where did my genes go?

The Spirt of Curitiba

2006-04-10T18:35:00.000-03:00

After three weeks of meetings, the second two convening the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity the "spirit of Curitiba" has prevailed. Productive negotiations both at MOP3 and COP8 combined with lack of sleep will allow all the participants in these negotiations to go home contented and able to sleep well at night. The "spirit of Curitiba" was hailed first after the MOP for the spirit of compromise shown in finally gain some resolution on the handling, labeling, packaging and identification of LMO's for food, feed or processing. This spirit continued to be mentioned through out the diverse and heated discussions at the COP and proved to be a positive running theme in the COP negotiations. At the end of the second week of the COP many productive and skillfully negotiated decisions were crafted. These decisions include a continuing intersessional negotiation of an international regime on access and benefits sharing, a positive decision on intersessional work by the working group on 8(j), new work on high seas protected areas, and decisions on participation.

Negotiations on ABS: Informal Consultations Lead to Well Formulated Results

2006-03-31T16:03:00.000-03:00

Working Group II at COP8 has just adopted a decsion on how to move forward with the intersessional work on negotiating an international regime on access and benefits sharing. This adopted text has one more step to go through, the approval of the plenary, before it becomes an official decision of the COP. The adoption of this text marks the end of a lengthy process of informal and late night negotiations over the course of a many days.

The new text sets up a technical expert group to explore the role of a certificate of orign/legal provenc etc., and two intersessional meetings of the working group on ABS before COP 9. The text also establishes two co-chairs for the working group, one from a developing country and one from a developed country, and leaves them to establish the agendas of the working group meetings subject to the rules of proceedure set by the COP. The Bonn Guidelines are also refered to in a separate section as tools to be rcognized and considered through sharing of national experience. Further, information and analyses for the workig group meetings are to be compiled in processes parallel to, but not to impede upon the progess of, the negotiations of an international regime on ABS in the working group.

The new text is based on a package that address three issues of concern to the G77 and China. First, it sets a deadline for the completion of negotiations as "the earliest time possible before 2010. Secondly and thirdly, to ensure that all types of ABS are included in the consideration of both a certificate of origin and all other measures through prior informed consent under mutually agreed terms. (sections C &D).

This text has been a great victory for all parties involed. The informal negotiations since the contact group were lenghty and exhausting for all involved. These negotiations, however lead to a text that seemed almost impossible to obtain only 36 hours earlier. All parties had to bend and to work hard in order to gain this ground. But special attention should be paid to the work of the Malaysian and Brazilian delegates who must have walked miles back and fourth across the plenary room all day Thursday and through to Friday morning trying to reach an agreement between all those involved and their governments at home.

There is no official victory yet. The adoption of the text in the plenary still remains and the chairs who will define the agendas of these meetings must still be selected. But the commitment of all Parties to stick it out until this text was reached is a reassuring indication of the adoption of this text and the potential results of intersessional work on ABS. The process may be long, and sleep maybe sparing, but there is now hope that the negotiations on ABS before COP 9 will be quite fruitful. Quoting the Malaysian delegate and spokesman for the G77 and China this process is like the preparation of good Southeast Asian food:"the best dishes are cooked over a slow fire in a nice clay pot, and the flavor is increadible."

The Gap Between Negotiations on ABS and the Need for Further Information

2006-03-29T19:18:00.000-03:00

Today JUSCANZ informed the world of the gap between its interests and those of all the rest of the Earth on an international regime on ABS. How long can negotiations on an international regime on ABS be stalled? They have been successful for the last 16 years in stalling negotiations. ABS not only falls under the objectives CBD created in 1992, but the creation of an international regime was called for by the WSSD in 2002. The international mandate for a regime on ABS has been affirmed and reaffirmed again and again and again. The process under the CBD that has finally produced a text, albeit a highly bracketed one, is now being stalled by a claim that there is a need for further information before the process can continue.

How much more information can be necessary, and how much more time will it take? It has been stated again and again by Parties and observers that this call for more information is simply a tactic to stall negotiations on an international regime that such Parties actually have no interest in negotiating. How much longer can this process that is already struggling for funding continue with such drawn out talks.

At this point the COP negotiations on ABS that we supposed to only cover the procedural aspects of the intersessional process on ABS have reached such a contentious stage that a contact group on the issue may rage on all night. Proceedure and substance have become so inter-related in this now almost historical process that it will be a feat to successfully separate the two. The tactics of hostile Parties to stall and in the end halt negotiations on an international regime on ABS have been and continue to be procedurally based. This cannot and will not continue.

Ethiopia, Malaysia, and many other Parties did not hesitate to point out in the contact group this afternoon how unacceptable any approach to the intersessional work on ABS that was dependent upon further information documents, gap analysis etc. would be to all of the G77 and China and specifically Africa. Does this mean that JUSCANZ will bend or that this intersessional process will cease until an appropriate mandate can be agreed upon?

Bonding With Bonn

2006-03-28T12:54:00.000-03:00

On Monday the Conference of the Parties discussed the chair’s text on Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS). This was meant to be a strictly procedural discussion on aspects of further work on ABS by the Working Group and an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on a certificate of origin, specifically related to the chair’s text. One of the key issues, however, that was repeatedly raised was the continued use and recognition of the Bonn Guidelines created at the third meeting of the Working Group on ABS. The Bonn Guidelines are suggestions for national implementation of frameworks on ABS. These guidelines do not address internationally coordinated ABS, and international regime on ABS or a legally binding agreement on ABS. The mandate continued work by the Working Group on ABS is to continue the elaboration and negotiation of an international [legally binding] regime on access and benefits sharing.

Parties such as Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that are less interested, or not interested at all, in the creation of an international regime, or any framework, on ABS used tactics to stall and reroute the focus of negotiations on ABS. The emphasis on gap analysis of ABS and national frameworks on ABS. Parties have also encouraged further focus on the implementation of the Bonn Guidelines and sharing of experience and capacity building, etc. toward the implementation of the Bonn Guidelines. Further, Parties have even suggested supporting differing implementation of national frameworks on ABS based on the Bonn Guidelines in consideration of the interests of different countries. These are all loopholes used to avoid the implementation of an ABS regime and responsibility to international expectations or obligations to provide appropriate access or benefits sharing.

Some Parties almost explicitly emphasized the importance of retaining intellectual property rights (IPR) systems. Using claims that groups such as WIPO and TRIPs under the WTO are already addressing issues such as a certificate of origin and cautioning against duplication of work, these parties attempted to subordinate ABS to IPR. IPR systems do not fulfill the same or even relatively similar objectives to those covered by an ABS regime. These systems actually negate some of the objectives of ABS negotiations such as the sharing of benefits of resources with all groups including those from whom the resources originated and prior informed consent for access to resources based on mutually agreed terms, both of which are key objectives under the CBD related to traditional knowledge, innovations and practices.

Parties that continue to push for the referral back to the Bonn Guidelines, more studies and the priority of work of other international organizations on IPR over the continued work on ABS under the CBD are simply trying to derail negotiations on a regime that follows one of the three main objective of the CBD. These Parties are not only trying to stall or block negotiations on an issue important to the implementation of the CBD, they are also blocking the rights of indigenous and local communities, especially in poorer and developing countries, to the benefits of their resources and adequate control of access to their resources. This may not be what they are saying, but these are the implications of their statements. The rights protected by national regimes are generally those of whom register extracted resources through IPR regimes, i.e. researchers and bio-prospectors, without any consent from the true owners of those resources. These countries are essentially supporting the rights of the private sector (whom are not included in the convention), not the rights of indigenous and local communities (who are expressly addressed by the convention).

"Foxes Can be Highly Influential on Chicken Issues"

2006-03-27T12:13:00.000-03:00

An NGO statement by Ecoropa made a useful comparision to the discussion on the inclusion of private sector in the implementation processes of the CBD:
"Foxes can be highly influential on Chicken-issues; they may raise the profile; they may have chicken-relevant knowledge and technological resources and comminication skills. Still I would not want foxes as co-guardians of thechicken-coop. . . Farmers need to address chicken-coop issues if foxes do. There, we do need duplication of effort, urgently."

Cooperation with who?

2006-03-27T11:09:00.000-03:00

Should the CBD cooperate with and align its objectives with organizations and groups such as FAO and the private sector or emphasize cooperation with the Rio conventions on climate change and desertification? This is the core issue of the negotiations on the cooperation with other international organizations and initiatives and the proposal for a Global Partnership for Biodiversity.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Columbia all made statements expressing their concern about the increasing number of partnerships and initiatives, etc. and the duplication of work. These same Parties have expressed interest not only the inclusion of FAO (which has a strong scientific and not social or economic focus) should be included in any liasion group of partnership, existing or newly created, while these same Parties state that the mandate of the CBD will be decreased by the the implementation of a Global Partnership with MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements) with a similar history and from the same meeting and impetus in 1992. This does not make any sense.

Norway fortunately recognized the importance and possible positive results of a Partnership. Norway pointed out the opportunity to share experiences and communicate about the objectives and work of the different conventions and their subsidiary and scientific bodies. This communitcation will decrease or stop the duplication of work and improve understanding between MEAs of their individual mandates and objectives and the appropriate connections between the them.

Many of these Parties encouraging cooperation with the FAO, further supported the participation and active cooperation with the private sector. This is justified by the private sectors role in so many aspects of CBDs mandate. However, as India, Greenpeace, Ecoropa and The Global Forest Coalition stated that although the private sector is involved in all aspects of the the CBD and its implementation this sector has not used this experience and knowledge to positively involve itself in the implementation of the CBD. The private sector cannot be expected to work with the CBD in a positive or constructive manner, just because the private sector has knowledge relevant to the CBD and and experience in these areas.

The Victory against Terminator: A Victory of the People

2006-03-24T19:23:00.000-03:00

“This is a victory of the movement here that marks the beginning of the end of Terminator,” stated Benny Haerlin from Greenpeace International during a press conference responding to the successful decision reached today in the Working Group to maintain the strict moratorium on Terminator technology.

I have been fortunate to witness and take part in the incredible energy of this movement, advocating for a broad range of issues throughout the negotiations, and consisting of organizations from all parts of the world - indigenous groups, environmental groups, farmers, students, scientists, laborers, and many more. The energy that came together inside and outside of the Conference was inspiring - both to me and, I believe, to many of the delegates here. We have also been fortunate to have incredible leaders from government delegations, who stand up strongly and straightforwardly to make these negotiations meaningful and successful.

A Chilean farmer from Via Campesina, an international small farmers’ organization, said of the civil sector movement here at COP 8: “this is the voice of the people who are fighting everyday for life.”

While the decision reached Friday that maintains with ban on Terminator without the option of field trials marks an important victory, the struggle will continue: “the Terminator must disappear from this earth,” declared the farmer leader from Chili. In speaking of the profound effect that the terminator techonology poses for their ways of life and livelihoods, she likened the sterilization of seeds that would occur through such technology to the forced sterilization of women.

A Brazilian farmer from La Via Campesina spoke about the consequences of the agro-industry on small farmers in Brazil – where currently some 4.5 million landless families are struggling to survive - many in the slums of big cities. They are struggling against enormous pressures to maintain “their right to exist as peasants, to preserve and protect nature and to produce their own seed.” And this terminator technology – thankfully held at bay by the international community today – represents one of the greatest threats from agro-industry.

“Technology based on sterility will not prevail,” Benny stated. In reference to the argument that this terminator technology is important to protect GMO contamination in general, he said: “And technology that needs sterility in order to survive will not prevail.”

Pat Mooney from Ban Terminator warned us that this fight is not over: “the technology is vastly too profitable.”

But the movement that we have been so privileged to be a part of here in Curitiba is our future – and the people who have come together from all walks of life and all corners of the earth will continue the struggle.

