CBDC NETWORK

Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Network 

Statement of the CBDC Network on TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY,

COP9, Bonn, Germany, 19 – 30 May 2008

 

 

 

About the CBDC

The Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) Network is a global imitative of partners in Africa (Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Mali, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Zimbabwe), Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela,) and South East Asia (Bhutan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) and a number of North-based organizations and institutions. Since its inception in 1994, the CBDC Network seeks to promote and strengthen farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity at the community level.

 

The CBDC Network supports community efforts to utilize agro-biodiversity in a sustainable manner within local knowledge systems in order to enhance food security and sovereignty, for resource poor farmers. The network promotes the restoration and enhancement of agro biodiversity, farmers’ involvement in plant breeding and varietal selection, seed production, conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Over the years, the CBDC Network has generated rich experiences, and made impacts as a result of its broad partnerships with organizations, institutions and farmers from diverse backgrounds. The network has also developed scientific, technical and policy guidelines for promoting and strengthening farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro biodiversity

 

Terminator Technology and Agrobiodiversity

 

The CBDC Network promotes, emphasizes and highlights the central role and the important continuing contributions of small-holder farmers in agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use while ensuring food production for humanity. The Network considers that attempts to undermine farmers’ rights and their continued contribution to conserve and sustainably utilize agriculture biodiversity will not only limit innovation in agriculture but also seriously impair food security and food sovereignty.

 

The loss of traditional practices of conserving agrobiodiversity will lead to genetic erosion, undermine the resilience of farming communities, and reduce the ability of agricultural crops to adapt to adverse environmental and climatic changes caused by global warming. More than 1.3 billion rural people who rely on farm-saved seeds face the threat of loss of livelihoods and increased poverty. The actual economic contributions of farmers' seed systems to local and national economies will be effectively lost as a result thereby threatening global food security.

 

It is in this regard that the CBDC Network views Terminator Technology as inimical to realization of farmers’ rights in particular and sustainable conservation of agrobiodiversity in general. Terminator technology restricts farmers’ rights to save, re-use and improve seeds, a traditional practice among farmers responsible for the great diversity of crops and varieties that feed humanity. The adoption of terminator technology would threaten the very existence of the indigenous peoples and farmers that depend on agrobiodiversity for their livelihoods. These technologies will further drive developing countries towards dependence on multinational corporations from the north and further widen existing trade imbalances between the north and the south. Existing free trade agreements have already undermined the sovereignty of developing countries. With biodiversity indigenous people and small scale farmers have autonomy over their systems of production which enables them to cope with impacts of climate change and other challenges. These technologies will further limit the policy space for developing countries to determine their own development paths.

 

 

The CBDC Network therefore urges COP9 that:

 

1. Member states should take concrete steps to implement farmers rights not only in the context of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRA) but also, integrating the vision of the farmers rights that is part of the daily struggle of indigenous and local communities in relation to their territory, water, seeds, land, culture, local production systems and economy through initiatives in conserving crops and varieties, local seed production and marketing, community seed exchanges, farmers' plant breeding, among others. This is essential for farmers to continue their in situ work on conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.

 

2.     Member states must recognize and promote the efforts of small scale farmers and farming communities in addressing and adapting to climate change through farming practices that are significantly contributing to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. We urge member states to document, disseminate and share these best practices as a community response to climate change instead of using technologies such as geo-engineering, synthetic biology, genetically modified organisms, development of ‘climate-ready crops’ that are not sustainable at local levels.

 

3. We ask the COP9 to encourage a stronger collaboration with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to invite research efforts that highlight and involve local community adaptation mechanisms and measures, which can be included in mainstreaming adaptive management systems for climate change.

 

4. We strongly urge member states to ban the promotion and commercialization of terminator technology as it has no real tangible benefits but has several disadvantages including undermining food security and sustainable livelihoods.

 

 

 

CBDC NETWORK PARTNERS

• Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), Zimbabwe
• Community Biodiversity Action Network (CBAN), Sierra Leone
• USC- Mali, Mali
• Institut De L’Environment Et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Burkina Faso
• Cathelo Moho Association, Lesotho
• Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA), Ethiopia
• Harvest Help and Find Your Feet, Malawi
• Centre for Environmental Policy & Advocacy (CEPA), Malawi
• Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), Philippines
• Joko Learning Centre, Hug Muang Nan Network, Thailand
• Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Cantho University, Vietnam    
• Biodiversity Use and Conservation in Asia Program (BUCAP) Vietnam
• BUCAP Bhutan  
• BUCAP Lao PDR
• Instituto Mayor Campesino (IMCA), Colombia
• Centro de Education y Technologia para el Desarollo del Sur (CET SUR), Chile
• Assesoria e Servico a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA), Brazil
• Centro de Investigacion Educacion y Desarrollo (CIED), Peru
• Programa Campesino y Campesino, Union Nacional de Agricultores y Gandaderos (PCaC, UNAG), Nicaragua
• Associacion National de Agricultores Pequenos (ANAP), Cuba  
• Accion por la Biodiversidad, Argentina  
• Instituto para la Produccion e Investigacion de la Agricultura Tropical (IPIAT), Venezuela
• Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), Canada

 

 

 

 

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

 

 

 

Community Biodiversity Development Conservation Network

 

 Statement of the CBDC Network on AGROFUELS,

COP9, Bonn, Germany, 19 – 30 May 2008

 

About CBDC

The Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) Network is a global imitative of partners in Africa (Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Mali, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Zimbabwe), Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela,) and South East Asia (Bhutan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) and a number of North-based organizations and institutions. Since its inception in 1994, the CBDC Network seeks to promote and strengthen farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity at the community level.

 

The CBDC Network supports community efforts to utilize agro-biodiversity in a sustainable manner within local knowledge systems in order to enhance food security and sovereignty, for resource poor farmers. The network promotes the restoration and enhancement of agro biodiversity, farmers’ involvement in plant breeding and varietal selection, seed production, conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Over the years, the CBDC Network has generated rich experiences, and made impacts as a result of its broad partnerships with organizations, institutions and farmers from diverse backgrounds. The network has also developed scientific, technical and policy guidelines for promoting and strengthening farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro biodiversity

 

 

Agrofuels, Climate Change and Biological Diversity

According to the IPCC 2007 report, climate change will hit Africa the hardest. Developing countries are the most vulnerable climate change due to entrenched poverty levels. Yet these countries have contributed the least to global warming; Africa accounting for only about 3%. Developing countries also happen to rely on their biodiversity more than the developed countries, considering that the basis of their livelihoods is biodiversity both in its wild and domesticated form.

 

In particular agriculture, which is the mainstay of developing economies, is dependent on biodiversity as the supporting ecosystem but also agrobiodiversity as the source of seed and animal breeds. These are affected by climate change in various ways including by reducing land areas suitable for agriculture and its adverse effects on gene pools, genetic resources in terms of hardening, germination, pests and diseases; seed variability; and geographical distribution and survival of wild food crops.

