Tag Archives: Biodiversity

Robustness and Strategies of Adaptation among Farmer Varieties of African Rice (Oryza glaberrima) and Asian Rice (Oryza sativa) across West Africa

Posted on by
Reply

“New research from West Africa challenges the widely held view that African and Asian ‘farmer ’ varieties have only local value owing to their poor ability to adapt to adverse environmental conditions.

Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and AfricaRice in Benin studied 26 varieties of rice developed and cultivated locallyby farmers in five West African countries between 2006 and 2012. They were varieties of both African rice (Oryza glaberrima) and Asian rice (Oryza sativa). Their findings suggest that farmer rice varieties can grow without fertilisers, require no special maintenance and can develop ways of coping with stress. This makes them highly adaptable to a wide range of environments.”

For the full article, see http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034801

SUSTAINABLE DIETS AND BIODIVERSITY

Posted on by
Reply

http://www..org/docrep/016/i3004e/i3004e.pdf

The book presents the current state of thought on the common path of sustainable diets and . The articles contained herein were presented at the International Scientific Symposium “ and Sustainable Diets: United Against Hunger” organized jointly by FAO and International, held at FAO, in Rome, from 3 to 5 November 2010. The Symposium was part of the
official World Food Day/Week programme, and include done of the many activities in celebration of International Year of Biodiversity, 2010. The Symposium addressed the linkages among agriculture, biodiversity, nutrition, food production, food consumption and the environment.
The Symposium served as a platform for reaching a consensus definition of “sustainable diets” and to further develop this concept with food and nutrition security, and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, as objectives. In the early 1980s, the notion of “sustainable diets”was proposes, with dietary recommendations whichwould result in healthier environments as well as healthier consumers. But with the over-riding goal of feeding a hungry world, little attention was paid tothe sustainability of agro–ecological zones, the sustainable diets’ concept was neglected for many years.
Regardless of the many successes of agriculture during the last three decades, it is clear that food systems, and diets, are not sustainable. FAO data show that one billion people suffer from hunger,while even more people are overweight or obese. In both groups, there is a high prevalence of micronutrient malnutrition. In spite of many efforts, the nutrition problems of the world are escalating. Improving nutrition through better balanced nutritious diets can also reduce the ecological impact of  dietary choices. Therefore, a shift to more sustainable diets would trigger upstream effects on the food production (e.g. diversification), processing chain and food consumption.

With growing academic recognition of environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, as well as a dramatically increasing body of evidence of the unsustainable nature of agriculture as it is currently practiced in many parts of the world, renewed attention
has been directed to sustainability in all its forms, including diets. Therefore, the international community acknowledged that a definition, and a set of guiding principles for sustainable diets, was urgently needed to address food and nutrition security
as well as sustainability along the whole food chain A working group was convened as part of the Symposium and a definition was debated, built upon previous efforts of governments (e.g., the Sustainability Commission of the UK), UN agencies (FAO/Bioversity Technical Workshop and Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets), and others. The definition was presented in a plenary session of the
Symposium and accepted by the participants, as follows: Sustainable Diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective
and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources. The agreed definition acknowledged the interdependencies of food production and consumption with food requirements and nutrient recommendations, and at the same time, reaffirmed the notion that the health of humans cannot be isolated from the health of ecosystems.

 

Zaheerabad to be recognised as biodiversity heritage site soon

Posted on by
Reply

Elated:Women taking part in mobile biodiversity festival at Ippapally village in Zaheerabad mandal in Medak district.- PHOTO: MOHD ARIF

The crop fields of the women of Deccan Development Society (), an NGO working for the last 25 years in Medak district, would be soon recognised as heritage sites by the Government of India.

This was announced by Dr. P. Balakrishna, chairman, National Biodiversity Authority (NBD), after formally launching 14th mobile biodiversity festival at Ippapally village in mandal of Medak district on Monday. This would be the first such heritage site in India. The site would cover about 50 villages spread across three mandals in Medak district. He also said that to recognise this area as a biodiversity heritage site would be a matter of pride.

He has also full of praise for the uniqueness of the localised Public Distribution System (PDS) based on jowar pioneered by DDS for the last 15 years. This model of the PDS, which was a by-product of the rich biodiversity being practiced by the farmers of the DDS, would be propagated by the NBA all over the world as one of the best practices based on biodiversity, he added. Dr. Balakrishna explained that the Government of India was about to announce a new policy wherein about 5 per cent of all productivity in agriculture would be based on the biodiversity.

Dr. Hampaiah, chairman, AP State Biodiversity Board, said that the efforts made by the Sangham women were being recognised by the Board. The festival would be held for one month.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/zaheerabad-tobe-recognisedas-biodiversity-heritage-site-soon/article4311099.ece

Reviving the lost legacy

Posted on by
Reply

 

is life for thousands of people. At a time when the country debates a second green revolution in the eastern states, here is a story of a farmer, Khan, who is shrugging off modern hybrid rice seeds to return to more nutritious and health traditional rice seed.

The lane to Bada Bagh is muddy, accost by trees. The whole farm is hidden with shrubs, trees, sugarcane, so you donot realize that lies ahead. Bada Bagh orchard, managed by Syed Ghani Khan’s family at Kirugavulu in Malavalli taluk of Mandya district is very popular among the city dwellers for its flavoured mangoes from the trees that have a legacy of 250 years, but now the bagh is popular for a different reason. Bada Bagh was a gift received by Syed Ghani Khan from Tipu Sultan himself. Four generations later, the farm is now with Ghani Khan, a young and energetic farmer, who has completely changed the outlook of the ancient farm by combining the mango crop with , all of 567rice strains of different combinations are grown here.  Bada Bagh is now an essential museum of traditional rice strains is drawing in farmers from far and near.

Old aid

Ghani the eldest among the four sons says that it is the quest for alternative seeds and farming practices that brought the family together. The once separated brothers are back and they owe much to the traditional rice strains. Ghani just like many young farmers operated the farm adopting all modern agricultural practices.  Though initially all was well, very soon he witnessed deterioration of his fertile farm. With the help of a fellow farmer he began to discover alternate methods to rejuvenate the soil. His experimenting started in 2000 by trial and error method using only organic compost.  The hybrid rice, the IR series of rice varieties did not respond well to organic compost, so he had to find a rice variety that would suit the traditional cultivation methods. With the Kaveri river flowing through the district, there was wide spread hybrid cultivation and the region had lost almost all the traditional rice diversity that existed.

