AfricaBio
Issue 7 – December 2002
This
Newsletter is intended as a forum for information exchange and dialogue
relevant to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). This is the
final Newsletter in a series that has focused on major issues on the agenda of
the nine major groups involved and other relevant issues.
The WSSD is finally
over an already a distant memory for most. Yet, even prior to the WSSD there
were predictions that it would be a complete failure. After the event, some say
this is the case, with one Head of
State, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez going as far as saying that the WSSD
was the “Dialogue of the Deaf” and
that many world leaders have no real impact on the final outcome of major
conferences in the current format. Conversely, many environmentalists said they
had been “betrayed by governments”. Kofi Annan and Thabo
Mbeki said that expectations had been too high, and in a closing news
conference, Mbeki went on to say “it is
obvious that not everybody would be happy with the outcome. The critical issue
of course is what happens after this.”
Kofi Annan went on to say “The Summit makes sustainable development a
reality. This Summit will put us on a path that reduces poverty while
protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples, rich and poor,
today and tomorrow. Governments have
agreed here, on an impressive range of concrete commitments and action that
will make a real difference for people in all regions of the World”
South African organizers were
particularly satisfied after hosting 45 000 delegates and participants without
any major security or criminal incident.
The
second week of the WSSD was the time for the Heads of State to arrive and agree
on the text of the Plan of Implementation. This contains targets and timetables
to spur action on a wide range of issues. The only WEHAB (Water, Energy,
Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity) issue for which a proposed target was not
agreed was the use of renewable energy.
In
addition to the Plan of Implementation and the Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development, which tackled the more controversial areas (such as
HIV/AIDS, and how to refer to Palestinian territory), the WSSD also generated
concrete partnership initiatives by and between governments, citizen groups
(NGOs), business and industry. Such partnerships bring with them additional
resources and expertise to attain significant results where they matter in
communities across the globe.
A
final political declaration was adopted on Wednesday 4 September after heavy
debate. Developing countries insisted on including clauses such as “the fight against AIDS – that pose severe
threats to sustainable development”. Industrialised countries criticised
SA’s call for an end to “global apartheid”
because it implies that rich countries are responsible for poverty in the
developing world. Countries agreed to “strengthen
the capacity of healthcare systems to deliver basic healthcare services to all,
which will conform with human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
All
in all, the outcome of the WSSD was rated as:
Water and Sanitation: 5/5
Poverty: 3/5
Health: 3/5
Agriculture and Fishing: 5/5
Environment: 4/5
Energy: 2/5
Specific
commitments were agreed for each of the five WEHAB issues specified by Kofi
Annan as requiring concrete outcomes from the WSSD. These are supported by more
than 220 partnerships and an identified US$ 235 million in resources to
complement the government commitments and many more were announced outside of
the formal Summit proceedings. Despite these financial commitments, the UN
thinks that the goal of halving poverty by 2015 can only be solved if the total
amount of cash is doubled. The commitments include:
Water
and Sanitation:
-
Commitment to halve the proportion of people without access to
sanitation by 2015; this matches the goal of halving the proportion of people
without access to safe drinking water by 2025.
Energy:
-
Commitment to increase access to modern energy services, increase energy efficiency and to increase the use
of renewable energy;
-
To phase out, where appropriate, energy subsidies;
-
To support the NEPAD objective of ensuring access to energy for at
least 35% of the African population within the next 20 years.
Health:
-
Commitment that by 2020, chemicals should be used and produced in ways
that do not harm human health and the environment;
-
To enhance cooperation to reduce air pollution;
-
To improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound
alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010;
-
HIV/AIDS was tackled with other controversial issues in a separate document called the
“Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development” where it was identified
as an obstacle to sustainable development.
Agriculture:
-
The GEF will consider inclusion of the Convention to Combat
Desertification as a focal area for funding;
-
In Africa, the development of food security strategies by 2005.
Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Management:
-
Commitment to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010;
-
Commitment to reverse the current trend in natural resource
degradation;
-
Commitment to restore fisheries to their
maximum sustainable yields by 2015;
-
Commitment to establish a representative network of marine protected
areas by 2012;
-
Commitment to improve developing countries’ access to
environmentally-sound alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010;
-
Undertake initiatives by 2004 to implement the Global Programme of
Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Sources of
Pollution.
We shall see in the years to come if the
commitments and promises made at this Summit are kept. We shall see if the
people who currently live in poverty have a significantly improved quality of
life, more economic opportunities and whether the next generation live in a
safer and more healthy environment. We hope so.
