GRAIN
The main product of the "Earth Summit" will be an agreed programme of action: Agenda 21. As the final Preparatory Conference for the Earth Summit gets under way this month in New York, we look at those parts of Agenda 21 which deal with the conservation and utilization of genetic resources: biodiversity, biotechnology and sustainable agriculture.
The North has always seen UNCED as an opportunity to address the "global environmental problems", by which it means those Southern issues which have a direct bearing on Northern interests: tropical forest loss, biodiversity loss; and climate change. While these are also vitally important matters for the South, people of developing countries are also faced by far more pressing issues like soil erosion, declining soil fertility and other aspects of environmental degradation linked in a vicious circle with poverty. This is where the poor of the South feel the immediate impact of environmental problems. After much pressure from the developing countries, issues of greater relevance to their development needs have been added to the agenda. The draft of Agenda 21 -- the programme of action to be agreed at the Summit itself in Rio de Janerio -- now ranges from poverty to pollution, from agriculture to biotechnology. Still missing though, are critical issues like the effects of the debt crisis, or a serious consideration of the effects of world trade.
Just three months before the Rio summit itself, governments are negotiating the text of Agenda 21. It is unlikely that many things will be added to it at this stage, but since this is the first, and only, formal negotiating session, items could well be deleted if they don 't meet with the approval. Success of the Earth Summit is likely to rest ultimately on cross-cutting issues of financial resources and technology transfer. New and additional financial flows and access to the North's technology are what the South is demanding from the "Earth Summit" in return for commitments to do more to protect the resource base on which South and North together ultimately depend. The countries of the South are pressing hard for these new resources, and might be ready to reject the whole deal if they feel that their development interests are not being met to an adequate degree at the summit. NGOs, while generally supportive of this approach, are also pushing for issues which go beyond the money. After all, the "Earth Summit" will only be effective in contributing to long term development if it succeeds in promoting the rights of local communities to have greater control over the resources they need for their lives and their livelihoods.
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development
Arguably this is the most important part of the whole of Agenda 21, though it was left off the agenda altogether at the beginning. On the surface the approach in the draft text is very good, with emphasis on low-input systems, participation, and a reappraisal of policies which impact on agriculture. However, a major worry is that behind the proposals lurks an implicit policy to divide land into two areas: high production agricultural land on the one hand, and marginal lands on the other. The paper suggests that "priority must be on maintaining and improving the capacity of the higher potential agricultural lands". The danger of this approach is that conservation considerations may be given priority over increased food production in marginal areas, while research, development, and investment in general is concentrated on better lands. But since food for much of the domestic population, and most of the rural poor, is produced on the marginal lands by poor, small-scale farmers, it is these who need greater investment.
These worries are increased when one takes into account the rather timid approach to land reform presented in the paper -- it aims only to "influence" land rights. A concentration of effort on more productive lands could only be justified on grounds of equity and food security if it were accompanied by a strong effort to redistribute better lands to poor farmers and the landless, and to strengthen land property rights of the rural poor, especially of women. A bolder approach is required, perhaps even the provision of loans and grants to enable small farmers to purchase land.
The paper contains a section "Ensuring People's Participation" which includes some very positive proposals to promote greater awareness of the value of participation, to ensure equitable access to biological resources, technology and financing, and to strengthen the capacity of community-based institutions. However, while the identification of "People's Participation" as a key element for sustainable agriculture and rural development is a welcome one, it is a mistake to treat this as a separate component. Rather, it should be integrated into all programme areas. The lack of integration of participatory approaches is reflected in the somewhat over-prescriptive tone of the paper. If poor, small-scale farmers are not involved in the formulation of policies, or in the choice of technologies, then it is possible that their interests will be damaged and food security impaired.
Greater emphasis on participation should be included in the section on Plant Genetic Resources, for example. There should also be mention of the importance of traditional crops and of the important role of farmers in maintaining and improving these, on-farm. The activities related to developing mechanisms on Farmers ' Rights need to be elaborated. This could be linked to other "programme areas" and to the provision of agricultural research and extension services which better meet the needs of small-scale farmers.
