|
DWD: biosafety, genetic engineering,
agricultural research,
development
*************************************** from Diverse Women for Diversity *************************************** From: Vandana Shiva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Reply to OXFAM (Vandana Shiva) Koos Neefjes Policy Advisor, Environment and Development OXFAM, GB 12th November 99 Sub: Towards An NGO Consensus On GMO's Dear Koos, Thank you for your phone call and your letter. I welcome Oxfam's support for a moratorium on commercial planting of GMO's and the need for TRIPs reform to stop biopiracy, protect farmers rights to save seed and allow countries' flexibility to evolve "sui generis" systems including the option to not patent life. My main anxiety was, and is, with your policy recommendation No.2 in your position paper on GM. The first problem with this recommendation is that it does not call for research support for the much neglected but much needed area of ecological and organic farming and hence reinforces the bias against sustainable agriculture which has characterised agricultural research priorities over the past decades. In the absence of investment on ecological agriculture, the option most appropriate to resource poor farmers in resource poor regions will be ignored, the benefits of GM will be exaggerated, and there will be no knowledge base to assess ecological impacts and ecological risks. An illustration of how the neglect of ecological alternatives projects GM as the only option for achieving certain objectives are infact the examples you give for "beneficial GM research". This ignores the fact that traits such as nitrogen-fixing, salinity resistant and high nutritious value already exist in the tremendous biodiversity of crops evolved by Third World farmers. Our legumes fix nitrogen, farmers along our 7000-km coastline have evolved a large number of salinity resistant rice varieties, and crops such as `ragi' and `ramdana (Amaranth)' have very high mineral levels. Ragi has 35 times more calcium and twice as much iron as rice. Amaranth has 40 times more calcium and four times more iron than rice. The Biodiversity evolved by farmers can solve each of the problems you want to address through GM. In the absence of full awareness of ecological alternatives, taking these traits from farmers varieties and putting them into GM crops might allow the North to believe they have invested in the "creation" of new traits and have brought new benefits to the Third World. For us GM does not bring new benefits, though it does introduce new ecological risks of which the world remains ignorant because of lack of investment in ecological research to assess these risks. It also devalues the contribution of farmers breeding and creates new strategies for making farmers dependent on and agencies, corporations and governments. The Third World does not need GM for evolving any of the traits you have mentioned in your position paper or your letter. What we need is conservation of our biodiversity and its use in agriculture, recognition of farmers breeding, and research to support participatory breeding with farmers. We need to build on farmers strategies, not marginaliase them as breeders and scientists. Continuing to treat sustainable agriculture as an orphan for research support will harm both the poor and the environment. You are probably aware that thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicides because of indebtedness linked to capital intensive agriculture. Ecological options that reduce costs of production in today's context of trade liberalisation and privatisation of input supply, procurement, extension and credit are a survival imperative. It is unethical to ignore and bypass proven alternatives for uncertain future promises which, as you accept in your letter, "are in their infancy only and can imply similar environmental and health risks as some of the applications favoured by private companies". Your recommendation No.2 does not call for donor and agency support for research on these risks. It blindly assumes "potential opportunities presented by applications of GM technology to deliver environmental and health benefits". This is the second problem with your recommendation. It does not stress on the need for public research on the ecological impact of GM in agriculture. If investment is not made on ecological research, ignorance of hazards will continue to be treated as proof of safety Not only are these applications in their infancy, as you admit, the science on which GM applications are based is itself in its infancy. Researchers know how to move genes around. They have no idea where genes are inserted in the genome, what impact transgenes have on the biodiversity and the environment and what are the modes of transfer of genetic information from a GMO to other organisms. These are our basic scientific concerns about Biosafety, which need to be addressed to prevent genetic pollution. For this more funds are needed for basic, independent, ecological research on gene ecology. Public funds for research are scarce these days. We would like this scarce funding to support research on sustainable agriculture and research on ecological and health impacts of GMO's. Biotechnology already receives the bulk of research support both in the North and South. Adding to that bias will neither serve the poor nor the environment. Exclusive commitment to funding GM research translates into exclusive commitment to promote GM application. If ecological research continues to be derived official support and only GM research is supported a few years down the live farmers will be faced to adopt GM technologies inspite of hazards and inspite of safer alternatives