In another celebration today, the Coalition Against Biopiracy gave awards to the “worst” and the “best” players in the Biosafety world – with Canada, Australia and New Zealand receiving, quite appropriately, the “Access of Evil Award.” While the awards highlighted the number of groups and interests working hard to undermine biosafety in the interest of their bottom lines, they were also a profound testimony to the dedicated work of individuals and groups committed to protecting lives, livelihoods, food security and biodiversity.

While unfortunately most of us COA students will be leaving Brazil this weekend to return to school, several will be able to stay through and will continue to follow the negotiations and participate in the work that is occuring here. From the issues of Access and Benefit Sharing, to Liability, to Protected Areas - much work still remains to be accomplished at this COP 8. And of course the work will continue in many fora after this conference comes to an end.

As we go back to our home communities, we will take what we have learned and continue to work to as we can to “Globalize Hope,” protect biodiversity, and create positive change.

Thanks to all of you for joining us on this journey.

La Lucha Sigue!

-Elsie

elsie.flemings@gmail.com

La Via Campesina Women recieve an award for their work in defending food sovereignty and in discovering the illegal field trials of Syngenta

And This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a Chair

2006-03-24T11:47:00.000-03:00

I would like to introduce you to Dr. Mathew Jebb, acting director at the Glasnevin Botanical Gardens in Dublin, CBD delegate representing Ireland, and Chair of Working Group One at COP-8.

Working Group One was assigned the contentious mission of debating the issue of GURTS, and while some might have guessed that it would result in long, drawn out debates of repeated arguments and delegates entrenching themselves into a position, Mr. Jebb has taken a refreshing approach to the task at hand.

Dr. Jebb opened the issue of GURTS yesterday with 15 minutes left until lunch and allowed three countries to speak: Argentina, Malaysia (Gurdial with his now famous “2b is not to be”), and Norway. Each group spoke on the dangers of GURTS and how paragraph 2b, which allows for case by case risk assessments and does not back the idea that there should be no field testing—as the decision from COP 5/5 already pre-determined—should be deleted.

The meeting broke for lunch with many parties, non-parties, observers, NGOs, industries, IGOs, indigenous peoples, etc, etc, still biting at the bit and desperately wanting to make statements.

When we returned at 3:00, prepared for a long afternoon of heated debates, Dr. Jebb announced that we had already heard from the side that is opposed to 2b, and would now like to open the floor to only the parties that support the case by case risk assessments decision.

As some parties hurried to press their button once more to get themselves off of the chair’s screen (a.k.a. off of the list to speak) and others rushed to slam their button so they would actually show up on his screen and get the opportunity to speak in favor of 2b, Dr. Jebb looked at the his private computer screen with a slight smile of amusement tugging a the corners of his mouth.

Dr. Jebb then allowed New Zealand, Australia and Switzerland to speak on behalf of case by case risk assessments. The deep gulley between the two sides was already apparent. But then, instead of continuing on with the parties, he opened the floor to all observers, NGOs, education (us!!), indigenous peoples, etc., saying that they were going to be affected by this and should therefore have a say.

We heard from the IIFB, who rejected the case by case risk assessments as a violation of human and indigenous rights, the youth (yeah kate!), who refused to inherit the risks that using GURTS would entail, the Ban Terminator Campaign, representing over 500 other groups, who called on the human rights council to be allowed into the negotiations, and a few others who laid out the position of those against 2b in no uncertainty.

Mathew Jebb nodded, looked thoughtful, and then asked to clear his screen and for only those in support of the case by case risk assessment to now speak. We gritted our teeth through the statements from the Foundation for Public Research and Regulation, the Global Industry Coalition, and (surprise, surprise) the United States of America, who, of course, were in support of 2b and spoke of all the good that could come out of it.

Dr. Jebb then closed the floor, stated that there was obviously two opposing sides and that we were here to find a solution, a decision, that would be based on consensus, and then opened the floor to parties that had any ideas on a way to make progress towards a workable solution.

After a bit of confusion, some silence, and not one party having any ideas on where to go from there, Mathew Jebb said that he would then make a decision by the seat of his pants: he asked for the countries that supported the case by case risk assessment to get together and come up with some wording that they thought might be acceptable, or at least a jumping off point, to start a productive conversation that would eventually lead to a consensus on text, and to have that to him within an hour.

As delegates from various countries scurried out of the room, the meeting went on to discuss the next item on the agenda, only to come back to GURTS later on to say that parties interested in being a part of a Friends of the Chair group should approach him afterwards and tell them of their interest.

The Friends of the Chair group met last night, and they were able to come to a decision that supported a text without the case by case risk assessment language. It got through the working group this morning with no objections. Now we just have to see what happens in the plenary. In one day Dr. Mathew Jebb coordinated a massive amount of passionate people around a delicate matter and came out with a wonderful decision to bring to the plenary.

Working Group One Chair Dr. Mathew Jebb didn’t allow the different sides to repeat themselves, entrench themselves, and get themselves in a frenzy. He got work done, and he did it well. Congratulations to a wonderful chair, and a big thanks from all the youth who will inherit the earth you are passing down to us: we owe you one, Mr. Jebb. Now let's just see what happens at 3:00 when the plenary meets...

VICTORY against the Terminator! : 2(b) is NOT to be..."for the moment"

2006-03-24T10:17:00.001-03:00

Three minutes at the beginning of the Working Group this morning defined a momentous victory for all of us: the de facto moratorium on Terminator is reaffirmed by consensus by the Working Group of COP 8 without the dangerous "case-by-case" language that threatened to let loose this sterile-seed-producing technology in our environment .

A Friends of the Chair group (a small closed-door meeting) met earlier this morning to struggle through the opposing positions, with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (supported by the US and Industry in the shadows) as the only countries who had been trying to weaken the international ban on GURTS - the technology that creates sterile seeds and that threatens everything from biodoversity to farmers' livelihoods and food security.

With the hard work of many people in the closed-door group, and supported by the long, hard work of people in and outside of the conference center and around the world, the group not only came to a draft decision to get rid of the paragraph supporting "case-by case" risk assessments for the technology, but also strengthened the wording so that any potential future research allowed is "within the mandate of decision V/5" - the original de facto moratorium (III/23). In other words, this decision makes clear that the moratorium on this technology stands - both in terms of commercialization and field trials, and that therefore within potential "research," the decision remains that field trials should not be allowed (unless there is sufficient scientific data supporting the safety of the field trials - which is far from the case). This is the key step that Industry and Terminator-supporting countries were trying to push and which the rest of us were fighting, due to the threat to our environment that such field trials would create, and the path that they could pave towards future use of such dangerous sterile-seed technology.

In the working group this morning - in which all governments participate and all of us can observe - the Chair introduced this draft decision brought forward by the Friends of Chair group. His words were met by a round of applause that carried through the room (although in Industry table was conspicuously silent). The Chair then asked if any Party wanted to voice an objection; when no party came forward, the Chair officially announced that this issue was decided "for the moment" and the room burst into even greater applause, with many participants standing and cheering.

This issue is not necessarily entirely finished for this COP, although it is unclear the extent to which further debate will be allowed. The fact is that not a single party objected to this wording today in the Working Group, and so the decision will be forwarded to the Plenary where it must be officially agreed upon. We must work to ensure that no country back down on the agreement made today with consensus; this decision must stand.

Although Industry and most likely the few countries in support of GURTS will continue in other fora to push forward the dangerous technology, this is a momentous occasion of which we can all be proud. Thanks to the hard, committed work of civil society and the vast majority of governments throughout the world, the international community has yet again affirmed a moratorium on Terminator technology - and has thereby strengthened our commitment to biodiversity, sustainability, the rights and cultures of small farmers, and the health and safety of all of us.

GURTs Youth Statement Presented at Working Group!!!

2006-03-23T15:54:00.000-03:00

The youth were finally able to make their voices heard, and on a very important issue! In the afternoon working group session civil society was allowed floor time to speak on the issue of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, and youth were there and ready to make a statement.

Below is a copy of the statement I was fortunate enough to read. Youth are making their voices heard!

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman,

On behalf of the youth present at this Conference, we wish to express our sincere concern that this body is again considering the issue of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. We can not understand why a Convention whose aim is to protect biodiversity is even considering allowing the testing of a technology that by definition strives to do the opposite. The aim of GURTs is to prevent the reproduction of an organism. This is in direct conflict with the objectives of the CBD. There is no scientific evidence that this technology should or can be benignly released into a dynamic living ecosystem, and the potential negative social impacts on humanity are appalling.

We are not here to make an emotional statement, but to make a plea for rationality.

We remind you that the UN technical expert group report on GURTs (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/4/INF/17) outlined the inherent risk of GURTS, concluding that gene silencing, mutations, unstable promoters and induction systems could all lead to transgene escape with devastating consequences.

We urge you to reaffirm , and above all, strengthen the de facto moratorium created during the COP5.

We urge you to value biodiversity and human livelihoods over profit-driven industrial interest.

We urge you to allow future generations to access traditional and indigenous knowledge.

We proclaim that "case-by-case" is unacceptable.

We urge you to reject the danguerous argument that GURTS can be used as a tool for biological security. GURTs is not a technology to protect biological diversity, but to protect the patents of the industry.

We further wish to remind the COP that the GURTS issue does not belong in the Cartegena protocol, as industry lobbyists would like us to believe. As GURTS poses a threat of great magnitude to the worldÕs biodiversity, the CBD is the perfect forum to discuss the issue. A full moratorium is the only acceptable solution.

The promises of industrial agrotechnology have disillusioned us. Their presumed solutions have always created more pr oblems than they have solved. GURTs is only the most recent and severe example. This technology could have tremendous negative implications for the future of food sovereignty, traditional knowledge, and biodiversity.

This is our future, and we refuse to accept these risks.

As we will inherit the future being determined here, we have a major stake in these negotiations. You have called on the youth to participate and we are here. We answer your call using not our wallets and a short-sighted economic greed, but rather with our minds, our logic, and our hearts.
We trust that the delegates here will use these same tools when making their decisions. Please take a step forward towards the safety of our worldÕs peop le, cultures, and biodiversity and reaffirm the ban on terminator technology.

Thank you very much Mr Chair.

Plantations are Not Forests, and GM Trees are Worse

2006-03-23T15:51:00.001-03:00

Imagine a monoculture that stretches across the horizon, covered in toxic chemicals detrimental to human and animal nervous systems. The biodiversity of the soil, plants, and surrounding air is so low it could be considered practically non-existent.
You are imagining a field of Round-Up Ready (herbicide resistant) genetically engineered soybeans. The scene is a chemically dependant, barren wasteland, a GM soy monoculture.

Now imagine this scene on a grander scale. The fields are not acres but miles. The plants are not soybeans, but trees.

If GM fields have been detrimental to the environment and health, imagine GM forests.
If testing the impacts and consequences of GE corn and soy has proven difficult at best, imagine attempting to fully study trees, species that take decades to mature.
If pollen contamination from corn, just six or eight feet off the ground, has already been problematic, imagine the GM pollen contamination possible when released from trees fifty feet above ground.

Without a ban on field testing of genetically engineered trees, these scenes of dangerous plantations, in place of forests, may become commonplace.

Enter Agenda Item 26.1, “Forest Biological Diversity.” Yesterday in the working group, delegates discussed the implementation of the program of work on forest diversity. Recognizing the threat posed by GM trees, seven separate parties and many NGOs made calls for a moratorium on the planting of GM trees. Ghana made the first call for a moratorium, and this was supported by Iran, Madagascar, Egypt, Philippines, Senegal, and Malawi. These countries deserve a round of applause for so strongly moving in the proper direction to avoid the harm threatened by GM trees.

