tagged w/ Biopiracy
-
Today's guest blogger is JanForGore, who heads up the sustainable agriculture group. Keep an eye out for her regular guest blog posts on Current Green and providing updates on news as it relates to her channel.
Biopiracy is the patenting of indigenous bio-diversity related knowledge. For purposes of this writing, the patenting of natural traits found in plants, which is now described as epidemic. While the rewarding of patents should be based on inventiveness and original creativity, it has become a license for corporations to steal such indigenous traits endemic to nature already naturally cultivated by indigenous farmers for centuries. This is done to make fast cash and to take advantage of the climate crisis and food shortages which ironically are also exacerbated through monoculture industrial methods of what I like to call ‘strip farming.’ Such methods have stripped soil nutrients and carbon essential for sustainability of the land and our climate balance.
Companies such as Monsanto are notorious for using such tactics. One case as an example was recently reported by the Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Board which sought royalty payments from Monsanto India Ltd. for genetic information it alleges was stolen from Bt bacteria that they then used in the development of Bt cotton, which has now led to much debt, despair, and suicide among farmers in India. This was primarily brought about by TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property) that has been the catalyst for corporate conglomerate takeover regarding biopiracy and GM seed manipulation and monopolization that is threatening the very culture of India by marginalizing their access to seeds and natural traits.
Biopiracy is a threat to biodiversity and the livelihoods and agriculture of indigenous farmers around the world. While some groups have joined together to stop the patenting of indigenous traits they have cultivated for centuries it is hard as corporations have the economic and political upper hand and have warped patent laws in their favor. And for these groups to then seek such patents would be expensive and raise questions regarding equally sharing the benefits of their designs and resources. However, some countries are trying unique ways to stand up for nature and the rich traditions that have preserved the many seed varieties and traits working with nature to sustain our planet and species.
In a world where climate change, food shortages, and water scarcity are already effecting the lives of the poor in much of the developing world and their environment, we must be ever mindful and vigilant of those seeking to cash in on nature by claiming false ownership. Such ownership of natural properties is illegal and unethical and sets the stage for further environmental degradation, the destruction of a natural way of life and sustainable agriculture, and the continued enslavement of farmers to multinational corporations.
Make no mistake about it, this is a war for the very soul of our planet and without farmers being able to save and cultivate the thousands of varieties of seeds that will feed an ever growing population, we will continue towards a monoculture over saturated pesticide laden environment that will not feed us, but poison us. We must be aware of these tactics and fight them.
For more recent information on this topic please reference:
Stop the Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops
Biopiracy, GM Seeds and Rural India
Peru's patent win strikes blow against biopiracy
Ecuador Constitution Grants Rights to Nature
Related Content:
Allow American Farmers to Grow Industrial Hemp
Food Matters - The Trailer (VIDEO)
Researchers: Farmers' rights to adapt to climate change ignored Today's guest blogger is JanForGore, who heads up the sustainable agriculture... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The European Commission has just approved growing
genetically modified crops for the first time in 12 years,
putting the GM lobby's profits over public concerns - 60% of
Europeans feel we need more information before growing foods
that could threaten our health and environment.
A new initiative allows 1 million EU citizens a unique
chance to make official requests of the European Commission.
Let's build a million voices for a ban on GM foods until the
research is done. Sign the petition below and spread the
word.
Don't forget to include your address so that all of our
signatures count for the citizens' initiative.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_health_and_biodiversity/98.php
To the President of the European Commission José Manuel
Barroso: We call on you to put a moratorium on the
introduction of GM crops into Europe and set up an
independent, ethical, scientific body to research the impact
of GM crops and determine regulation.
Read the rest of this report here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banningGMOsInEuropePetition.php
Or read other articles about GM crops here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php
========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banningGMOsInEuropePetition.phpThe European Commission has just approved growing
genetically modified crops for the... more
-
-
Faced with growing demand for food and increasingly unpredictable weather, many developing nations are debating whether to relax restrictions on the use of genetically modified crops.
Students from the department of environment studies pose with their painted faces during a protest against "bacillus thuringniensis" Bt brinjal in the northern Indian city of Chandigarh February 2, 2010. (REUTERS/Ajay Verma)Seed developers promise that a coming generation of genetically modified (GM) food crops will have climate-resilient features, from drought resistance to saltwater tolerance.
But widespread adoption of GM varieties by small farmers would be "suicidal in terms of climate change," said Vandana Shiva, an Indian social activist, environmentalist and proponent of small-scale farming.
"The (GM) system is more about companies making money from farmers than food security," she told AlertNet in an interview in London.