Biodiversity
In general the chapter on "Conservation of Biological Diversity" is a good one. It emphasizes the links between biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, and gives attention to the importance of genetic diversity within species as a key to food security. It calls for biodiversity concerns to be fully integrated into development programmes, and it recognizes the extra costs involved. The section on "Maximizing and spreading the benefits of biodiversity" is perhaps the most important one of the chapter. It is generally well-balanced, giving attention to local communities, and emphasizing the important role of research. The main weakness of the chapter is the arbitrary organization of the proposed activities into the four programme areas.
Some of the key points included in the chapter on biodiversity are given below. If the document is to have any benefit, it is vital that these survive the negotiating process:
• Promote production systems which sustainably utilize and maintain or increase biodiversity.
• Develop local institutions and other mechanisms to enable local communities to manage biodiversity using traditional approaches.
• Elaborate mechanisms to enable the participation of local communities in the formulation and implementation of national genetic resources programmes.
• Agree, at the international level, procedures for collection and transfer of biological resources, recognizing the rights of communities and the concept of Farmers ' Rights.
• Ensure the sharing of the benefits (actual and potential) of biodiversity and its components.
• Establish an intergovernmental body for the conservation and use of PGR.
• Evaluate the implications of IPRs for biodiversity at all levels.
While it is vital that attention is given to the capacity of local communities in biodiversity management, if emphasis is placed disproportionately on their role as curators, rather than as producers of food, food security could be lowered, particularly given the lack of mechanisms to compensate adequately, local communities for maintaining, improving, and making available plant genetic resources. While the chapter gives weight to "the role of traditional resource management and use practices in the maintenance of biodiversity", it fails to address the issue of whether local communities should receive compensation or benefits for their knowledge. Also, more emphasis should be placed on production systems which build upon and sustain biodiversity.
Biotechnology
Technology, and in particular biotechnology, can play an important part improving the livelihoods of the rural poor and in increasing food production. But the chapter in Agenda 21 on "Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology" fails to provide new mechanisms which will ensure that the rural poor gain from the benefits of the new biotechnologies. The paper is over optimistic, and at times simplistic, in its assessment of the potential for biotechnology to meet the needs of developing countries and of poor people, especially in relation to other technologies, and other, non-technological, constraints. For example, the chapter states that "the main objective of this programme is to achieve good health for all by the end of the century,". While biotechnology has an important role to play (in the development of vaccines, for example), improvements in other areas such as provision of clean water, as well as the eradication of poverty, are far more important.
In particular, the chapter fails to address adequately several issues which impose major constraints on enabling the rural poor to benefit from the new biotechnologies. Currently, research priorities are set predominately by large transnational companies, which will be expected to focus on products for which there is a large commercial market. These are often unlikely to coincide with the needs of the rural poor who do not usually have the purchasing power to benefit from such products or to influence markets. Increased involvement of public sector institutions will be required to fill this gap. Funding is required for appropriate and well planned public research into crops and products of biotechnology likely to have a high local socioeconomic importance even though they do not have large global markets.
The chapter also fails to propose adequate mechanisms to ensure the participation of the intended beneficiaries in technology development and technology choice. Without this, new technologies are more likely to harm poor people than to help them. Even when the aggregate effect of new technologies is positive there will be negative effects on sectors of the population who are bypassed by the technological advance. The Green Revolution technologies for example, while successful in increasing production in some regions, also increased income disparities by accentuating pre-existing inequalities (for land, water & other resources, and for markets).
Mechanisms must be developed, therefore, to involve local communities in setting the priorities for research, and researchers must learn from existing indigenous technologies, customs and constraints. Since linking biotechnology research to the needs of poor farmers is especially difficult given the gulf between the molecular sophistication of the biotechnologist and the cultural sophistication of the farmer, farmers ' organizations, other NGOs and local government agencies should be supported and involved in this process.
A major shortcoming of the chapter is that it assumes that biotechnology will have only positive effects on the protection of the environment. No mention is made of the possible dangers of genetic erosion through the displacement of indigenous varieties by new ones, for example. The issue of safety is narrowly defined and thus fails to redress the balance. Similarly the possible negative socioeconomic consequences, particularly for poor people, are not addressed adequately.
