Newsletter Issue 3:

AfricaBio

Issue 6 – September 2002

This Newsletter is intended as a forum for information exchange and dialogue in the build-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Forthcoming newsletters will focus on major issues on the agenda of the nine major groups involved and other relevant issues as they arise.

Update on Week 1 of the WSSD

Sandton Convention Centre
Ubuntu
NasRec

Other Events

Biopiracy Summit
Food AID Issue

Useful links

Update on Week 1 of the WSSD

Sandton Convention Centre (SCC)

· Chapter 16 of Agenda 21 establishes that biotechnology “promises to make a significant contribution… to better health care, enhanced food security through sustainable agricultural practices, improved supplies of potable water, more efficient industrial processes…, support for sustainable methods of afforestation and reforestation, and detoxification of hazardous wastes.” It also says that, “By itself, biotechnology cannot resolve all the fundamental problems of environment and development, so expectations need to be tempered by realism”. Chapter 16 goes on to say “The programme areas set out below seek to foster internationally agreed principles to be applied to ensure the environmentally sound management of biotechnology, to engender public trust and confidence, to promote the development of sustainable applications of biotechnology and to establish appropriate enabling mechanisms, especially within developing countries, through the following activities:

a) Increasing the availability of food, feed and renewable raw materials;

b) Improving human health;

c) Enhancing protection of the environment;

d) Enhancing safety and developing international mechanisms for cooperation, and

e) Establishing mechanisms for the development and the environmentally sound application of biotechnology.”

This is the context of biotechnology as was agreed in Agenda 21 in Brazil in 1992. Agenda 21, including the role of biotechnology is not going to be renegotiated at the WSSD. However, what is being called for now is the proper implementation of chapter 16. Negotiations of the disputed “bracketed text” of the Draft Plan of Implementation should be finalised by the time the Heads of State arrive for the second week of the WSSD, and 95% was complete by Friday 30 August. Outstanding issues include subsidiaries and a definition for globalization. The part of the text most relevant to biotechnology stakeholders is paragraph 86 where organic farming was specifically mentioned and promoted, although no other technology or farming technique is equally specified. Following negotiations, the language has been broadened to include environmentally friendly agricultural methods, and no longer specifies organics. The final text on this now reads: “to promote and improve science based decision making, and reaffirm the precautionary approach as set out in Principle 15”.

· On Wednesday 28 August, farmers from Africa and Asia marched through Sandton to Speakers Corner to demand the freedom to trade and to present a memo to the South African Minister of Defence, Mr Mosiua Lekota. The farmers marched side by side with hawkers protesting against the refusal of their right to trade freely during the WSSD. The peaceful rally, united 200 farmers from Africa, India and other developing nations representing millions of rural subsistence farmers to show their belief that farmers in poor countries should not be denied the freedom to test for themselves the economic and technological viability of any new technology, including agricultural biotechnology.

Commenting on the march, Chengal Reddy, President of the Indian Federation of Farmers Associations from Andhra Pradesh, India, said, “We represent hundreds of the world’s farmers at this summit. Asian farmers associations are joining hands with African farmers to articulate their demands, including the freedom to farm”.

TJ Buthelezi, the leader of Ubongwa Farmers Union, Kwazulu Natal, South Africa said, “Farmers in all parts of the world should be free to determine for themselves whether technologies meet their requirements of staying competitive in the world market, and regaining economic viability”. He goes on to add, “Farmers want to use crops improved by modern biotechnology as it saves time and labour, and gives greater yield resulting in greater profit which is the ultimate goal of farmers. Currently, more than 50% of cotton is imported in South Africa, but GM cotton will enable us to not only met our own needs, but to eventually export and so contribute to our national economy.”

Ubuntu

· The need for radical action to improve the quality of life of rural, impoverished communities in Africa was stated by Dr Monty Jones of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) at a consultative workshop at the Ubuntu Village on Tuesday 27 August. A legacy proposal for holistic agricultural renewal in Africa was presented at the workshop which has been developed by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in

· consultation with African agriculturalists. This collaborative effort will address policy, gender issues, market access and many other aspects needed for an effective agricultural economy on the continent.

Delegates reviewed and modified the proposal before its submission to the WSSD Commission as part of the NEPAD initiative. The “Challenge Programme for Africa” will be implemented by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), the sub-regional agricultural groupings (CORAF, SACCAR and ASARECA), the CGIAR institutes in Africa and the national agricultural research organisations. Close ties will be forged with communities and NGOs to ensure that benefits are made accessible to the people who most need them.

The programme will look at all agricultural tools to identify sustainable solutions for overcoming constraints. This includes conventional, organic and biotechnology agriculture. The vision is for a “united and prosperous agricultural sector’’. Achieving this will require integrated natural resources management, identification of appropriate germplasm, implementation of sustainable agricultural policies, development of sustainable marketing and strengthening of scientific capacity.

