COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HOLDS FIRST OF FOUR DIALOGUES ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Press Release
ENV/DEV/538

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HOLDS FIRST OF FOUR DIALOGUES ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

The key to achieving sustainable agriculture was to integrate know-how and experience, traditional agricultural practices, as well as such modern technologies as biotechnology and precision farming, the Commission on Sustainable Development was told this afternoon, during the first of four sessions devoted to multi-stakeholder dialogues on sustainable agriculture.

The theme of this afternoon’s discussion -- “choices in agricultural production techniques, consumption patterns and safety regulations: potential threats to sustainable agriculture” -- brought together representatives of governments, industry, trade unions and non-governmental organizations. The Commission, charged with monitoring implementation of Agenda 21, the plan of action adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), began its eighth session this morning.

Radha Ranganathan, of the International Agri-Food Network, speaking on behalf of business and industry, told the Commission that for agriculture to be ecologically, socially and economically sustainable, increasing productivity on existing land was preferred, instead of expanding cultivation into marginal areas or fragile ecosystems. One of the most important lessons learned was that involving all stakeholders was crucial for success. The private sector was a key player in developing and delivering innovative solutions that contributed to increased productivity on existing agricultural land in a sustainable manner.

Nettie Wiebe of the Canadian National Farmers Union, speaking on behalf of the farmers, said that the millions of peasants and small farmers in the world were key to food security and sustainable agricultural production. They offered the only possibility for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. She urged all governments and international agencies to make peasants and small-scale farmers the central part of their agricultural policies. Also, she was very disturbed by the emergence of genetically-modified food products. Until assurances of security could be provided and the environmental effects assessed, such techniques should not be used.

Speaking on behalf of non-governmental organizations, Thomas Foster, of International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture, said that sustainable agriculture meant much more than narrow choices in production and consumption.

Sustainable Development Commission - 1a - Press Release ENV/DEV/538 3rd Meeting (PM) 24 April 2000

Stable local and sustainable food systems and livelihoods were fundamental to the eradication of poverty, reduction of civil strife and the benefit of humanity as a whole. One of the key threats to sustainable agriculture was trade liberalization and export-oriented food and fibre production supported by national governments and international lending organizations.

Responding to the statements made by the various stakeholders, the representative of Bolivia said that there was a need for the countries of the South to have their own channel for development. There was now evidence that sustainable development in developing countries could not repeat the patterns of production and consumption of the North, because the Earth could not support that repetition. What should be sought were forms of development that could provide developing countries with security of life and food security.

The Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of the Netherlands, Laurens-Jan Brinkhorst, said that agriculture was and should be one of the driving forces of economic development, particularly of rural development in developing countries. In fostering world food security, biotechnology could certainly be helpful. There were also advantages where public health and curbing environmental pollution were concerned. Also, transparency vis-à-vis the consumer was essential. The equal sharing of the advantages of biotechnology between developed and developing countries was crucial.

Luis Anderson, of the Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers, also made a presentation, following which questions were posed and recommendations made by numerous other representatives of industry, trade unions, farmers and non-governmental organizations.

The Commission will meet again at 6:45 p.m. today to hold its second multi-stakeholder dialogue on sustainable agriculture, with the theme “best practices in land resource management to achieve sustainable food cycles”.

Commission Work Programme

The Commission on Sustainable Development met this afternoon for the first of four sessions devoted to multi-stakeholder dialogues on sustainable agriculture. This afternoon’s theme is "Choices in agricultural production techniques, consumption patterns and safety regulations: potential threats to sustainable agriculture".

The Commission had before it a note by the Secretary-General describing the format for the multi-stakeholder dialogue (document E/CN.17/2000/3). The dialogue will involve four key stakeholders -– representatives of agri-business, trade unions from the agriculture sector, non-governmental organizations and farmers. Discussion papers have been prepared by organizations from each group: the International Agri-Food Network (E/CN.17/2000/3/Add.1); the International Federation of Agricultural Producers and Via Campesina (E/CN.17/2000/3/Add.2); trade unions (E/CN.17/2000/3/Add.3); and non-governmental organizations (E/CN.17/2000/3/Add.4).

Also before the Commission for this afternoon’s dialogue is a report of the Secretary-General on sustainable agriculture and rural development: trends in national implementation (document E/CN.17/2000/5), which examines progress made towards sustainable agriculture and rural development based on information provided by governments in their national reports to the Commission on Sustainable Development.

The report states that progress had been made in the establishment of national policy and legal frameworks for sustainable agriculture and rural development; the integration of environmental considerations in sustainable agriculture and rural development policy and activities; decentralization of decision-making to regional and local levels of authority; participation of major groups in decision-making; development of human resource capacity through training education and extension; review of land tenure policy; and research and development for the protection of animal and plant genetic resources.