The region had very distinct drought resistant rice varieties like raja bhog batha, coimbatur sanna, kadi batha, bangaru sanna, bangaru kaddi and doddibatha, as there was no water in these villages before the ‘Kannambadi’ dam was built. Ghani says while hybrids have outstanding qualities, the ability to reproduce themselves is clearly not one of them. You may expect a good yield from hybrids with a sufficient input, but the main drawback is the you cannot save seed, as they may not even germinate, since it may be sterile. If it does sprout, the young plants will probably not have many of the characteristics of the parent plant, nor will it look anything like the plant you got the seeds from. But the traditional seeds have developed resistance to certain pests and diseases and are hardier and healthier than hybrids. Their original genetic material is intact and they have unique reproductive and immunity is preserved. Each variety has distinct flavors, and come in many different and unique colors, sizes, and shapes.

As the region had lost much of its traditional rices, search for the traditional seeds proved difficult. He came across a fine rice variety, Rathnachudi, and his experimentation began with only one variety. The variety performed well under organic farming and he continued cultivating the variety for about 6 years, before he realized to test some more of the traditional varieties. He says his hunt for traditional seeds took initiation with a that he was able to collect handful of seeds of about six varieties in 2006. All the varieties were successful as they did not use chemicals and required less water.  Later varieties increased from six to twenty-six in the consecutive year and again to seventy-five in 2008 and now he has as many as 146 varieties. He says he vows a lot to Sahaja Samrudha, an organic farmers association, stationed at Bangalore, for continuously guiding him technically and helping him collect seeds from different regions. His collection is from five different states and also few from another country. He has a wide diversity of wetland, dryland, medicinal, aromatic, irrigated rices. The whole 20acres is a rich verdant tapestry in all hues of red, gold, brown and black. All the 146 traditional rices are maintained in a single, largest experimental restoration plot, an individual farmer can maintain. Each variety is evenly spaced with straight rows that are distinctly visible on the plot. A portion of the experimental plot is covered with high-yielding dwarf varieties that are planted for comparative study with the predominant expanse distinctively taller traditional rice plants.

Though he has irrigation facility, he feels that it is important to limit water usage so he is cultivating his farm by following System of rice intensification (SRI) method. SRI unlike conventional methods of raising productivity through genetic improvement and increasing inputs relies on providing an enabling environment for the rice plant to express itself fully. The plot has been designed and about 146 varieties are sown following the system that involves a combination of several principles, including the use of organic inputs, alternate wetting and drying, increased spacing between plants, and transplanting the plants while they are young.

Ghani says it is essential to conserve the different traits of rice varieties that have evolved through the combined process of natural selection and farmer selection that are so adapted to different eco-climatic conditions with their fragrance, taste, medicinal and high yielding properties as frequent floods and prolonged droughts are the order of the day and the modern high yielding rice varieties and hybrids have drastically reduced performance and suffer a partial or total loss of crops. Switching over to traditional crop varieties is the need, as it not only maintains but will definitely offset the hurdles posed with climate change.  “For thousands of years farmers have been breeders and developed and nurtured crop genetic diversity. With their careful insight of selecting plants and developing varieties with suitable traits and improve on the existing one. This system of selection and improving on the plants is what has  led to an astounding diversity of landraces, which still exists with some farmers. Though most of the rice diversity has been eroded there are some farmers, who are working towards reviving and maintaining the rice diversity that Karnataka has been a host and Ghani is one among them”, says Shanta Kumar, Coordinator of ‘Save our Rice’ campaign.

Prized Collections

Ghani is maintaining different paddy strains to keep alive the evolutionary processes and also to sustain a continual supply of germplasm. He has developed skills in the art of seed production and has the ability to select the best seeds. The whole plot of 567 rice varieties has been dedicated for seed production. Some of the diversity maintained on his field are Rajabhog, which is a  weed suppresser, Anandi a variety from Dharwad has a high yielding capacity, Jeeriga samba is a very popular variety among the farmers and is aromatic, non lodging and good grain yielding variety and Parimalasanna is a fine variety appropriate for making festoons. Two varieties of Burma black rice, both grains are black in colour and one variety has less fibre and the other has high fibre content. Chinnaponni, Kempudoddi, Halublu, Rajakayame, Rasakadam,Gamgadale, Burmablack, Kagisali, Ambimohar, Gamsale, Kottayane, Bilinellu, Gandhasale, NMS2, Rajmudi, Ratnachudi, Gowrisanna, Jeerigesanna, Bilidoddi, , Gambatha, Jeerigesale. Some of the varieties from Orissa that are performing well are kalakali, baingan mangi, govindbhog is a sacred variety used as an offering to God Krishna, of Orissa. Some from Maharashtra like sagvad an upland variety used for pooha, maladi a medicinal rice used in bone fracture treatment, HMT a farmer developed variety and Katte HMT a variety that has awns, Kasubai a scented variety, Raj gudiyapa a dry land medicinal rice variety used for weakness and Dharisal, Tulasiya, Sheerabathi, Thamadisala, rathbath.

Mr. Krishna Prasad,sahaja samrudha  says “ On-farm conservation of rice diversity is carried out only by farmers who are interested and willing to do so. It cannot be imposed on them. A farmer who conserves inter and intra specific diversity has to have an understanding as to how, what and why he does it. Organizations can only technically support and provide opportunities for the farmers in continuing their efforts at conserving crop diversity”. He further adds that on-farm conservation of crop diversity is important. This form of managing diversity of crops is easy to implement and links farmers’ economic concerns with conservation. Management for crop diversity can promote on-farm conservation of rice, and potentially other crops too, in a feasible and sustainable way.

Ghani’s concern for conservation of biodiversity has infact got many farmers interested in traditional varieties. His farm in the outskirts of his village has grown into one of the largest experimental restoration plots, drawing visitors from villages near and far. His experiment has enthralled Scientists and Officials, who have applauded his venture.

India is presently facing a rice crisis due to erosion of its biodiversity and increase of monocropping in agriculture. Reliance on a narrow spectrum of cultivars grown in monoculture have increased pest problems and India being a mega diversity country has a plethora of traditional varieties which are nutritious and developed over centuries. The traditional strains are more resistant to drought and could be an answer to the climate change. So saving them is important lest we lose it.

Contact: Ghani- 09901713351 for more details

A new rice every day?