According to Muffy Koch of Innovation Biotechnology, South Africa, “this is the closest we have got to understanding that no one agricultural technology will alleviate poverty on the continent. Instead, we will be looking for the best in all available technologies and the final solution is likely to be a composite of all.” She adds that “the composite will be a large middle ground of solutions, disbanding the orchestrated polarisation of conventional and organic agriculture.”

· African solutions to African problems was the focus at the AfricaBio stand in Tensile 1, Ubuntu village on the morning of Friday 30 August. African scientists, including Prof Makinde from the University of Venda, South Africa, gathered at the stand to address the potential role of biotechnology in contributing to food security, sustaining the environment and helping to alleviate poverty. Applications covered included the protection of banana, papaya and sweet potatoes from viral diseases, the protection of cotton from insect pests and the resistance of maize to attacks by insects.

NasRec:

The Biotechnology and GMO Commission of the Civil Society Forum took place on Thursday 29 August at NasRec. Hosted by Biowatch South Africa and the Third World Network, the participation of AfricaBio and other UN accredited NGO’s such as ISAAA, and credible science-based organisations in the panel, was denied. African biotechnology stakeholders including developing country farmers, governmental officials and parliamentarians from ten countries were also excluded. Despite repeated requests by AfricaBio to be included in the programme, their participation was refused. Thus, the debate on GMO's and the developing world was led by a panel of opponents of GM only, consisting of scientists and farmers largely from the North, and so clashes were inevitable. The real issues of biotechnology from economic, social and environmental perspectives were not covered, and the proceedings were mainly personal attacks and wild claims with no scientific backing, and science was either neglected or distorted by Biowatch chosen speakers.

Positive experiences from farmers in Africa, China, India and Mexico and from other developing countries growing crops derived from biotechnological processes were ignored at the expense of publicising claims from a Canadian “farmer” whose personal differences with a US company were taken as representation of all farmers.

In light of the inability to have a clear voice and to state their points of view, members of the following organisations staged a walkout of the Biotech and GMO Commission:

· Ubongwa Farmers Association of South Africa

· Kisan Coordination Committee, India

· Federation of Farmers Association Andhra Pradesh, India

· Kenya National Farmers Union

· Provincial Farmers Association, Philippines

· National African Farmers Union, South Africa

A separate report will be presented to the concerned authorities at the WSSD representing the inputs and views of these organisations. The report of the Biotechnology and GMO Commission will most likely oppose the application of modern biotechnology in agriculture. In future, the Commission should be headed by a balanced and distinguished team of stakeholders, including farmers and consist of proportional representation from the developing nations so that the interests of small farmers can be addressed.

Despite being a supposed “dialogue process”, this forum is an example of many sessions at the WSSD where anti-campaigners have been given centre stage while science-based organisations are not allowed to take part or to have a voice. The same courtesy has not been extended to Biowatch, who were invited to speak and formally participate in the full day event on Saturday 31 August being organised by AfricaBio in partnership with ABSF, ISAAA, IPGRI, AHBFI and ABSP which are all biotechnology NGO’s and International Organisations. Biowatch turned down the offer to formally participate, claiming that the event was industry organised.

· The Science Forum Workshop on the Role of Biotechnology and Biodiversity in Sustainable Development, sponsored by AfricaBio and other stakeholder organizations, focused specifically on Developing Countries and on stimulating dialogue with government, NGOs, scientists, industry, and international organizations. More than 350 WSSD delegates participated in the Workshop, which began with a welcoming address by Dr Ben Ngubane, Minister of Science and Technology for South Africa. The following conclusions and recommendations were highlighted at the close of the meeting and finalized for presentation to the organizers of the Forum by participating organizations, session chairmen and moderators:

1. Increased funding for science and infrastructure development in Africa and other developing countries is required to realize the full benefits from biotechnology. This includes human resource development and capacity building, development of basic infrastructure, as well as an enabling policy environment.

2. Public awareness, dialogue, communication and understanding of biotechnology are required to ensure that end-users understand and are given the opportunity to experience the benefits of biotechnology. Collaboration among scientists, governments, international organizations, farmers, civil society groups, and other stakeholders is key to achieving this objective.

3. Biotechnology is one critical tool in the quest for sustainable development. Farmers from developing countries have reported significant positive experiences with this technology. Concerns about the safety of the technology have also been raised, which need to be addressed by scientists, government officials and others through the provision of accurate and understandable information and dialogue.

4. Africa must develop its own scientific and technological solutions to African problems. Africa must be able to make its own choices about what technologies to utilise and under various conditions.

5. A new contract between science, civil society and the private sector to foster and develop successful Type II partnerships is required.

6. In the move towards a bio-based economy, opportunities for investment in biotechnology need be explored to enhance industry’s productivity in a sustainable manner.

7. Recognizing the adoption and near-term implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, participants agreed on the need to focus immediate attention on implementation of the remainder of Chapter 16 of Agenda 21 to harness biotechnology to address food security, human and animal health, sustainable energy and industrial production and other aspects highlighted in Chapter 16 to contribute to sustainable development in developing countries.