 

The CBDC Network notes with concern that climate change will increase community and biodiversity vulnerability: local communities resort to unsustainable utilization of biodiversity leading to resource degradation. As such degradation increases so do climate impacts worsen leading to increased poverty levels and hence more degradation. These vicious circles need a more robust policy response that address the root causes of degradation while ensuring that livelihoods are sustainable to enable local communities better respond to climate impacts

 

The CBDC Network therefore considers proposals to introduce agrofuels and genetically engineered trees as a mechanism to maintain. the unsustainable consumption of global resources by a few countries at the expense of the majority of the world population. In this respect:

 

1.     The CBDC Network notes with deep concern the grave implications of agrofuels on agricultural biodiversity – the consequent loss of plant genetic resources diversity resulting from monoculture agrofuels plantations; the competition over land resources intended for food production and livelihood systems of farming communities dependent on agricultural biodiversity. Unfortunately this is being promoted at a crucial time when the global food crisis is threatening food security.

 

2.     We particularly question the appropriateness and adaptability of specific agrofuels crops being promoted as a plantation crop in farming communities particularly in developing countries and the wisdom of using food crops as sources of fuel when food security is under increasing pressure. 

 

3.     We note with concern that developing countries are targeted as sites for multinational agrofuels plantations which will undermine the productive capacity of small scale farmers, especially women who are the backbone of food security in these countries. The push for cash will further undermine family resources needed for food security. It is unrealistic for parties to expect small scale farmers in the developing world to attain food security from the market.

 

In view of the foregoing:

 

a.     The CBDC Network recommends that parties must take a precautionary approach before adopting large-scale agrofuels plantations, that will compromise food security, food safety, health and the agricultural biodiversity on which farming communities depend for their livelihoods.

 

b.     We urge parties to prioritize food security and food sovereignty. In this regard we urge all parties especially in the developing world to undertake socio-economic and environmental impact assessments before commissioning agro-fuels plantations. In this respect we urge parties to declare a full moratorium on agrofuels until assessments provide assurance that they will not undermine food security.

 

c.     We call for careful evaluation of the impact that agrofuels plantations will have on access to land and inputs including labour on small scale farmers. There will be need for awareness among small scale farmers of the impact of these plantations on their farming systems in general;

 

 

4.     The CBDC Network urges parties to develop a more robust policy response to the threat of climate change rather than the current reactive endeavours intended to deal with the symptoms instead of the real causes of the problems of vulnerability. In this regard developing countries need to undertake action oriented research to promote crop and animal diversity, appropriate technologies for local communities and sustainable management practices for adaptation. In addition, parties must develop alternative energy sources that do not undermine food security and food sovereignty.

 

5.     We further urge parties to develop proactive policy frameworks to deal with disaster response that take into account sustainable conservation and management of biodiversity. In this respect we urge parties to ensure mainstreaming climate adaptation actions and mitigation into the overall development planning and management processes including biodiversity conservation and management so as to enhance systems for resilience and coping mechanisms that use local knowledge and conditions.

 

6.     The CBDC Network further notes with concern that the single goal of agrofuels is profit for multinational corporations from the developed world. There is no evidence that these agrofuels are cleaner or their demonstrable impact on climate change. The developing world should therefore desist from taking global solutions intended to maximize the profits of the developed world and thereby enable them continue ‘business as usual’. The climate crisis requires that all parties must take unusual steps including change in our lifestyles in order to address its impacts. In this regard a full moratorium against agrofuels must be declared by the COP9.

 

CBDC NETWORK PARTNERS

• Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), Zimbabwe
• Community Biodiversity Action Network (CBAN), Sierra Leone
• USC- Mali, Mali
• Institut De L’Environment Et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Burkina Faso
• Cathelo Moho Association, Lesotho
• Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA), Ethiopia
• Harvest Help and Find Your Feet, Malawi
• Centre for Environmental Policy & Advocacy (CEPA), Malawi
• SEARICE, Philippines
• Joko Learning Centre, Hug Muang Nan Network, Thailand
• Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Cantho University, Vietnam    
• BUCAP Vietnam
• BUCAP Bhutan  
• BUCAP Lao PDR
• Instituto Mayor Campesino (IMCA), Colombia
• Centro de Education y Technologia para el Desarollo del Sur (CET SUR), Chile
• Assesoria e Servico a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA), Brazil
• Centro de Investigacion Educacion y Desarrollo (CIED), Peru
• Programa Campesino y Campesino, Union Nacional de Agricultores y Gandaderos (PCaC, UNAG), Nicaragua
• Associacion National de Agricultores Pequenos (ANAP), Cuba  
• Accion por la Biodiversidad, Argentina  
• Instituto para la Produccion e Investigacion de la Agricultura Tropical (IPIAT), Venezuela
• Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), Canada

 

 

 

 

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

 

 

 

Community Biodiversity Development Conservation Network

  Statement of the CBDC Network on the occasion of the

9^th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Bonn, Germany, 19 – 30 May 2008

 

About CBDC

The Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) Network is a global imitative of partners in Africa (Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Mali, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Zimbabwe), Latin America (Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela,) and South East Asia (Bhutan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) and a number of North-based organizations and institutions. Since its inception in 1994, the CBDC Network seeks to promote and strengthen farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity at the community level.

 

The CBDC Network supports community efforts to utilize agro-biodiversity in a sustainable manner within local knowledge systems in order to enhance food security and sovereignty, for resource poor farmers. The network promotes the restoration and enhancement of agro biodiversity, farmers’ involvement in plant breeding and varietal selection, seed production, conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Over the years, the CBDC Network has generated rich experiences, and made impacts as a result of its broad partnerships with organizations, institutions and farmers from diverse backgrounds. The network has also developed scientific, technical and policy guidelines for promoting and strengthening farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro biodiversity

 

Agrobiodiversity

Farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples have been dependent and reliant on diverse agricultural resources in their environment, which they continue to maintain, for their food, medicine, clothing, shelter and livelihood system. This dynamic and crucial role of adaptation by farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples is significant in creating resilience to withstand impacts of climate change. The CBDC has various examples of these in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Through community plant breeding and selection using traditional varieties farmers have developed crop varieties that are resistant to pests and diseases, drought tolerant, resistance to lodging and flood-prone conditions, and are adapted to soils in marginal conditions. 

 

We urge member states promote the efforts of the local communities practicing agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use such as community plant breeding, sustainable agriculture and organic farming as models in the application of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity to Agrobiodiversity, specifically on plant genetic conservation, development and use, and that support is needed for such models to be documented, and shared to other communities as well.

 

Agrofuels

The CBDC Network notes with deep concern the grave implications of agrofuels on agricultural biodiversity – the consequent loss of plant genetic resources diversity resulting from monoculture agrofuels plantations; the competition over land resources intended for food production and livelihood systems of farming communities dependent on agricultural biodiversity. Unfortunately this is being promoted at a crucial time when the global food crisis is threatening food security.

