SEARICE

Ocean Nourishment: Sacrificing the Marine Environment for Profits and the Need for SBSTTA13 to Take a Stand

2008-02-20T06:12:00.000-08:00

Ocean Nourishment:
Sacrificing the Marine Environment for Profits
and the Need for SBSTTA 13 to Take a Stand

Global warming is undoubtedly the defining environmental problem today and in the near future. The unfolding catastrophes and dangers associated with global warming has made efforts at finding solutions and mitigating the problem a primary priority. However, there are solutions that help to fix the problem and there are purported ones that only make the situation worse. Ocean nourishment belongs to the latter category.

Late last year, the Sulu Sea in the Philippines became the subject of global attention when it was learned that an Australian company, the Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC), was preparing to dump hundreds of tons of urea fertilizers in those waters as part of its patented carbon sequestration technology called ocean nourishment. Ocean nourishment involves the release of urea or nitrogen fertilizers into seawaters to induce massive growths of phytoplanktons that could absorb atmospheric carbon doxide before trapping them into deep ocean. This carbon sequestration technology supposedly would lessen carbon dioxide presence in the atmosphere and therefore help reduce global warming.

Ocean nourishment has been roundly criticized by scientists and environmentalists as an unproven and environmentally hazardous technology. It has not been shown that carbon can be sequestered effectively and permanently in this manner. On the contrary, there is scientific concern that the opposite may happen, that the massive concentrations of phytoplankton will increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of increased numbers of carbon-respiring plankton predators. Moreover, large phytoplankton concentrations will likely cause major ecological imbalances such as harmful algal blooms that are destructive to marine life and fisheries. Not only will marine biodiversity be adversely affected by fertilization but local economies dependent on fisheries would suffer tremendously. The Sulu Sea is an especially vulnerable area since it consists of major fishing grounds, is host to one of the richest marine biodiversity on earth and is where the UNESCO world heritage site, the Tubbataha Reef, is located.

If not for the ruckus raised by Philippine environmentalists and civil society organizations, ONC's Sulu Sea fertilization plan would have been allowed by government to be carried out despite the absence of environmental impact assessment and public consultations. In fact, there was already initial government approval for the project but protests forced government to step back. Since then, scientists, local and national government officials, and communities have all expressed opposition to ocean nourishment and questioned ONC's work in the Philippines. Ocean nourishment has been put on hold in the Philippines.

What has become clear though is that ocean nourishment is no solution to global warming but is really another attempt to exploit the global warming problem by getting into the lucrative carbon trading market. ONC has made no secret of its plan to sell its technology on the carbon market. Such barefaced attampts to sacrifice the environment for profits in the name of mitigating global warming must be opposed and denounced. It is not only the Sulu Sea that's being threatened but there are also other ocean fertilization activities and plans in other parts of the world's seas.

The London Convention on Marine Dumping has expressed grave concern over the ecological risk of ocean fertilization and sounded the need for oversight on these technologies due to their large-scale impacts on the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted that “ocean fertilization remains largely speculative, and many environmental side effects have yet to be assessed”. We believe the 13th SBSTTA, which has mandate on marine biodiversity issues, is in a position to lend its voice to growing global concerns about the impact of ocean nourishment to marine biodiversity. We therefore call on the SBSTTA to make recommendations for the COP to adopt precautionary approach measures on ocean nourishment initiatives, limiting any experiments on this technology to laboratory conditions whilst scientific issues are debated and resolved. Moreover, SBSTTA can make similar recommendation towards international oversight mechanisms to regulate such technologies including other so-called geo-engineering initiatives whether they take place in national and international territories due to their possible wider and long-term global impact. We hope and believe that the 13th SBSTTA can contribute towards this goal of protecting the world's biodiversity.

13th SBSTTA, 19 February 2008

SEARICE RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

2008-02-20T06:04:00.000-08:00

SEARICE RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
18 February – 22 February, 2008, Rome, Italy

The SOUTHEAST ASIA REGIONAL INITIATIVES FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (SEARICE), a regional Non-governmental Organization working with farmers and farming communities in the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Bhutan, working on the promotion and strengthening of farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity at the field level and in local and national policy actions, welcomes the report on Biodiversity and Climate Change identifying options for mutually supportive activities for the Secretariats of the Rio Conventions and for parties and relevant organizations.

SEARICE raises the following observations and recommendations that the Parties present should consider to recommend that the Conference of the Parties to the Convenion on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting:

1. On Ocean Nourishment and Fertilization, SEARICE welcomes and commends interventions from various Parties to the 13th Meeting of the SBSTTA which have expressed grave concern on ocean nourishment and geo-engineering, by taking a stand in recommending the adoption of precautionary approach measures and the establishment of an Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Working Group on this.

We likewise put emphasis to the concerns raised during the London Convention on Marine Dumping, where Parties to that Convention have already expressed grave concern over the ecological risks of ocean fertilization and expressed the need for oversight on these technologies due to their large-scale impact on the environment, and, in addition, on its potential impact on local communities that rely on resources in target areas of these technologies.

2. SEARICE also recommends for the Parties to take the precautionary approach on large-scale climate-change mitigation activities and endeavors, especially large-scale agrofuels production, that will in large part compromise health, food security, food safety, and the agricultural biodiversity being conserved and utilized sustainably by farmers, local communites and indigenous peoples.

3. It is important that Parties recommend engagement with and active involvement of farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples on concerns regarding climate change, in consideration of the crucial role that they play on adaptation and adaptability given their dynamic practices of conserving, adapting, and enhancing in-situ agro-biodiversity, which create resiliency in withstanding impacts of climate change.

In addition, the Parties, in line with a stronger collaboration with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should be encouraged to invite researches highlighting and involving local communities adaptation mechanisms and measures, which can be assessed and included in mainstreaming adaptive management systems for climate change. Suggested recommendations (particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 of Document No. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/137) should thus include farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples, in recognition of their rights to participation in all these processes.

SEARICE RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE DURING THE 13TH SBSSTA MEETING

2008-02-20T01:54:00.000-08:00

STATEMENT ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

2008-02-20T01:28:00.000-08:00

STATEMENT ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 13)
Rome, Italy

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment or SEARICE is a regional NGO working on agricultural biodiversity, specifically plant genetic resources conservation, development and use, in the Philippines, Thailand, Lao PDR, Vietnam and Bhutan. We commend the Secretariat in presenting to us the document at hand, and we would like to put forth four points that we believe would matter in the discussion of invasive alien species as it relates and impacts on agricultural biodiversity.

1. We urge the Parties to continue taking on the precautionary and preventive approach as regards invasive alien species.

2. There is concern and also a need to address invasive alien species that have already been introduced. In this regard, the parties should consider assessment, monitoring and reduction of the continued impact of already introduced alien species, which include introduced crops for biofuels which displace agricultural crops.

3. The parties should also recognize present initiatives and practices of farmers and local communities in addressing and reducing the threats and risks already presented by invasive species that have been introduced in affecting present agricultural biodiversity.

4. Finally, we put forth the need to monitor the introduction of invasive alien species intended to “improve” genetic traits of agricultural animals and crops that may enter through trade, noting that this should also be a matter of concern under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Filipino Farmers Reject Adoption of Bt Corn

2008-02-15T04:12:00.000-08:00

Filipino farmers reject adoption of Bt corn
Thursday, February 14, 2008
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/feb/14/yehey/metro/20080214met5.html

FILIPINO farmers do not favor planting the Bacillus thuri ngiensis (Bt) corn after trying it for the first time during the period of 2003 to 2006, the Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment (Searice) said on Wednesday.

“The overwhelming majority chose to plant non-Bt corn varieties, a trend that amounts to market rejection of Bt corn technology,” said Agnes Lintao, Searice Policy Officer who spearheaded the research.

Lintao belied the claim of International Service for the Acquisition of Agricultural Biotech Application (ISAAA) that 200,000 hectares of corn production areas nationwide were planted with Bt corn in 2006.

Out of the 790 farmers surveyed in three provinces, only 3 percent planted Bt corn during the first cropping season of May to September of 2006. The same study also showed that none of the respondents replanted Bt corn after using it for the first time.

“Most of the farmers interviewed in the three provinces were not convinced of its claimed benefits of higher yields and pest resistance,” said Lintao.

The group’s survey showed that in Isabela, the highest corn-producing province, a mere 6 percent of farmer-respondents planted Bt corn.

In Bukidnon, the second highest corn-producing province, there was an adoption rate of less than 1 percent. In North Cotabato, the fourth largest corn-producing province, there was barely 3 percent farmers’ adoption, the survey showed.

“High cost was the top most reason cited by the farmers for their non-adoption including those who chose not to repeat the planting of Bt corn during the period 2003 to 2006. Despite the hype mounted for this biotech crop, farmers remain unconvinced,” Lintao said.

Lintao also said that ISAAA has been misleading the public about the real status of Bt corn adoption in the country, and even called the Philippines as one of the “mega biotech” countries in the world where Bt corn is being widely used.

“Their figure is highly misleading because this is not even the actual sales they achieved. There is no way to verify the actual volume of sales of Bt corn seeds since the DA-BPI [Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry] does not require the companies to produce this report. However, DA-BPI never tried to correct the erroneous and misleading use of data,” Lintao said.

ISAAA is set to present the Philippines’ successful adoption of genetically modified corn in Brussels today.
--Ira Karen Apanay

Privilege Speech of Rep. Nur G. Jaafar on Urea Dumping in the Sulu Seas

2008-02-07T06:25:00.000-08:00

Privilege Speech
Representative Nur G. Jaafar
House of Representatives
November 27, 2007

RECKLESSLY TAMPERING WITH OUR ECOSYSTEM

Honorable Speaker and Distinguished members of the House:

With a great burden in my mind and heart, allow me to echo the cries of the people of Tawi-Tawi against the impending threat to their lives and future from the dumping of 300 tons of toxic urea and 43 tons of triple super-phosphate into the Sulu Sea by an Australian-based company. The Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) claims to have secured a go-signal from the Philippine government to conduct a large-scale field experiment on its patented urea fertilization technology in the Sulu Sea that traverses the Island province of Tawi-Tawi. While I respect the scientific zeal with which the United Nations tackle the global warming issue, a little known very risky experiment that will cover South-Western Philippines sends fear among the people in the Sulu Archipelago with Tawi-Tawi at the receiving end whose lifeline belongs to the sea.

Ostensibly, the dumping of urea granules will stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which would eventually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But local communities and scientists are wary that this unproven claim may cause more harm than good:

• Consider, for instance, that the experiment produces harmful algal blooms that cause Red Tide, as well as other unknown disastrous effects on the ocean floors. A phenomenon traced to toxic chemical fertilizers that are carried by water runoff that pollute our waterways, starve our fishermen, and create scare among consumers. The hiatus when our fishermen wait for months on end before red tide subsides to venture anew to the seas.

• The Tubbataha Reefs, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a RAMSAR Wetlands Site, and the first Philippine National Marine Park in Palawan, part of which is Bancauan Island that is in Tawi-Tawi Province, is a critical biodiversity area in the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea that must be protected; and

Thousands and thousands of people all scattered through out the Sulu Archipelago, particularly in the eleven (11) island municipalities of Tawi-Tawi including the coastal areas in Sabah, Malaysia and Kalimantan Utara of Indonesia depends so much on the sea; nourished by food coming from marine life that abound in the area. Which ever site the dumping may occur in the Sulu Sea, water undercurrents could extend far and wide that could virtually spare not one community from risky algal bloom or Red Tide that may lead to dead zones of depleted oxygen like those in the Gulf of Mexico, a consequence of toxic substance spilled through the Mississippi river.

According to the U.P Marine Science Institute in Diliman, current and wind direction on site may speed up dispersal of nutrient-rich water up to critical reef areas. Corals do not thrive in nutrient-rich water, thus, destroying the ecology. The irony of the field experiment is the idea of sea nourishment that exists in the hypothetical growth of phytoplankton that will sequester and eliminate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

How can we forget and ignore that the same urea that reaches the waterways causes algal blooms, e.g., red tide which is a bane that scares us from ingesting any fish, crustacean or any sea product?

How can we claim to nourish the sea when we fail to preserve its resources that nourish our own people?

How can we mitigate hunger aggravated by increase in population when the sea, which is the only lifeline of the people of Tawi-Tawi to avert malnutrition, is being threatened?

Why Tawi-Tawi and the whole of my people?

Let me point out that Tawi-Tawi boasts of an academic community of oceanographers in Mindanao State University – Tawi-Tawi College of Technology and Oceanography (MSU-TCTO) whose scientific endeavors will never veer away from the very mission of harnessing the ocean for the sake of the people. An experiment of gigantic proportions of 300 tons of urea and triple super-phosphate dumping is a contemptible diabolical idea presented in the subtlety of modern scientific jargon and the toxicity of human greed and vested interests.

It grieves me, Mr. Speaker, that a predominantly Muslim academic community like MSU-TCTO was not even given the courtesy of information from the College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas (Miagao, Iloilo) through its Research on Ocean Nourishment Demonstration Project about the experiment. U.P Visayas tie-up with University of Sydney, Australia to be funded by another Australian Firm, Climate Research Ltd. has ventured into ocean fertilization experiments that are both dangerous and unacceptable even by our government agencies. They are joined by Borneo Marine Science Institute, Taytay sa Kauswagan (TSKI Iloilo City, Ocean Nourishment Foundation Ltd. (ONF) and Discovery Channel. No less than Dean Romeo D. Fortes of U.P Visayas sought from the Environment Management Bureau (EMB) of DENR for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for the project.

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) whose initial reaction is to welcome the U.P Visayas proposal, even cautioned about a harmful algal bloom as what occurred in Western Samar in January 2005 and further advised a close monitoring on dominant plankton cell density as well as presence of harmful species and that in an unlikely event, the process should be immediately suspended. Not even a copy of the project proposal was ever submitted to their office.

Ladies and gentlemen, are we pointing again to a scenario of decimating, in the guise of scientific progress, the Muslim people as specimens; by heroically playing host to an unproven experiment to avert climate change? This is betraying the destiny of our people to global patronage and its pretension to human welfare and progress.

My thoughts on this matter of sacrificing Muslims and fellow Filipinos find an ally in the daring recommendation of the esteemed academicians at the UP Diliman’s Marine Science Institute: …”before an Australian company conducts large scale experiments on ocean fertilization in Philippine waters, it should demonstrate their efficacy in Australian waters, such as the Gulf of Capentaria in their Northern Territories, a tropical one.” The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is courageously calling for a moratorium on ocean fertilization experiments and calls for the conduct of international oversight; some kind of United Nations control over these technologies, especially when they are commercialized.

ONC Managing Director Jim Ridley was quoted that one ton urea was already dumped into the Sulu Sea and may inject another one ton in the next month. A big quantity is intended to be dumped again in succeeding months when the northeast monsoon or “Amihan” will intensify which will certainly bring catastrophic effects on the islands and islets reefs of the Sulu Sea Archipelago and may even reach the Sulawesi. Most likely the one (1) ton of urea already dumped has already destroyed Tawi-Tawi seaweeds which are observed to be whitening (locals call it “ice-ice”).

Before seaweed farming was introduced to other parts of the Philippines, Tawi-Tawi enjoyed almost a monopoly of the product, at one time providing more or less 90% of the raw harvests. Tens of thousands seaweeds farmers along the shore depend on Sulu Sea, what more of hundreds of thousands of other Tawi-Tawi fishermen who venture out to the sea? How about those coming from other provinces? Multifold; three hundred (300) tons of urea and 43 tons of triple super-phosphate, indeed pose human misery; and in serious disregard of laws and scientific advisory bodies:

1. The Fisheries Code of the Philippines and the Presidential Decree No. 600 as revised by P.D. 979 known as Marine Pollution Decree of 1976 are declarations of policy to prevent and control of the pollution of seas by the dumping of wastes and other matter which create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine life, damage amenities, or interfere with the legitimate uses of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Among the prohibited acts are: discharge, dump of oil, noxious gaseous substances and other harmful substances xxx by any method, means or manner, into or upon the territorial and inland navigable waters of the Philippines.

Tawi-Tawi is already hostage to surreptitious dumping of toxic waste in the guise of Innocent Passage of ocean going vessels passing through the Sibutu-Bongao channel from South China Sea and exiting to Sunda Strait towards the Indian Ocean and vice versa. Congress must consider passing a measure to ensure that vessels comply with our environmental laws and/or pay-up for damage to our ecosystem.

2. The London Convention on the prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes, to which the Philippines is a signatory, has shown “grave concern for the ecological risk of ocean fertilization.”

3. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, also said that the technology is largely speculative and environmental side effects have yet to be assessed.

4. Environmental groups including Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), based in Quezon City, Erosion Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) from Ottawa, Third World Network in Malaysia (TWN, Greenpeace International, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Kilusang Mangingisda (a fisherfolk organization) have petitioned against the ocean nourishment project.

5. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD), U.P Diliman’s Marines Science Institute and Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of DENR also expressed concerns over the project’s repercussions.

6. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is calling for a moratorium on ocean fertilization experiments and calls for the conduct of international oversight; some kind of United Nations control over these technologies, especially when they are commercialized.

The foregoing considered, acceding to the experiment in the name of science is to thread on dangerous waters because there are online data that points to pecuniary interests of those involved in the project particularly Ocean Nourishment Corporation Pty Limited (ONC), a geo-engineering firm based in Sydney, Australia which intends to win carbon credits and earn revenue by licensing its technology. It is also reportedly vying for the US$25 million Virgin Earth Prize to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. It is noted that another controversial firm, Planktons, a San Francisco-based company is also set to experiment off the Galapagos Islands in Mexico.

Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues, yes… we are all for measures to avert climate change and mitigate global warming through proven and safe methods like mangrove reforestation, tree planting etc. But we will never allow our people to be sacrificed in this contemplated experiment. The experiment of people’s lives by exposing them to the unpredictable consequences of dumping 300 tons of toxic urea into their idyllic sea environment and life line ecosystem that God has given our people as an everlasting evidence of His Greatness and Love of our people.

Why should their future be sacrificed?

And for what? And for whose gain?

Are we citizens of this country or not?

We have a right to demand from our government protection from an experiment that could destroy our future.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, like those who clamored against the dumping of toxic wastes in Subic Bay and those who called for opposition to the pending entry of Japanese wastes into the country, I call for the proactive response of my distinguished colleagues in this Chamber to join me and the people of the Sulu Archipelago against the dire consequences of dumping toxic urea and phosphate into the Sulu Sea. Indeed, we call upon the government to give this serious threat to marine life and survival of our country’s Southern Frontier, the attention it critically deserves. We call no less than H.E President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to take immediate steps to protect our people against the impending danger to their lives and future.

Thank you for your kind indulgence and attention.

Rep. Nur G. Jaafar

Farmers' Rights and the Mindanao Agriculture Development Agenda

2007-12-03T22:45:00.000-08:00

FARMERS’ RIGHTS AND THE MINDANAO

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)

Statement on the 1st Mindanao Agriculture Forum

November 21-23, 2007

It is not possible to conceive of an agenda for agricultural development without conceiving of an agenda for farmers and farmers' rights.

SEARICE has been working in Mindanao since 1992 when we started the Community Based Native Seeds Research Center (CONSERVE) in Pres. Roxas, Cotabato. CONSERVE itself was built from the local farmers' movement in Cotabato, which in turn had been nurtured mainly by the Church from the time of the anti-Marcos dictatorship struggles. We simply inherited and continued what had been started by local farmers as their struggle for a better life and for a fuller realization of their rights, politically, economically, culturally and socially.

Even then, when we started CONSERVE, we did not come with a full agenda for local agricultural development nor did we aspire to achieve one. We still don't claim to have one now. We came in with quite a simple idea: seeds. Yet even from that seemingly simple idea of seeds our years of work with farmers have taught us and eventually led us to a better appreciation of something broader than what we started out, and that is, farmers' rights. And this appreciation come through years of lessons, wisdom and struggles imparted to us by farmers themselves. Yet, we are not claiming expertise on the subject of farmers' rights. We do know enough however that there could not be an agenda for agriculture without farmers' and farmers' rights being central to the discussions.