because GM will be the only alternative promoted by aid agencies and governments and companies. NGO's like Oxfam should be lobbying for research support for the areas that are neglected but crucial for the poor and for the protection of people's health and the environment. If your Recommendation 2 can be reworded to reflect a more balanced approach focussing on public support to promote research for sustainable agriculture and balancing research on GM applications with research on ecological impacts and ecological risks, we will be able to move towards a consensus on GMO's among the NGO community as we approach Seattle. While my major difference with Oxfam GB is on Recommendation 2, there are minor changes I would like to see in Policy Recommendations 3 and 7. The assumption that only the Third World needs regulation of GM technology ignores the fact that it is the lack of Biosafety regulation and Biosafety research in the U.S. that poses threats to both the South and to Europe. This is why the Third World had insisted on an international legally binding Biosafety Protocol, not just national laws as you recommend. And the world community of scientists is calling for the giving up of the unscientific assumption of " substantial equivalence" which has allowed the North to avoid regulating GMO's and assessing their ecological risks. In Recommendation 7, you put the burden of proof for Biosafety on importing countries, whereas the developing countries organised as the Like Minded Group, want the Party of export to have the legal obligation and under international law, to require the exporting company to inform the importing party in writing and to get an AIA (Advance Informed Agreement) prior to any transboundary movement. These apparently small differences have major impact and are the reason for the collapse of the Biosafety Protocol negotiations. I am glad Oxfam has raised these important policy issues and that we are having an open dialogue to arrive at a consensus. The debate on research priorities for agriculture is an important one. In this debate, I am sure Oxfam would like to be perceived as promoting a balanced research agenda, not one biased in favour of the GM option which is what Recommendation 2 in its present form projects. As requested by you, I am posting your letter and my response, on the list server. Yours sincerely, Dr. Vandana Shiva >************************************** Above letter was sent in response to: > >Dr. Vandana Shiva >Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology >A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 017, India. >Fax: 0091 11 6856795 > >9 November 1999 > >Dear Vandana Shiva > >Re Oxfam GB?s policy position on GM crops > >Our friends in Oxfam Canada have passed on to us your open letter. While we are >only too happy to discuss these issues with an expert like yourself it might >have been useful if you had contacted us directly before sending a letter to so >many people. > >We think that there is only a minor difference of opinion between yourself and >Oxfam GB. In our paper we call for a moratorium on the commercial release of GM >crops because of the enormous health, environmental and socio-economic risks to >poor farmers, consumers and developing countries. However, before completely >shutting the door we believe further research is needed to establish the full >risks and potential of genetic modification of crops for poor farmers and for >consumers. We really don?t feel that it is fair to suggest that our position >amounts to risking ?betraying the South, the poor and food security objectives?. > >1. Our position is in our view entirely consistent with that of the UK Freeze >Campaign and international calls for extreme caution with biotechnology. The UK >Freeze Campaign calls on the UK government for > >?a minimum five year freeze on >· Growing genetically engineered crops for any commercial purpose >· Imports of genetically engineered foods and farm crops >· Patenting of genetic resources for food and farm crops. > [?] > The Alliance believes that the following must be sorted out during the >Freeze: >· A system where people can exercise their right to choose products free of >genetic engineering >· Public involvement in the decisions on the need for and the regulation of >genetic engineering >· Prevention of genetic pollution of the environment >· Strict legal liability for adverse effects on people or the environment >from the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms >· Independent assessment of the implications of patenting genetic resources >· Independent assessment of the social and economic impact of genetic >engineering on farmers? > >These calls were and are echoed across the world, and indeed several of our >partners have developed similar positions. Oxfam GB did not immediately sign up >to this campaign whilst many others did, which was mainly because we were >worried to have our position dominated by Northern consumer concerns instead of >those of small holder farmers and Third World consumers. We looked very >carefully at the issues, consulted widely, and concluded our internal debates >with our public paper. In fact we go further than the UK campaign where we do >not call for a five year freeze but for an indefinite freeze of the commercial >release of crops, foods and patents, until conditions are met similar to what >the UK Freeze Alliance demands, for example legislation regarding liability for >adverse effects. We stress the dangers of patenting, WTO regulation (now and in >future) and a lack of national regulation for rights of small holder farmers and >their potential dependency on very large international companies, apart from >consumers the