Available in French
Information and Awareness Raising Workshop on
GMOs and the Rights of Local Communities in
Burkina
Faso
Â
Organised
by:
National
Federation of Peasant Organisations (FENOP)
Agroecology
Concertation Framework (CCAE)
INADES-Formation
(Burkina
Faso)
Â
with support
from:
Cooperation for
Research and Development Group (ACORD-Sahel)
GRAIN
(Francophone Africa)
Â
Ouagadougou, 13-16 April
2004
________________________________________________
Â
Â
GMO workshop
statement
Ouagadougou, Burkina
Faso
16 April
2004
Â
From 13 to 16 April 2004, a workshop was
organised in Ouagadougou by INADES-Formation,
Agroecology Consultation Framework (CCAE) and the National Federation of Peasant
Organisations (FENOP), with support from ACORD-Sahel and GRAIN, on the problem
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and community rights in Burkina
Faso. The meeting brought together some 40
participants from NGOs and farmers' organisations. Just before the workshop, a
round table was organised at the National Assembly in order to update
parliamentarians on what is at stake.
Â
This workshop aimed to inform and raise
awareness about the issues surrounding GMOs -- organisms created in
laboratories. To help meet this aim, a number of experts including Dr
Robert Ali Brac de la Perrière (BEDE/Inf'OGM, France), Dr Jeanne Zoundjihékpon
(GRAIN, Bénin), Soumayila Bance (Minister for the Environment and Quality of
Life, Burkina), Bougnounou Ouétain (retired researcher), Jérémie Ouedraogo
(INERA, Burkina), Devlin Kuyek (GRAIN, Canada), Anne Chetaille (GRET, France),
Christophe Noisette (Inf'OGM, France) and Souleyman Coulibaly (IPM/FAO, Mali)
provided background on
the following points:
Â
·       Â
GMOs:
their definition, advantages and risks
·       Â
the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol
·       Â
what's at
stake for agriculture in Burkina
Faso and throughout Africa
·       Â
the
African Union Model Law on biosafety
·       Â
GMO field
trials
Â
The debates and discussions inspired by these
talks were very rewarding. The participants really understood the issues around
GMOs and especially raised a lot of questions about field trials of GMOs in
Burkina
Faso.
Â
Burkina
Faso bears the stigma of being the first West
African country to have officially authorised, as of 2003, field trials of
transgenic cotton belonging to Monsanto (Bt cotton) and Syngenta (VIP cotton).
These experiments could spread to other countries in the region, and are
therefore pioneers. The workshop participants are worried because these GM crops
were released into the field without anyone being informed of the implications
of transgenic plants and without Burkina having the necessary biosafety
legislation in place. GMOs are extremely controversial worldwide, and questions
about their safety and risks, both for the environment and for human health, are
far from answered.
Â
These field trials do not mean that
Burkina
Faso has authorised the commercial planting of
GM crops by farmers. That decision has not yet been taken.
Â
At the moment, directives to set up a national
legislative framework on biosafety have been developed and are being processed
by the government. The participants of the workshop hope that civil society will
actively participate in the discussion and adoption of this legislative
framework.
Â
Other legal instruments which caught the
attention of the participants are the ratification by Burkina Faso of
the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993 and the Biosafety Protocol in
2003. These two international treaties aim, on the one hand, to protect
biological resources and, on the other hand, to set up safeguards against
environmental and health risks from GMOs. Both of them limit the scope for
privatising and commercialising genetic resources, serving as counterweights to
other treaties, such as those of the World Trade Organisation and the World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). For example in Africa, we have the
Bangui Agreement, revised in 1999 with help from WIPO, which sets up a common
system of intellectual property rights over plant varieties in 16 countries. It
was ratified by Burkina
Faso in June 2001. The Bangui Agreement does
not protect the rights of farmers and local communities -- it facilitates the
privatisation of life. So how do we manage these contradictions between the
precautionary principle and a free market principle? The workshop wrestled
with these questions -- and the answers need to be found.