The report lists priorities related to sustainable agriculture and rural development, including food security, water resources conservation and management, protection of underground water and surface-water bodies from pollution; sustainable land use and recuperation of degraded land and soil; rural poverty alleviation; rural development; competitiveness of national agricultural products in international markets; Integrated Pest Management; mitigation of the effects of desertification, and drought and natural disaster. The regions studied in the report include Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Africa, the Americas, Canada and the United States, Asia and the Pacific, the Pacific and Oceania.

According to the report, the most pressing challenges to sustainable agriculture and rural development are food security and improvement of farming systems. To that end, it is necessary to improve information on early warning systems for food and agriculture at regional and national levels. Regional and global cooperation should be intensified to encourage more open and non- discriminatory trading systems. Although initiatives are currently being undertaken, countries need to further emphasize the need for diversification of agricultural crops for internal consumption, as well as for export. Greater emphasis should be placed on improving food production systems and non-farming employment opportunities for the rural poor need to be created. The transfer of environmentally sound technology and know-how to farmers should also be facilitated and cooperation, capacity-building, research and development should be reinforced at both the national and international levels for the conservation of plant and animal genetic resources.

The report also suggests that to ensure people's participation in sustainable agriculture and rural development, emphasis on administrative and fiscal decentralization is needed to reorient decision-making to the local level. Ongoing provision of training, extension and capacity development to local authorities, farmers, women and indigenous groups is also needed. The assignment of clear titles, rights and responsibilities for land is needed to encourage individuals and communities to invest in land resources.

The report goes on to say that challenges to natural resource planning and conservation include the urgent need for policies and programmes to block land degradation, soil erosion and soil fertility mitigation, in both developed and developing countries. Land resource mapping and survey units should be improved at the local, regional and national levels. National research institutions need to be strengthened so as to improve national capacity to design and implement land conservation and reclamation projects and programmes. In order to reduce the use of chemical pesticide in agriculture, more emphasis is needed so as to make integrated pest management practices available to farmers. The development of the integrated plant nutrition approach to increase future yields without harming soil productivity or the environment is also needed. Programmes and pilot projects need to be implemented to promote the use of new and renewable sources of energy to support rural households and farm production.

The addendum to the report (E/CN.17/2000/5/Add.1), which concerns national trends in sustainable forest management, summarizes those trends, with emphasis on overall land management, poverty, and production and consumption aspects; implementation of proposals for action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), and work on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management as well as experiences with certification.

According to the report, there were significant differences in progress towards sustainable forest management among the countries studied in the report. Most tropical development countries indicated that deforestation and forest degradation were still the most serious problems. In contrast, most of the developed countries have seen an increase of their forest cover, but they face problems in respect of forest health, such as pests, pollution and fires. Planted forests have become increasingly important, as have the establishment of protected forest areas. National forest policies have been increasingly influenced by globalization of the forest sector and by international commitments.

[The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests was established in 1995 under the Commission on Sustainable Development, to continue the intergovernmental forest policy deliberations following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.]

The report states that there is a vast and increasing interest in the work on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Certification of forest management has gained increased attention recently. Voluntary certification schemes, usually initiated by environmental non-governmental organizations or the private sector, are being discussed and developed in many countries and some are already in use. Certification is considered one tool among others to promote sustainable forest management and to provide information to customers on wood originating from sustainably managed forests.

The report goes on to say that the most acute and frequently repeated challenges mentioned to the Commission were decreasing the alarming rate of deforestation; further protecting forests, as part of sustainable forest management practices, as well as increasing the areas of protected forests; improving national institutions; and continuously developing assessments and databases of forest resources. Although progress has been made in coordination between the forest and related sectors at the national level, further improvement is a continuing goal with respect to ensuring that all cross- sectoral issues on forests are sufficiently considered. The development of a well-functioning forest industry, providing a major link in the sustainable forest management equations, was also mentioned as a major challenge.

The report of the Secretary-General on sustainable agriculture and rural development (document E/CN.17/2000/7) was prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and examines the degree to which potential gains from the agricultural sector can be realized in the context of overall development objectives, focusing on three major dimensions of sustainable agriculture and rural development: economic, social and environmental. The report also highlights agriculture's contribution to the economy as a whole and its place in the fabric of rural life. The major objective of sustainable agriculture and rural development is to increase food production in a sustainable way and enhance food security.

The report says that at the 1996 World Food Summit world leaders committed to achieving food security for all and eradicating hunger in all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished to half their current level by 2015. The current pace of progress towards meeting this goal is uneven and insufficient, and expectations are that it will not be reached. There are no simple solutions to the complex problems and challenges of eliminating hunger, but rather than a range of policies, methods and tools which can be used in different mixes in order to fit the diversity of production and consumption patterns in agriculture.

The report goes on to say that a three-prong approach may be used to eliminate hunger, including: an accelerated increase in the amount of food to be produced and traded; giving a fair share of resources to agriculture and rural area development; and a major effort in raising the income level of the poor. Environmental problems, such as land degradation, loss of agro- biodiversity and the impact of climate change on agriculture, pose an increasing threat to the ability of nations to meet their growing food needs while simultaneously improving the quality of life of rural people.