 

We particularly question the appropriateness and adaptability of specific agrofuels crops being promoted as a plantation crop in farming communities particularly in developing countries and the wisdom of using food crops as sources of fuel when food security is under increasing pressure. 

 

The CBDC Network recommends that parties must take a precautionary approach before adopting large-scale agrofuels plantations, that will compromise food security, food safety, health and the agricultural biodiversity on which farming communities depend for their livelihoods.

 

We urge parties to prioritize food security and food sovereignty. In this regard we urge all parties especially in the developing world to undertake socio-economic and environmental impact assessments before commissioning agro-fuels plantations. In this respect we urge parties to declare a full moratorium on agrofuels until assessments provide assurance that they will not undermine food security.

 

Terminator and other genetic engineering technologies

The loss of traditional practices of conserving agrobiodiversity will lead to genetic erosion, undermine the resilience of farming communities, and reduce the ability of agricultural crops to adapt to adverse environmental and climatic changes caused by global warming. More than 1.3 billion rural people who rely on farm-saved seeds face the threat of loss of livelihoods and increased poverty. The actual economic contributions of farmers' seed systems to local and national economies will be effectively lost as a result thereby threatening global food security.

 

It is in this regard that the CBDC Network views Terminator Technology as inimical to realization of farmers rights in particular and sustainable conservation of agrobiodiversity in general. Terminator technology restricts farmers rights to save, re-use and improve seeds, a traditional practice among farmers responsible for the great diversity of crops and varieties that feed humanity. The adoption of terminator technology would threaten the very existence of the indigenous peoples and farmers that depend on agrobiodiversity for their livelihoods.

 

These technologies will further drive developing countries towards dependence on multinational corporations from the north and further widen existing  trade imbalances between the north and the south. Existing free trade agreements have already undermined the sovereignty of developing countries. With biodiversity indigenous people and small scale farmers have autonomy over their systems of production which enables them to cope with impacts of climate change and other challenges. These technologies will further limit the policy space for developing countries to determine their own development paths.

 

CBDC NETWORK PARTNERS

• Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), Zimbabwe
• Community Biodiversity Action Network (CBAN), Sierra Leone
• USC- Mali, Mali
• Institut De L’Environment Et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Burkina Faso
• Cathelo Moho Association, Lesotho
• Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA), Ethiopia
• Harvest Help and Find Your Feet, Malawi
• Centre for Environmental Policy & Advocacy (CEPA), Malawi
• Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), Philippines
• Joko Learning Centre, Hug Muang Nan Network, Thailand
• Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Cantho University, Vietnam    
• Biodiversity Use and Conservation in Asia Program (BUCAP) Vietnam
• BUCAP Bhutan  
• BUCAP Lao PDR
• Instituto Mayor Campesino (IMCA), Colombia
• Centro de Education y Technologia para el Desarollo del Sur (CET SUR), Chile
• Assesoria e Servico a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA), Brazil
• Centro de Investigacion Educacion y Desarrollo (CIED), Peru
• Programa Campesino y Campesino, Union Nacional de Agricultores y Gandaderos (PCaC, UNAG), Nicaragua
• Associacion National de Agricultores Pequenos (ANAP), Cuba  
• Accion por la Biodiversidad, Argentina  
• Instituto para la Produccion e Investigacion de la Agricultura Tropical (IPIAT), Venezuela
• Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), Canada

 

Statement of the CBDC Network concerning GURTS
at the 13th SBSTTA in Rome, Italy (18 – 22 Feb. 2008)

For millenia, farmers and communities have conserved, utilized and developed agricultural biodiversity to secure the food needs of local communities and the world. The central role of farmers in agro-biodiversity conservation and sustainable use is based on their customary rights to save, share, exchange and improve genetic resources. As CBDC Network, farmers and communities in Asia, Africa and Latin America are operationalizing Farmers' Rights through initiatives in conserving crops and varieties, local seed production and marketing, community seed exchanges, farmers' plant breeding, among others. These efforts are contributing not only to genetic and biological diversity but to enhancing economic security in agriculture.

Consider the following statistics: In An Giang, a province in Vietnam, farmers' seeds production involving about 100 farmers' seed clubs was valued by the province's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at US$1.4M in 2006 alone. In the Mekong Delta, a local academic research institution estimated the “social profit” contributed by CBDC-BUCAP farmers in the local seeds systems at US$2.6M. The contribution of farmers' seeds systems in Vietnam is such that the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) is in the process of developing a national policy to support on-farm conservation and sustainable use done by farmers.

From 1993 – 2005 (15 years) Lao's National Agriculture Research Centre released 17 glutinous rice varieties nationally. In contrast, farmers of CBDC-BUCAP Network in Lao PDR produced from 2000 to 2006 (6 years) in only five provinces, 86 farmer vareiteis through participatory plant breeding and selection. From 1994 – 2004 (10 years), the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRICE) released 55 inbred lines nationally. In contrast, from 1998 – 2006 (8 years) farmers in one province alone produced 161 farmer varieties/populations from their own crosses utilizing traditional varieties.

However, these efforts, along with many other initiatives strengthening local agro-biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, are seriously threatened by GURTS or Terminator Technologies, which are designed to produce only sterile seeds. With Terminator Technology, farmers are unable to save, re-use and improve seeds, a traditional practice among farmers responsible for the great diversity of crops and varieties that feed humanity. The loss of this traditional practice would lead to genetic erosion, undermine the resilience of farming communities, and lessen the ability of agro-biodiversity to adapt to adverse environmental and climatic changes as caused by global warming. More than 1.3 billion rural people who rely on farm-saved seeds face grim prospects of loss of livelihood and increased poverty. The actual economic contributions of farmers' seed systems to local and national economies as cited above will be effectively lost as a result. Global food security would be endangered.

We therefore view with great concern the continuing development of GURTS or Terminator Technology by seed companies and the reported ongoing lobby by industry for the lifting of the de facto moratorium on GURTS earlier adopted by COP. We stand by the decision during the Eighth Conference of the Parties of the CBD that reaffirmed the de facto moratorium on further research and development of GURTS. We find the 13th SBSTTA an opportunity to reiterate our opposition to GURTS, in consonance with the voices of CSOs, farmers' and indigenous people's groups, and to call on Parties to remain firm behind the GURTS moratorium of the COP-CBD and for them to resist any efforts by lobby groups to overturn said moratorium.


