• Roadmap on climate change and genetic resources for food and agriculture.
• Review of key issues on biodiversity and nutrition
• Consideration of the need for and modalities of access and benefit sharing arrangements for genetic resources for food and agriculture.
• Review of all relevant international targets and indicators for biodiversity for food and agriculture.

The preparation of the State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (SoW-BFA) is perhaps the most interesting task of the CGRFA. It is proposed to use an integrative and ecosystem approach to assess the status of agricultural biodiversity across all sectors – plants, livestock, forests, fisheries, soils, pollinators etc. This systemic and comprehensive approach to assessment of the broad range of agricultural biodiversity and related ecosystem functions, and their distinctive needs needing distinct solutions, could contribute significantly to the understanding of how different models of production impact on food quality and availability, well being and on human and planetary health.

The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (Sow-BFA) could help to :

• contribute to changes in policy and practice that will enhance agricultural biodiversity and related ecosystem functions in all production systems and at all scales.
• identify ways in which the developers and conservers of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions – the (especially small-scale) food providers – farmers, gardeners, livestock keepers, fishers, forest dwellers, indigenous peoples etc – can be protected and supported so that they can continue producing food as well as other multiple benefits in their biodiverse, resilient and ecological systems, thereby contributing to food provision, wellbeing and the conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions.
• increase recognition of the overriding contribution of the knowledge, skills, innovations and practices of the (especially small-scale) food providers to the conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions.
• increase recognition of the contribution of the food sovereignty framework, developed by the social movements of (especially small-scale) food providers, to improving the policy environment for the conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions.
• identify the principal drivers causing the loss of agricultural biodiversity, its related ecosystem functions and biodiverse food production systems and suggest mitigation measures (e.g. ref IAASTD)
• provide a framework for the analysis of policy, production systems, research and practice which helps policy makers, academics, change agents and others to assess impacts on the conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions.
• identify the key enablers/stressors, policies and actors which impact positively and negatively on the conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions and suggest governance structures at all levels which best contribute to an improved environment and better outcomes.
• provide stimuli for the inter and intra community and intergenerational transfer of knowledge and skills that enable continued conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions.
• mitigate the negative impacts of externally controlled markets (inputs and outputs) on the conservation, development and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions.

PRACTICAL ACTION's submission to CGRFA 14

Practical Action , is a specialist international development NGO founded in 1966. We work on a range of technological issues with and in support of communities in developing countries, from regional offices in East Africa (Nairobi), Southern Africa (Harare), South America (Lima) and South Asia (Colombo). In addition there are national offices in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sudan. Our headquarters are in the UK.

We have worked on agricultural biodiversity issues for more than 20 years with the organisations of smallholder and peasant farmers, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk and other small-scale food providers, who, over countless generations, have developed, in situ , the agricultural biodiversity that feeds the world. The focus of our work has been to support and defend, through normative processes, practical projects and advocacy, their biodiverse, resilient, ecological production systems, which both generate and depend upon agricultural biodiversity and are an essential component of food sovereignty.

In support of normative work, we have been active participants in the work of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture ( CGRFA ) since its inception in 1993, including its Technical Working Groups. We have also been active in the development and implementation of the International Seed Treaty ( IT PGRFA ) including participation in the work of its Governing Body.

We are also principal participants in the Civil Society lobby at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – the CBD Alliance – on agricultural biodiversity issues see, for example, the Briefing for CBD/COP11 www.ukabc.org/cbdalliance-cop11agbiod-briefing-oct2012.pdf and ECO for World Food Sovereignty Day 2012 “ Agricultural Biodiversity feeds the World : it provides food, improves health and well-being and regenerates the environment” www.ukabc.org/eco@cop11-7.pdf .

We were one of the six NGO governing bureau members of the World Bank/UN sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development ( IAASTD ) and are active in following up the implementation of its Findings.

We participate in relevant Civil Society processes that defend agricultural biodiversity through national, regional and international networks including the UK Food Group and its UK Agricultural Biodiversity Community ( UK abc ); the European Peasant Seed network “ Let's Liberate Diversity ”; the Agricultural Biodiversity Community – unity in diversity ( abc ); the europAfrica campaign, an EU funded consortium that works with the African farmers' regional networks; the More and Better network; and the IPC for food sovereignty's Agricultural Biodiversity Working Group

In our practical work there are many examples of our work with local communities in defence of agricultural biodiversity conserved and developed in situ / on-farm, on the range and in inland and coastal waters.

• We support Andean alpaca keepers in Peru defending their high altitude, potato production systems, which sustain potato biodiversity in its centre of origin, through work that strengthens their livelihoods in the face of climate change.
• We have worked with pastoralist communities in Kenya to defend their livelihoods which depend on managing their diverse livestock breeds across very biodiverse semi-arid lands and their diverse sorghum varieties, which provide much of their grain.
• With coastal communities threatened by the incursion of industrial agriculture and fisheries in Sri Lanka we support their access to and management of biodiverse inland and coastal fisheries, coastal mangroves and help defend their highly biodiverse rice production systems.
• In Bangladesh we support local producers provide a wide range of vegetables in gardens which float on flood waters.
• In Zimbabwe and Kenya we have supported pioneering work in defending crop biodiversity through seed selection and seed fairs and other exchanges that increase the agricultural biodiversity maintained and developed by small-scale food producers.