world over. We are of course equally concerned for potential >health and environmental impacts of GM crops. > >With our paper we believe that we actually support international coalitions and >campaigns in defence of the interests of small holder farmers and Third World >consumers and hope to contribute to North-South solidarity, and as you put it >?be part of the global movement for a sustainable and equitable agriculture?. > >2. We have not included in our recommendations to decision makers on world trade >regulation our concern for the support to ecological farming, although we argue >in our recommendations 6, 7 and 8 that farmers? seed saving rights should be >protected, the CBD should be signed by all (including the USA), a proper >biosafety protocol should be adopted, and multilateral environmental agreements >should take precedence over WTO agreements. Furthermore, the paper clearly >spells out in section 2.1 our interest in, and the potential of sustainable >agriculture. We see that as one of our main arguments against assertions that >world hunger can be resolved with GM crops in the control of the private sector, >and in favour of extreme caution with genetic modification of crops and their >commercial release. We support many partners and coalitions across the world who >develop environmentally friendly, humane ?low external input sustainable >agriculture? (aka LEISA). It is our common practice to purchase and distribute >crop seeds locally for regeneration of agricultural production following >disasters, which are indeed generally open pollinated varieties. Furthermore, we >are involved in a major internal review and learning exercise of the impacts of >our support in this regard. We would very much welcome the research data which >you have about the success of ecological agriculture. > >3. Your main problem with our paper is clearly our second of eight >recommendations, in which we call for cautious support by governments to invest >in research of applications of biotechnology that are potentially useful. You >write ?Oxfam risks betraying the South, the poor and food security objectives by >calling for support for promotion of G.M. crops in the South instead of calling >for support for ecological and sustainable agriculture which is much better >suited to the small farmers in adverse agroecological zones?. > >We are at risk of entering in a debate where one is either in favour or against >biotechnology. We are of the opinion that there are serious dangers implied by >the rapid development of genetically modified crops in the hands of large >private industries, dangers to public health, the environment and socio-economic >relations. That is however not the same as rejecting the potential of all >biotechnologies as such (there are many technologies that fall under that term), >in particular not the applications that could support small holder farmers, >consumers, and that could help local and global food security. We have mentioned >nitrogen-fixing, salt resistant crops and enhanced vitamin and mineral levels of >foods. We could also have mentioned improved or hybrid high yielding varieties >that can be replanted (i.e. that are genetically identical to the mother plant >and are reproduced ?by apomixes?, without sexual fertilisation). All of those >are in our view potentially supportive of sustainable agriculture, even though >some may reject those as not entirely natural or ?organic?. We are aware that >these potentially positive applications are in their infancy only and can imply >similar environmental and health risks as some of the applications favoured by >private companies, and therefore we believe that public funding and extreme >caution should dominate such research and development. We do not suggest that >public money should be diverted away from research and development of >sustainable farming technology, on the contrary, we want more publicly funded >research to supports that, including biotechnological research. > >4. We would very much like to assure you that we call on donor governments to >support regulatory systems in developing countries in order to prevent the more >risky trials of GM crops to be diverted to developing countries (recommendation >3), and we argue in favour of countries? rights to demand labelling of GM food >(recommendation 4). We also argue that the WTO should steer clear of forcing >countries to go for patenting of life forms, and instead support their right and >ability to regulate farmers? historical rights to seed saving and selection >otherwise. We are making these recommendations for example because we are >concerned that the international community provides food relief that is free of >GM substances, and labelled if it is not (leaving the choice to receiving >governments). We do not want double standards for any consumers in North and >South, whether they are the urban rich or victims of floods. > >We hope that this reply reassures you that Oxfam GB is not ?off course? and that >we will continue to support the development and use of technologies that are in >the interest of poor farmers and their environments, consumers and developing >economies. > > >Yours sincerely, > > >For Oxfam GB > >Koos Neefjes >Policy Advisor Environment & Development ******************************************* Secretariat of Diverse Women for Diversity c/o Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology A-60, Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110 016, India Tel: 91-11-6968077 Fax: 91-11-6856795 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * Listservant of Diverse Women for Diversity: Beth Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ****************************************** |