Adopting GM crops puts small farmers at greater financial risk because they often have to borrow money to buy more expensive GM seeds. If their crops fail, particularly repeatedly, they can find themselves unable to repay the loans, she said.
Worldwide, crop failures are increasingly harder to predict because the climate is becoming more erratic.
In recent years there has been an unprecedented spate of suicides by heavily indebted cotton farmers in Central India, Shiva said. More than three quarters of the suicides, her research shows, have been committed by farmers using GM cotton seed and struggling to repay loans.
GM suppliers sell their seeds on the condition that farmers buy fresh seed each year - something many growers can't afford if their crop fails. A decade ago, 80 percent of Indian farmers saved part of their harvest as seed to plant the following season's crops, Shiva said.
EXISTING SOLUTIONS
Plenty of drought- and flood-resistant traditional crop varieties already exist and simply need to be brought back to market, supporters of traditional farming say.
Shiva said India has hundreds of varieties of rice, and many that show resistance to flooding, drought and saltwater are now being carefully bred at Indian research institutes to increase yields and are then re-released to farmers.
In India's northeast Assam province, where fields have been flooded for weeks after intense rains, demand has surged for two rice varieties that can survive weeks under water and also produce well even in dry conditions.
Planting a broader variety of crop strains - rather than a couple of GM varieties - should help protect the world food supply and insure it against emerging climate threats, including an expanding range of crop pests.
While a pest might decimate some varieties of crops, it is unlikely it could destroy a wide range of varieties, she said.
"Resilience is built through diversity," Shiva said.
cont.Faced with growing demand for food and increasingly unpredictable weather, many... more
-
-
Prospects seem encouraging for a new international agreement to prevent biopiracy and to ensure fair and equitable benefit sharing from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. October 2010 is the target for this agreement to be adopted by governments that are Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), when the governments gather in Nagoya, Japan for the biennial Conference of the Parties.
By CHEE YOKE LING
Issue No. 231/232 (Nov/Dec 2009)
DEVELOPING countries hold most of the planet's biodiversity and their indigenous peoples and local communities hold, nurture and use a wealth of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity. Governments and many organisations representing indigenous peoples' rights want a legally binding agreement to correct injustices and stop the misappropriation (commonly called 'biopiracy') of those biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Negotiations finally took off in 2005 with the CBD's Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS Working Group) tasked to negotiate an 'international regime on access and benefit sharing'. This came after years of insistence by developing countries because of the continued lack of implementation of the CBD's third objective, i.e. the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources (see Box 1). On the contrary, concerns over biopiracy have grown since the CBD entered into force in 1994 (see Box 2 and related articles on potential biopiracy cases in this issue of TWR).
Developing countries argue that regardless of the strength of their national ABS laws, once biological material and associated knowledge leave their countries and are used (from research to commercialisation) in other countries, they face daunting obstacles in enforcing their rights. In reality most countries still do not have national laws, rendering them even more vulnerable to biopiracy.
If a Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing does finally materialise, this would be the culmination of almost 15 years of persistent demands by developing countries, in the face of years of strong resistance and even rejection by most developed countries and big business interests such as the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.
Optimism sparked when there was a discernible shift in the momentum towards a possible Protocol when CBD Parties in the ABS Working Group ended a week's meeting (9-15 November 2009) in Montreal with one consolidated text that will be negotiated and hopefully finalised in March 2010 in Cartagena, Colombia before the result is sent on to the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Nagoya.
There was a growing sense of urgency in Montreal as there will be only one more week of formal negotiations in March 2010 before the COP meets later in October to formally adopt the agreement. Though there is still no agreement on practically all the key components, there is one single document now that contains the makings of an agreement. There is no full agreement on whether it will be one legally binding international agreement but more developed countries signalled a willingness to have a Protocol when they met in Montreal. (A Protocol is a legally binding agreement, usually adopted as a separate agreement under a broader 'parent' international treaty, in this case the CBD.)
The Co-Chairs of the negotiating process Fernando Casas (Colombia) and Tim Hodges (Canada) in a joint statement at the closing plenary session said that there was a 'preponderant understanding' in the Working Group that the 'negotiations of the international regime aim at finalising a draft protocol under the CBD'.
For many years developed countries have been resistant to the calls of developing countries for a single legally binding international agreement to deal with access and benefit sharing. Their preferences ranged from voluntary guidelines to an international regime comprising legally binding and non-legally binding instruments (but not a single agreement).
