19 May

Defending Agricultural Biodiversity

Return to top

Agricultural biodiversity is central to both environment and development.

• Agriculture is the largest user of biodiversity
• Farmers are the main ecosystem managers
• Agricultural biodiversity provides:

• sustainable production of food,
• biological support to production, and
• ecosystem services

The Agricultural Biodiversity Programme of Work must be farmer-centred if it is to be effective. It must stress and promote:

• Farmers’ guardian role in conservation and sustainable use
• Empowerment of farmers
• Counteracting the spread of unsustainable agriculture and use of unsustainable and potentially unsafe technologies - especially GURTs
• Farmer-driven research and development

The CBD must actively collaborate with farming communities and their institutions as principal partners.

Specific textual changes have been proposed by NGOs in the GBF15 report (see below), covering the need for additional clauses in each of the four elements of the proposed programme of work, each addressing the need for farmer-centred approaches and practices. There is a need to ensure that reports to COP 6 cover work on all these elements and demonstrate the way in which the Convention is really reflecting the demands, aspirations and needs of farmers and reporting that meaningful incentives are being provided to them to enable them to continue their role in managing agricultural biodiversity on which universal food security depends.

Many specific details are included in the landmark Decision III/11 on Agricultural Biodiversity that cover not only the Programme of Work but also, a description of the problems and possibilities of different agricultural systems and the need to mitigate the negative impacts of industrial agriculture on agricultural biodiversity, the relationship with WTO, and encouragement to the FAO to complete the negotiations on the International Undertaking.

The International Undertaking (IU) is being renegotiated by countries through the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. But, given the distinctive nature, origin and problems of PGRFA and the farmers’ knowledge embodied in these, the IU will need to provide a framework which simultaneously permits free access and exchange, through a multilateral system of access to the resources, provide benefits related to end use i.e. food security and implement internationally recognised Farmers’ Rights. (see below the NGO statement to COP 5 debate on Access to Genetic Resources )

The COP Decision should ensure a pro-farmer IU is submitted to the next COP as a legally binding instrument.

This COP should ensure that its decisions relating to Agricultural Biodiversity in other areas are consistent and coherent and linked through specific references in the Decision on Agricultural Biodiversity.

The CBD has a real challenge before it. How can it support farmers’ efforts to Sustain Life on Earth: to maintain the functions and integrity of Agro-ecosystems through the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity? A good Decision on Agricultural Biodiversity that loses none of the gains made in previous Decisions and adds a farmer-centred focus to the CBD’s work, will be a good step forward.

-- Ends --

Return to top

Recommendations by the 15^th Global Biodiversity Forum to COP 5 on its Decisions on Agricultural Biodiversity

Return to text

Return to top

The draft Decision supports the implementation of the four elements of the Programme of Work. The COP should develop these programme elements to reflect the need for the Programme of Work to be farmer-centred, if it is to be effective, as follows:

1. Assessment:

Requests the Secretariat to carry out an assessment of farmer knowledge, innovations and practices in sustaining agricultural biodiversity and agroecosytem functions for, and in support of, food production and food security and report to COP 6. Major inputs should be solicited from local farmers and their communities.

2. Adaptive management:

Requests the Secretariat to proactively seek inputs from farmers and their communities including local farming communities embodying traditional lifestyles, in the implementation of these activities.

3. Capacity building:

Promote cooperation of farmers and their institutions in particular at the local level in actions to promote conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.

4. Mainstreaming:

Change the Operational Objective to read: "To develop national plans and strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and ensure their mainstreaming and integration in sectoral and cross-sectoral plans and programmes, in particular in national agricultural policies." Requests the Secretariat to carry out a study on the demands by farmers for support by governments of their action to conserve and sustainably use agricultural biodiversity. This study should be carried out in close consultation with farmers and their institutions and be submitted to COP 6.

