GE free NZ press Release
New Zealand Urged to Help Iraqi Farmers
The New Zealand government is being urged to defend worldwide rights of farmers to save seeds and to offer Iraq
practical help independent of US authorities.
The call comes in light of legislation being passed in Iraq to block farmers from saving seeds, and recent moves
internationally aimed at authorising so-called Terminator Technology.
New Zealand supported Canada's push to restart Terminator technology at a recent UN conference, prompting a campaign to
demand our government backs an international ban on the most immoral of the Terminator techniques patented by Monsanto
to create sterile seeds.
But the New Zealand government must also speak out in support and offer practical help to Iraqi farmers who have been
subjected to what is being described as a "cynical and wicked" imposition on occupied Iraq by US authorities.
International concern has been prompted by "Order 81" signed and brought into force by Paul Bremer, the Administrator of
the Coalition Provisional Authority, on 26th April 2004.
"This legislation is a forewarning to all farmers- including New Zealand's- that their basic rights are being squeezed
away," says Jon Carapiet. "New Zealand must speak out in defence of farmers, and offer independent aid. We must not be
complicit in the denial of farmers' rights by stealth."
The critical part of Order 81 makes a very basic change to Iraqi "intellectual property" law, for the first time
recognizing the "ownership" of biologic material and paving the way for the patenting of life forms. It also opens the
way for genetically modified crops to be introduced.
Where ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned, and royalties will have to be paid by the farmer to
the registered seed "owner". Farmers will be required to sign contracts relating to seed supply and even to the
marketing of the harvest. Where GM crops are involved (and possibly in other cases as well) they will also be required
to sign contracts for the purchase of specific herbicides, insecticides and fertilisers.
The manner in which this Order was imposed on the people of Iraq is an outrage too. There was virtually no Iraqi input
into the wording of the Order, as the country and its people were on their knees following the Iraq War.
"This is the agricultural equivalent of kicking a man when he's down, not the sense of fair play New Zealanders value
and want our country to defend," says Jon Carapiet.
"The moral and ethical issue of this legislation and the threat posed by GE control-systems over seeds, cannot be
ignored."
Ends
REFERENCES:
The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 08/03/05
Iraqi Government Urged to Revoke "Cynical and Wicked" Patent Law
/Dr. Brian John/
*A fully referenced http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMiraqFull.php version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website.
"Cynical and wicked" imposition on occupied Ira
qAid agencies and NGOs across the globe have been reacting with horror to the news that new legislation in Iraq was
carefully put in place last year by the United States that will effectively bring the whole of the country's
agricultural sector under the control of trans-national corporations. This spells disaster for the Iraqi government and
the country's farmers, paving the way for companies like Monsanto and Syngenta to control the entire food chain from
planted seed to packaged food products [1].
The new Iraqi Government is now being urged to revoke Order 81, the offending piece of legislation signed and brought
into force by Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, on 26th April 2004.
NGOs have described Order 81 as "cynical and wicked", as the section relating to the registration and protection of
plant varieties was slipped in almost as an appendage to an Order dealing with patents, industrial design, disclosure of
information and integrated circuits [2].
The manner in which this Order was imposed on the people of Iraq is an outrage in itself. There was virtually no Iraqi
input into the wording of the Order, as the country and its people were on their knees following the Iraq War [3].
The Preamble to the Order justifies its provisions as "necessary to improve the economic condition of the people of
Iraq", desirable for "sustainable economic growth", and enabling Iraq to become "a full member of the international
trading system known as the WTO". But when one looks at paragraphs 51 to 79 of the Order, it is clear that they have
been designed simply to facilitate the takeover of Iraqi agriculture by western biotechnology corporations.
It is not surprising that Order 81 was written as "enabling legislation" for American corporate interests. The US
Agriculture Department, which aided Bremer in writing the Order, was headed by ex-management of the huge US seed and
biotech companies, such as Monsanto and Cargill [4]. Ann Veneman, who recently resigned as US Secretary of Agriculture,
had a long career working for large US agribusinesses before going to work for the government. So did Dan Amstutz who
headed Iraq's agricultural reconstruction.