The threats posed by GM trees to human and environmental health are multiple and severe. Currently there are known test plots in 16 countries. In China, where a Bt Poplar tree plantation is cited in close proximity to a non-GM poplar plantation, genetic contamination is already shown to have occurred.
As tree pollen is known to travel hundreds of miles and cross national boundaries, genetic contamination of native forests is not only likely, it is guaranteed.

Such contamination is a problem, the details of which depend on the type of contamination is in question. Currently there are two main types of GM trees: Bt toxin trees and Round-up Ready trees.

Bt toxin is found in a naturally occurring bacteria and when trees are engineered to produce this toxin there are serious human health and environmental concerns. Imagine a forest that emits toxins from its roots into the soil and water. Soil diversity is debilitated below ground, and above ground toxins are present that kill “pests,” including ecologically important pollinators.

Furthermore, the pollen of Bt trees has severe allergenic risks, risks exacerbated due to the wide distance the pollen can travel.

When the trees in question are Round-up Ready, the scene becomes a chemical wasteland, where the understory of the forest plantation cannot grow due to the high use of Round-Up Ready herbicide sprayed across the plantation. This herbicide Round-Up is detrimental not only to plants, but animals and human health as well.

The FAO recently published “A Preliminary Review of Biotechnology in Forestry including Genetic Modification.” (2005) In this report they confirm that contamination has occurred and they express the need for a thorough global risk assessment, something that has not yet occurred.

It is bad enough that we can already so easily imagine a scene of chemically cultivated GM corn or soy monoculture. We must not make this scene commonplace for forests as well.

The COP should follow the advice of Norway and Greenpeace and set up an expert work group to examine the risks involved with GM trees. However, the COP must go further than this. The COP must impose a moratorium on this dangerous technology. If not, we may begin to find GM trees in forests previously considered natural, just as we have found GM corn in Oaxaca, Mexico, in areas where no GM corn was thought to grow.

Bearing witness at Syngenta's illegal field site

2006-03-23T14:58:00.000-03:00

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!

"2(b) Is Not To Be"

2006-03-23T13:04:00.000-03:00

With only 15 minutes left in the working group before having to break for lunch, the chair of the meeting finally moved the topic of discussion onto the topic of GURTS, aka Terminator Technology.

The room was charged, energy was high, and there was only time for three speakers. Argentina, Malaysia (on behalf of G77 and China) and Norway spoke. The details of their statements had minor differences, but their message was clear, as wittingly stated by Gurdial. “2(b), is not to be.”

Paragraph 2(b) is the paragraph which states that cases-by-case testing of the technology should be allowed. This is contradictory to the above paragraph (P 1) which reaffirms the moratorium from COPV on the Terminator Technology.

Based on these three opening statements in regards to the GURTS discussion, it is clear that, in the words of Gurdial,

2(b), is not to be.

Thank you Shakespeare, your relevance never ceases to amaze me.

The Struggle for Life and Land - a story of the Landless Workers Movement

2006-03-23T12:40:00.000-03:00

Yesterday, March 22nd, an international delegation of over 30 activists traveled to the south of Brazil to show solidarity with 600 rural workers - members of the Landless Workers Movement (MST) - who are occupying an illegal field trial of GMO soy owned and managed by the multinational corporation, Syngenta.

Our group, traveling through the night to arrive at the site in the morning, was brought together by the UN Convention on Biodiversity and consisted of, among others, union leaders from Brazil, Chile and Argentina, a leader of women’s organizations from Bolivia, farm organizers from Togo and Indonesia, our own Doreen Stabinsky from Greenpeace International, and journalists from all over the world. We were greeted by 100s of campesinos waving flags, and we soon joined them with our flags and banners. Led by the workers we chanted signature slogans of MST and the international organization of small farmers, La Via Campesina, such as: “The people united, will never be defeated.”

Indeed, as we followed the workers through their makeshift camp to the fields where a group performed a ritual around the sacred Maize (corn), I understood the power behind those words – “united we will never be defeated” – and the power behind this organization of workers deeply committed to a more just world, to fighting inequality, and to protecting the environment. I felt honored to be able to stand with them and to show my solidarity in the small way that I could.

Although the court fined Syngenta approximately US $500,000 two days ago, confirming that the field trials are indeed illegal (as they are too close to a national park), the court also ruled that the MST occupation is illegal and ordered an eviction notice for all workers yesterday.

During a sudden downpour during which I sought refuge in one of the many MST tents, I asked Paulo, the leader of 200 MST families, if they were planning to leave due to the eviction notice. “No,” he replied, “We will stay here as long as we can. A week, a month, a year – as long as it takes – we will try to stay here.”

“This is the struggle for justice, to protect our way of life, to fight poverty, and to protect our land. This is a struggle for our spirit, to protect the sacredness of our traditions, our culture, our land.” And several times he repeated: “Primarily this is a struggle for ‘Alimentos’” – a word most aptly translated a “sustenance” – both physical and spiritual.

As I was leaving, Paulo, with his 2 small children giggling and clinging to his legs, said: “We are all united, those of us who struggle against injustice, who fight for the poor, who fight for the land. No matter the distance – we are united.”

Following the site visit, our group went to the courthouse to speak with the judge who had ruled on the eviction, and the MST lawyer presented to the judge a hand-written letter in support of the workers.

While the judge defended his decision saying that the workers should have gone through legal means, I left deeply moved by all I had witnessed, and convinced more than ever of the necessity of standing in solidarity with these groups and working in ways that we can for greater justice, remembering the words of Frederick Douglas:

"If there is no struggle there is no progess. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing up the ground...Power concedes nothing without demand."

According to Brazil’s census bureau, 1% of the landholders control 45% of the nation’s farmland, and 37% of the landowners hold only 1%. Brazil has one of the highest rates of inequality of any country in the world. MST is the largest and most effectively organized people’s movement in Brazil and perhaps in Latin America. Consisting of an estimated 1.5 million members, MST has, through its struggles, obtained land for an estimated 350,000 families. For those who are denied land – central their way of life and held deeply sacred – this Landless Workers Movement provides the structure and support for people to fight for agrarian reform and basic rights for themselves and their families. (See The landless rural worker's movemnt (MST) and democracy in Brazil, University of Oxford.)

On our walk through the fields, between chants about protecting biodiversity and fighting Syngenta, a number of campesinos would shout: “Globalize the Struggle!” to which the rest of us would reply: “Globalize Hope!”

We live in a globalized world – made clear by international treaties such at the Convention on Biodiversity, as well as by GMO field trials in Brazil owned and operated by a multinational corporation based in Switzerland. The Landless Workers Movement and Via Campesina International are not trying deny or undue this globalization. Instead, they – we – recognize that we must work together locally and internationally to advocate for a more just world in which all of us, not at the expense of others, have the right to life, livelihood, security and sustenance, and that we can guarantee those rights for our children and grandchildren.

"The International Delegation greets the workers who occupy Syngenta to Protect Biodiversity"

As the Chair watched over them...

2006-03-23T10:41:00.000-03:00

With the Chair watching over them supportively, dozens of women from the Via Campesina staged a demonstration inside the Working Group where the issue of Terminator technology will be addressed. With dignity and passion these women held candles and signs condemning Terminator Technology, they stood for a while in silence and before leaving expressed loudly and clearly their demands to ban Terminator.

Its hard to imagine that anyone could ignore and disrespect the sincere and impassioned pleas of these women...

But wait, Canada doesn't even listen to the please of its own citizens and has neglected to address their many concerns on this matter. In a recent interview Giuliano Tolusso of Agriculture Canada said, in regards to the Terminator Ban, "We haven't necessarily consulted with farmers." Not to say that farmers have been quiet though. The Canadian Organic Growers Organization, the National Farmers Union, and the 44,000 member strong Québécois Union des Producteurs Agricoles (UPA) have all come out in opposition of Terminator technology. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has 200,000 members, has passed a resolution requesting an assessment of the impacts of Terminator seeds on farmers.

In a recent Globe & Mail article it was reported that a spokeswoman for Agriculture Canada said no one was available to answer questions about Canada's negotiating position on Terminator technology because all relevant experts were in Brazil. Well I am in Brazil as well and I am not the only one here that has been trying to get a hold of Agriculture Canada or get a clear statement of my country’s position.

Canada needs to stop listening to the United States and industries like Delta & Pine Land with their vested interests. We need to start listening to our own farmers and people from around the world like the women from Via Campesina who reasonably and rightfully demand protection of their livelihoods.

Everyone's Talking Dirt

2006-03-23T09:47:00.000-03:00

picture: the root system and mycorrhizal of a plant

Remember how everyone used to say “that’s just the tip of the iceberg?” Well, now people are saying “that’s just the tip of the plant.” What we see above ground, that little precious stem and leaf, is actually only one fraction of the actual plant. A lot of the important actions are actually going on underneath the ground. Soil has a lot more to it than we ever thought.

Soil actually just might be the next big thing everyone is talking about. Turns out that the below ground biological diversity (BGBD) has a pretty big impact on what is going on with the above ground biodiversity. Here at the MOP there are a lot of side events going on that are talking about the necessity of paying attention to what is happening underneath our feet.

You might think that dirt is dirt. But actually, climate change, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and biodiversity are all affected by the microorganisms that inhabit that very “dirt” you can so easily wipe off your shoes. Soil organisms provide essential services towards the sustainable management of agricultural ecosystems which is important because intense, unsustainable agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss. Soil organisms control mineral nutrient cycling, hold carbon, maintain soil’s water retention capacity, and improve plant health, along with many other helpful functions.

The reduction of BGBD will decrease agricultural productivity (resulting in a higher number of hectares having to be used to get the same yield) and also decrease the resilience of agricultural ecosystems so that they are more vulnerable to erosion, pests, diseases, and the general degradation of the land. We need to keep agricultural ecosystems as healthy and sustainable as we can so that the biodiversity loss, which is usually so high in agricultural systems, is lessened.

There is a lot going on underneath your feet. In just one meter squared of soil in a temperate forest there can be more than 1000 species of invertebrates, and in only one gram of soil the number of microbes is even greater. It is time to start paying attention to what is going on both above ground and below ground. So next time you go to wipe that soil off your shoes, remember what important role that “dirt,” and all it contains, plays in our ecosystem.

Implementation Review Proves To Be a Procedural Mess

2006-03-23T08:44:00.000-03:00

On Wednesday evening the Working Group II held an extended meeting to cover the review of implementation and the 2010 targets of reduced biodiversity laws. The results were not promising. The underlying issue seemed to be the lack of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)In many countries these strategies do not yet exist or have not been reported to the Secretariat. Further, countries that have very little capacity and have recieved support for the creation of NBSAPs do not have the capacity to implement them or send in to the secreatariat the national reports on their implementation to the secreatriat. Also NBSAPs are not generally implemented or made consistent with policies at the local level with countries.
The working group on the review of implementation has recommended that the Executive Secreatriat aid countries in the creation and implementation of NBSAPs, however, a few Parties on Wednesday evening expressed that this is not within the mandate of the Secreatariat and must be decided upon and requested by the COP.

The issue of processes toward both implementation and its review seemed to halt discussions repeatedly. The confusing number and means of compilation of documents also frustrated the process. Parties were confused about where information came from that was included in the documents and what group (or example SUBSTTA, Working Group on Implementation or the Secretariat) had created the texts. These documents refer to guidelines, meetings, programes and processes that have yet to be decided upon by the COP. Many Parties brought up the point that there seem to be two parallel processes being attempted at the same time. The negotiations are complicated by the attempt to discuss guidelines or mandates for groups or programes that do not yet officially exist.