What now appears to be obvious at this point in the 1^st Mindanao Agriculture Forum: that it suffers from a gaping hole in its heart, the heart of farmers' rights! We are not merely saying that Farmers' Rights is the missing element here because that is the terrain of advocacy that we happen to be working in. We are saying so because this terrain has become global in significance, which we especially Mindanawans may ignore only at our own loss.

Recently, the second meeting of the Governing Body of the International Treaty of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), of which the Philippines is a signatory, took place in Rome early this month. The Treaty, which took effect in 2004 is the foremost international instrument governing discussions and negotiations among Parties with regard to policies about Plant Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture. At the heart of the Treaty is Farmers' Rights, enshrined in Article 9.

It is an imperfect Treaty no doubt and the section on Farmers' Rights among its many imperfections. Farmers' movements themselves have criticized Farmers' Rights provision in the Treaty for, among others, the narrowness of its scope and to its being made subject to national legislation. Nevertheless, the Treaty remains the only one that explicitly recognizes Farmers’ Rights and calls upon countries to implement it. It is a historic Treaty and under ideal circumstances, is a work in progress.

For us at SEARICE, we came into the Rome meeting having conducted a series of consultations among farmers in Mindanao, Visayas and at the national level about Farmers' Rights. The objective of those consultations was to try to form a consensus among farmers about what they understand Farmers' Rights to be and the key issues that affect them.

What those consultations basically showed is that farmers consider Farmers' Rights as mainly a bundle of rights, or a collection of rights ranging from the economic to the political, from the social to the cultural. They are interlocking rights that define what a farmer is or what he or she ought to be in the eyes of society. Farmers regard their rights to land as a very basic right, hence the struggle for land reform, including in Mindanao, remains very much alive. The farmers from Sumilao, Bukidnon who are marching right now towards Malacanang are living proof of this struggle. But also important for farmers are their rights to seeds, i.e., unimpeded access to use, sell, share and market seeds. So too are rights to participation in government, to appropriate and safe technologies, to access to health care, to safe and nutritious food, to fair market access, among others. Indeed, what those consultations showed is that farmers do hold a holistic view of their rights and consequently of their role in society as a whole and in agriculture as a sector.

Farmers from South-Central Mindanao during the consultations particularly articulated the core issues that impede them from realizing and asserting their basic socio-economic,cultural rights. According to them, the so-called ‘development projects’ such as mining explorations and the expansion of agricultural plantations, in fact deduced farmers into mere tenants and/or daily laborers, has not only contaminated their lands and water system but also showered their communities with toxic sprays and in the process, disregarded their efforts to practice a more environment-friendly sustainable agriculture. Underlying issues behind this are the absence of comprehensive information dissemination for farmers to have informed decision and the lack of farmers’, local communities’ and women’s voices in decision-making processes at all levels.

Farmers during the consultation also lamented the seemingly lack of recognition for their efforts in conservation and sustainable management of the agroecosystem from the formal sector. On seeds/ plant genetic resources for example, farmer-partners of SEARICE in North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat during the span of 1994-2006 have developed and bred some 110 rice varieties from local and traditional varieties that are adaptable and suited to their specific local conditions. In second cropping in 2006, about 42.6 tons from these seeds have spread to some 328 hectares in 21 farming communities in North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and Bukidnon, in the process increasing the varietal diversity in lowland rice farming communities. The Government thru the Department of Agriculture, however is bent on subsidizing and promoting only 5 varieties of hybrid seeds, further subjecting lowland agroecosystems more prone to disease and pest epidemics and also in promoting genetically modified crops whose long-term impacts to human and animal health and to the environment remains unknown. Moreover, these bias promotion of one-size fits all technologies undermines farmers’ conservation efforts and accordingly, further marginalizes their sector to become dependent and ‘tenants’ to what technology, inputs, seeds the scientists, government, traders, and seed companies prescribe and promote.

Albeit the lack of support, this did not hamper farmers from crafting their own development as forms of assertions of their rights – by organizing themselves into groups, networks and movements that freely exchange and share not only seeds and related knowledge, technologies and increasingly by engaging local government units and thru participation in special bodies at the community and local levels to protect and support their initiatives, among others. Farmers are showing the way, it is about time we let them lead the way to agricultural development.

Henceforth, we believe that Mindanao Agriculture Agenda should be defined by the farmers of Mindanao with active and diverse participation of different stakeholders particularly small farmers, indigenous peoples, rural youth and rural women. It is our call and our challenge to develop a Farmers’ Rights- based agenda for agricultural development in Mindanao - with Mindanawan farmers as central to the process of defining the agenda.

- End-

SEARICE Mindanao

Bautista Farms, Tacurong City

Sultan Kudarat

Telefax: +6364 477 0045; +632 922 6710

Email: searice@searice.org.ph, searice_mindanao@searice.org.ph

Ocean Fertilization 'Fix' For Global Warming

2007-12-03T21:22:00.000-08:00

Ocean fertilization, the process of adding iron
or other nutrients to the ocean to cause large

algal blooms, has been proposed as a possible

solution to global warming because the growing
algae absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.
(Credit: iStockphoto/Brett Hillyard)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/1 1/0711291
32753.htm

Web address:
http ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/
071129 132753.htm

Ocean Fertilization 'Fix' For Global Warming
Discredited By New Research
ScienceDaily (Nov. 30, 2007) — Scientists have revealed an
important discovery that raises doubts concerning the viability of
plans to fertilize the ocean to solve global warming, a projected
$100 billion venture.

Research performed at Stanford and Oregon State Universities
suggests that ocean fertilization may not be an effective method of
reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a major contributor to
global warming. Ocean fertilization, the process of adding iron or
other nutrients to the ocean to cause large algal blooms, has been
proposed as a possible solution to global warming because the
growing algae absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.

However, this process, which is analogous to adding fertilizer to a
lawn to help the grass grow, only reduces carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere if the carbon incorporated into the algae sinks to
deeper waters. This process, which scientists call the "Biological
Pump", has been thought to be dependent on the abundance of
algae in the top layers of the ocean. The more algae in a bloom,
the more carbon is transported, or "pumped", from the
atmosphere to the deep ocean.

To test this theory, researchers compared the abundance of algae in the surface waters of the world's oceans with
the amount of carbon actually sinking to deep water. They found clear seasonal patterns in both algal abundance
and carbon sinking rates. However, the relationship between the two was surprising: less carbon was transported to
deep water during a summertime bloom than during the rest of the year. This analysis has never been done before
and required designing specialized mathematical algorithms.

"By jumping a mathematical hurdle we found a new globally synchronous signal," said Dr. Lutz.
"This discovery is very surprising", said lead author Dr. Michael Lutz, now at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "If, during natural plankton blooms, less carbon actually sinks to deep
water than during the rest of the year, then it suggests that the Biological Pump leaks.

More material is recycled in shallow water and less sinks to depth, which makes sense if you consider how this
ecosystem has evolved in a way to minimize loss", said Lutz. "Ocean fertilization schemes, which resemble an
artificial summer, may not remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as has been suggested because they
ignore the natural processes revealed by this research."

This study closely follows a September Ocean Iron Fertilization symposium at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI) attended by leading scientists, international lawyers, policy makers, and concerned
representatives from government, business, academia and environmental organizations.

Topics discussed included potential environmental dangers, economic implications, and the uncertain effectiveness
of ocean fertilization. To date none of the major ocean fertilization experiments have verified that a significant
amount of deep ocean carbon sequestration occurs. Some scientists have suggested that verification may require
more massive and more permanent experiments. Together with commercial operators they plan to go ahead with
large-scale and more permanent ocean fertilization experiments and note that potential negative environmental
consequences must be balanced against the harm expected due to ignoring climate change.

During the Ocean Iron Fertilization meeting Dr. Hauke Kite-Powell, of the Marine Policy Center at WHOI,
estimated the possible future value of ocean fertilization at $100 billion of the emerging international carbon trading
market, which has the goal of mitigating global warming. However, according to Professor Rosemary Rayfuse, an
expert in International Law and the Law of the Sea at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who also
attended the Woods Hole meeting, ocean fertilization projects are not currently approved under any carbon credit
regulatory scheme and the sale of offsets or credits from ocean fertilization on the unregulated voluntary markets is
basically nothing short of fraudulent.

'There are too many scientific uncertainties relating both to the efficacy of ocean fertilization and its possible
environmental side effects that need to be resolved before even larger experiments should be considered, let alone
the process commercialized,' Rayfuse says. 'All States have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine
environment and to ensure that all activities carried out under their jurisdiction and control, including marine
scientific research and commercial ocean fertilization activities do not cause pollution.
Ocean fertilization is 'dumping' which is essentially prohibited under the law of the sea. There is no point trying to
ameliorate the effects of climate change by destroying the oceans -- the very cradle of life on earth. Simply doing
more and bigger of that which has already been demonstrated to be ineffective and potentially more harmful than
good is counter-intuitive at best.'

Indeed, the global study of Dr. Lutz and colleagues suggests that greatly enhanced carbon sequestration should not
be expected no matter the location or duration of proposed large-scale ocean fertilization experiments.
According to Dr Lutz "The limited duration of previous ocean fertilization experiments may not be why carbon
sequestration wasn't found during those artificial blooms. This apparent puzzle could actually reflect how marine
ecosystems naturally handle blooms and agrees with our findings. A bloom is like ringing the marine ecosystem
dinner bell. The microbial and food web dinner guests appear and consume most of the fresh algal food."
"Our study highlights the need to understand natural ecosystem processes, especially in a world where change is
occurring so rapidly," concluded Dr. Lutz.
The findings of Dr. Lutz and colleagues coincide with and affirm this month's decision of the London Convention
(the International Maritime Organization body that oversees the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea) to
regulate controversial commercial ocean fertilization schemes. This gathering of international maritime parties
advised that such schemes are currently not scientifically justified.

Strategies to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the enhancement of biological sinks through
processes such as ocean fertilization, will be considered by international governmental representatives during the
thirteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Bali next month.

This research was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Mi ami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA
MLA
University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science (2007, November 30). Ocean
Fertilization 'Fix' For Global Warming Discredited By New Research. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 30, 2007,
from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/1 1/071129132753 .htm

Searice urges DA to review GMO rice-evaluation process

2007-11-17T12:17:00.000-08:00

Businessmirror November 16, 2007
By Jennifer A. Ng Reporter

THE Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment
(Searice) is urging the Department of Agriculture (DA) to make its
evaluation process for a genetically modified (GM) rice variant "more
transparent."

Searice also called on the DA to reject Bayer Philippines' application
to commercially distribute its GM rice variant Liberty Link 62 (LL62).

"Allowing the importation of this GM rice requires transparency and
public knowledge as rice is the Filipinos' staple food," said Socrates
Lugasip, technical officer of Searice.

"The people need to know the reasons behind the government's rush to
allow this while this has not been grown commercially elsewhere, no
history of safe consumption by humans, much less by a population that
eats rice three times a day, whole-year round," Lugasip said.

The international nongovernment organization also posed serious
questions on the independence of the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) from multinational firms producing GM products.

"We urge the Department of Agriculture to divulge the composition of
the STRP and assure the public of the members' independence from any
GMO [GM organism] company's interest. It is the responsibility of the
DA officials to ensure that the people's staple food is not dictated
by the GMO companies' profit interests," said Lugasip.

Searice points to Administrative Order 8 issued by the DA which states
that the STRP shall be "composed of at least three reputable and
independent scientists.to evaluate the application, particularly the
risk- assessment studies conducted and actions taken by relevant
regulatory authorities in the country of origin, and submit its
report to the Bureau of Plant Industry within 30 days from its receipt
of the application."

The Searice official noted a recent Greenpeace report which alleged
that the STRP is composed mostly of experts who were commissioned by
multinational firms to do research on genetic-plant materials.

Meanwhile, a member of the STRP said he would dismiss the application
of Bayer for LL62 right away for "lack of merit."

"Would it enhance agricultural productivity, global competitiveness,
lower the price of rice in the market, alleviate poverty and hunger,
improve the health of the rice-eating Filipinos? These were the
justifications for the country to hitch a ride with the biotechnology
bandwagon in the early years of the GMO debate, but these are now
conveniently forgotten in the decision-making process," said Dr.
Emerlito Borromeo.

Borromeo also said the evaluation of GMO applications should not be
left to the STRP alone because their perspective is confined to
"technical aspects" only and could not defend the economic and
socio-cultural implications of a particular GMO product.

Advocates of GM products had earlier defended the country's regulatory
and approval process and said it can ensure that any GM product
screened and approved will be safe for human consumption.

NGO asks gov't to deny Bayer petition

2007-11-17T12:15:00.000-08:00

http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=
101164
By Amy R. Remo
Posted date: November 15, 2007

An international nongovernmental organization has asked the government
to deny an application of pharmaceutical giant Bayer for commercial
distribution of its genetically modified rice, Liberty Link Rice 62,
on grounds that the evaluation process is "concealed from the public."

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment
(SEARice) raised the alarm, saying the "concealment" also posed
serious questions on the independence of the government's Scientific
and Technical Review Panel from GMO-producing firms.

"We urge the Department of Agriculture to divulge the composition of
the STRP and assure the public of the members' independence from any
GMO firm's interest," said Socrates Lugasip, SEARice technical
officer.

According to the DA, the STRP is composed of at least three "reputable
and independent scientists ... to evaluate the application,
particularly the risk assessment studies conducted and actions taken
by relevant regulatory authorities in the country of origin."

Lugasip said allowing the importation of this GM rice required
transparency and public knowledge as rice is the Filipinos' staple
food.

"The people need to know the reasons behind the government's rush to
allow this, despite the fact that the rice has not been grown
commercially elsewhere nor does it have any history of safe
consumption by humans," Lugasip said.

Bayer, for its part, said it could not issue an official statement due
to a pending case on the commercialization of the LLRICE62.

Greenpeace filed this year a petition against the use of Bayer's
LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing.

SEARice said a member of the STRP had said he would dismiss the
application of LLRICE62 for lack of merit.

"Would it enhance agricultural productivity, global competitiveness,
lower the price of rice in the market, alleviate poverty and hunger,
improve the health of the rice-eating Filipinos?" said STRP member
Emerlito Borromeo.

Borromeo added that the evaluation of GMO applications should not be
left to STRP alone because the panel's perspective was confined only
to technical aspects, and does not cover the economic and
sociocultural implications of a particular GMO.

Farmers oppose GMO rice

2007-11-17T12:11:00.000-08:00

Saturday, November 17, 2007
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/nov/17/yehey/metro/20071117met3.html
BY Chino Leyco Researcher

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (Searice) urged the Department of Agriculture to heed the petition of farmers to stop the importation of genetically modified (GM) rice, codenamed as LLRICE 62.

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Arthur C. Yap, the farmers raised alarm over the possible contamination of local rice varieties in case LLRICE 62 is accidentally mixed with the farmers' traditional varieties in the market.

The farmers also warned that importing LLRICE 62 may signal the start of the planting of GM rice that will pose a greater danger of contaminating the local rice fields, especially those that have switched to organic rice.

About 200 rice farmers from Bohol and Mindanao individually wrote their letter to Yap, asking him to deny the application of Bayer CropScience to import LLRICE 62.

Socrates Lugasip, Searice technical officer, said that the lack of transparency in the application and approval process of GM food and crops has denied the farmers with the venue for redress, especially on rice that embodies their life and tradition.

"This is the heart of the petition filed before the court seeking to declare the DA Administrative Order No. 8 as unconstitutional. It denies the people of their constitutional right to information, health and balanced and healthful ecology," Lugasip said.

In August, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 101 issued a 20-day temporary restraining order against the Bureau of Plant Industry, an attached agency of the DA, prohibiting them from approving Bayer's GM rice application until the case is being heard.

Enviros Challenge Dumping Urea in Ocean to Sink Carbon

2007-11-17T11:48:00.000-08:00

This artist's rendition of an Ocean Nourishment Corporation plant shows how the company would pump urea into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth. Photo credit: Courtesy of Ocean Nourishment Corporation.

Science : Planet Earth
Enviros Challenge Dumping Urea in Ocean to Sink Carbon
By Brandon Keim 11.07.07 | 5:00 PM
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/urea_dumping

An Australian company is injecting urea into the ocean, hoping to sequester greenhouse-gas pollution and cash in on carbon credits.
If all goes according to plan, oceanic plankton will thrive on the nitrogen-rich urea broth and absorb carbon dioxide. When the plankton die, they'll sink to the bottom of the sea taking the carbon dioxide with them. The business plan: Companies licensing the technology can sell carbon offsets.
But some scientists worry the technique hasn't been rigorously studied. The nitrogen injections, they say, could feed toxic algae, disrupt poorly understood ecosystems and ultimately release more carbon dioxide than is deep-sixed.
"If we're going to entertain such massive measures, they need to be informed by scientific fact and experimentation, and less by opinion and profit motivations," said ocean fertilization researcher Kenneth Coale, director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California.
The scheme, conceived by Sydney-based Ocean Nourishment Corporation and slated for large-scale testing off the coast of the Philippines next year, captures the Wild West reality of climate engineering in the 21st century. Scientists and entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on global warming concerns have proposed everything from iron seeding to orbital mirrors to reflect the sun. Meanwhile, these practices are governed only by a skimpy patchwork of laws.
Ocean Nourishment recently dumped one ton of urea into the Sulu Sea. Researchers haven't finished evaluating that data, said managing director Jim Ridley, but noted that early analysis supports claims of plankton nourishment and subsequent carbon-dioxide sequestration.
In the next several months, the company will conduct another one-ton Sulu Sea experiment, this time monitoring the effects more closely. Over three weeks, researchers will track plankton blooms with satellites, combine samples taken directly from the water with geographic information, and observe how the area evolves.
Critics aren't worried about the risks of these early tests. A ton of urea affects just a few hundred square meters of ocean. But depending on the next set of test results, Ridley said, the company could conduct a 500-ton experiment early next year. If that goes well, he said, ONC will start licensing its technology.
At that scale, unintended consequences, such as toxic algal blooms and food-chain disruptions, could be more profound -- and scientists worry that the company might not notice.
"To date, none of the iron-enrichment experiments have been designed to test these unintended consequences, and none of the urea-enrichment studies are designed to do that, either," Coale said.
Apart from the often-destructive aquatic effects of nitrogen runoff from industrial farms, only Ocean Nourishment has studied the effects of urea fertilization.
"It's the early days," Ridley said. "We're still very much in the R&D phase."
Nevertheless, the company's website implies that the technology is well-understood. The site already offers licenses for sale (.pdf). Developing countries from "all over the world" have shown interest, Ridley said.
Critics are skeptical of Ocean Nourishment's ability to measure, much less sell, the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by this process.
"Nobody has a way of measuring how much carbon is sinking into the lower levels of the ocean," said Jim Thomas, a research-program manager at the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based environmental advocacy organization.
To produce urea, the company would need to build natural-gas-burning factories. Whether plankton blooms would offset the carbon dioxide released by those factories is unknown. Ocean Nourishment factors urea production into its carbon equations, but commercial pressures threaten the integrity of companies pursuing climate modification, Coale said.
He said that people pursuing climate-engineering projects for profit need to be separated from those who decide whether the projects are a good idea. "Right now, they're the same."
Asked whether the company's marketing has outpaced its science, Ridley said, "You might read it that way, but it's not the case."
Edwina Tanner, an oceanographer with Ocean Nourishment's research partner, Earth Ocean & Space, said the company's findings will be submitted to scientific journals in coming years, minimizing the chance of mistakes.
"The scientific community is really overseeing this," Tanner said.
To better regulate geo-engineering, Coale recommends establishing an organization like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to regulate ocean fertilization. Thomas wants the International Maritime Organization to handle the job. Even Ridley agrees that oversight is sorely needed.
"You hear concern from the scientists: What might happen to the oceans? We don't know that yet," he said. "It's inevitable that there will be some kind of United Nations control over these technologies, especially when they're commercialized. I think there has to be."