CBDC NETWORK
• Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), Zimbabwe
• Community Biodiversity Action Network (CBAN), Sierra Leone
• USC- Mali, Mali
• Institut De L’Environment Et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Burkina Faso
• Cathelo Moho Association, Lesotho
• Biodiversity Conservation Network, Zambia
• Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA), Ethiopia
• Harvest Help and Find Your Feet, Malawi
• Centre for Environmental Policy & Advocacy (CEPA), Malawi
• SEARICE, Philippines
• Joko Learning Centre, Hug Muang Nan Network, Thailand
• Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Cantho University, Vietnam
• BUCAP Vietnam
• BUCAP Bhutan
• BUCAP Lao PDR
• Instituto Mayor Campesino (IMCA), Colombia
• Centro de Education y Technologia para el Desarollo del Sur (CET SUR), Chile
• Assesoria e Servico a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA), Brazil
• Centro de Investigacion Educacion y Desarrollo (CIED), Peru
• Programa Campesino y Campesino, Union Nacional de Agricultores y Gandaderos (PCaC, UNAG), Nicaragua
• Associacion National de Agricultores Pequenos (ANAP), Cuba
• Accion por la Biodiversidad, Argentina
• Instituto para la Produccion e Investigacion de la Agricultura Tropical (IPIAT), Venezuela
• Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), Canada

Statement of the CBDC Network on Agricultural Biodiversity
13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
18 February – 22 February, 2008, Rome, Italy

The Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) Network is a global initiative of partners in Africa (Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Mali, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Zimbabwe), Latin America (Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela,) and South East Asia (Bhutan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) and a number of North-based organizations and institutions. Since its inception in 1994, the CBDC Network has emphasized the central role of farmers in agricultural biodiversity conservation by promoting and strengthening farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity both at the field/practical level and in local and national policy actions.

CBDC Network in Latin America works on the restoration and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity thru agro-ecological practices, building on local knowledge systems. In Africa, CBDC Network was successful in strengthening local seed systems to a point where farmer produced seeds are demanded not just within the community but by farmers in adjacent countries. In Southeast Asia, farmer plant breeding is gaining ground as a parallel plant breeding strategy given the evidences from the field. In the Philippines, the Philippine Rice Research Institute released 55 rice varieties for national use within the period of 10 years, In contrast, 27 farmers in Bohol, Philippines developed 86 farmer varieties/populations of mostly red rice in marginal areas (which is not a priority of the national plant breeding system. These 86 varieties/new populations were developed only in 8 years time. In Lao PDR, Vietnam, Bhutan, Thailand and the Philippines the local and national governments have started to look at policies and develop programs to support on-farm conservation.

The CBDC network therefore appreciates the efforts of the international community to promote the development and conservation of biodiversity in relation to food and agriculture under the Convention on Biological Diversity. We highlight and emphasize, however, the following observations and recommendations on the implementation of the Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity that the parties attending the 13th meeting of the SBSTTA should significantly consider and recommend to the 9th Conference of the Parties:

1. The CBDC network appreciates the continued efforts and initiatives under the Convention on Biological Diversity, through collaborations and cooperations with other intergovernmental organizations, in implementing a work programme that highlights the importance of biodiversity relevant to food and agriculture. There is a persistent need for this strengthened collaborated effort in reconnecting the link and relationship between agriculture and environmental sectors, especially through strengthening linkages and exchanges between developing countries which are essential for capacity building.

Agriculture should be viewed as part of an overall and holistic system that encompasses different environments and biodiversity, hence, the need for the 9th Conference of the Parties to take a more active role in addressing issues and concerns on, and trends in, agriculture that have considerable effect and impact on biodiversity in general, and agro-biodiversity in particular, with clear and strong coordination with relevant intergovernmental organizations, and active involvement from farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples.

2. We observe that CBD Document No. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/2 on the In-depth Review of the Implementation of the Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity has unequivocally noted agriculture as a major driver of biodiversity loss without any distinction and clarification. Agriculture has been in existence, playing a significant role in sustaining local farming communities and indigenous peoples for many generations. It can be observed that these local farming communities and indigenous peoples have for centuries maintained a balance between food production and biodiversity conservation and development.

The parties present in the 13th Meeting of the SBSTTA should clarify and distinguish that it is not agriculture per se that drives biodiversity loss, but mechanisms and practices under the present industrial framework in agriculture that are the major drivers for loss in biological diversity.

3. We observe the recommendation for Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to strengthen dialogue with farmers in the implementation of the programme of work on biodiversity under Document No. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/2. The recommendation however fails to take concrete steps and mechanisms to actively involve farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples, in recognition of their central role in conserving and maintaining agrobiodiversity.

The Conference of the Parties should be advised to take concrete and permanent steps in implementing Farmers' Rights under the International Treaty as it may relate to agrobiodiversity and its conservation and sustainable use, and to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Farmers' Rights is essential for farmers to continue their in situ work on conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity. Ensuring participation of farmers in all processes in the implementation of the programme of work on agrobiodiversity is necessary and should be included and ensured.

4. Farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples have been dependent and reliant on diverse agricultural resources in their environment, which they continue to maintain, for their food, medicine, clothing, shelter and livelihood system. This dynamic role for adaptation by farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples is significant in terms of creating resiliency in withstanding impacts of climate change.

The Conference of the Parties should be advised to engage issues and concerns on agro-biodiversity in relation to farmers', local communities' and indigenous peoples' resiliency and capacity to in situ conserve, adapt and enhance agrobiodiversity vis-a-vis direct impacts of climate change. In addition, the Conference of the Parties, in line with a stronger collaboration with the United Nations Framework Convention on Colimate Change, should be encouraged to invite researches highlighting and involving local communities adaptation mechanisms and measures, which can be assessed and included in mainstreaming adapative management systems for climate change.

5. Trade practices through multilateral or bilateral investment and trade deals are also a major driver for biodiversity changes and agricultural systems in developing countries. Based on the present trade and market system that provides incentives on monopolies, single-crop concentration and productivity, extractive fisheries, intensive livestock production on limited species or varieties, agro-fuels production, protection of uniform plant varieties, among others, appreciation of maintaining and enhancing agro-biodiversity is significantly affected, as diversification is sidestepped to favor production-oriented industrial system on agriculture.

The Conference of the Parties should be advised to establish concrete and specific mechanisms and frameworks that can provide important considerations for compliance and guidance in current trade practices that continue to diminish and erode present agro-biodiversity.

CBDC NETWORK

• Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), Zimbabwe
• Community Biodiversity Action Network (CBAN), Sierra Leone
• USC- Mali, Mali
• Institut De L’Environment Et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Burkina Faso
• Cathelo Moho Association, Lesotho
• Biodiversity Conservation Network, Zambia
• Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA), Ethiopia
• Harvest Help and Find Your Feet, Malawi
• Centre for Environmental Policy & Advocacy (CEPA), Malawi
• SEARICE, Philippines
• Joko Learning Centre, Hug Muang Nan Network, Thailand
• Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Cantho University, Vietnam
• BUCAP Vietnam
• BUCAP Bhutan
• BUCAP Lao PDR
• Instituto Mayor Campesino (IMCA), Colombia
• Centro de Education y Technologia para el Desarollo del Sur (CET SUR), Chile
• Assesoria e Servico a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA), Brazil
• Centro de Investigacion Educacion y Desarrollo (CIED), Peru
• Programa Campesino y Campesino, Union Nacional de Agricultores y Gandaderos (PCaC, UNAG), Nicaragua
• Associacion National de Agricultores Pequenos (ANAP), Cuba
• Accion por la Biodiversidad, Argentina
• Instituto para la Produccion e Investigacion de la Agricultura Tropical (IPIAT), Venezuela
• Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), Canada