The final section on "Establishing enabling mechanisms for the environmentally sound application of biotechnology" should be the most important of the chapter. Technology development and transfer should be carried out using mechanisms with clear objectives: to reduce rather than increase dependence on developed countries; to build upon local knowledge and traditional technologies rather than to displace them; and to be based upon the real needs of the poor. This will almost certainly require investment into searching for new and appropriate mechanisms for technology development. But the chapter does not set such objectives, and fails to elaborate appropriate mechanisms.
Besides ensuring participation and providing more publicly funded research, efforts should concentrate on building indigenous capacities in research and development. Such support would include institution building, access to relevant scientific and technical information, training, and the protection and development of already existing technologies. The International Agricultural Research Centres could have an increased capacity building function. Special attention should be given to improving the regulatory framework, so that developing countries can enforce appropriate safety measures. Appropriate criteria will have to be devised to ensure sustainability of new technologies. These are likely to include more attention to research efforts to support and develop agricultural and other traditional production systems which are based on the maintenance and use of biological diversity.
The introduction of new biotechnologies may have harmful effects on the trading positions of developing countries, particularly for commodity exporters. If biotechnology allows the industrial production in developed countries of products traditionally derived from Third World commodities, the exporting country could lose out, with knock-on effects on their farmers. The paper has little to say on this issue. Much more research is required and the UN system, perhaps UNCTAD, should be called upon for the following initiatives to survey developments in biotechnology, to assess their impacts on the poor, and to examine the possibilities for compensation.
How much will it all cost?
In the area of conservation and utilization of biological resources, the UNCED secretariat reckons that a little more than seven billion dollars is needed every year from the international community on concessional terms (Box). Much of this is for management of protected areas, the primary purpose of which is protection of wildlife and conservation of biodiversity resources for global benefits. The amounts required for strategically important areas like plant and animal genetic resources in agriculture; improving utilization and management of biodiversity and spreading its benefits, and in improving the capacity of developing countries to safely utilize biotechnology only a fraction of this quantity is proposed -- a little over one billion per year.
However, these are the programme areas which could have the greatest benefits to small farmers, and other poor, rural communities. For plant genetic resources, fairly reliable assessments of what is required and could be effectively spent in the medium term have already been made (see box on the Stockholm discussions). They should be funded as a priority. But there is a major danger that in the call for much larger amounts of funding these more modest amounts might be lost. It is very important, therefore, that clearly ear-marked funds are available for implementing such proposals. Other aspects of the control of financial resources, as important as the resources themselves, are addressed in the next article.
While the current proposals for Agenda 21 leave important gaps in assessing the problems facing the rural poor of developing countries and in proposing solutions, they contain positive elements. In the negotiating process it is vital that the positive programmes to promote popular management of genetic resources and to ensure a more equitable sharing of the benefits derived from them are supported and given the financial backing they require. If the negotiators manage this, then the "Earth Summit" might at least be a step in the right direction towards solving the complex environment-development crisis we are facing today.
The documents analyzed in this article are the "options for Agenda 21 (A/CONF.151/PC/100/*) on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (PC/100/Add.19; Agenda 21, Section II, Chapter 6); Conservation of Biodiversity (PC/100/Add.20; Agenda 21, section II, Chapter 7); and Environmentally sound management of Biotechnology (PC/100/Add.27; Agenda 21, section II, Chapter 8). The documents are available from the UNCED Secretariat at B.P. 80, Conches, Switzerland.
COUNTING THE COST
Estimates of the UNCED Secretariat on concessional funds required for areas of Agenda 21 on biological resource use and conservation (Chapters on Sustainable agriculture and rural development, conservation of biodiversity, and the environmentally sound management of biotechnology.)
Biodiversity
Information, surveys etc.100
Sustainable utilization & sharing benefits 225
Conservation including protected areas 1500
Enhancing management, incl. by local communities 500
Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Development (SARD)
Plant Genetic Resources 300
Animal Genetic Resources 100
IPM & plant nutrition 550
Enhancing participation 650
Other programmes for SARD 3000
Biotechnology
Mechanisms to enhance safety and for technology transfer 17
Biotechnolgy Research Programmes 180