The report suggests two fundamental questions related to sustainable agriculture and rural development. The first is how to accelerate progress in reducing the number of poor and improving household food security without further degrading natural resources. The second question is how to cope in sustainable ways with the multiple stresses imposed by consumers on agriculture as a result of population growth, rising incomes, urbanization, demands for higher food quality and safety standards and growing environmental concerns.

In considering these two concerns, the report highlights the need for innovation and adjustment in the following seven priority areas: sustainable intensification; vertical and intersectoral integration; agricultural trade liberalization; emergency preparedness; resource flows and financing mechanisms; information, participation and empowerment; and improved policies and programmes.

The addendum to that report concerns urbanization and sustainable agricultural development (document E/CN.17/2000/7/Add.1) and was also prepared by the FAO. It states that most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades will be in the cities of developing countries. Urban populations are not only consumers, but also producers of food, especially high-value perishable agricultural produce. By 2025, nearly 60 per cent of the world's population will live in urban areas, as a result of both natural population growth in the cities and rural-urban migration.

The report states that urban agriculture provides a critical livelihood and source of food for many urban dwellers, particularly low-income households in developing countries. Urban agriculture provides non-market access to food for low-income families, and also creates agricultural jobs and incomes. Negative aspects of urban agriculture include large demands on limited water resources, and inappropriate agricultural and aquacultural practices.

The report lists four major issues relating to sustainable development of urban agriculture that require attention, including land-use planning and management systems, minimizing air and water pollution, protecting food safety and health, and recycling urban wastes for use in agriculture. Meeting the food needs of rapidly growing urban populations is leading to pressure on agricultural systems and the environment. Small-scale urban agriculture, intensive commercial peri-urban agriculture, and strengthened and improved rural-urban linkages can all make important contributions to meeting urban food needs.

Priorities areas for action listed in the report include: strengthening capacity for land-use planning in urban and peri-urban areas; designing and implementing regional development plans for integrated urban and rural development; strengthening extension and training services for urban, peri-urban and rural farmers in sustainable agricultural and resource management practices; improving food distribution, storage and marketing systems; improving the definition and administration of property rights to address conflicts over land and water use; and strengthening the capacity of public administrations, farmers organizations and other organizations to respond to new agricultural opportunities and problems resulting from urbanization through coordinated and cooperative efforts.

In an addendum concerning biotechnology for sustainable agriculture (document E/CN.17/2000/7/Add.2), biotechnology is defined as any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof to make or modify products or processes for specific uses. Agriculture biotechnology is a collection of scientific techniques, including genetic engineering, that are used to modify and improve plants, animals and micro- organisms for human benefit.

The report says that the potential contribution of modern biotechnology to the achievement of global food security remains uncertain. Most current agricultural biotechnology research lacks pro-poor objectives that could positively impact on sustainable agriculture and rural development objectives. Agricultural biotechnologies have major potential for facilitating and promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development. They could also generate environmental benefits, especially where renewable genetic inputs can be effectively used to substitute for dependency on externally provided agrochemical inputs. Biotechnology needs to focus on some key problems within sustainable agriculture and rural development that historically have not been effectively addressed by conventional technologies.

The report goes on to say that there are concerns about potential risks posed by some aspects of biotechnology. These risks fall into two basic categories: the effects on human and animal health; and the environmental consequences. Caution must be exercised in order to reduce the risk of transferring toxins from one life form to another, of creating new toxins or of transferring allergenic compounds from one species to another, that could result in unexpected allergic reactions. It appears that long-term negative implications for agriculture and food security can arise equally from having biosafety regulations that are either too lax or too stringent. The development of international norms in biosafety is essential. Extremely high levels of regulation of the biotechnology sector, however, will favour larger companies and act as a barrier to entry for smaller companies.

According to the report, there remains the concern that the needs of poorer farmers or nations are unlikely to be a factor that favourably steers the research objectives of biotechnology research, which is dependent on private investment. There are currently no policy instruments to promote the type of biotechnological research that could contribute to food and livelihood security in resource-poor situations, especially in developing countries. Increased participation by farmers and other key actors in the overall sustainable agriculture and rural development process is of vital concern.

The addendum on linkages between agriculture, land and water (document E/CN.17/2000/7/Add.3), also prepared by the FAO, states that the most important causes for the changing relationship among agriculture, land and water include: rapid urbanization in developing countries; competition for water among different uses; environmental concerns; degradation of soil and water resources; population pressures; high levels of malnutrition; and world market prices of cereals at levels below their long-term trends.

According to the report, in an urbanizing world, the very basis of human livelihood and well-being inevitably continues to depend on how men and women manage their land and water resources. The challenge to feed a rapidly growing world population is not only a matter of producing enough food and other biomass (feed and fibre) but also to make the required food items accessible to all people at all times; that is, to achieve food security. Some 55 per cent of all the world's semi-arid lands with rain-fed farming potential are located in sub- Saharan Africa. The lowest per capita nutrition levels and the highest population growth often go together. The worst affected regions in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa together will be the home of an additional 400 million people by 2025. The implication of these figures is that an increasing part of food production must take place somewhere else than where it is needed and consumed.

