SEED DECLARATION, INDIA, 2012

Foreword: Seed diversity and agrobiodiversity worldwide face the growing threat of market liberalisation, including the FTA between India and the EU that will only suit agribusinesses. To safeguard seed diversity and farmers’ rights, a number of seed festivals have been held in different parts of India, including a large biodiversity festival in Hyderabad, last year, parallel to the CBD-COP.

 

The seed is the first link in the food chain. It is a sacred code of evolution, an embodiment of life and memory, a latent world waiting to unfold. The seed gives itself to earth – warm soil, air and moisture – and comes alive. Drawing energy from the sun, it grows and multiplies manifold. Each seed and plant is unique.

 

Like the earth and the sky, the immense biodiversity of seeds is our collective heritage. Gifted by nature, and the cumulative innovations, adaptations and selections of many generations of farming communities, these seeds belong to all. They are our most vital wealth, essential for survival. They cannot be seen as mere commodities, to be bought and sold at will.

 

Allowing any variety of seed or plant to become a proprietary resource is a violation of natural justice, and a great suicidal blunder of modern economic civilization.

 

An estimated 80,000 plant species, and many varieties of each species, have been used as human food, though barely 150 species have been cultivated on a significant scale. But less than 30 crops now account for more than 95% of the human diet, and just 8 crops (of very few varieties) provide three-quarters of all human food.

 

India is a global centre of origin and diversity of rice. Over 60,000 distinct rice seed varieties have been collected by Indian agricultural research centres. Many more yet grew in farmers’ fields, adapted to diverse conditions. About 19,000 rice varieties were collected by Dr Richharia from just Chattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, of which 1600 varieties were found to be high-yielding. We have a rich diversity too of wheat, millets, pulses, coarse grains, oilseeds, vegetables, tubers, fruits, spices, and medicinal plants. About 25,000 Indian varieties of dry-land crops are held by ICRISAT alone.  

 

But with the mono-cultural spread of a few dwarf exotic varieties of wheat and rice, and hybrid sorghum and corn, under the onslaught of the so-called ‘Green Revolution’, much of our immense agro-biodiversity is now eroded or severely threatened in their original croplands. Only a fraction of such diversity yet survives, mainly in some areas populated by indigenous peoples.

 

Much of our crop seed wealth has ended up in distant gene banks – like the IRRI in Philippines, CIMMYT in Mexico, or Fort Collins in USA – far from its rightful owners and the cultures in which they were rooted. This wealth represents the collective bio-cultural heritage – including biodiversity, food culture, ecological knowledge and value systems – of local communities that freely shared and passed them down from generation to generation. It is also the most vital resource that must be reclaimed by them to safeguard their future livelihood options and the people they feed, especially in a scenario of climate change and increased farm vulnerability to erratic weather conditions.

 

With the inevitable growing scarcity and mounting prices of non-renewable fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers, as well as rising water shortages, the HIV (High Input Variety) seeds supplied by agro-industry – tailored to optimal conditions – are sure to face a sharp decline in yield. Unless our farmers are able to adopt bio-diverse agro-ecological agriculture with their own traditional, locally adapted seeds, severe food scarcity looms ahead. 

 

Today, the danger to our priceless heritage of agro-biodiversity – from proprietary commercial hybrid seds and GM (genetically modified) crops – is graver than ever. The GM crops threaten severe contamination of our local crop varieties through cross-pollination, as seen in the case of corn (maize) in Mexico. The aggressive marketing of GM crops also drives local varieties out of circulation, as witnessed by the near total erosion of traditional cotton varieties in India.

 

The creation of ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ (IPRs) of plant breeders over seeds and plants, especially under the ‘Trade Related Intellectual Properties’ (TRIPs) provisions of the World Trade Organization, combined with restrictions on unregistered traditional seed varieties, is an assault on our agro-biodiversity and its free, unhindered use. Such criminalizing of the natural rights of farmers and farming communities, whose ancestors nurtured such diversity in the first place, is a mockery of natural justice. Together with the sanctioning of genetically polluting GM crops, this represents a concerted thrust by agri-business to wipe out our rich heritage of agro-biodiversity. All legislations and treaties that abet the biodiversity privatization of our collective genetic heritage, carving out proprietary spheres for exclusive use, must be discarded into the dustbin of history. Our failure to do so will ultimately destroy our agriculture and many millions of agricultural livelihoods, and the food and nutritional security of all.

