UKabc Noticeboard

Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity

Governance

Genetic Engineering

Benefit Sharing

Links

Contact UKabc

• 17/04/2001 •

• 4 June: Opinion
• 1 June: Commentary
• March: Background to the Issues
  
• May: Agricultural Biodiversity Position Statement
  
• May 12-14: GBF15 Agricultural Biodiversity Workshop - latest report
  
• May 15-19 Seed Exhibition
  
• May 15-17: NGO Interventions
  
• May 18 Encouraging Diversity - Briefing and Book launch
  
• May 19: Defending Agricultural Biodiversity: statements to COP
• Click here for copies of ECO: the COP V NGO Newsletter, issues 1 - 10

• Click here for ITDG pages on COP V
• Draft 23 May text of Agricultural Biodiversity Decision V/9 (without GURT text)
• May 23-26: Industrial Interests Weaken COP Commitments
• 24 May: Read NGO statement delivered by Wangari Mathai
  Hear Wangari Mathai deliver NGO statement to Ministers (Real Audio Sound File linked from ENB COP V pages)
• 25 May: Decisions on the International Undertaking, Access and Benefit Sharing
• 25 May: African Group final statement to Plenary
• Links to further information/ papers

OPINION

Return to top

Farmers' rights of access to, and benefit sharing from, the genetic resources they develop and conserve and the conservation, protection and sustainable use of Agricultural Biodiversity and productive agro-ecosystems were advanced at GBF 15 and COP 5.

In the words of Tewolde Egziabher, the chief African Group negotiator, who chaired the opening session of the GBF workshop "the pressure of Africa and the majority of the South in the Seattle conference rooms and the move for a fairer deal in the streets of Seattle started winds that unleashed their erosive force" and not only biosafety but also the challenge to patents on Life, the sustainable use of (agro-) ecosystems to ensure food and livelihood security and the achievement of a fairer world are all a step closer.

For the first time, farmers spoke at the GBF - Mishek Mutapwa from Zimbabwe asked why it had taken so long for this to happen but was pleased that the precedent had been set. The Chair of the GBF assured him that his comments had been heard and that farmers would be included in future.

COP 5:

• Cemented the politicisation of the key issues on Access, including the FAO International Undertaking; Biosafety, including liability and redress; Participation of principal user groups and their institutions - Farmers, Indigenous Peoples, Consumers - in open-ended working groups and as key partners in programmes of work. These issues will not go away and more and more countries are adding their voices to the clamour for sane policies that will Sustain Life on Earth
• Heard Farmers' Voices and recognised their contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and the importance of agricultural biodiversity to their livelihoods and the other multiple goods and services provided by the different levels and functions of agricultural biodiversity; emphasised the importance of farmers' participation; and recognised their need for incentives.

Main outcomes are significant improvements on Access and Benefit sharing and a strong call for FAO to complete the International Undertaking negotiations; inclusion in the ICCP agenda of liability and redress for any negative outcomes of the use of GMOs including socio-economic and health impacts; greater recognition of the need to recognise and provide incentives for farmers' and local community contributions to development and conservation of agricultural biodiversity; a clear call to GEF to give priority to funding biosafety capacity building for the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol.

COP 5 did not ban Terminator Technologies nor 'Agent Green', but at least did not accept that Terminator Technologies could form part of a system for 'contained use' of GMOs when released into the environment, as the Australians (?US proxies?) would wish.

Another feature of this COP, which many commented 'had matured' and was 'more business like', was the attention given inside and out of formal sessions to the pecuniary interests of stakeholders, groups and intermediaries (or their proxies) who would wish to use the Convention, in the name of the poor and environmental protection, to legitimise private commercial benefits from the use of biodiversity or GMOs and/or legitimise the use of GEF funds for their professional interests.

Return to top