|
Synoptic report on the Yaounde, November 1999 APM (Agriculture Paysanne et Modernisation) Africa |
|
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS USED TERMINOLOGY NOTES |
|
DNA : Deoxyribonucleic Acid |
|
A panafrican training and exchange workshop on Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMO*) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the area of agriculture
was held in Yaounde and Mbalmayo (Cameroon) from 8 to 12 November 1999
under the aegis of the African exchange network known as "Agriculture
Paysanne et Modernisation" (APM). Specialists conducted several sessions that examined biotechnologies
and the production of transgenic varieties, the protocol on biosafety
drawn up in implementation of the convention on biological diversity,
patent rights and the protection of plant varieties with respect to international
trade, and the proposals drawn up by the OAU. P.O. BOX 3799, Yaounde-Cameroon
1) Facilitate access to information Facilitate access to information on biotechnological developments be they research, products, regulations, risk evaluation or intellectual property rights. · enable researchers, farmers' organizations and NGOs to have
greater access to information and new knowledge.
The institution of a policy of precaution against the risks or uncertainties of boitechnologies within the socio-economic environment of each country · Request for a moratorium on the importation of genetically modified
foodstuffs and the marketing of transgenic seeds to give time for the
public to analyse the situation and for the competent institutions to
put in place the procedures needed. 3) Strengthen the mastery of socio-technical aspects Implementation of a strategy to develop the control of the socio-technical aspects of new biology disciplines : genetics, molecular biology, biotechnology · Organize training workshops for specialists to examine biotechnologies
and the stakes involved in boidiversity and biosafety. 4) Develop alternatives to transgenic crops Develop alternative scientific and agricultural policies with regard to transgenic crops in order to guarantee food security within the context of today's global economy · Institute technical methods and legislation to guarantee greater
autonomy to rural traditional farming systems.
Popularize the OAU African Model Legislation for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers, and Breeders and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources · Popularize the contents of this text and make it the common
position for all African countries in the shared spirit and principles
concerning life. I. ENHANCE FARMERS' ACCESS TO INFORMATION The Agriculture Paysanne et Modernisation (APM) Africa network (Rural Farming systems and Modernization) is made up of people who provide support to family-size agriculture and small farmers through strengthening their organizations and structures as well as other African farmers' societies. The majority of African families make their living from agriculture. The type of agriculture involved here is mainly small-scale farming as opposed to industrial scale farming in Europe or America. In international circles, the type of agriculture practised by small farmers is condescendingly described as archaic, ignoring all the positive aspects of this methods of agriculture, which are quite many : · a major source of income for small farmers and revenue for African
Countries ; It is obvious that any action which threatens this type of agriculture also has a negative impact on the many interests and equilibriums. It is therefore with a lot of suspicion and fear that African farmers' organizations are observing the recent trends in scientific research on biotechnologies especially as concerns new experiments in the area of GMOs. Is the cultivation of new transgenic herbicides - resistant varieties, the use of non reproductive seeds beyond one cycle and the cultivation of plants that produce plastics really without any risk ? Another cause for worry with regard to these new biotechnologies concerns Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as applied to plants. There are fears that industrial property rights on GMOs will eventually lead to a situation where small farmers are dispossessed of the traditional varieties which they have contributed to improve over many years and centuries. Is there no danger that the selection of varieties, the multiplication and exchange of seeds would progressively be forbidden by the legislation while local genetic resources are patented without due compensation? The two topics GMO and IPR are closely related. The rapid development of GMOs has been made possible only because of the property rights granted to the private companies that produce them. These issues are the subject of many discussions at the international level and are of very strategic importance to developed countries.