Urea 'climate solution' may backfire

2007-11-17T06:26:00.000-08:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/09/2087099.htm

By Anna Salleh for ABC Science Online

Posted Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:38pm AEDT
Updated Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:03pm AEDT

A NASA satellite image of an enormous bloom of phytoplankton floating off the northern coast of Norway. (AFP: NASA)

Plans by an Australian company to sink hundreds of tonnes of urea into the ocean to combat climate change may backfire and exacerbate global warming, critics say.

Sydney-based company Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) is looking at using nitrogen-rich urea to boost the growth of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.

The idea, says the company, is for this form of carbon sequestration to lock up carbon in the oceans for thousands of years.

It says that encouraging the growth of more phytoplankton could also boost fish stocks.

But several scientists and civil society groups are worried about the lack of independent oversight of such private exploration of 'ocean fertilisation', which they say could trigger environmental problems rather than solve them.

ONC plans to develop this method of carbon sequestration to generate valuable carbon credits.

And it is using the research of Adjunct Professor Ian Jones at the University of Sydney's civil engineering department to do so.

Adjunct Professor Jones has conducted laboratory experiments to show that nitrogen is important in boosting the growth of phytoplankton in ocean samples.

ONC has taken the research out of the lab. Managing director John Ridley says the company has just completed an experiment involving one tonne of nitrogen in the Sulu Sea off the Philippines.

The company is now discussing with the Philippines Government plans to scale up the experiment to 1,000 tonnes of nitrogen over the next year.

Mr Ridley says the company is also talking to the Moroccan Government about similar experiments in the Atlantic Ocean.

Scientists' concerns
But scientists involved in publicly funded basic research into the role of nutrients including iron in the oceans are worried about the commercial imperative behind the latest experiments. Biogeochemist Dr Philip Boyd of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is one of them.

"This latest development in the Sulu Sea has all of our community concerned, as there doesn't appear to be any published evidence of how urea fertilisation impacts ocean biology and ecology," he said.

Dr Cliff Law of NIWA and others say independent scientific experts should oversee research by a growing number of private companies developing ocean fertilisation.

"At the end of the day we're dealing with companies that want to make money out of carbon credits," he said.

ONC says there is little publicly available material on the field experiments, partly because of the need to protect intellectual property.

It says the experiments are mimicking natural upwelling of nutrients that occur in productive ocean areas.

In a commercial plant this would involve using urea produced from natural gas to sequester 10 megatonnes of CO2 per year.

It also says each of its plants could provide 50 grams of marine protein per day for 38 million people.

But others say such moves could bring bad news as well as good.

Dr Law says natural upwelling of nutrients can trigger toxic algal blooms and the release of nitrous oxide - a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

ONC's Mr Ridley says the company will use ships to monitor phytoplankton growth and concentrations of nitrogen will not be allowed to go high enough to cause algal blooms.

"If we step the scale of this up we can actually track it by satellite," he said.

Dr Law is not impressed.

"That all sounds very neat. If only it was so easy," he said.

Sequestration's huge challenges
Dr Law says boosting phytoplankton for fish stocks will also keep carbon circulating in the ecosystem, which would therefore undermine any sequestration efforts.

In addition, he says one of the challenges to long-term sequestration is drawing the dead phytoplankton down deep into the ocean.

Dr Law says experiments seeding the ocean with iron have shown hardly any plankton sink below 100 metres, which means any carbon in them would be re-released within months.

Even if the plankton appear to sink, he says currents can bring them up again quite quickly.

Dr Law says verifying long-term ocean carbon sequestration is difficult and expensive and he wonders how ONC will do this.

London meeting
An international scientific group on ocean dumping, known as the London Convention, is understood to be discussing urea ocean fertilisation at a meeting in the UK this week.

Earlier this week a coalition of civil society groups urged the convention to stop urea experiments until their impacts had been properly assessed.

Earlier this year the convention cautioned against ocean fertilisation using iron.

Mr Ridley of ONC says the convention only has jurisdiction over experiments carried out in the high seas.

Instead, he says ONC will focus on territorial waters so it can be involved in carbon credit schemes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has labelled ocean fertilisation as a hypothetical solution to climate change, carrying unknown side-effects and economic costs.

Tags: environment, climate-change, oceans-and-reefs, science-and-technology, research, australia

Agenda Item 14 on Article 9: Farmers' Rights: In Search of International Relevance

2007-11-02T01:26:00.000-07:00

October 31, 2007 marked the day that the fate of the lives of farmers in terms of their rights to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture were to be deliberated by the international community. The crux of the contentions focused on the relevance of the Governing Body in providing guidance to the Contracting Parties as to the implementation of Article 9 within their national jurisdictions. The G77 and China group were steadfast in asserting the need for the Governing Body to discuss Farmers' Rights, in view of its critical role in fulfilling the objectives of the International Treaty on conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture today and for the future, and proposed the adoption of a draft Resolution on Farmers' Rights, stating as follows:

THE GOVERNING BODY,

RECALLING the recognition in the International Treaty of the enormous contribution that farmers of all regions of the world have made, and will continue to make, for the conservation and development of plant genetic resources as the basis of food and agriculture production throughout the world,

AWARE that Farmers' Rights, as covered in Article 9 of the International Treaty, are about enabling farmers to continue this work and about recognizing and rewarding them for their contribution to the global genetic pool, especially in the light of the challenges presented by climate change,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there is great uncertainty and constraints in many countries as to how Farmers' Rights can be implemented and that the challenges related to the realization of Farmers' Rights are likely to vary from country to country,

RECOGNIZING that exchange of experiences, as well as guidance and assistance from the Governing Body, are required to make progress in the implementation of the provisions on Farmers' Rights in the International Treaty,

THEREFORE REQUESTS the Secretary to compile views and experiences on the implementation of Farmers' Rights as set out in Article 9 from the Contracting Parties and other relevant organizations - and to present the results of this compilation in the form of a report that will be the basis of a substantive item of the agenda of the Third Session of the Governing Body to promote the realization of these rights,

ENCOURAGES the Contracting Parties to prepare their reports in an inclusive and participatory manner, involving farmers' organizations as appropriate,

APPRECIATES the involvement of farmers' organizations at this Second Session and affirms its commitment to continue to involve farmers' organizations in relevant work of the Governing Body, including in its future sessions, according to the procedures established by the Governing Body.

This, however, encountered oppositions from Canada, representing the North American Regional Group, and Australia, representing the Southwest Pacific Regional Group, which asserted that the responsibility for implementation of Article 9 rests with national governments and that the resources of the Governing Body should not be allocated to implementation of Article 9 which is not a core function of the International Treaty.

Brazil emphasized in support of the G77 and China position that there is a need to provide policy space at the international level to allow development of policies in line with the International Treaty.

Portugal, representing the European Regional Group, on the other hand, requested official translations of the draft Resolution before the document could be discussed as a working document to be adopted by the Governing Body.

November 1, 2007 paved the way for the fate of the lives of farmers with the adoption of the negotiated final text of the Resolution. Despite numerous revisions on the text of the draft Resolution during the negotiations of the plenary, the Contracting Parties came to an agreement to provide international space and relevance for Farmers' Rights:

THE GOVERNING BODY,

RECALLING the recognition in the International Treaty of the enormous contribution that local and indigenous communities and farmers of all regions of the world have made, and will continue to make, for the conservation and development of plant genetic resources as the basis of food and agriculture production throughout the world;

RECALLING the importance of fully implementing Article 9 of the International Treaty;

RECALLING also that according to Article 9 of the International Treaty, the responsibility for realizing Farmers' Rights, as they relate to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, rests with national governments;

ACKNOWLEDGING that there is uncertainty in many countries as to how Farmers' Rights can be implemented and that the challenges related to the realization of Farmers' Rights are likely to vary from country to country;

RECOGNIZING that exchange of experiences and mutual assistance between Contracting Parties can significantly contribute in making progress in the implementation of the provisions on Farmers' Rights in the International Treaty;

RECOGNIZING the contribution the Governing Body may give in support of the implementation of Farmers' Rights;

1. ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties and other relevant organizations to submit views and experiences on the implementation of Farmers' Rights as set out in Article 9 of the International Treaty, involving, as appropriate, farmers' organizations and other stakeholders;

2. REQUESTS the Secretariat to collect these views and experiences as a basis for an agenda item for consideration by the Governing Body at its Third Session to promote the realization of Farmers' Rights at the national level, and to disseminate relevant information through the website of the International Treaty, where appropriate;

APPRECIATES the involvement of farmers' organizations at this Second Session and affirms its commitment to continue to involve farmers' organizations in its further work, as appropriate, according to the Rules of Procedure established by the Governing Body.

Guidance by the Governing Body on Article 9: A Non-Issue to Begin With

2007-11-02T01:15:00.000-07:00

Much of the contentions on the draft Resolution and the working documents on Article 9 as an agenda item to be deliberated by the Governing Body in its 2nd Session lay on the issue of the role of the Governing Body in providing guidance to Contracting Parties on the implementation of Article 9 in their respective jurisdictions. As argued by the North American Regional Group (Canada), European Regional Group (Portugal), and Southwest Pacific Group (Australia), its implementation rests with national governments and guidance is not a core function of the Governing Body.

Finding that the crux of the differences was mainly on the issue of whether or not the provisions of the International Treaty preclude the Governing Body from providing guidance to the Contracting Parties on the implementation of Article 9, the legal counsel of FAO succinctly and rhetorically answered. Undeniably, implementation of Article 9 of the International Treaty rests with national governments. Considering that it is the Contracting Parties themselves which came to an agreement to come up with the International Treaty, there is no arguing that the Contracting Parties themselves can submit to the Governing Body issues they deem the Governing Body can provide guidance on.

Whether or not the Governing Body can provide guidance on the Treaty's implementation, specifically on Article 9? This is a non-issue.

Seed Treaty in Peril

2007-11-01T11:45:00.000-07:00

For immediate release – endorsed by the civil society and farmers’ organizations present at FAO

Thursday, 1 November, 2007

Farmers Call for Suspension of Seed Treaty

Governments fail to meet minimal Treaty obligations

UN conference told

Farmers’ organizations who were invited to attend a United Nations meeting on the Treaty that governs the exchange of crop seeds for research and plant breeding late yesterday told the assembled governments that the Treaty would have to be suspended. Speaking on behalf of 30 farmers’ and other civil society organizations, Ibrahima Coulibaly of ROPPA (regional farmers’ organization of West Africa) said that, “the Treaty, hosted in Rome by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), must halt the exchange of crop germplasm – the critical material for plant breeding. The suspension should remain in effect until governments meet the minimal obligations of the Treaty including its core financial arrangements”, the African farmer leader concluded.

The second meeting of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture ("the Law of the Seed") began on Monday and is expected to run through Friday but has been blocked -- indeed, almost completely silent -- because it's 115 member governments have been unable to find the $4.9 million necessary to keep the lights on in its Secretariat and to maintain fundamental monitoring mechanisms that could ensure equitable sharing of the benefits of the seeds to be exchanged for research. Governments have also failed to commit funding to support in situ (“on-farm”) seed conservation or for capacity building in the global South.

“We are faced with the greatest case of institutional biopiracy ever seen,” said Andrew Mushita of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Network (a network of conservation programs in 21 countries). “In effect, governments are now enabling multinational seed companies to impose a legally-binding regime that forces the exchange of farmers’ seeds without reciprocal benefits,” said Mushita who also addressed governments yesterday.

Another civil society representative in the meeting, Wilhelmina Pelegrina from a SEARICE, a Phillipines-based organization said, “We also expect the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to suspend its germplasm exchanges in order to remain compliant with the spirit of the Treaty." Eleven institutes of the CGIAR have distributed 100,000 seed samples under the terms of the Treaty so far this year. "We hope the suspension will be temporary and governments will come to their senses quickly”, said Pelegrina.

Negotiations for the Treaty began in the mid-1990s because scientific researchers and multinational plant breeders were experiencing a substantial decline in their access to vital breeding material. Scientists and farmers, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, were denying requests from northern breeders because private companies were taking farmers’ varieties, patenting and profiting from them. The decline in seed exchange was threatening world food security and governments decided to act. The Treaty – after seven years of acrimonious negotiations – includes provisions for Farmers’ Rights and is supposed to guarantee an equitable flow of financial benefits to developing countries. Without funding for core administrative services, farmers and developing countries can have no confidence that there is equity in the system.

According to Pat Mooney of ETC Group headquartered in Canada, who also attended the meeting, "The global seed industry has annual commercial sales of $23 billion. Beginning in the 1970s multinational pesticide enterprises began buying seed companies. Today,” Mooney said, “the top 10 seed companies have 57% of the commercial seed trade. Last year, a single company’s biotech seeds and traits – Monsanto’s – accounted for 86% of the total worldwide area devoted to genetically modified seeds.” These multinational gene giants are thought to be the major beneficiaries in the current Treaty dispute.

“It’s not all governments,” said Guy Kastler, Via Campesina/Europe “the real biopirates at this meeting are France, Germany and Australia. These governments are making it impossible for the international community to fulfill its Treaty obligations. Although their seed industries are major beneficiaries of the Treaty, these three countries haven't contributed a penny to the Treaty’s operations and they are actively blocking negotiations here.”

Farmers’ organizations – who are attending the meeting at FAO's invitation but at their own expense – sat stunned yesterday as governments refused to discuss the proposed program of work for the Treaty. Even the most contentious issues passed by without comment.

Farmers undertake the overwhelming majority of the world’s seed conservation and plant breeding. This was confirmed Tuesday when the representative of UPOV, the Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (the Geneva-based intergovernmental body that oversees intellectual property related to plant varieties) reported that breeders had only “protected” 70,000 varieties in recent decades. Farmers breed and adapt more than one million varieties every year.

“If negotiations collapse at FAO,” said Maria Elza Gomez from a Brazilian small farmers’ organization, “the matter might move to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, whose scientific subcommittee will meet at FAO in Rome in February 2008. Governments and FAO could lose control of the Treaty to a different UN body. This would be a serious mistake: the control over seeds -- the first link in the food chain -- would be left with a bunch of environmentalists who know nothing about agriculture.”

Farmers' Reports: Status of Farmers' Rights Realization - Side-event on Farmers' Rights in the 2nd Session of the Governing Body

2007-11-01T01:42:00.000-07:00

October 30, 2007, 1300-1430, Iran Room
Farmers' Reports: Status of Farmers' Rights Realization

Organized by the Community Biodiversity Development Conservation (CBDC) Network to highlight the status of Farmers' Rights based on the perspectives and understanding of farmers through farmers' reporting and translate farmers' reports as a means of assessment of International Treaty implementation to assist and inform in the realization of Farmers' Rights, farmers from the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil shared the results of various processes that lead to their reports on the status of the realization of Farmers' Rights in their respective countries. The farmers also shared their experiences on their work on conservation and sustainable use, as well as their perspectives and understanding of what farmers' rights is based on the reality that they live in.

The first presentation was by Mrs. Estela Calamba and Mr. Candido Baldapan, both from the Farmers' Consultative Council in Bohol, Philippines which is comprised of six people's organizations involved in conservation work and in-situ development of seeds in their communities in Bohol. They emphasized their experiences and contribution in maintaining crop diversity through their work on conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, in particular, on their work in rice breeding, seed banking, seed exchanges, varietal evaluation, regeneration of traditional varieties, soil and pest management and organic farming. Likewise, experiences in exchanges between farmers, with students, and other institutions, as well as successes by their people's organizations in directing policy direction in their province on its commitment to be free from genetically modified organisms and their municipality's support and recognition on farmers' community registry systems as a means of recognizing and protecting farmers' seeds.

The next presentations focused on the farmers' reports in the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil, where it was significantly pointed out that the concept of Farmers' Rights for farmers exceeds the issue of seeds. Farmers' Rights is a bundle of rights that include farmers' rights to seeds, to land, to water, to culture, to information, to technology, to support services and policies, to participation and decision-making, to market, among others. A detailed account of their presentations can be found here.

The results of the national process enabled the CBDC Network to view Farmers' Rights in a more holistic and expansive perspective that includes the rights of farmers to seeds. In particular, the CBDC Network emphasized the following points:

The CBDC Network undertook a number of consultative processes in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia in an endeavor to determine the conceptual understanding and perspectives of various stakeholders, initiatives directed towards domesticating and realization of Farmers' Rights. The consultative processes were undertaken in seven representative countries which include Brazil, Cuba, Chile, Lao PDR, Philippines, Venezuela, Malawi and Zimbabwe. The interactive and participatory consultative processes were carried out from June to October 2007.

The primary objective of the consultative processes was to have an inclusive definition and interpretation of Farmers' Rights by farmers themselves, farmers' organizations and civil society organizations. The following are the farmers' perspectives and demands for the realization of Farmers' Rights:

1. Farmers' Rights are understood in a broader context that includes their rights to land, water, seed, technology, biodiversity, and culture and gender equity among others. These rights are considered collective and inalienable towards providing mechanisms for facilitating livelihoods in terms of realizing food security, food sovereignty, poverty alleviation and enhancing farmers' rights to food as a fundamental human right. Farmers consider and exercise their right to seed security as a means of determining their own means of production without outside influence and as a prerequisite to national food security.

In this regard, farmers require policy, legislative and technical support to strengthen their rights. Such policy and legislative measures need to strategically protect traditional knowledge, innovations, technologies, social and cultural practices related to the sustainable conservation and utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture.

2. We note with concern that the International Treaty merely recognizes the contribution of farmers to agro-biodiversity without putting in place concrete measures for protecting, promoting or actualizing the fruits of these contributions. On the other hand, the Treaty is replete with measures for allowing governments, research institutions and industry users of PGRFA to access these resources and mechanisms for sharing benefits arising therefrom. This imbalance negates the Treaty's own recognition of farmers' contribution to PGRFA in the Preamble and makes the rights in Article 9 illusory. It is for these reasons that we call upon the Governing Body to put in place specific guidelines that enables Contracting Parties to formalize and successfully implement farmers' rights with tangible reporting mechanisms.

3. The International Treaty calls upon Contracting Parties to implement Farmers' Rights but national governments are much more committed to the adoption of commercial agricultural models which promote IPR, GMOs, chemical and increased pesticide pesticide and herbicide use that enhance monoculture and restrict diversity and sustainable cropping systems and practices. The enormous support provided to emerging technologies including GMOs is a major threat to Farmers' Rights as they necessarily lead towards genetic contamination, biodiversity loss, and increased cost of production and farmer dependence on the seed industry.

We therefore call upon national governments to review and revise national policies and legislation so as to remove any restrictions on the exercise of Farmers' Rights that relate to community seed banks, seed fairs, right to save, sell and exchange seeds, re-use and select seeds of their choice, carry-out on-farm crop improvement practices designed to enhance food security and sustainability of agriculture.

4. We note with amazement, shock and dismay that the International Treaty, having facilitated the exchange of PGRFA from the CGIAR (collected freely from farmers' fields) in favor of the multinational corporations and research institutions, has now been reduced to merely a medium of legitimized mechanism of gross biopiracy. We note that this is a result of lack of a transparent and committed and legally binding funding mechanism. We recall that this was never the intended objective of the International Treaty. If the Contracting Parties are unable to redeem the International Treaty from this malaise then it is prudent to suspend its operations forthwith until such funds are availed to facilitate its effective implementation. In our considered view, the International Treaty cannot be used as a means of legitimizing global fraud of farmers' materials.