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/agriculture/a-new--every-day/article4173839.ece

ASHISH KOTHARI

SHARE  ·   COMMENT   ·   PRINT   ·   T+
Natwarbhai by his beloved rice fields
Natwarbhai by his beloved rice fields

The small farmer is increasingly getting the short shrift, and control over farming is moving into the hands of the private corporate sector. This does not paint a happy picture.

Natwar Sarangi could eat a new variety of rice every day of the year. None of it bought in the market. When I met this remarkable farmer in a small village in , I realised the magical potential of India’s ‘ordinary’ peasants. A potential sadly neglected by our agricultural bureaucracy and ‘development’ planners.

Natwarbhai, 80+, is a resident of Narishu village, near Niali in Cuttack district. A retired schoolteacher, he has been practising organic farming for the last decade or so, and swears by its potential to feed India’s population. He says some of the varieties he grows yield over 20 quintals per acre, higher than the so-called ‘high-yielding’ varieties that farmers around him get after using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And he spends much less, since his main inputs are gobar, natural pesticides when occasionally needed, and labour.

Natwarbhai was earlier a ‘modern’ farmer, lured into it by officials and traders, involving high-yielding varieties, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. One day, while watching a labourer spray Carbofuran (a highly toxic pesticide), he was horrified to see him stagger and collapse. Rushed for treatment, the worker survived, but not Natwarbhai’s faith in the new agriculture. Especially after the labourer told him: “I could not breathe, my head was reeling”; and especially after, having buried the remaining stock of Carbofuran in a pit in his fields, Natwarbhai “saw dead snails, snakes, and frogs floating in the water that had accumulated there; I immediately wondered what would be happening to the earthworms and micro-organisms that I knew kept the soil alive.”

Natwarbhai switched to organic inputs, but with the high yielding varieties that the agricultural establishment had distributed. His son Rajendra, by now having become involved in a number of environmental movements, advised him to try traditional crop varieties. The problem was, most such varieties had gone out of cultivation in the area.

Around this time (1999), along with Rajendra another young man of the village, Jubraj Swain, had been active with relief and reconstruction work after a super-cyclone. Now they set off to find ; travelling over 5000 km within (and a bit outside) Odisha, they brought back dozens of varieties still being grown by so-called ‘backward’ farmers. Natwarbhai tried them all, noting down their names, characteristics, and productivity. He and Jubraj continued even after the tragic death of Rajendra due to cerebral malaria, eventually reaching the astounding figure of 360 varieties (90per cent of these from Odisha). When I expressed astonishment at this, Natwarbhai laughed: “we are aiming to have at least 500. This is in any case only a small fraction of the total diversity that Indian farmers have created”.

So true. I remember when coordinating India’s National Strategy and Action Plan process a decade ago, I had come across the mindboggling fact that the country’s rice diversity was anything between 50,000 and 300,000 varieties!

How does Natwarbhai keep track of this diversity, year after year? He said he and his colleagues kept an album, in which they noted down each variety’s characteristics. I was later shown a two-volume set of this album by Sudhir Pattnaik of the Oriya journal Samadrusti; it had tiny packets of each kind of rice variety, with key features of their growth, performance, and values written alongside.

Diversity was nice, but would it feed India’s growing population? Natwarbhai was categorical: “Without doubt. Firstly, I get as much or more average rice production on my land as those using chemicals in this region; secondly, I can grow pulses as a next crop, and then gourds or other crops as the third … all on the same plot of land. And I get better fodder and mulching material. Overall productivity is therefore higher than my neighbours who use new seeds and chemicals. If land is not turned to non-food cash crops like tobacco, we would easily produce enough food with organic farming.”

So why then were his neighbours not switching to organic? Natwarbhai explained that the government and corporations were constantly giving ‘incentives’, e.g. subsidies on chemicals, and filling the cultivators’ minds with promises of bumper crops and high returns. Another factor was that many of the traditional varieties had tall stalks, and ‘lodged’ (fell down) if there were unseasonal rains. But Natwarbhai asserted that even with this, productivity did not drop significantly, provided it did not keep on raining. Yet another reason was that many of the lands here were being cultivated by sharecroppers, who had to do what their absentee landlords told them to.

I reflected on this a bit. Farmers here were probably also being seduced by news from other regions of India, some of which had achieved over 30 quintals per acre; no-one was telling that this was possible only with increasing amounts of external inputs, that the land would simply not sustain this intensity of cultivation for long, and that growing costs of inputs would eventually reduce profit margins. Official records showed that in any case, HYV rice had yielded an average of around 15 quintals in Orissa.

Other farmers were slowly getting interested in Natwarbhai’s methods. He and others have organised dozens of meetings with farmers, and offered free seeds for those willing to test them out (on condition that if they had a good crop, they would return twice the amount, to go into a grain bank). The journalSamadrusti also did its bit in public outreach. If only the government would help, these efforts would go much further. Unfortunately even civil society organisations were not always helpful; Natwarbhai pointed to a patch of black-grain (Kali Jiri) swaying gently in the breeze, and sadly recounted how an institution from Chennai run by a famous agricultural scientist had taken some samples, and then claimed credit for the variety!

I asked Jubraj why he had not gone looking for a job in the city, like his other young colleagues? He was, after all, a graduate in history. His answer was simple: “I enjoy this. I think it is more worthwhile than a job in the city”. Productivity on his land? “I’m getting 18-20 quintals per acre; those using new seeds and chemicals here were getting less, while spending more.” In a general scenario of the newer generations turning away from occupations like farming, it was good to see the young man wanting to carry on Natwarbhai’s mission.

In a recent address to an international conference on biodiversity in Hyderabad, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: “Biodiversity, found in our forests and our fields, could provide us keys to the solutions of the future. So we need to build a movement to conserve traditional varieties of crops.” Nice words. But the Indian government’s agricultural policies and programmes have systematically destroyed the diversity and knowledge of thousands of years of intelligent, innovative farming systems. Increasingly they are marginalising the small cultivator, and handing over controls over farming to the private corporate sector. Efforts like Natwarbhai’s and Jubraj’s, small as they may seem, are crucial elements of sustainability that India is going to desperately need when its food production systems face ecological and social collapse.

Ashish Kothari is with Kalpavriksh, Pune

Rice is endangered: Thousands of native varieties of rice extinct

Posted on by
Reply

Hyderabad:  Is dying? Environment experts feel that the rich of rice is fast depleting with only a handful of commercially viable varieties being cultivated the world over.

