<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>GM
WATCH daily<BR></FONT><A href="http://www.gmwatch.org"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>http://www.gmwatch.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>---<BR>Another illuminating article from Devinder
Sharma.<BR><BR>"...the administrative control of the inter-governmental 'golden
rice' research project is being manned by a former Monsanto executive. Strange
that the CGIAR, which claims to have more than 8,500 scientists and scientific
staff on roll, had to seek the help of the biotech giant, Monsanto, for managing
the 'golden rice' research project!"<BR>---<BR>Agricultural research<BR>CGIAR
turns to outsourcing <BR><BR>By Devinder Sharma <BR><BR>The Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), once the harbinger of
green revolution that swept through parts of Asia and Latin America in the early
1970s and 1980s, is in an advanced stage of decay. In a desperate effort to
survive against all odds, the 16 international agricultural research centers
that operate under the aegis of CGIAR, have therefore donned a new role – to
serve as an agricultural research outsource for the multinational corporations.
<BR><BR>It all began when the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) took
to research on 'golden rice' – the rice that contains the gene that makes
available a miniscule proportion of Vitamin A. That the research project was in
reality an outsourcing activity that CG undertook becomes apparent when one
finds that the administrative control of the inter-governmental 'golden rice'
research project is being manned by a former Monsanto executive. Strange that
the CGIAR, which claims to have more than 8,500 scientists and scientific staff
on roll, had to seek the help of the biotech giant, Monsanto, for managing the
'golden rice' research project!<BR><BR>To make the entire exercise look more
legitimate, the CGIAR first changed its mandate from being a publicly funded
research body to a "strategic alliance of 63 countries, international and
regional organizations and private foundations supporting international
agricultural research Centers that work with national agricultural research
systems, the private sector and civil society". In short, a cleverly worded
explanation for the deviation from the original mandate to essentially serve as
an outsourcing research base for the private companies. With Syngenta Foundation
on board, the CGIAR cleared the deck for 'increasing' participation from the
private sector. The civil society has already frozen its association with the
CGIAR, and therefore the strategic alliance remains restricted to the private
sector. <BR><BR>The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was then
reconstituted as Science Council – the apex advisory body that provides
strategic scientific advice to the world’s largest publicly (and now privately)
funded agricultural research organization. The ten-member Council is headed by
Dr Per Pinstrup-Andersen, a former director general of the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and a known supporter of the biotech
industry. Take a look at the composition of the Science Council, the real motive
and the scientific design of the CGIAR becomes crystal clear. First, except for
Dr V.L.Chopra from India (the only other person from a developing country is the
expatriate head of the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology,
Kenya), the entire representation is from the rich and industrialized countries.
<BR><BR>It isn’t something that CGIAR is bothered about. Its faith and
confidence in WMD – no, I am not talking of the weapons of mass destruction –
but an equally pernicious discrimination through 'white male dominance' has been
an unquestioned norm. It will be interesting to see the list of the chairs as
well as director generals of the 16 international agricultural research centers
so far and you will see that there is an overwhelming bias in favour of the
white male – obviously from the industrialized countries. Merit has never been
the main criteria, what constitutes 'eminence' of these scientists is the
country they come from. The bigger the donor, the greater are the number of
heads of the institutes from that particular country. The Science Council is no
exception. Its members have been picked not on scientific excellence but from
where they come from, with an additional essential qualification – to be a blind
supporter of the cutting-edge science, the controversial technology of genetic
engineering. <BR><BR>No wonder, after the initial thrust through the dwarf wheat
and rice varieties, CGIAR's research has failed to meet its underlying
objectives of reducing poverty, improving food security and nutrition, and
alleviate pressures on fragile natural resources. It is not aimed anymore at
addressing the founding principles and research obligations. If the newly
constituted Science Council is an indication, the entire exercise is to see how
the CGIAR research centers, with an outlay of US $ 400 million, can be
transformed to serve the interests of the biotechnology industry. We will see
more and more scientific collaborations in the days ahead that will unabashedly
be headed (or is it deputation?) by ex-employees of the biotechnology giants.