At a time when the civil society is being mobilized in Europe, America and Asia to enable the ordinary citizen to take part in discussions concerning GMOs and IPRs, Africa is doing just the contrary : the public is completely left out in the decision-making process. Up till today, the two issues have been left mostly in the hands of public authorities, government and intergovernmental organizations which carry out negotiations and sign agreements without first consulting the people. Apart from these government structures, only scientific research circles seem to be aware of these new biotechnological developments. Information is only circulated within major international scientific research circles while the national research community whose activities have been trimmed down considerably because of the structural adjustment of national economies has largely been left out in this exchange of scientific knowledge. Everywhere in the world, it is not easy to carry out discussion in an equitable and democratic manner because citizens are poorly informed. In Africa, the vast majority of citizens is made up of small-scale farmers : the main challenge here therefore is to enable them have access to information on this complex subject. Only the social mastery of this issue will determine their continued existence or their disappearance.
Some research is currently being conducted in international agronomic research centres in Africa on : resistance to viruses (niébé, maize, irish potatoes), resistance to fungi (banana), resistance to insects (sugar-cane, niébé), resistance to herbicides (berries, soja), resistance to draughts (x.viscosa common name), development of edible vaccines (banana). Public and private sector institutions backed the setting up of the new
institutional system, ISAAA, aimed at enabling the transfer of agricultural
biotechnological applications from the industrialized countries of the
North, especially the patented biotechnologies of the private sector,
to developing countries. This system is mainly concerned with three sectors
of plant - related biotechnological applications : tissue culture, diagnosis
and transgenic crops. Commercial GMO trial farms are being experimented
in South Africa, Kenya and Egypt. BOX 2 : GMO crops in figures
An adequate supply of information to the public on GMOs and IPRs would lead to a more dynamic and democratic procedure in the decision-making process on agricultural and food policies. 1) Develop a mechanism to keep citizens informed on GMOs in Africa and sensitize them on the stakes involved using the language they understand best. 2) Establish links with the other information mechanisms set up all over the world in the spirit of "service to the public" and which do not owe any political allegiance or are not influenced by technico-financial lobbies and are imbued with the desire to provide the various actors with the elements needed for veritable social dialogue. 3) Promote and multiply discussion fora in Africa to enable the exchange of scattered information and the coordination of the efforts of the various actors of the society : farmers, administrative officers, scientists, environmentalists, etc.
However, scientists have admitted that the much vaunted precision of molecular techniques should not be overestimated and that there are still risks and uncertainties involved. It would be necessary to take these risks into consideration by promoting a prudent policy through the institution of the "Principle of Precaution". This is the object of the biosafety protocol adopted on 29 January 2000 in Montréal by more than 130 States.
Genetic engineering techniques are still too recent to be fully understood. From the first experiments in the early 80s, many risks have been exposed by scientists. Ø Poorly Understood and Complex Genetic Process With the discovery of the way genes function, scientists thought that each gene had a code for protein or for an enzyme. Recent discoveries have however shown that genetic information is a lot more complex and that its stability depends on its environment. Ø Fragilization of genotypes The introduction of a foreign gene into an organism, the principle of transgenesis, consists in forcefully inserting a DNA sequence into an organism which would naturally attempt to expel it. Two main techniques are used to do this : the gene is either inserted through a bacteria (infection) or by bombardment of DNA coated projectiles using a gene canon. This forceful method of insertion can lead to negative or even fatal results. Moreover, the rate of successful transgenic transfer is very low. As regards plants, only one cell out of a thousand is often infected. The regeneration of the plant from this cell renders the genotype unstable and leads to mutations. Ø Role of vectors and pathogenic viruses The first step in transgenics is cloning in a bacteria of the gene that one wants to introduce through vectors. The second step is the transfer of the gene through infection of the host cell. The vectors used (plasmides or viruses) are initially non-pathogenic. However, a homologous recombination with a wild virus may give birth to a pathogenic virus. There are fears that the generalized use of these genetic elements may increase the appearance of dangerous pathogenic viruses. Ø Genetic Pollution It is very difficult to foresee the effects of the introduction of a transgenic organism into the environment. The effects would certainly not be too sudden but many risks are foreseeable in the long run. - the appearance of encroaching species,