It was thus noteworthy that Japan, initially among the most resistant, said in the closing plenary session that it was 'very supportive of the Co-Chairs' assessment of the preponderance of views' in the Working Group. The head of delegation, Masayoshi Mizuno, said that, 'This Working Group will continuously and relentlessly aim to adopt a protocol in Japan.' (Japan will host the COP meeting that is scheduled to adopt the final outcome of the negotiations, and many hope that the new government will adopt a more progressive position on a 'Nagoya Protocol'.)
He also clarified his statement at the opening plenary (9 November) on this item, where he said Japan would not exclude a legally binding regime and that the nature would be determined after discussions on the substance. Pending that discussion Japan was not in a position to accept a legally binding international regime 'at this stage', indicating that it was prepared to do so under certain conditions.
Most delegates at the meeting regarded this as a significant shift in Japan's position.
continuedProspects seem encouraging for a new international agreement to prevent biopiracy and... more
-
-
EXTRACT: Cotton crisis and successive crop failures due to declining soil health goes hand in hand with the imported GM (genetic modification) technology, which is energy and input intensive.
"Bt cotton is a high-cost, energy-intensive technology," said farmers' leader Vijay Jawandhia. In an arid and rain-dependent agriculture region like Vidarbha, he said, this technology comes with huge risks. "Costlier the technology, higher the risk."
---
---
Soil in Wardha district deficient in 18 micronutrients: Study
Jaideep Hardikar
DNA, December 6 2009
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_soil-in-wardha-district-deficient-in-18-micronutrients-study_1320504
Mumbai: From a corner of his farm in Jhamkola, Daulat Mahure, 45, could see what Laxman Chelpelwar, 55, must have seen on his own field, some miles away in Mukutban village: stunted and wilting cotton plants, leaves red as dried blood, and hardly any cotton bolls. The two farmers were from South Yavatmal villages in the Painganga river basin along the Andhra border.
On November 16, Chelpelwar went out, apparently to inspect what must have looked to him a forlorn six-acre crop-less farm. According to his wife Pochubai, he returned home four hours later, and lay down on his bed without uttering a word. Minutes later he began to convulse violently.
"I was alone, I was frightened, and cried for help," she remembers. By the time her sons and some neighbours arrived, it was over. The post-mortem report revealed that Chelpelwar had consumed Endosulfan, a pesticide.
Five quintals. That was Chelpelwar's cotton yield in the first picking. His income from it: Rs15,000. His expenses: Rs50,000.Back in Jhamkola village, about 45 km from the cotton trading town of Pandharkawda, Mahure's cotton yield stood at one quintal: worth about Rs3,000. "I'm not lying," says his mother Jiblabai, who at 70 must work as a farm labourer, picking cotton, so that the family can eat.
Jiblabai says she came home from work on November 23 to find her son hanging from the ceiling of their two-room hut. He had killed himself when nobody was at home. "Daulat was devastated by the failed crops," says his father Kashinath.
Mahure's death left a trail of unanswered questions. The answers, like in Chelpelwar's case, lie buried in his seven-acre field where the cotton plants are drooping, and many are yet to find roots. The soil, says his farmer friend Datta Upre, has nothing in it to feed the plant.
Lalya, the destroyer
"Lalya wrecked us with the drought," said Upre. Lalya, a local term for the reddening of the cotton plants, has become a regular feature ever since the Bt cotton replaced hybrids, according to a number of farmers The Mag spoke to. The Maharashtra government has been compensating farmers in the region for 'lalya' almost every year since the Bt seeds came in.
Agriculture scientists say 'lalya' points to a lack of micronutrients and moisture content in soils, which are fast degrading. This year's scanty rainfall exposed the soil's deteriorating health. Bad soil health, says a senior soil scientist from the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) at Nagpur, mires plant growth and leads to low yields.
A recent study by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) found, as a sample, the soils in Wardha district heavily deficient in 18 micronutrients that breathe life in plants and dictate the yields.
Farming in the rain-fed areas has become even more intensive after the onset of Bt technology. Intensive agriculture, while increasing productivity, has caused fresh problems in respect of nutrient imbalance, experts say. "No moisture and no nutrition in soil," said a CICR scientist, "is a certain recipe for crop failure." True in both, Mahure and Chelpelwar's cases.
A complex process, lalya unfolds with pest attacks, moisture stress and lack of micronutrients in soil. Temperature variation in the day and night accentuates its gravity.
Finally, the plant's chlorophyll content (which gives leaves its green colour) decreases with nitrogen deficiency, giving birth to another pigment called Anthocynin, which turns the foliage red.
If reddening starts before boll formation, it results in a 25 per cent drop in yield, said the CICR scientist, on condition of anonymity. "lalya," he declared, "is here to stay."
