Bearing witness at Syngenta's illegal field site

Elsie has already written a nice piece about the illegal field trials of Syngenta and the Movimento dos Trabalhadores sem Terra (MST). Below is a report from Doreen Stabinsky, Campaigner for Greenpeace International and a College of the Atlantic faculty member. Doreen sent this to me late last night and asked me to post it for her.



We took off from Curitiba at 11 pm on Tuesday night for an overnight bus ride to Cascavel, Brazil, in the state of Parana, where Syngenta's field station is located. On the bus was an international delegation of peasants and environmentalists, organized by Terra de Direitos and La Via Campesina. We had representatives from around the world, including Togo, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Costa Rica, Chile, and Argentina. The purpose of the trip was to show international solidarity with the Movimento dos Trabalhadores sem Terra (MST) landless peoples who have been occupying Syngenta's field station for the past week.

On the day that we left, we learned that the enforcement arm of the Brazilian environmental ministry had fined Syngenta one million reais for the illegal trial of soy at the site. The Syngenta field station is located 6 kilometers from the Iguacu Falls World Heritage Site, but Brazilian law dictates that field trials of GMOs must be at least 10 kilometers from such important ecological reserves. MST first called attention to the illegal site with their invasion last week.

We were greeted at the Syngenta gate by a huge crowd of those occupying the test site. I've heard various estimates for how many are occupying the field station -- from 300 to 800. The people living at the field station are of all ages -- entire families have come here in their stated interest of turning Syngenta's station into a place for conservation of local varieties of maize and soy and agroecological experimentation.

After a short ceremony by MST and testimonies of solidarity by the international participants, we were led around the field station. We ended our tour at the field of genetically engineered soy. IBAMA and Parana state officials are waiting for official confirmation from a judge that the field can be destroyed. Today's newspapers say that Syngenta is contesting the fine and the decision to destroy the fields. In any case, the campers will wait for the authorities to destroy the GE soy, and regardless of the state of the GMO field intend to carry out indefinitely their peaceful occupation.

After our visit to the field station, we went to the town of Cascavel to visit the local judge who last week ordered the eviction of the MST. Our goal was to tell him more about the rationale behind the occupation, to convey international concern over the illegal field trials, and to provide support for the non-violent direct action being taken to protect the planet's biodiversity. Three of us -- from the US, Indonesia, and Costa Rica -- got an opportunity to speak to the judge. He ended the meeting telling us we should pursue legal means to stop field trials if that was our goal. Regardless of the judge's position, the governor of the state of Parana has said he will not use his police to enforce the eviction order.

La Via Campesina, of which MST is a partner group, has a great slogan for their work: let's globalize hope! The occupation of the Syngenta field site, by some of the poorest persons in Brazil -- landless peasants -- is an inspiring act for all of us around the world working against the introduction of GMOs into our environment and our food supply. Let's spread this inspiring story around the world and do our small part to globalize hope.

La lucha sigue!

“What is this?”- Harry Collins, Delta & Pine

(Picture above) Harry Collins ignoring La Via Campesina and other women

Today, before commencing the negotiations on the issue of suicide seeds, dozens of peasants from La Via Campesina and other women entered the Plenary Room and voiced their fears and feelings concerning Delta & Pine’s ugly baby, terminator technology.

Without knowing it, I was sitting close to Harry Collins, vice-president of Delta & Pine. After the peasants voiced their chants demanding rationality, respect for human life, and prohibition of Terminator, the Chair of the Meeting expressed his solidarity with the fight against terminator. His comments were strongly supported with applauses from the majority of the delegates in the room. Meanwhile, Mr. Collins said loudly: “What is this?” with a tone of amusement and annoyance while keeping his back turned to the peasants begging the CBD to protect their lifes.

Since you were giving your back to the people of the real world, I will respond to your question Mr. Collins:
“What is this?”

