GMW: ARTICLE OF THE WEEK - Whither Biosafety?

[Guest guest]

GMW: ARTICLE OF THE WEEK - Whither Biosafety?

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:23:42 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

 

Takes in what's happening in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

 

Biosafety legislation processes are all-too-easily being co-opted into

tools for a GM industry hell-bent on imposing GMOs. These processes

generally happen behind closed doors, far from grassroots realities, when

they need to come down to the fields and the streets, where the issues

matter most. Real biosafety will not happen until this situation is

reversed.

---

AGAINST THE GRAIN

Whither Biosafety?

 

In these days of Monsanto Laws, hope for real biosafety lies at the

grassroots

 

GRAIN, October 2005

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=9

 

When the Cartagena Protocol was signed into being on 29 th January

2000, it was widely hailed as a victory for those wanting to keep GMOs in

check. There were limitations and gaps to fill, but it was generally

agreed that the Protocol put future biosafety work on the proper

footing -

enshrining the precautionary principle, recognising the importance of

socio-economic considerations and public consultations and leaving the

door open for countries to pursue more stringent regulations than the

minimum laid out in the Protocol. Nothing spectacular, but at least a

minimum floor from which to build.

 

Five years later, much of this multilateral process is being blocked.

The latest round of negotiations was derailed by just a couple of

countries acting at the behest of the GM industry and all signs point

to this

type of tactic intensifying. There is thus limited potential for future

progress in the negotiations. But what is far worse in our minds is

that the Protocol is not generating the anticipated effective legislation

at the national level. In country after country, we see laws and

policies being put in place to facilitate the entry of GM crops, even as

governments proclaim their concern for biosafety and adherence to the

Protocol. People in Latin America call these laws " Monsanto Laws " .

 

The bottom line for GRAIN and our partners throughout the world is that

GM crops are completely incompatible with the principles of food

sovereignty[1]. GM crops are corporate high-tech, patented creations that

cannot be integrated into locally based and farmer-led agricultural

systems without harming them. In effect, GM crops are a fundamental

threat to

such systems. GM crops pose inherent risks - health risks,

environmental risks, socioeconomic risks, and cultural risks. We

haven't seen a

single GM crop in the market or in the research pipeline that could

justify such risks, particularly for poor countries with large

agricultural

populations. In this context, a truly effective biosafety regime would

keep GM crops out. You can't have it both ways: if GM crops are in, then

biosafety is out. The problem is that governments - under increasing

pressure from an aggressive GM lobby - are more often doing the reverse:

using biosafety legislation to sanctify bringing GM crops in.

 

In Africa

 

The African Group of countries was the driving force for a strong

Biosafety Protocol and the African Union's Model Law of 1999 was the

first

to set out a framework for national biosafety laws steeped in realities

not the hype and promises of the GM industry. But Africa has since

become a target of a GM lobby desperate to open new markets and

enhance its

public relations. The solidarity and good intentions among African

governments are under siege.

 

While several year ago there was a common understanding across Africa's

institutions and governments that GM is a tricky technology that one

has to be careful with, today, some governments, such as those of Kenya,

Burkina Faso, Tanzania, and Uganda are vying to make their countries

the African showcases for the GM industry. This change is largely the

result of relentless lobby efforts by the GM industry and aid agencies

such as USAID[2].

 

Backed up with unlimited amounts of money and generous support to

whatever GM research projects national scientists might fancy, these

efforts

seem to be paying off. A number of African governments view biosafety

legislation as a means to build up local GM research capacity for their

scientists, who are otherwise starved for funding. Burkina Faso was so

eager to join up with Monsanto in bringing in Bt cotton that it started

field trials before its national biosafety committee had the chance to

draw-up a policy. Biosafety regulations were then issued by Ministerial

Decree, without public input. Not surprisingly, the preamble to the

Decree reads like a page out of a Monsanto pamphlet and the regulations

are empty when it comes to traceability, public participation,

transparency, and liability but loaded with detail when it comes to

how GM

companies must hire and compensate Burkina scientists - the very

scientists

in charge of approvals! Tanzania and Kenya, which are key targets of

USAID's GM programmes, are also trampling biosafety in the interests of

" research " projects.[3]

 

All of these countries claim to be acting in accordance with the

Biosafety Protocol and most have been a part of the Protocol's

capacity-building process co-ordinated by UNEP-GEF- a process that has

utterly failed

to support the development of any real biosafety capacity in Africa.

Many of the UNEP-GEF " experts " serve as apologists for the GM industry,

providing incorrect advice and sanctifying governments that give free

reign to GMOs while barely upholding the minimal requirements of the

Biosafety Protocol. Lesotho is just one example where UNEP-GEF has helped

turn a decent biosafety process into a simplified administrative

structure for rubber-stamping GMO releases.[4]

 

There are African countries where the biosafety legislation processes

have not yet been hijacked by the GM lobby. Zambia has courageously

withstood the massive outside pressure on it to accept GM food aid.