The Convention will not exist as a meaningful instrument if it is not implemented fully and effectively. The review of implementation is an extremely important task of mamoth porportions. It is not as exciting and theoretical as many of the other agenda items for COP 8 but may be infinitely more important in its overarching goal. It is also very necessary for this processed to not get stuck in procedural circles, which may be conveniently promoted by some Parties attempting to water down the impact and reach of this treaty. This process must be efficient and able to react quickly to the gaps and needs for implementation, especially toward the 2010 target.

Canadian Shame

2006-03-22T21:40:00.000-03:00

Below is copy of the letter I sent to the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. If you have the chance the National governments of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada need to be pressured to change their positions on Terminator technology for the ban to be upheld. The banterminator.org site has easy formatted letters for Canadians and Australians to send.

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I am a Canadian youth writing to you from The Eighth Conference of the Parties (CoP 8) to The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Curitiba Brazil where I am an accredited participant. I am writing to express my deep concerns about the negotiating position of the Canadian Delegation at the CBD. To be frank I am shocked and shamed by my country. I am pleading for your immediate intervention.

Of utmost concern is my government’s position on Terminator technology (Genetic Use Restriction Technology or GURTS). I urge you to take immediate action to ensure that the Canadian Delegation actively supports renewing the Moratorium on Terminator technology by upholding the CoP 5/5 language and by opposing language permitting “case-by-case risk assessment.”

Lifting the moratorium on Terminator technology would threaten food security and biodiversity around the world. Seed and Biotechnology corporations are promoting Terminator under the guise of preventing genetic contamination from Genetically Modified (GM) crops. This claim is unfounded as the technology is too complex and too unreliable to prevent the movement of genes.

I have heard all sides of the issue here and the reality is plain to see; this technology is promoted to maximize industry profit at the expense of farmers. The implications are profound; by forcing farmers to purchase their seeds every year farmers cannot save their own seeds. The UN reports that globally 1.4 billion people depend on saved seed for food production. Furthermore, as this technology is far from being perfected, the risks of contaminating the environment with genes that induce sterility are real and could have catastrophic consequences.

Those who do not understand the political, economic, and scientific issues argue that farmers could simply choose not to buy these Terminator seeds and avoid any problems. However, the situation is far from this simple.

Over the past decades seed and biotech companies have been aggressively monopolizing commercial agriculture by dominating pesticide and seed markets, patenting genes and seeds, and restricting farmers rights and freedoms with contracts and lawsuits. In 1997 three companies, Novartis, Monsanto, and Pioneer, sold approximately 70% of all seeds in the US. Last year Monsanto added Seminis–the world’s largest vegetable seed company—to its repetoir becoming the world’s largest seed company.

Now 32% of global commercial seed sales are controlled by three corporations: Monsanto, Dupont, and Syngenta. Together with the grandfather of Terminator, Delta & Pine Land (the worlds’ largest cotton seed company), four companies control 86% of Terminator patents.

It is apparent already that this oligopoly can effectively influence markets and restrict farmer’s choices. In 1994 over 175 million acres of GM crops were planted: 90% contained Monsanto technology. Monsanto owns over 600 GM patents. It is not hard to imagine what a future with Terminator would look like. As the commercial seed market becomes increasingly concentrated, industries can further restrict farmers’ choices and promote the use of their patented varieties and the pesticides for which the patents are designed. If Terminator technology enters the market, farmers will be effectively locked into a cycle of debt and dependency. In this dark scenario transgenic contamination of Terminator genes will likely occur thereby causing sterility in other plants. This in turn will further benefit these corporations by increasing demand for commercial seed, a market already highly monopolized.

A few months ago Delta & Pine Lands and the US Department of Agriculture won patents on Terminator in Canada (CA 2196410). It is easy to see who will benefit if the Terminator ban is lifted. It will not be the Canadian farmers. Indeed, the Canadian National Farmers Union has urged you to ban Terminator (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060320.wseeds0320/BNStory/National/). Indeed, the world is urging you to ban Terminator technology. Here at the UN meetings, everyone realizes that the position of the Canadian government is a threat to the environmental safety of the world. On this issue, the disdain facing Canada from global citizens rivals that usually faced by the United States alone.

No Terminator, no “case by case risk assessments”, no other qualifications. It is completely up to the Federal Government to make this decision; it is up to you and you will be held responsible.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact your delegation immediately and prohibit Terminator in order to protect farmer livelihoods, biodiversity and food security in our country and in countries across the world.

Sincerely,
Alex Fletcher

PS. Some other students and I are running a website where we post dispatches about what is happening here and what position countries are taking. I will post this letter there and will be posting Canada's position during the meetings. You can find the page at: wheredidmygenesgo.org

Cc: Minister of Agriculture, The Honourable Chuck Strahl; Minister of the Environment, The Honourable Rona Ambrose; Minister of International Cooperation, The Honourable Josée Verner

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

2006-03-22T17:15:00.000-03:00

(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.

Intellectual Property Rights v.s. the CBD

2006-03-22T15:22:00.000-03:00

Parties debated at length the importance of a regime on access and benefits sharing and a system/measures to protection for traditional knowlegde innovations and practices (TKIP) on Tuesday and Wednesday of the first week of the COP. These issues infringe on annother existing set of international standards and conceptions of knowledge and property: intellectual property rights(IPR).
Intellectual property rights allow on person or a corperation to claim ownership of knowledge, uses and resources, giving a single person or group an economic monopoly on a specific idea or resource. This set of instruments and values reflects the value of expert science, money and privledge and negate the rights of local, indigenous, poor or developing country persons or groups to gain benefits from the knowledge, innovations or practices over which they may have orginal ownership. Examples of such instruments are the TRIPs agreement (trade related intellectual property rights) under the WTO and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Rights Organization) and UPOV (the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) which recognize patents and the rights of groups such as plant breeders whom use or gain access to biological and genetic resources and claim rights (ownership) of them and their products.

Delegates and organizations present that were concerned about protecting business, science and industry often used statements valuing IPR or other instruments that uphold IPR or expressing concerns about duplication of work as means of decreasing the mandates of a future regime on ABS or a system to protect TKIP or to derail the further developments and negotiations on either of these issues. The Philipines, Columbia and Malaysia have seen through these ploys and addressed them. On Wednesday morning the Philipines recognized the need to consider TRIPs and WIPO when looking into ABS and a system for TKIP, but also recognized the need to consider the fact that these instruments may run counter to the objectives of the CBD. Columbia on Tuesday afternoon stated that the CBD of all international instruments should have the leading role and mandate over access and benefits sharing through the development of an international regime. Malaysia spoke on both Tuesday and Wednesday on the conflicts between the objective of the CBD surrounding ABS and protecting TKIP. Malaysia called on Parties to take ownership of the issue (ABS) and only to seek advce of others (organizations/instruments) , as an ABS regime is within the scop of the CBD. On Wednesday Malaysia further stated that the WTO and TRIPs agreement have been detrimental to the preservation/protection of the knowledge of indigenous people and supported consent and benefits being attached to permission for access to knowledge resources etc.

There remains a divide between those valuing science and industry and the protection of monopoly power and benefits in relation to resources, both intellectual and natural, and those valuing the rights of indigenous, local, poor, or developing countries' peoples. Parties have stated that the protection of the rights of these peoples in relation to biololgical diversity is covered by the Convention. Therefore Parties placing other values over those of ABS and the protection of TKIP are actually supporting the objectives of other instruments and objectives counter to the CBD.

"It's a Game," says U.S. Delegate Leonard Hirsch

2006-03-21T16:57:00.000-03:00

As the shouts from protestors echoed outside this morning, inside the conference center it was a bit more noisy and hectic than usual. Some parties looking grim and hurried past the onlookers as others took pictures and looked supportive. Groups of people huddled together, talking quietly and glancing furtively outside towards the protest. I found myself walking up to U.S.--non-party--delegate Leonard Hirsch (shown in photo) and asking him what he thought.

Leonard is obviously a politician, smooth and oiled in all his lines, smiling and helpful while feeding me the same position that is repeated to many in the civil society. He would stop often to smile or shake hands with important people, introducing them to me when appropriate.

“It’s a game,” he said, speaking of the politics and the way things are done at the conference. The United States gets portrayed as the bad guys because we are easy to blame. But the truth is that we are the one country in complete compliance with the CBD.

What?!?!??

No, really, it is science, it is the truth. The U.S. does tests every year and we are in compliance with the regulations. There are “crazies” out there that like to pretend otherwise, to say that the U.S. is the bad guy, but it is just not true.

So what do you want out of these negotiations, if we are supposedly on the “good” side?

All we want is to be able to test this technology. How can we see if it will help people if we can’t test it? What is sad is that the one thing that might save crop contamination, the one thing that might solve the problem of cross-pollination, they (gesturing outside to the protestors) are not willing to accept. And the fact of the matter is that because there are restrictions on testing this technology it is actually done now more in the fields than in the greenhouses as it was originally because scientists are worried about the “Greenpeace crazies” destroying their greenhouse. Had I read the Ban Terminator propaganda?

Yes, I had.

Well, those are scare tactics. Good scare tactics, but there is absolutely no truth to them. There is no real science behind their arguments.

Hmmmm… Ok, so I smile and nod. Keep him talking. Don’t get him angry or defensive. What about the indigenous peoples, I ask, what about the farmers that are against the terminator technology because they know what it can do to them? Aren’t they, the ones in the field, a good source for truth? Those are the indigenous people out there right now protesting Terminator technology.

Well, as a matter of fact he had seen and talked to small farmers. These farmers had seen the better yields that GMO crops produce. Many farmers like the GMO crops. For their cash crop they use GMO seeds and then for the food that they eat they use old traditional seed. They know the difference. They don’t like the GMO stuff, but it produces a better crop that they can sell. They realize that. So they plan two different types of seed.

I let the fact that he didn’t mention that there is almost a 20% chance of contaminating their “food” crop with GMOs from their other fields slide. He obviously didn’t care about that. Alright, let’s try another tactic:

Ok, but then the consumers get the “bad” crop.
He’s got to care about consumers if he doesn’t care about producers, right? …Wrong.

It is the demand of the market. If there wasn’t a demand for it then there wouldn’t be a market. It is all about the demand.

Right, so here I am talking about Terminator technology and trying to get at the fact that 1.4 billion people depend on farm-saved seeds for their livelihood, and with GURTS those people could be forced into an external reliance on a multinational corporation, but he is back to the market. To money. Right, this is the United States. People’s livelihoods don’t matter, as long as they contribute to the world market. Leonard’s face is animated as he continues:

The farmers won’t buy the seed if they don’t want to. It is their choice. They can do what they want.

Leonard never mentions that the terminator technology was developed by the U.S. government, along with multinational seed and agrochemical industries, specifically with the aim to prevent farmers from re-planting harvested seed so they can maximize industry profits. He paints a beautiful picture of sovereign farmers that aren’t pressured from the outside to make decisions that could ruin their lives. Leonard lives in a world where terminator technology can solve all problems.

When I leave him Leonard is talking to guy from an intergovernmental organization named BIO-NET. “Pollinators” he says, by way of introduction. Right. I nod, smile. I realize that the U.S. is always going to be a powerful player, but it isn’t easy to get to the heart of the matter with them.

“We get enough done,” he laughs, speaking of the amount of leverage the U.S. has as a nonparty. A well-oiled machine, I think, out to protect the profits of industry and big government no matter what the cost. Proud to be an American? Not today.

Participatory Governance and the Community Taba

2006-03-21T15:59:00.000-03:00

At 1pm today the World Congress on Protected Areas sponsored a side event called "Protected Area Governance, Equity, Participation, and Benefit Sharing: Using the CBD and other instruments to support participatory conservation."

The discussions centered around the Programme of Work on Protected Areas recently adopted by the CBD which will hopefully promote Community Conservation Areas and Co-Managed Protected Areas. There were also many case studies discussed.