Â
In relation to the Bt cotton field tests, the
participants expressed their fears concerning both the socio-economic and
environmental impacts.
Â
Regarding the socio-economic impacts, the Bt
cotton variety being field tested is from the US and
the Bt gene that it carries is patented. Consequently, even if this gene was
transferred into a local burkinabè variety, farmers would not be able to grow it
without paying royalties to the company holding the patent. The unfortunate
experience of Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian canola farmer whose fields and
varieties were contaminated by transgenic pollen from neighbouring farms,
illustrates the worries in Burkina Faso. In Schmeisers case,
instead of being compensated for contamination, he was taken to court by the
company holding the patent and sentenced to pay the intellectual property rights
to Monsanto. The patents, which establish a legal straightjacket, are being used
as weapons to subjugate farmers to agro-chemical companies.
Â
Regarding the issue of yield, a film produced
in India shows that farmers who grew
Monsantos Bollgard Bt cotton in 2002 were let down: conventional varieties
produced more and larger heads. Not only that, the conventional varieties gave a
better fibre quality which fetched a better market price. Yet the Indian farmers
were completely confused, because the price of the transgenic seeds was so much
higher. GRAIN indicated that the GM cotton variety being field tested in Burkina
costs more than 50,000 CFA (US$90) per hectare, while cotton farmers in West
Africa presently spend on average 37,000 CFA (US$67) for pesticides and the
conventional cotton seeds are free. It is therefore evident that Bt cotton will
not reduce poverty.
Â
Even if this cotton did lead to lower pesticide
use, and putting aside all other risks, doubts about the technology remain. The
fact that it is US cotton that is being tested in
Burkina doesnt achieve any real transfer of the transgenic technology, which is
complex and expensive.
Â
As for the environmental risks, one recurring
concern expressed by the participants is the possibility that transgenic cotton
contaminates related plants, of which there are many in the region. If local or
wild varieties acquire the modified genes, they could become unmanageable and
invasive super weeds. Another risk of contamination is the likely end of
organic agriculture, an approach to farming which categorically refuses GMOs.
Finally, since insects and wind do not know boundaries, genetic pollution and
seed exchange can cross national borders and spill into neighbouring countries,
hence the urgent need to get a common biosafety framework in place. The AU Model
Law on Biosafety can help in the harmonisation of national legislation.
Participants actively encouraged their governments to adopt the Model Law.
Â
The workshop participants also stressed that
the growing of Bt crops, which produce their own insecticide, does not mean that
farmers stop using insecticides. Bt cotton has self-defences against certain
pests, but not all.
Â
Is there an alternative to both pesticides and
genetic engineering?
Â
The participants learned about different
agricultural methods, such as integrated pest management, which allow farmers to
deal with pests in an ecological way. Among other solutions, it was proposed to
give more value to the gene pool and agricultural heritage of West Africa. African fauna and flora is extremely rich. If
public research would lend a hand, local biodiversity could fight malnutrition
and assure food security. But this heritage is now being privatised by Western
companies, as in the case of the yellow yam (Dioscorea dumetorum) which has been
patented by the company Shaman Pharmaceuticals. Their patent
(US 5019580) applies to the use of
dioscoretine for the treatment of diabetics. How can we protect our collective
rights to this heritage? How can we secure appropriate sharing of benefits,
linked to its use?
Â
In the end, the workshop came up with an action
plan. The participants committed themselves to: inform a wide public using
different methods (e.g. radio programmes, written articles, educational
materials, etc.); take action to influence official bodies; contribute to the
development of a national and regional network for the sharing of experiences
and information; and help promote alternative technologies.
Â
Finally, a group was created to work with
Social Alerte Burkina which has already been engaged in raising awareness.
Â
At the political level, the participants called
on Burkina
Faso to immediately vote for a moratorium on
the use and commercialisation of GMOs, so that time can be devoted to informing
the public and assessing all the risks related to GMOs.
Â
-- The Participants
Â