Lalya & Bt Technology
The disease, agriculture scientists say, has its roots in the American Bt technology that India imported on the pretext of improving productivity. Almost all the 500-plus Bt seed varieties sold in India this year are of the same parentage -- the American variety of Coker-3, a top CICR scientist said. "It means every seed has half American blood and half of Indian variety cross-pollinated with it."EXTRACT: Cotton crisis and successive crop failures due to declining soil health goes... more
-
-
THE ANGRY MERMAID WINNER IS... Monsanto!
*****
Copenhagen, December 15, 2009 - The winner of the Angry Mermaid Award 2009, announced by award-winning writer and journalist Naomi Klein at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen today is the biotech giant Monsanto with 37 per cent of the total vote [1].
Oil giant Shell took second place (18 per cent) in the Award for lobbying to sabotage effective action on climate change, followed by the American Petroleum Institute (14 per cent).
Ten thousand people voted in the Angry Mermaid Award, named after the iconic Copenhagen mermaid who is angry about corporate lobbying on climate change.
Eight candidates were put forward for public vote at www.angrymermaid.org and individuals at the Klimaforum were also invited to vote [2].
Agriculture giant Monsanto was nominated for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels. The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) of which Monsanto is a member, is helping to promote the company’s cause by allowing GM soy to be labelled as “responsible”. Monsanto also wants GM soy to be funded under the Clean Development Mechanism [3].
Speaking for the award organisers, Paul de Clerk from Friends of the Earth International said: “Monsanto has attracted thousands of votes from individuals who are outraged that such an environmentally-damaging form of agriculture should be put forward to tackle climate change.
“Big business must not be allowed to sabotage action against climate change by promoting their vested interests. All the candidates for the Angry Mermaid Award have lobbied to protect their own profits and prevent effective action to tackle climate change. Governments need to stop listening to them and choose real solutions to the climate crisis.”
The Angry Mermaid is organized by Attac Denmark, Corporate Europe Observatory, Focus on the Global South, Friends of the Earth International, Oil Change International and Spinwatch.
***
NOTES
[1] Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the New York Times and #1 international bestseller, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
[2] The eight nominees for the Angry Mermaid Award were:
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)
American Petroleum Institute (API)
European Chemical Lobby (Cefic)
International Air Transport Association (IATA)
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
Monsanto
Sasol
Shell
[3] Monsanto was nominated for lobbying for carbon credits for their RoundupReady crops, which are being grown for agrofuel. RoundupReady soy doesn’t need ploughing because it can be heavily sprayed with
herbicides. Not ploughing the fields leaves more carbon dioxide in the ground, but the vast spread of soy monocultures in Latin America have caused deforestation, the displacement of people, and massive amounts of
toxic weed-killer being used instead.
Monsanto also wants GM soy to be funded under the Clean Development Mechanism which would allow polluting industry in the developed world to offset their emissions by buying credits from GM soy projects. Offsetting is a false solution to climate change and does not lead to emissions reductions in developed countries.THE ANGRY MERMAID WINNER IS... Monsanto!
*****
Copenhagen, December 15, 2009 - The... more
-
-
Industrial agricultural models will not work in Africa. Small farmers, hunters, gatherers, and indigenous peoples have already mastered the farming techniques that will solve both the climate and food crises. What they need are access and opportunity to save their own seeds and implement the methods that will best suit their land and their circumstances. The one size fits all industrial model for profit will only lead us further into this crisis. Copenhagen needs to listen to the indigenous peoples of this world who know it better than anyone.Industrial agricultural models will not work in Africa. Small farmers, hunters,... more
-
-
ttp://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/messagefromvandanashiv/
Have you seen this advertisement? Couched deep within the green-washed rhetoric of a recent Monsanto ad is an egregious claim:
Producing more. Conserving more. Improving farmers’ lives. That’s sustainable agriculture. And that’s what Monsanto is all about.
Oh, really?
While the mainstream media and Big Ag pundits seem all too happy to watch how Monsanto and other biotech companies spin and co-opt the term “sustainability,” we at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) are on the front lines fighting against the corporate take-over of our food, farms, and future; advocating for REAL, sustainable, solutions to the problems of the biotech industrial agriculture model.
Over the next month, CFS will be bringing you videos from some experts with whom we work closely in the trenches—Michael Pollan, Vandana Shiva, Anna Lappé, and CFS’s Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell—to help us tell you the real truth about the false claims put forth by Monsanto and other biotech companies. We’ll share with you why these leading activists support the work of the Center for Food Safety.