Launch of the
Global Conservation Trust
On 29
August 2002, midway through WSSD, the CGIAR and FAO announced plans to
establish the Global Conservation Trust. The announcement followed on the heels
of the release of a report, Crop Diversity at Risk: The Case for Sustaining
Crop Collections, by Imperial College, London. The report drew largely on information
gathered by FAO in 2000 from around 100 countries. Its findings were alarming:
not only is crop diversity disappearing from the fields, a large proportion of
the crop resources ‘safeguarded’ in genebanks around the world could soon be
lost due to lack of funding.
The
report found that while the number of samples held in crop collections has
increased in 66% of countries since 1996 (the last time FAO gathered such
data), genebank budgets have been reduced in 25% of countries and have remained
static in another 35%. The Imperial report recommended the establishment of a
global endowment fund for ex situ conservation as the best way to ensure
humanity’s ability to meet the long-term nature of its conservation needs.
With
nine venues, a reported 60 000 delegates and
hundreds of side events all clamouring for attention during the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD), there was concern that the announcement of
plans for the Global Conservation Trust might not receive much attention.
Fortunately that was not the case. Indeed, the event— held at the IUCN
Environment Centre—was very well attended. Former CGIAR Chair Ismail
Serageldin, World Food Prize Laureate M.S. Swaminathan, Geoffrey Hawtin,
Director General of IPGRI and Professor Chris Higgins, of Imperial College
described the new findings in the Imperial report and announced the intention
to establish the Trust early next year.
Important
statements of commitment and support followed from Mamdouh Riad Tadros,
Egyptian Minister of the Environment; Ambassador Walter Fust, Director-General
of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Andrew Natsios,
Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, and Senator Tim
Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation.
Please
visit the website of the Global Conservation Trust at www.startwithaseed.org.
Here, you will find a discussion paper describing a number of outstanding
issues regarding the future governance of the Trust (www.startwithaseed.org/pages/governance.htm).
Your comments on this are most welcome. You can contact the Trust with
questions and comments at info@startwithaseed.org.
Biotechnology
Ø
Global Panel Announced: During
the WSSD the World Bank announced the initiation of a global panel to assess
environmental and social risks of scientific methods to boost agricultural
productivity – including the use of GM food. "It's a difficult ethical issue and the sad fact is that there is not
enough information on the table to make wise decisions," said World
Bank vice president for sustainable development Ian Johnson. He said the
panel's findings would help governments in their policy-making, and help spur
productivity by examining organic agriculture, traditional plant breeding
techniques and new farming technologies. "Nearly 800 million people go to bed hungry every night and over the
next 50 years, food production will have to double to meet growing demands,"
he said. The panel, chaired by World Bank chief scientist Robert Watson, held
its first meeting in Dublin in November, to be followed by consultations with
groups including consumers, farmers, scientists, governments and the private
sector to produce a global assessment of agricultural science.
Ø Biosafety: following the WSSD
the total number of ratifications of the Cartegena Protocol reaches 37 with the
recent ratification of Mozambique in October 2002. A further 11 countries
ratified during the time of the WSSD. The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety was
adopted in January 2000 to regulate the potential risks associated with
cross-border trade and accidental release of living modified organisms.
Countries are encouraged to align their national biosafety policies with this
international standard. The Cartegena Protocol will come into force when 50 of
the signatory countries (over 100) ratify.
Ø Partnerships: A Workshop bringing
together industry representatives and scientists recently took place in
Pretoria, South Africa – 21-22 October, focusing on global trends in biotechnology
and the South African direction – to ensure that scientific research and
development meet the needs of local and international industry. During informal
discussion sessions, both industry representatives and scientists had an
opportunity to express their views and chart the way forward. Involving 60
participants from government, academic institutions, research institutes,
private individuals, media and students, the workshop resulted in the following
recommendations:
1. Encourage the
formation of platforms for technology transfer to take place between industry
and scientists. Workshops such as this one held should be repeated in the
future in order to create and sustain dialogue between industry and scientists.
2. Links should be
made with key development vehicles such as NEPAD to ensure that science and
technology are integrated into sustainable development programmes
3. A roadmap for
biotechnology development in Africa should be drawn up with input from all
stakeholders.
4. Interaction between
industry, scientists and government should be promoted.
5. Government should
be making financial incentives to encourage investment in the local
biotechnology sectors.
6. Public Awareness
was highlighted as an important component of the development of the
biotechnology sector. It was recommended that stakeholders support the
government public awareness campaign.
7. Directories of
expertise should be compiled that allow for easy reference across the sectors
8. Biosafety
assessment data should be centralized and compiled into a reference point that
can be easily accessed.
