7:04 AM Jun 21, 1994
SOUTH'S GERMPLASM A WORLD BANK ASSET?
Nairobi 20 Jun (TWN) -- Major environment and development non-governmental organizations attending a biodiversity convention meeting here have accused the World Bank attempting a coup to take control over half a million samples of crop diversity donated by farmers in the developing world. The Bank is accused of attempting to take control of these germplasm held in gene banks of the International Agricultural Research Centres (ICAR) in order to prevent them from coming under the control of an intergovernmental body functioning on a one-nation-one-vote principle and ensuring "farmers rights". The Bank is also said to be in consultations with the GATT and the World Trade Organization in order to secure a status for these germplasm under the Uruguay Round Trips accord. The WTO is not yet in place but is expected to come into being in January 1995, when the treaty is ratified or accepted by participants in the Uruguay Round. But ahead of entry into force, a Preparatory Committee for the WTO is now functioning and the Bank's discussions presumably is with the GATT secretariat and the Prepcom officials. The NGOs are here for the second session of the Intergovernmental Committee on Convention for Biological Diversity (ICCBD) which is preparing the ground for the first meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention. At their own pre-session meeting on 18-19 June, the NGOs were outraged to hear about the latest World Bank's moves over the ICAR germplasm collections, by asserting a leadership role over the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) -- the informal group of donors supporting and funding the ICARs -- and at the last moment rejecting an agreement that had been reached (subject to final okay on both sides) in May between the FAO and the CGIAR on the exsitu germ plasm collections. That agreement would have vested control of these in an intergovernmental body with a one-nation-one-vote decision-making and would have created "farmers rights" in respect of these collections -- the various varieties that farmers have over centuries developed from wild varieties, and which commercial plant breeders (and the biotech firms) would build upon to evolve new varieties over which they would exercise global monopoly. The NGOs adopted recommendations which they have forwarded to the ICCBD delegates which among others call on governments to reject the World Bank initiative over CGIARs and ultimately bring these germ plasm collections under the rules of the Convention and controlled by an intergovernmental body with one-nation-one-vote and which would recognize farmers rights. Under the biodiversity Convention, rights over in situ collections, including conditions of access to others, and ability to require share in benefits of biotechnology that might be developed out of these, vest with the countries of origin. At the last moment in the negotiations for the convention, at the instance of the US and other industrialized countries, rights of countries of origin over germ plasm from their countries held in ex situ collections were excluded from the scope. But Resolution 2 of the Nairobi Final Act of the biodiversity convention asked the ICCBD to find solutions relating to the situation of exsitu collections of germplasm, before and after the entry into force of the convention and for Farmers Rights to be developed through a Global System of Plant Genetic Resources. The ICCBD second session has on its agenda a number of questions such as rules of procedure and other issues that the COP has to decide at its first session. But it has also to deal with and prepare recommendations arising out of the Resolution 3 relating to ex situ collections. The ex situ germ plasm collections held in the ICARs -- nearly half a million samples of crop diversity donated by farmers in the developing world -- represent the world's most important stock of unique breeding materials to improve world food production. According to GRAIN (Grain Resources Action International) a Barcelona-based NGO, the 40 major environment and development NGOs at the second session of the ICCBD accused the World Bank of "scuttling" current negotiations to establish an intergovernmental authority over these collections and take control of the CGIAR and its germplasm collections. The NGOs forwarded to the ICCBD delegates a set of recommendations on this issue, which among others asks for rejection of the World Bank to take over the CGIAR, and for expeditious conclusion of the FAO-CGIAR agreements. The NGOs accused the Bank of "scuttling" the current negotiations to establish an intergovernmental authority over these collections. According to a GRAIN press release, Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President and Chair of the CGIAR (and also heading the GEF) in a letter dated 16 June has told one NGO that "it would be foolhardy to lock (the international collections held by the CGIAR institutes) into agreements" such as those being pursued by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. At the CGIAR mid-term meeting in New Delhi last month, where the Agricultural Research programmes faced cutbacks because of cutback in funding by donors, Serageldin had announced that the Bank would step in to save the CGIAR from its funding problems, and proposed a number of moves to strengthen the World Bank "leadership" of the international agricultural research system. According