The Order fits neatly into the US vision of future Iraqi agriculture - an industrial agricultural system dependent on a
small number of cash crops, with large corporations selling both chemical inputs and seeds.
It also arises naturally from the USAID programme in Iraq, which unashamedly confirms the thesis that foreign aid
programmes are primarily "commercial opportunity" programmes designed for the benefit of American companies [5].
Iraq's food crisis exploited
Iraq was once self-sufficient in agriculture and the world's number one exporter of dates. It is the acknowledged centre
of origin of many cereal varieties that have been exported and adapted worldwide.
Twenty seven percent of Iraq's total land area is suitable for cultivation, over half of which is rain-fed while the
balance is irrigable. Wheat, barley, and chickpeas are the primary staple crops, with wheat being traditionally the most
important crop. Before the First Iraq War, average annual harvests were 1.4 million tonnes for cereals, 400 000 tonnes
for roots and tubers, and 38 000 tonnes for pulses. Over the past 20 years, Iraq's agricultural sector has collapsed,
and only half of the irrigable area is now properly utilised [6]. It is not known how many of the country's 600 000
farmers are still able to produce food. Grain production during 2003 was less than (space) one-half the grain production
in 1990; andagricultural production has been declining by an average of 2.6 % per year since.
Today more than 50 percent of the population is affected by food insecurity. The Oil- For-Food Programme, while
essential to the humanitarian situation in Iraq, was a severe disincentive to food production. Over half of Iraq's total
food requirement is imported, and a large portion of the population is dependent upon externally-financed food rations
for survival. The World Food Programme (WFP) plays a key role in coordinating the flow of food aid; and recently, three
million tonnes of wheat have been imported yearly, mostly from Australia, to be distributed to Iraqis as part of their
food rations. Farm machinery and equipment are in short supply amid water shortages, low technology uptake, and a lack
of profit incentive. The cost of food rations provided to Iraqis is estimated at over $2 billion per year.
The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) officials and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Agriculture Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) are continuing to implement a national wheat
production campaign, so as to reduce the dependency on aid. Under the campaign, 1 500 tonnes of wheat seed has arrived
in Mosul. ARDI procured the seed to assist the MOA to distribute high quality, certified seed to as many farmers as
possible.
Over 400 tonnes of this seed has already been distributed and incorporated into high-profile "reconstruction and re-
education" programmes, and another 4 000 tonnes are on their way. We have been unable to discover which varieties are
involved, who the seed owners are, and the terms under which the seed stocks are being "donated".
Foreign aid - a nice little earner
Order 81, like the other 99 orders brought into law at high speed by Paul Bremer on behalf of the Coalitional
Provisional Authority, was conceived by the US administration as part of the plan to install a "friendly and compliant",
and essentially colonial regime in Iraq. The Order explicitly states that its provisions are consistent with Iraq's
"transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free market economy characterised by sustainable
economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal
reforms to give it effect." Pushing for these "transitional reforms" in Iraq has been the USAID, which has been
implementing ARDI since October 2003. For this purpose, a one-year US$5 million contract was granted to the US
consulting firm Development Alternatives, Inc, followed by a further $96 million contract.
There has been great speculation in sections of the American press about the fate of Iraqi oil sales revenues since the
invasion. Only a part of it seems to be accounted for, and auditing procedures appear to have been corrupt. Some $9
billion worth of oil revenues seem to have vanished, and may simply have been recycled by the US Administration as
multi-million dollar "aid" from the people of United States to the people of Iraq [7].
ARDI claims it is rebuilding Iraq's farming sector, but its real intention is to develop agribusiness opportunities for
western corporations. According to GRAIN and other NGOs, "reconstruction" is not necessarily about rebuilding domestic
economies and capacities, but about helping corporations approved by the occupying forces to capitalise on market
opportunities in Iraq. The legal framework laid down by Bremer ensures that although US troops may leave Iraq in the
conceivable (forseeable) future, the US domination of Iraq's economy will be sustained in law by one hundred very
convenient Orders.