Return to text

Return to top

Statement to the Working Group on Access to Genetic Resources at COP 5, 17 May 2000

Use BACK BUTTON or Click Here to Return to text

Return to top

Cecilia Oh, TWN presents statement. Click Here for larger image

Madam Chair, Third World Network makes this statement on behalf of the following civil society groups:

Third World Network, Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), Council for Responsible Genetics, SEARICE, Diverse Women for Diversity, ECOROPA, Greenpeace International, CODEFF/Friends of the Earth Chile, and Washington Biotechnology Action Council.

Madam Chair, we recognise there exists parallel international processes which have implications for access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. In this context, we urge COP 5 to ensure that the fundamental objectives of the CBD are not undermined by the TRIPs Agreement of the WTO and also, to ensure complementarity with the negotiations of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources of the FAO.

We therefore, wish to make two proposals for these purposes.

First, we urge COP 5 to send a strong message to the TRIPS Council of the WTO on the question of intellectual property rights (IPRs) over biological resources. We believe that IPRs over biological resources and patents on living forms will have serious and adverse implications for access to genetic resources and the equitable sharing of benefits. Indeed, it will undermine the very objectives of the CBD.

Madam Chair, we also wish to draw the COP's attention to the developments in the WTO. The review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement is presently being considered by the TRIPs Council. Article 27.3(b) requires countries to allow for patenting of certain biological resources.

On this issue, the developing countries in the WTO have already made clear their opposition to the patenting of living forms. The African Group of countries, the Like-Minded Group and the Least-Developed Group of Countries in the WTO, have expressed their rejection of patents over life forms, and their deep concerns over the incompatibility of the TRIPs Agreement with the CBD.

We therefore, urge COP 5 to send a strong message of support for the position adopted by these developing countries, which make up the majority of countries in the developing world. This is particularly important given that the TRIPs Council will be considering the question of the review of Article 27.3(b) in June. We believe that this will be an important opportunity for COP 5 to preserve the objectives of the CBD. In this regard, we support the Norwegian proposal for active participation by the CBD in the TRIPs Council considerations.

We further recommend that COP 5 call on the WTO member countries in the review of Article 27.3(b) to clarify the following:

(a) that plants and animals as well as microorganisms and all other living organisms and their parts cannot be patented, and that natural processes that produce plants, animals and other living organisms shall also not be patentable;

(b) that any sui generis system for the protection of plant varieties can provide for the following:

• the protection of the innovations of indigenous and local farming communities in developing countries, consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources;
• the continuation of the traditional farming practices including the right to save, exchange and save seeds, and sell their harvest; and
• preventing anti-competitive rights or practices which will threaten food sovereignty of people in developing countries, as is permitted by Article 31 of the TRIPs Agreement; and

(c) that the implementation deadline should be extended to take place after the completion of the substantive review of Article 27.3(b).

We also urge governments to undertake not to grant, or to cancel where previously granted, IPRs over biological materials or over knowledge on the use of biological materials, obtained

(a) from collections held in international banks or other deposit institutions where such materials are freely available; or

(b) without the prior informed consent of the country of origin or otherwise inconsistently with the provisions of Article 15 of the CBD.

The second proposal, Madam Chair, relates to the negotiations on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources in the FAO. The aim of these negotiations is to secure an international undertakingInternational Undertaking which is adapted to be in harmony with the CBD. The mandate and scope of these negotiations have already been agreed by the FAO and is supported by COP decisions. However, this has been questioned by some countries. The conflict is largely between those who wish to see farmers and other stakeholders have free multilateral rights of access to, and benefit sharing from, genetic resources they have developed and used to maintain food security; and those who support bilateral arrangements and the encroachment of IPRs into these areas.

A strong message of encouragement should be sent to the FAO to achieve an International Undertaking, which ensures:

(a) multilateral access to these genetic resources for current and future generations, outlawing intellectual property claims on any of the materials or the genes contained therein, or knowledge in the system;

(b) benefits are linked to the end use of resources (their contributions to seeds, breeds and food security) and that the benefits to farmers are commensurate with their historical and present contribution to developing resources underpinning food security; and

(c) Farmers' Rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds and other propagating material and, in the case of seeds and other materials, restricted by national law, the right to sell them in their customary manner and markets.

