1st meeting of the FAO / CGRFA International Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2 - 4 July 2001, Rome, Italy

CGRFA/WG-PGR-1/01 Summary Notes Intergovernmental Technical Working Group Meeting on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, 2 – 4 July 2001 Summary Representatives of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Plant genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and observers from invited organizations met in Rome from 2 to 4 July, to discuss: 1) the progress on the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2) a monitoring mechanism for its implementation, 3) updating the report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources, 4) the progress on the World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 5) a Facilitating mechanism for the implementation of the Global Plan of Action, and 6) the potential impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies on agricultural biodiversity and agricultural production systems. Documents discussed can be found at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPS/PGR/ITWG/docsp1.htm The Working Group noted that substantial progress had been made on implementing the Global Plan of Action, mainly as a result of national efforts, but there was a perceived need to strengthen co-ordination between stakeholders within countries. Several areas for future concentration of efforts were identified, including, 1) in situ conservation activities, 2) seed production distribution support, particularly in the African region; 3) assisting farmers in restoring genetic resources in situations of recurrent drought 4) regeneration of germplasm in ex situ collections 5) capacity building. The Working Group also identified new areas that need to be taken into account for the implementation of the Global Plan of Action, namely 1) effects of climate change on the state of plant genetic resources, 2) increased use of genetically modified crops and 3) threats to in situ conservation arising from spread of invasive species. It was agreed that these issues, together with analysis of lesser known but potentially valuable crops, use of new methodologies for conservation and evaluation and participatory plant breeding, might be considered further in preparation of the second report State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The Working Group discussed the reporting formats and indicators to be used in a comprehensive monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the Global Plan of Action. Indicators included those for gauging genetic diversity and vulnerability. Preliminary pilot activities, to be conducted by FAO and IPGRI, were proposed as a means to develop a comprehensive survey, including the establishment of national clearing-house mechanisms on the implementation of the Plan, to be carried out in 2004. The results of these activities will be used to update the report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources. This will be completed in 2007 and will be used in turn to update the Global Plan of Action. The second report will address issues additional to those covered in the first report and should be supplemented with thematic studies relevant to the Commission’s mandate and take account of the revised International Undertaking. The World Information and Early warning System was considered to be important for monitoring implementation of the Global Plan of Action and updating the report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources. It was agreed that WIEWS continue to be developed in a simple and cost-effective way, linked to national information systems on PGRFA, and that the Secretariat should continue assisting member countries in building capacity for information management. Several options were debated for approaches to facilitating implementation of the Global Plan of Action, with an emphasis on maintaining elements of dynamism and flexibility. These options included 1) the Regular programme approach, 2) the project model approach, 3) the consultative forum approach and 4) the Plan Facility approach. Diverse views were expressed and a recommendation was made to consider all options until discussion following further elaboration. The potential impacts of Genetic Use restriction Technologies on agricultural biodiversity and farming systems were discussed and there was a range of views expressed by those present. Some members were opposed to the technology while others felt that advantages could accrue and should be considered further. It was, however, agreed that some of the conclusions were speculative in the absence of sufficient information to make more definitive analyses. The document (CGRFA/WG-PGR-1/01/7) will be revised by the Secretariat for submission to the Ninth Regular Session of the Commission for its consideration, and the results submitted to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Recommendations agreed by the Working Group will be submitted to the Ninth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture for consideration. 2 July 2001 ITDG made an intevention this morning (2 July) emphasising the importance of Farmers' and their organisations, NGOs and wider Civil Society in the sustainable management and use of PGRFA especially on-farm. The implementaion of Farmers' Rights was an essential condition for this work - and hence the importance of the IU. ITDG summarised CSO activity in the processes in FAO, CBD, CGIAR, GFAR and ECP/GR from Leipzig to Roma (WFS+5). Mention was made of a number of international NGO programmes from CBDC to Growing Diversity and including ITDG's ABC work as well as HDRA's Heritage Seed Library and Seed fairs and Agricultural Biodiversity Registers around the world. ITDG called for strengthening of CBD's Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity as agreed in COP Decision V/5.