Order 81
The critical part of Order 81 deals with plant variety protection (PVP). Superficially, its purpose is to protect the
rights of those who develop new and improved plant varieties [2], but it means that in future Iraqi farmers will be
forced to plant "protected" crop varieties defined as new, distinct, uniform and stable. The new law makes a very basic
change to Iraqi "intellectual property" law, for the first time recognizing the "ownership" of biologic material and
paving the way for the patenting of life forms. It also opens the way for genetically modified crops to be introduced
into the country. Crucially, there are no special provisions for GM crops - they are treated as no more novel (and no
more controversial) than new varieties developed through conventional breeding programmes.
Where ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned, and royalties will have to be paid by the farmer to
the registered seed "owner". Farmers will be required to sign contracts relating to seed supply and, probably, to the
marketing of the harvest. Where GM crops are involved (and possibly in other cases as well) they will also be required
to sign contracts for the purchase of herbicides, insecticides and fertilisers.
Strictly, the new law does not prohibit saving seed from the harvesting of traditional or long-established varieties
that are deemed to be "matters of common knowledge" [2, 4]. But with Iraqi agriculture in a state of crisis, there are
(gap) critical seed shortages; and as mentioned earlier, the "reconstruction" of the food supply system involves
(includes) a substantial involvement on the part of USAID and other food donor organizations giving "high quality seed"
to farmers along with technical advice. It is inevitable that that (most of this) seed comes from US registered
varieties, and that within a year or two, philanthropy will be replaced by the collection of seed royalties. In
addition, Order 81 allows plant breeders to claim ownership of old varieties (and to call them "new" varieties) if they
are the first to describe or characterize them. They can then also claim ownership of related crops that are "not
clearly distinguishable from the protected varieties". The control of all protected varieties will last 20 years for
field crops and 25 years for trees and vines. Farmers who save seed or otherwise break their agreements, and farmers
unlucky enough to find the adventitious presence of "registered varieties" in their fields, can be prosecuted; or else
their harvests, tools and buildings will (may) be destroyed. Conversely, farmers will have no right to claim
compensation from the seed owners who, for example, allow their GM crops to pollute organic crops and destroy
livelihoods in the process.
Head (Heads) I win, tails you lose
In the end, the Iraqi farmer will have two choices. He can go it alone, and try to grow crops from seeds of
"traditional" crops that have become rare during decades of war and sanctions; or he can sign up to the food aid /
agricultural programme and then buy seeds from companies like Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and Bayer. If he chooses the first
option he may be left out in the cold during the reconstruction programme [1, 4]. If he chooses the second option, after
a period of free handouts and advice, he may be trapped into a high-cost cash crop economy from which he will find it
impossible to escape. He will also be forced to use seeds that appear to be high yielding but which may in reality turn
out to be ill adapted to his local environment; so crop failures and even famine may follow.
It was some 10 000 years ago that the people of the fertile-crescent, now Iraq, began saving seeds from wild grains and
planting them. That marked the beginnings of agriculture and western civilization. The saving and sharing of seeds in
Iraq has always been a largely informal matter. Local varieties of grain and legumes have been adapted to local (space)
conditions over the millennia, and are resistant to extreme heat, drought and salinity. They are not only a national
treasure for Iraq but could well provide key genetic resources for agriculture in other parts of the world as global
warming takes effect.
In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers still saved seed from their own stocks for replanting, or
purchased from local markets. Order 81 will put an end to all that, and will brutally disregard the contributions Iraqi
farmers have made over hundreds of generations to the development of important crops like wheat, barley, dates and
pulses. The new law, in allowing old varieties to be genetically manipulated or otherwise modified and then
"registered", amount to legalising the theft of inherited intellectual property owned by traditional farmers, the loss
of farmers' freedoms, and the destruction of their food sovereignty.
Germplasm held in trust?