The report goes on to say that by 2025, it is estimated that as much as two thirds of the world's population could be living in countries under water stress conditions. Irrigated agriculture accounts for the largest part of the water withdrawal; globally about 70 per cent. To understand the dimensions of the problem, it is crucial to distinguish between two kinds of water scarcity -- where agriculture is an important sector of the economy and where it is not. Food self-sufficiency cannot be realistically achieved in situations where the average water availability is at the benchmark level or below. Water scarcity may be seen as a problem of getting adequate amounts of water of appropriate quality to the right activities and functions at the right place and time, and at affordable cost.

The report suggests that the most significant question is not whether scarcity exists or not, but what kind of adaptation strategy is feasible when the ratio between people and water increases and how that strategy can be implemented. Social adaptation entails at least two main issues. One concerns the need to gradually produce more output and/or value per unit of water. Another major issue in connection with social adaptation refers to mitigation and resolution of conflicts that are likely to evolve as a result of scarcity of the natural resource.

According to the report, the challenge for the future is to raise yield levels for food crops, produced under both rain-fed and irrigated conditions, to levels much closer to those attained as best practices in agriculturally developed countries. More widespread use of existing technologies for in-field soil and water management can make substantial differences in yield levels, provided that they are combined with conservation tillage and appropriate levels of all other inputs, such as fertilizers, pest control measures and good quality seed.

The report also says that food production has been increasing much faster in the developing world than in the developed world. Cereal production in the developing world, however, is unlikely to keep pace with demand. Many developing countries will no longer be self-sufficient in grain production. World markets respond to demand and not to need, and malnutrition will continue in spite of the fact that enough food can be produced for the growing world population.

The report goes on to say that the total amount of water on earth remains the same, but people have become far more aware that water is a scarce resource. That awareness is not limited to arid and semi-arid countries, but occurs also in the temperate zone. Rivers cross national boundaries and much more attention is being given to transboundary issues in water allocation. Food production needs to be increased substantially in both irrigated a rain-fed agriculture, and the basic information to make it possible is available.

The report outlines four areas in which the United Nations is in a good position to take a leading role, including providing policy support for governments in the priority setting of investments in agriculture; collecting data and information on best practices in water harvesting, supplementary irrigation, simple and cheap drip irrigation systems, in-field soil and water conservation, and institutional arrangements for privatized irrigation systems, and disseminating that information as synthesized knowledge to water users; assessing the performance of all measures that are likely to raise yields in farmers' fields; and, stimulating research in integrated water resource management, and the development of crops and crop species that grow well under conditions of limited water supply or saline conditions, by conventional plant breeding methods and through modern biotechnology.

The report of the Inter-sessional Ad Hoc Working Group on Integrated Land Management and Agriculture (document E/CN.17/2000/11), which met in New York from 28 February to 3 March, is also before the Commission for the dialogue session (summarized in Press Release EN/DEV 537 issued today).

Statements

RADHA RANGANATHAN, of the International Agri-Food Network, speaking on behalf of business and industry, said that for agriculture to be ecologically, socially and economically sustainable, increasing productivity on existing land was preferred, instead of expanding cultivation into marginal areas or fragile ecosystems. Manufactured plant nutrients, crop protection products and enhanced plant varieties contributed to that extensively and, therefore, allowed farmers to increase productivity per unit of cultivated area. Those products were developed and produced by industries.

One of the most important lessons learned so far, she said, was that involving all stakeholders was crucial for success. The stakeholders included the major groups assembled here today (farmers, unions, non-governmental organizations), as well as governments, international organizations and the scientific community, all of whom dealt with agriculture. With its professional expertise in the area of agriculture, industry stood ready as a partner. To achieve sustainable agriculture, the solution lay in integrating know-how and experience, traditional agricultural practices, as well as such modern technologies as biotechnology and precision farming.

Integrated farming, she said, was an ecosystem-based approach that included standards of “best agricultural practices” in both crop and livestock husbandry. There was a need to continuously evolve integrated farming, based on assessment of field experience, the analyses of problems, costs and benefits. It was the most appropriate way of achieving sustainability. In its framework, the use and application of methods and products had to be adapted to the local conditions, markets and consumer demands. She also elaborated on Integrated Crop Management, Integrated Pest Management, and Integrated Plant Nutrition.

Industry appealed to governments to set regulatory frameworks using science-based decision-making processes to create the sustainable business environments necessary for new technologies to emerge, she said. That required sufficient flexibility for integrated approaches to be adapted to local conditions. The private sector was a key player in developing and delivering innovative solutions that contributed to increased productivity on existing agricultural land in a sustainable manner.