We, therefore, urge COP 5 to give its support for an International Undertaking embodying these fundamental elements, and to call for it to be brought to the next COP as a legally-binding instrument.

Use BACK BUTTON or Click Here to Return to text

Return to top

Intervention to Working Group 1, presented by Patrick Mulvany, ITDG on behalf of Civil Society Organisations at COP 5, Friday 19th May 2000

Return to top

NGO Intervention to Working Group 1, presented by Patrick Mulvany, ITDG on behalf of Civil Society Organisations at COP 5, Friday 19th May 2000

Thank you Chair

In addition to the intervention which has just been made Civil Society Organisations on GURTs, which ITDG fully supports, I am presenting this second intervention on behalf of a similar group of Civil Society Organisations participating in COP 5 including my own ITDG and also, RAFI, Sunshine Project, Kalpavriksh, ECOROPA, Diverse Women for Diversity, ELCI, IUCN, WGTRR, Navdanya, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, Quaker Peace and Service, GE Network, SEARICE and others…(NOTE 1)

While welcoming the development of the Programme of Work arising out of your landmark Decision III/11 and recognising the significant contributions of SBSTTA, FAO and others not least in stressing the importance of agro-ecosystem functions, the current draft text is deficient, mainly that it does not stress sufficiently the need for this programme to centred on women and men farmers, including pastoralists, fisherfolk and other food producers and hunter/gatherers.

We wish to make 3 points.

1. The Agricultural Biodiversity Programme of Work must be farmer-centred if it is to be effective.

We support the interventions of many delegations including Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and others who have stressed the importance of farmers as key participants in developing work on agricultural biodiversity for sustainable food production, biological support to production and ecosystem services.

The CBD must actively collaborate with farming communities and their institutions as principal partners.

Specific textual changes have been proposed by NGOs in the 15th Global Biodiversity Forum report of the Workshop on Agricultural Biodiversity and Sustainable Livelihoods (see below) covering the need for additional clauses in each of the four elements of the proposed programme of work, addressing the need for farmer-centred approaches and practices, and for increased consumer awareness. This Decision must include a demand that full reports are provided to 6th Conference of the Parties (COP 6).

2. We support the many delegations which have called for a rapid conclusion of the negotiations in the FAO CGRFA on the International Undertaking. Given the distinctive nature, origin and problems of PGRFA and the farmers’ knowledge embodied in these, The International Undertaking will need to provide a framework which simultaneously permits:

• facilitated access and exchange through a multilateral system of access to the resources with no patents or Intellectual Property Rights permitted on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,
• provides benefits related to end use i.e. food security and
• implements internationally recognised Farmers’ Rights.

This meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 5) must urge the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to submit a pro-farmer International Undertaking to COP 6 as a legally-binding instrument.

3. Finally, we would urge Parties to ensure consistency in all its deliberations which relate to or impact on the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, Access, Biosafety, Art 8j, other ecosystems programmes of work such as drylands, to name but four, and ensure that farmers and local and indigenous communities and their institutions are at the centre of programmes, policies and, as key participants, they are provided with necessary incentives.

Sir, you have a real challenge before you. How can you support farmers’ efforts to Sustain Life on Earth: to maintain the functions and integrity of agro-ecosystems through the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity in order to achieve food security? A good Decision on Agricultural Biodiversity that loses none of the gains made in previous Decisions and adds a farmer-centred focus to the CBD’s work, will be a good step forward.

Thank You 19/05/2000 16:00

(NOTE 1) For reasons of time pressure, some text was not read out.

Recommendations by the 15th Global Biodiversity Forum to COP 5 on its Decisions on Agricultural Biodiversity

The draft Decision supports the implementation of the four elements of the Programme of Work. The COP should develop these programme elements to reflect the need for the Programme of Work to be farmer-centred, if it is to be effective, and include additional text as follows:

1.Assessment:

Requests the Secretariat to carry out an assessment of farmer knowledge, innovations and practices in sustaining agricultural biodiversity and agroecosytem functions for, and in support of, food production and food security and report to COP 6. Major inputs should be solicited from local farmers and their communities.