Finding Farmers' Rights through Article 6 on Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

2007-10-31T14:28:00.000-07:00

With discussions on the funding strategy having been suspended in view of a lot of concerns raised by the Contracting Parties of the International Treaty on the emphasized disinterest of developed countries to provide for and push through with the funding whereas developing countries have already complied in good faith, negotiations on the draft mechanism on compliance and non-compliance of the International Treaty was also suspended, which compelled the Governing Body to move into the next agenda on Article 6 of the International Treaty on Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Recognizing Article 6 of the International Treaty as an entry point to emphasize the need to recognize and implement Article 9 of the International Treaty on Farmers' Rights in view of the remarkable work and contributions of farmers in the past and in the present in the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and the future contributions that farmers can make in maintaining and developing the crop diversity, Mr. Candido Baldapan, a farmer representing the Farmers' Consultative Council (a federation of 6 people's organizations from Bohol Philippines) and speaking in behalf of other farmers from the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba who shared their experiences in a side event organized by the Community Biodiversity Development Conservation (CBDC) Network, expressed his perspective as a farmer on Article 6 as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

In Bohol, Philippines where I come from, our farmers' federation is involved in a lot of activities on conservation and sustainable use of seeds on our farm. We continuously develop our seeds by selection, breeding, evaluation, seed keeping including work to improve our soil and manage pest. Our group, from 1996 to 2006 was able to develop 63 farmer varieties from off-type selections, 48 farmer varieties from our own breeding work and we are currently evaluating 17 segregating lines. In contrast, our national rice research institute was able to release only 55 inbred lines from 1994-2004.

In Lao PDR, farmers were able to develop about 99 varieties of sticky rice to add to their already diverse rice planted in their filed in 5years. In Vietnam, there are more than 100 varieties developed by farmers in the Mekong Delta also in the last 5 years.

We continuously conserve our seeds by planting them every season and keeping them in our own homes or in community seedbanks. We have even asked a local agricultural college to give us the space to keep some of the seeds for replanting and free distribution. Whatever seeds are left, we sell to finance our group and to maintain our local seedbanks.

My farmer friend from Zimbabwe mentioned yesterday that they produce around 180 tons of different seeds, of good quality, but under their national legislation, they cannot sell these seeds through the formal market because they are not registered seed growers and their seed is not inspected by registered inspectors. How is this possible?

In Vietnam, one local government recognized the work of farmers in seed production and conservation and has valued farmers contribution to their province at US$1.2M in 2006. That is a significant contribution, about 1/4 of what the Treaty needs as Funds in order to operate. We farmers make this contribution, but how come the recognition of our work stops short in paper?

In Brazil, a great number of local experiences of production and use of traditional seeds may become illegal if the government puts in practice its proposals to amend seed and plant variety protection acts.

In Malawi, my friend here asks if it is possible to be consulted in setting prices of produce, including seeds before the government decides on the price?

We came to this Governing Body Meeting with positive hope of finding active support to our work, but there is silence.

We have been trying our very best to follow and understand the discussions in this meeting but found that there was no mention on how our rights as farmers can be supported in the Funding Strategy. We have heard in this Meeting of the Multilateral System but it is difficult for us to understand how this Multilateral System can assist us farmers, nor the benefits we can receive from all those crops places in the system.

We need to have Farmers' Rights realized and implemented now, in relation to our work on conservation and sustainable use of seeds.

We farmers call on the Governing Body to:

1. Recognize our work on conservation and sustainable use by calling for our participation. We are facing a number of challenges on seed laws and policies. We call on the Governing Body to review the national laws, to guarantee free use of seeds and trade policies in relation to Farmers' Rights.

2. To encourage parties for concrete, tangible support to on-farm conservation and farmers' work in breeding and sustainable agriculture.

Our rights to seeds is important for us. It gives us the food we eat. It gives us our livelihoods. Our rights to seeds also needs that we are provided with other rights - to land, to water, to culture, to knowledge, to information, to be free of genetically modified organisms, to participation and decision-making. It is our right to life. The realization of Farmers' Rights starts here, right now in the Governing body meeting.\

Salamat po.

Highlighted also in the short discussion on Article 6 are the following concerns: the need to emphasize how farmers benefit from the sustainable use of PGRFA; transfer of technology from developed countries to assist developing countries in building their capacities in conservation and sustainable use; the need to have a more comprehensive report reflecting efforts from both developed and developing countries on sustainable use, and, in particular, recognizing farmers' use of traditional varieties and the potential to learn from farmers. In closing, the Chair emphasized two points on Article 6 as an agenda item: (1) that Article 6 is an important component of the International Treaty; and (2) there is lack of information on policy measures for sustainable use.

Opening of the 2nd Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

2007-10-29T22:20:00.000-07:00

The 2nd Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) opened on October 29, 2007, Monday, at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization office in Rome, Italy. The start of the 2nd Session officially opened negotiations and discussions among the Contracting Parties of the International Treaty on multifarious issues and concerns surrounding the proper implementation of the ITPGRFA, an international treaty which focuses on the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, farmers' rights, and the multilateral system on facilitated access and benefit sharing of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, particularly on crops listed in Annex I of the International Treaty.

Highlighted in the opening program of the Governing Body's 2nd Session by speakers from various fields relevant to the International Treaty are expectations on public and private sector collaborations to meet the need of farmers and increasing the number of crops, the Global Crop Diversity Trust and its support on conservation of ex-situ collections. challenges to be faced in achieving global food security, promotion of grassroots conservation, sustainable farming and innovations, and the role of the Treaty in supporting farmers' rights.

Received with welcomed attention during the opening program were the presentations of Professor Anil K. Gupta with an Indian farmer-innovator, and Guy Kastler from Via Campesina. Professor Gupta emphasized the remarkable role of farmers through their local knowledge systems in the International Treaty's work on conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, as substantiated with the Indian farmers' sharing of his developed varieties of various crops which he makes freely available to other farmers. Professor Gupta also proposed the following in order to support the work of farmers and further recognize their rights to seeds: a grassroots informations system to inform and empower farmers as concerns their resources, an international fund to support farmers' work, material and non-material incentives to target individual farmers and farmer communities, a global recognition of farmers as breeders and innovators, a funding mechanism for farmers' conservation work, and the need to bridge formal and informal systems as a means to support the overall objectives of the Treaty among others. Guy Kastler, on the other hand, emphasized the immediate need to support and implement farmers' rights, and, in particular, on farmers' right to sell seeds and actual participation through worldwide farmers' consultations.

During the plenary, representatives from the various regional groupings welcomed the opening and developments in the implementation of the International Treaty. In addition, they stressed the need to address during the present session concerns on the development of an effective funding strategy for the implementation of the Multilateral System and implementation of the Treaty's article on Farmers' Rights with support on those who conserve and maintain plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

Note: Photos from IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin

SEARICE @30 Anniversary Series: World Food Day 2007 Celebrations

2007-10-15T23:17:00.000-07:00

World Food Day 2007
“THE RIGHT TO (SAFE) FOOD”
SAFE RICE, SAFE FOOD: SEARICE Joins World Food Day Celebrations

The United Nations designates October 16 of every year as World Food Day. This year’s theme is The Right to Food in recognition of this very basic and universal human right. Right to food means that every person – woman, man and child – must have access at all times to food, or to means for the procurement of food, that is sufficient in quality, quantity and variety to meet their needs, is free from harmful substances and is acceptable to their culture.

While persistent hunger caused by poverty remains the biggest obstacle to the people’s right to food, there is also another problem that relates to the adverse health impacts of certain types of food produced through environmentally damaging and unsustainable food production technologies. One of these is food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a technology that remains highly controversial and is being rejected by farmers and consumers alike in various parts of the world.

Rice is the staple of Filipinos, but we are on the verge of allowing the rice that we eat to be genetically modified, thereby posing untold health and environmental risks. GMOs violate our right to safe, healthy, and nutritious foods produced through environmentally sustainable methods.

Last year, Bayer CropScience, a multinational company that makes agro-chemicals and seeds, applied with the Department of Agriculture to be allowed to import into the country, a genetically modified variety of rice called LLRice62. LLRice62 has been genetically modified to resist heavy doses of herbicide, which means that besides the unnatural gene sequence that has been inserted into the rice plant, it is grown with inordinate amounts of chemicals, more than usual. LLRice62 can potentially cause harmful health effects, especially to us Filipinos who consume rice at least three times a day.

Because of this concern, GREENPEACE, SEARICE and concerned individuals petitioned before a Regional Trial Court in Quezon City to stop the DA-Bureau of Plant Industry to approve Bayer’s importation application. The petition was filed on the basis that the DA’s guidelines on evaluating and approving GMO applications violates the constitutional right of the public to be adequately informed and consulted in government affairs, especially with regard to approving a product that potentially threatens human health and environment. The RTC has issued a preliminary injunction upon the DA-BPI stopping it from taking action on importation of LLRice62 while the court conducts further hearings on the case.

It is ironic that this threat to the Filipino’s staple food rice should take place just prior to WFD 2007 when the theme of right to food takes center stage. We, the Filipino public need to take our right to food seriously, or suffer the consequences. We therefore commemorate WFD 2007 with a “genetically modified” Damocles sword hanging over our heads. There are other ways of producing food that are safe, nutritious and environmentally sustainable, and these are part of organic agriculture.

SEARICE joins farmers, civil society organizations and the rest of the world in celebrating the World Food Day with a Call:
GMOs desecrate life, organic agriculture respects and celebrates life!
Our right to food is our right to life!
Keep our Rice GM-free!

SEARICE @ 30 Anniversary Series
World Food Month Event Schedules

October 10 -17, 2007

Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines - Stand Up for Your Rice: Boholanos Protecting their Rice Heritage, Saying NO to GMO Rice
Venue: Fence Wall fronting Bohol Cultural Center
Event: Mural Painting Contest (BISAD and Young People for Development)

October 14-15, 2007

Quezon City, Philippines – 3rd National Congress of the Pambansang Kilusan ng Kababaihan sa Kanayunan (PKKK)
Venue: Claret Formation Center, Coliat, Quezon City
Event: 3rd National Congress
• SEARICE exhibit and information drive on GE rice

October 16, 2007

Isulan, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat - Hinumay Festival 4: Securing Food Safety, Ban LL Rice 62 Safety
Venue: Crystal City, Aujero St., Kalawag 1
Events:
• Open Forum on Right to (Safe) Food – Why GE Rice Impedes Filipino’s Right to Food?
• Cultural expressions: Right to Safe Food, Farmers’ Seed Exchanges

Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines – Safe, Healthy and Sustainable Food: A Right of Every Boholano
Venue: Agriculture Promotions Center Conference Room, 9:00 am -4:00 pm
Event: TECHNO-FORA SERIES
• Organic Home Gardening: Simple Technologies for Households to Produce Safe and Nutritious Organic Food
• Preparing Nutritious Local Organic Foods as Alternative to Commercial Food Product for Home Consumption and Small Food Businesses

October 17, 2007

Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines – Safe, Healthy and Sustainable Food: A Right of Every Boholano
Venue: Agriculture Promotions Center Conference Room, 8:30 am – 12:00 nn
Event: FARMERS AND CONSUMERS POLICY FORUM
Topics:
• Right to Food as Human Right
• Challenges and opportunities to the organic food movement in Bohol towards Food Security and Sufficiency
• GE Rice: Issues and Risks to the Boholano public
• Enhancing consumer awareness and support to organic production

Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines - Stand Up for Your Rice: Boholanos Protecting their Rice Heritage, Saying NO to GMO Rice
Venue: Plaza Rizal, 4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Event: An Evening of Boholano Cultural Expressions
Activities:
• Photos and IEC exhibits
• “Puso” celebration: Symbolizing Bohol’s rich agricultural heritage and our opposition to GMO Rice
o Display of “longest” line of puso
o Opening ritual: Bohol rice myth interpretive dance, offerings
o Solidarity Dinner with the “Foodless”: Puso and organic viands with marginalized groups (e.g., candle vendors' group); to be served by local personalities (from POs, NGOs, GOs, business, church)
• Video showing (Food/GMO-related issues)
• Cultural Performances
o Tadiyandi
o Balak / balitaw (farmers, local poets' group)
o Children's songs
o Rondalla (farmers, Bullecer family)
o Dances
o Bugjong singing group
o Invited local Bands

Geoengineering: Can 'fertilising' the ocean combat climate change?

2007-10-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

Can 'fertilising' the ocean combat climate change?
12 September 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Emma Young
RUSS GEORGE calls it a "voyage of recovery". His opponents call it blatant pollution. Only time will tell who is right.

In May this year, 350 miles north-west of the Galapagos Islands, George's company, Planktos, based in Foster City, California, began the first of six large-scale trials to release more than 50 tonnes of finely ground haematite into the ocean. The company aims to show that fertilisation with iron can safely boost levels of phytoplankton - single-celled photosynthetic organisms responsible for half of the carbon fixation on Earth. More of such plankton, Planktos reasons, means the ability to trap more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which will help combat global warming.

Not everyone is convinced. The Charles Darwin Foundation on the Galapagos Islands calls the project "an unwelcome visitor" and says it is "alarmed... because of the unknown effects it could have on marine life". So is this, and other projects like it, a real environmental fix or an eco-disaster in waiting?

Iron seeding is based on the well-accepted idea that plankton growth in the equatorial Pacific, the Southern Ocean and the north Pacific is restricted by low levels of iron. The concept was first proposed in 1990 by John Martin, then director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California. Since then, 12 international experiments in these waters have shown that adding iron can cause plankton to bloom, increasing the amount of CO2 drawn into the surface of the ocean. By contrast, in sub-tropical ocean regions such as the waters off Australia, nitrogen, rather than iron, is the main brake on plankton growth. Researchers there are experimenting with seeding the ocean with nitrogenous fertiliser.

Now, though, private companies are getting in on the act. They are keen to talk up the benefits. George maintains that iron seeding should be seen as "remediating" the oceans, restoring what some say are falling plankton levels. Ian Jones, head of the Ocean Technology Group at the University of Sydney, Australia, and director of the Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC), intends to release 1000 tonnes of urea off the coast of the Philippines later this year. He says that more plankton will ultimately mean more fish, and fewer hungry people.

Critics argue that talk of ocean remediation or boosting fish stocks is simply window dressing and that these groups are racing not to save the Earth, but to carve out a slice of the booming market in carbon-credit trading. "These are very much business projects, not research projects," says Philip Boyd at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Dunedin. "Planktos, for example, views the ocean as a simple, predictable system that can be readily manipulated. The bottom line of the manipulation is that it's all about carbon offsets and carbon credits."

There are certainly large amounts of money at stake. In February, British entrepreneur Richard Branson launched the $25 million Earth Challenge prize. The award will go to the best scheme for removing at least one billion tones of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year, for a decade. A bigger lure, however, is the carbon-offsets market, which allows companies to invest in carbon-reduction schemes to mitigate their own greenhouse-gas emissions. According to World Bank figures released in May, this market virtually doubled in 2006, to $5 billion. Ocean-fertilisation projects are particularly attractive as they could be cheaper than alternative methods, such as renewable energy sources or carbon capture and storage. Urea fertilisation, for example, would cost $10 to $15 per tonne of CO2 sequestered, Jones estimates, whereas George reckons iron seeding could be done for as little as $4 per tonne. By comparison, carbon capture and storage from coal-fired power stations could cost $50 per tonne of CO2.

That assumes, of course, that ocean seeding will work - something that has yet to be shown, according to Boyd. In a review of iron-seeding experiments in February (Science, vol 315, p 612), Boyd and his colleagues found that the amount of carbon drawn into the ocean's surface layer varied widely. One study, which involved adding 1.1 tonnes of iron, found no increase in carbon fixing, but it was conducted in the autumn - possibly too late for plankton to bloom. Another found that 350 kilograms of iron boosted plankton levels sufficiently to fix an extra 1250 tonnes of CO2 - 250 times the average British citizen's annual emissions.

It sounds good, but it's not enough. To lock carbon away for the long term, the plankton has to die of natural causes and sink to the deep ocean, where the carbon may be trapped for hundreds or thousands of years. None of the 12 iron-seeding experiments in Boyd's review showed that adding iron increased the amount of plankton reaching the deep ocean. Part of the problem is that it's very difficult to measure sinking carbon. Recent studies, though, have made some progress.

In April, a team led by Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachussetts published a study that used automated plankton traps to monitor plankton movement in the water column. The team found that in the north-west Pacific, half of surface plankton managed to sink through the "twilight zone" - the layer between the sunlit surface water and the deep ocean. Near Hawaii, on the other hand, 80 per cent of the plankton was gobbled up by zooplankton or other predators during its downward journey. This means its carbon was recycled, a proportion being excreted and respired by the predator, rather than sequestered. What's more, getting through the twilight zone only means that plankton have made it down to about 500 metres. Boyd says that studies of natural plankton blooms suggest that only a fraction of the carbon that makes it this far falls down into the deep ocean. In fact, field research reveals that just a few per cent of each bloom becomes deeply sequestered, he says.

Then there is the question of how long the carbon will stay there if and when it has sunk. Modelling studies by Jorge Sarmiento at Princeton University and colleagues have addressed this issue. They suggest that one century after a month of continuous iron fertilisation of a given area of Pacific waters, the reduction of atmospheric CO2 would be between 2 and 44 per cent of the tiny amount of CO2 that made it to the deep ocean. The rest would be recycled by predators or microbes and potentially re-released to the atmosphere rather than being sequestered. It is practically impossible to confirm the actual figure, and indirect verification would require long-term monitoring of the ocean depths - something that no company is currently proposing.

Undeterred, Planktos commenced the first of six large-scale iron-seeding trials in May, 550 kilometres from the Galapagos archipelago. George estimates that each test site will sequester between 3 million and 5 million tonnes of CO2 per bloom. If all goes to plan, the company will apply for certification with various emissions-reduction programmes, such as the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme or Australia's planned carbon-trading scheme.

In each trial, Planktos will release between 50 and 70 tonnes of haematite over an area 100 kilometres squared and monitor the results for three to four months to assess the amount of carbon sequestered. The team will keep track of the health of the ocean by recording changes in pH, macronutrients, the concentrations of different species in any plankton blooms and any changes to predator populations. They will also measure the precipitation of particles in the water, and the carbon levels below 500 metres, George says, and take water samples at various depths down to 1000 metres. "This will ensure an accurate measure of the quantities of carbon reaching the deep ocean," he says.

Boyd is far from convinced. Demonstrating that iron seeding has increased the amount of plankton reaching the depths requires measurements of sinking particles, not just stationary particles, he says. It also requires the ability to show that those sinking particles came from an area of water that had been fertilised, rather than drifting in from a neighbouring patch of ocean. The technical challenge is immense. "Even with experiments where in some cases we've had multiple research ships with aircraft and helicopters and up to 50 scientists involved," says Boyd, "we have still not been able to show definitively that there had been a carbon increase to a depth of 300 metres, never mind carbon sequestration into the deep ocean."

Boyd and others also take issue with Planktos's claim that it will be "restoring" phytoplankton levels in the ocean to what they once were. George cites a NASA study based on satellite data from the early 1980s and late 1990s that concluded plankton levels declined by 6 per cent over this period. Yet questions have been raised about the quality of the early satellite data. "There is not an established belief that productivity levels are declining," says Dave Siegel of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who uses satellite data to study the ocean.

Despite these concerns, the ONC in Australia is moving ahead with its plans to use urea as an ocean fertiliser. Jones envisages factories making 2000 tonnes of urea per day from natural gas. This would then be dissolved in seawater and pumped through a pipe laid on the seabed at the edge of the continental shelf. Vertical risers attached to the end of the pipe would then release the urea at a depth of 50 metres, from where it would diffuse into the sunlit layer. Each factory could maintain an area of about 20 square kilometres of plankton, at densities of about 200 micrograms per litre, says Jones, which is much less than the density produced in a toxic plankton bloom caused by pollution or nutrient run-off from land.

Taking into account the CO2 created in the production of the urea, Jones estimates that 1 tonne of nitrogen could sequester 12 tonnes of CO2 - so the output of each plant could sequester 8 million tonnes of CO2 each year, at a cost of US$10 to US$15 per tonne. Jones hopes that the company could be taking part in carbon-trading schemes by 2008.