NETTIE WIEBE, Canadian National Farmers Union, on behalf of the North American farmers delegation, said that the millions of peasants and small farmers in the world were key to food security and sustainable agricultural production. They offered the only possibility for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Current ecological degradation made the latter necessary. Food was a basic human right and governments and international agencies must recognize that basic right. Every nation should declare access to food as a constitutional right and develop the appropriate sectors to guarantee that right.

She urged all governments and international agencies to make peasant and small-scale farmers the central part of their agricultural policies, which would mean redirecting funds to support rural infrastructure.

Examples of heavy pesticide use and intensive livestock production led to the reconsideration of current food production methods, she continued. Perhaps most disturbing was the emergence of genetically-modified food products. It was clear that such production methods were exposing the environment to various forms of genetic pollution. Until assurances of security could be provided and the environmental effects assessed, such techniques should not be used.

A major question was who had access to the means of production, she said. Issues such as access to land and tenure of land had to be addressed in order to guarantee food security. Having access to agricultural land was the best incentive for individual farmers to preserve the soil. Ceilings on land holdings were necessary in many areas. Peasants and rural communities were at the heart of most societies. Public financing could not be substituted. Low and declining prices for raw foodstuffs was not viable. Prices reflected the real value put on food. If food was discounted, then the people who grew that food were also being discounted. She urged that those people, their resources and the food they produced be revalued.

LUIS ANDERSON, on behalf of the Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers, said that there was a great deal of useless suffering and unnecessary exploitation affecting agriculture workers, often resulting from unfortunate working conditions. Some 50 million children working in agriculture were among the most exploited. Through the Commission’s dialogue recognition should be achieved internationally of the contribution of agriculture workers to sustainable development. Working conditions should be improved and agriculture workers should be recognized as full-fledged stakeholders.

The protection of the health of all workers -- not only farm workers -- should be ensured, he said. The possibilities of workers taking part in decision-making was essential to their concerns. Distribution of biological technologies failed to recognize the effects they might have on the health and security of workers. The social dimension of sustainable development did not form a part of the framework in which to grasp agricultural questions. The question was whether other jobs would be created and if those who would lose jobs would have access to new employment. Would new developments in agriculture lead to greater poverty? Rhetoric should be translated into concrete programmes. The social effect of change must be fully grasped before programmes were introduced. The possibilities offered by education as an instrument for change should be stressed.

THOMAS FORSTER, speaking on behalf of International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture, said that sustained access to safe, healthy and adequate food was a basic human right. Access to other agricultural products, such as fodder and fibre, were also critical to meeting human needs. Sustainable agriculture meant much more than narrow choices in production and consumption. Stable local and sustainable food systems and livelihoods were fundamental to the eradication of poverty, reduction of civil strife and the benefit of humanity as a whole.

One of the key threats to sustainable agriculture was trade liberalization and export-oriented food and fibre production supported by national governments and international lending organizations, he said. Food security and the production of traditional crops had been seriously compromised. The intensive use of agro-chemicals had also resulted in adverse health and environmental impacts, including acute poisonings and death, chronic effects such as cancers, birth defects and endocrine system disruption. The recent introduction of genetically-modified crops was likely to exacerbate that trend.

Sustainable agriculture would not be achieved, however, through technological fixes alone, he continued. Attention must also be paid to social, gender, cultural and economic issues. Recommendations to the Commission that must be implemented included: the recommendation to support systems of organic and ecological agriculture currently in use; ensuring land security and territorial rights of indigenous peoples, women and small farmers; and the right of indigenous peoples to their own policies on the use, management and administration of natural resources.

He also said that a broad-based review of new technologies should be supported. International and national research and development priorities to support organic/ecological agriculture and multiple values of small farm and indigenous food systems worldwide must also be supported. Consumers also had the right to make fully informed choices in the market place. Consumers must have access to information about the entire life cycle of the food product, beyond the traditional food labelling.

SERGIO JAUREGUI (Bolivia), responding to the statements made, said that there was a need for the countries of the South to have their own channel for development. International assistance should aim towards helping to form national structures for development. There was now evidence that sustainable development in developing countries could not repeat the patterns of production and consumption of the North, because the Earth could not support that repetition. What should be sought were forms of development that could provide developing countries with security of life and food security.

Sustainable development in developing countries, he said, had to take into account new types of growth. There was a need to look at models of development that took into account the Earth’s capacity, as well as land management, sustainable use of resources, and the development of the traditional knowledge of indigenous people and local communities. The commitments of Agenda 21 regarding technology transfer and the adequate provision of resources must be carried out.

LAURENS-JAN BRINKHORST, Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of the Netherlands, spoke on behalf of northern governments to the stakeholders’ presentations. He said that agriculture was and should be one of the driving forces of economic development, particularly of rural development in developing countries. One of the most important instruments to reach more food security on a sustainable basis was agricultural research and extension. Productivity could be increased by providing an enabling economic environment. There had to be incentives for access to efficiently organized markets for agricultural inputs and agricultural produce. The rural economy would benefit from the development of those inter-linkages in the food production and food processing chain.