However, what made this side-event most notable was its location in the Community Taba. This is a thatched roof building outside the convention center, across the parking lot, in a large field. Halfway through the discussion, all participants walked outside, held hands in prayer, and sang three ohmes. NGOs, Students, Indigenous, and likely a few delegates holding hands outside the convention center was quite a scene. After prayer we were all fed organic lentils, rice, salad and freshly made chapatis. This was not a normal catered event as you can see above.

With food in hand, we commenced to discuss how the CBD can be used to promote equity in protected area management. This topic will continue to be discussed and explored throughout these two weeks, so be sure to stay tuned. Thanks a lot. Namaste.

Canada Threatens Progress on Access and Benefit Sharing

2006-03-21T15:27:00.000-03:00

“If we are talking about a house, then this would be the foundation,” stated Tanzania on the first day of the COP 8 negotiations on Access and Benefit Sharing (Article 15).

In a three hour meeting this morning, Parties to the CBD began to discuss the next steps of the negotiations on Access and Benefit Sharing, specifically the process of working towards an International Regime that would have legally-binding and/or non-binding instruments regarding access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from the use of those resources. This system, considered fundamental to virtually all countries, would ideally provide a framework for groups of people to regulate access to their resources (e.g. through a system of prior informed consent under mutually agreed on terms). The framework is also key to ensuring that groups of people, in particular indigenous and local communties, gain fair and equitable benefits from the use of those resources.

This framework is not only central to the question of social and environmental justice, it is also important to economic development, because an effective system that ensures benefits from genetic resources for poorer communities and countries can benefit those communties economically. Conversely, the present system, in which transnational industries take advantage of genetic resources of other communities without equitably sharing the benefits, promotes economic inequality and injustice. (See an extensive report on Biopiracy in Africa)

The question on the table this morning was concerning “process” – what would the next steps be for the Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) that meets in between the COPs (the Convention meetings) in order to further the work on ABS. Almost all countries stressed the need for at least two more ASB Working Group meetings between now and COP 9 (2008) when they are supposed to have a draft proposal for the International Regime. Countries were almost all in agreement that if two meetings could not be facilitated due to budget constraints, that one 2-week long meeting would be necessary.

The only country whose statement was a clear (if someone camouflaged) stumbling block for the continued negotiations was CANADA, who has been supported at previous meetings by Australia and New Zealand, with the U.S. in the background. Canada who started out by commenting on how nice the chair’s smile was, talked about how important access and benefit sharing is to his country, and then threw in the fastball – saying Canada thought these negotiations should be delayed to give adequate time to consider the issues, and that perhaps this process question should be revisited at COP 9. In the meantime, Canada recommended holding informational workshops and exchanges. Canada also commented that he was not sure he would have the energy to sustain a 2-week meeting on ABS.

Canada’s arguments were out of place if not insulting, especially considering the statements other countries who spoke about the urgent need for this type of ABS regime to protect their people from exploitation, protect traditional knowledge and communities, promote economic development, and protect biodiversity. Country after country expressed disappointment and frustration that the CBD has existed for 10 years and yet still no international ABS regime has been implemented.

After Canada's comments, MALAYSIA made a powerful and resounding statement expressing deep concern that some countries wish to delay this important process of working towards an international ABS regime. Picking up on what other countries had mentioned, Malaysia supported the idea of holding substantive meetings on the ABS issue at this COP meeting – although the original proposal had been to hold off these discussions until the future date to be determined. He said, in fact, that these negotiations could be held next week, thereby further expediting the process. Malaysia also mentioned, regarding Canada’s concern for a lack of stamina to last two weeks, that perhaps the groups of indigenous people could give him the needed energy (possibly referring in part to the inspiring protests led by indigenous groups this morning against the Terminator technology.)

So where will the ABS negotiations go? Clearly the vast majority of countries are committed to creating a strong, effective International Regime to regulate access to and provide fair and equitable benefits of resources for all groups of people. And, perhaps we can even continue discussions on the content of the regime in these next two weeks in order to further speed up this important process. The lack of such a regime has devastating consequences for communities – especially indigenous and local communities.

We CAN NOT allow Canada and a handful of other countries to block this important movement forward; we can not allow them to delay or limit the negotiations in any way. We must ensure that industries who have profited at the expense of communities worldwide be held accountable to an international framework that regulates access to genetic resource and that requires the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of such resources.

Got GURTs?

2006-03-21T13:34:00.000-03:00

The issue of GURTs is beginning to heat up here at the conference, and as such there will no doubt be many blogs on the topic. For those who aren’t sure what GURTs are and why they can be harmful, this submission provides an overview of the technology behind the controversy. Before I begin, I would like to say that this information can be found in the the report of the UN technical expert group on GURTs (UNEP/CBD/WG8J/4/INF/17 if anyone is interested in reading it in full).

GURTs stands for Genetic Use Restriction Technologies and has also been given the name “Terminator Technology” or “Suicide Seeds” by other groups. The first patent for GURTs was filed by Delta and Pine Land company in conjunction with the US Department of Agriculture in 1998 under the name “control of plant gene expression” with the purpose (supposedly) of providing a sort of copyright on GMO’s by requiring the farmer to buy seed from year to year.

There are two types of GURTS: T-GURTs and V-GURTs. T-GURTs (Trait GURTs) are specific to one gene, where as V-GURTs (Variety GURTs) work on the whole organism. V-GURTs are the ones causing the controversy and are the ones being discussed at the COP, so that is what I will outline here.

The idea behind GURTs is that a plant will grow, flower and produce fruit and seed as usual, however the offspring seed is engineered to produce a cell toxin that prevents it from germinating. This is done through a series of genes, not just one. Furthermore, the GM companies need viable seed to continue to grow and sell their product, so they must be able to turn on and off the terminator gene sequence. They do this through an inducer, meaning that if the seed is treated in a certain way, it will be turned on and produce sterile seed. The seed companies therefore treat the seeds (in this case with tetracycline) before they are sold.

There are a number of limitations with GURTs which can lead to a multitude of potential problems (the problems will be outlines in the next paragraph). One notable limitation is that GURTs plants produce GM pollen, thus allowing for outcossing with neighboring plant and weed species. Secondly, these plants are unpredictable. They have only been tested in greenhouse experiments, never in the wild (nor should they be in my opinion), and so it is not know what will happen when they are in a dynamic living ecosystem. Everything in nature is designed to reproduce, and these are designed to do the opposite; such opposing goals could have unpredictable impacts. Lastly, as already mentioned this technology is incredibly complex with a series of steps, and if any one goes wrong the technology will not function as normal, producing a fertile GM seed.

These limitations can give rise to a number of problems. One is gene silencing. This has been shown to happen in many GM crops, and GURTs is no different. Gene silencing is when a particular gene is still present in the DNA, yet it has been “turned off” by the organisms, so it is there but is not expressed. It is believed that this evolved as a defense mechanism against invading viral or bacterial DNA, and in the case of GURTs it would mean that the terminator sequence could be passed from generation to generation or between and among species, but is not activated. Most GURTs genes are viral or bacterial, increasing the likelihood of this happening. Mutations are another potential problem. Mutations always occur in organisms, and given that there are multiple gene sequences in GURTs there is a higher likelihood of this occurring. Furthermore, the gene which turns the sequence on has been shown to be “leaky” meaning it turns on and off without the inducer, increasing the unpredictability of the plant. Finally there is little known about the inducer in terms of at what point in the seed development it needs to be applied and in what quantity, making the success not 100%, and the seed has been shown to be induced by a number of factors, allowing for unintended induction.

To conclude, GURTs is incredibly complex and unpredictable, allowing for a substantive likelihood of the genes being released into the wild, causing the spread of a very dangerous gene sequence.

I hope this helped provide an introduction to what GURTs is and how it functions (including where it can go wrong). I’m sure there will be much more on to say on the issue in the coming days, as it is already causing a stir here in Curitiba. If you are interested in actions to take on GURTs check out the Ban Terminator site at http://www.banterminator.org/

NO to Terminator, NO to "case by case"

2006-03-21T12:37:00.000-03:00

This morning as delegates and participants arrived at the conference center they were greeted by the MST (Peoples' Landless Movement), the Via Campesina (Peasants Way), and many NGOs and participants. While the Campesinos were forced to make their way on foot after the police blocked their buses they made it in time to join COP participants. As the buses rolled in, the signs and banners reading "Terminate Terminator," “Life is not for Sale," "GMO GO HOME," "Suicide Seeds are Homicide Seeds," and "case by case = coffin by coffin" were clearly visible to all. The MST truck played music and projected the voices of farmers and local grassroots organizers. The Campesinos demand a ban on Terminator technology (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) and call for resistance and solidarity against the imperialistic industries and countries (Canada, New Zealand, and Australia) that are promoting this technology which would further commercialize and monopolize the essence of life: seeds.

The crowd echoed "Seeds are Life!” Biological diversity is life, and the Convention is charged to protect this life.

Photo with the MOP President

2006-03-20T20:47:00.000-03:00

Thought people might like to feast their eyes upon this little photo opportunity we grabbed. Its like a Where's Waldo photo- only easier. Can you find the COA students?

You did! Great!

Now help us ban terminator. :)

Opening Youth Statement to Plenary

2006-03-20T19:19:00.000-03:00

Formalities were underway today at the first day of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The youth were there to show their presence, and we had another statement ready to be read at the plenary. Unfortunately again there was not enough time for it to be read, but in case anyone is wondering what our plans are and our message is, here is what we would have said:

On behalf of the youth, I thank you very much for this opportunity Madame president.
First of all, we would to like to express our gratitude to the government of Brazil for welcoming us to the wonderful city of Curitiba. The efforts of the people of Curitiba are a great inspiration for us, and we hope to see the participants of the COP embrace this same spirit of environmental protection.

Madame President, children and youth make up almost one fifth of the world’s population, and our enthusiasm and commitment to act is crucial in the fight against the loss of biodiversity. As youth, the ones who will inherit the world that you give to us, we have much at stake in these negotiations. The Convention recognizes the tremendous potential of youth as catalysts for change, and we ask that you recognize our role in these negotiations and what we can offer towards the issues that will be addressed in the upcoming weeks. The 2010 goals are vital for the protection of earth you will leave us, and we are committed to supporting the parties of this protocol in working to overcome pressing environmental threats.

We believe that the only way to achieve substantial improvement on the issues addressed in the upcoming weeks is through combined efforts. We would like to emphasize that actions to tackle the environmental issues affecting us must not be subordinate to economic interests.

Over the next two weeks we will play an active role in key issues for our generation, including agricultural diversity, biodiversity loss, protected areas, and the threat of genetic use restricting technologies. Furthermore, we believe we must move forward in recognizing the importance of traditional knowledge and livelihoods, social equity, and healthy environments when considering these issues.

Friends of the COP, we offer you our commitment and dynamism. The cause of biodiversity protection provides a unique opportunity to unite and cooperate. We look forward to hearing your concrete plans of action to solve the issues addressed here in Curitiba and we ask that you remember future generations in the actions you take. Please consider us as your ally in the effort to protect our planet. The time to act is now to protect our future, and we, the ones who will inherit that future, are committed to taking solids steps with you.

Thank you very much Madame President.

WELCOME TO COP8!!!

2006-03-20T09:01:00.000-03:00

The MOP may have come to a dramatic conclusion late Friday, but a whole new wave of delegates, NGO's and youth (along with some familiar faces from last week) are here at the Expo center early Monday morning for the opening of the COP.