In recognition of the unique "seed heritage" of Iraq, traditional varieties have been saved as from the 1970s in the
country's national gene bank in Abu Ghraib outside Baghdad. There is concern that most of these may have been lost
during the latter years of Saddam Hussein and in the recent conflict. However, the Syria-based Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centre and the affiliated International Centre for Agricultural Research in
Dry Areas (ICARDA) still hold accessions of several Iraqi varieties in the form of germplasm. These collections comprise
the agricultural heritage of Iraq and they should now be repatriated. But CGIAR is reluctant to give assurances on this
[8]. Ominously, germplasm held by international agricultural research centres belonging to the CGIAR has been "leaked
out" for research and development to Northern scientists [1]. Such "biopiracy" is fuelled by an IPR regime that ignores
the prior art of the farmer and grants sole rights to a breeder or researcher who claims to have created something new
from varieties made by generations of indigenous farmers.
Wider implications
The US has now effectively declared a new war against the Iraqi farmer. Order 81 also goes against the United Nations
Millennium Forum Declaration [9] which aspires to "move towards economic reforms aimed at equity, in particular to
construct macroeconomic policies that combine growth with the goal of human development and social justice; to prevent
the impoverishment of groups that have emerged from poverty but are still vulnerable to social risks and exclusion; to
improve legislation on labour standards, including the provision of a minimum legal wage and an effective social system;
and to restore people's control over primary productive resources as a key strategy for poverty eradication." The
signatories to the Declaration also seek "to promote the use of indigenous crops and traditional production skills to
produce goods and services; to exempt developing countries from implementing the WTO Trade-Related Intellectual Property
Rights Agreement and to take these rights out of any new rounds of negotiations, ensuring that no such new issues are
introduced; and to examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly negative influence of their
trade on the environment. The attempt by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable."
Order 81 is also in clear contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in that it will increase
chemical use, reduce the number of planted crop varieties, accelerate the trend towards monoculture, and decrease
biodiversity [10]. Biosecurity will also be negatively affected, and the negative social effects will include population
displacement, rural decline and an extension of (poverty and) urban slum dwelling. As to the Biosafety (Cartagena)
Protocol dealing with GMOs and their transboundary movement, the Order is apparently designed to flout its aims and
objectives, as there is no mention of any regulation of GM crop shipments, plantings, harvesting or export. It is no
coincidence that neither the US nor Iraq has signed the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol.
The Food Aid Convention (cf Articles iii, viii and xiii) states that GM food aid should only be offered and accepted
after recipient countries have discarded "conventional" alternatives and non-GM food aid as non-options [11]. The United
States is a signatory to this Convention, but it has been widely accused of violating it whenever it suits its own
interests to do so.
The Rio Declaration (1992) includes many progressive principles, including the polluter-pays- principle (the polluter
bears the costs of pollution) or the precautionary principle (carry out environmental assessments to identify adverse
impacts and eliminate any potential harms from a project before it is started). It advocates that today's development
shall not undermine the resource base of future generations and that developed countries bear a special responsibility
due to the pressure their societies place on the global environment and the technologies and financial resources they
command [12]. These principles are all flouted in Order 81.
The 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Food and Agriculture (supported by the FAO and the
Convention on Biological Diversity) acknowledges that plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are the raw
material indispensable for crop genetic improvement, whether by means of farmers' selection, classical plant breeding or
modern biotechnologies, and are essential in adapting to unpredictable environmental changes and future human needs;
that the past, present and future contributions of farmers in all regions of the world, particularly those in centres of
origin and diversity, in conserving, improving and making available these resources, is the basis of Farmers' Rights;
and that the rights recognized in this (the) Treaty to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other
propagating material, and to participate in decision-making regarding, and in the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising from, the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, are fundamental to the realization
of Farmers' Rights, as well as the promotion of Farmers' Rights at national and international levels. Order 81 is in
clear violation of these principles.
Order 81 was supposedly drafted by the Coalition, and it supposedly represented the consensus view of the Coalition
partners, including the UK and various other members of the EU. The Order extends the patenting of life forms into the
area of crops and agriculture, in spite of a massive ethical debate about this within Europe. It also treats GM
varieties as if they are no different from new "conventional" varieties, which is in clear contravention of EU policy
[13]. Those who drafted Order 81 were clearly happy to see the farmers of that blighted country blighted further by a
"green light" for GM contamination of the food supply and by commercial enslavement. /This is an edited version of an
article posted by GM Free Cymru, 4 March 2005. /