CFS has been fighting on your behalf since 1997. We have accomplished a lot – we’ve stopped GMO crops including wheat, rice, and alfalfa, and also dangerous pharmaceutical-producing crops. We’ve beat Monsanto in the courts, but they have the substantial resources to continue to challenge CFS; just this week, they asked for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider yet another appeal of our successful lawsuit stopping GMO alfalfa.
We can only accomplish these victories with the support of members like you. Please join Vandana Shiva in supporting our work, to raise the funds we need to continue to fight Monsanto in the courts, and to combat the twisted version of “sustainability” biotech company marketers are trying to foist on the world. We need your help, right now, to raise our goal of $100,000 this Fall — less than the amount Monsanto spent on just ONE AD on the back page of The New Yorker (about $140,000), to support our important workttp://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/messagefromvandanashiv/
Have you seen this... more
-
-
I was going to add a title saying I was stripping for sustainable agriculture to get more attention, but I decided not to. But seriously, is that really what we have to stoop to in order to get people to pay attention to such an important issue? When will this be considered important to media? When you are not able to buy or plant a seed without a corporation owning it? When you will not be able to eat anything but what they tell you to eat? When the number of crops grown dwindles down to 10 and biodiversity is all but gone? When the worldwide famine hits or we completely poison this planet into unsustainability?
Excerpt:
A global civil society coalition sent a public warning to the UN General Assembly that a new class of patents covering plants and animals endangers both innovation and food security, echoing the sentiments of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
The "Global alert against Monstantosizing' our food" was released on 21 October by the "No Patents on Seeds" coalition, coinciding with the presentation of similar concerns by the UN Special Rapporteur, Olivier de Schutter, on the Right to Food, at the Third Committee (dealing with Social, Humanitarian and Cultural issues) in New York.
The alert was initiated by the organisations Berne Declaration, Swissaid, Misereor No Patents on Life (Switzerland), Greenpeace and The Development Fund (Norway), supported by farmer organisations from Europe, South America and Asia. They include Coldiretti in Italy, COAG in Spain, dairy farmers from Germany, Federacion Agraria Argentina and Bharat Krishak Samaj, an Indian farmer organisation.
Directed at governments, parliaments and patent offices, the alert warns about a new class of patents covering plants and animals derived from conventional breeding. "These patents even claim harvests and derived food products such as milk, butter and bread," the report revealed.
By speaking of "Monsantosizing", the signatories to the alert warned that the whole chain from seed to food production might be controlled by a few big international corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, leading to a process of oligopolies and increasing concentration.
"A radical change in both patent legislation and the practice of patent offices is needed to eliminate patents on plants and farm animals," said Francois Meienberg of the Berne Declaration.
"Corporations should not be allowed to continue to misappropriate and monopolise seeds, plants and farm animals via patent law. If they are, these patents will become a major threat to global food security, food sovereignty and innovation."
"The big companies are about to control seed, harvest, trade and even food production," warned Luis Contigiani at Federacion Agraria Argentina.
"We can see how Monsanto tries to license fees on soy production, imposing embargoes on European importers of Argentinean soy and derivatives based on patents that are not valid in our country. This is an example of the consequences when genetic resources are subjected to the logic of monopolisation by patent rights."
The alert quotes from the background report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (A/64/170), de Schutter, which also raises concerns that seed patents might increase food crises. Citing de Schutter, "The oligopolistic structure of the input providers' market may result in poor farmers being deprived of access to seeds, productive resources essential for their livelihoods, and it could raise the price of food, thus making food less affordable for the poorest."I was going to add a title saying I was stripping for sustainable agriculture to get... more
-
-
As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to be signed for the period after 2012. It is becoming clear how agribusiness attempts to gain profits from the massive carbon credits market. Under the term "Conservation Agriculture", Monsanto and other biotech allies have penetrated the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to get carbon credits for agribusiness. A voluntary 'responsible' label for Roundup Ready soy sponsored by World Wild Life Fund (WWF), and a newly approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) methodology are important steps for Agribusiness to get access to this three billion dollar business.
Proposals to include agriculture in carbon offsetting focus on changes in tillage practices and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. All these practices are included in the concept of "Conservation Agriculture", which is based on three principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations . However, in the name of Conservation Agriculture and with the explicit consent of FAO and UNFCCC, very different agricultural methods are included. Under this label a range of systems from biological agriculture to No-till GM industrial agriculture can be labelled as sustainable and so receive carbon credits.
No-till is an agricultural technique that requires no ploughing or digging of the soil. When sowing, seeds are drilled into the soil. In general, No-till is considered a conservation practice that increases levels of soil organic matter and reduces soil erosion, but in RR soy industrial monocultures it part of this technique is used in conjunction with very harmful environmental practices.