In the last 100 years as many as 1,00,000 varieties of rice have simply vanished from the fields. Today there are fewer than a dozen varieties planted in 70 per cent of the land under rice. Indian rice varieties are famous for their quality, aroma and grain length and any disturbance to the rice biodiversity will have a catastrophic impact on the agro-economy of the country.

Tinkering with rice like attempts to produce golden rice and GE rice has come in for sharp criticism from biodiversity experts.

“Rice is not just a daily source of calories. It is intrinsically linked to Asian lifestyles and heritage,” argues Aziz Choudry, researcher and activist from New Zealand.

A fact sheet published by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PANAP) points out that rice is the staple food for half the people on Earth, and is at the heart of Asia’s diverse cultures. Yet its future, along with that of millions of small-scale rive farmers, many of them women, is in jeopardy. “Transnational corporations are shifting control of rice production away from farming communities which have grown and nurtured countless rive varieties over centuries,” it adds.

Dr Ricarda A Steinbrecher, co-director of EcoNexus, a public interest research organisation based in the UK,  cautions that with the advent of science and modern technology in agriculture, the arrival of uniform seeds, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, the rich diversity of rice varieties has decreased drastically.

“With three billion people consuming rice, profits promise to be high for any company or corporation that can acquire proprietary rights over the rice seed. Genetic engineering is an important tool towards this end as it enables companies to claim ownership over the “new seeds” they have “invented” giving them a legal basis to control its sale and use,” Dr Ricarda clarifies.

Charito P Medina, environmental biologist from the Philippines, said there was no need for “golden rice”, which is genetically modified to hold more quantity of vitamin A. “Vegetables and fruits like sweet potatoes, mangoes and carrots are rich in vitamin A and there is no need to include vitamin A in rice,” Charito added.

Biodiversity meet ignored interests of farmers: expert

Posted on by
Reply

STAFF REPORTER, THE HINDU, NOVEMBER 19, 2012

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/-meet-ignored-interests-of-farmers-expert/article4109993.ece

Agriculture scientist G.V. Ramanjaneyulu has criticised that the recent international biodiversity conference in Hyderabad focussed only on how business could be done with bio-resources instead of suggesting measures to protect biodiversity.

The deliberations completely ignored farmers and their interests and also their role in the protection of biodiversity. The conference deliberately sidelined the need to protect biodiversity, he said while delivering a lecture on ‘Farmer in Biodiversity’ organised by the Jampala Chandrasekhara Prasad Trust in memory of the late student leader, here on Saturday night.

State role

He said the government should have a major role in protecting biodiversity, environment and eco-balance for which it should involve the farming community. On the contrary, it was encouraging farmers to use dangerous pesticides and chemical fertilizers, he added.

In pesticides only one per cent was useful to kill pests and the rest would mix in soil and air polluting the environs. So also, in fertilizers only 45 per cent was useful to protect plants and the remaining 55 per cent would mix in soil and water. Dr. Ramanjaneyulu said pests were gaining resistance and the farmer was getting caught in a vicious circle by investing more money. Excessive use of fertilizer and pesticide make the food grains poisonous with their residues remaining in them. Pesticide residues were creating fat in human bodies, he said.

GM propaganda

In this backdrop, governments and corporates were resorting to propaganda on the necessity of GM crops for food security, but behind this lay business interests rather than human interests, he said cautioning that, “Our food habits are getting spoilt with such a false campaign.”

Listing out the ill-effects of fertilizers and pesticides, he said the Green Revolution in Punjab destroyed biodiversity and today one in every third family in that State was suffering from cancer. He said for the protection of biodiversity farmers should have freedom in cultivation.

‘Meet focussed on how business can be done with bio-resources instead of suggesting measures to protect biodiversity’

Everyone is stealing germplasm: Dr. Hampaiah, Chairperson, AP Biodiversity Board

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/everyone-stealing-germplasm

Author(s): Latha Jishnu

Date: Sep 15, 2012

When agronomist Ralladoddi Hampaiah was advisor to the Russian government, he discovered how easy it was to take genetic resources out of India. And also how easy it was to bring in such material—bypassing quarantining regulations and other critical formalities. He once took 100 seeds of maize for testing to Russia from Delhi, and at Moscow airport he was grilled thoroughly about the seeds, their origin and certification. On his return from Russia, he brought in an enormous quantity of seeds, all of 15 kg, but was waved through customs! No questions asked. That was in 1993 before the international convention on came into being. But not much has changed since then, although India has passed its own laws on conservation and has regulatory systems in place, says the man who is now chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh State Board. Coming to the post after a long innings with private seed companies, most of it with Pioneer Seeds, a multinational owned by DuPont, Hampaiah has a clear understanding of how the industry works. Everyone is stealing germplasm, alleges the official who has been in the news for several controversial actions, including a case against Monsanto. In a freewheeling conversation with Latha Jishnu, Hampaiah says is a major concern, but shortage of funds and experts are hampering the work of state boards. Excerpts:

RALLADODDI HAMPAIAHWhy do you say our bio-resources are going out of India? We have laws to safeguard them.

It is not lack of laws but lack of understanding. Many of our ministries and departments don’t know the value of our germplasm. Till the mid-1990s, everything was exchanged freely. Look at the number of multinational companies (MNCs) that came to India because of our germplasm. It is all readymade for whoever wants to pick it from either the agriculture universities or research institutions in the country. Important germplasm resources we have are of sorghum, pearl millet, , cotton….Andhra Pradesh has a wealth of biodiversity and that may be the reason why we have hundreds of MNC operating in the state.

Is it all brazen theft?

No, the regulations also enable our germplasm to be taken out legally. Under Section 40 of the Biological Diversity Act, valuable material can be exported openly as “normally traded items”. It allows the Centre to exempt some items from the required permission from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) for use of biological resources. All kinds of germplasm are being sent out as “normally traded items”.

Who is sending out our germplasm?

Seed companies, pharmaceutical industry, researchers, just about everyone is stealing. The small seed companies steal from the big ones and the big ones get it from research institutions under various ploys after signing MoUs with them or with universities. No one declares the origin of the material. Other countries are particular about their genetic resources. In 1993, even before the Convention on Biological Diversity () was signed, I realised the difference in the way we treat our germplasm and other countries do. I took some 100 maize seeds to Russia when I was advisor to the government and they asked me for certification and other information. It was the same when I took out 15 kg of maize from Russia. The DNA of all the material is coded and registered and they follow the rules strictly. When I brought the seeds to India—and it was only to make a point—I was waved through customs. The plant quarantine officials were not present. So just to see how the system worked, I took the seeds to Faridabad where the office is located. They were taken aback and pleaded with me to take the seeds away quietly.