Not only have the numbers of people present swelled, but everyone seems excited and ready to see what these negotiations hold for the next two weeks. The issue that will dominate the upcomming few days are those surrounding article 8(j) of the Convention which deals with indigenous knowledge towards conserving biodiveristy. Within this falls the issue of GURTs, or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (a.k.a "terminator technology" or "suicide seeds"). These are the genetically engineered plants that produce non-viable seed, preventing farmers from saving seed from year to year and making them economically dependent on GE seed companies. There is currenlty a moratorium on this technology, and this is going to be a much debated and contentious issue here.

The youth have a strong starting point, building from the networks and lessons we learned from the MOP, allowing us to jump right into the COP. There are already a number of statements, events, banners, etc planned, so stay tuned to the blog to keep up to date on what we are doing and how the negotiations are going!

Youth Statement on the Protocol Negotiations

2006-03-20T08:38:00.000-03:00

Below is a copy of the statement prepared by the youth at the Biosafety negotiations which was meant to be read at the closing plenary. Unfortunately the plenary went over (way over) the 3 hours scheduled, so no civil society were given the oportunity to speak. We still thought we should get the message out there, so here it is:

Thank you very much Madam President,

I am speaking on behalf of the youth of various countries present here at the 3rd Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

We would like to beign by thanking the parties for reaching an agreement on this issue. As youth, the ones who will inherit the world that you give to us, we have much at stake in these negotiations. Perhaps our understanding of the purpose of this protocol and the role of the parties within it was misguided. We as youth believed that trade and the environment were meant to compliment each other, not be at odds, and we thought that this protocol recognized the crucial importance of centers of origin and centers of genetic diversity to humankind. Furthermore, we believed this protocol was intended to ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms, specifically focusing on transboundary movements. Recalling these objectives, the youth in attendance have a number of concerns at the outcome of these negotiations, and we remind parties that you are here not only representing the interest of certain industries, but also the interests of your people, most notably future generations.

The youth here have taken an active interest in the issue of article 18.2(a). We believed that strong language, including the word 'contains' is essential to strengthen the Protocol. We greatly thank the parties that took an active role in strengthening the Protocol, including those parties, who in previous years, have worked to weaken it. While we recognize that ultimately a compromise was made, we as youth are disappointed with the outcome. Our goal is to strengthen the protocol as much as possible, and it seems some delegations were here for the sole purpose of weakening it. Youth make up almost one fifth of the world's population, and we are the ones who will bear the greatest burden of negative outcomes of these negotiations. Here, in the presence of the countries of the world, we would like to say that we will hold countries accountable for the decisions that have been made, and that this is our future you are deciding; please work in the upcomming MOPs on these issues to pass on to us the world we want to inherit.

Thank you very much madame President for allowing us to be heard.

The Terminator Threat

2006-03-19T14:58:00.000-03:00

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!

CONSENSUS REACHED on 18.2(a)!

2006-03-18T12:18:00.000-03:00

MOP 3, The Third Meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol, has concluded with a successful consensus on Art 18.2 (a) – the documentation requirements for the transboundary shipments of GMOs.

Although the decision that was finally agreed upon late last night is not ideal and reflects the influence of industry and non-parties (eg US, Canada, Australia and Argentina), it also represents an enormous achievement: a clear consensus on a strong decision for documentation requirements showing the world community that the Protocol is alive, strong, and moving forward.

It will take us some time to figure out the exact implications of some of the wording of this decision. However, we do know that most of the language that came out of the chair’s recommended text was finally agreed to – and this represent a major step forward for the protocol and for biosafetey. The final decision includes the “contains” requirements where there exist adequate systems for identification and the “may contains” requirements where those systems do not yet exist. It also decides to consider a decision at its sixth meeting to require all exports to be accompanied by the “contains” language requiring the specific and detailed documentation of the genetically modified organisms in the shipments.

At the request of Mexico, an additional component was added stressing that the requirements of the protocol do not apply to transboundary movements between parties and non-parties – although, in accordance with Article 24 of the protocol, such transactions shall be “consistent with the objectives of the Protocol.” - That Mexico was arguing to add such text - which does not change the situation, and only makes it harder to try to increase requirements of non-parties - is indicative of the influence of industry and non-parties on Mexico and its cohort, Paraguay.

However, it also remains clear that this text states that the documentation of all transboundary movements must be in accordance with national biosafety laws. It is therefore of utmost importance to carry out the mandate of this text, to make the most of the successful conclusion of these negotiations, and to encourage governments to begin to implement stricter biosafetey regulations. As supported by this decision and the Protocol, such regulations will be consistent with international law and will effectively be able to promote protection against genetic contamination.

We have a right to know the genetically modified organisms that are entering our communities, and the decision reached last night confirms that the international community will stand behind countries as they work to uphold that right for the sake of the health and well being of its people and the environment.

ACTION NEEDED STILL on MEXICO and PARAGUAY

2006-03-17T17:01:00.000-03:00

Mexico and Paraguay have shifted their positions slightly on the question of documentation for transboundary shipments of genetically modified organisms - an issue that is key to the future of biosafety. However, they are still blocking a consensus by requiring certain specific changes which the rest of the international community can not accept.

So ACTION is STILL needed - especially on Mexico - whose demands are far more unacceptable. In the blog below is a draft letter and contact info for Mexico President Vincente Fox - please pass it on to anyone you know from Mexico!

Thanks!

P.S. New Zealand formally accepted the compromise text - we must now make sure Mexico and Paraguay allow for a consensus decision. This is the time to act.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED!!! PRESSURE MEXICO

2006-03-17T14:03:00.000-03:00

Above image: Head of Mexican Delegation working to obstruct the negotiations.

Please contact Mexican president Vincente Fox and urge any Mexican citizens you know to contact him Immediately. Mexico is the major obstruction to a meaningful agreement on documentation requirement negotiations. This is an election year in Mexico; NGOs are trying to make this an election issue. Please distribute widely!
English and Spanish versions below

To the Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Vicente Fox Quesada

vicente.fox.quesada@presidencia.gob.mx

Dear President Fox,
I am writing to you regarding the negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol in Curitiba, Brazil, which will conclude today. As you know a most important agreement under the Protocol regarding the identification of genetically modified organisms in international shipments is due to be agreed in Curitiba today.
We are informed that at this moment the Mexican delegation is the major obstacle to finding a compromise on this issue. Apparently the delegation is bound by a mandate of your ministers, which does not allow them to strike the compromise, now desperately needed.
We therefore urge you to personally take care of this unfortunate situation and allow for an agreement of the 132 countries in strong need of common minimum standards of identification of GMOs. We believe that Mexico, being the home and the centre of origin of one of the most important food and feed crops world wide, should join the international community in establishing minimum measures of traceability and identification.
Dear President, for the sake of 9000 years of maize cultivation in your country, for the sake of future generations and for the sake of global protection of biodiversity – please live up to your historic role and responsibility today. Please do enable and establish an agreement on this most important agreement on Article 18.2a of the Biosafety Protocol!

Estimado Presidente Fox,
Le escribo con relación las negociaciones del Protocolo de Bioseguridad que se llevan a cabo en Curitiba, las que concluyen hoy. Como sabe, en el marco del Protocolo hoy se debe llegar a un acuerdo muy importante en Curitiba, respecto a la identificación de organismos genéticamente modificados (OGMs) presentes en cargamentos internacionales.
Tenemos información que en este momento la deleación Mejicana es el mayor obstáculo para llegar a un compromiso en relación con éste tema. Aparentemente, la delegación esta sujeta a un mandato de sus ministros, que no les permite llegar a un acuerdo, el cual se necesita con urgencia.
En ese contexto, le hacemos un llamado personal para resolver ésta desafortunada situación que permita llegar a un acuerdo de los 132 países que necesitan de estándares comunes mínimos para la identificación de OGMs. Creemos que Méjico, siendo el hogar y centro de orígen de uno de los más importantes cultivos para alimento humano y animal en el mundo, debería unirse a la comunidad internacional, para establecer medidas mínimas de trazabilidad e identificación.
Estimado Presidente, en beneficio de los 9000 años de cultivo de maíz en su país, en beneficio de la generaciones futuras y en beneficio de la protección global de la biodiversidad, le hacemos un llamado para cumplir hoy con su rol histórico y de responsabilidad. Por favor instruya a su delegación para que se llegue a este muy importante acuerdo sobre el Art´culo 18.2a del Protocolo de Bioseguridad.

Mexico and Paraguay Block Consensus: ACTION NEEDED NOW

2006-03-17T13:55:00.000-03:00

So we waited in the Plenary Hall (main meeting room), whispering about the implications of Mexico’s block of the negotitions of 18.2(a) (see blog below), and wondering what next steps the Chair would take. When they reconvened after several minutes, Paraguay took the floor supporting Mexico’s position, and requesting that the Friends of the Chair (the closed-door meeting) reconvene to work out a new text for GMO documentation requirements. We held our breaths.

The Chair (Norway) then took a stand, and said that no, the private group would not convene, that the text we had now (described below) was a result of long and hard work and reflected a compromise of all positions. She stated that any more comments would be heard in the Plenary Hall, and that delegates MUST reach a decision today. The Chair's comments were greeting by vigorous applause tempered by the knowledge that a successful outcome hinges on these few countries.

It is 1:45pm. The meeting of all parties will meet again at 3pm. We are now scrambling to do last minute lobbying and outreach to pressure Mexico, Paraguay and New Zealand (who is being mysteriously silent) to stand with the world community and to agree to this compromise text (of documentation requirements for transboundary shipments of GMOs) so that we can move forward in protecting our health and environment. WE NEED THIS DECISION TODAY.

Danger: Mexico moves to block consensus

2006-03-17T13:33:00.000-03:00

Is Mexico going to betray its people, the world community, our earth, and our future?

The closed-door working group that met through the night and until the dawn this morning came out with a text that “contains” a compromise for effective documentation requirements for transboundary shipments of genetically modified organisms.

We are currently sitting in the main Meeting Hall with the delegates and participants of the conference, and we are listening with shock to
Mexico as they declare that it will block the proposed text that came out of the meeting of which they were a part.

This shock is shared by all other countries who have spoken, including Brazil, Peru, the European Community, and Ethiopia. Brazil expressed extreme dismay that “people who were a part of the entire process – are now willing to put our conclusion back into brackets?”

The conclusion requires detailed documentation for LMO exports where there already exists the structure to provide that information (this structure - either "identity preservation systems or other measures" would need to track the product from the growing and processing to the transportion and storage). It then allows for a “may contain” requirement for exports where that information (and those systems) are not readily available, and decides to consider a decision at its sixth meeting that would require all exports to be accompanied by the specific and detailed documentation. (The decision for the timeframe, bracketed in the published text, was proposed by the chair and agreed to by all vocal parties here except for Mexico.)

In a surprise and devastating move, Mexico took the floor here with a statement demanding that the entire text referred to above, both the “contains” requirements and the timeframe be put in brackets. An outcry ensued, by Brazil, Peru, the European Communtiy and others. After each statement by countries supporting the proposed text, many in the room clapped loudly. We are all wondering: Will Mexico put our future in brackets and block this crucial decision?

Please follow this – and if you can spread the word to anyone in Mexico, please do so!

(Read below for more on the importance of this decision not only for the world’s ability to prevent genetic contamination, but specifically for Mexico's own ability to protect the crucial center of origin of maize (corn).) We must stand together.

Youth Press Conference a Hit

2006-03-17T12:26:00.000-03:00

Yet again the youth at this conference have taken huge strides to communicate our views to both the delegates and the press. This morning six students, representing the US, Canada, Costa Rica, and Brazil sat on a panel explaining the necessity of a strong outcome for 18.2(a) (labeling for international shipments of transgenic organisms) in order to protect the future health and safety of our environment. With banners hanging, interpreters running, and many press present the youth created a splendid opportunity and used it well. As I am writing this, the College of the Atlantic students are conversing with a reporter from Rueters.