In practice, Carbon credits for No-till could mean a massive economic support for Genetically Modified (GM) soy monocultures in South and North America and a promotion of this agribusiness model in other Southern Hemisphere regions.
GM soy monocultures are a production model which is not sustainable in any way. In South America, soy production of this kind is one of the main drivers of deforestation, land use change, biodiversity destruction and human rights violations . Moreover, these monocultures sustain the industrial feed industry which is a main cause of climate change as well. To label these agricultural production models as “sustainable” only because they involve less ploughing (no tillage or No-till) means falling into a trap of absurdly reductionism and blindness.
The report "Agriculture and Climate Change: Real Problems, False Solutions" presented in June 2009 reveals the main agriculture-related proposals in the negotiations for a post -2012 climate agreement. It provides an informative panorama on how current and proposed agricultural practices for the post Kyoto agreements really impact on climate change. However, in this article we will focus specifically on some cases related to soy monocultures.
_______
And the current climate bill in Congress aids their scheme which discredits it right from the start.As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to... more
-
-
The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has today released a report exposing the patents and players involved in appropriating key African food crops to produce genetically modified (GM) climate crops. According to the report, biotechnology is being used to identify "climate genes" in African crop plants, which are able to withstand the stresses that are likely to become prevalent as the world's climate changes. By patenting genes that can withstand stresses like drought, heat and salinity corporations are positioning themselves to turn a fat profit.
Monsanto, working through strategic partnerships, is at the forefront of patenting key African food crops such as sorghum, maize, peanut, cotton, wheat, manioc, sugar cane and banana for their 'climate' properties including stress tolerance, biomass accumulation and drought tolerance.
Israeli company Evogene, partially owned by Monsanto, is claiming more than 700 "climate gene" sequences in a single patent application. The claims extend to the use of gene sequences in key crops in Africa such as millets and sorghum, and even targets African Teak wood species. Another Monsanto partner, US based Ceres Inc, is aggressively filing patent monopoly on a wide variety of climate-related genes for both agrofuels and food crops.
Swiss Syngenta, Monsanto's GM competitor is standing in line for patents in respect of drought tolerance in sorghum and rice. Pioneer Hi Bred, Du Pont Corporation and BASF are also involved in filing numerous climate change related patents.
"It is clear that Monsanto, Syngenta and others are positioning themselves to penetrate African agriculture markets clutching the climate change banner. We condemn the expediency of the biotechnology industry in trying to profit from impending tragedy to further its own selfish corporate interests," said Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB.
The ACB calls on African governments to investigate the patent claims, especially those resembling classic 'biopiracy' in asserting ownership of African genetic resources that are then sold elsewhere for profits.
The Full Briefing titled Patents, Climate Change and African Agriculture: Dire Predictions can be downloaded from
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20090928242/Climate-change-in-African-Agriculture/menu-id-100029.htmlThe African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has today released a report exposing the... more
-
-
The biochar initiative was inspired by the discovery of ‘terra preta’ (black earth) in the Amazon basin [22, 23], at sites of pre-Columbian settlements (between 450BC and 950AD), made by adding charcoal, bone, and manure to the soil over many, many years (see Fig. 1). Besides charcoal, it contains abundant pottery shards, plant residues, animal faeces, fish and animal bones. The soil’s depth can reach 2 metres, and is reported capable of regenerating itself at the rate of about 1 cm a year. Similar sites are found in Benin and Liberia in West Africa, in the South African savannahs, and even in Roman Britain. According to local farmers in the Amazon, productivity on the terra preta is much higher than surrounding soils.
Figure 1. Terra preta left compared with surrounding soil right
Investigations in the laboratory revealed that terra preta soils are rich in nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, zinc, and manganese, and have high levels of microbial activities. Terra preta contains up to 70 times more black carbon (BC) than the surrounding soils. Due to its polycyclic aromatic structure, black carbon is believed to be chemically and microbiologically inert (but see later) and persists in the soil for centuries, if not thousands of years. During this time, oxidation produces carboxylic groups increasing its nutrient-holding capacity. Bruno Glaser and colleagues at the University of Bayreuth concluded that [24] “black carbon can act as a significant carbon sink and is a key factor for sustainable and fertile soils, especially in the humid tropics.”
Similarly, BC derived from terra preta sites in central Amazon differing in age from 600 to 8 700 years were chemically, biologically and spectroscopically indistinguishable, as consistent with their “extremely slow” rate of decomposition [25].