<BR><BR>For the poor and marginalized farmers in the developing world, the CGIAR
ceases to exist. Its research mandate, that keeps on changing periodically, is
now aimed at seeing what benefits the industry. Whether it is water or climate
change, the focus is not because of the crisis that afflicts the developing
world but comes as a direction from private companies. Although the CGIAR
research mandate talks of social and economic factors that determine how farmers
and communities manage natural resources, it only receives lip-sympathy. Genetic
engineering, coupled with the economic reforms that the World Bank is
spearheading, therefore becomes the thrust of the CGIAR's renewed research
agenda. <BR><BR>The real objective is to see how the economic reforms that have
been spelled out by the World Bank are implemented. Ian Johnson, World Bank Vice
President, Sustainable Development, and also chairman of CGIAR, will go down in
history as the person responsible for taking this once-magnificent research
organization virtually into the dumps. Even within the World Bank there has been
enough criticism of his style of functioning (one report brings it out loudly)
but who cares. Ian Johnson is only implementing the Bank's agenda of pushing the
farmers in developing country out of agriculture so as to pave the way for
agribusiness industry. As long as the Bank is happy, all criticism has to be
ignored. <BR><BR>Shockingly, the biggest crisis that threatens the very survival
of farming systems the world over is the increasing number of suicides by
farmers. Whether it is the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, India or the
Philippines, an increasing number of farmers are taking the fatal route to
escape the humiliation the comes with the agricultural equation going wrong. The
CGIAR as well as the land grant system of agricultural research is essentially
responsible for fostering the faulty technology and the supporting farming
systems. And yet, at no stage is the CGIAR even remotely concerned at the plight
of the farmers worldwide. It has never undertaken any research to understand the
cause and reason behind it, and to take corrective measures. <BR><BR>The
reason is obvious. CGIAR is in the hands of people who are not in touch with the
ground realities even through a remote control. Whether it is the Executive
Council, Science Council or the CGIAR System Office, the fact remains that the
so-called distinguished members only hobnob with the industry and have rarely
spent any time with the farmers. Their understanding of the developing country
farmers comes from the glossy publications that CGIAR periodically produces.
They are only following the industry prescription for the sustainability crisis
that afflicts agriculture. That’s all they know about. <BR><BR>Since the mandate
is shifting to help the agribusiness industry, financial support is coming from
unexpected quarters. Bill Gates first announced US $ 25 million for the
bio-fortification project. The British DFID will provide an additional £30
million over the next 3 years. It has also committing GBP5 million over 3 years
to the new African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), which delivers
affordable technology (read genetic engineering) to African farmers. As if this
is not enough, the government of India has also reportedly agreed to increase
its contribution to the CG system, from half a million dollar to 2 million
dollars. Ironically, the increased contribution comes at a time when most of the
Indian agricultural universities are finding it difficult to provide even
monthly salaries to its scientific staff. <BR><BR>We have heard repeatedly that
because of the environment-friendly technologies developed by CG system,
anything 230 and 340 million hectares of land has been ‘saved’ from cultivation
worldwide. It will be much interesting to now know how much of cultivable lands
had been rendered infertile and left gasping for lungful of air through the
imposition of the green revolution technologies. How much of environmental
pollution and contamination of the food chain has come about from the chemical
input-based farming systems and how much is the resulting human and
environmental costs. <BR><BR>Such an analysis will never be done and for obvious
reasons. Mid-term correction is only an economic activity that the Finance
Ministers undertake during the course of the fiscal year. Agricultural
scientists are not supposed to undertake a mid-term correction, and therefore
are not held accountable for the serious and severe lapses and damages that the
technologies bring to the environment and to human and animal health. The
Science Council is not equipped and qualified to undertake the cost-benefit
analysis so as to draw a balance sheet. Its mandate is only to promote genetic
engineering, to see how the profits of the private companies can be assured of
course in the name of eradicating poverty and hunger. <BR><BR>"Food security"
and sustainable farming systems of the world’s estimated three billion farmers
has therefore been very conveniently sacrificed for ensuring 'profit security'
of a handful of private companies. This brings to fore the basic question: is
CGIAR relevant in modern times? If not, then why can’t the CG system be
dismantled (as the founding fathers wanted) and the 16 research centers handed
over to the respective governments where they are located? Let the host
countries turn them into hotels or planetariums or research institutes depending
upon the national priorities and needs. At least, it will save hundreds of
dollar from public exchequer being invested for unwanted agricultural research
outsourcing. #<BR><BR>(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade
policy analyst. Responses can be emailed to: </FONT><A
href="mailto:dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in</FONT></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>) <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR>"Wir brauchen keine
Bio-Terroristen, wenn wir Gentechniker haben."<BR>Independent Science Panel (<A
href="http://www.indsp.org">www.indsp.org</A>; dt.Ü. <A
href="http://www.indsp.org/ISPgerman.pdf">www.indsp.org/ISPgerman.pdf</A>)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>