 

We thus hereby adopt the following seed declaration:

 

1)      We assert the farming communities’ and indigenous peoples’ sovereign rights over their collective bio-cultural heritage, including the right to freely plant, use, reproduce, select, improve, adapt, save, share, exchange or sell seeds, without restriction or hindrance, as they have done for past millennia.

2)      We reject the validity of any private or corporate proprietary claim of ownership over any variety of seed, crop, plant or life form, and particularly any variety rooted in our natural heritage, cultural history and identity.

3)      We demand a ban on GM seeds and species, and strict enforcement of corporate liability for any contamination of seeds/plants, and any damage to the health of farmers, consumers, animals, croplands and eco-systems from the use/release of GM seeds and species.

4)      We urge our government to partner with our farmers, gardeners and civil society organizations in systematically and transparently recording and documenting in a freely accessible database our genetic wealth, particularly the diversity of our crops and crop varieties, originating in or found in various regions and cultures of India.  

5)      We demand that our government facilitate and simplify farmers’ and cultivators’ access to our heritage seed varieties from national and international germplasm collections, and support their decentralized conservation in the croplands and regions of origin.

6)      We assert our unconditional right to pass on our collective bio-cultural heritage and the health of our croplands and eco-systems to future generations.

7)      We demand that our government fulfill its responsibility of safeguarding and regenerating our collective bio-cultural heritage and the health of our croplands and eco-systems.

8)      We call upon our government to pro-actively promote and support bio-diverse and holistic ecological agriculture to meet our basic, priority needs in a sustainable manner.

Statement to the African regional meeting of the 2013 World Economic Forum

*cross-posted from African Women’s Development Fund

We the undersigned participants at a strategic meeting on Women’s Economic Empowerment and Livelihoods, held in Cape Town on 3-4 May under the auspices of the African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF), wish to communicate the following key messages from our deliberations to the World Economic Forum - Africa meeting “Delivering on Africa’s Promise”, 8-10 May 2013.

We welcome the new positive image of “Africa Rising,” and stand proud of the achievements of the continent’s women and men against overwhelming odds. As partners in the efforts to ensure that Africa’s growth is sustainable and is in the interest of the continent and its peoples, we wish to bring to the attention of this meeting, the following concerns in the hopes that they will form a part of the deliberations:

We remain sceptical that real progress for Africa’s one billion people — the majority of whom are women – will change radically through policies centred unremittingly on markets and profits, and based predominantly on the extraction of mineral resources. African people’s needs and interests — particularly those of women — are not part of this narrow economic vision.

As African women, we are only too aware that:

1. From colonialisation to globalisation, African women have been brutally marginalised from Africa’s economic activity. The colonial economic model, which dominates “development” planning to this day, deliberately destroyed indigenous African systems of production, which were based on careful custodianship of our natural resources for present and future generations. As a result, African women’s economic contribution, skills and knowledge have been devalued and relegated to the “informal economy.” The result has been that even now, economic growth and the so-called “promise of Africa” have had little relevance to the vast majority of Africa’s women.

2. Women’s wealth in Africa has been intimately tied to traditional forms of communal resource ownership in which communities have evolved equitable and sustainable systems of wealth creation and distribution. These same communal systems have protected and enriched Africa’s greatest assets: a natural heritage second to none, with abundant water, forest and land based resources, as well as bounteous plant, marine and animal life. The definition of Africa’s wealth and economy in limited terms of GDP obscures the true value of the continent’s real capital.

3. The fuel of Africa’s economic growth and development is its food system. Food systems in Africa rely on indigenous local products. The 2010-2011 report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation on ‘The State of Food and Agriculture [1], indicates that in Africa 50-80% of agricultural labour is provided by women. Africa’s primary food security systems are a t threat from the process of relentless land degradation, dispossession, privatisation and large scale land grabs. Furthermore, these local food production systems are threatened by the loss of women’s indigenous knowledge necessary to preserve our rich ecosystems, seeds and animal biodiversity. However, women farmers are being driven out of the food economy under the relentless drive towards exclusively large-scale commercial agriculture. The impact of these approaches to our environment and to our complex ecosystems cannot be stressed enough. It is time for urgent action now.

We urge African political and business leaders participating at the Regional Africa World Economic Forum 2013 to broaden their understanding of an “emerging Africa” beyond extractive industry driven GDP. A balance must be struck between nurturing real African economies — where we “produce what we consume and consume what we produce” — and slavishly aligning our production systems to the requirements of external powers. As African women, we wish to end the cycle of exclusion and marginalisation that has characterised Africa’s location in the global economy, and our participation as citizens within it.