The ONC team is currently working on a number of small test sites, attempting to demonstrate that adding a macronutrient like urea, in some cases in combination with phosphate, really can boost plankton levels. Later this year it plans to conduct its first large-scale field trial, releasing 500 tonnes of dissolved urea off the coast of the Philippines. This will be followed by a trial involving 1000 tonnes of dissolved urea off Malaysia.

Counting carbon

Jones believes urea fertilisation has advantages over iron, in that while some of the added iron probably sinks before it can be used by the plankton, the tight chemical relationship between carbon and nitrogen means that, in theory, every added atom of nitrogen in the ocean will trap and hold seven atoms of carbon, even if deep ocean waters eventually return those bound molecules to the surface.

This, says Jones, helps get around one key criticism of other schemes in which trapped carbon may eventually be released - such as when trees in carbon-sink forests die. Nitrogen added to the oceans will always be available to lock away carbon, he argues.

Jones reckons that satellite images providing an indication of plankton volume would be all they need to work out how much carbon has been sequestered. "We argue that if you create organic carbon, all of that organic carbon is eventually exported to the deep ocean." He says some will be remineralised in surface waters, some will be exchanged back into the atmosphere and some will go up the food chain into fish and be respired. In this way, within a decade or so, Jones says, the vast majority of the carbon will be sequestered.

Boyd, for one, is sceptical. "So where are the peer-reviewed papers showing this? If people are going to have confidence in schemes like this, they have to demonstrate their claims."

For Sallie Chisholm, principal investigator in biological oceanography at MIT, urea fertilisation is a scarier idea than iron seeding. The ocean regions deficient in nitrogen are classed as "desert" regions. "But they are not barren, they are teeming with life - life that is exquisitely adapted to these low-nutrient situations," she says. "Thousands of species depend on this ecosystem. When you fertilise it, you disrupt all that, just as you do when fertiliser runs off the land into streams and causes 'dead zones' in coastal water."

Jones says the urea concentrations will be too low to create dead zones. While he admits that ecosystems will change, he insists this is a price worth paying to boost global fish stocks. For every tonne of reactive nitrogen added to the ocean in the form of urea, he estimates that 5.7 tonnes of phytoplankton will be produced, ultimately leading to roughly an extra tonne of local fish. "We transform the land to provide food for people. This is just like practising agriculture in the sea," he says. Chisholm disagrees. Agriculture on land happens in discrete regions, which are easy to control and monitor. The ocean, she warns, is an entirely different matter.

There are also concerns that fertilising the Southern Ocean could change global patterns of plankton growth, robbing ecosystems elsewhere of nitrogen and phosphorus. Changes in nitrogen and phosphorus levels can be monitored around a fertilisation site, but it is impossible to predict what knock-on effects there might be by extrapolating from studies of small patches, says Chisholm. Contrary to Planktos's claims, she says, the ocean system is just too complicated.

The most alarming possibility of all, perhaps, is that fertilisation might actually produce greenhouse gases. The process of breaking down dead plankton requires oxygen, which must come from surrounding water. If oxygen levels dip too low, the microbial community could shift towards those creatures that produce greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and methane.

Despite this, some independent scientists think the potential risks have been overplayed. Ken Johnson of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, is one. He reckons that large-scale fertilisation would produce one of several scenarios: "One: the ocean will turn greener, atmospheric CO2 will decrease and not much bad will happen, or two: the ocean won't turn green and CO2 won't decrease but nothing much bad will happen - other than companies losing money."

Until some of the nagging questions have been answered, many researchers believe that commercial ocean fertilisation should be discouraged. "Ocean fertilisation is predicated on there being a policy need to reduce greenhouses gases in any way that we can," says Siegel. "I'm not sure we're at that point. And there are many other ways we could do this besides changing the ocean without much knowledge of the consequences."

Related Articles

Alarm over Galapagos carbon offset plan
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19426103.900
30 June 2007
Company plans 'eco' iron dump off Galapagos
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12111
25 June 2007
First claim for CO
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19325914.300
17 February 2007
Letter: Save us!
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626240.400
06 October 2007
For the record
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626241.000
06 October 2007
Weblinks

Planktos
http://www.planktos.com/
Ocean Nourishment Corporation
http://www.oceannourishment.com/
Ian Jones, University of Sydney
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/people/jones.shtml
Sallie Chisholm's research lab
http://web.mit.edu/chisholm/www/
From issue 2621 of New Scientist magazine, 12 September 2007, page 42-45

Philippine Regional Trial Court issues preliminary injunction on “unnatural” rice

2007-10-15T21:21:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

September 19, 2007

SEARICE
29 Magiting Street, Teachers’ Village
Diliman, Quezon City
Telefax: 922-6710

Contact Person: Agnes Lintao
Mobile: 0919-2156943

Philippine Regional Trial Court issues preliminary injunction on “unnatural” rice

September 18, 2007, Quezon City, Philippines -- The regional trial court (RTC) Branch 101 of Quezon City issued a preliminary injunction on the application of Bayer Crop Science for its genetically modified (GM) rice, Liberty-linked Rice 62 (LL62) for food, feed or for processing (FFP)), to the Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Plant and Industry (DA-BPI) from taking any further action while the case is being heard.

Earlier, Judge Evangeline Castillo-Marigomen of RTC Branch 101 already issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on LLRICE62 based on the petition filed by six (6) main petitioners including Bb. Pilipinas Ana Theresa Licaros, actress Angel Aquino, model Amanda Claire Griffin, renowned environmentalist Von Hernandez, Sister Arnold Maria Noel, and Ms. Wilhelmina R. Pelegrina.

“The issuance of the preliminary injunction is very timely as the 20-day TRO earlier issued is about to expire yesterday when Justice Marigomen issued her decision the very the same day,” said Agnes Lintao, Policy Officer of Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE).

The LLRice 62 developed by Bayer CropScience is genetically modified by inserting a gene from a soil bacterium that is capable of neutralizing glufosinate ammonium, the chemical substance contained in Liberty Herbicide, making the LLRice 62 tolerant to the said herbicides, also developed by Bayer.

“This development related to this unnatural rice is a legal victory of the cause of many farmers’ organizations, consumers’ groups, civil society organizations, environmentalists, and among others of safeguarding the health of Filipinos and the environment as well. This also shows that our judicial system is really looking at the certainty of the general welfare of human kind. However, we should continue to be watchful in the whole process”, Lintao added.

The petition was filed to declare the provisions on public consultations contained in DA Administrative Order Number 8 (AO8) as unconstitutional for being in violation of the public’s right to health, to a balance and healthy ecology, and right to information as provided for in the 1987 Constitution. It basically seeks to prohibit the Secretary of DA and the Director of the BPI from taking any further action in considering the application by respondent Bayer CropScience.

- end -

Philippines: Regional Trial Court issues preliminary injunction on “unnatural” rice

2007-10-15T21:03:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE
SEARICE
29 Magiting Street, Teachers’ Village
Diliman, Quezon City
Telefax: 922-6710

Contact Person: Agnes Lintao
Mobile: 0919-2156943

Regional Trial Court issues preliminary injunction on “unnatural” rice

The regional trial court (RTC) Branch 101 of Quezon City issued a preliminary injunction on the application of Bayer Crop Science for its genetically modified (GM) rice, Liberty-linked Rice 62 (LL62) for food, feed or for processing (FFP)), to the Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Plant and Industry (DA-BPI) from taking any further action while the case is being heard.

Earlier, Judge Evangeline Castillo-Marigomen of RTC Branch 101 already issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on LLRICE62 based on the petition filed by six (6) main petitioners including Bb. Pilipinas Ana Theresa Licaros, actress Angel Aquino, model Amanda Claire Griffin, renowned environmentalist Von Hernandez, Sister Arnold Maria Noel, and Ms. Wilhelmina R. Pelegrina.

“The issuance of the preliminary injunction is very timely as the 20-day TRO earlier issued is about to expire yesterday when Justice Marigomen issued her decision the very the same day,” said Agnes Lintao, Policy Officer of Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE).

The LLRice 62 developed by Bayer CropScience is genetically modified by inserting a gene from a soil bacterium that is capable of neutralizing glufosinate ammonium, the chemical substance contained in Liberty Herbicide, making the LLRice 62 tolerant to the said herbicides, also developed by Bayer.

“This development related to this unnatural rice is a legal victory of the cause of many farmers’ organizations, consumers’ groups, civil society organizations, environmentalists, and among others of safeguarding the health of Filipinos and the environment as well. This also shows that our judicial system is really looking at the certainty of the general welfare of human kind. However, we should continue to be watchful in the whole process”, Lintao added.

The petition was filed to declare the provisions on public consultations contained in DA Administrative Order Number 8 (AO8) as unconstitutional for being in violation of the public’s right to health, to a balance and healthy ecology, and right to information as provided for in the 1987 Constitution. It basically seeks to prohibit the Secretary of DA and the Director of the BPI from taking any further action in considering the application by respondent Bayer CropScience.

- end -

Philippine court orders temporary halt to imports of genetically modified rice

2007-08-31T14:04:00.000-07:00

Philippine court orders temporary halt to imports of genetically modified rice
The Associated Press
Friday, August 31, 2007

A court has ordered a temporary hold on an application to bring genetically modified rice into the Philippines, pending a study of possible health and environment hazards, court documents and activists said Friday.

A regional trial court in suburban Quezon City issued the temporary restraining order after the environmental group Greenpeace asked it to stop Bayer Philippines Inc., the local affiliate of German pharmaceutical and chemical giant Bayer, from introducing the LL62 rice variety.

Considering debate on genetically modified organisms, it would be prudent to restrain the company from introducing LL62 in the Philippines, where rice is a staple food, according to the order Wednesday from Judge Evangeline Castillo Marigomen.

The order prohibits the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Plant Industry — also named respondents in the case — from approving Bayer's application for 20 days. The court set a Sept. 14 hearing on Greenpeace's petition for a preliminary injunction.

"Greenpeace believes that the pending application of a genetically altered rice to be used for food, feed and processing in our country is a very serious issue of public concern," Greenpeace campaigner Daniel Ocampo said in a statement. "The entry of GMO rice in our country will irrevocably alter the future of our most important staple food."

The petition for injunction, filed last week, questions the lack of public consultation on GMO approvals by the two government agencies, particularly in the case of Bayer LL62's application.

Last year, U.S. farmers sued Bayer's CropScience unit after its genetically modified rice LL601 contaminated regular rice in the U.S., causing rice prices to drop.

The German Agriculture Ministry also confirmed that LL601 rice was found in stores in Germany's leading supermarket chain, which removed the affected brand from its shelves. The modified rice is illegal in the European Union.

The USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with food regulators in Britain, the Netherlands and Canada, have all said that LL601 poses no harm to human health.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/asia/AS-GEN-Philippines-GMO-Rice.php

Temporary Restraining Order Stops DA, BPI from Approving Bayer’s GMO Rice

2007-08-31T13:59:00.001-07:00

Press Release

1 September 2007
South East Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)
#29 Magiting St. Teacher’s Village, Diliman
Quezon City 1101
Tel. Nos. 922-67-10; 433-71-82

Contact Person: Corazon de Jesus

Temporary Restraining Order Stops DA, BPI from Approving Bayer’s GMO Rice

A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was granted yesterday by a Quezon City Trial Court preventing the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) from approving the application by Bayer CropScience of its genetically modified Liberty Link Rice 62 (LLRICE62) for direct use for food, feed and processing.

“We welcome the issuance of a TRO.” says Che de Jesus, policy officer of SEARICE. “The TRO assures us that the DA and BPI will be prevented from approving Bayer’s application to import genetically modified rice for the moment”, de Jesus further expressed.

The DA Administrative Order No. 8 (AO#8) only requires the applicant, Bayer Crop Science to publish a public information sheet (PIS) which does not sufficiently inform the public. There was no actual public consultation process held to think that LLRICE62 could pose environmental and health risks given that rice is the staple food of the Filipinos.

In August 2006, Bayer CropScience applied for the importation of LLRICE62 - a genetically modified rice resistant to herbicide also manufactured by Bayer.

- end -

Temporary Restraining Order Stops DA, BPI from Approving Bayer’s GMO Rice

2007-08-31T13:59:00.000-07:00

280 Mindanao and Bohol Farmers Join as Petitioners vs. GM Rice

2007-08-28T13:14:00.000-07:00

Two hundred eighty farmers from North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarata and Bohol signed as additional petitioners to declare the provisions on public cconsultations contained in the Department of Agriculture's Administrative Order 8 unconstitutional for being in violation of their right to health, right to balanced and healthful ecology and right to information as enshrined in the 1987 Philippine constitution.

The petition also seeks to prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Director of Bureau of Plant Industry from taking any further action in considering the application of Bayer CropScience for direct use of Liberty Link Rice 62 (LL Rice 62). LLRice 62 is genetically modified to tolerate Liberty Link herbicides also manufactured by Bayer CropScience.

Aside from health and environmental concerns, the approval of LLRice 62 importation for direct use poses trade concerns. The United States where LLRice 62 is most likely to be sourced has highly subsidized and highly organized rice sector. Importation could disrupt domestic rice market at a time when Philippine trade negotiators are working to protect the rice industry by extending the special product treatment to rice.

Last week, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the US$20M commodity loan which involves importation of 69,000 metric tons of rice from the US. The US rice sector tap grant and concessional credit, such as Public Law 480, to build the market overseas. If the timing is not right, Filipino rice farmers will end up competing for local rice market with imported rice. In addition, since the imported rice is part of a loan agreement, Filipinos (including rice farmers) will have to pay for the loan.

BPI asked to stop approval

2007-08-24T23:40:00.000-07:00

BPI asked to stop approval of Bayer’s GMO rice
http://www.malaya.com.ph/aug24/agri1.htm

Asserting that the country’s approval process for GMOs is unconstitutional and "hopelessly flawed," Greenpeace and Searice yesterday filed a petition for injunction seeking to stop the Bureau of Plant Industry and the Department of Agriculture from approving the application of Bayer for its genetically-modified (GMO) rice strain.

The petition questioned the constitutionality of the DA Administrative Order (AO) 8 (series of 2002), the guidelines for the approval of GMOs. It also seeks a temporary restraining order
(TRO) to prevent the DA and the BPI from taking any further action on the application for approval of the GMO rice Bayer LL62 for use in food, feed, and for processing.

"The system for GMO approvals in the country is hopelessly flawed. It completely brushes aside public voice in what should be a grave issue of public concern," said Danny Ocampo, Greenpeace Genetic-Engineering Campaigner. "Right now the DA and the BPI are in the process of approving what could be the first genetically-manipulated rice for public consumption in the country. How much do Filipinos know about this and what voice do they have in such a process? Very little. And yet, for the whole country, the impending approval of this genetically-altered rice will certainly be an alarming precedent that will irrevocably alter the future of our most important staple food."

Greenpeace questioned the lack of public voice and public consultation on GMO approvals, particularly in the case of Bayer LL62’s application. Among the grounds cited in the petition are: the "public consultation" requirements under DA AO 8 are grossly insufficient and violate the minimum standards set by the Constitution in recognizing the right of the people to matters of public concern under Article III, Section 7; the pro forma requirement on public consultation in DA AO 8 impairs the policy set in AO 8 itself to guarantee protection to health and the environment, consistent with the constitutional guarantees under Article II, Sections 16 and 17; and that unless restrained by the courts, with the mere publication of Bayer’s Public Information Sheet (PIS) on the GMO rice LL62 as the sole requirement under AO 8 to indicate the conduct of public consultation, there is no "legal" obstacle that would prevent the DA and the BPI from approving GMO rice Bayer LL62 for direct use in feed, food and for processing.

The GMO rice Bayer LL62 is rice whose DNA has been injected with genetic material from an entirely different organism to resist glufosinate, a powerful weed killer also produced by Bayer, which is meant to be used in conjunction with the said crop. Bayer filed an application with the BPI on August 26, 2006 for the approval of the said GMO rice in the country.

Greenpeace has repeatedly requested the BPI for official information regarding the application. The DA and the BPI, however, have been quiet, stating only that it is under review and that Bayer has "complied" with the requirement to submit a PIS under DA AO 8.

To date, there has been no substantial disclosure by BPI nor the DA to the public regarding the application and the actual status of the application. But, if approved, Bayer LL62 will be the first
genetically-modified rice in the Philippines. The Philippines will also be the first country in the world to approve a genetically-altered strain of its most important staple food crop.

Bayer filed the application at the height of the biggest genetic contamination case concerning the US rice supply. Non-GMO US long grain rice crops were found to have been tainted with Bayer’s LL601, a GMO similar to LL62. Export shipments of tainted US long grain rice were subsequently rejected by markets around the world, plunging the US rice industry into a crisis. Genetically-altered rice is not approved in most parts of the world because of concerns about health and environmental risks.

"GMOs have never been proven safe for human consumption and poses grave risks to the environment as they can contaminate GMO-free crops and ecosystems. Once they do, the process of recalling and tracing genetically-altered organisms and their trail of contamination is extremely expensive, if not almost impossible," said Corazon De Jesus, Searice Policy Officer. "Instead of approving different GM varieties, our government should focus its resources in developing traditional varieties and promoting sustainable agriculture which gives better yields without harming the environment and which puts the farmers’ interests, rather than those of greedy multinational agricultural firms, at heart."

Greenpeace seeks injunction vs GMO rice

2007-08-24T23:37:00.000-07:00

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view_article.php?article_id=84321

Greenpeace seeks injunction vs GMO rice
By Alexander Villafania
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 05:58pm (Mla time) 08/23/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- The environmental group Greenpeace and the Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (Searice) filed Thursday a petition for injunction with the Quezon City trial court against the use of genetically-modified rice that is pending approval by the government.

The petition questions the constitutionality of for the Department of Agriculture’s (DA) Administrative Order 8, series of 2002, which sets the guidelines for the approval and use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Greenpeace and Searice are also seeking a temporary restraining order against the approval by the DA and Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) of the GMO rice called Bayer LL62 for commercial use.

The petition cited several concerns regarding the use of LL62, particularly the absence of public consultations as required by the Philippine Constitution, particularly Article 3, Section 7, which recognizes people’s rights in matters of public concern.

The groups questioned the timing of Bayer’s application for LL62 in August 2006, which was the height of the controversy in the US over the contamination of rice crops there with Bayer’s LL601 GMO rice.

Greenpeace, in particular, said it requested for official information about Bayer’s application but said both the DA and BPI have yet to answer.

Both Greenpeace and Searice say approval of LL62 will make the Philippines the first country in the world to approve a genetically-altered food crop.

Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner Danny Ocampo described the system for GMO approval in the country as “hopelessly flawed” because it excludes public representation in such matters.

"How much do Filipinos know about this, and what voice do they have in such a process? Very little. And yet, for the whole country, the impending approval of this genetically altered rice will certainly be an alarming precedent that will irrevocably alter the future of our most important staple food," Ocampo said.

Ocampo also told INQUIRER.net that the BPI has not rejected any of the 44 applications for GMOs, in particular four applications for the propagation in the Philippines pf GMOs -- BT11, Bt corn, roundup-ready and a strain that is a combination of Bt corn and roundup-ready.

He also said the petition would push a review of the approval process for GMO plants in the country.

Copyright 2007 INQUIRER.net. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

More on Interlaken Declaration Paragraph 12

2007-06-22T18:03:00.000-07:00

What was interesting in the discussions during the CGRFA on paragraph 12 of the Interlaken Declaration which deals with IPR on animals, was that during the plenary when Interlaken Declaration was the agenda, delegations agreed for the deletion of the text with reference to IPR (or this was the general understanding as reflected in the draft report). Germany made the intervention at the last minutes of the whole CGRFA meeting - during the adoption of the report - on the eve of 15 June 2007, much to the disappointment of some delegations and civil society organisations. Here are additional excerpts (not exact wordings):

Germany: asked to refer back to the reference on IPR in paragraph 12

Argentina: The proposal of Germany goes beyond Article 27.3b of TRIPS and is covered by the proposal of Australia on 'consistent with international agreements'. TRIPS agreement is already covered. The proposal of Germany goes beyond TRIPS and went beyond 15 minutes after the discussions (on agenda item: Interlaken Declaration which was earlier discussed in plenary). We should work on equal terms.