What is the way out?

Government should insist on a certificate of origin from NBA for all such items in addition to the phytosanitary certification. Every department should be sensitised to the value of our bio-resources, specially the customs. They have a major role to play.

Given these constraints, what have you done to protect biodiversity in Andhra Pradesh in the past six years?

We have taken a number of measures to spread awareness among the people by forming biodiversity management committees at the village-level and written to NBA about the trade in genetic material through the “normally traded” route. The regulator had no clue at the time about this. We had also filed a case for benefit-sharing against Monsanto for stealing the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) from Mahanandi village in Kurnool district. (Bt is the most widely used bacterium in genetic modification of crops). Analysis of the soil shows that the bacterium comes from this area. We were claiming one to two per cent of sales revenue earned from the sale of Bt cotton (seeds) as royalty.

Are you saying Bt cannot be found anywhere else? What happened to the claim on Monsanto?

We have proved up to 99 per cent that Monsanto took Bt from Mahanandi. It did not contest this. But the case was not legally tenable because the notice to the US MNC was sent too late, in 2007. The germplasm was taken in 1992 and our regulation (BDA) came into force in 2002. The lawyers said the claim will now have to be fought in US courts.

Are there any other cases of biopiracy that you can cite?

Hundreds. In the case of Bt cotton, the germplasm was taken from Acharya Ranga Agricultural University in Hyderabad. What was used is a top quality variety called Narasimha. Unfortunately, the variety came into the public domain in 2004 when the registration period (18 years) ended. Similarly, so much rice germplasm has been taken away from the Directorate of Rice Research in Hyderabad which is a huge repository of our indigenous varieties. Nowadays MNCs are signing MoUs with it.

In the case of the Ongole bull, reports say the government gave a conservation award to a farmer for exporting its semen to Brazil at a time when Brazil is being accused of biopiracy. Doesn’t this undermine the board’s credentials?

No, that is not correct. The farmer was awarded for selling an Ongole bull to a Gujarat buyer for a big amount, Rs 35 lakh. Promoting this breed is a good example of conserving local biodiversity and creating awareness. I agree these bulls are taken to Bhavnagar for onward export to Brazil and other countries. But the problem is that the trade in Ongole bulls is huge. In a recent fair in Panama, a bull was on offer with a base price of Rs 3 crore. I have seen fancy catalogues of cattle fairs even in Australia where the Ongole bull is a prized breed.

At a recent fair in Panama, Andhra Pradesh’s Ongole bull was offered for `3 croreAt a recent fair in Panama, Andhra Pradesh’s Ongole bull was offered for Rs 3 crore (Photo: Guna Sekhar Pera)So what is the Andhra Pradesh board doing about it? After all Ongole bulls have been traded for over a 100 years and are now an international breed.

I spoke to the CBD executive secretary Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, a Brazilian, about this issue. He said we should have a cut-off date—1993 when CBD was established—otherwise, it would become too messy if we delved too far into the past. Now, another breed, the Punganur cow (from Punganur in Chittoor district), is becoming important and we want to create awareness about it.

What can the board do about conservation?

Spread awareness and ensure fair benefit-sharing from the use of bio-resources as we did in Amarchinta village in Mehboobnagar district. We found that a local company was sending big shipments of neem leaf to Japan but was paying the villagers just Rs 20 per kg. We helped the local biodiversity management committee to get a much better price of Rs 100 per kg for the neem. But I must admit that if the Japanese buyer had not insisted on a certificate of origin and forced the local exporter to come to us we would not have come into picture.

The focus seems to be just plants. What about other species?

What can we do without funds? So far, we were getting just a sustenance allowance and had no place even to sit. There is little we can do on awareness and capacity building at the grassroots. Only now, on account of the Conference of Parties to CBD in Hyderabad in October we are getting Rs 8 crore.

That’s a huge sum. What do you plan to do with it?

We have been granted six hectares so we will start building an office and museum.

Neglected crops: why it is critical we increase food diversity

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.bioversityinternational.org/announcements/neglected_crops_why_it_is_critical_we_increase_food_diversity.html

14 September 2012   |   Permalink

“With climate change putting increasing strain on our food systems, diversity of our food crops will be critical for resilience” – Stefano Padulosi at the IUCN Conservation Congress this week.

In the 1970’s a fungal blight outbreak ravaged cornfields across the United States, destroying 50 percent of the country’s maize crops and shaking the stock market as the most economically devastating field crop disease of the 20th century. On Friday, the US government slashed its forecast for corn production by 17 percent due to the worst drought the country has experienced in 56 years, raising fears of a new global food crisis and sending many commodity prices to record levels.

While the two events may be 40 years apart and have different natural causes, the outcomes are much the same, argued scientists from International at the IUCN World Conservation Congress held in Jeju, South Korea this week.

“The world’s food security relies on thousands of crop species. Unfortunately commercialization of mainstream agriculture has concentrated on very few crops, which raises serious concerns about the sustainability of feeding the world today and in the future,” said Stefano Padulosi, Senior Scientist, Bioversity International.

The world’s food basket is shrinking at an alarming rate. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) tells us that of the 100-120 species used today for large-scale food production at national level, 95 percent of the dietary energy provided to humans comes from only about 20-30 crops, with sixty percent of our plant-based calorie intake provided by , wheat and maize.

Traditional crops such as Andean grains or leafy African vegetables are  increasingly ignored – farmers no longer see them as profitable, consumers are excluding them from their increasingly simplified diets, agricultural research is omitting them from their agendas and local communities are losing the food culture which is part of their identities.

“But with climate change putting increasing strain on our food systems, diversity of our food crops will be critical for resilience,” Padulosi said.

“In the case of the blight outbreak, resistance was found in a crop wild relative“, explained Carlo Fadda, Senior Scientist, Bioversity International speaking at a workshop organized by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and Bioversity International. “They are an increasingly important resource for improving agricultural productivity as many genes that confer resistance to new diseases are found in crop wild relatives. Pimentel and colleagues estimate that crop wild relatives contribute around US$ 115 billion  annually in increased productivity and with climate change, crop wild relatives are likely to prove a critical resource in ensuring food security for the new millennium.”