In fostering world food security, biotechnology could certainly be helpful, he said. There were also advantages where public health and curbing environmental pollution were concerned. Also, transparency vis-à-vis the consumer was essential. The equal sharing of the advantages of biotechnology between developed and developing countries was crucial. A useful instrument in that respect was the development of partnerships between developed and developing countries on a public and a private basis.

Dialogue Session

The Chairman of the Commission, JUAN MAYR MALDONADO (Colombia) offered some possible questions to be considered during the dialogue. First, how could the benefits of the new technologies be harnessed while at the same time reducing their environmental impact? Second, could organic agriculture become a solution in the pursuit of sustainable agriculture?

Mr. ENEH (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that the goals of sustainable development could only be achieved through a holistic approach. Such a holistic approach should be based on identifying major constraints on developing countries. The needs of developing countries, including debt, cushioning the impact of financial volatility and examining ways to achieve market access must be addressed. Such elements had direct bearing on sustainable development. The debt question of middle income countries, as well as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, must be addressed within a time frame to enhance the availability of resources. The thorny issue of new resources for sustainable development should receive the urgent attention of the Commission. Innovative financial mechanisms were not substitutes for other financial resources, such as official development assistance (ODA) and foreign direct investment.

In line with a holistic approach, there was also a need for balance, he said. The differences between countries and regions must be taken into account in the application of national and international trade. Interactive elements, such as water and biological resources should also be addressed. The objective of integrated planning should centre on the protection of the environment. Goals such as economic development should also be at the centre of strategies for sustainable development and rural development. The rights of people living in poverty demanded urgent action. The work of the working groups had not adequately reflected the role of women in sustainable development. The Group was opposed to any attempt to renegotiate Agenda 21 at the present or at Rio+10. Furthermore, a trust fund should also be established to ensure the participation of developing countries in prepratory meetings, as well as at the Rio+10 meeting.

A representative of non-governmental organizations called for a worldwide moratorium on the use of genetically modified organisms. She was not, however, against the continued research of such organisms under well-contained conditions. Such technology was creating new genes that had never existed before. Its constructs were inherently unstable and were taken from viruses and bacteria. The dangers were that new viruses could be created, as well as new bacteria.

A representative of trade unions said that the risk for public health and the environment of such technology had not been taken into account in the process of introducing genetically modified organisms into agriculture. He had heard a lot of big promises on ecological advances and the “blue revolution”, but the reality was very different. Agricultural systems were designed for the profit of rich countries and not for the benefit of the countries of the South. Major changes were needed to fit new biotechnology into sustainable agriculture, such as replacing profit for a few with profit for the public in general.

A representative of science and academia said that crops could better resist enemies through genetic modification. She had heard some of the specific comments on the safety of biotechnology, with which she could not agree. There was no probability of any new viruses being produced as a result of genetic modification that did not already exist in nature.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that the increase in population had meant that there were increasing numbers of people living in poverty. The increase in biotechnologies would allow improvement in living conditions of the poor. Yet, the concern about the safety of biotechnology products was legitimate. The protection of the life and health of plants and animals was a responsibility, but it should not prevent the recognition of the potential of new technologies.

A representative of the farmers organizations said that farming was very different in various parts of the world. One or two items had been discussed as if they were the only points of view. There was not just one solution for all farmers in the world. Also, there was not just one consumer but many consumers, all with different needs. A bottom-up dialogue was needed to correctly address the many issues at hand. While organic farming was part of the solution, it was not the only solution. Organic farming was part of a market.

A representative of a non-governmental organization said that biotechnology represented an important tool in addressing food security issues. Millions of people in India went hungry every day. Biotechnology would play an important role in increasing food productivity in a sustainable manner. Any technology that helped improve farm productivity in a responsible way would be greatly beneficial.

A representative of the farmers delegation wanted to offer a few facts concerning biotechnology. A study conducted in Mexico revealed that the impact of virus-resistant potatoes in that country had decreased costs for small-scale farmers. In Kenya, small-scale farmers had increased their productivity as a result of using biotechnology. Public/private partnerships were demonstrating that biotechnology could deliver its capabilities to the poorest people, if such partnerships were harnessed.

A representative of the non-governmental organization Consumers International said that there was much concern about genetically engineered foodstuffs. In looking at the promise of biotechnology, the reality was an increase in acreage worldwide, along with an increase in herbicide intolerance. While increasing yields was not negative, the problem was that much of that yield was herbicide intolerant. Among the things that were needed was full liability, to be held by the companies, and assessment of the environmental effects of biotechnology.

AHMED KORSHEID (Egypt) said that scientific research was necessary for development. It could have positive impacts in its application. It could be said that such technology should only be applied if it was deemed safe to do so.

Ms. TUBIANA (France) said that there was no one miracle technology, but techniques had to be adapted to social and economic contexts. The idea of developing a precautionary principle could help to cope with contradictory studies in the area of biotechnology.