This is…
People threatened by your industrial interest
People sick of seeing governments look after the interest of the industry
People sick of being ignored and oppressed
People expressing their frustration with hearing your lies about Terminator being what peasants want
People trying to make their voice heard –something you have never experienced, you can always buy your time in a plenary, or have the US, New Zealand, Australia, or Canada speak for you
People asking you to respect the voice of indigenous communities
People asking you to stop using your corporate power to influence poor governments
People begging you to respect life

Mr. Collins, that is people asking the world to ban terminator.
This is the real world, where your seeds do not belong.

The Terminator Threat

The 8th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity starts tomorrow and the issue of GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) will be one of the most contentious issues to be addressed by the Conference of the Parties. For those of you not familiar with the term GURTs, GURTs is a technology designated to render seeds sterile at harvest (see UNEP/CBD/WG8j/4INF/18 for more information). GURTs are commonly known as the Terminator Seeds. The LMOs industry argues that they were created with the purpose of avoiding genetic contamination from LMOs to non-LMOs, but that has been proven to be a cover for the real interest of the industry. As we saw last week during the MOP, the industry is willing to do anything to protect their interest and the Terminator seeds are part of that strategy. The seed industry designed the terminator seeds with the purpose of protecting their patents, not of protecting the environment from genetic pollution. Scientist have studied the sterilization model of GURTS and have found that it is not 100% efficient at avoiding contamination. The Terminator seeds force farmers to buy their seeds from the industry every season at the monopoly prices, creating a dependency unseen in our food systems. Terminator seeds are a threat to agricultural biodiversity and global food security, especially for small farmers and peasants. The COP8 MUST BAN TERMINATOR SEEDS.
Please see Ban Terminator Campaign, Biosafety Information Centre, ETC Group, EcoNexus or Gene Watch UK for more information. Join the global campaign to stop the industry from playing with our food!

The youth at the COP8 will be meeting on Monday at 4pm at the civil society forum to plan ways to protect our generation from this threat. Stay tuned for updates!

Youth urge Mexico to Protect the Maize Center of Origin

Press Release: (available in Spanish and Portuguese as well)

Youth urge Mexico to Protect the Maize Center of Origin

We, the Youth at MOP 3, are deeply concerned that Mexico’s current position on Article 18.2(a) – the documentation requirements for the export and import of LMOs – poses a serious threat to agricultural biodiversity in the center of origin of maize.

A strong 18.2(a) decision including “contains” language would require clear and precise documentation that would allow Mexico to adequately monitor and trace transboundary movements of LMOs. This is vital to preventing genetic contamination throughout the world. In Mexico, the center of origin for maize, this decision is fundamental to the future of maize cultivation, to local cultures and livelihoods, and to the future of food security.

Brazil has moved towards creating a meaningful documentation decision that includes the language “contains,” with detailed labeling requirement of LMOs. The chief of the Mexican Delegation has stated to the press that they are now closer to the Brazilian position; however, there is no clear indication that the Mexican delegation will support “contains” language.

Each year Mexico imports 6 million tons of Maize, 45% of which is genetically modified. Without appropriate documentation and monitoring, contamination threatens human health, cultural diversity, the environment and the future of agriculture.

At MOP 2 Brazil and New Zealand, supported initially by Mexico, blocked the negotiations on a documentation decision for transboundary shipments of LMOs. Now at MOP 3 Brazil has shifted towards a more cooperative position that supports “contains” language, while Mexico’s position remains unclear.
Mexico must come out with a strong position on 18.2(a) supporting “contains” language in order to protect the crucial center of origin of maize.

Lack of direction

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has just presented their “Evaluation of GEF Support for Biosafety” at a side event. While many participants gathered at the back of the room where free meals were provided by the GEF, the accomplishments of the GEF (or should I say the lessons learned from the failed projects) where outlined.

One of the modalities of GEF support is capacity building, which has been of general and introductory nature. The report presented by the GEF shows that capacities for biosecurity have not been successfully developed since many nations have to deal with other biodiversity issues. Those issues requiring national capacity building have to compete in national agendas where there is not previous experience with biosafety issues.

The GEF recommends consultation and coordination by the GEF Secretariat for better direction of biosafety projects in junction with donors. But, where is that coordination taking us? We speak of capacity building but we do not really know what are the capacities that we need to build. The GEF, or any other agencies for that matter, can not assist nations to build their biosafety framework until a clear definition of the framework of transboundary movement with necessary information for risk assessment is provided.