Genetic material from crop wild relatives have been used for thousands of years to improve the quality and yield of crops. For example, wild maize is routinely grown alongside cultivated maize to improve yields. But while crop wild relatives have contributed many useful genes to crop plants, little has been done to document and monitor the of cultivated crop species.

Stefano Padulosi at his poster display on Red Lists for Cultivated Species with MS Swaminathan at the IUCN CongressStefano Padulosi presents a poster on Red Lists for Cultivated Species at the IUCN Congress. Pictured with Prof. MS Swaminathan.

“While we deploy consistent efforts to monitor the status of wild biodiversity (such as the IUCN Red list of Threatened Wild Species), there is very little research to monitor the diversity of cultivated plants and domesticated animals used by farmers in helping them to cope with climate change,” said Padulosi. “There is a need to develop ways to monitor the food crop diversity that sustains humankind.”

With this in mind, researchers supported by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Programme (CCAFS) are working with  local communities in Nepal, India and Bolivia to develop and test out novel approaches for Red Listing cultivated species and implement a long-term locally-controlled monitoring programme. They asked communities to identify different crop and tree species, assess how these species are being used in their cultural context and group them according to two variables -  the area of land under their cultivation and the number of households cultivating them.

During these community-based participatory assessments, an initial list of lost varieties was developed and subsequently validated at a regional and national level through diversity and seed fairs, visits to other communities, surveys and other means.

“This approach allows us to ‘raise the red flag’ whenever a decline in use of a variety goes below a certain level and its benefits (nutritional, income generation, etc.) are no longer reaching the community members at large, who are therefore more vulnerable,” continued Padulosi. “We found that the key to  resilient food systems is not just genetic diversity but also indigenous knowledge, but there has been a tremendous erosion of this as well. We need to develop approaches, methods and tools to value and safeguard this knowledge. Women particularly will need support in view of their strategic role as the nexus between the cultivation and the use of agricultural biodiversity at the household level”.

Neglected people: why a salad costs more than a burger

“One of the key challenges that small-scale farmers face is the amount of agricultural subsidies that given to large-scale and industrial agricultural farmers,” said Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, Founder and Director of the indigenous rights NGOTebtebba speaking at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. “Almost one billion dollars a day goes to the rich farmers of the world to continue promoting the type of agriculture that has brought us to this crisis that we face now.”

Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worth of nearly $2 million. More than 90 percent of all subsidies in the USA go to just five crops -  wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice – while the vast majority of crops are ineligible for subsidies.

“These subsidies have pushed governments to be engaged more in this kind of agriculture instead of supporting small-scale sustainable agriculture that is more ecologically sustainable and promotes more social equity,” Tauli-Corpuz said.

The link between biodiversity, food production and the long-term perspectives of indigenous communities that identify with the land needs to be more closely considered by policymakers, said Pablo Eyzaguirre, a senior scientist in anthropology and socioeconomics at Bioversity International – “No one wants to go back to the debate of conservation versus agriculture … a nice world or a well-fed world. I think we’re headed off a cliff if both sides don’t start seeing things differently.”

Report written by Michelle Kovacevic, CIFOR

Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing inches on

Posted on by
Reply

New Delhi, 3 July (TWN*) — Preparatory work for the entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation resumed on Monday, 2 July.

The Second Meeting of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol (ICNP-2) that is being held in New Delhi on 2-6 July is attended by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (), the “parent” treaty of the Protocol.

The first day addressed the elaboration of guidance for the financial mechanism (that will service the Protocol implementation), elaboration of guidance for resource mobilisation, as well as the need for, and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism.

In the opening session, Mr. M. F. Farooqui, Special Secretary at the Ministry of Environment and Forest of India, said that (ABS) was a missing pillar in the CBD implementation and negotiations of the Protocol were “sometimes characterised by extreme and divergent positions”. However, he said, the Nagoya Protocol is important as signalling the viability of multilateral environmental processes.

(The three CBD objectives are conservation, sustainable utilisation of components of and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from such utilisation.)

Mr. Braulio Dias, the new Executive Secretary of the CBD, highlighted early ratification of the Protocol in his remarks, and informed the meeting that there are currently 92 signatories and five ratifications (Gabon, Jordan, Rwanda, Seychelles and Mexico).

(Fifty CBD Parties have to ratify the Protocol for it to enter into force. Ethiopia subsequently spoke from the floor that it is submitting its ratification document.)

Mr. Dias said that entry into force is expected between the 11th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP11, to be held in Hyderabad, India in October) and COP12 (in 2014), and that the first meeting of the COP acting as the Meeting of the Parties of the Protocol will then be held concurrently with COP12. He also noted that the final document of the recent United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20) supports ratification of the Protocol.

Co-Chairs of the ICNP Fernando Casas of Colombia and Janet Lowe of New Zealand then presided over the working session which heard opening statements from various regional groups.

Peru, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), expressed hopes, despite the tough agenda, for clear and specific recommendations on the agenda items. Given that lack of ratification is a reality, we need a clear trajectory for this group (ICNP). It also said that there is need to clarify the resources necessary for (the first) COP-MOP (the COP acting as the Meeting of the Parties of the Protocol).

Cameroon, speaking for the Africa Group, expressed high expectations, stressing that ratification and implementation of the Protocol is difficult for Africa from which there is over 30% of the signatories. It said that benefit sharing needs to be with the people who take care of genetic resources. It said that we need early entry into force, but Africa will have difficulty accessing the resources needed to implement the Protocol. Cameroon said Africa was largely left out of funding by the GEF (Global Environment Facility that is operating the CBD financial mechanism, and will be doing the same for the Protocol) and the Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund. It called for the need for direction from ICNP-2 to ensure implementation in Africa. It highlighted the importance of Article 10 on the need for, and modalities of, a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism.

India, speaking on behalf of the Asia-Pacific region, said that without ratifications there will not be a COP-MOP at Hyderabad. It called for prioritisation of the work agenda of the Committee considering the large number of agenda items consisting of six new items and four items carried over from its first meeting in Montreal, Canada (June 2011). India also said that the regional group is open to another ICNP meeting, if requested by COP11.

This call by India was echoed by the Like-Minded Mega-diverse Countries (LMMC) whose current chair, the Philippines, had suggested the prioritisation of four agenda items in the Committee’s deliberations this week, namely, the modalities of the ABS Clearing-house, the compliance mechanism of the Protocol, the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism, as well as the guidance to the financial mechanism.