Discussions continued at the cocktail party following the formal programme where several formal presentations were made. This included the prize giving of the AfricaBio/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)/Foundation for Education, Science and Technology (FEST) Gauteng Schools competition on Biodiversity and Biotechnology. The two grade 11 winners, who each receive computer equipment for themselves and for their schools, are Josias Malumane, Caiphus Nyoka Secondary School and Angela Harrison, Bracken High School. The judging of the posters was undertaken by a high ranking panel of judges including: Dr Attah-Krah, IPGRI Regional Office for SSA; Ms Dilotsotlhe, Department of Science and Technology, Prof Makinde, University of Venda and Prof Rey, WITS University.

An award was also presented to Dr John Wafula, the Executive Director of the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF) in Kenya in recognition of his commitment to biotechnology in Africa, and as “a man who makes a difference”. This award was received on his behalf by Prof James Ochanda, ABSF, as he was unable to attend the WSSD.

Other Events

Biopiracy Summit:

This was held 22-23 August as a side event to the WSSD at St Stithians School, Johannesburg. Biopiracy can be legally defined as “the appropriation of biological resources without prior informed consent of owners or local people or government”. People and biodiversity have been migrating the globe for centuries, along with the relevant indigenous knowledge as well as the associated pests and diseases, and this movement continues. Biological resources are not equally distributed between countries and regions. It is essential that developing countries establish Intellectual Property Right (IPR) systems to safeguard and to benefit valuable biological resources. To date, many opportunities have been lost due to the lack of such systems.

A discussion document presented by Dr Wyn van der Walt, South African National Seed Organisation (SANSOR) at the Biopiracy Summit, included the following suggestions:

· Developing countries must be encouraged to establish IPR systems which meet their requirements, but are also compatible with existing, working systems, and which are sufficiently practical so as to be enforceable and affordable;

· Without proper IPR provision indigenous innovation cannot be protected;

· National governments need to support in situ and ex situ conservation, collection, cataloging and conserving germplasm;

· Having germplasm available is not enough. Considerable efforts are needed to beneficiate i.e. characterize) these resources in order to realize benefits;

· Where funding and capacity fall short, partnerships should be established and innovative ways found to prepare for benefit sharing through joint IPRs such as aggregate protection owned collectively by stakeholders; and

· The starting point in this process is to catalogue all that which could be considered potentially “protectable”, recognizing that Farmers’ Rights are a complex issue and Indigenous Knowledge even more so. The inability to establish specific ownership could be overcome by the national government assuming the role of custodian.

Outcomes of the Biopiracy Summit were:

· Agreed support of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (conservation, sustainable development and benefit sharing);

· The need for governments to establish access procedures and to support conservation and cataloging (characterization) of genetic resources and IK;

· Agreed that to date, there is inadequate benefit sharing;

· There was a lack of consensus on:

o Formal IPR systems, specifically patents;

o Need to beneficiate and commercialize germplasm in order to get benefit sharing;

o Partnerships with government and private sector

Despite the lack of consensus, a declaration (without agreement of all) was drafted. A counter declaration has been prepared and is being presented to the United Nations by concerned African scientists who disagree with the views expressed.

Food Aid Issue

With more than 13 million people at risk from starvation in Southern Africa largely as the result of severe drought, famine relief efforts are being affected by a misinformation campaign by small pressure groups from developed countries. More than 2.3 million Zambians are particularly at risk following the decision of President Levy Mwanawasa not to accept US-donated maize because some of it has been genetically modified by means of biotechnology, saying that “we will rather starve than get something toxic." The food being provided to the region, of which 77% is from the US, is the same kind of food eaten every day by 280 million Americans. Despite this, and the offer by the US government to provide scientific data from the exhaustive scientific studies undertaken by US regulatory agencies, President Mwanawasa told Andrew Natsios, administrator of USAID during his recent visit to Zambia that “the Zambian government does not have all the information they need to make a decision about the food,"

A recent statement by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland confirmed this week that evidence currently available shows that “GM foods are not likely to present human health risks”. She went on to say that Southern African countries should consider accepting GM food aid in the face of the humanitarian crisis facing the region. This statement was given at a three day meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, examining the health sector response to the crisis being faced, involving Ministers of Health from affected countries, the Executive Director of UNICEF and representatives of concerned national and international organisations. The Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan has also appealed to Southern African governments and donors “not to politicize food aid” and urged them to accept the food.

Severely affected countries include Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Although most of these are accepting the food aid, grain is being milled in some prior to distribution, which has the side effect of shortening the shelf-life.

The issue of the US food Aid being provided to Africa has been a point of concern for the EU due to the potential trade impacts. These concerns have subsided somewhat as it is unlikely that there will be trade implications if the GM foods provided to Africa are amongst the seven approved for food use and assessed as safe by scientists in the EU.

Useful links:

UN WSSD – www.johannesburgsummit.org

Global Forum - www.worldsummit.org.za

Business Forum - www.basd-action.net

Local Government Session - www.iclei.org/iclei.htm
JOWSCO Website - www.joburgsummit2002.com