Ø Loss of markets for tropical goods Plants cultivated in the countries of the North can be genetically engineered by introducing genes with characteristics of products which had been exclusively produced in tropical areas. For example, a substitute to copra can be produced from colza. There are other examples where biotechnologies are creating new markets by substituting agricultural products exported by African countries (Vanilla, pyrethrine, palm-oil, cocoa butter) with new GMO varieties. Difficult to implement standards and regulation The rules and regulations on GMOs are very costly to implement. These new biotechnologies come along with new regulatory requirements in terms of new control installations and instruments, training of technical and administrative personnel, etc. That would be very difficult to implement in a context of structural adjustment and high indebtedness. The inability to institute control mechanisms, the disruption of procedures and institutions have condemned many countries to becoming experimental fields for transgenic crops and a dumping ground for genetically modified foodstuffs rejected by consumers of the North. Marketing of Terminator varieties Since 1998, several patents on genetic combinations that sterilize the seed have been registered. Several of such biologically blocked varieties are being developed in research laboratories owned by big companies which would force farmers to return to them every year for seeds. The marketing of such "terminator" varieties which are still at the experimental phase constitutes a major threat for rural farmers in poor countries. Terminator is indeed only one of the facets of a more ambitious technology which might unfortunately lead to a situation of dependence of farmers on a handful of multinationals. This technology provides the seed developers with the possibility of inserting into the hereditary genotype of the plant a certain number of genes which can be activated or deactivated before or after sale to the farmer by spraying it with chemical products. Accelerated Genetic Erosion Because of financial constraints it is virtually impossible to manufacture GMOs in government-funded research laboratories in Africa. However, because of the attraction such varieties have, biotechnologies will end up drawing all the funding for scientific research to the detriment of other support programmes for rural farmers on the tropical plants in their zones of origin. Because of this, there is every reason to fear that genetic erosion will be accelerated because the genetic resources of minor or neglected food plants would not be valorized alongside the popularization of GMOs. REGULATION OF GMOs through the Biosafety Protocol Within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity signed during the Rio Summit in 1992, and with the development of biotechnologies, a decision was taken to draw up a protocol for the management of biotechnological risks. The first international legislation on the control of GMOs was adopted in Montréal in January 2000 after many years of hard negotiations. Five years after the commercial dissemination of transgenic crops, more
than 130 countries of the United Nations Organization have officially
accepted that GMOs present some danger to the environment, biodiversity
and to human health, and consequently must be regulated in order to pre-empt
any potential negative effects. v This protocol explicitly advocates the principle of precaution which must be at the basis of decisions on the transfrontier movement of any GMO including agricultural inputs. v The protocol lays down a prior agreement procedure for transfrontier movements which requires the explicit agreement of the importer before any GMO import operations are carried out. However, the procedures for LMOs used as seeds and those for GMOs used as food differ from one another. v LMOs destined for human or animal consumption must carry the warning "may contain LMOs" and "not destined for intentional introduction into the environment"
The Miami group Proposal II : PRECAUTION Each country should, within its own socio-economic context, draw up and implement a policy of precaution with regard to the inherent dangers and uncertainties of biotechnologies. 1) Request a moratorium on the import of genetically modified food items and on the marketing of transgenic seeds in order to give enough time for the public to examine the issue and for competent institutions to put adequate legislative procedures in place. 2) Guarantee transparency in the GMO sub-sector from the research laboratory to the market through making information accessible to the various actors in the society and encouraging collaboration among institutions. 3) Carry out studies on their environmental impact prior to the introduction of transgenic crops into rural farming systems 4) Increase public and independent control within approval committees 5) Examine the consequences transgenic crops from temperate countries would have on the markets for tropical crops 6) Biosafety Protocol : Request the immediate ratification of the protocol on biosafety so that it can enter into force in 2002. While waiting for it to enter into force, all transfrontier trade in GMOs should be forbidden under the principle of precaution.