In our advocacy work we have focused on promoting biodiverse systems that will secure future food. These depend on increasing the agricultural biodiversity in ecological food provision. This is an essential component in production systems that support the realisation of food sovereignty, which will defend the local food systems that currently provide food for most people in the world and could efficiently do so forever, given necessary protection, support and prioritisation.

We inform, educate and raise awareness of policy makers and the public about the increasing multiple threats, in terms of the agricultural biodiversity available to small-scale food producers and their access to the resources needed for production. This is because of, inter alia , laws, intellectual property rights, corporate power, commercial contracts, and technologies that restrict access and facilitate monopoly control over these essential genetic resources for food and agriculture. Furthermore, we advocate that the development of technologies that impact negatively upon, or disrupt the genomes of, traditional and locally-improved varieties of food crops, livestock breeds and aquatic species, need to be closely monitored and their use prevented.

For CGRFA 14 we are especially concerned that the process for the preparation of a State of the World's Agricultural Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (SoW BFA), a priority in the MYPOW of the CGRFA, should be primarily based upon the experience and perspective of those who sustain and develop the world's agricultural biodiversity – the small-scale food providers themselves. We would urge the Commission to use an inclusive process similar to that adopted by the Committee on world Food Security (CFS) to facilitate their inclusion in the preparation of the necessary inputs for both the SoWBFA and its follow up plan of action.

Since the formation of the CPGR 30 years ago and the CGRFA in 1993, with its expanded mandate, there has been yet further erosion of agricultural biodiversity, especially in situ , leading to a potentially perilous situation in terms of food provision, livelihoods and the environment. We believe it is essential to sustain all agricultural biodiversity and its related ecosystem functions, essential for securing food supplies and realising food sovereignty in an increasingly threatened social, economic and environmental context. We believe that it is very urgent for the CGRFA to endorse, propose and promote immediate actions in support of small-scale food providers, and their social organisations, who use, develop and conserve agricultural biodiversity and related ecosystem functions. This would, at long last, permanently reverse the life-threatening decline in agricultural biodiversity in situ and on-farm, on the range and in coastal and inland waters.

Practical Action, was formerly known as the Intermediate Technology Development Group or ITDG, founded by the prescient economist Dr E F Schumacher, author of ‘Small is Beautiful', and father of the appropriate technology movement.

The Commission summary of submissions from International Organisations about relevant activities, including above, is to be found here

22 July: Closing CSO statement by Patrick Mulvany

CLOSING STATEMENT to CGRFA 13 by Civil Society Organisations

Statement made by Patrick Mulvany, Practical Action

Thank you Chair for allowing me to make a brief statement on behalf of CSOs who have been present here at CGRFA 13 and many more worldwide who are following the progress of your work.

Can I also thank you for your sympathetic chairing, allowing us to make our views known to the Commission. Our statements are available online at ukabc.org/cgrfa13.htm .

Chair, we recognise the significant challenge the Commission has in creating the governance structures that will stem the haemorrhage, and prevent the contamination, of GRFA, an essential component of agricultural biodiversity, developed by countless small-scale food farmers, pastoralists, fishers, forest dwellers, indigenous peoples and others who provide most of the food in the world today and could do so forever. Their livelihoods are increasingly threatened and, as we reported to the GB4/IT PGRFA, we believe you should call for a report on the ‘State of the World's Farmers' (and other small-scale food providers). Their “cross-sectoral” activities, for example in rice/fish production systems, or in marine fisheries, which contain thousands of aquatic and other species, require an integrated ecosystem approach. This underscores the importance of bringing the views and participation of small-scale farmer and fisher organisations and local communities in the preparation of the SoW AqGR.

We call on the Commission to respect their policy proposal of ‘food sovereignty' that, if realised, would achieve much of what the Commission seeks to accomplish.

We would like you to take note of our concern on four issues that, among others, we believe still require your urgent attention and action.

•  Local conservation, use and development of GRFA : We urge you to ensure the highest priority is given to protecting and supporting the cross-sectoral efforts of small-scale food providers in their conservation, use and development of GRFA and ensuring their access to the genetic, financial and other resources they need. Furthermore, we urge you to respect the biocultural heritage of these biodiversity-enhancing communities and ensure their rights are respected and fulfilled. We hope you will help facilitate and will subsequently welcome the inclusion of their views and perspectives on the SoW biodiversity for food and agriculture.

•  Climate change : A broad range of GRFA and its associated ecosystem functions are essential to increase resilience in food production systems in the face of climate change and other threats. In light of this we would urge you to call for a comprehensive analysis of the potential impact of climate change “response measures” on GRFA that are being pushed in other forums. We would also call on you to investigate the broad patent claims for so-called climate-ready crops, at least 261 of which are being submitted to patent offices around the world, and the potential impact of these for access by famers to the diverse PGRFA necessary to adapt to climate change.