On November 1, 2007 the plenary discussed the proposed Resolution by G77+ China on Farmers' Rights (for details check www.searicepgr.multiply.com), this draft resolution was adopted at the 2nd Session of the Governing Body of the ITPGRFA on 2 November 2007, as follows:

 

Resolution …/2007 on Farmers’ Rights

THE GOVERNING BODY,

 

Recalling the recognition in the International Treaty of the enormous contribution that local and indigenous communities and farmers of all regions of the world have made, and will continue to make, for the conservation and development of plant genetic resources as the basis of food and agriculture production throughout the world;

 

Recalling the importance of fully implementing Article 9 of the International Treaty;

 

Recalling also that according to Article 9 of the International Treaty, the responsibility for realizing Farmer’ Rights, as they relate to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, rests with national governments;

 

Acknowledging that there is uncertainty in many countries as to how Farmers’ Rights can be implemented and that the challenges related to the realization of Farmers’ Rights are likely to vary from country to country;

 

Recognizing that exchange of experiences and mutual assistance between Contracting Parties can significantly contribute in making progress in the implementation of the provisions on Farmers’ Rights in the International Treaty;

 

Recognizing the contribution the Governing Body may give in support of the implementation of Farmers’ Rights;

 

Encourages Contracting Parties and other relevant organizations to submit views and experiences on the implementation of Farmers’ Rights as set out in Article 9 of the International Treaty, involving, as appropriate farmers’ organizations and other stakeholders;

 

Request the Secretariat to collect these views and experiences as a basis for an agenda item for consideration by the Governing Body at its Third Session to promote the realization of Farmers’ Rights at the national level, and to disseminate relevant information through the website of the International Treaty, where appropriate;

 

Appreciates the involvement of farmers’ organizations at this Second Session and affirms its commitment to continue to involve farmers’ organizations in its further work, as appropriate, according to the Rules of Procedures established by the Governing Body.

 

While the resolution falls short of what CBDC Network asked for, the discussion in the plenary settled that the Governing Body can actually develop guidelines to assist Contracting Parties to implement Farmers' Rights, although the implementation rests at national level. Also, the discussion on Farmers' Rights shall continue with call for national reports, until the 3rd Governing Body Meeting in early 2009 in Tunisia as indicated in the resolution. However, no associated funding mechanism was put forth towards this end. 

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin provided a good summary of the discussions on Farmers' Rights as follows (http://www.iisd.ca/vol09/enb09410e.html)

FARMERS’ RIGHTS

Delegates discussed implementation of Article 9 (Farmers’ rights) in plenary on Wednesday and Thursday on the basis of an information document (IP/GB-2/07/Inf.6) and Norway’s input paper on the realization of farmers’ rights (IP/GB-2/07/Circ.1). Discussions focused on a draft resolution presented by Angola, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China). Following informal negotiations, a resolution was then approved by the plenary on Thursday evening.

Norway explained that its input paper contained proposals made during informal international consultations held in Zambia in September 2007, including on: sharing experiences in national implementation; developing international guidelines for implementing farmers’ rights; and establishing an ad hoc working group to develop these guidelines. The North American Group, the EU and the Southwest Pacific supported sharing of experiences but opposed developing international guidelines, noting that implementing farmers’ rights is a national responsibility. GRULAC said international cooperation is a basic requirement for implementing farmers’ rights in accordance with national legislation.

Many NGOs advocated strongly for recognition and protection of farmers’ rights. Practical Action welcomed the proposal by the G-77/China for the Secretary to compile views and experiences on implementing farmers’ rights. The Community Biodiversity Conservation and Development Network expressed concern that the Treaty facilitates access for users, but fails to provide policy and legal support for farmers to continue traditional practices that are essential for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. A representative of farmers’ organizations said that farmers contribute to conservation and sustainable use, but receive no financial support through the Treaty, and added that a Treaty that facilitates access without protecting farmers’ rights to reproduce and exchange seeds, only promotes biopiracy. The Asia Pacific Indigenous Youth Network drew attention to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and urged for the Treaty not to become a tool for further exploitation of indigenous peoples. The Centre for Sustainable Development called on governments to continue supporting the full implementation of farmers’ rights.

The G-77/China’s draft resolution, inter alia, requested the Secretary to compile parties’ views and experiences on implementation of farmers’ rights for GB-3 consideration, and encouraged parties to involve farmers’ organizations in the preparation of their reports. The Southwest Pacific raised concerns about using the Secretariat’s limited resources on activities to implement farmers’ rights, which she said is not a core function of the Treaty. Brazil said all countries must ensure the balanced co-existence of formal and informal seed systems and that the Governing Body may consider ways to support national implementation.

Delegates debated text stating that farmers’ rights are about recognizing and rewarding farmers’ contributions to the global PGRFA pool. Asserting inconsistency with Article 9, Canada suggested stating that farmers’ rights are about “encouraging parties to enable farmers to equitably participate in sharing the benefits from their contribution.” Upon a suggestion by Brazil, delegates agreed to merely recall the importance to fully implement Article 9. The EU said that according to Article 9, the responsibility for realizing farmers’ rights rests with national governments.

At the request of Canada and the EU, delegates deleted a reference to acknowledging “constraints” to implementing farmers’ rights in many countries. A reference to “uncertainty” as to how farmers’ rights can be implemented was retained. Canada, opposed by Cuba, also called for deleting text “recognizing that guidance and assistance from the Governing Body” is required to make progress in implementing farmers’ rights. Canada, supported by Brazil and Angola, proposed an amendment encouraging parties and other relevant organizations to prepare reports on their experiences in implementing farmers’ rights, to be compiled by the Secretariat and presented at GB-3 to promote realization of farmers’ rights at the national level. The EU suggested that the Treaty website be used for collecting and publicly disseminating the information, rather than a paper-based reporting system. Brazil, supported by Cuba, said that dissemination should occur after the Governing Body has reviewed the product.

Following informal consultations, the G-77/China presented a revised draft resolution, which was adopted without further amendment.

Final Outcome: In the report (IT/GB-2/07/Draft Report), the Governing Body adopts a resolution on farmers’ rights. In the preambular text of the resolution, the Governing Body, inter alia:

• recalls the contribution made by farmers and local and indigenous communities for the conservation and development of PGRFA;

• recalls that responsibility for realizing farmers’ rights related to PGRFA rests with national governments;

• acknowledges “uncertainty” in many countries as to how farmers’ rights can be implemented; and

• recognizes that exchange of experiences and mutual assistance between parties can contribute to progress in implementing farmers’ rights.

In the operative text of the resolution, the Governing Body:

• encourages parties and other relevant organizations to submit views and experiences on the implementation of farmers’ rights as set out in Article 9 of the Treaty, involving, as appropriate, farmers’ organizations and other stakeholders;

• requests the Secretariat to collect these views and experiences for consideration at GB-3, to promote the realization of farmers’ rights at the national level, and to disseminate relevant information through the Treaty website, where appropriate; and

• commits to continue involving farmers’ organizations in its work.