Update on Food Aid Issue
Also announced during
the second week of the WSSD was the decision by the Zambian government to send
a team of scientists to the US and Europe to assess the safety of GM food – a
visit which took place in October. This followed a statement issued by the UN
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) urging Southern African countries to
think carefully. FAO Director Jacques Diouf added, “We should make sure before we reject it that there are scientifically
valid arguments on which to base that decision.” Organization such as FAO and
WHO have continually stated that there is no scientific proof, to show that GM food
present health risk. Sponsorship of the visit to the US was offered by the
Director of USAID, and was accepted by the Zambian government who said “we are merely taking precautionary measures
and remain open to conclusive scientific evidence that they are indeed safe.”
Despite
the visits, Zambia has continued to reject donations of genetically modified
(GM) maize, according to the executive director of the World Food Programme
(WFP), James T. Morris, said today.
In addition to seeking
international food aid, Zambia has been undertaking its own measures to ease
the food crisis caused by severe drought which is threatening more than three
million lives across the country. Farmers were contracted by the Zambian
government to grow food, specifically Maize over the winter. Maize is normally
grown in the summer months. Around 20 000 tonnes of white Maize will be
harvested in November, which will be used to feed those affected by the food
shortages. It will be sold to those who
can afford to buy it, and those who cannot afford it will receive it as relief
food.
The farmers contracted
to grow the maize will be paid from a one-million euro donation from Italy.
Zambian Agricultural Minister Mundia Sikatana says that in future the country
would grow more maize over the winter, since the project had proved successful
this year.
The Way Forward
During
the WSSD the role of biotechnology in sustainable development was highlighted
and the principles outlined in Agenda 21 were reinforced. These principles
include the role of biotechnology to:
Ø Increase the
availability of food, feed and renewable raw materials;
Ø Improve human health;
Ø Enhance protection of
the environment;
Ø Enhance safety and
developing international mechanisms for cooperation; and
Ø Establish enabling
mechanisms for the development and the environmentally
sound application of biotechnology.
These
five programme areas seek to foster internationally agreed principles 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 to achieve those
objectives. Biotechnology is also recognized as
a cross-sectoral issue and is linked particularly to issues set out in the
chapters in Agenda 21 covering human health, deforestation, sustainable
agriculture and rural development, conservation of biological diversity, oceans
and marine resources, and sanitation.
What was apparent when taking stock at the WSSD was that most of the identified
principles and approaches involving the application of biotechnology in
sustainable development highlighted in Agenda 21 had not been met or
implemented, particularly for developing countries. It is in this context that
biotechnology stakeholders at the WSSD called for the CDB to fully implement
Agenda 21 in relation to biotechnology.
Other issues in relation to biotechnology were debated at the WSSD
including:
Ø Food security and
GM food aid in Africa;
Ø Biodiversity, access
and benefit sharing;
Ø Technology and capacity
building for developing countries;
Ø Precautionary
'principle' vs. 'approach' as applied to biotech;
Ø Private-public sector
partnerships for implementation; and
Ø Corporate governance.
It became very clear to
biotechnology stakeholders that these issues can not be debated effectively
when there are anti-biotechnology campaigners in all forums spreading
misinformation and blatant lies. It is no surprise to many of the scientists at
the WSSD that the Zambian government has taken the approach it has on food aid.
When you analyse who is advising the Zambian government on these important issues
you find that well known anti-biotech
campaigners are once again telling African governments and consumer
organizations that the products of modern agricultural biotechnology are very
dangerous and can cause diseases such as cancer. These negative interventions
have done nothing but harm and should be recognised by UN structures as
counterproductive and eliminated from UN forums of the future. UN structures
such as the CBD, FAO and UNDP, and UNIDO need to play a more significant role
in providing balanced factual information on biotechnology, especially to
developing countries.
Other areas that need support by all parties (i.e. international and scientific
organizations, NGOs, CBOs, governments and industries) are:
Ø Capacity building for
developing countries;
Ø Further assistance for
developing countries to set-up their biosafety
structures and implement the Biosafety Protocol;
Ø Biotechnology
transfer to countries who want to assess the technology for
themselves;
Ø Drive balanced factual
public awareness and understanding;
Ø Assist south-south
co-operation in biotechnology; and
Ø Enhanced networking and
communication between biotechnology stakeholders.
AfricaBio and its partners will actively work together to address the key
issues highlighted above. To assist biotechnology stakeholders in sharing
information on environmental aspects of biotechnology, AfricaBio will continue distributing a environmental newsletter in
2003.
Jocelyn Webster.