As a group of African feminists, women’s rights and social justice a ctivists passionate about the realisation of the rights of all Africans we commit ourselves to work with women, decision makers, business people and thought leaders across the continent to

reimagine and work towards Africa’s transformation guided by principles of sovereignty, self-determination, equity and justice.

——-

[1] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2011. 2010 -2011: The State of Food and Agriculture [pdf] Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf

[Accessed 5th May 2013].

Signed:

African Women’s Development Fund (Regional)

African Women’s Economic Policy Network (Uganda)

Biowatch (South Africa)

Busia Community Based Services (Kenya)

Economic Justice Network (South Africa)

Gaia Foundation (International)

Grassroots Organisation Operating Together in Sisterhood (Kenya)

Land Access Movement of South Africa (South Africa)

Rural Women’s Movement (South Africa)

SOS Addis (Ethiopia)

Surplus People Project (South Africa)

Tanzania Gender Network Program (Tanzania)

The African Biodiversity Network (Kenya)

The Association of Uganda Professional Women in Agriculture and Environment (Uganda)

The Mupo Foundation (South Africa)

Wheat Trust (South Africa)

Women and Resources in Eastern and Southern Africa (Zimbabwe)

Women’s Leadership and Training Programme (South Africa)

Press Enquiries 

Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah (AWDF Communications Specialist)

Tel: +233 302 521 257

Email:

nana@awdf.org

Website:

http://www.awdf.org

US Public Overwhelmingly Rejects Genetically Engineered Trees

Upcoming Protests Disrupt Tree Biotech Conference Plans

 

Asheville, NC - By a majority of almost 99.99% to .01%, the US public overwhelming rejected steps toward the legalization of genetically engineered trees during the USDA APHIS [1] public comment period that ended yesterday. The comments were in response to a petition by genetically engineered (GE) tree company ArborGen requesting permission to commercially sell their GE freeze tolerant eucalyptus trees.[2] Calls for a ban on the technology flooded the APHIS office, through individual online comments, petitions and online virtual meetings. [3]

“Yesterday, during APHIS’s ‘Invasive Species Month,’ the people of the US issued a firm demand to APHIS to reject invasive, flammable genetically engineered (GE) eucalyptus trees,” said Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director and Coordinator of the Campaign to STOP Genetically Engineered (GE) Trees. “We will continue to hold the government accountable to the will of the people, rather than corporate interests.”

South Carolina-based ArborGen hopes to sell billions of GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus trees for planting across millions of acres in the US South in vast industrial plantations to supply biofuel, biomass electricity and paper production [4].

Dr. Rachel Smolker, Co-Director of Biofuelwatch stated, “ArborGen’s reckless vision of using the US South as a giant sacrifice zone for energy production would wreak havoc on rural communities, native forests and wildlife across the region, pushing already endangered species like the Louisiana Black Bear and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker over the edge.” Dr. Smolker added, “and despite the rhetoric about replacing fossil fuels with climate-friendly fuels, this wood-based energy will actually worsen climate change.”

Genetically engineered and other industrial tree plantations are not only a concern in the US, but internationally.  Rural communities in Brazil have been fighting non-GE eucalyptus plantations for decades, and are also opposing the introduction of GE eucalyptus plantations. Additionally, in 2006 and 2008 the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) warned countries of the social and ecological dangers of GE trees. [5]

In late May, Global Justice Ecology Project, the Campaign to STOP GE Trees, Biofuelwatch along with Earth First! and the Dogwood Alliance are mobilizing events and protests around the IUFRO Tree Biotechnology 2013 conference [6] in Asheville, NC. Opposition organizers are taking credit for the recent cancellation of an IUFRO-sponsored field trip to a forestry research site planned for 29 May as part of the conference.  Organizers believe the field trip was cancelled due to the threat of protest. 

Contacts:

Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project (Executive Director), Campaign to STOP GE Trees (Coordinator) +1.716.931.5833 (office) +1.802.578.0477 (mobile) globalecology@gmavt.net  

Dr. Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch (Co-Director) +1.802.482.2848 (office) +1.802.735.7794 (mobile) rsmolker@riseup.net.

Notes: 

[1] USDA APHIS is the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and oversees the release of GE plants. April is APHIS’ Invasive Species Month.

 

[2] GE tree company ArborGen is a joint venture of International Paper Company, MeadWestvaco, and New Zealand’s Rubicon, Ltd. The public commented on the 580 page petition to the USDA ArborGen submitted requesting permission to commercially sell their GE freeze-tolerant eucalyptus trees.