Major economic stakes are involved with respect to GMOs. Their manufacture entails complex and costly laboratory techniques which require very strict management and protection measures. Their introduction into the environment also requires strict protection measures to avoid any possible genetic pollution. Their introduction into food items will need a long term follow-up of their impact on health. These major constraints indicate that there might be no urgent need now
to introduce these technologies into developing countries where traditional
food plants have not even been fully valorized by the usual selection
techniques. However, globalization, the opening up of markets and socio-economic
conditions seem to indicate on the contrary that it is now time to develop
scientific knowledge in an intelligent manner in the African Continent The situation in most if not all African countries can be summarised as follows : ¨ lack of training for qualified personnel and specialists as well
as insufficient experience in the problems faced in laboratories, These factors partly explain the reason why there is no control of imported
foodstuffs from countries that produce transgenic seeds. There are no
laboratories capable of tracing DNA to find out if a plant is transgenic
or not. It is to be feared that many GMOs have been introduced into developing
countries without their knowledge. Proposal III : Scientific Mastery The putting in place of strategies to increase the ability to master
new biology disciplines : genetics, molecular biology, biotechnology :
Farmers are the first category of people affected by these changes. Since they are the ones who sow and harvest, they are the ones who find themselves on the first link of the food chain. They are the ones called upon today to make choices. Farmers' organizations of the various countries belonging to the Via Campesina and to which the Confederation Paysanne in France belongs are drawing up a GMO-free agriculture project which meets the needs of the vast majority of farmers because the harmony of societies depends on it. To put this message across, the Confédération Paysanne, since 1998 has been carrying out the following activities : denaturing of transgenic corn from the Novartis firm, destruction of transgenic corn and soja trial farms belonging to the Monsanto firm, destruction of transgenic experimental farms in the Centre de Coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) in Montpellier. By fighting against the lukewarm efforts made by governments, farmers' organizations in alliance with other actors of the civil society (environmentalists, consumers, elected officials) have succeeded in imposing greater transparency in experiments on transgenic crops and greater strictness in the labelling of imported products. Why can the same thing not be done in Africa?
The biotechnology industry claims that the only way to feed a world population which doubles every forty years and requires a food increase of 250% would be to resort to transgenic crops. International research centers are trying to justify the need for plant biotechnologies in Africa by pointing to the gap which exists between production and the demand for food which would continue to increase due to the increase in meat consumption and life expectancy. However, economic and political data indicate that the food security of the planet does not depend on any miracle technology. On the contrary, a closer look at the way GMOs are being developed rather shows that modern biotechnologies and genetic engineering are more likely to lead to a situation of food dependence of the poor, and increase hunger in the world. 1) The improvement of productivity through the genetic manipulation of plants will not help counterbalance the increasing exposure to hunger of various populations. Subsidized industrial farming in rich countries for the most part produces transgenic crops. Such farming has produced surplus crops which are dumped on international markets at artificially low prices. These subsidized foodstuffs are chiefly responsible for the food dependency of the countries of the South. 2) Transgenic varieties are not developed for small farmers ; rather, they are to be used in large scale farming systems that only the rich can afford. The food security of about one thousand five hundred million people in rural areas depends on traditional farming methods which undertake the intensive cultivation of a wide diversity of crops and varieties on small parcels of land. Selection in the farm, the conservation and exchange of seeds within the community as well as between communities are the usual practices, and these differ considerably from those of industrial production systems. With the introduction of GMOs, biotechnology industries are creating a situation of dependence on their seeds. Not only are transgenic varieties more expensive, but they render the farmers dependent as they are forced to buy new already patented seeds each year. Debate II : Resistance and tolerance of transgenic varieties to insects
: The most widely commercialized transgenic varieties are those that have been rendered resistant to insects generally known under the name "Bt. Plants". Bt. stands for the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis which produce several insecticidal toxins. This bacteria has been used for decades as a biological pesticide. Bt. solutions that are sprayed on leaves deteriorate after a few days. By introducing genes of the Bt toxin in the DNA of maize, soja, irish potaotes or cotton, molecular biologists succeed in producing pesticidal plants. All through their lives, these plants would then produce a similar toxin, in almost all its tissues, and in higher concentrations. This would provoke a greater selection process within the population of harmful insects which then develop new resistant species. This can have a harmful effect on the fauna, flora, micro-organisms of the soil, pollinating insects and natural predators of insects. The development of resistance within the population of destructive insects progressively diminishes the efficiency of transgenic Bt. varieties and thus increase the risk for non GMO crops. Biological farmers are the most directly affected since they can not resort to chemical pesticides in case of an attack by "super resistant" insects. In 1999, after four years of authorised cultivation of Bt plants in the United States, a coalition of "Bio" farmers, environmentalists and consumers decided to take legal action against the EPA for having failed to take the possible risks involved into consideration. In Mid-January 2000, EPA announced new restrictions on the cultivation of Bt corn and cotton in order to check the development of insect resistance to Bt. On 31 January 2000, the firms Monsanto, Novartis, Dekalb and Mycogene were required to submit cultivation plans for the management of resistance to insects. They were asked to train farmers and verify if these farmers applied all the obligations for the management of resistance i.e. of cultivation of at least 20% of surface area with Bt. free crops for corn and 50% for cotton.