ITDG written comments on GURTs paper

Download Word 97 Document. ITDG written comments on GURTs paper

31 July 2001

Dear Dr Anishetty

I am sending a few comments on the GURTS paper as requested by the Chair of the working group.

As you are aware, I sent some preliminary comments on an earlier draft and made an oral intervention at the intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture on 4 July. This intervention is available on the ENB website and linked from the UKabc website <www.ukabc.org/itwgpgrfa1.htm>.

KEY CONCERN

We raised a number of specific points and one major concern. We would expect that in the edit of this paper for presentation to the CGRFA it will be reshaped and will be clearer about the need for the Commission to recommend a ban on the technology.

The main concern is that the paper does not emphasise sufficiently that these technologies have been developed by the SEED and BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY and one GOVERNMENT for the principal purpose of RESTRICTING use - limiting access to and use of genetic resources to technology owners or licensed users - to those that purchase seed each year or proprietary chemicals that would change traits in these GM plants.

The main problem of the paper is that, in its attempts to appear balanced and objective, it gives a cloak of respectability to GURTs, rather than emphasising their potential problems and the opportunities they provide for increasing concentration of corporate power and control over crop seeds and vegetatively reproductive material, and, ultimately, the food industry. FAO's role is clearly not to defend the interests of the corporate sector: thus, the paper needs to be unambiguous about the purposes of the technology and the threat it poses.

For this reason, we would urge the FAO, whose mandate is to improve the food security of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, to rwrite at the start of this paper a clear statement to the effect that the technology is anti-developmental, could have impacts on food security, ecosystem integrity, Farmers' Rights and poor people's livelihoods.

We would equally urge that it end with a recommendation, stronger than that proposed in SBSTTA IV/COP V, following the lead of India and the demands of the Africa group at the CBD/ COP V, Iran and the Philippines that the research, development, testing, use and export of the Technology should be banned as unethical, with likely negative socio-economic impacts on poor people and potentially environmentally damaging at genetic, species and ecosystem levels. A further recommendation should be made that Patents on the techniques should not be granted under Article 27.2 of the Agreement on TRIPs - for ordre public reasons.

We were surprised to learn, as expressed by its delegation in the Working Group, that the USA is still in favour of developing the technology and that the government is proud to be a co-inventor of a V-GURT and would wish to defend its investment in this research. Our understanding is that public opinion in the USA is wholly against public resources being used in developing Terminator Technologies as witnessed by the letters and declarations made by US citizens in the past 3 years. Rather, US citizens have requested government to regulate US universities, US industry and multinational industries with research facilities in the USA or which work elsewhere with US capital, so that the technology could not be developed, tested, exported or used.

POINTS OF DETAIL

Para 1. Clearly the term 'Terminator' technology must continue to be used. It is now clearly recognised by a wide cross-section of society. GURTs and TPS are terms that are more descriptive of the IP aspects of the technology but are not as descriptive of the biological impact of V-GURTS - sterility.

Para 2. We are pleased to note that the FAO's Ethics Panel deemed 'Terminator' seeds to be unethical, but concerned that the Panel might be ambivalent about them and potentially supportive of their invented function supposedly for environmental containment of GM plants.

Para 8. Use of GURT technology results in a GMO. For this reason we would have thought more emphasis would be placed on warning governments of the potential loss of markets if this technology is permitted. Most consumers reject GM foods when given the option.

Para 11. It is not correct to say that hybrid maize "caused little or no controversy". The requirement to repurchase seed each year became a burden for many poorer producers. It is perceived by many as another form of 'Use Restriction' marketed, though, as yield improvement. Farmers are able to continually breed these varieties and eventually extract specific traits into productive varieties and, up until recently, it was still legal to do this in all countries. The move in many countries to provide improved 'synthetic' OPV varieties of maize and the interest in research into apomixis is, in part, a response to this concern about hybrid varieties.