Ukraine, on behalf of Central and Eastern Europe, hoped for quick entry into force of the Protocol, a focus on capacity building in economies in transition, and the prioritisation of decisions related to financing mechanisms.

Guidance to the financial mechanism

On the agenda item concerning guidance to the financial mechanism, countries such as Senegal, Uganda, Guatemala, Tunisia and Peru called for the streamlining of the rules for accessing the funds so they can use it for work towards the ratification of the Protocol.

The meeting under this agenda item also considered the Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund set up through the contributions of Japan, Norway, Switzerland and Spain. Some countries were of the view that this Fund is not too focused on funding projects that will help lead to the early ratification of the Protocol but instead delved more on the implementation of the Protocol with some capacity-building activities on bio-prospecting, already part of the activities that it will support.

Brazil and Colombia were among those that wanted this to be rectified, while Malaysia objected to the putting up of an eligibility criteria for countries to be able to access these funds and suggested also that part of the activities that should be funded include capacity-building on monitoring and checkpoints to prevent . Malaysia noted the CBD Article 20 (on financial resources) and said that restricting access to funds to ratified countries is not constructive, cautioning against following the model of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Norway, however, supported the maintenance of the eligibility criteria whereby countries getting funds for its capacity-building activities should make a political commitment towards becoming a Party to the Protocol, saying that such a criteria was also made during the capacity-building for the Cartagena Protocol, the other international instrument under the CBD dealing with the transboundary movement of living modified organisms.

Thailand stressed the need for financial support of traditional knowledge and the funding related to checkpoints and development of compliance mechanisms. It said that funding should support getting ready for ratification and also highlighted capacity building on negotiating MATs (mutually agreed terms), technology transfer, and integrating business and indigenous and local communities into the process. This will result in early implementation, it said.

The European Union said we need to adopt a framework on capacity building before finalising financial recommendations, and to fine-tune recommendations to the GEF. It wants projects on helping negotiate MATs, adding that the GEF should talk to both the COP and the COP-MOP.

Resource mobilisation for Protocol implementation

In the discussion on the agenda item addressing the resource mobilisation for the implementation of the Protocol, Norway, supported by the EU and Switzerland, said that ABS agreements that are entered into by provider countries with users can mobilise funds for this purpose. The EU also wants Parties to consider resource mobilisation in national plans. On the other hand, developing countries including Brazil, Senegal (for the Africa Group), Malaysia, China, India and South Africa emphasised the need for Article 20 of the Convention to be mentioned in the recommendations on the agenda item on resource mobilisation.

(Art. 20 of the CBD establishes the basic principles for the financial resources that will be needed for the operation of the Convention and obliges developed country Parties to provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the full incremental costs to them of implementing their obligations under the Convention.)

Brazil said that any new mechanisms would be new and supplemental, but not replacement of the mechanism under Article 20 of the CBD, stressing that “we need to be clear on this”.

Senegal, on behalf of the Africa Group, supported Brazil. It also said the (ICNP) recommendations were to be addressed to the COP-MOP, but since we don’t know when that will be, we want the resource mobilisation recommendations to go to COP11.

Global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism

The last agenda item taken up for the day was on Article 10 of the Protocol whereby Parties will consider the need for and the modalities of the establishment of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism, referred by the delegations as the GMBSM. Co-Chair Lowe said that the call for submissions solicited four from governments and one from the International Chamber of Commerce.

(Article 10 reads: “Parties shall consider the need for and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism to address the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the utilisation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources that occur in transboundary situations or for which it is not possible to grant or obtain prior informed consent. The benefits shared by users of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources through this mechanism shall be used to support the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components globally.”)

Namibia, on behalf of the Africa Group, said that in general Africa thinks a more multilateral approach to some outstanding ABS issues will help resolve those issues. It reminded the meeting that Article 10 was inserted by the COP10 Presidency (Japan) and that the actual African proposals are still out there somewhere, in a report. It said that Africa’s flexibility on this was a key enabler for the adoption of the Protocol (at COP10 in Nagoya in 2010), stressing that this kind of flexibility is important for implementation. On the issue of process, Namibia said this is not a sequential process; to make the Protocol implementable, we have to develop a global mechanism for benefit sharing in parallel.

Reiterating that sustainable use is the only way to achieve conservation in the long run, Namibia argued that the need for the global mechanism derives from the CBD itself. In Africa, we’ve had resources and knowledge arbitrarily divided by colonial powers, in a conference room in Berlin. Look at our own (Namibia) border, which cuts right through the San (indigenous peoples) territory. Practically speaking, we need a multilateral approach because maybe you could negotiate every agreement but the transaction costs of that are huge. The CBD was not intended to primarily benefit the legal profession.

It then related the experience in Namibia where it said we have commercialised a resource with a European country, on the basis of traditional knowledge, and is re-exported to South Africa by the European company where it is used as a cosmetic ingredient. But South Africa wants cosmetic companies that use the resource to comply with South African access law. Now, we can work this out bilaterally but this resource is found in 17 countries. We could work this out with a 17-party agreement, but wouldn’t it be a waste of time and effort? Wouldn’t it be better to have a global mechanism, a global approach? The brackets that disappeared overnight in Nagoya (referring to the contested parts of the Protocol up until the final days of the COP10) were key to (the Protocol’s) adoption; we are willing to talk about our position, but it’s absolutely unacceptable to the Africa Group that there’s no need for a global mechanism.

Colombia said that prior informed consent (PIC) is indispensable and that national sovereignty should be supreme in access. A global mechanism should be limited to cases where PIC cannot be established. Mexico said there are cases, mentioned in its submission to the (CBD) Secretariat, in which you have shared resources, transboundary resources, etc. It is fundamental that before determining modalities we need to discuss concrete cases. It generally supports the Secretariat recommendation for an expert group. We need to define the specific circumstances under which a global mechanism would operate.

Peru said that this theme comes from a non-negotiated compromise, so it produces uncomfortable issues that need to be resolved. It agreed with Mexico that we need to define the circumstances under which a mechanism would work. We understand that resources are not developed internationally, but that there are cases where resources cross borders, or indigenous people in different countries have knowledge. Sovereignty, however, cannot be renounced and is key in access, it stressed. So, a multilateral mechanism is for special circumstances. But we need understanding of what the mechanism is, how it will work, how it will distribute benefits, and who will decide. So, we support an expert meeting, but not just to answer questions but which should investigate other successful international benefit-sharing mechanisms that should be done before the expert group meets, to focus its efforts.

