WHO should control the samples of
germplasms that originated in the
forests and wildlands of the developing
countries, but are now preserved in the
laboratories and seed banks of the
industrialised nations? Who owns these
precious plant genetic resources (PGR),
that are vital for ensuring the planet's
future food security? The Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), a body
of the uN, is all set to tackle these highly
sensitive issues in a series of meetings
throughout 1996. And if the first round
- which took place in Rome from April
22-27 - is any indication of things to
come, then the FAo bosses have an uphill
task ahead.
The process seems confusing, what
with myriad institutions (with their
maze of acronyms confounding things
further) involved in coming to some
resolution of the thorny issues. The
April meeting was the Second
Extraordinary Session of the FAO
Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture, a run-up to the
mega-event - the International
Technical Conference on PGR - Coming
up in June in Leipzig, Germany.
In Rome, delegates from the 143
member states Of FAo had met to fine-comb through the first draft of the
Global Plan of Action (GPA) for the
Conservation and Sustainable
Utilisation Of PGR. The same group is
supposed to jointly take an oath to
implement this Plan in Leipzig. But
what emerged after the tumultuous
week-long deliberations was a heavily
bracketed document, each bracket
highlighting key issues that remained
unresolved.
FAo had first conceived of the GPA in
1993. In a bid to drive home to the
policymakers worldwide the importance of conserving and nurturing
resources, it had decided to draw up
a 'costed' plan, based on a Report on
the State of the World's PGR. The end
result of this gargantuan exercise,
which had involved national governments and a series of country-driven programmes, is a 5,000-page
document. "It includes 150 country
reports and the results of 11 regional
and sub-regional meetings," said Cary
Fowler, project manager of the preparatory process of the Leipzig conference,
while presenting the report in Rome.
The South hits back
But the representatives of the developing world were hardly impressed. They
virtually tore apart the document. "It
suffers from serious gaps and limitations," remarked K P S Chandel, director, National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Resources and India's man in Rome. "It
fails to provide critical information on
the extent of genetic diversity and its
present status, including wild relatives
and wild species with potential value,"
Chandel retorted.
The GPA got the lion's share of brickbats. But that was more or less expected,
as the mainstern of the GPA were two of
the prickliest of issues in the arena of
global environmental negotiations: ex
situ and in situ conservation. Ex situ is
conservation of genetic resources
outside their natural habitat, preserved
in artificial collections; in situ means
the conservation of ecosystems and
natural habitats and the maintenance
of viable species in their natural surroundings. These are the split-lines of
the North-South divide.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Canada-based NGO,
Rural Advancement Foundation International, the South controls over 83 per
cent of the in situ resources and technology which encompasses traditional
knowledge systems of indigenous peoples, while the North controls over 75
per cent share of the ex situ resources.
The South's persistent grouse has
been that Northern dominance over ex
situ treasures is not merely due to more
careful cataloguing of natural resources
or availability of advanced technology,
but because of what took place through
the years before the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) came into
force. The CBD recognised for the first
time the sovereign rights ofthe individual state over its genetic resources and
ruled that the permission of the 'country of origin' had to be obtained if anyone wanted to access these resources. It
also laid down that there must be fair
and equitable sharing of benefits arising
out of the commercialisation resources.
Prior to this, natural resources were
considered to be the 'common heritage'
of humankind. International agencies
like the Consultative Group Of
International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) collected precious germplasms
from the resource-rich Southern world
and stored them in research centres and
gene banks located mainly in the North.
But the advent of the CBD has given rise
to the tricky question regarding the
future disposition of these germplasm
accessions. The moot question is, how
should the people of the South -
11 where it all came from" (the
germplasm and the knowledge of their
usage) be compensated for.
The GPA tries to tackle with this sensitive issue. But the delegates of the
developing world are sceptical. "It (GPA)
fails to recognise the contributions of
farming communities and the issue of
equitable sharing of benefits altogether," exclaims Chandel. He is convinced
that India can endorse the document
only after FAo does some serious
rethinking on this component. His
views were shared by many of his colleagues from other developing countries
who are part of the G-77 forum.
They claimed that Northern governments are reluctant to accept what the
CBD has set in place. Their misgivings
were strengthened by the us delegates'
repeated calls to remove any direct reference to the CBD in the text of the GPA.
The fact that not a single representative
of the CBD secretariat was present during
this week-long FAO meeting, also added
fuel to the speculation that all was not
well between the two organisations.
However, the G-77 countries were
divided on the conservation strategies
chalked out in the GPA. Some felt that
FAo had over-emphasised the CGIAR networks, rather than supporting national
ex situ programmes, when there was a
clear necessity to maintain their national gene banks for their own food security. Chandel is even sceptical about the
Plan's inclination to "over- emphasise"
the importance of in situ conservation
so far as the developing nations are concerned. He believes that to facilitate any
constructive conservatiop programme,
higher priority must be given to ex situ
management. This is especially relevant
in the sphere of agro - bio diversity. "In
situ strategy is effective in the context of
wild relatives or wild species", Chandel
maintains.
He is also deeply disturbed by the
manner in which the preliminary cost
estimates have been drawn up in the
GPA. A sun of us $6.3 million has been
allotted for 'supporting
on-farm management and
improvement of Plant
genetic resources'. "It is
the largest amount
assigned to one particular
item in the section of In
situ conservation priority
activity", he informs. This
has been deliberately done
by certain international
agencies, which act as
intermediary bodies disbursing funds. "Their only
purpose is to gain control
over the money, as they,
too, survive on such funds
provided by the donor governments,"
claims Chandel.
Bitter battles
While wranglings over the issue of conservation strategies and compensation
procedures were expected, what came as
a rude shock to G-77 countries was the
attempt made by some of the European
Union and OECD nations like France,
Italy, Germany and Canada, to push
forests and forest genetic resources
within the purview of the GPA. They saw
it as a blatant move to gain free access
over the tropical forests of the South by
letting the CGIAR-run research teams
loose on them in the guise of conducting conservation programmes. "The
Commission has no mandate to include
forests in the GPA. Besides, the
Commission should not pre-judge the
outcome ofthe critical process already
underway in that area, which is the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development's Intergovernmental Panel on
Forests," was the firm stand taken by the
Venezuelan delegate who headed the G-77 block in this session.
This did not deter the pro-forest
group to push forward its stand. It
would be extremely shortsighted to
exclude forests from the GPA, argued
Finland and France. But the G-77 stood
its ground. When the pressure mounted, Malaysia proposed thai the Leipzig
Conference should be postponed, so
that this "new dimension" can be discussed in detail. Finally, the European
Union gave in, but on the condition that
the commission would take up the issue
as a matter of priority after the leipzig
conference.
Although the matter was temporarily settled, it certainly left a lingering bitter taste. Many veteran
policy analysts in the
Southern bloc are convinced that the industrialised nations deliberately
flung this issue on the
negotiation table to divert
the attention of the representatives of the developing world from the more
controversial items in the
agenda like management
of resources and funding.
Of course, funding was
the most hotly-debated
topic in the meeting. The
G-77 proposed that a contact group should be set up to look into
financing and the follow-up of the GPA.
The prospective donors, led by the us,
contended that the discussion on financing would depend on concrete proposals
for action. But they were clearly reluctant to take on any new financial burdens, and as the GPA deliberations progressed, any language suggesting the creation of new funds, inevitably wound up
in brackets - a label branding them as
"unresolved" -But member countries
have more hectic preparations to make
till the curtain rises again on June 17 -
this time in Leipzig.
