skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Showing posts with label
2nd Session of the Governing Body.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
2nd Session of the Governing Body.
Show all posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