Keep your eyes peeled in Brazilian and international press for coverage of our participation here in Brazil, and be sure to make your voice heard in your home country.

How Could They?!!???!??

2006-03-17T09:17:00.000-03:00

The Friends of the Chair group just got out of their meeting about an hour ago, and it seems that Paraguay, Peru and Mexico have consistently blocked any kind of agreement on a “contains” text. They are not allowing for any sort of text that would even remotely protect the biodiversity in importing countries.

In fact, there are countries who would rather have no documentation at all accompany transboundary movements of LMOs and instead make the importer go to the Biosafety Clearing House get the information, which of course is absolutely ridiculous. At least we can count on the African group to not allow that idea to pass, but it seems that any text that even hints to stricter regulations is being allowed past Paraguay, Peru and Mexico.

Peru has just promised this morning that she will not block the text that the chairs will propose to the Working Group as something “with some reservations.” The text, however, is still being translated into the six U.N. languages and will not be out for us to see at least for another hour, so we don’t know that her saying she will not block the text is really doing any good.

As we wait in desperate anticipation to see the text, we keep thinking about the horrible implications of Peru, Paraguay and Mexico’s actions. This is the future of biodiversity, this is the future of our world, that they are throwing away. How could they??!?!??

Paraguay: Trading Away Farmers Lives

2006-03-17T08:42:00.000-03:00

The suits, the obsessive cleanliness, the formalities, the climate controlled meeting rooms, the excess of security forces and military police, and the lies and false promises of the industry lobby; Inside the conference center you could easily forget or ignore the realities of the outside world. It makes the image of a Paraguayan child—blistered by the indiscriminate aerial fumigation of Monsantos’ Round-Up Ready (ie. Round-up resistant) soy crops—remind us of the reality of suffering and destruction caused by the rapid spread of GM crops in much of the world.

In a side event on Wednesday farmers from Paraguay, Mexico, and Argentina shared their stories of struggling against GMOs. They spoke of the huge disconnect between this conference and the real world. From Paraguay the mother of 11 year-old Silvino Talavera—who died last year from aerial spraying of GM crops—was present. Paraguay, who is not actually cooperating but is rather impeding negotiations, has undertaken an “agrarian reform” agenda that involves evicting farmers and their families from their homes, destroying their crops, and turning their land over to biotech growers predominantly for soy production. Efforts to reclaim or resist have been met with violence and fatalities.

The industry lobby argues that these negotiations are not about the small farmers but about trade and that the much desired documentation requirements would only impose undue costs on GMO producers. As long LMOs are allowed to cross borders without being identified for what they really are importing countries will be denied their sovereign right to make informed choices. As long as this is allowed the use of GM crops will continue to increase and the consequences of genetic contamination, violence, displacement, loss of food sovereignty, and victims like 11yr old Silvino Talavera will increase. It has already gone too far.

MOP 3 “CONTAINS” Arm Bands for Our Future

2006-03-16T19:17:00.000-03:00

(Press Release sent out in English and Portuguese)

MOP 3 “CONTAINS” Arm Bands for Our Future

The Youth at MOP 3, the UN negotiations on Biosafety, are wearing arm bands painted with the word “CONTAINS,” in order to strongly urge parties to the Biosafety Protocol to negotiate a successful conclusion to the question of LMO documentation for exports and imports.

The youth also encourage other participants at the negotiations to wear the arm bands, in order to demonstrate their solidarity with the youth and their commitment to protecting the future.

A strong decision on Article 18.2(a) to provide for precise documentation requirements for LMOs included in transboundary shipments “is vital in order to prevent genetic contamination, and in order to protect our futures” stated Denise Zucato from Sao Paulo, Brazil. In the final days of the Biosafety negotiations, the youth are wearing arm bands painted with the word “Contains,” in order to show the delegates that the youth are watching, and that they care deeply about the outcome of the negotiations.

“We are very concerned that several countries, most notably New Zealand and Paraguay, are impeding the negotiations by taking a ‘may contain’ position that threatens the international community’s ability to protect the human health, cultural diversity, the future of agriculture, and the environment,” said Elsie Flemings of Maine, USA. “We will have to live with the consequences today and in the future.”

The youth have been an active presence throughout the negotiations, and will continue to work hard at this conference and in their home communities to protect biodiversity and to promote biosafety.

Coffee with Tewolde

2006-03-16T19:15:00.000-03:00

Tewolde is a small, short, dignified man with gray hair and hearing aids, but he is someone who is taken seriously. He is the delegate from Ethiopia, a country that is growing over 100 agricultural species of traditional, native crops, and Tewolde is here in Curitiba to make sure that the situation in his country is not changed or ruined forever by the contamination of LMOs.

As he sat there sipping his coffee and answering all my questions with an understated quiet dignity, it was obvious that here was a man who will courageously fight to save his country's crops from becoming standardized to a point like the United States is, where there are only a few select genetically modified crops grown. Contamination is hard to contain when we are talking about agricultural crops, and LMOs would threaten the existence of all those native species.

Tewolde is fighting to stop his country from becoming “a dumping grounds" for LMOs, and although he is quiet, he could never be called soft-spoken because the words coming out of his mouth when put up against a country such as New Zealand or Paraguay are fierce and determined.

New Zealand and Paraguay, although the outspoken ones at the meetings, are not the only ones we are up against. Tewolde sees the United States and Monsanto as the ones behind a lot of the opposition to a text that would require strict regulations in order to preserve biodiversity.

It is not hard to imagine the international corporations having their hand in this sticky mess when New Zealand is constantly surrounded by people with “Industry” tags: walking down the hall, at lunch and in the meetings. And it really makes you wonder when Paraguay moves to sit with the Argentina in a contact group meeting before they read a text that supposedly states their position as Paraguay.

Countries such as the United States and Argentina are not parties to the Protocol, so they cannot speak in the contact group meetings, but they seem to still have a voice, even if it is through other people’s mouths. Tewolde thinks that the fact that New Zealand gains absolutely nothing by the hard stance they are taking is proof that they are not doing it for their own benefit: they are obviously someone else’s toy.

As he talks about the opposition he is facing his eyes light up with a fire that will not easily be put out. Tewolde is in this for the long run—he is here to protect his country, his continent, and farmers everywhere—he will defend his position on protecting agricultural biodiversity until the very end.

But the end, of this COP-MOP anyway, is near, and we can only hope that the text coming out of the closed meeting going on right now supports Tewolde and all that he stands for. This is our earth we are defending, and the decisions made here are the ones that will save it or destroy it.

México: "Contains" is unnecessary

2006-03-16T19:13:00.000-03:00

Today, after the youth present at the COP-MOP drafted a press release on the status of Mexico in the negotiations of the “contains” versus “may contain” language, we went around to personally deliver our statement to delegates from many different countries. When I spoke with the head negotiator of the Mexican delegation, he had some interesting defenses for his country. After reading our document, he described México as going far beyond issues of “contains” or “may contain”, making such an argument unnecessary. He then further outlined the plan of México to create a map of what GMO varieties are grown where, so that when a shipment comes, the country will know if it is from a GM region or not. While this may sound acceptable on paper, México will first of all, most likely be unable to obtain adequate information to create such a map, and secondly knowing that a shipment comes from a GM region does nothing to clarify whether or not that specific product contains LMOs or not. Yet, according to México, this is much stronger an action than labeling something as contains or may contain, making the labeling requirements irrelevant.

He also stated that there was no way to build capacity amongst developing countries to have the technology by 2010 for such testing. It is strongly believed amongst various groups that with tracing and identity preservation it is possible, and we will never know unless we try.

My talk with the head delegate left me wondering why, if México is truly doing so much more than simple labeling requirements, they can not also push for strong language for 18.2(a). We have yet to hear their official statement on the plenary floor, but it seems clear at this point that México does not see eye to eye with the youth present at COP-MOP3.

Consensus and Compliance, Cooperation and Negotiation

2006-03-16T17:29:00.000-03:00

On Tuesday afternoon the Plenary discussed the report of the compliance committee. Consensus was discussed as a possible means of decision making within the committe. The proposed majority voting system if no consensus can be reached is currently bracketed. New Zealand and Australia (a non-party) both emphasized the importance of consensus as it reflects the spirit of the Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity. These countries have an interest in consensus because it give their views power that would not exist if majority rule was the back-up plan.Malaysia made a stong statement that “If consensus is going to hold the whole world back,” then there is a need to “consider a new route.” Zambia supported Malaysia and majority voting.

This discussion brings up a further point. Negotiations at Protocol meetings, not just the compliance committee but the MOP as well, are constantly distracted or even derailed by one or a small number of Parties to the Protocol with the outcome of inaction and suspended decision-making. These Parties often make statements on which they are unwilling to argue, negotiate, or compromise. These actions do not reflect the practice of consensus building that is at the heart of the Protocol. Do such actions by Parties reflect non-compliance with the “heart” or “spirt” of the Protocol?

Youth urge Mexico to Protect the Maize Center of Origin

2006-03-16T16:35:00.000-03:00

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.

The people want "contains"

2006-03-16T15:21:00.000-03:00

As the meeetings proceed in the conference center the people whos' lives are affected by these negotiations express their views outside. Separated from the conference center by a parkinng lot and military police, thousands of members from the Via Campesina (The Pesants Way) and the MST (Peoples Landless Movement) have been demonstrating in the heat of the street. They are demanding a meaningful decision on documentation for transboundary shipments of LMOs; they are demanding for documentation that specifies whether a shipment "contains" LMOs. Without this language there is little hope of safely monitoring and tracing the contents of shipments. It is a small shameful minority of countries, most notably New Zealand and Paraguay, that are threatening to once again undermine these negotiations in spite of overwhelming support for a meaningful agreement.

Paraguay’s Position: Capacity or Trade?

2006-03-16T13:08:00.000-03:00

Paraguay came out with a an anti-contains language statement an hour and a half into the contact group meeting on article 18.2(a) on Wednesday afternoon, completely changing the trajectory of what had looked to be very promising negotiations. I spoke with Paraguay on their position Wednesday evening. Paraguay’s position on article 18.2(a) is confused by the issues of capacity and trade. Further, the country moved to sit next to Argentina (the country who brought the case against Europe’s moratorium on LMOs to the WTO) before speaking at the Contact Group. So, what is Paraguay’s actual position and the motivation behind it?

The issue of documentation on LMOs for food, feed, or processing (LMOs-FFP) is the main issue at MOP 3. The issue was high priority at both MOP 1 and MOP 2. The key issues shaping the debate are a stand alone document verses an invoice, the information included in the documentation and the labeling of the shipment as "may contain" or "contains." Brazil came out with text proposing extended target dates and capacity building toward use of "contains" language in documentation. The reasoning behind this proposition was to give developing countries the time and the resources to adjust their agricultural systems of storage, transportation, etc. to a point at which these countries could use the specific "contains" language to describe shipments. Stand alone documents were avoided in Brazil’s text. The Chair of the Contact Group also encouraged parties to leave the issues of a stand alone document to a later date.

Paraguay stated on Wednesday afternoon that using "contains" language would not be possible and they could not support it. The country proposed to cut the entire paragraph in the draft text on information to be required in documentation. Paraguay proposed to include only "may contain" language in documentation and to defer all other information to the Biosafety Clearing House on-line. This completely derailed the negotiations.

I spoke with Paraguay on their position. The delegate stated that using contains language would not be possible. This was because of the system of agriculture and transportation could not be changed to accommodate the language "contains." Capacity building and targets reflected in the Brazilian text would only be an option for determining first if a system that would apply to "contains" language would work and second how much it would cost. When I asked the delegate if she thought it could be done her response was yes, but that it would be a trade barrier. This completely changed the reasoning behind Paraguay’s position.