•  Svaalbard, GCDT and the International Treaty and CGIAR : We urge you to keep detailed oversight of the relationship between the CGRFA, the IT PGRFA, GCDT and the Global Seed Vault and, inter alia, ensure depositor sovereignty over stored accessions in the Vault. Furthermore, as provided in Article 6 of the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding between the FAO and the CGIAR, that you ensure the CGIAR consults with the FAO and the Commission on proposed policy changes related to the conservation of, or accessibility to, the designated germplasm in all its centres, in view of the serious concerns on the potential implications of the changes in the CGIAR's IPR policy on the conservation, development and access to ex situ germplasm. We also call on you to exercise leadership in ensuring the CGIAR's work on GRFA focuses on the priorities you have identified, especially with regard to the in situ conservation, use and development of all GRFA and its associated ecosystem functions.

•  Inclusion and participation by CSOs : We would urge you to consider using the successful model for engaging with Civil Society that has been adopted by the CFS and welcomed by FAO Members. Without effective inclusion of CSOs, the Commission will not be able to achieve its objectives. We believe that the Commission's work would be enhanced by internalising the CFS approach, which provides an excellent model to achieve the inclusive participation by civil society including the representatives of the social movements of small-scale food providers.

Chair, the world needs the leadership that the Commission is giving in all forums across the UN system and beyond – to ensure that the conservation and sustainable use of all biodiversity for food and agriculture and its associated ecosystem functions are defended in all processes; and that those who use and develop this agricultural biodiversity, the small-scale food providers themselves, are also protected and are able to continue their vital work, and can truly benefit from the instruments you govern and oversee.

In conclusion, Chair, through you, we would like to express our thanks to the Secretariat for facilitating our participation and providing such an excellent range of information and background papers.

Many thanks.

Final NGO statement to CGRFA 12

12th Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Statement by NGOs

Chair

Thank you for this opportunity to make a few closing remarks…

I am speaking on behalf of the NGOs that have participated in this 12 th Meeting of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. LPP, LIFE network, PracticalAction, SEARICE

We would also like to thank you and the Secretariat for the enabling our full participation in this meeting. [Coverage is available online at ukabc.org/cgrfa12.htm .

As the Commission meeting draws to a close, allow us a brief moment to remember the representatives of farmers, pastoralists and fishers who, over the years, have repeatedly called for due attention to their contribution to agricultural biodiversity and food sovereignty. They always hope that their efforts are not to be forgotten or stitched within the language of diplomacy, but enriched by future generation of food providers. They are always calling on all of us to address hindering factors such as market prices, policies and laws that prevent them from developing diversity and living decent lives. For example, many of you will recall Tay Gipo, who delivered his message in Svalbard while Don Luis intervened in the 3 rd Governing Body Meeting of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Carthage , Tunisia . They were simple farmers, with a simple wish – recognize and support their work – but somehow, this seems difficult to realize, and their calls remain unheeded

While we appreciate the accomplishments of the Commission, they are still far from what Tay Gipo and Don Luis among many others have asked for, in terms of recognition and support. Civil society organizations present would like to highlight four key issues that must not be forgotten in its future work:

•  The central role of women and men small-scale farmers, pastoralists, fishers, Indigenous Peoples and local communities in in situ conservation, and managing diversity on-farm in pastoral grazing lands and in local aquatic and forest environments, is critical for securing food supplies in a changing climate. We call for their decisive participation and inclusion in decision making processes of the Commission, its committees and work programmes regarding agricultural biodiversity, especially genetic resources for food and agriculture.

•  Agricultural biodiversity is enhanced by ecological production systems and damaged by industrial crop, livestock and fisheries production. We therefore urge the Commission in its future work to build upon the findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), approved by 58 countries, which found it necessary to radically change production systems towards locally-managed biodiverse, agroecological systems in order secure future food supplies in an equitable and sustainable way.

•  Communities of small-scale farmers, pastoralists, fishers and other small-scale food providers, do not look at biodiversity in fragmented components or sectors (like the Multi Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) does), but at the synergy of each component in dynamic, changing systems. Thus conservation and sustainable use should not just be limited to component-specific actions but should look at conserving (and protecting) these dynamic systems, including social processes of exchanges within cultural norms. These systems are undermined by laws, policies, contracts and technologies that restrict access to and control over the agricultural biodiversity they need. Therefore we urge the Commission to include consideration of these issues in the MYPOW.

•  For small-scale farmers, pastoralists, fishers and other small-scale food providers, biodiversity is not only described at genetic, species and ecosystem levels but also includes social, cultural, economic and political dimensions, which affect their lives. In recognition of this, we urge the Secretariat to facilitate the preparation of a state of the world report by these small-scale food providers themselves, in which they can describe the state of their systems for the conservation, sustainable use, development and management of agricultural biodiversity. This would be an essential contribution to your proposed State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.

Chair: Thanks again for allowing us to make this collective statement.

These are passionately felt views of millions of small-scale food providers worldwide. We do wish that the Commission will take these issues seriously to heart in your future meetings

Thank you very much.

League for Pastoral Peoples

LIFE Network

PracticalAction

SEARICE

Rome , 23 October 2009