Develop scientific and agricultural policy alternatives to transgenic crops in order to guarantee food security in today's global economy. 1) implement methods and technical and legislative instruments to guarantee
greater autonomy to rural farmers. V. Intellectual Property Rights on Seeds and Patent on Life. The marketing of GMOs raises the question of patentability of life which worries the governments of African countries. Serious discussions are going on in international negotiation circles on intellectual property rights on seeds and the privatization of biodiversity through patents. Alarming facts related to the strengthening of IPRs Fact 1 : Farmers dispossessed of their seeds Patented transgenic seeds are often compared to computer software from
the viewpoint of intellectual property ; they cannot be multiplied by
their users. Year in year out, farmers are obliged by law to buy their
seeds instead of reproducing them. In 1998, more than 200 American farmers
were sued by Monsanto which hires the services of a private detective
agency to control its customers' farms while encouraging farmers to denounce
offenders using a green number made available to them. The offenders are
accused of having resown patented transgenic varieties. This can cost
them almost 500 000 CFAF per hectare. A patent is a legal deed which confers on its holder temporary exclusive exploitation of the invention on a determined territory, permitting him to prevent a third party from manufacturing, selling or using this invention without his authorization. The beneficiary of the patent has commercial exclusivity and protection for a period of 20 years (generally) over his invention.
¨ If the living organism is privately owned today, it means it has been reduced to a more raw material. Genotypes which for a long time were considered as jointly owned by humanity have, in a few years, become a genetic raw material for the biotechnology industry. ¨ Intellectual property rights registered by laboratories on plant,
micro-organism and animal samples taken from natural parks or from rural
farms are common today. Privatization of public property has led countries
of the South to organize themselves so as to ensure control over their
resources. ¨ Biodiversity samples taken by private companies or public research teams and patent registrations did not however stop after the convention was signed. Bioprospection according to how it is practised, can constitute a form of biopiracy. That is the case for example when the rule of prior consent, given with full knowledge of the facts by the local communities and local authorities, is not respected.
There are a handful of big multinationals working in the area of life
science : Dupont/Pioneer, Novartis, Monsanto, Astrazeneea, Dow Elanco,
Aventis which have consolidated themselves by recent mergers. These giant
firms today control practically 100% of the market for transgenic seeds.
Their market control strategy relies on portfolios of intellectual property
rights over biotechnologies. Fact 4 : The extension of patent rights to cover the whole world. To ensure a high return on investment and revenue flow on their "invention", biotechnology enterprises want the acknowledgement of intellectual property rights over transgenic plants to be extended geographically to cover the whole world. Industrialized countries have therefore used the international trade negotiations forum, GATT which has become the World Trade Organization (WTO) to impose the implementation of an international agreement on trade-relate aspect of intellectual property (TRIPS). The agreement require member states to have an intellectual property protection system on plant varieties. For the time being, the only alternative system to patents which industrialized countries are in favour of is the Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV). However, the latter has been revised several times and the most recent versions, UPOV 1991, seems to serve only the interests of the biggest seed companies. For rural farmers, this does not at all constitute an alternative. The patent system just like that of UPOV does not acknowledge the rights of farmers. Rural communities in developing countries select, nurture, exchange and conserve a genetic diversity for their food security and their survival. If tomorrow their farms are polluted by pollen from a connected transgenic crop, should they in addition pay royalties on their seeds ?