A representative of a trade union asked how biotechnology could improve the plight of child labour. The vast majority of working children were in agriculture. Girls were most likely to start early and be denied access to education. Nearly one third of the agricultural work force was comprised of children. The situation, however, was not confined to the developing world. The Commission must use the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions to combat child labour.

A representative of the farmers organizations said that farmers were concerned about the diversity of seeds. Farmers from his region were not interested in signing contracts. They wondered about who would accept liability in potential lawsuits resulting from the use of biotechnology. The question also remained as to who really benefited from the use of biotechnology.

A representative of the trade unions said that as long as there were unanswered questions about biotechnology, a decision could not be taken on whether to use such technology.

A representative of Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Canada said that consumers needed more transparent information on the products they were eating and using. She recommended that consumers have full access to the entire chain of food production, so that consumers and farmers could achieve a stronger link to promote sustainable agriculture.

A representative of the farmers organizations said that, as an illiterate farmer, he knew what was going on farmers’ lands. In India, more than 500 cotton farmers had committed suicide following the introduction of genetically- modified seeds. Until academic scientists came to come to an agreement, there should be a moratorium on the use of genetically-modified seeds.

A representative of a non-governmental organization said that the government of Paraguay was one of the only governments to institute a moratorium on the use of genetically modified seeds. It was not only related to environment and health concerns, but also economic concerns. It was difficult for small countries to deal with the inherent risks involved with the use of such technology. It could be useful for them to institute similar measures.

A representative of trade unions said that neither genetic materials nor live materials should be patentable. He was concerned by legislation imposed by rich countries in pursuit of their own interests. He asked the Commission to strengthen the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity and strengthen the role of the precautionary principle. It should be clear that environment and health concerns prevailed over economic interests. He called for strict regulation of genetically-modified material. Science and technology should satisfy basic human needs, while taking into account the principle of sustainable development.

A representative of farmers said that safety came first. He proposed more clarity on the liability of companies on introducing such technology. More clarity on the dependency of farmers on such technology was also needed. It was the basic right of farmers to save their own seed.

Mr. JAUREGUI (Bolivia) said that some countries were applying regulations for the safety of consumers. He would like to see progress made on how to establish within national programmes consumer protection systems on genetically- modified products. Impact evaluations should take into account whose technology was being used and to whom the benefits of that technology were going.

A representative of an indigenous peoples organization said that governmental bodies should support practices that support sustainable development. Sustainable agriculture could not be achieved if the land rights of indigenous peoples were not respected.

A representative of the United States National Farmers Union said that farming sustainability was not a simple task. Industrial agriculture seemed to create more problems than it solved. The same technologies that supported large-scale farms had become the focus of growing public concerns. Organic farmers could be seen as a niche market, and it was a market that many farmers were looking to. Governments should support such farming, which could be of great benefit.

A representative of a trade union said that there was room for all different kinds of farming. It was true that there were different customers and markets. Sound science should be the rule of the day, and not emotionalism. Science could separate emotions from reality and should be a way to get to the core of improving health of both people and the environment.

A representative of the trade unions said that trade unions were speaking to remedy the injustice of waged agricultural workers, who were among the poorest of the poor. Those who fed the world were least able to feed themselves. The Commission should remedy that injustice. Waged agricultural workers remained invisible and had no voice. The Commission should promote international acceptance of core international labour standards.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that ecologically- based technology systems were based on the principles of biodiversity and synergy. Such systems took on different technological forms based on sustainable development. There were examples of such systems all over the world and what could be seen was increased production while preserving the soil, as well as decreasing costs with the use of biotechnology. On the other hand, in developing countries, with the use of indigenous knowledge, tripling of crop output could be seen.

A representative of indigenous peoples said that insufficient attention was given to the sources of development in certain countries. The source was mother nature. He recommended that all industries give necessary attention to what nature needed, and that the Commission set up a broader working group with representation from indigenous peoples and women.

A representative of farmers said that indisputably the principle of biodiversity was essential. In discussing liberalization, the biodiversity of farmers must be maintained. The Commission should recommend that financial resources be put equally into genetic engineering and into small farmers all over the world.

A representative speaking on behalf of business said that organic sources should be used in an integrated manner. From a management standpoint, organic nutrients had both advantages and disadvantages. One such disadvantage was higher transport costs.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that, given the fact that for thousands of years successive generations had maintained productivity without use of agri-chemicals, old-fashioned techniques of production should be maintained and not be seen as a step back. The benefits from that type of production could not be calculated in the short term.

A representative of the United States said that a diversity of approaches was important. From organic agriculture to the use of biotechnology, there was not one solution. Guidelines in the United States included providing a regulatory process, consumer involvement, fairness to farmers, corporate citizenship and free and open trade. Biotechnology issues must have the same rules applied to them for review in trade and must be based on sound science.

A representative of farmers said that various parties were not always equal partners in the introduction of new technologies.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that it was important to think about redirecting national and international research priorities. He suggested that industry consider a broad review of biotechnology and consider giving financial support to a multi-stakeholder working group.