However, BC collected from 11 historical charcoal blast furnace sites from Quebec Canada to Georgia USA, were quite different from BC newly produced using rebuilt historical kilns [26]. The historical BC samples were substantially oxidized after 130 years in soils compared to the new BC, or new BC incubated for one year at 30 C or 70 C. The major alterations were an increase in oxygen from 7.2 percent in new BC to 24.8 percent in historical BC; a decrease in carbon from 90.8 percent to 70.5 percent; formation of oxygen-containing function groups, particularly carboxylic acid and phenolic functional groups; and disappearance of surface positive charge, to be replaced entirely by negative charges. New BC incubated at 30 C or 70 C for 12 months increased in oxygen concentrations to 9.2 and 10.6 percent respectively; and also had complete replacement of surface positive charges by negative charges.
These findings show that BC is a substantial oxygen sink, and could deplete atmospheric O2 fairly rapidly if massive amounts are produced in a hurry!
The main factor accounting for the changes was mean annual temperature, which was highly correlated with degree of oxidation. BC oxidation was increased by 87 nmoles/kg C / degree Celsius increase in mean annual temperature. BC oxidation to carboxylic groups accounts for the high cation exchange capacity of natural BC in the soil that the authors suggest is the basis of the enhancement in soil fertility.
So charcoal is not the same as terra preta that has been created over thousands of years by human intervention and natural geochemistry. The claim that biochar is a “stable carbon pool” in the soil that does not degrade for thousands of years is not borne out by the study, nor by a number of other studies (see below).
end of excerpt.The biochar initiative was inspired by the discovery of ‘terra preta’... more
-
-
This is not the time for GM engineering for profit that delivers little to no advantages in yield or in biodiversity. Now is the time for traditional plant breeding to flourish. The stakes for the sustainability of our planet are way too high to count on industrial agriculture that up to this point has not delivered on its promises, but has only added to the problems. Sustainable farming practices that increase biodiversity which then increases yield are what we now need in order to meet the challenges of a growing population and the spectre of climate change that now is upon us. Nature will provide all that is necessary to meet these challenges if we understand that in order to see that happen we must work in tandem with her, not with the intention of conquering her.This is not the time for GM engineering for profit that delivers little to no... more
-
-
Peru has prevented several foreign companies from taking out patents on products by demonstrating that they were developed using the traditional knowledge of Peruvians.
Over the past few months, the Peruvian National Commission Against Biopiracy has shown authorities from France, Japan, Korea and the United States that products submitted for patents were developed using the traditional knowledge of Peruvian people.
It showed that the products lacked the innovation and inventiveness required for patents.
"This is a good example of how coordinated action between the state, the business sector and civil society can prevent inappropriately granted patents related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge," Andrés Valladolid, technical coordinator at the commission, told SciDev.Net.
The products are derived from Lepidium meyenii, Plukenetia volubilis Linneo and Myrciaria dubia — three plants well known among indigenous Peruvian populations for their medicinal properties.
"I suspect a lot of developing countries will be quite impressed by what Peru has achieved and may consider doing something similar by establishing a department to investigate biopiracy allegations," says Graham Dutfield, professor of international governance at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
"Some will say that the refusal of the patents shows how well the patent system can operate. Consequently, it is a matter of monitoring the situation and gathering prior evidence to attack questionable patent applications," Dutfield adds.Peru has prevented several foreign companies from taking out patents on products by... more
-
-
Biopiracy of traits of climate resilient crops by leading seed multinationals can endanger the income and livelihood of farmers, more particularly in the developing world said a report compiled by a civil society organization, Navdanya.
In tune with the proposals made by the Group of 77, China and other developing countries at the recently concluded 30th meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 30) at the climate change talks in Bonn, Navdanya has appealed that climate-friendly technologies should be excluded from patenting.
The world’s big seed companies face claims of bio-piracy and a tough fight with activists as they race to secure patents for climate-proof GM crops.
The report – Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops – has documented drought resistant rice varieties grown by farmers from generations to generations in different parts of India, including Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and flood resistant rice varieties grown in Assam, West Bengal, Orissa, Kerala and Karnataka. Quoting the Guinness Book of Record, the report mentioned Mehite Kenye La rice as the tallest grown paddy in the world which grows up to 2.55 metre or 8.5 feet.
The report documented salinity resistant rice varieties grown in the Sunderban area of West Bengal alongwith the mangroves, Orissa, Kerala, northern Karnataka. It also mentioned some of the diverse aromatic rice varieties and rice varieties having therapeutic values and unique characteristics.
