[Pirateninfo] Fw: The U.S. and The Law of the Seed

[Martin Sundermann]

sorry, z.z. kann ich leider keine übersetzungsarbeit leisten,
grüsse aus dem ruhrpott,
martin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: etc@etcgroup.org <etc@etcgroup.org>
An: martin.sundermann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
<martin.sundermann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Datum: Dienstag, 12. November 2002 22:06
Betreff: ETC: The U.S. and The Law of the Seed


>News Release
>Friday, November 8th, 2002
>The United States and The Law of the Seed:
>Political "About Face" or "Two-Faced" Policy?
>
>On November 1st, the new U.S. ambassador to the UN Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) announced what appeared to be a reversal of his
government's policy and formally signed the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources. This is not a change of policy - just a change of
strategy. As with the Biodiversity Convention a decade ago, the United
States will "sign" but never "ratify" the Law of the Seed.
>
>On Friday, November 1st, the new U.S. ambassador, Tony P. Hall, interrupted
the final late-evening session of the FAO Council to announce that his
government had just signed the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture ("The Law of the Seed"). The news was
greeted with perfunctory applause from delegates much more enthusiastic
about getting onto the Aventino before restaurants closed. Not only was the
announcement anticipated, it was overdue. FAO's member states had expected
the U.S. signature October 9th at the convocation of the interim Committee
for the Treaty.
>
>About Face: In signing the Treaty, Ambassador Tony Hall admitted that the
U.S. was reversing the stance it took one year ago when 115 governments
unanimously approved the agreement. At that time, countries were told that
the USA was "precluded" from adopting the legally-binding agreement. U.S.
representatives advised FAO that the absence of a security clause in the
text - as well as ambiguity related to intellectual property protection -
made it impossible for the U.S. to sign on. The Treaty was approved with
only two abstentions (the USA and Japan) following seven years of hard
negotiations. To date, 77 governments have signed and 9 have ratified the
text. The Treaty comes "into force" when 40 countries ratify - probably
sometime early in 2004.
>
>Two-Faced: Signing the accord traditionally signals a government's intent
to proceed with the much more important step of ratifying the Treaty. In
this case, however, not a soul attending the FAO Council believed that the
United States will ratify anytime in the Bush administration. Many
delegates, in fact, privately hope that the USA will steer clear of the
Treaty for a decade or so. "It was not so much a policy about-face," says
Pat Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group, who was present in Rome for
the announcement, "as a two-faced move to hamstring the Treaty's
implementation. All of the American government's concerns are still there,"
Mooney asserts, "but the United States has determined that it is better to
have a hand in the political and practical preparations leading up to the
implementation of the Treaty than it is to remain outside watching Europe
and developing countries establish an independent process."
>
>Negotiations to establish the Treaty to govern the exchange and benefit
sharing related to plant genetic resources began in 1995. Even then, most
governments acknowledged that there was little chance that the United States
would acquiesce to a legally-binding agreement. The United States entered
the negotiations insisting on the right to patent virtually anything and
everything found in the plant germplasm governments would exchange. The
Americans were also determined to block Farmers Rights - an initiative
strongly supported by many South governments to guarantee, among other
things, that farmers would always have the right to save and exchange seeds.
The U.S. delegation saw Farmers Rights as a threat to intellectual property.
>
>Face Off: In the closing hours of negotiations last year, the United States
complicated matters further by insisting on the right to a security clause
that would, in effect, allow them to impose seed exchange embargoes on any
"evil-axis" country that incurred the displeasure of the American Congress.
As luck would have it, Americans were forced to argue their point with the
Chair country of the Group of 77 - Cuba. There was all the hope of a
snowball in Havana that the U.S. would be granted its demand.
>
>Face Value: "Some naive observers, including a few governments, think that
a seeds treaty without the United States will fail," says Pat Mooney. "In
fact, more sophisticated delegates recognize that it's better if the
Americans stay out for a few years to allow more progressive countries such
as the Europeans, Africans, and Asians, to sort out policy issues and
organize procedures without the encumbrance of the world's one superpower."
Mooney insists that the "chronologically-challenged" Americans tend to honor
a treaty even if it takes them ten years to ratify it. When they actually do
ratify a treaty, they must buy into a culture that is somewhat more
progressive then if they had been voting members from the beginning. In
signing the Treaty, the United States has left the door open for it to
participate in the intergovernmental working committee that will chaperone
the Treaty into a legal reality. The first meeting of the Governing Body is
not expected until early 2004. In!
> the meantime, signatory states will attempt to negotiate a number of
details related to germplasm exchange that could ultimately influence the
role of intellectual property and the mechanisms for benefit sharing. "The
Treaty is by no means perfect, and it will be disastrous if the U.S.
succeeds in making it weaker. The U.S. signature is a crass political move
to undermine an international agreement which they oppose," Mooney
concludes.
>
>For further information:
>Pat Roy Mooney: etc@etcgroup.org 1 (204) 453-5259 CST
>Hope Shand: hope@etcgroup.org 1 (919) 960-5223 EST
>Silvia Ribeiro: silvia@etcgroup.org (52) 5555-63-26-64 CST
>
>The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI,
is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The
ETC group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological
diversity and human rights. www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member
of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC).
The CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society
organizations and public research institutions in 14 countries. The CBDC is
dedicated to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen
the conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity. The CBDC
website is www.cbdcprogram.org.
>
>To download the PDF version of this document, please go to:
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=370
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To be unsubscribed from the  mailing list simply click on the link below
>http://www.etcgroup.org/cgi-bin/s.pl?r=1&l=1&e=martin.sundermann=:ruhr-uni-
bochum.de
>
>
>
>
>
>