Chair: Thank you, it was very clear. EU (addressing Germany) do you want to keep it in brackets?

Germany: Obviously not possible for us to know the conditions in the negotiations at that time. We prefer (the text on paragraph 12) to be in the form as seen before. EU has not understood that this text has disappeared. If there is no possibility, we stick to the proposal in brackets.

(There were some movements in the other EU delegations - some were about to approach Germany, or so we think and so Germany said..) To ease our life in EU, we say this is a German addition.

Negotiations on paragraphs 9 and 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration:

2007-06-20T22:32:00.001-07:00

Conservation and Sustainable Use of Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (AnGR) was one of the main agenda of the 11th Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. One of the more contentious documents taken and debated upon by the delegates of the Commission was the draft Interlaken Declaration, which was negotiated and debated upon in the evening session of june 14 and the afternoon session of june 15 (during the adoption of the text and minutes). In particular, paragraphs 9 and 12 of the draft document on recognition of local and indigenous communities and the issue of Intellectual Property Rights on AnGR were discussed and negotiated upon with much detail by delegates from both developed and developing countries, putting specific highlight on their needs and interests. This entry provides more or less a good account (and not an exact transcription) of the negotiations that occurred during the Commission meetings when the draft document was considered for discussion...

i. recognition of local and indigenous communities: diluting an express recognition of their contributions

Paragraph 9 of the draft Interlaken Declaration based on CGRFA document 11/07/8 states:

"9. We recognize the enormous contribution that the local and indigenous communities and farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders of all regions of the world have made, and will continue to make for the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. We affirm that they should equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. We affirm the desirability of protecting traditional knowledge relevant to animal breeding and production as a contribution to sustainable livelihoods, and the need for the full participation of local and indigenous communities and farmers and pastoralists in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources."

Cuba - 2nd sentence, change "should" to "shall"

Finland - last sentence, add animal breeders and consumers

Brazil - "consumers" is out of context - it should be removed

USA - keep in brackets - "shall" not appropriate for a declaration

Canada - 2nd sentence, change to "participate in fair and equitable sharing of benefits"

USA - strike out 1st sentence (on recognition of contribution of local and indigenous communities..." and replace with "We recognize the enormous historic and relevant contribution of all persons engaged in

animal husbandry, who have molded animal genetic resources to meet societal needs. It is their ownership and management of AGR that has enabled them to make important contributions in the past and its

ownership and management that should be ensured for future societal benefits"

Canada - last sentence - "protecting traditional knowledge" changed to "preserving traditional knowledge"

Argentina - leave it in brackets

Thailand - paragraph deals with local and indigenous communities, delete animal breeders and consumers

Canada - delete word "full" from participation for not being measurable

Pakistan - use "maximum" for participation

Canada - does not accede to Pakistan's proposal

Pakistan - submits to Canada's proposal

After the negotiations, the new paragraph 9 (now paragraph 8) of the draft Interlaken Declaration provides with brackets:

"8. [We recognize the enormous contribution that the local and indigenous communities and farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders of all regions of the worlds have made, and will continue to make for the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture.] [We recognize the enormous historic and relevant contribution of all persons engaged in animal husbandry, who have moulded animal genetic resources to meet societal needs. It is their ownership and management of animal genetic resources that has enabled them to make important contributions in the past and it is this ownership and management that should be ensured for future societal benefits.] We affirm that they [should] [shall] participate in the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. We affirm the desirability of [protecting] [preserving] traditional knowledge relevant to animal breeding and production as a contribution to sustainable livelihoods, and the need for the participation of local and indigenous communities, farmers [,] [and] pastoralist [,] [and] [animal breeders] [and consumers] in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the sustainable use, development and conservation of animal genetic resources."

ii. intellectual property rights over animal genetic resources: a source of much confusion and debate under the declaration

Paragraph 12 of the draft document states:

"12. We recognize that access to, and the sharing of both, genetic resources and technologies, are essential for meeting world food security and the needs of the growing world population, and must be facilitated. Access to and transfer of technology, including that protected by intellectual property rights, to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, shall be provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favourable terms, in particular in the case of technologies for use in conservation as well as technologies for the benefit of farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders in developing countries, especially in least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, including on concessional and preferential terms where mutually agreed, inter alia, through partnerships in research and

development. Such access and transfer shall be provided on terms that recognize and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights."

This paragraph has been the source of serious concern and confusion among many of the delegates and civil society organizations present in the Commission meetings, as the inclusion of the last sentence (the history of which is not known by most) can cause misinterpretation as to require all countries to grant patents on animals, which the TRIPS Agreement excludes from patentability. This was what mostly happened during the negotiations:

Brazil for GRULAC (Latin America and Carribean Grouping) - present language is confusing and repetitive

- proposed text and delete last sentence on IPR and any reference on IPR which is appropriate in another forum

Kenya (for Africa Group) - supports GRULAC

Thailand - expressed confusion with paragraph

Australia - add "consistent with international obligations and national laws" in 1st sentence

- supports GRULAC statement

Norway - insert "relevant" to international and national in Australia's proposal

USA - 1st sentence, change "must" to "should"

Iran - persistent in shortening text of GRULAC

Brazil - does not submit to Iran's proposal and retains its proposed text

Germany - Last sentence on IPR should be retained in the text

GRULAC - does not want to accept Germany's proposal

Germany - proposal to retain original text or add the last sentence of original text on IPR

(no consensus in EU block so Germany intervenes for itself)

Uruguay - supports GRULAC proposal

Brazil - maintains its original proposed text for GRULAC

Germany's intervention to retain the last sentence of the paragraph on IPR was done much later after the chair "almost" closed the discussions and negotiations on paragraph 12. This was done after all have agreed during the negotiations to delete any reference to IPR in paragraph 12 of the draft document. GRULAC was adamant in saying that the Chair had already closed the topic on the last sentence when Germany just had to bring it up again, intervening as itself rather than as the European Block.

Paragraph 12 (now Paragraph 11) of the new draft Declaration now declares the following with brackets:

"11. We recognize that access to and the sharing of both genetic resources and related technologies are essential for world food security and the needs of the growing world population, and [must] [should] be

facilitated, consistent with relevant international obligations and relevant national laws. [Such access] [Access] to and transfer of technology [and, in particular in the case of technologies for use in] [associated with the] conservation [and sustainable use of animal genetic resources] as well as technologies for the benefit of farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders [in developing countries, especially in least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, [shall] [should] be provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favorubale terms/ [/including on concessional and preferential terms, where mutually agreed, /inter alia/], through partnership in research and developmet./]/ [In the case of technology subject to patents and other intellectual property rights, access and transfer of technology should be provided on terms which recognise and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights.]"

Recommendations on Key Issues under the Commission Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity

2007-06-15T06:16:00.000-07:00

SEARICE welcomes the initiative of the Commission to draft a Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) that will strengthen the Commission's capacity to act effectively within its statutes. The MYPOW will make it possible for the Commission to advise the FAO on the activities on genetic resources and biodiversity for food and agriculture, as well as facilitate the cooperation with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), especially on the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity.

SEARICE forwards its inputs for consideration on relevant issues in developing the MYPOW:

I. STRENGTHENING OF INFORMAL SEED SYSTEMS AND FARMERS' RIGHTS

SEARICE welcomes the interventions and recommendations from BHUTAN and INDIA regarding appropriate recognition, further consideration and strengthening of the informal and farmer seed systems, farmer-led plant breeding and community-based plant genetic resources conservation and development initiatives:

1. We similarly re-emphasize the need, and recommend FULL RECOGNITION and STRENGTHENING of INFORMAL SEED SYSTEMS under the Global Plan of Action (on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture). Strengthening of the informal seed system can be achieved through a number of ways, which may include:

a. supporting and recognizing Farmers' Rights in practice through community-based efforts and initiatives by farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples in the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources

b. recognizing the distinctiveness of informal seed systems that exist in varying social and cultural environments, and maintaining the fluidity and dynamic feature that characterizes informal seed systems which is crucial in ensuring the sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture

2. Informal seed systems are not fully recognized in the drafting of seed policies whether in the national or international levels, when such systems are in fact very significant not only in the seed and food security of different communities, but highly crucial in the in situ conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources by farmers in developing countries. Farmers have, since time immemorial, treated all plant genetic resources as raw materials for selection and breeding in their farm activities, and for further development of plant genetic diversity in the farm. Informal seed systems thus provide a process of conservation and sustainable use of seed materials by farmers which is continuous, progressive, proactive and dynamic.

3. An assessment study of the effects and impacts of formal seed policies on informal seed systems and farmer-led processes of conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources may prove helpful in assessing the needs of informal seed systems.

4. Experiences in our work in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Lao PDR, and Bhutan have showed that farmers have the capacity to develop farmers' varieties in different agro-ecosystems, including prime irrigated and market oriented areas which actually promote conservation of plant genetic resources through their sustainable utilization on farm. These developments should be recognized in developing mechanisms for strengthening informal seed systems.

II. ON THE DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY

SEARICE recognizes the need for a more thorough and further study and discussion on the matter of the draft Code of Conduct but also expresses the urgency of a Code of Conduct to address potential impacts of modern biotechnology. In addition, SEARICE raises the following concerns and gaps on the draft Code of Conduct which the Commission should similarly address:

1. On the aspect of conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, the Commission should recommend the FAO to widen the scope of the code of conduct to include animal, aquatic, forestry and micro-organisms/invertebrate genetic resources, in anticipation of the need to address similar concerns in equally important sectors.

2. The Commission should consider existing efforts in other international fora in the draft Code of Conduct, especially on the matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). In this regard, the Commission should advise FAO to consider the following documents insofar as they are relevant in the draft Code of Conduct:

a. To regard GURTs as limiting the rights of farmers to save, re-use, sell and exchange seeds, as stated in Decision VI/5 of the Conference of the Parties.

b. Under Decision VIII/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, parties, other governments, relevant organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to respect traditional knowledge and Farmers' Rights to the conservation of seeds.

c. The Governing Body of the ITPGRFA has the mandate to examine, within the context of its work, priorities and available resources, the potential impacts of GURTs with special consideration to the impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities and associated traditional knowledge, smallholder farmers and breeders and Farmers' Rights.

3. The Commission, in the development of the Code of Conduct, should further take into consideration and precaution that modern biotechnology will limit the capacity of farmers to innovate, and would widen the gap between formal and non-formal innovations. The Commission should thus take steps to address the special needs of farmers and farming communities.

4. Studies on the potential impacts of existing and new agricultural technologies and the promotion of methods of sustainable agriculture that employ management practices, technologies and policies that mitigate the potential negative impacts of these existing and new agricultural technologies on agricultural diversity, with particular focus on the needs of farmers, indigenous peoples and local communities, should be conducted.

5. The Commission should address the concern on transgene flow in centers of diversity and origin of plant genetic resources, especially in developing countries which lack the capacity and resources to monitor and prevent potential transgene flow and contamination to their agro-ecosystems.

6. The Commission should similarly provide for a liability regime that will specifically address this concern on transgene flow and potential contamination. A possible mechanism is the creation of an environmental guarantee fund to mitigate and address immediate and even long term potential negative impacts of transgenes on the food system, the environment, and plant diversity.

7. The Commission should also consider that innovations arising from the use of genetic resources should not be subjected to intellectual property rights to ensure access to new technologies that are appropriate and responsive to the needs of small farming communities and indigenous peoples.

III. ON THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO ADDRESS POSSIBILITY OF UNINTENTIONAL PRESENCE OF TRANSGENES IN EX SITU COLLECTIONS

SEARICE supports the development of the Guiding Principles for the Development of CGIAR Centers' Policies to Address the Possibility of Unintentional Presence of Transgenes in Ex Situ Collections, but urges the Commission to compel the CGIAR to:

1. Conduct periodic report and assessment on the implementation of the Principles to focus on gaps and opportunities which may be identified in the implementation to further develop said Principles, which can also be considered and adopted in the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to Plant Genetic Resources (PGR).

2. Ensure the conformity of CGIAR's gene bank management practices to these principles through the amendment of protocols that are not compliant to the Principles, and/or the establishment of new protocols in line with the policies of the Guiding Principles.

3. Institutionalize the conduct of periodic assessment on the possible contamination of collections from transgenes and provide immediate action to mitigate possible impacts to other accession.

SEARICE commends the effort of the Commission in providing avenue to discuss farmers and indigenous peoples' concern in the development of the CGIAR Guiding Principles to ensure the protection and integrity of indigenous peoples' and farmers' seed systems.

SEARICE however emphasizes that farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples are also involved in IN SITU COLLECTIONS through COMMUNITY GENEBANKS. In this regard, the Commission should recognize these initiatives by farmers and consequently similarly address the special needs of farmers regarding potential unintentional presence of transgenes in in situ collections.

ON THE DRAFT INTERLAKEN DECLARATION ON ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

SEARICE expresses its concern on the draft Interlaken Declaration on Animal Geentic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

SEARICE joins the interventions from civil society organizations in expressing the concern regarding the last sentence of paragraph 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration which has serious implications on the issue of intellectual property and animal genetic resources. Said paragraph 12 creates an imbalanced text in the declaration that may be subjected to misinterpretation as to require countries to grant patents on animals thereby discounting the flexibility under the TRIPS Agreement to exclude animals from patentability.

In this regard, SEARICE supports the deletion of this statement,as this is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Declaration. It is necessary to maintain the balance provided under the ITPGRFA and the CBD.

SEARICE POSITION On the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it Relates to Genetic Resources For Food and Agriculture

2007-06-13T02:21:00.000-07:00

COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES
FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Eleventh Regular Session
11-15th June 2007

SEARICE POSITION
On the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it Relates to Genetic Resources For Food and Agriculture

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) - a regional non-government organization promoting community-based conservation, development and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources and farmers’ rights in Bhutan, Lao PDR, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines - recognizes the need for a more thorough and further study and discussion on the matter of the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology. In addition, SEARICE raises the following concerns and gaps on the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, which the Commission should address:

1. On the aspect of conservation of genetic resource for food and agriculture, the Commission should recommend the FAO to widen the scope of the code of conduct to include animal, aquatic, forestry and micro-organism/insect genetic resources, in anticipation of the need to address concerns in equally important sectors.

2. The Commission should consider existing efforts in other international fora in the draft Code of Conduct, especially on the matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). In this regard, the Commission should advise FAO to consider the following documents insofar as they are relevant in the draft Code of Conduct:

a. To regard GURTs as limiting the rights of farmers’ to save, re- use, sell and exchange seeds, as stated in Decision VI/5 of the Conference of the Parties.

b. Under Decision VIII/23 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, Parties, other governments, relevant organizations and stakeholders are encouraged to respect traditional knowledge and Farmers’ Rights to the preservation of seeds under traditional cultivation.

c. The Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has the mandate to examine, within the context of its work, priorities and available resources, the potential impacts of genetic use restriction technologies with special consideration to the impacts on indigenous and local communities and associated traditional knowledge, smallholder farmers and breeders and Farmers’ Rights.

3. The Commission, in the development of the Code of Conduct, should further take into consideration and precaution that the technology will limit the capacity of farmers to innovate, and would widen the gap between formal and non-formal innovations. The Commission should thus take steps to address the special needs of farmers and farming communities.

4. The Commission should address the concern on transgene flow in centers of diversity and origin of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, especially in developing countries which lack the capacity and resources to monitor and prevent the potential transgene flow and contamination to agroecosystems.

5. The Commission should also provide for a liability regime that will specifically address the concern on transgene flow and potential contamination. A possible mechanism is the creation of an environmental guarantee fund to mitigate and address immediate and even long-term potential negative impacts of transgenes on the food system, the environment, and the present plant diversity.

6. The Commission should similarly consider that innovations arising from the use of genetic resources should not be subjected to intellectual property rights to ensure access to new technologies that are appropriate and responsive to the needs of small farming communities and indigenous peoples.

Interventions for the Informal Seed Systems and Farmers' Rights - A Welcome in the Commission Meeting

2007-06-12T08:00:00.000-07:00

The second day of the Commission meetings was warmly welcomed in the plant genetic resources afternoon plenary session by two interventions from BHUTAN and INDIA in support of recognizing and strengthening informal seed systems and farmer-led breeding in relation to farmers' rights. These interventions were in reference to the Commission's recommendations on the PGR Programme of Work and Global Plan of Action for the implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources which vaguely referred to strengthening of seed systems (and seed regulatory frameworks) and plant breeding.

The interventions were very crucial as informal seed systems do not receive the appropriate recognition in seed policies whether it be in the national or international levels when informal seed systems are actually highly significant in the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources by farmers in developing countries. Farmers have always treated all plant genetic resources as raw materials for selection and breeding in their farm activities, and for further development of plant genetic diversity in the farm. This system thus provides a process of conservation and sustainable use of seed materials by farmers which is continuous, progressive, pro-active and dynamic, which should similarly be supported and strengthened.

Paragraph 12 of the draft Interlaken Declaration

2007-06-12T03:26:00.000-07:00

On the matter of the draft Interlaken Declaration, several options for a change in the text of Paragraph 12 were provided.

Paragraph 12 states:
12. We recognize that access to, and the sharing of both, genetic resources and technologies, are essential for meeting world food security and the needs of the growing world population, and must be facilitated. Access to and transfer of technology, including that protected by intellectual property rights, to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, shall be provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favourable terms, in particular in the case of technologies for use in conservation as well as technologies for the benefit of farmers, pastoralists and animal breeders in developing countries, especially in least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition, including on concessional and preferential terms where mutually agreed, inter alia, through partnerships in research and development. Such access and transfer shall be provided on terms that recognize and are consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights.

The clarity of the paragraph is being questioned, since it appears to be an extract of Article 16.2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Article 16 of the CBD is on Access to and Transfer of Technology, of which reference to intellectual property rights are indicated on paragraph 2 and 5. Interpreting Article 16.2 into the Interlaken Declaration might cause misinterpretation of the paragraph – this might be interpreted as requiring all countries to grant patents on animals, but which under the TRIPS Agreement, excludes patentability of animals.

CGRFA Day 1 - June 11 (afternoon session)

2007-06-12T02:56:00.000-07:00

The last agenda before the session ended was on the strategic priorities on Animal GR. Debates as to the source of funding for implementation of the priorities, especially for developing countries, however, pre-empted a detailed discussion of the contents. The discussions will continue tomorrow morning, which will start earlier at 930am.

There were three side-events organized for the first day of the commission meeting:

1. A Greater Appreciation for Local Crops

2. Patents on Seeds and Farm Animals

3. Exchange, Use and Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources: Policy and Regulatory Options

It was decided to have the first meeting of the MYPOW Working Group on Wednesday for the evening session (7:30 to 10:30), where there will be focus on contentious issues in the MYPOW and in what was discussed in the plenary, in order to avoid prolonging and lengthening of the discussions in the plenary. The Working Group was resolved to be composed of the Bureau, 3 representatives from each region, and observers.

Regarding NGO participation in the plenary, the chair clarified that they will be following the traditional way which was to consider suggestions and views from NGOs and IGOs for further discussions after the delegates have finished intervening.

Some points identified which are pressing and important issues to consider on AnGR:
- identifying conservation strategies for AnGR
- guidelines on AnGR CSU
- lack of human capacities and networks
- identifying national initiatives
- in-vitro conservation and issues on structures/responsibilities, access regulations and biosafety issues
- lack of interest from countries, NGOs and donors
- a regulatory framework that would have to address (a) implications of international laws, (b) implications of national laws, and (c) IPR issues

For the second day of the commission meetings, it was decided to allot the morning session for the continuation of the discussions on the strategic priorities for animal genetic resources. The afternoon session was to be separated into two simultaneous plenary sessions on plant genetic resources and on animal genetic resources. Furthermore, the conduct of an evening session was decided to continue discussions on animal genetic resources.