The Navdanya report expressed concern over the biopiracy being done by leading seed multinationals by getting broad patent rights over climate-resistant traits of conventional crops from different patent offices across the world. German company, BASF has acquired 21 such patent rights. Another German company, Bayers has five such patent rights. Ceres Inc of US which partners with Monsanto holds four such patent rights. The reports also mentioned other seed companies holding such patent rights like Dow, DuPont, Evogene, Mendel Biotechnology, Monsanto, Syngenta, Agrigenetic, Mycogen, Agrinomics, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Plant Research International BV.
“Climate resistant traits are found in many crops conventionally grown across the world, particularly in tropical and sub-tropical countries. These crops are traditionally bred by farmers. The seed multinationals are robbing the farmers of this traditional knowledge and patenting the traits. Some of them are trying to develop second generation genetically modified (GM) crops based on these traits,” alleged Vandana Shiva of Navdanya.
According to Shiva GM crops have failed to provide food and nutritional security. The claim of pest control has turned out to be a hoax. The failure of Bt cotton was an example she said and added that Bt cotton cultivation has placed farmers in heavy losses and brought them to acute point of distress.
end of excerptBiopiracy of traits of climate resilient crops by leading seed multinationals can... more
-
-
Motoring up Brazil's Arauazinho River during the rainy season is like navigating a lake full of trees. The rust-colored water escapes its banks and spreads out across the rain forest, leaving the channel indistinguishable from the jungle around it. Marc van Roosmalen, however, seems to sense the river's course. Perched on the bow of our small aluminum boat, the primatologist confidently directs our pilot up the main artery, and we head deeper into the Amazonian wilderness with every turn.
Thin and leathery, with a deep tan and a goatee, Van Roosmalen looks younger than his 60 years. A Dutch-born naturalized Brazilian, he first came to this remote and untouched area of the Amazon more than a decade ago to study a biological El Dorado, a treasure of rare and undescribed biodiversity. For many researchers, discovering a single new species is a career maker. Van Roosmalen has discovered at least 10 — fantastical-sounding creatures like the dwarf marmoset and the giant peccary. His work along the Arauazinho and the Aripuana has earned him a reputation as one of the world's greatest living naturalists.
The boat edges around another curve, and Van Roosmalen's longtime field aid, Francis Correêa, shouts and points at an enormous anaconda, thick as a palm tree, curled on the bank. "Francis has such a keen eye," Van Roosmalen says as the snake eases into the water and underneath the boat.
A few minutes later, our engine quits. "I think I'll have a swim," Van Roosmalen announces, grabbing a snorkel out of his bag. "This water is really nice. The only problem is the electric eels. And the anacondas. And the sting rays, but that's only in the dry season." He doffs his blue button-down and yellow T-shirt and jumps into the water. I'm dubious, but he persuades me to join him, narrating the river's features as we paddle among the submerged tree trunks.
Eventually the pilot gets the motor going, but only barely. We beach the boat and strike out overland. The hike is slow going because Van Roosmalen pauses to note every fruit and tree, every monkey scratch in the bark. He picks up a large, hollowed-out nut. "This is a new species in the Brazil nut family that I'd like to describe," he says wistfully. "In the old days, I would collect this and then later return for the flowers."
He walks a few steps and then stops abruptly. "Automatically I put it in my pocket," he says, pulling out the nut and dropping it to the ground. "If I forget and go back to Manaus" — the capital of the state of Amazonas — "they can throw me in jail."
He may sound paranoid, but he's actually facing a bleak reality. In the summer of 2007, Brazilian authorities put him into one of the country's most dangerous prisons for two months, the beginning of what was supposed to be a 14-year sentence. They called him a traitor and a biopirate and convicted him of stealing the country's natural resources. As a result, Van Roosmalen was fired from his job at the government scientific institute where he'd spent two decades. He became estranged from his family, mired in debt, and afraid for his life. Even as we trudge through the Arauazinho, he awaits the verdict on his final appeal. If he loses, he goes back to prison to serve out his term.
No one disputes that Van Roosmalen is a talented researcher, or suggests that he is any sort of common criminal. When he ran afoul of Brazil's own paranoia over the theft of natural resources, important science lost out to bureaucracy, xenophobia, and cynicism. But Marc van Roosmalen is a polarizing figure here. Some see him as an environmental hero; others believe he is the nations's biggest biopirate. The same monomania and hubris that made him a great researcher also helped bring about his own demise. He could have become one of the most innovative conservationists of his generation. Now he may end up nothing more than a cautionary tale — or, if his worst fears come to pass, a martyr.Motoring up Brazil's Arauazinho River during the rainy season is like navigating... more
-
-
kushan
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