 

For immediate release – endorsed by the civil society and farmers’ organizations present at FAO

Thursday, 1 November, 2007

 

Farmers Call for Suspension of Seed Treaty

Governments fail to meet minimal Treaty obligations 

UN conference told

 

Farmers’ organizations who were invited to attend a United Nations meeting on the Treaty that governs the exchange of crop seeds for research and plant breeding late yesterday told the assembled governments that the Treaty would have to be suspended. Speaking on behalf of 30 farmers’ and other civil society organizations, Ibrahima Coulibaly of  ROPPA (regional farmers’ organization of West Africa) said that, “the Treaty, hosted in Rome by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), must halt the exchange of crop germplasm – the critical material for plant breeding. The suspension should remain in effect until governments meet the minimal obligations of the Treaty including its core financial arrangements”, the African farmer leader concluded.

 

The second meeting of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture ("the Law of the Seed") began on Monday and is expected to run through Friday but has been blocked -- indeed, almost completely silent -- because it's 115 member governments have been unable to find the $4.9 million necessary to keep the lights on in its Secretariat and to maintain fundamental monitoring mechanisms that could ensure equitable sharing of the benefits of the seeds to be exchanged for research.  Governments have also failed to commit funding to support in situ (“on-farm”) seed conservation or for capacity building in the global South.

 

“We are faced with the greatest case of institutional biopiracy ever seen,” said Andrew Mushita of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Network (a network of conservation programs in 21 countries). “In effect, governments are now enabling multinational seed companies to impose a legally-binding regime that forces the exchange of farmers’ seeds without reciprocal benefits,” said Mushita who also addressed governments yesterday.

 

Another civil society representative in the meeting, Wilhelmina Pelegrina from a SEARICE, a Phillipines-based organization said, “We also expect the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to suspend its germplasm exchanges in order to remain compliant with the spirit of the Treaty."  Eleven institutes of the CGIAR have distributed 100,000 seed samples under the terms of the Treaty so far this year.  "We hope the suspension will be temporary and governments will come to their senses quickly”, said Pelegrina.

 

Negotiations for the Treaty began in the mid-1990s because scientific researchers and multinational plant breeders were experiencing a substantial decline in their access to vital breeding material. Scientists and farmers, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, were denying requests from northern breeders because private companies were taking farmers’ varieties, patenting and profiting from them. The decline in seed exchange was threatening world food security and governments decided to act. The Treaty – after seven years of acrimonious negotiations – includes provisions for Farmers’ Rights and is supposed to guarantee an equitable flow of financial benefits to developing countries. Without funding for core administrative services, farmers and developing countries can have no confidence that there is equity in the system. 

 

According to Pat Mooney of ETC Group headquartered in Canada, who also attended the meeting, "The global seed industry has annual commercial sales of $23 billion.  Beginning in the 1970s multinational pesticide enterprises began buying seed companies. Today,” Mooney said, “the top 10 seed companies have 57% of the commercial seed trade. Last year, a single company’s biotech seeds and traits – Monsanto’s – accounted for 86% of the total worldwide area devoted to genetically modified seeds.” These multinational gene giants are thought to be the major beneficiaries in the current Treaty dispute.

 

“It’s not all governments,” said Guy Kastler, Via Campesina/Europe “the real biopirates at this meeting are France, Germany and Australia. These governments are making it impossible for the international community to fulfill its Treaty obligations. Although their seed industries are major beneficiaries of the Treaty, these three countries haven't contributed a penny to the Treaty’s operations and they are actively blocking negotiations here.”

 

Farmers’ organizations – who are attending the meeting at FAO's invitation but at their own expense – sat stunned yesterday as governments refused to discuss the proposed program of work for the Treaty. Even the most contentious issues passed by without comment.  

 

Farmers undertake the overwhelming majority of the world’s seed conservation and plant breeding. This was confirmed Tuesday when the representative of UPOV, the Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (the Geneva-based intergovernmental body that oversees intellectual property related to plant varieties) reported that breeders had only “protected” 70,000 varieties in recent decades. Farmers breed and adapt more than one million varieties every year.

 

“If negotiations collapse at FAO,” said Maria Elza Gomez from a Brazilian small farmers’ organization, “the matter might move to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, whose scientific subcommittee will meet at FAO in Rome in February 2008.  Governments and FAO could lose control of the Treaty to a different UN body.  This would be a serious mistake: the control over seeds -- the first link in the food chain -- would be left with a bunch of environmentalists who know nothing about agriculture.”

 

 

 

The third day saw the continued discussions on compliance and funding strategy in the morning. The afternoon saw more fiery exchanges with the civil society organisations as sustainable use and farmers' rights were discussed.

 

Farmers who made the presentations in the CBDC organised side event, made an intervention on the floor called for a review of laws and policies in relation to the realization of Farmers' Rights to seeds. The following was the statement read:  

 

 

Thank you Mr.Chair.

I am Candido Baldapan, a farmer of a 2 hectare land planted to diverse rice, corn, vegetables, cassava and other crops. I am representing the Farmers' Consultative Council, a federation of 6 people's organizations from Bohol Philippines.  I am also speaking in behalf of the farmers from the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba who shared their experiences in a side event organized by the Community Biodiversity Development Conservation Network.

 

In Bohol, Philippines where I come from, our farmers' federation is involved in a lot of activities on conservation and sustainable use of seeds on our farm. We continually develop our seeds by selection, breeding, evaluation, seed keeping including work to improve our soil and manage pest. Our group, from 1996 to 2006 was able to develop 63 farmer varieties from off-type selections, 48 farmer varieties from our own breeding work and we are currently evaluating 17 segregating lines. In contrast, our national rice research institute was able to release only 55 inbred lines from 1994-2004.

 

In Lao PDR, farmers were able to develop about 99 varieties of sticky rice to add to their already diverse rice planted in their fields in 5 years. In Vietnam, there are more than 100 varieties developed by farmers in the Mekong Delta also in the last 5 years.

 

We continuously conserve our seeds by planting them every season and keeping them in our own homes or in community seedbanks. We have even asked a local agricultural college to give us the space to keep some of the seeds for replanting and free distribution. Whatever seeds left, we sell to finance our group and the maintenance of the local seedbanks.

 

My farmer friend from Zimbabwe, mentioned yesterday that they produce around 180 tons of different seeds, of good quality, but under the national legislation, they cannot sell these seeds through the formal market because they are not registered seed growers and their seed is not inspected by registered inspectors. How is this possible?

 

In Vietnam, one local government recognised the work of farmers in seed production and conservation and have valued farmers contribution to their province at US$1.2M in 2006. That is significant contribution, about ¼ of what the Treaty needs as Funds in order to operate. We farmers make this contribution, but how come the recognition of our work stops short in paper?    

