GMW: The World Bank Against Bio-security

[Guest guest]

GMW: The World Bank Against Bio-security

" GM WATCH " <info

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:23:59 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

EXCERPT: In Latin America's case, they seek to " train " the governments

of Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Costa Rica to manage GM

contamination resulting from the introduction of GM maize, potato,

yuca, rice

and cotton and on the other hand to manage public opinion critical of GM

techonology by means of cost-benefit analysis and standardization of

what they call " adequate " scientific means of contamination management.

In no part of the project do they allow that the best biosecurity to

prevent contamination is not to allow GM crops at all, as millions of

rural workers, indigenous people, environmentalists, consumers and

responsible scientists demand in their countries.

---

The World Bank Against Bio-security

by Silvia Ribeiro

Argenpress, July 23, 2006

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13 & ItemID=10624

 

The fundamental role of the World Bank is not to act as a financial

institution but to frame countries' policies so as to prepare the way for

private corporations to act later on in those countries with legal

guarantees. They do this with a mixture of theoretically " soft " loans

(conditioned in every way and which in order to be repaid bleed the

debtor

countries dry) a percentage of ordinary loans and another part in loans

ultimately likely to be written off.

 

These last, which seem like donations, are in reality the most costly

because it is these that set up the advance of multinational companies

in areas where they could not enter by other means, or at least where to

do so would have turned out much more costly in terms of money and

goodwill. A typical example of this latter form of behaviour are the

projects funded by the World Bank for the Global Environment Fund.

This is

administered by the Bank together with the environmental and development

programs of the United Nations (UN Development Program and the UN

Environmental Program)

 

Within the GEF's Biodiversity policy for example one finds the

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and other examples of the

legtimization of the

industrial use of biodiversity, justification of biopiracy and

displacement in the name of " conservation " of rural working families and

indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories and likewise the

sale of

communal forestry management systems, so they become part of the

" environmental services market " . The promotion and justification of

genetically modified organisms via misnamed biosecurity projects fits

inevitably

into this context.

 

The Global Environmental Fund has already taken a hail of criticism on

this matter in recent years, with the GEF/UNEP biosecurity projects

that have been strongly criticised by civil society organization in

practically all the countries where they have worked in Latin America,

Africa

and Asia. The common denominator has been that these projects, under

cover of training and " multi-sector " dialogue programs, in reality paved

the way for biosecurity norms that favour the global interests of the

handful of multinational GM businesses.

 

In a new challenge for the GEF, two multi-million projects are now

under consideration for approval in Africa and Latin America whose main

aims are to legitimize the introduction of GM crops in the centres of

origin of crops that have special importance for the rural working family

economies of mega-diverse countries.

 

In Latin America's case, they seek to " train " the governments of

Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Costa Rica to manage GM contamination

resulting from the introduction of GM maize, potato, yuca, rice and

cotton

and on the other hand to manage public opinion critical of GM

techonology by means of cost-benefit analysis and standardization of

what they

call " adequate " scientific means of contamination management. In no part

of the project do they allow that the best biosecurity to prevent

contamination is not to allow GM crops at all, as millions of rural

workers,

indigenous people, environmentalists, consumers and responsible

scientists demand in their countries. On the contrary, the basic

assumption is

that GM organisms either are already introduced or inevitably will be.

With the blatant further difficulty that four of the crops we are

discussing originated in the countries involved, where they are the

product

of thousands of years of rural families' work on their adaptation.

Rice, although it originates from Asia has also been adopted by rural

working families of the region, for whom, together with the other

crops in

question, it forms the basis of their economies, cultures and forms of

life.

 

The project would be coordinated by the International Centre of

Tropical Agriculture ( one of the 18 international public centres of the

CGIAR(1) system which according to its mission ought to work in

support of

rural working family agriculture, not sabotage it ) together with the

countries' governmental institutions, universities and private

institutes. The advisers include institutions supported by the very

multinational

businesses who are the main beneficiaries of the project.

 

In Mexico's case the partners are the National Biodiversity Commission,

Sagarpa(2) and Cibiogem(3). MarA­a Francisca Acevedo and Amanda GA¡lvez

are the contacts. The project was sent for " expert " review to Ariel

Morales of Cinvestav (4). In the notes he sent to the GEF, he says for

example, " I don't agree that crops modified by modern biotechnology are

the most important in the medium term. They are important right now! The

challenges in the short and medium term are GM plants to produce GM

pharmaceuticals, fish and arthropods. That's why I see the need to

include

these areas in the proposed program. "

 

In other words, it is not sufficient for Mexico to already be a guinea

pig for multinationals through the contamination of native maize, it

also has to be a pioneer in other devastating forms of contamination.

 

The project presented to the GEF does not include Alvarez' proposals,

for now. But without any doubt, it puts clearly his real intention : to

give multinational businesses time while they prepare their arguments

to justify new generations of GM organisms.

 

Civil society is vigilant and a wide campaign has already begun in both

continents to stop these projects with a first denunciatory report

prepared by the African Centre for Biosecurity, Grain(5), Grupo ETC

(6) and

the Network for a Transgenics Free America (7). More information can be

obtained from these organizations.

 

Translated from Spanish into English by toni solo, a member of Tlaxcala

(www.tlaxcala.es), the network of translators for linguistic diversity.

This translation is Copyleft.

 

Translator's notes

1. CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

www.cgiar.org

2. Sagarpa - Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural,

Pesca y Alimentacion. www.sagarpa.gob.mx

3. Cibiogem - Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad y Organismos

Genéticamente Modificados. www.cibiogem.gob.mx

4. Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (Centre for

Research and Advanced Studies). www.cinvestav.mx

5. www.grain.org

6. www.etcgroup.org

7. (RALLT) www.rallt.org

 

 

 

 

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