Mali's

national biosafety framework and draft biosafety bill are the complete

opposite of Burkina Faso's - it's next-door neighbour. The Malian Bill

is one of the few in Africa inspired directly by the AU Model Law and

it is tough on labelling, liability and public participation. Indeed,

within the West African sub-region, as in other sub-regions of Africa,

the picture of national biosafety regimes is quite mixed: Togo's

biosafety framework leans towards precaution and pays particular

attention to

socioeconomic risks; Ghana 's framework is decidedly pro-GM; Benin has a

5-year moratorium on GM crops. But what matters is not the law but the

political will. Benin's government has done nothing to enforce the

moratorium, and is even covertly working with USAID towards the

introduction of Bt cotton. Mali has a strong framework on paper, but

the country

just joined the rest of the ECOWAS[5] countries in announcing its

support for GM agriculture and in committing to establish a harmonised,

regional regulatory system for GMOs within 5 years. In this, West

Africa is

not alone. Harmonisation programmes designed to create regional

one-stop markets for the GM industry are underway throughout Africa -

funded

and directed by USAID[6]. In South Africa, one of the only African

countries with a biosafety law in place, the laws do contain decent

provisions concerning access to information and the right to appeal, but

government and industry have colluded to effectively block people's

efforts

to exercise these rights.[7]

 

In Asia

 

Efforts towards meaningful biosafety legislation have been pretty much

non-existent with the initial experiences of GM crops in Asia. In 2001,

Indonesia became the first country in SE Asia to allow the commercial

production of a GM crop, with the release of Monsanto's Bt cotton.

Monsanto tried to bribe officials to circumvent the required

environmental

impact study, and, after two years of successive crop failures,

Indonesian farmers, without recourse to compensation under the laws,

chased the

company out. This didn't stop the government from approving limited

releases of Bt cotton in other districts. Bt cotton was also

commercialised in China with effectively zero oversight - not even the

typical plan

for insect resistance management that you see in other big GM cotton

producing countries. In the Philippines, there's a National Biosafety

Framework and a National Biosafety Committee's been in operation since

1990, but, in practice, biosafety 's not taken seriously. Monsanto's Bt

maize was approved three years ago and the Department of Agriculture has

yet to undertake any post-release monitoring. Instead, plans are

underway to bring more GM varieties into the Philippines, with one

official

admitting under cover of anonymity that a Syngenta variety of Bt maize

has already been approved for sale and planting.[8]

 

As in Africa, there's a big gap between what Asian governments say

about biosafety and what they do. While the Chinese government announced

its decision to ratify the Biosafety Protocol to the world, at home it

was instituting a blackout on reports of the illegal release of GM rice

from its own research stations.[9]

 

The Indian government's desire to be a leading GM nation also drowns

out biosafety issues. Despite widespread public opposition to GM crops,

its new National Biotechnology Strategy makes no mention of company

liability or contamination and lays out a 10-year roadmap for the

widespread introduction of GM crops. Civil society groups are now

challenging

the Strategy at the Supreme Court.[10]

 

Malaysia's draft biosafety bill, on the other hand, set out ambitious

provisions on liability and redress, but it 's hard to imagine that this

will be maintained or enforced in a country where the government runs

its own Malaysian Biotechnology Corporation.

 

The general picture in Asia is one of external pressure and government

acquiescence met by strong popular opposition to GM agriculture. In

Thailand, for example, where popular vigilance of and protest over

contamination from field trials of GM crops pushed the government into

adopting a moratorium, the government's shown its willingness to

abandon the

moratorium under any pretext that arises. When the US signalled that

lifting the moratorium was a pre-condition for US-Thai free trade

agreement negotiations, Prime Minister Thaksin immediately complied.

Popular

protest forced him to retreat, but a new government report, issued by its

National Biotechnology Policy Committee, gives the green light for

co-existence with GM agriculture, a move deeply at odds with popular

sentiment.

 

In Latin America

 

The Mexican Senate turned a deaf ear to the widespread opposition from

academics, farmers and ecologists and passed a biosafety and GMOs law

on February 15th, 2005. Dubbed the " Monsanto Law " by civil society, it

is weak in many areas, from its deficient labelling regulations to its

lack of an effective regime for liability and redress. The law

essentially makes it easy for industry to get approval for its GM

crops. But

there is intense opposition to GM crops in Mexico, especially since it

was

discovered that traditional varieties in the centre of origin of maize

were contaminated by GM varieties. Authorities have known about the

contamination since 2001 but have yet to take any action. This new law

essentially legalizes such contamination and validates the current state

of impunity.

 

Meanwhile in Brazil, another " Monsanto Law " was passed on March 2nd.