 

In Brazil, a great number of local experiences of production and use of traditional seeds may become illegal if the government puts in practice its proposals to amend seed and plant variety protection acts.

 

In Malawi, my friend here asks if it is possible to be consulted in setting prices of produce, including seeds before the government decides on the price?

 

We came to this Governing Body Meeting with positive hope of finding active support to our work, but there is silence.

 

We have been trying our very best to follow and understand the discussions in this meeting but found that there was no mention on how our rights as farmers to save, use, exchange and sell seeds can be supported in the Funding Strategy. We have heard in this Meeting of the Multilateral System but it is difficult for us to understand how this Multilateral System can assist us farmers, nor the benefits we can receive from all those crops placed in the system.

 

We need to have Farmers' Rights realized and implemented now.

 

We farmers call on the governing body to:

1)       recognise our work on conservation and sustainable use by calling for our participation, we are facing a number of challenges on seed laws and policies.  We call on the Governing Body to review the national laws, to guarantee free use of seeds and trade policies in relation to Farmers’ Rights.

2)       to encourage parties for concrete, tangible support to on-farm conservation and farmers’ work in breeding and sustainable agriculture.

 

Our rights to seeds is important for us. It gives us the food we eat. It gives us our livelihoods. Our rights to seeds also needs that we are provided with other rights – to land, to water, to culture, to knowledge, to information, to be free of genetically modified organisms, to participation and decision-making. It is our right to life. The realization of Farmers Rights starts here, right now in this Governing Body meeting.

 

Salamat po.

 

During the deliberations on Farmers' Rights, the tension was with regional groups opposing discussions on setting guidelines for Farmers' Rights implementation, as the realization of Farmers' Rights rests with national government. The national character of Farmers' Rights is not a subject matter which should be taken on by the Governing Body but the GB can be platform for updating.

 

Angola for G77/China presented a draft resolution  requesting the Secretary to compile views and experiences on the  implementation of Farmers Rights as set out in Article 9 from Contracting parties and other relevant organizations - and to present the results of this compilation in the form of a report that will be the basis of a substantive item on the agenda of the 3rd session of the GB to promote the realizations of these rights.

 

The following discussion centred on procedure - translation requirements if the draft resolution will be considered as working document.

 

Civil society organizations then asked for the floor, starting off with the presentation of Mr. Andrew Mushita of the CBDC Network position on Farmers' Rights as follows:

 

The CBDC Network undertook a number of consultative processes in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia in an endeavour to determine the conceptual understanding, perspectives of various stakeholders.

 

We note with concern that the International Treaty merely recognizes the contribution of farmers to agro-biodiversity without putting in place concrete measures for protecting, promoting and actualizing the fruits of these contributions. On the other hand the Treaty is replete with measure for allowing government, research institutions and industry users of PGRFA to access these resources and mechanisms for shairng benefits arising therefrom. This imbalance negates the Treaty's own recognition of farmers contribution of PGRFA in the preamble and makes their rights in Article 9 illusory. It is for these reasons that we call upon the Governing Body to put in place specific guidelines that enables contracting parties to formalize and successfully implement Farmers' Rights with tangible reporting mechanism.

 

The International Treaty calls upon Contracting Parties to implement Farmers' Rights but national governments are much more committed to the adoption of commercial agricultural models which promote IPR, GMOs, chemical and increased pesticide and herbicide use that enables monoculture and restrict diversity and sustainable cropping systems and practices. The enormous support provided to emerging technologies including GMOs are a major threat to Farmers' Rights as they necessarily lead towards genetic contamination, biodiversity loss, and increased cost of production and farmer dependence on the seed industry.

 

We therefore call upon national government to review and revise national policies and legislation so as to remove any restrictions on the exercise of Farmers Rights that related to community seed banks, seed fairs, right to save and exchange seed, re-use and select seed of their choice, carry out on-farm crop improvement practices designed to enhance food security and sustainability of agriculture.

 

We note with amazement, shock and dismay that the International Treaty, having facilitated the exchange of PGR from the CGIAR (collected freely from farmer's fields) in favour of the multinational corporation and research institutions, has now been reduced to merely a medium of legitimized mechanisms of gross biopiracy. We note that this is a result of lack of a transparent and committed and legally binding funding mechanism. We recall that this was never the intended objective of the International Treaty. If the Contracting Parties are unable to redeem the International Treaty from this malaise then it is prudent to suspend its operations forthwith until such funds are availed to facilitate its effective implementation. In our considered view, the International Treaty can not be used as a means of legitimizing global fraud of farmer's materials.

 

This was follwed by the statment read by ROPA on behalf of the farmer groups and NGOs  present in the 2nd GB of the ITPGRFA calling for an outright suspension of the Treaty (the full statement will be uploaded shortly). 

 

Pat Mooney for the ETC group reiterated support to the statement of the Farmers and called for a suspension of the Treaty saying that it is a tragedy in the absence of financial support. And this is due to the inaction of governments which jeopardizes too the intiatives in Norway to establish a world genebank, the GLobal Crop Diversity Trust is also jeopardized and the CGIAR collections too. All of these are jeopardized by the failure to raise US$4.9M. And this is jeopardized by 2 or 3 governments in this negotiations.

 

Joyson Masamo from Asia Pacific Indigenous Youth Network, appealed to the Governing Body to ensure that this Treaty will not be used in exploting indigenous peoples.  

 

At lunch time on the 2nd Day of the 2nd Governing Body Meeting of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), CBDC Network held its side event entitled: Farmers' Report on the Status of Farmers' Rights Realization in Brasil, Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Philippines and Lao PDR. The side event was attended by minimal number of people (about 20) because it coincided with the meeting of the G77.

The official delegate from Lao PDR was present to provide support and so are few key people pushing for the implementation of Farmers' Rights within the Treaty.

Farmers' Rights was never defined by farmers themselves thus, on the occasion of the 2nd GB of the ITPGRFA the CBDC Network initiated discussions with farmers and different actors on what they think constituted Farmers' Rights and what are the gaps in the implementation of Farmers' Rights. The whole side event was packed with presentations from the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Venezuela, Cuba and Brasil which run the entire length of the session.

Mrs. Estela Calamba and Mr. Candido Baldapan of the Farmers' Consultative Council, a federation of six people's organization in Bohol, Philippines presented how farmers contribute to conservation and sustainable use of rice plant genetic resources through their work on rice breeding, seed banking, seed exchanges, varietal evaluation, regeneration of traditional varieties as well as their work in improving soil fertility and marketing organic produce. Mrs. Calamba likewise highlighted how they share their experiences to other farmers, students, government agencies and non-government organisations as well as their victories in policy - like the declaration of Bohol as GMO Free Province and the development of community registry at the municipal level.