Para 22. It is correct to identify crops such as wheat as targets for V-GURTs. Industry has earlier admitted that a major target is the 'brown bag' seed market in the USA. Because of the way seed systems operate internationally, if GURTs were to be used for this purpose, developing countries would suffer 'collateral damage' of this intent by industry to claim a greater slice of the US seed market. Developments of potentially beneficial new apomictic varieties would be compromised by the application of GURTs.

Para 23. This dispassionate description of the potential environmental risks must be rewritten to make it explicitly clear that if this purpose of GURTs were accepted then this would allow an even greater spread of GMOs in ecologically sensitive areas and centres of crop diversity. It would provide a defence for allowing uncontrolled releases of GM technology.

Para 24. We would contest the wording of this paragraph. It describes unproven assertions by researchers that there could be productivity gains and asserts that some of the potential trait controls would be 'particularly helpful in tropical countries' without any evidence nor reference to existing technological alternatives.

Paras 25-32. We are concerned that an interpretation of these paragraphs might be that research into the interactions within and between the different levels of agricultural biodiversity and increased focus on participatory plant breeding and other important areas of research are required only because of the threat from GURTs. They are required as a basis for better understanding this complex component of biodiversity and the need for improved opportunities for participation by farmers, as noted by FAO and CBD/COP in other meetings. These requirements should be completely de-linked from GURTs. The more profound implications of releasing unnatural gene sequences into the environment, their potential to enter the gene pool and to migrate into other species and the impact of this on agricultural biodiversity and biosecurity is under-played. Liability and redress must be a major component of any regulatory system, including the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, for modern biotechnologies including GURTs.

Paras 33-36. There is a disingenuous tone to these paragraphs. It needs to be abundantly clear that once released, GURTs, as has happened with all other modern varieties, will migrate into all production systems, voluntarily and involuntarily. Certain aspects of this will be similar, we agree, to the spread of Green Revolution varieties. Their impacts could be more devastating than the Green Revolution in terms of concentration of ownership and power and widening the poverty gap. But we would disagree that there would be yield improvements - this is an assertion, which is unsubstantiated. These paragraphs should emphasise that the purpose of GURTs is to restrict access and use by farmers and to increase the power and control of industry.

Paras 37-57. This long section of the paper could be summarised more succinctly under a number of bullet points. GURTs are designed to shift resources and power to industry and away from farmers and will:

• Skew agricultural research and development priorities
• Reduce choice
• Reduce competitiveness
• Increase seed purchase and seed replacement rates
• Provide biological alternatives to IPR and PVP systems
• Reduce Farmers' Rights

and therefore the technology should be subject to ordre public exemption from patentability under Article 27.2 of WTO/TRIPs.

The way these paragraphs are written provides too much credibility of the potential uses of these technologies. They do not give sufficient description to alternative approaches to providing multiple traits within varieties - such as the use of semi-finished varieties. And it does not highlight the difficulties that GURTs will have to comply with seed regulations - as they are inherently unstable varieties that will not, in the case of V-GURTs, breed true.

In terms of regulation the FAO Code of Conduct on Biotechnology provides one route. But strengthened Biosafety legislation including liability and redress, use of TRIPs Article 27.2 and improved labelling of GM products would be more effective.

Government delegations to the CGRFA should be advised that this technology could also be referred to higher authorities such as the UN Human Rights Commission.

Para 58. These conclusions reflect the weaknesses of the main text and the comments above apply.

Para 59. We recommend that the first sentence be deleted and the second strengthened with reference to a range of technologies that could be more useful, IPM, apomixis, PPB and so on.

There is no place for this technology and certainly no place for any "step-by-step and case-by-case approach" to assessment. Civil society would expect responsible governments to recommend and enforce a total ban on the research, development, testing, use and export of GURTs.

In the words of the Kenyan delegation at COP V in Nairobi "Why is there any question that it should be banned - what are we waiting for? It will be the same bad technology in two years' time. Why don't we just ban it now."

Patrick Mulvany

ITDG delegate

Observer to the intergovernmental Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

ITDG, Shumacher Centre

Bourton, Rugby, UK

Patrick_Mulvany@CompuServe.com