Paraguay was referring to a concern about a WTO suit brought by Argentina against the E.U over trade barriers caused by their moratorium on LMOs. This suit only accused the E.U. of an incomplete or unacceptable risk assessment, as it did not include the likelihood factor. The WTO has specific standards and recognizes the standards of Codex’s risk assessment guidelines. I explained this to the delegate and she agreed with me. I asked her if an appropriate and acceptable set of risk assessment guidelines was developed then Paraguay would be willing to use "contains" language. The delegate said yes, and that was what the country had been trying to say. I explained that their efforts had not been clear, and asked her to please emphasize that point in the Friends of the Chair meeting that evening. The delegate was joined by another that informed her that it was time to go.

If Paraguay’s concern is the WTO and trade barrier, it is not the argument they are putting forward. Paraguay must state all their concerns in order to have a productive discussion. However, if the concerns that Paraguay is putting forward are not theirs, but Argentina’s(a non-party) then their interests are not in line with the Protocol. How can a consensus be reached when a Party acts as a non-Party?

Lack of direction

2006-03-15T14:49:00.000-03:00

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.

Disregarding the World - New Zealand's Double Standards

2006-03-15T11:00:00.000-03:00

We have three days left. It looks now like New Zealand might be the most dangerous element in these negotiations – every other party to the protocol agrees that we must come to a strong decision for the identification requirements of GMO shipments for food, feed and processing. While Brazil’s position is still questionable, they did produce a draft text last night that, while not ideal, showed a clear understanding that the specific requirements of what GMOs are contained in transboundary shipments is necessary (for them, this could be postponed for 4 years).

New Zealand appears to be the ONLY country that is a part of the protocol that refuses to move forward with constructive discussion to create a meaningful decision that would make a step towards actually protecting our human health and our environment from GMO contamination. It is true that Brazil, Mexico and to a lesser extent other Latin American countries remain questionable as to the extent to which they are willing to negotiate a successful outcome. But New Zealand – a country that itself prohibits the commercial planting as well as the importing of all GMOs for food, feed and processing – is threatening the entire process by refusing to address the questions and issues of the negotiation in a substantive way.

We can not afford to allow New Zealand to continue with its position of non-negotiation while virtually all countries are working to come to a satisfactory agreement. We can not accept that New Zealand, whose national biosafety laws are among the strongest in the world, may block a decision at the last minute and leave us for another year without the needed international agreement. We must have a strong, specific agreement for the sake of countries who are trying to protect their communities from unwanted and dangerous GMOs, and for the sake of all of us.

Please spread the word, especially if you know people in New Zealand (or if you can get the word out to the Philippines where the New Zealand president is now): THE TIME IS NOW – we MUST come to a strong decision on 18.2(a) by this Friday that will require strong, effective labeling for the export of GMO products. We must tell them that the world is watching!

Whose costs?

2006-03-14T18:34:00.001-03:00

18.2(a) continued....
Everywhere there is talk of "does contain" and "may contain" - central to the most contentious issue to be negotiated in the next four days. This afternoon the debate continued, with industry specialists trying to convince us that the labeling of GMO crop exports (Art. 18.2(a)) should only have to state that the shipments “may contain” GMOs – without mention of what GMOs or how much.

In a presentation held by the International Food and Agriculture Trade Council, the speakers focused on the supposed cost for countries to implement a strict identification regime beyond the “may contain” requirements. The title of the presentation says it all: You “May” Know How Much “Does Contain” will Cost. “Barriers to trade will happen” because of a ‘does contain’” decision, they warned us. If we force exporting countries to identify the specific GMOs contained in each transboundary shipment, costs will be devastating for exporting countries, like Brazil, they said.

I am reminded of a slogan that was used by a youth sustainability organization at the UN Climate Change negotiations this past December: “Stop asking how much it will cost you, and start asking how much it will cost us.” - Whose costs are we talking about when the industry specialists warn that a strict identification requirement will be devastating? And whose costs are we ignoring? All parties to the protocol, except for New Zealand and perhaps Brazil (whose position is as yet unclear), demand a “does contain” decision that would provide a legally binding framework to help protect our communities and environment from the negative impacts of GMO contamination. Without a strong identification requirement, countries, especially poorer countries with fewer capacities, would not be able ensure that unapproved GMOs do not enter their country, and would not be able to adequately protect themselves from GMO contamination. The supposed savings for the exporter would be born as costs to the rest of us – whether the GMOs contaminate the food we eat, the crops we grow, or the biodiversity that we and our future generations rely on.

Like the issue of climate change, we are looking both at the future of our communities and earth, as well as at the present – the costs we are shouldering today. And like the issue of climate change, the issue of biosafety and GMOs do not affect us all similarly. Maybe studies can show that a stricter regime identifying GMO exports will be more costly for some producers. But the costs of such a lack of identification for those shouldering the burden of GMO imports, who are unable to adequately protect themselves and their environment, is unacceptable. We must take a strong decision on 18.2(a). “Does contain”- with the names and details of the GMOs exported - is the only option.

"Truly a Farmer's Defense"???

2006-03-14T18:34:00.000-03:00

Today in the space between the morning working group meetings and the afternoon plenary session a side event was put on by the US Grain Council entitled “A Farmer’s Defense”. It included a farmer from Brazil, a farmer from South Africa, one from Iowa, and finally one from the Philippines, who in turn each presented a power point presentation extolling the wonderful benefits of GMO’s. They spoke of the increase in production yield, the lack of pest infestation, and the improvement to human health that all come with Round-up Ready soy, BT corn, and other similar GM crops. The panel impressed upon the audience that these crops provide a brighter future for their children and were better for the environment. They even went so far as to say that environmentalists have no grasp of the scientific knowledge surrounding GM crops and as such their arguments are focused solely on emotion. I hate to sound like an environmentalist, but what are their arguments focused on? Science from Monsanto?
They impressed the idea that all farmers should use genetically modified crops and that the government should not regulate their use. The farmer from Brazil seemed particularly proud of the fact that he represented an organization of farmers who illegally grew genetically modified soy back when the government banned its introduction into the environment. This not only poses a significant threat to biodiversity, but also undermines the government’s capacity and responsibility to protect its citizens as well as the right of people to decide what products they are consuming. The farmer also spoke of the improved environmental aspect by using fewer pesticides on GM crops. He did not however address the potential extremely serious environmental ramifications of what may happen if these transgenes escape into the environment, or the problems stemming from continuously planting genetically identical crops, which can be fatal to farmers.
Similarly, the farmer from the Philippines, who is the head of a pro GM lobby group in that country, seemed to think that GM crops would solve the problems of all small scale impoverished farmers in his country, never mind that most probably can’t afford the seeds in the first place. The event today was blatant propaganda on the part of the US pro-GMO groups which contained little substance and lacked any consideration for the social, environmental, and economic impacts that transgenic crops pose to the Earth’s environment and people. It was merely a replayed sound bite of industry statements, only this time being said by farmers. There was no new information, only the repetition of weak overly used arguments, and the only question I had coming out of the forum was, how much is Monsanto paying these people?

Future Generations

2006-03-14T18:24:00.001-03:00

The U.S. Grains Council organized a "Farmer's Defense" side event today during lunch that turned out to be quite interesting. On the panel they had farmers from Brazil, South Africa, the United States and the Philippines. These farmers were GMO advocates and said that their GMO crops allowed for a better yield, limited disease and pests, and reduced imput costs. GMOs seemed to be their answer for reducing pesticide use and creating a safer environment for future generations. One farmer even put up a picture of some sad children, saying that they "liked food, and were worried about their future," saying that GMOs would ensure their health and safety. Curiously enough, they never even mentioned that GMOs could have a drastic negative effect on biodiversity which could really make the world an even sadder place for those future generations. When the problem of cross-pollination came up, one man said that it wasn't even an issue of biodiversity, it was an economic issue: that organic farmers were worried about losing their market and credibility (a.k.a. losing money). No mention was made of terminator technology and the fact that there are now GMO crops that in fact sterilize the plant, and that cross-pollination could result in the destruction of nearby plants and lead to a loss in biodiversity. When I asked about the fact that there seemed to be no other alternative mentioned to reducing pesticide use other than GMO crops specifically modified to deter pests, and suggested alternatives such as the push-pull method (for example, planting flowers in between the corn that smell bad to the corn borer--a pest--and placing a grass outside of the crop that attracts the corn borer to it instead of the corn), the farmers hurridly talked amongst themselves before giving a half-hearted non-satisfactory answer about GMOs being the answer to all their problems. I wonder what the future generations will think of their ignorance?

The Exporters and the Importers

2006-03-14T18:24:00.000-03:00

Yesterday at the Plenary, Argentina reminded those present that roughly 80% of the countries that haven’t ratified the BSP are major agricultural exporters while 60% of the parties to the BSP are major importers. Argentina then went on to ask for a balance between these two types of countries within the protocol, a balance they may believe should be achieved through weak 18.2(a) language regarding notification of genetically engineered organisms (LMOs in the protocol) for food, feed, and processing.

For our readers from the United States, this may remind us of the question of whether or not liberals should become more conservative in order to gain a larger majority.

Values, health, and safety cannot be compromised. The world needs strong language on 18.2(a). It is our hope that parties to the BSP bear in mind that stringent requirements will apply to non-party exporters when exporting to parties. In this way, stronger requirements of 18.2(a) will protect health and safety. Furthermore, stronger requirements may act as a further incentive for non-parties to join a treaty in order to have a better place at the negotiating table and thus the balance between exporter and importer member states may be achieved. In the end, a strong resolution on 18.2(a) may cause the membership and global relevance of the BSP to grow.

…More to come. Thanks for reading.

"Brazil CONTAINS Marina Silva"

2006-03-14T17:45:00.000-03:00

The city of Curitiba located in the Southern Brazilian state of Parana is a very appropriate location for both the 3rd Biosafety Protocol and the 8th Biodiversity Convention meetings. In regards to biosafety the state of Parana is not waiting for international agreements to protect its people and biodiversity. Parana is boldly fighting to be “GMO free”. At yesterdays’ opening plenary the Governor of Parana, Roberto Requiao, spoke about the “production slavery” that results from the use of patented GM seeds owned and controlled by transnational corporations. He also spoke about Paranas’ initiative to serve organic meals in the states’ childrens’ schools. Today at the official opening of the Civil Society Forum the governor spoke passionately about Paranas’ fight against GM which in turn entails fighting against the federal government. As this is a federal election year in Brazil the issue of GM has become particularly politicized with Lula and Requiao representing opposing parties. Much of the contention is centered on a major port in Parana which is currently GMO free but is being threatened by the National government to be privatized. While the President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, was elected on a campaign for the people he has fallen victim to the lure of big moneyed interests and the Agro-biotech industry has plenty to offer him. At the last BSP meeting Brazil played a key role in undermining and stalling negotiations by stubbornly advocating the interests of the biotech industry and the GMO exporting nations.

Yesterday, on the opening day of the BSP meetings the Environment Minister, Marina Silva, was absent form the conference. Marina Silva—a popular and respected defender of the environment and its people—was on a mission to find the president. Lula had failed to release the much overdue and anticipated official negotiating position of Brazil on the BSP and the Environment Minister went to pressure him to do so. Today at the Civil Society Forum Marina Silva was able to speak about Brazils’ official position to accept that all transboundary GMO shipments would be required to be accompanied by documentation indicating whether they “may contain” or do “contain” Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). The position is apparently not very clearly laid out and would not require such documentation for another four years however NGOs are acknowledging this as a success in progressing towards a meaningful documentation regime. Speaking about this progress to the civil society audience Governor Requio was proud and confident declaring “Brazil CONTAINS Marina Silva.”

Knock harder?

2006-03-14T17:34:00.000-03:00

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????

2006-03-14T12:46:00.000-03:00

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.