This was followed by the presentation of Mr. Avelino Sarino from SEEDS, a federation of people's organisation based in North Cotabato working on the sustainable agriculture and strengthening. He presented, on behalf of the various peoples' organizations consulted in regional and national fora, the results of farmers' assessment of the status of Farmers' Rights implementation in the Philippines. He started off by tracing the process in 2003 when a national fora was held composed of different stakeholders but mostly of the major national farmers' federation in the Philippines on what they think constitute Farmers' Rights. This resulted to the Cebu Declaration which identified 38 elements of Farmers' Rights as a bundle of rights. This was followed by regional consultation processes in 2004 identifying the gaps in implementation/realization of the38 elements. In 2007, the 38 elements and their realization was revisited, particularly the rights to seeds. Farmers present in the fora identified lack of recognition of efforts and initiatives on conservation and use, lack of participation in decision making in crafting agricultural policies/seeds issues, lack of access to information on technologies, programs and research results related to seeds has led to the emergence of government bias for the promotion of GMOs and hybrid seeds, enactment of Plant Variety Protection Act which impedes farmers from further developing their materials, lack of support mechanisms (market infrastructure, credit facility) due to absence of clear programs to support local initiatives, lack of appropriate mechanisms to protect varieties from misappropriation and patenting (PVP not the answer). Despite these, farmers continually assert their rights through continuous organizing, farmer research and dialogues with government officials. Farmers recommend to repeal the PVP Law and enact laws that recognize and protect farmers' rights to seeds and traditional knowledge in seed conservation and development. Farmers Rights should not be treated in isolation from other identified Farmers' Rights. Farmers' Rights are Human Rights.

Mr. Gracian Banda from CEPA in Malawi, then made a presentation of the results of the consultation process in Malawi and Zimbabwe. They found that in general there is lack of awareness on Farmers Rights (as enshrined in the Treaty) even with farmers themselves. He noted too that for most farmers, Farmers' Rights encompass other rights to water, land, credit, technology, markets etc. In both Zimbabwe and Malawi there is lack of legislation to implement fully Farmers' Rights. There is a constraint too with the participation of farmers in decision making issues that affect them. Some of the key aspects of Farmers' Rights identified through the consultation with various stakeholders are:

• recognition of local farmers' efforts
• recognition of local land races as the basis of plant breeding
• conservation and protection
• secure farmers' practices
• access and benefit sharing

Several factors limit the promotion an protection of Farmers Rights:

• absence of policy and legislation - no legal framework dealing with Farmers' Rights
• linkages of government policy and legal framework - although there may be policies related to agrobiodiversity they all seem to be developed in isolation
• current management of access and benefit sharing
• market forces
• barriers to farmers entering into seed markets
• loss of habitat
• limited awareness and vision
• role of NGOs and government extension staff in promoting hybrid varieties
• weak coordination of smallholder farmer activities
• capacity of local level farmers' institutions
• emphasis of research
• privatization of the seed industry. 

Mrs. Charity Mapira, a farmer from Zimbabwe highlighted a case where they were able to produce 180 tons of seeds (their farmer group) but under current legislation, they are not allowed to sell these seeds because they are not recognised as seed growers and there is no 'certification' for the seeds they produce. They were forced to sell their seeds to a company which provided them with low price.

Mrs. Jean Chiumia, a farmer from Malawi also highlighted their concerns, the absence of knowledge and information about the whole Farmers' Rights, the absence of legislation that support farmers.     

Mr. Enrique Gonzales from IPIAT, Venezuela presented a background of their work in Venezuela and proceeded to share the results of the consultation process. Farmers Rights include:

• rights to water which include the rigth to participate, select water resources to be used in enough quantity and quality along with other elements,
• rights to land which include eliminating the legal concept of useless lands,
• rights to culture including right to recognise and respect the tradition and knowledge of farmers of afro-descent and indigenous peoples,
• political rights which include right to guarantee forms and ways of access to institutions of public and private policy without political or market pressure with respect to autonomy and interest of the family and farming communities,
• right to technology including right to alternative and appropriate technology,
• right to markets,
• right to education which encompass right of farmers to teach children about agriculture,
• right to social security including rights of farmers to be granted social security and
• right to seeds which include rights to conserve and use traditional seeds, rigth to recognise the genetic quality of traditional seeds by farmers, right to consider the seed to be of cultural values, to give tribute and deep sense, right to recognise the knowledge of farmers, right to recognize he contribution of farmers, right to sovereignty of towns and communities of farmers and indigenous peoples in the genetic valuation of its seeds.

Mr. Genevevo Hernandez from ANAP in Cuba, presented the results of the consultation process and identified Farmers Rights to include:

• collective rights
• organizational representation
• representation in parliament
• rights to land
• right to participate in agricultural planning and socio-economic aspects of the country
• right to credit
• right to social security
• right to fair prices
• right to market/commercialise products of agriculture
• right of women
• right to protect innovations (machineries)
• right to seeds

The last presenter was Mr. Gabriel Fernandes from AS-PTA, Brasil who in a way provided too a good synthesis of all the presentations made. He noted that the concept of Farmers' Rights is no incorporated literally to the debate of organizations in Brasil but htere is common understanding among these organisations that while seeds are material, economic and property resources, they integrate the cultural heritage of the people growers and the conditions of its very existence. This understanding of the seed as cultural, highlights the inextricable relationship established by farmers between their knowledge and resources of biodiversity. There is a large number of community experiences of farmers in exercising Farmers; Rights - thru networks of seedbanks, exchanges among communities and establishment of registered agro-ecological seed trade. Among the threats to the rights of farmers are agribusiness model of farming, push for GMOs and other seed technologies, programs that protect commercial interest of private companies - leading to a growing privatization of genetic resources and its exploitation through different monopoly mechanisms of protection by industry.

The general feedback was that the side event provided rich information, and a number of those present asked for copies of the power point presentations. CBDC Network provided draft copies (in CD) of the country reports. In the following days, CBDC Network will likewise attempt to upload the power point presentations here in the blogsite.

 

   

Mr. Gracian Banda from Malawi read the CBDC Network statement during the plenary discussion on Funding Strategy.

Photo from IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin (www.iisd.ca/biodiv/itpgrfa2/)

 

The CBDC Network called on prioritizing the implementation of Farmers' Rights within the Funding Strategy. CBDC Network noted with concern the proposed funding strategy requires voluntary contributions when it is known that voluntary commitments do not materialize as in the case of the Global Plan of Action 1996 which remains, to date underfunded, as the main funding source relied on voluntary commitments. The Global Plan of Action has positive emphasis on on-farm conservation by farmers.

During the plenary discussion on the Multilateral System (MLS), an overwhelming number of crops was reported to have been placed under the system but there was no reporting of the benefit sharing derived thereof, particularly the flow of benefits to farmers who were the primary sources of these materials in the MLS.

CBDC Network also pointed the substantial funding for ex situ conservation through the Global Crop Diversity Trust but very minimal funding support for in situ conservation and on-farm conservation by farmers and other food producers.

There appears to be silence in the discussions about supporting the work of farmers in conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The international support to the work of farmers is imperative, if we want to secure our global food system. CBDC Network hopes that the Governing Body shall take these concerns into consideration.