The law was so bad that even the Ministry of the Environment came out to

publicly denounce it. In a communique[11], the Minister said that he

" considers it is his obligation to show civil society the potential

environmental risks that will result from the approved bill " . The law's

purpose was to legalize the rampant illegal cultivation of Monsanto's RR

soy, which has been going on in Brazil's major soy producing regions for

some time now with Monsanto's tacit consent. Similar processes to

impose " Monsanto Laws " are in the works for other countries in Latin

America, where illegal cultivation of GM crops and GM contamination is

also

widespread.

 

This push for GM is being met by stiff resistance. In Costa Rica, for

example, a wide coalition of groups stormed an August 2004 UNEP-GEF

biosafety workshop to issue a statement[12] demanding " a permanent

moratorium on the sowing and release of GMOs in Costa Rica " [and] the

constitution of a real biosafety framework, which recognises that

biosafety is a

synonymous with the elimination of factors that may be a risk for

biological and cultural diversity. "

 

Resistance to Roundup from the ground up

 

Across the world, what we see in most countries is that the political

processes surrounding biosafety laws and policies are disconnected from

the populations they are supposed to serve. You get a small group of

local elites sitting around the decision-making table with technocrats

from USAID, FAO and UNEP-GEF whispering in their ears. The GM industry is

of course there with suitcases of money, while small farmers are

completely marginalised from the process.

 

Yet if many of the governmental biosafety processes are doom and gloom

these days, the larger picture is more positive. There is plenty of

reason for optimism at the grassroots. Not only is resistance to GM

increasing, but social movements are becoming more sophisticated in their

efforts. Where national governments refuse to listen, people are

localizing their struggles where they can exert more democratic

control, such as

GM-free zones. Communities are also taking " risk assessment " into their

own hands, conducting research, organising peoples' tribunals, and

challenging the " experts " . Had it not been for the documentation of the

failure of Bt cotton in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh by grassroots

organisations, the state authorities would never have withdrawn the

approval for Monsanto's Bt cotton varieties.

 

The broad-based concerns with GM crops are giving rise to new

alliances, and an engagement that challenges the very power structures

that are

at the root of the problems with biosafety laws. Witness the recent

People's Forum in Fana, Mali where peasants joined activists from all

sectors in denouncing moves to privatise the national cotton company

and to

bring in GM cotton, two developments that the participants see as

inextricably linked. And, where GM contamination has already occurred,

communities are now looking at decontamination strategies that will make

their local agricultural systems even stronger than before, particularly

in Mexico where indigenous communities are defining their own methods of

dealing with the contamination of their sacred maize.

 

Biosafety legislation processes are all-too-easily being co-opted into

tools for a GM industry hell-bent on imposing its GM crops on the

planet. The fundamental problem here is that these processes generally

happen behind closed doors, far from grassroots realities, when they

need to

come down to the fields and the streets, where the issues matter most.

Real biosafety will not happen until this situation is reversed.

 

References

 

[1] GRAIN, 2005, Food Sovereignty: turning the global food system

upside down, Seedling, April 2005, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=329

 

[2] For further background on how industry and USAID are pushing GM

crops into the Third World,

see: USAID: Making the world hungry for GM crops, GRAIN April 2005,

http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191

 

[3] Mariam Mayet, " Comments on the National Biosafety Guidelines For

Tanzania, Third Draft, June 2004 " , African Centre for Biosafety, March

2005: http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/tanzania.htm and Mariam Mayet,

" Comments on the Kenyan Biosafety Bill, " African Centre for Biosafety,

March

2004:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/kenya.htm

 

[4] Mariam Mayet, " Comments on Lesotho 's Biosafety Bill, " African

Centre for Biosafety, June 2005:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/lesotho.htm

 

[5] Economic Community of West African States, member countries:

B*©nin, Burkina Faso, Cap Vert The Gambia, Ghana, Guin*©e, Guin*©e

Buissau,

Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, S*©n*©gal, Sierra Leone, Togo.

 

[6] GRAIN, 2005, USAID: Making the world hungry for GM crops, GRAIN

Briefing, April 2005, http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191

 

[7] See the Biowatch website for more information: www.biowatch.org.za

 

[8] " Philippines clears planting of second biotech corn " by Dolly

Aglay, Reuters News, May 11, 2005,

http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem & id=6504

 

[9] Xun Zi, " GM rice forges ahead in China amid concerns over illegal

planting, " Nature Biotechnology 23: 637, 5 Jun 2005:

http://www.nature.com/nbt/ journal/v23/n6/full/nbt0605-637.html

 

[10] Aruna Rodrigues & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition

(Civil) 260 of 2005

 

[11] AFP, 2005, Legalizan en Brasil el cultivo y comercializaci**n de

OGM, 7 March 2005,

http://biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/14811

 

[12] Manifiesto por una Costa Rica libre de cultivos transg*©nicos, 17

August 2005 -

http://biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/9713

 

 

-------------------------