June 17, 2004
FAO Director-General Dr Jacques
Diouf has sent the following letter to NGOs in response to their
criticism of FAO's recent State of Food and Agriculture
report.
It has come to my attention that an open letter addressed to me
is circulating on the internet for signature by NGOs and other
members of civil society. This open letter appears to be in
response to misleading press headlines and a mistaken
interpretation of FAO's recent report, "Agricultural
biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?" in the 2003-04
issue of The State of Food and
Agriculture.
Those of you who have seen this open letter are urged to read my
speech introducing the report and the report itself, rather than
relying on secondary interpretations of this very important and
complex subject. Therefore, I am transmitting to you the full
text of my speech. The full report is available in Arabic,
Chinese, English, French and Spanish at
http://www.fao.org/documents/index.asp. Readers are further
asked to consider that while this report emphasizes
biotechnology, it is not meant to represent all components of
FAO's broad mandate and commitment to promote agricultural
development and alleviate hunger.
The open letter mentions several points that require
clarification regarding FAO's working methods and our position
on agricultural biotechnology, particularly transgenic crops.
1. The State of Food and Agriculture has been published every
year since 1947. The report examines key developments in food
and agriculture at the global, regional and national levels and
provides in-depth analysis of important issues shaping food and
agriculture. It reflects the views of the most known specialists
of Member States on the subject. FAO has always respected
scientific viewpoints in its reports but, as is always the case
in controversial subjects, there are differences of opinion.
2. As regards biotechnology, I should point out that FAO's
position is determined by its competent statutory bodies under
the guidance of the FAO Conference and of Summits of Heads of
State and Government. For instance:
-
The FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius has agreed on
the principles and guidelines for assessing health risks
related to foods derived from modern biotechnology. Foods
derived from the GM crops currently being grown have been
evaluated according to existing procedures for risk assessment
and have been deemed to be safe to eat. However, the absence
of evidence of harm to human health from the consumption of
foods derived from GMOs is not a guarantee that they are
completely safe; therefore FAO recommends continued monitoring
and refinement of risk assessment procedures;
-
The FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Ad Hoc
Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from
Biotechnology, open to all Member Nations is the body
responsible at international level to elaborate standards,
guidelines or other principles, as appropriate, for foods
derived from biotechnology;
-
FAO has recently published the guidelines
adopted by the 130 Members of the International Plant
Protection Convention for pest-risk analysis for living
modified organisms. Such agreements can help harmonize
regulatory procedures globally.
3. As far as food sovereignty is concerned, FAO negotiated for 7
years to arrive at the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources which will become operational on 29 June 2004. This
treaty recognizes, for the first time at the international
level, farmers' rights and the rights of countries originating
genetic resources. Further, under FAO's umbrella, genetic
resources for food and agriculture are conserved at the
international level by the international agricultural research
centres of the CGIAR. FAO also assists developing countries to
conserve their national genetic resources in situ and in vitro.
In the above context, I would also mention that, in the
Declaration adopted at the World Food Summit: five years later
(WFS: fyl) in June 2002, the Heads of State and Government
reaffirmed "the right of everyone to have access to safe and
nutritious food". Under the initiative of the FAO Council, an
Intergovernmental Working Group has been established to develop
a set of voluntary guidelines to support effective policies and
measures for the right to adequate food.
4. Regarding the fight against hunger, the 1996 World Food
Summit committed FAO Members to reducing by half the number of
hungry persons in the world by 2015. In speeches, interviews,
and press conferences, I have always reflected the discussions
of the WFSt: fyl, by indicating that the lack of political will
and of mobilization of financial resources are the main obstacle
to meeting this goal. Implementation of concrete projects in
poor communities in rural and peri-urban areas are the priority
for ensuring food production, employment and income, and thus
achieving sustainable food security. These projects should
emphasize:
-
small water harvesting, irrigation and drainage
works (wells, canals, impoundments, treadle pumps, etc.). The
other FAO annual report, The State of Food Insecurity 2003,
indicated that 80% of food crises are related in some way to
water, especially to drought. Yet Africa, for example, only
uses 1.6% of its available water resources for irrigation.
-
the use of improved seeds and seedlings,
particularly those issued from the Green Revolution and
conventional plant breeding and tissue culture; the
combination of organic and chemical fertilizer in soils that
are no longer placed under fallow and are now depleted due to
population pressure and clearly deficient in plant-available
phosphorus; the integrated biological control of pests,
insects and plant diseases without making excessive use of
pesticides and complying with the PIC Agreement negotiated
under the auspices of UNEP and FAO; and simple post-harvest
technologies;
-
diversification of village and household
farming systems, with the introduction of short-cycle animal
production (poultry, sheep, goats, pigs) and the provision of
feed, vaccine and shelter; artisanal fisheries and small-scale
aquaculture;
-
the construction of rural roads, local markets
and storage and packing facilities, meeting quality and
sanitary standards;
-
the negotiation of more equitable terms for
international agricultural trade.
I have always maintained that GMOs are not needed to achieve the
World Food Summit objective: improved seeds and plant material
generated by international agricultural research centres,
particularly within the framework of the Green Revolution and by
national research systems, including hybrids and varieties from
inter-specific breeding are barely used by the smallholders of
the Third World.
In the meantime, I have always drawn attention to the need to
feed a world population that will increase from a current six
billion people to nine billion in 2050, requiring a 60% increase
in food production, while expanding the arable land area is
becoming increasingly unfeasible because urbanization,
industrial expansion and transport infrastructure is encroaching
upon rural land and deforestation and the cultivation of fragile
ecosystems are causing soil degradation. Such a situation will
require intensified cultivation, higher yields and greater
productivity.
With this in mind, we will have to use the scientific tools of
molecular biology, in particular the identification of molecular
markers, genetic mapping and gene transfer for more effective
plant enhancement, going beyond the phenotype-based methods.
Decisions on the rules and utilization of these techniques must
however be taken at the international level by competent bodies
such as the Codex Alimentarius.
The developing countries should not only take part in the
decision-making, but should also develop their scientific
capacity and master the necessary expertise and techniques so
that they can understand the implications and make independent
choices in order to reach an international consensus on issues
that concern all of humanity. FAO provides support to the
countries of the Third World to this end and will continue to do
so.
Finally, in contrast to the Green Revolution which was generated
by international public research and provided national research
systems with improved genetic material, at no expense,
biotechnology research is essentially driven by the world's top
ten transnational corporations, which are spending annually US$3
billion.
By comparison, the CGIAR system, the largest international
public sector supplier of agricultural technologies for
developing countries has a total annual budget of less than
US$300 million. The private sector protects its results with
patents in order to earn from its investment and it concentrates
on products that have no relevance to food in developing
countries.
FAO, in accordance with its mandate, will continue to provide a
framework for ensuring a dialogue on these issues at the
international level. Such a dialogue should be based on sound
scientific principles allowing the analysis of socio-economic
implications as well as sanitary and environmental issues.
For the sake of transparency, I would be grateful if you would
post this reply on your internet site.
Yours sincerely,
Jacques Diouf
RELATED LINKS
-
The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04
-
Open NGO letter to FAO
-
Biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?
-
FAO's Web site on biotechnology in food and agriculture |