The Republic of Korea said that the scope of this mechanism is not clear and will have an impact on Article 4 of the Protocol dealing with the relationship of the Protocol with other international instruments dealing with genetic resources with particular characteristics.

Switzerland said that every effort at this time should be made to implement the bilateral requirement in the Protocol but each country should first do a gap analysis of the ABS regulatory requirements within its territory and once this gap analysis is done, the expert meeting suggested by the Secretariat would be useful.

The EU said the discussion is good to help us reflect, and prefers to go step by step as outlined it its submission to the Secretariat. It is open to identifying possible situations where the multilateral mechanism will apply; thereafter, the second step should assess if a global mechanism would add value in those cases. It said that this would provide good technical and factual basis for discussion among Parties of the Protocol (indicating that this will be dealt with at a later stage) and emphasised that no decision can be taken except by the Parties. The EU said that we can talk about it for now, consult with the public, ILCs (indigenous and local communities), etc, and the Secretariat can do a dialogue, and submit the results to COP-MOP.

(Observers note that the EU is focusing on the “need for” a global mechanism and its approach would defer this matter. The EU is also not supportive of opening the temporal as well as the geographic scope of the Protocol.)

Brazil said that it had read the Secretariat paper and description of situations where the mechanism might be used. Brazil said we need time to reflect on this, this being the first time this is discussed by the Committee, as it will have an effect on the nature, scope and objective of the Protocol, and this will be decided by the Parties to the Protocol, but the Protocol has not yet entered into force, thus Brazil supports the further solicitation of views on this issue, and an expert meeting based on items submitted by governments.

Guatemala supported Peru and Brazil as regards the impact of this mechanism on the scope as well as sovereignty of countries over their resources but highlighted the importance of identifying the full background of this proposal. It cautioned against creating any perverse incentives, saying that somebody who does not have PIC might opt for a multilateral system.

Thailand sees this mechanism as essential and integral in addressing situations that are not dealt with by the Protocol, especially those not only addressed in its region, South East Asia, but also in others.

Japan said that the establishment of this mechanism must consider the need as well as the modalities that is acceptable to users of genetic resources, in a manner that is cost-effective with benefits directed to conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources; at least what can be done now is to collect information on situations where it is not possible to secure prior informed consent with inputs from experts on the UN High Level Panel on Marine Genetic Resources Outside National Jurisdiction, the Antarctic Treaty, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and traditional knowledge in various situations.

Sudan and Burkina Faso supported Namibia and provided examples justifying the need for this mechanism, with Burkina Faso citing the case of genetic resources acquired before the entry into force of the Protocol and before the independence of some countries, where most of their resources were acquired by those who held control over their territories.

Canada recognized that Article 10 is critical, but the ICNP is to initiate discussion. It tried to understand Article 10 but cannot adjust to it, and there is a huge need for more information. It added that more discussion is needed at the ICNP, specifically on the need for a global mechanism and that an expert group would be meaningless if we don’t know what we’re talking about. It said that we have to figure out what kinds of cases would fall under such a mechanism. We have spent 8-9 years on a sovereignty-based system. What would an alternative mechanism give to us that the rest of the Protocol doesn’t? If we have agreement on everything, then maybe we can move forward with this, but we won’t even support an expert meeting until we have more information.

Ecuador shared the concerns of Mexico, Colombia and Peru on a multilateral mechanism, saying that this would be for cases where traditional knowledge about genetic resources spills over borders. We’re unsure how to do PIC in trans-border cases. And what if there are Parties and non-Parties mixed up in the mechanism? On the other hand, it supported the expert group, adding that a multilateral system cannot interfere with national prerogative.

Norway emphasised that this mechanism should not undermine the sovereign rights of states in the bilateral mechanism of access and benefit-sharing under the CBD, and that the possible areas where it is not possible to secure prior informed consent involve collection in areas beyond national jurisdiction including those that are discussed in the UN Informal Group in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. However, Norway added, we also have to deal with cases where the provider countries do not require prior informed consent, or orphan genetic resources where the origin is not known and whether users can share benefits for conservation and sustainable use globally; is this a voluntary effort or is it part of a certain modality? Finally, Norway said it can support an Expert Meeting but such meeting needs to be guided by concrete questions.

Cuba said there have been a lot of examples over the years of transboundary cases and cases where there’s no owner. We do need a specific answer to this, and the Protocol as such does not have one yet. This answer should be an integral part of the Protocol. It said that this is the first time we are discussing this, we won’t solve it now, but that’s not a reason not to discuss because these resources are being used. Let’s seize the moment. We want a mechanism and have it inside the Protocol.

Malaysia said that Article 10 was sprung on us at the last minute. It was not negotiated. What does it mean? We supported Africa on this, on principle, as a matter of solidarity because of access of resources in certain situations. But this provision is bristling with complex issues. We need to understand those issues and need to be on the same page to move forward. Does it cover historical collections, ongoing or new use of them, or resources after the coming into force of the Protocol? Malaysia did not get a clear sense if we’re on the same page on this, where some seem to be saying yes, and others seem to be saying no. It said that we have fought hard on sovereignty and PIC. Now, we have a situation of a global mechanism that is not clearly in the framework of the Protocol. Let’s be clear that we do not marginalise or allow to slip away sovereignty. On transboundary issues, there are so many examples. If it’s shared, and most are, are we going to apply this provision over others? We need to figure that out. And on PIC, where it can’t be obtained, what’s the situation in which it should? Does it mean we will bypass PIC from ILCs? Malaysia stressed that we need to be really careful here not to create a parallel system to undermine national legislation.

It further said that we need to move forward and discuss these issues in a mature and careful manner, and support an expert meeting with clear terms of reference. But, Malaysia also said, sometimes we do these expert meetings but then bypass them later. If we’re going to have an expert meeting, then let’s be sure there’s follow-up on the expert result. Art. 10 does refer to Parties, so that seems to say after the entry into force of the Protocol. This is a very difficult situation to grapple with, it concluded.

Egypt supported the Africa Group position, which is consistent with the Arab country position saying also that it is important to look into modalities that can guarantee its implementation, thus supporting the establishment of an Experts’ Meeting on this issue.

The Co-Chair closed the discussion by saying that the atmosphere had been constructive, and that Article 10 was not negotiated as such, but now it is part of the Protocol and Parties will have an obligation here. The Co-Chair will return to the issue with a suggested way forward.

(* With contributions from Edward Hammond.) +