A representative of industry said that she endorsed what was said about there not being just one solution. There were already discussions between industry and farmer groups on how to improve their varieties. Industry was ready to be a partner in that area. If the loss of biodiversity was due to the destruction of the habitat in order to feed people, there was a need to increase productivity in areas already under cultivation.

A representative of trade unions said that consumers could play a role in ensuring safe products. There was a great opportunity in the retail food industry to educate consumers. With the introduction of genetically-modified organisms and increased use of pesticides, consumers required more information than ever. The Commission must ensure that the social dimension of food production resulted in concrete action.

A representative of academia said that genetic modification should be an option open to all producers and consumers. Problems arose when certain types of organic farming were being discussed. Issues such as soil mining -– where farmers were removing more minerals than they were putting back -- and land and labour requirements had to be addressed. To help poor farmers, the good aspects of organic farming must be combined with good methods of production. He recommended that the Commission urge governments of developing countries to invest more in public sector research.

A representative of industry said that organic farming was certainly an option everyone should have. However, generally, it was not sufficient to feed a growing world population. Instead he recommended integrated crop management, which was best suited for the needs of small farmers, consumers and the environment. That was important in improving sustainable agriculture.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that the question of new technologies was not discussed much in certain countries. Although illiteracy was a scourge in many areas, a process of collection of local knowledge was in place. Techniques could allow the preservation of a seed through generations. Efforts should be made to revive knowledge and ensure that those who had it could participate in new technologies.

A representative of industry said that the best way for small-scale farmers to increase productivity was to receive education and access to markets, to obtain products available to other farmers around the world. Partnership with private companies was an essential element for such access. As for the issue of rural poverty, empowerment was essential.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that organic farming could be a major part of the solution. Organic farming should be given the chance it deserves. Organic farming was not only as good as conventional farming, it was superior. Bias against organic farming meant that the many studies supportive of organic farming were not heard. Organic farming could not make money for companies, which were therefore often against it. Even many United Nations agencies did not support organic farming. The FAO should allocate 50 per cent of its funds and staffing to sustainable farming and agriculture. University funds should also be switched to organic farming.

A representative of trade unions said that sustainable agriculture was a question of food quality and labour standards. Sustainable agriculture could only be fostered by educating workers. Workers must take part in discussions. Agenda 21 should also include farm workers as stakeholders.

A representative of industry said that the biosafety protocol provided the framework for each country to determine their own informed, science-based biosafety regulatory measures.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that the issue of choice was key. The problem with choices was when the deck was stacked in favour of some choices over others. The playing field should be leveled. When there were equal numbers of cards, then choices could be discussed. He repeated the call to balance research funds. It was reasonable to apply cautionary principle until concerns had been resolved. Certain risky technologies were not needed at the moment.

A representative from Canada said that there was a need to build effective regulatory systems. The need to effectively regulate biotechnology products was crucial.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that the adverse impact of pesticides was documented. The true costs of pesticides had never been calculated. The knowledge of local farmers must be built upon, in order to achieve the food rights of all humanity.

The CHAIRMAN then reviewed the issues that had been raised during the discussion.

Concluding Comments

A representative of farmers said that he supported the ideas for establishing good regulatory frameworks in the area of sustainable agricultural practices. In addition, it was necessary to build public confidence within that framework. He stressed the importance of land tenure as the best incentive for sustainable agricultural practices.

Another representative of farmers said that farmers were often in conflict with the demands by governments for the most cost-effective products and consumers, who wanted ecologically-safe products. The economic responsibilities of higher production costs must be borne by consumers and governments.

A representative of trade unions said that the dialogue needed more responses from governments on the social dimension of sustainable agricultural practices. Agriculture remained one of three most hazardous industries, along with mining and construction. There was a history of exclusion in terms of health, safety and compensation laws. It was necessary to reinforce the right to organize, as well as to implement core labour standards and ratify International Labour Organization Convention 155. Also, there was a need to draw a correlation between unsafe workplaces and degradation of the environment.

Another representative of trade unions said that it was clear that a greater degree of prevention in the face of liberalization was needed. There was a need for a change in the text on the multi-functionality of land and agriculture.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that choice was inherent in democracy. The potential for genetic and biological agriculture was not realized, due to the lack of resources put into the research. There was a need for a moratorium until the inherent risks were addressed.

A representative from the indigenous peoples said that land tenure had not been addressed sufficiently. The establishment of land-tenure mechanisms should ensure access to good quality land. The design of those mechanisms should involve the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and be designed in accordance with relevant instruments, such as ILO conventions. Local communities had the most at stake and were the best managers of natural resources in an area.

A representative of industry said that there was a need for further discussion of indicators with regard to biotechnology and organic farming. There had been little input from governments in the discussion.

Another representative of industry said that switching agricultural systems worldwide was like turning around a big boat. “At no point could we afford to lose control.” Any introduction of innovation had to be carefully planned, so that it, at no time, brought the small reserve of food production into danger. The appropriate introduction of innovation needed a participatory approach by all involved in the food chain.

* *** *