The Green revolution of the 1960s helped the developing world tackle its famine crisis as germplasm was made available as a public good. With the help of CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), research and development utilised investment of modern cultivars, causing yields to increase in India, for example, by as much as 50%. However, corruption in Africa, during the same period, prevented proper investment in the war-torn continent and it is yet to realise its agricultural potential or receive the relevant aid it so drastically needs.
The creation of Plant Breeders Rights in 1964 eroded any scope for expansion in the green revolution. These 'rights' introduced formal ownership and legal protection of crop varieties and enabled companies to benefit from royalties. As a form of Intellectual Property Rights over biological diversity, a gene revolution has occurred amongst the elitist, global and private agribusinesses.
Using market solutions to environmental problems, TRIPS of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was introduced in 1994, placing private commercial and international trade above food security, with patents leading to higher prices for the poor. As patents can be granted outside the country of origin, they counter the provisions of the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). TRIPS forces all countries to accept patents even though there may be no scientific basis, can be unethical and potentially plagiarises indigenous rights.
Biopiracy (commercial property for profit) is also an associated issue that has a long-standing history. One of the aims of the CBD was to prevent this through fair and equitable sharing of benefits obtained from genetic resources. However benefit sharing was not required by TRIPS and monopolies have continued to emerge. Furthermore, the CBD itself limits distribution of free germplasm as Prior Informed Consent restricts trade whilst the onus on national sovereignty ignores indigenous communities in decision making.
In response to these issues, a Global Plan of Action was adopted at the Leipzig Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in 1996. Five years later, a legally binding plant treaty (ITPGFA) was signed and came into force on 29th June 2004. The multi-lateral system covers 64 major crops and allows fair and equitable benefit sharing through Material Transfer Agreements. This, for example, has allowed countries to research and use germplasm for the benefit of the donor countries that lack funding or capacity. Research allows for the future preservation of genetic resources, the ultimate source of biological diversity. These agreements have also helped countries to revoke unfair patents (ie Tumeric in India) and allow for the collective management of common goods and its sustainable use for the future.
xxx
HOWEVER... Monsanto, one company whom I have great distaste for, manage to wriggle their way round the system. They monopolise the seed market and are the leading manufacturer of GM products (i.e bovine growth hormone, roundup-ready soya and climate ready crops). I could probably write a whole book on their misdemeanour's but I do not want to waist good ink on them to be frank (if you want to know more, look no further than the wonderful WiKi). Although they comply to MTA, once they have the seed, they simply alter its DNA and the new sproglet can be patented.
Controlling all rights to the seed, and often the herbicides that have to be applied to them, Monsanto then distribute their seedlings all over the world. Yet, Monsanto often fail to tell the farmers that they are not allowed to replant the seed after harvest. Thus, farmers are locked into the system of having to continuously by more of Monsanto's product. Herbicides and fertilisers are notoriously expensive and often unsustainable if not applied correctly with precision techniques, that the developing world simply don't have. Even more frustrating is that not only are farmers forking out money on Monsanto products, if they don't comply with their policies i.e. are found to be in possession of a replanted patent (even if by accident or by wind blown transport) there is a high chance that they will be sued for every remaining penny until they go bust and an agribusiness moves in.
xxx
At present, the potential risk to biodiversity by using GM is currently too great and we must instead look to improve naturally occurring varieties. 'Golden rice', for example, has merit in that it supplements those with vitamin A defficiency. However, surely we should be looking to make it easier for those communities to access food with naturally occurring vitamin A: such as fruit, veg and meat?
No comments:
Post a Comment