CGRFA Day 1 - June 11

2007-06-12T02:32:00.000-07:00

The CGRFA 11th session officially started on June 11 with the Welcoming Remarks from Mr. Alexander Muller, Assistant Director-General of FAO’s Natural Resources and Environment Management Deaprtmet, the Exit Speech of Outgoing Commission Chairperson Eng Siang Lim, the election of the new Chairperson, and the election of the Regional Representatives. The flow of the agenda was subsequently wrapped up with the referral of the discussion on the Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) to a working group with representatives from each region, and open to CSO observers.

As early as the 1st day, the Commission finished taking up two document of the agenda on animal genetic resources. It is however expected that as the agenda nears the document on the draft Interlaken document, a lot of concerns will be raised, specifically on paragraph 12. Further in the agenda, plant genetic resources, forest genetic resources, aquatic genetic resources, and micro-organisms and invertebrate genetic resources, aside from the cross-sectorial matters, will be discussed by the commission throughout the week.

Eleventh Regular Session of the Commisson on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

2007-06-11T20:58:00.000-07:00

The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) is currently holding its 11th Regular Session in Rome, until the 15th of June. The CGRFA is a permanent forum where governments discuss and negotiate matters relevant to genetic resources for food and agriculture. Its main objectives are to ensure the conservation and sustainable utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their use, for present and future generations. The Commission reviews and advises FAO on policy, programmes and activities, as well as deals with sectorial and cross-sectorial matters related to the conservation and utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Commission is also responsible for developing and monitoring the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources; and the Global System for Plant Genetic Resources (CGRFA homepage, www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa).

The Agenda of the 11th Regular Session of the CGRFA is intended to discuss and adopt the Multi-Year Program of Work (MYPOW). The MYPOW will essentially allow the Commission to identify issues it may wish to address, in order to implement its full mandate, and to incorporate these in a planned programme of work (cgrfa-11/07/2).

SEARICE has been actively monitoring and participating in local to international platforms that would greatly affect and impact on the rights of farmers, specifically their rights to plant genetic resources in food and agriculture.

SEARICE recognizes the importance and relevance of having the MYPOW to strengthen the commission's capacity to act effectively, especially on the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity. SEARICE is working together with other civil society organizations attending the 11th CGRFA in bringing forth the issues on Plant Genetic Resources, Animal Genetic Resources, the Draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology and the Guiding Pronciples of the CGIAR, among others.

The IISD also posts daily news bulletin on the negotiations - http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cgfra11/

GM Rice in Africa: 'Hybrid Rice Can't Cure Diarrhea'

2007-05-03T02:44:00.000-07:00

Nigeria: 'Hybrid Rice Can't Cure Diarrhea'

March 20, 2007
Posted to the web March 20, 2007
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200703200219.html
Godwin Haruna
Lagos

Attempts at introducing Genetically Modified (GM) rice as a pharmaceutical crop to treat diarrhea in African children is unnecessary, demeaning and a calculated move to distract from ongoing global programmes to save children suffering from the disease, the Friends of the Earth Africa (FOE Africa), has said.
A new variety of GM rice containing Human genes is set to be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for large-scale planting in Kansas, United States after two other states barred such plantings. The California-based biotech company, Ventria Bioscience, announced that the rice which had been engineered to produce recombinant human milk protein will be used in oral rehydration solutions to treat diarrhea and also as supplements in yogurt, sports drinks and granola bars.

Friends of the Earth groups in Africa, in a statement issued through Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), condemned the action, stating that barely few months after the illegal contamination of (GM) rice LL601 in Ghana and Sierra Leone; proponents of GMO are once again using Africa to propagate their illegal and unsafe crops.
The group added that despite refusal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve the recombinant pharmaceutical product as safe, not only was Ventria going ahead with its massive planting of drug-containing rice, but 150 infants from age 5 to 33 months have been used to experiment this technology in Peru, one of Latin American's poorest countries.

According to FoE Africa, parents of the children were not adequately informed of the experimental nature of the treatment, and at least two mothers of infants in the clinical trial reported that their infants suffered serious allergic reactions, causing Peruvian government to launch an enquiry into the experiment.
"Africa does not need a genetically modified solution for diarrhea. The solution of diarrhea lies with its cause, not GMO. We are yet to get over the contamination in West Africa of GM rice as commercial imports and food aid from the United States and now this, we are becoming increasing concerned at diverse moves to permeate GMO in this continent,", said FoE Africa GMO campaigner, Nnimmo Bassey.
The first GM food containing human genes is set to raise many socio economic, cultural, religious as well as ethical questions besides the environmental and health concerns, the groups streesed.

Hybrid Rice: China will build a hybrid rice development centre in Madagascar as part of its effort to help Africa to promote agricultural production

2007-05-03T02:38:00.000-07:00

China will build a hybrid rice development centre in Madagascar as part of its effort to help Africa to promote agricultural production
Media Release
Feb. 3, 2007
Source: http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15399.asp

China will build a hybrid rice development centre in Madagascar as part of its effort to help Africa to promote agricultural production, officials said here Saturday.
The project will involve 10 million yuan ( $ 1.28 million) of government fund and be completed by 2010, according to the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Hunan Province, which is responsible for the construction and operation of the centre.
This is one of 10 agricultural technology projects China has promised to build in Africa.
The hybrid rice developed by famous Chinese agronomist Yuan Longping is widely grown in China, and the highest yield reached 12,000 kilograms per hectare.
Chinese farmers grow some 15 million hectares of the hybrid rice a year,accounting for 51 percent of the country's total rice paddies.

NGO urges BPI not to approve Bayer’s LLRICE 62

2007-05-02T00:06:00.000-07:00

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) urges the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant and Industry (DA-BPI) not to approve the application of Bayer for its LLRICE 62 for feed, food and processing. The approval will allow the first genetically modified rice into the country, and would thus set a precedent to the entry of other genetically modified rice in the Philippines.

"Rice is a staple food and source of livelihood of more than 50 million farmers in our country, with roots in our own culture and traditions and thus should be taken with utmost care. Allowing Bayer’s LLRICE 62 into the country will completely alter this, especially since we are talking about an important food crop that is synonymous to our country’s sovereignty. These should be enough reasons for regulators to prudently pause and prayerfully reconsider." said Ms. Agnes Lintao, Policy Officer of SEARICE.

Liberty Link (LL)RICE 62 is developed by Bayer Cropscience, a German company based in US. This, and two other Liberty Link rice varieties – LLRICE 06 and LLRICE 601 – are genetically modified rice resistant to glufosinate-containing herbicides. LLRICE 601, in particular, has figured in much controversy in contamination issues in the US and Europe, especially since it has not been approved for human consumption anywhere else in the world except for the US. Most recently, it has also been found that the imported rice "Uncle Sam Texas Long Grain Rice" is contaminated with LLRICE 601, and is being sold in the country’s leading supermarkets. This poses potential health risk to the general public thus the need to take extra precaution on the approval of LLRICE62.

"The consumer should be cautious and conscious in buying their rice, better yet patronize locally and organically produced rice", Ms. Lintao said

The BPI is the regulating body in the country, which approves genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for direct use, propagation, and commercialization. Ms. Lintao further stresses that the BPI should look beyond the promises that genetic engineering (GE) has deceivingly portrayed in saving the world from hunger and increasing yields. Officials at the agency should keep in mind that even in the Cartagena Protocol, of which the Philippines is a Party, productivity as the main thrust for the promotion of GMOs, but there has been no productivity evaluation to date.

"The BPI, though mandated in just evaluating the safety of GE crops being applied for approval, should still consider and maintain a higher principle in the approval process. A single approval would signify a devastating impact to the country’s food supply in the long term. It is with utmost urgency that we call on the BPI to deny the approval of Bayer’s LLRICE 62."

Starting Them Young: The Youth for Biodiversity (Y4B) camp

2007-05-01T16:54:00.000-07:00

You often hear of summer youth camps - annual get-a-way places where kids and young-ones are sent off to experience all sorts of activities and meet up with new kids to be-friend and get acquainted with, do activities and interact with. These summer camps would cost the parents almost the same amount as when they send their kids to school, but for a very short period, usually around 2 weeks to a month. Other than making new friends and avoiding being lethargic over the summer, these camps do not offer anything else.

Last May 2 to 10, 2006, a different kind of Youth camp was held in North Cotabato. SEARICE held, for the first time, the Youth for Biodiversity Camp. Recognizing the idealism and the potentials of the youth, their enthusiasm in rising up to challenges, in ensuring small and immediate victories, SEARICE involved the youth in its advocacy for plant genetic resource conservation, development and use (PGR CDU) for food and agriculture. The Youth for Biodiversity Camp is an exploration of the youth’s activism and dynamism in working together (with farmers) towards a sustainable, vibrant and rich future. Dubbed as Y4B, the week-long camp’s concept still had the feel of a summer camp, but with the activities as learning tools for the youth participants geared towards appreciation for biodiversity.

The Y4B camp aimed at increasing the awareness of the youth on the importance of agricultural biodiversity and the issues concerned with it; mobilizing the youth sector to support agricultural biodiversity conservation, development an use; and to revive and link cultural heritage to agro-biodiversity conservation, development and use among the youth sector.
A total of 31 youth participants coming from Bohol, Bukidnon, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat joined the camp, which was called Bukid ni Karl Kalabaw (Farm of Karl the Carabao). The camp adopted the atmosphere of a Big Brother reality show, minus the evictions and eliminations. The SEARICE staffs present in the camp served as counselors, or Youth Rangers as they called themselves.

The activities in the Y4B camp were not only fun and games. It started off with a Biodiversity Trail, which familiarized kids with the diverse life forms and organisms found in the community. Discussions on biodiversity and agro-biodiversity, its importance, and the different issues impacting farmers’ rights to seeds also supplemented the activities. After these issue-discussions were Kalikas-Sining, an art jamming session where the kids designed their own bags and learned other crafts from farmers; community immersion, digital photography, quiz bowl, cultural games, Philippine folk tale sharing, literary and musical show, which art subjects and designs pertain to, which themes revolve around biodiversity conservation, development and use, and a lot of other related issues.

The Y4B camp was a memorable experience for all those who participated in it, which was proudly handled by SEARICE’s younger staff. The participants, long after the camp period, has been keeping contact with the Youth Rangers and seeking advice in further organizing follow-up activities for the group that was formed from the camp. The recognized leader of the Y4B campers also initiated forming a club in their campus carrying the lessons and knowledge that was imparted to them during the Y4B camp. The aim of generating appreciation for agricultural biodiversity was very well achieved, and those who are continuing the spirit and energy of the Y4B camp are very eager to conduct deepening sessions on the issues and topics that were introduced to them.

RICE FESTIVAL DECLARATION SUPPORTING FARMERS’ RIGHTS FOR FOOD SECURITY

2007-05-01T16:50:00.000-07:00

RECOGNIZING that access to safe food is a basic human right that is encompassed in all the Human Rights Conventions to which all nations of the world have ratified and which must be fully implemented in the basic policies of all governments;

CONSCIOUS that protection and promotion of Farmers’ Rights as well as the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources are vital in order to ensure that farmers and farming communities are able to continue their important role in enhancing plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and to make them available for future use;

CONSCIOUS of the need for food security and the broadening of the diversity of plant genetic resources in light of the alarming erosion of the planet’s biodiversity, and the current focus in agriculture on commercial trade and market liberalization;

CONSCIOUS also of the need to strengthen farmers’ seed system responsive to farmers’ needs and local conditions, particularly in eventualities of crisis and emergencies;

CONCERNED about the absence of legislations or policies in many countries in support of farmers’ rights to seeds and sustainable community-based initiatives as a means to enhance food security and contribute to poverty alleviation, and CONSCIOUS of the need to provide a supportive policy environment to promote food security and poverty alleviation;

BELIEVING that the conscious recognition of farmers’ rights to seeds and sustainable community-based initiatives in agriculture enhances food security by increasing farm productivity, ensuring safe and healthy food, and protecting the environment, as well as increasing income of farmers and farming communities;

BELIEVING that investment in agriculture should focus on recognizing and enhancing farmers’ rights to seeds and community-based initiatives;

NOTING the growing movement across the world and in countries advocating for safe food and farmers’ rights to seeds through sustainable community-based initiatives in agriculture and several national and local governments that have formulated policies and legislated laws in promotion thereof;

NOTING the relevance of the advocacy for farmers’ rights and the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources at the regional, national and local levels in light of their inclusion in the Agenda of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture for 2007;

PARTICIPATING in this Regional Conference on Sustainable Community-based Initiatives as Expressions of Farmers’ Rights held October 18, 2006 at MetroCenter, Tagbilaran City, Philippines we hereby call for:

1. The participatory conservation, development and sustainable use of plant genetic resources;

2. The strengthening of farmers’ seed system and research to intensify farmers’ capacity and flexibility in response to local conditions, and on occasions of crisis and emergencies;

3. The promotion and advancement of seed knowledge cultural exchanges among farmers and farming communities;

4. The promotion of sustainable community-based initiatives in response to securing farmers’ rights to seeds and in addressing issues on food security;

5. The adoption and promotion of a comprehensive strategy toward food self-sufficiency and sovereignty, as well as the improvement of the lives of the farmers;

6. The adoption and enforcement of national and local legislations for farmers’ rights to seeds and in support of sustainable community-based initiatives in agriculture, and of strategies, policies, and legislations in promotion, institutionalization, and implementation of farmers’ rights and the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources at the regional, national, and local levels;

7. The people’s active participation in policy-making processes in all levels of government and in international agreements related to food and agriculture policies

*Rice Festival Declaration Supporting Farmers’ Rights for Food Security (Regional Conference on Sustainable Community-based Initiatives as Expressions of Farmers’ Rights on October 18, 2006 at MetroCenter, Tagbilaran City, Philippines)

Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement

2007-04-24T02:50:00.000-07:00

The Philippine Fall into the IPR Bilateral Trap

On September of 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) with then Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the Philippines' first bilateral free trade and investment agreement since the Parity Rights Agreement with the United States in 1946. A comprehensive bilateral treaty covering various major areas which include: (1) trade in goods, (2) trade in services, (3) investments, (4) movement of natural persons, (5) intellectual property, (6) government procurement, (7) competition, and (8) cooperation, the JPEPA aims at strengthening the economic partnership between Japan and the Philippines beyond the minimum stipulated in the WTO.

The JPEPA already presents very serious issues concerning the grave consequences it may have on domestic livelihoods and enterprises, as well as the environment and natural resources. Particularly on the aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the JPEPA effectively restricts and stifles the recognized flexibilities under the TRIPS (WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) that the Philippines was railroaded to accept in 1994.

The agreement is premised on the false assumption that stringent IPR standards lead to increased innovation. Studies however show that these do not necessarily lead to increased innovation in developing countries, as they have been found as capable of harming public health, and as never appropriate to countries of lower levels of economic development.

The JPEPA poses serious questionable intellectual property provisions which ultimately undermine the rights of Filipino farmers, communities and the public in general. As experienced by developing countries, by endeavoring to open and strengthen intellectual property law, this leads to a monopoly control over technology development by transnational corporations. The JPEPA seeks to uphold Japanese corporate and governmental interests above and beyond the interests of the Filipino people.

JPEPA, in the guise of economic cooperation, expands the TRIPS flexibility on patenting.

The JPEPA expressly recognizes the Japan-Philippine relationship on the matter of the development and strengthening of Intellectual Property Rights as one of cooperation. The areas and forms of cooperation, as enumerated under the agreement, are not an exclusive list of activities. This does not safely assure the Philippines that the cooperation between the two countries concerning the development of IPR will simply be limited and restricted among the areas and forms enumerated under the Treaty, and will not go beyond the flexibilities recognized under the TRIPS concerning exclusions from patentability, i.e. plants, animals, and essentially biological processes.

The agreement also does not expressly recognize the exclusions and flexibilities provided under the TRIPS. The obligations of the countries with respect to IPR thus extend beyond what the TRIPS envisioned. The JPEPA opens the Philippines into providing intellectual property protection and patenting on biotechnology, plants and/or animals, which Japan recognizes as inventions under its patent law, under the guise of “cooperation” to develop and strengthen IPRs of both countries.

The task of detailing the implementation and enforcement of the IPR Chapter of the agreement is delegated by the JPEPA to a Sub-Committee on Intellectual Property , with its composition and the process by which it shall act not being clearly laid down by the agreement. Without acknowledging and affirming the flexibilities already recognized under the TRIPS, or providing sufficient restrictions to the scope of IPR, the Philippines is not assured of the actions that the Sub-Committee will undertake which is granted enough leeway by the JPEPA to implement and enforce the agreement on IPR beyond the recognized limitations of TRIPS. Hence, the JPEPA expands the Philippines' scope of intellectual property protection beyond the TRIPS like patenting on plants, animals, and/or essentially biological processes, subject to the determination of a Sub-Committee in implementing the IPR Chapter of the agreement. Such patenting will only yield benefits to industrialized countries like Japan, and not the Philippines.

JPEPA does not assure protection of Farmers' Rights to Seeds.

Farmers' rights to seeds is embodied in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) which the Philippines acceded to already on September 28, 2006, but awaiting concrete implementation at the national level. The JPEPA, however, does not recognize the inherent rights of farmers to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds and/or propagating materials by either providing a limitation on its IPR provisions or sufficient safeguards acknowledging and protecting it.

The JPEPA in fact seeks to increase the number of plant genera and species that can be protected under laws and regulations. The Philippines has not even endeavored yet to exclude a list of food and staple crops from the coverage of the Plant Variety Protection Act of 2002 (PVP) in ensuring that the nation's food security will not be threatened, and that the rights of small farmers to get access to local natural resources are sufficiently recognized and protected. The PVP itself already sufficiently limits the inherent rights of farmers over plant genetic resources.

Strengthening and increasing the scope of plant variety protection will only promote further monopoly control over seeds by transnational corporations. It should be observed that almost all applications for plant variety patents in the Philippines have been filed by corporations. Thus, with JPEPA, access and control to seeds by small farmers will continue to diminish in favor of Japanese corporations.

JPEPA promotes the intellectual property interests of Japanese corporations and investors.

The JPEPA classifies IPRs as investment assets which entitles IPRs to an additional and separate treatment beyond what the TRIPS provides. Hence, IPRs of Japanese investors in the Philippines will be given treatment not only as an IPR subject to protection by national IPR laws and the JPEPA Chapter on IPR. Additionally, the JPEPA provides separate and stricter rules to govern IPRs as investments, in favor of Japan as a developed country from where majority of investors in the Philippines originate. As a country governed to be dependent on foreign investments to sustain its economy, Japanese investors become entitled to a preferential protection under the agreement in contrast to the possible few Filipino investors in Japan. This is another important area of concern as there is clearly a lack of protection accorded to the Philippines under the agreement.

JPEPA does not provide restrictions in the scope of IPRs forming investments.

The JPEPA does not provide limitations on the intellectual property that should form investment assets, such as patenting on plants, animals and essentially biological processes which the TRIPS excludes from patentability. In fact, the JPEPA in defining IPRs as investments is a broad and non-exclusive list. This means that even though Philippine law does not provide protection for IPRs of a Japanese investor protected under Japanese law, the JPEPA will compel the Philippines to grant similar protection to such IPR.

Should for example an investor of Japan with a patent on a rice gene under Japanese Law want to invest in the Philippines by selling the seeds containing the rice gene in the Philippines which does not provide a similar patent protection on genes, must the Philippines provide the same level of patent protection on the rice gene to the Japanese investor that he enjoys in Japan? Does this mean that the Philippines has to rewrite its patent laws to provide for gene patenting to comply with its obligations under the JPEPA to give protection and security to Japanese investments? The Philippines in this case may be compelled to relax its legislations protecting national investments or worse amend its laws to remove nationalized legislations to provide for Japanese investors.