As many of the delegates said: “thank you for a wonderful presentation”, but pressing issues need to be addressed before we start building capacities for national frameworks. We cannot speak of regional (or global!) coordination and consultation if the framework of exchange between Parties and non-Parties to the Protocol isn’t defined. Until then, technical advice and the development of toolkits will have limited use, participation, and success.

Knock harder?

The WTO has ignored (or delayed ?) the request of the Biosafety Protocol to obtain observer status at the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phitosanitary Measurements and the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade since the creation of the Cartagena Protocol. While the WTO has observer status at BSP, the WTO has ignored that request of the BSP Secretariat to be treated the same way. The delegation from Ethiopia raised a fundamental question: “Are the Parties of the BSP lowering their position by constantly knocking at the door of the WTO for observer status?” In other words, is the WTO so distinguish and important that it can ignore the request of the Biosafety Protocol? Does trade rule over biosafety? It has been many years of knocking at the WTO’ door to raise issues of biosafety in the context of trade agreements.

The question continues unanswered, and nobody dares to say NO out loud. Trade and biosafety should go hand-in-hand, but that cannot happen if the WTO ignores the request of the BSP. Should we knock harder? NO, it is time for the WTO to give room for Parties to allow environmental concerns to be heard at the exclusive forums of the WTO . The WTO Secretariat has sent a video message to be played at the Biosafety Protocol High-Level Segment Meeting with a few comments… should we thank them for the honor? Is that cooperation? For now, the Parties will wait for WTO to press play….

Excuse me, whose security did you say????

Food security came up during the first discussions surrounding Article 18.2 (a), regarding the issues of handling, transport, packaging, and identification of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). Whose food security though? The arguments that a) LMOs are the solution for world hunger -- Although farmers cant afford to grow them--, b) as a prominent solution to the world's food problems, LMOs must move around the globe freely to meet global demands IS TOO OLD. The LMOs industry has argued on the basis of saving the world for too long, and that old excuse should not justify unrestricted transboundary movement.

The industry major group argues that flexibility within article 18.2(a) must call for documentation outlining a "may contain" LMOs with a list of genetic events OR (not AND) domestic legal requirements. The International Trade Grain Coalition, on behalf of the industry, expressed concerns for lack of capacity to implement a strong 18.2(a) on both importing and exporting parties, thus highlighting that flexibility shall prevail. Why then, is the industry capable of meeting the standards of the European Union -- the highest out there -- but not able to meet requirements under 18.2 (a) ?

If we are speaking of food security in the context of the developing world, we then need to build a strong safe process of transportation, handling and labeling of modified organisms -- if we develop a weak mechanism for transboundary movement, then we are meeting the "security needs" of the industry. Who are the Parties of the Protocol working for then? We have four days left and we can not afford another failure on article 18 like witnessed during COPMOP 2. The time is running out.

Daily Updates from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin will post daily updates from the Biosafety meeting at http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/bs-copmop3/. Check this page frequently to find out what's going on at the meeting. You can also see photos of the delegates and NGOs in action. I've also added the ENB daily update to the list of links on the right.

The Real World meets outside

While government delegates, UN officials, accredited NGOs and industry lobbyist get caught up in the legal jargon and bureaucracy inside the conference center, the Civil Society organizes to fight against the daunting challenges threatening the biodiversity of our planet. The Global Civil Society Forum, happening at the same as the UN CBD Meetings, is going to be presenting an alternative path joint.

The Forum will strengthen the voice of social movements. As the organizers say, “the real world meets outside”. It is going to be a huge and important space for networking for many organizations. It is also meant to influence politically on negotiations and positions of the various countries to make sure that civil society participates in an effective way in official negotiation discussions and in parallel events of the UN CBD and BSP meeting.
Check out the agenda of the Forum. Three of your very own COA bloggers will be leading a workshop on the importance of youth action against GURTs. More to come!

The Forum is organized by the Brazilian organization FBOMS. You can find more information on their website. (http://www.fboms.org.br/eventos/cop8.htm)