Furthermore, countries of the South and especially African countries have proposed that the rights of farming communities be protected within the framework of the WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property. These rights ought to be sufficiently interpreted with a view to including the rights of farmers as seed innovators and conservators.
The work of the OAU Scientific, Technical and Research Committee enabled African countries to start discussions on possible alternatives which, while remaining in conformity with the obligations of TRIPS, would be integrated into the terms of the 1995 Convention on Biodiversity. A model draft law on "the protection of the rights of local communities, farmers and breeders and for the regulation of access to biological resources" was finalized in Addis Abbaba in November 1999. Faced with UPOV and with the review (and the implementation) of Article 27.3b, Africa's position is clear : it wants to affirm its commitment to the spirit, principles and pertinent elements of the Convention on Biodiversity, such as : the sovereign right of States over their biological and natural resources ; the protection of the knowledge, innovations, technologies and practices of indigenous people and other local communities within the framework of national legislation ; and the setting up of systems for the equitable sharing of benefits accruing from the latter. 2) UPOV and the TRIPS agreement Most developing countries are not members of UPOV, not because they are not obliged to be members, but mainly because this treaty does not meet their needs. The UPOV system falls in line perfectly with the logic of industrial economies where emphasis is put on the protection of the investments and interests of big influential seed enterprises which employ professional breeders. The situation of developing countries is completely different. Small farmers or farmers' cooperatives are the main actors in the seed sector and the main seed breeders. Consequently, it is obvious that in these countries laws should focus, and in an appropriate manner, on the protection of the said farmers and their interests as breeders and users of seeds. The system advocated by UPOV is almost similar to an industrial patent system. Following the WTO's TRIPS agreement directives, all member countries must adopt, through intellectual property systems, a form of protection for plant varieties. But under no circumstances are these countries obliged to adopt the very restrictive UPOV 91 system which limits the legitimate right of farmers to conserve seeds for their reuse. Conversely, member countries can adopt a sui generis system, which is specifically designed and adapted to their situation, for the protection of plant varieties, and exercise their rights relating to public order so as to avoid improper privatization of biodiversity.
The African Intellectual Property Organization (AIPO) is a central structure
responsible for implementing common procedures in the issuing of protection
title - deeds for fifteen Francophone African countries. Encouraged by
WIPO, UPOV and the WTO, these countries revised the AIPO Bangui agreement
in February 1999, with a view to instituting a system of protection for
plant varieties in conformity with the UPOV act of 1991. This revision
is contested today. In the light of on-going initiatives in Africa, and
of the review of article 27.3b of TRIPS, accession to UPOV 91 seems premature.
Not only is such action contrary to the decisions and the rapid evolution
of solutions proposed by African countries within the framework of a common
position, but it also shuts up African governments and peoples in a legal
system which few developing countries would like to adopt, and which is
much more restrictive than necessary to fulfil the WTO's international
obligations. Since the Bangui agreement has not yet been ratified, AIPO
countries have been requested to review their position and, as much as
possible, to revise this Agreement taking into account the aspirations
of the civil society, farmers and NGOs of member states. Proposal V : LEGISLATION Disseminate the OAU African model legislation for the protection of the rights of local communities, farmers and breeders, and for the regulation of access to biological resources. 1) Popularize the contents of the instrument as the basis of a strong
common African position in a spirit of shared principles concerning living
organisms. DNA : stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. This is a very big molecule shaped
as a double helice found in plant and animal chromosomes and carrying
in coded form instructions for passing on hereditary characteristics. - Antoine AGUEGUIA, IRAD/FIS, Cameroon
APM BEDE
|