Even through the Nationality Treatment Clause where Japanese investors should be granted equal treatment with Filipinos as concerns their acquisition and use of IPRs as investment assets in the Philippines, the JPEPA effectively caters to Japanese investors which are more technologically advanced and financially capable over Filipino investors. The JPEPA fails to provide exceptions or even to recognize possible exceptions in national laws that may be needed to protect the Filipino people. For instance, in case the Philippines enacts a legislation recognizing rights of Filipino small farmers to save and re-use seeds even beyond the limitations provided under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVP) as a possible compliance to the ITPGRFA, or should the Philippines provide for benefits to local seed companies and small farmers incentives in the development of local varieties, the all-encompassing national treatment principle under the JPEPA can provide a Japanese seed corporation a successful claim that such legislations are a denial of national treatment and discriminates the Japanese as a foreign investor.

JPEPA imposes separate and higher standards on government measures aimed at protecting the public interest.

With the JPEPA, the Philippines is additionally required to accord to the investments of Japanese investors fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security. In a suit by a Malaysian firm against the Chile government based on the failure of the government to protect its investment through its urban development and environmental policies, the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) had adopted the interpretation of the fair and equitable standard as: (1) the “manner most conducive to fulfill the objective of the bilateral investment treaty to protect investments and create conditions favorable to investments”, (2) the “treatment in an even-handed and just manner, conducive to fostering the promotion of foreign investment”, and (3) requiring states “to provide to international investments treatment that does not affect the basic expectations that were taken into account by the foreign investor to make the investment.” Based on this investor-friendly standard, the JPEPA provides for an ambiguous rule that Japanese investors can use to question Philippine policies and laws, and sue the government in cases of frustrated expectations in their investments in the Philippines even on the basis of government measures intended to protect the public interest.

The JPEPA also requires the Philippines not to impair Japanese investments by unreasonable and discriminatory measures which can include policies nationalizing investments tantamount to expropriation. With the JPEPA, the Philippine government is further restricted in implementing certain public interest measures like compulsory licensing of IPRs of Japanese investors which is recognized by the TRIPS and allowed under the present Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. The JPEPA also restricts the right of the Philippine government in future legislations to allow parallel importations and lower IPR standards on medicines. Compulsory licensing and parallel importations have the effect of limiting the economic benefits of Japanese investors in their investments, and would qualify as government attempt at expropriating their investments. The Philippine government is thus required to strictly fulfill additional investment requirements like public purpose, non-discriminatory basis, due process of law, and payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation, before it can undertake to implement its public interest measures.

It is important to note that recently, Pfizer, a big pharmaceutical company, sued the Philippine International Trade Corporation before the Makati Regional Trial Court for violating the company's IPR when the government agency started importing its Norvasc anti-hypertension drug while the company's patent was still in effect. Doubts as to the legality of PITC's importation is expected to be resolved by the enactment into law of the Roxas bill which would expressly allow parallel importations of cheaper medicines in the Philippines. Should for example the Roxas bill be enacted into law, Japanese pharmaceutical companies or licensees in the Philippines can claim that the law frustrates their expected profits from their investments considering that the effect of the law is to produce in the market same products at cheaper prices. Even a law that allows farmers to save and re-use seeds can be challenged by Japanese investors in that the law discriminates Japanese investments on seeds in favor of Filipino farmers and frustrates expected profits from these investments.

JPEPA allows direct investor suits against the Philippine government. It effectively undermines Philippine sovereignty to promote appropriate policies.

The dispute settlement mechanism in the JPEPA is still subject to further negotiations between Japan and the Philippines but it is clear that Japanese investors are entitled to sue the Philippine government through investment arbitration tribunals based on rules and standards that is “most conducive to fulfill the objective of the bilateral investment treaty to protect investments and create conditions favorable to investments”. Japanese investors can sue the Philippine government when its present laws have the effect of restricting Japanese investments in the Philippines. Even future legislations by the Philippines may be subjected to future suit should they affect Japanese investments. The enactment of a law allowing farmers' rights, for example, can be the basis of a suit by a Japanese seed company against the Philippine government because the said law jeopardizes its investment and IPR on its seeds that are being re-used and shared by the farming communities.

With the JPEPA, Philippines will confront claims of substantial damages from Japanese investors. The JPEPA does not even recognize the availability of an appellate process for review. In the case of the government of the Czech Republic, it was required by an investment tribunal in Stockholm to pay a foreign company, Central European Media, US$350 million for its violation of a bilateral investment treaty that deprived the company of a stake in an English-language television station in Prague. In the case of Chile which was sued by a Malaysian firm for the government's failure to re-zone a property subject of the Malaysian firm's investment for being contrary to Chile's urban development and environmental policies, the investment tribunal awarded US$5.8 million in favor of the Malaysian firm.

Meanwhile, with possible large investment suits and liabilities, the JPEPA effectively allows Japanese investors to control Philippine national policies. This will entail administrative and legislative costs on the Philippines in acceding its policies and laws to cater to Japanese investments. This is fundamentally an indirect disenfranchisement of the Philippines' sovereignty over its political processes.

JPEPA fails to provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of national biological resources and provisions on access and benefit-sharing.

The JPEPA provides in weak language that Japan and the Philippines must strive to ensure that it does not waive or derogate from its environmental standards. It does not provide or acknowledge other sufficient protections based on internationally recognized standards. The JPEPA also fails to provide additional protection from potential bioprospecting and biopiracy activities by Japanese investors in the Philippines. The loosely-crafted anti-biopiracy law in the Philippines is not sufficient enough as it was not able to prevent U.S. companies to obtain patent over Philippine biological resources like: the Philippine sea snail (conus magus) which the U.S. company Neurex, Inc. had already obtained three patents on; and Ampalaya (memordica charantia) which is now privately-owned by the US National Institute of Health, the US Army and the New York University.

With JPEPA, Japanese companies can all the more utilize biological resources in the Philippines and seek patent protection under an investors' status. Should the government provide additional measures concerning acquisition of rights over Philippine biological resources, Japanese investors may raise complaints under the JPEPA on the basis of the government's acts frustrating Japanese investments. The JPEPA does not recognize the Philippines' sovereignty over its national biological resources. It does not even expressly provide, as an exception, restriction, or additional requirements to its investment provisions, obtaining permissions for any activity to get access to and utilize national biological resources and traditional knowledge, specifying origins of related biological resources and traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing.

A Japanese collector of biological materials investing in research of biological resources, upon obtaining legitimate possession of biological samples under an access permit, can claim protection as an investor with respect to the collected materials. If the government were to request him to return the samples to the Philippines or share benefits with the local communities, claims of violation of investor's rights might arise.

Call not to Ratify but Junk JPEPA

Investment agreements are complex instruments that require assiduous review. With JPEPA, the Philippines must reconsider adopting the agreement as it presents substantial implications on the development of the country concerning the environment, trade, agriculture, and intellectual property, among others. The JPEPA represents a repressive agreement that sacrifices the public interest, the rights of farmers and communities, national biological resources, and the future of Philippine legislation in favor of monopolistic corporate interests of Japanese investors. It represents a policy environment which encourages foreign and corporate interests that do not necessarily aim for the welfare of small farmers, local communities and the national interest.

Moreover, the JPEPA is surrounded by aberrant circumstances which deprive the Filipinos of a meaningful participation, either through public consultation, transparency, access to information, or a meaningful discourse on policies which affect national development.

Rightfully, the JPEPA should not be ratified. The Senate is called to junk the proposed agreement that deprives the Filipino people of their rights and national sovereignty.

TRIPS and the Philippine Experience

2007-04-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

Whose intellectual innovations, whose properties and whose rights?

This year commemorates the 10th year of our country’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is timely that the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) is organizing a series of lectures assessing the impact of the WTO on the Philippines. In the life of a nation, ten years may be too short a span of time to fully comprehend the historical impact of a single event. In the life of an ordinary person, ten years may be too long a time to experience and endure the consequences of any event for that matter.

Since our joining the WTO, there have been a million and one analysis, opinions and critique regarding the impacts and implications of the Treaty on our national life. Most of these however have dwelt upon the more high profile political economic effects of the WTO brought about by trade liberalization and consequent policies of State sector privatization and market deregulation. One less discussed issue however, but which has major implications to all of us here, but especially to Filipino farmers, is the WTO provision on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). TRIPs is the governing provision with regard to IPR issues for all WTO member States. TRIPs itself covers several sectors of the economy, such as industry and manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and living organisms. This paper however will focus on the aspect of TRIPs that deals with IPRs on living organisms, namely Article 27.3(b). The paper will first look at the key elements of said article and then look into its legal translation in the Philippines and compare it with similar legislation adopted by Thailand.

The TRIPs provision

Article 27.3(b) states that:

“Members may also exclude from patentability:

plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system nor by any combination thereof.”

What this essentially means is that a WTO member country may or may not adopt a system of patent for plants and animals, but for plant varieties it is obliged to adopt either a patent system or a sui generis system. Prior to the WTO, hardly any system of IPR laws have been mostly in place in the form of patents or plant breeders rights, or so-called plant variety protection laws.

As early as the 1960’s, developed countries established an international treaty called the Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (UPOV), which harmonized plant variety protection systems in member countries. The UPOV itself has undergone a number of versions, the last of which was adopted in 1991. It is important to note that UPOV had been pushing for its own model as the “effective sui generis system” that can be adopted by developing countries in compliance to Article 27.3(b). However, UPOV has been criticized for being mainly a protection system for plant breeders’ rights that consequently restricted the rights of farmers over the use of seeds. While UPOV may be applicable in industrialized countries with predominantly corporate agriculture, it is not necessarily so in developing dominated by small-holder cultivators who largely depend on farm-saved seeds and traditional modes of seed exchanges.

PVP Act of 2002

Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9168, otherwise known as the Philippine Plant Variety Act (PVPA) on 7 June 2002. The signing of the law did not elicit much public attention but the process on how the law was formulated and its substance became embroiled in some controversy later on. It was learned that one of the key influences in the passage of the law had been a program of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) called Accelerating Growth, Investment and Liberalization with Equity (AGILE). AGILE was aimed at providing ‘technical assistance’ to Philippine departments and agencies in the formulation of policies, especially in line with the thrust of economic liberalization. Through a consultancy firm called Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), AGILE was reportedly involved in the crafting of several policies adopted by the government, the PVP law being one of them. Seeing this as “US meddling in Philippine affairs,” the Senate conducted investigations into AGILE-DAI’s activities in the country. Unfortunately, nothing seemed to have come out of those investigations though and the AGILE issue quietly slipped out of the public mind.

Nevertheless, it is instructive to take note of the US government’s role in the formulation of the country’s PVP law. The US government had never hidden its agenda of pushing for the adoption of higher IPR standards that conformed to its own system. At the beginning of the official negotiations leading to the WTO, the US already formed an Intellectual Property Committee (IPC), composed mainly of big business groups that helped the US to lobby for adoption of higher IPR standards in the treaty. The US had pushed for adoption of patents or at the very least UPOV-modelled system. Thus, in the case of the Philippines, with AGILE’s “technical assistance,” we adopted a PVP law that conformed largely to the UPOV. On the other hand, Thailand, which did not receive the same US assistance, came up with a much different PVP law, as we shall see later.

Moreover, the crafting of the PVP law did not undergo broad consultations with stakeholders that could have brought out the opinions and perspectives of different sectors, especially farmers and civil society groups. Public hearings were indeed conducted but they took place in Metro Manila, and most of the participants came from government agencies, academe and public research institutions, and from the seed industry. There were very few representatives from civil society and farmers’ groups, who later on complained that their recommendations were never taken on board in the final version of the law.

PVPA Salient Features

The PVPA defines breeder as the “person who bred, or discovered and developed a new plant variety.” It is possible to interpret this definition broadly to include farmers who have been breeding, discovering and developing varieties for generations, thus allowing them to likewise apply for plant variety protection under the law. However, a narrower interpretation of the definition will confine the term to institutional and commercial plant breeders who use more scientific methods of breeding, discovering and developing varieties that conform to the standards set by the law. Indeed, if one takes into consideration the other provisions of the law it becomes clear that it is not the “farmer as breeder” that the law has in mind but the institutional and commercial breeders who have the capacity and resources to comply with the stringent requirements and standards of the law.

Overall, we note other features of the law that stack the odds against farmers and restrict their rights to seeds. Among them:

• First to file rule: The law favors the person who is the first to file for a PVP application and places the burden of proof on those who wish to challenge the claim. In this case, farmers would be at a disadvantage when one of their varieties is misappropriated and filed for PVP protection by another person on the basis of having been “discovered” by the latter. As we know, farmers lack access to information with regard to government laws and procedures and simply do not have the resources to assert their claims under the existing legal framework. We all know about cases of so-called biopiracy in which biological resources were claimed, patented and commercialized by the persons or companies to the detriment of source communities and countries. Without any protection for farmers’ varieties, the PVP law makes it possible for farmers’ varieties and genetic resources to be legally mis-appropriated from them.

• Filing and varietal testing requirements: The requirements and standards for filing a PVP application are complicated and tedious enough that no ordinary farmer would contemplate availing of the protection under the law. The filing fees and other expenses to meet the law’s requirements are certainly way beyond what farmers can afford. Only institutions and seed companies have the capacity to do so.

• Essentially derived varieties: The protection provided under the PVPA extends to varieties considered essentially derived form the protected variety. Essentially derived varieties refer to varieties that have been developed from an original material and expresses many of the same traits from the latter. This type of protection in effect discourages further breeding and improvement of varieties, which is a common practice among farmers when they use a new variety. Farmers would either do selection from an existing population or use the variety for breeding in order to develop more adapted varieties. Under the PVPA, this is a prohibited act and criminalizes farmers who do improvement and breeding on protected varieties. So rather than spur innovation and improvement in plant breeding, the PVPA restricts this important aspect of agricultural development, and not only in the case of farmers but also for scientists who may want to create new varieties out of protected varieties but are burdened with the prohibition against essentially derived varieties.

• Restrictions on farmers’ rights to seeds: The PVPA supposedly recognizes the traditional rights of farmers to save, use and exchange seeds. At the same time however, it places several conditions and restrictions on these rights when it comes to protected varieties. In general, the law provides that farmers may save, use, exchange, share and sell seeds of protected conditions only under the following conditions:

a. the sale is not for the purpose of reproduction under a commercial marketing agreement
b. the exchange or sale of seeds among and between farmers is for reproduction and replanting in their own land; and,
c. The sale does not involve the trade name or trademark.

Prior to the PVP, a farmer would not have any problems using a plant variety in whatever way he or she does. With PVP however, the farmer is forced to walk a narrow line between what is allowed and what is prohibited by law, therefore placing a virtual “Damocles sword” over him or her. It is farmers’ practice, and part of his or her means of livelihood, to exchange and sell seeds to other farmers. The PVP however restricts such a practice and therefore potentially deducts from the income generating activities of our already impoverished farmers. More importantly, the law goes against farmers’ rights, which is essentially a recognition of the important historical role of farmers in the conservation and development of plant genetic resources over generations. On the other hand, it protects the rights of plant breeders, who in the first place have made use of farmers’ indigenous varieties for their breeding activities without any restrictions whatsoever from the source communities or farmers. The Philippine law in fact does not provide for any benefit-sharing mechanisms to farmers in cases where a protected variety is derived from materials originating from farmers or local communities.

The Thai PVP Law

In essence, the PVPA is patterned after the UPOV system which protects and strengthens plant breeders’ rights while restricting the traditional rights of farmers to the seeds. How this came about had much to do with the role of USAID-AGILE that greatly influenced the drafting and legislative process contrary to what would have been a genuine sui generis process that considered the realities and conditions of Philippine agriculture especially our farmers. On the other hand, Thailand did not experience the same external intervention and came up with PVP legislation that took into account Thailand’s agricultural conditions and veered away in several aspects from the UPOV model. Among the important differences with our PVP law are the following:

• Protection for locally-developed varieties: The Thai law allows a community to seek protection for varieties that have been conserved or developed exclusively by the said community. The variety also does not have to confirm with the stringent standards set by UPOV for new plant varieties although the guidelines for the criteria have still to be developed. Nevertheless, this is an important provision that recognizes the need to protect local and farmers’ varieties. The Philippine PVP law does not provide for the same kind of protection.

• Benefit sharing: The Thai law provides for benefit sharing in cases where a variety applied for protection for commercial purposes is derived from local varieties. The benefit sharing agreement will be entered into by the breeder and the community from which the protected variety is sourced from. The Philippine law does not have that mechanism, which makes it possible for plant breeders to exploit the genetic resources of local communities without the need to share the benefits derived from commercialization.

• Scope of plant varieties: The Thai law provides that the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives can designate any particular type of plant as a new plant to which protection if to be afforded. Thus, Thailand opted not to automatically provide protection for all plant species except those designated by government from time to time as eligible for protection. This approach to protection of plant varieties is a far better option as it allows authorities to designate only those species that need to be protected taking into consideration the priorities and needs of the country. No such provision is in the Philippines thus placing all plant species, including seaweeds, as subject to PVP coverage. We do not have the flexibility of exempting certain plant species from PVP protection even when the national interest dictates so.

Clearly, Thailand went through a different process of crafting and passing its PVP legislation where there was broader participation of different stakeholders and without foreign policy interference as in the case of the Philippines. Although the Thai law leaves much to be desired in terms of recognizing and protecting farmers’ rights, it offers much greater flexibility and is more attuned to their domestic agricultural realities than the Philippine PVP law. It is much more sui generis than our own law can claim to be, which is essentially patterned after the UPOV upon the “technical assistance” of USAID-AGILE. We may add as well that India was able to pass an IRR law that explicitly provides for protection of farmers’ rights and varieties, something that the Philippine law falls tragically short of.

Conclusions

The Philippines had the opportunity to craft an independent and truly sui generis IPR system that would have recognized Philippine agricultural realities and provided adequate protection for small farmers, who remain the mass base of our agriculture. When we adopted the UPOV model of protection instead, we therefore lost that historic opportunity and placed our farmers under the threat of criminalization for exercising their traditional rights. Right now, there are more than 30 plant varieties that are being applied for PVP protection, including shallots (sibuyas), eggplant (talong), watermelon, coconut (niyog), yardlong bean (sitaw), tomatoes (kamatis), corn (mais), rice (palay), among others. Most of these applications have been filed by seed companies, and we expect more PVP applications to be made in the future. The consequences of these applications would be to establish monopoly control by plant breeders and companies over these plant varieties, restrict farmers’ use and control over seeds as basic means of production, and adversely affect household and domestic food production and security.

A growing concern right now as well, not only in the Philippines, but in other developing countries is that into IPRs are not only obligated by the WTO but are also being pushed and incorporated into bilateral trade agreements with developed countries, with industrial countries, such as the US, lobbying for higher standards of IPR protection, developing countries entering into these BTAs might end up enacting even more stringent IPR laws, such as patents, on top of or in addition to their PVP laws. The Philippines is right now negotiating a BTA with Japan and plans to enter into one with the US soon. We need to be vigilant and look into the IPR provisions of these agreements to make sure that they do not further endanger our domestic agricultural interests and the rights and livelihoods of our farmers.

What then are the options for our country’s farmers? For us and for our farmer-partners, the PVP and IPRs are definitely not an option, but a threat to their rights and livelihood. For farmers, it is now a matter of exercising and asserting their rights despite the PVP law. On the other hand, a number of farming communities are exploring local models of recognizing and protecting their rights to seeds and their plant varieties, using the power of local governments and the protection afforded by the principle of “prior art,” that is by declaring their plant genetic resources in the public domain. Different models of public declaration or protection of genetic resources are being developed by farmers and supporting legislative measures are being worked out and lobbied with local governments.

There is in fact a pro vision in the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) that mandates Congress to enact a community intellectual rights protection act meant to recognize and protect community and indigenous innovations and knowledge, including over biological resources. However, such a law has yet to be enacted although proposed bills had been submitted in the previous Congress. If government is seriously looking at the interests of our local farmers, and not only the breeders and seed companies, this is an avenue worth pursuing and farmers’ groups and civil society organizations might be wiling to invest their time and resources in a process that in the end will provide a means to recognize and protect their long-held rights, traditions and practices.