to the NGOs at the Nairobi meeting, the Bank had made clear that it was not keen on any intergovernmental authority over the international genebanks through a one-nation-one-vote system as in the FAO. Instead, the Bank was seen by the NGOs as asserting its own leadership over the CGIAR and intending to resolve the uncertain legal status of the CGIAR collections through its own private negotiations with the World Trade Organization. The CGIAR is an informal group of donors supporting the 18 International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs). Cosponsored jointly by the FAO, UNDP and the World Bank, the CGIAR has no formal legal identity and works on the basis of consensus among its mainly industrialized country members. The legal status of the germplasm collections held by IARCs is uncertain and could be expropriated by various parties, including countries where the ICARs are located (who might act to prevent foreign commercial breeders and gene companies grabbing control) even though CGIAR claims they are held "in trust" for the benefit of the international community. The search for intergovernmental authority over these collections, as negotiated between the IARCs and the FAO is aimed at giving an internationally agreed meaning to the idea of "trusteeship". In effect, the NGOs pointed out, the World Bank is now asking that trusteeship over the Third World's germplasm be transferred to the Bank. Subsequent to signing of the Biodiversity convention, in 1993 FAO member states endorsed a negotiation process with the CGIAR aimed at placing the half million germplasm collections under the policy control of the intergovernmental Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. The clear intention of both the FAO and the CGIAR was that this legally binding agreement be the first step towards development of a draft protocol for agricultural biodiversity to be submitted to the Conference of Parties of the Biodiversity Convention. The ICCBD commitment (under Resolution 3 of the Nairobi Final Act) to resolve the problem of ex-situ germplasm collections gathered prior to the coming into force of the Convention, is now being circumvented by the World Bank initiative to take over the CGIAR and its massive genebanks. The genebank, NGOs said, will now become the asset of the World Bank, which is attempting (through the WTO Prepcom) to make special provisions for access to the CGIAR genebanks under the WTO's TRIPs agreement. By May 1994, the FAO-CGIAR agreement, had been accepted by the FAO and by the relevant CGIAR bodies, and only formal approval remained to be made when the CGIAR financial donors (who are different from its germplasm donors) met three weeks ago and presented the CGIAR with a budgetary crisis. The Bank then stepped in, according to GRAIN, with a number of linked initiatives: The Bank announced it was 'forgiving' outstanding CGIAR debts, and would increase its grant to the CGIAR to $40 million and would in addition match new funds from other donors upto a combined total of $60 million. It also announced the creation of a new $2.5 billion fund for national agricultural research linked to the CGIAR. Along with these, GRAIN said, the Bank announced the formation of a CGIAR steering committee chaired by the Bank, appointment of another Bank official to chair the new Finance Committee of the CGIAR, scuttled the ratification of the FAO-CGIAR agreement and announced that the Bank would provide the leadership and that it would consult the WTO regarding the intellectual property provisions in the TRIPs and the disposition of the CGIAR germplasm. CGIAR officials confirmed to NGOs in early June that the Bank was indeed in conversation with the WTO, that the Bank was not "enthusiastic" about an agreement through the FAO, with the biodiversity convention. Three weeks ago, the Bank, as CGIAR chair, said that it wanted to review the FAO-CGIAR deal. Subsequently, according to a GRAIN press release, the Bank let it be known that it was holding separate discussions with the WTO and that they considered as "foolhardy" the arrangement through FAO that would have given policy control over the germplasm collections to the Third World In their recommendations to the ICCBD delegations, the NGOs said: * the ultimate control of ex situ germplasm collections held outside the country of origin, whether collected before or after the coming into force of the CBD must rest with an intergovernmental body governed by the principle of one-nation-one-vote and with full recognition of Farmers Rights; * The critical social and economic importance of genetic materials within biodiversity that nurture people -- including animals, plants and microorganisms used for food, fibre, pharmaceutical and other purposes -- should be recognized through a protocol to the Convention. * Recognising the particular situation of the CGIAR and its ex-situ germplasm collections gathered both prior to the Convention and since, these collections should be brought under the control of an intergovernmental authority of one-nation-one-vote * For this reason, the World Bank initiative to take control of the CGIAR genebanks should be rejected and the FAO-CGIAR agreements should be expeditiously concluded, * The genetic resources held in the CGIAR genebanks, as well as all other ex situ collections, should be brought under the rules of the Convention, and * the FAO should continue to develop proposals on how to do this as soon as possible.