2.Adaptive management:

Requests the Secretariat to proactively seek inputs from farmers and their communities including local farming communities embodying traditional lifestyles, in the implementation of these activities.

3. Capacity building:

Promote cooperation of farmers and their institutions in particular at the local level in actions to promote conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.

4.Mainstreaming:

The Operational Objective should be replaced by the following:

“To develop national plans and strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and ensure their mainstreaming and integration in sectoral and cross-sectoral plans and programmes, in particular in national agricultural policies.”

Additional text should also be added…

Requests the Secretariat to carry out a study on the demands by farmers for support by governments of their action to conserve and sustainably use agricultural biodiversity. This study should be carried out in close consultation with farmers and their institutions and be submitted to COP 6.

Finally, some suggested text could be added to strengthen the awareness raising clauses:

“The Parties to the Convention should support actions to raise consumer awareness to support sustainable farming, agricultural biodiversity and localised food systems. The COP should recognise and facilitate the promotion of improved markets, which add value locally, e.g. support for niche markets, organic farming; increased access to national and international markets and enable consumers to increase the transfer of resources to (especially smallholder) farmers (in the broad definition).”

15th GBF, 14 May 2000

Return to top

Intervention on Terminator and other Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) to Working Group 1, on behalf of Civil Society Organisations at COP 5, Friday 19th May 2000

Return to top

We make this statement on behalf of:

College for Indigenous Australian People, Council for Responsible Genetics, Diverse Women for Diversity, ECOROPA, GENET, Genetic Engineering Network, UK, German NGO Forum for Environment and Development, Greenpeace International, Indigenous Culture Foundation, Taipei, Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network (IPBN), ITDG, KALPAVRIKSH, RAFI , Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, SEARICE, The Sunshine Project, SWAN, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Third World Network, Uganda Wildlife Society, and the Washington Biotechnology Action Council.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations in the draft decision for COP 5 on Genetic Use Restriction Technology (or GURTs)(1) are based on certain assumptions about the status of the technology, which were developed at the time of the SBSTTA 4 meeting. Those assumptions are based on information which has since changed.

Terminator technology is a specific GURT technology that makes seeds sterile in the 2nd generation. The technology has NO agronomic benefit and it imposes a biological patent with no expiration date to the crops on which it is applied. Further, some argue that engineered seed sterility could be used to mitigate environmental problems caused by the gene transfer of genetically engineered crops. Beyond being an admission that genetically engineered crops are NOT safe, biosafety at the expense of food security is not an acceptable trade-off.

Trait-specific GURTs are technologies that make it possible, using an external inducer, to switch ‘on’ or ‘off’ specific characteristics of a plant, such as resistance to disease. The result of this technology is that farmers will be obliged to apply a particular chemicals to ensure that their crops thrive, thereby increasing the dependency of farmers on chemical and the companies that produce them.

Currently, almost all of the major companies that control the agricultural biotechnology market have patents on the Terminator technology. In 1999, despite promises by the biotech companies to abandon the technology, 7 new terminator patents were granted and at least 43 new GURTs patents issued. Astra Zeneca has already admitted to conducting field trials on GURTs.

The Terminator technology is a threat to food security and agricultural biodiversity and denies Farmer’s Rights by preventing farmers from saving seeds.

Mr. Chairman, the NGOs support the Indian, Philippine, Tanzanian, Malawian, and, Kenyan position and we urge the delegates to adopt the following:

COP 5 should recommend that, in accordance with the Precautionary Principle, Terminator technology should be banned. COP 5 should also recommend that genetic trait control technologies not be approved by Parties for field testing or commercial use until in-depth, independent environmental, socio-economic, and potential military impact assessments have been carried out.

(1) Draft Decisions for the Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties. UNEP/CBD/CP/5/1/Add.2 Pg 23 (English version)

Return to top