 

[3] The USDA received over 37,580 comments to the ArborGen petition by the end of the comment period on April 29^th. 10,200 of these were submitted by Global Justice Ecology Project and the STOP GE Trees Campaign, 21,431 were submitted by the Center for Food Safety and 5,344 were submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity. Only 4 of the comments were supportive of the release of GE eucalyptus trees.

[4] Rubicon Annual Review 2009 

[5] Decision Regarding GE Trees at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s Ninth Conference of the Parties, Bonn Germany, May 2008:

“With regard to Genetically Modified Trees, the Parties decide to:

(r)  Reaffirm the need to take a precautionary approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees;

(s)  Authorize the release of genetically modified trees only after completion of studies in containment, including in greenhouse and confined field trials, in accordance with the national legislation where existent, addressing long-term effects as well as thorough, comprehensive, science based and transparent risk assessments to avoid possible negative environmental impacts on forest biological diversity1;

(t)  Also consider the potential socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees as well as their potential impact on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities;

(u)  Acknowledge the entitlement of Parties, in accordance with their domestic legislation, to suspend the release of genetically modified trees, in particular where risk assessment so advises or where adequate capacities to undertake such assessment is not available.”

[6] IUFRO is the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. The Tree Biotechnology Conference happens every two years and brings together forest researchers, tree geneticists, students and others to discuss advancements in tree biotechnology including genetic engineering. This year’s conference is being held in Asheville, NC from May 26 to June 1. The last IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference took place in June 2011 in Arraial d’Ajuda, Brazil.

JORNADAS DE REFLEXIÓN CUENCA RÍO MAGDALENA, COLOMBIA

PANEL NACIONAL ITINERANTE SOBRE POLÍTICA MINERO ENERGÉTICA

Sesiones sobre CUENCA RÍO MAGDALENA, INVERSIÓN EXTRANJERA Y ECONOMÍA GLOBAL

 

La política minera y energética que han impulsado los últimos gobiernos en Colombia se ha caracterizado por agudizar la extracción de bienes naturales como estrategia para insertarse en la economía global; sin embargo, es menester reflexionar en torno a qué otras potencialidades presenta Colombia, teniendo como principio el respeto a las culturas y cosmovisiones que constituyen nuestro territorio.

En este sentido, es necesario ahondar el debate, el conocimiento y la difusión en torno al a la cuenca del Río Magdalena, donde se han propuesto proyectos estratégicos para el transporte fluvial de mercancías, pasajeros y la generación de energía entre otros.  Dada la importancia de este río el cual abastece más del 70% del agua para la agricultura y es la fuente de agua potable de varios municipios, es importante que la comunidad en general, y en especial las comunidades que diariamente interactúan con el río, tengan conocimientos suficientes de los planes y proyectos que se proponen en sus territorios y que afectan sus planes y formas de vida.

Por tanto, para este debate se hace indispensable conocer y socializar diversos estudios relacionados con la preservación y aprovechamiento del Río Magdalena y sus afluentes, así como las políticas, planes y proyectos que el Gobierno Colombiano viene adelantando para el río, en especial en torno en torno a la Inversión Extranjera Directa, donde empresas Chinas han manifestado su interés por invertir en Colombia en proyectos de generación hidroeléctrica en el alto magdalena y en el Plan Maestro de Aprovechamiento del Magdalena que contemplaría el dragado del río en zonas que ya no son navegables; no obstante las compañías chinas han sido objetadas en la construcción de represas en otros países, aunque por otra parte el gobierno de la China también se ha acercado a la adopción de lineamientos sobre el impacto ambiental de las inversiones en el exterior.

Es por esta razón, que en el marco del Panel Nacional Itinerante sobre política Minero Energética y sus conflictos en Colombia, que ha estado recorriendo el país para reflexionar sobre la política energética y sus conflictos, entonces se propone llevar el debate y la reflexión en torno a la Cuenca del Río Magdalena al Congreso de la República donde se diseñan y promueven las políticas, a la Universidad Nacional de Colombia donde los académicos sustenta la necesidad de transformar el modelo de sociedad y, en San Agustín, Huila, donde participarán masivamente las comunidades que  potencialmente resultarán impactadas con los proyectos dispuesto para la Cuenca.

Estas dos últimas sesiones del Panel Nacional Itinerante serán el escenario para el Lanzamiento del Libro Titulado Las Nuevas Grandes Murallas que preparó la organización International Rivers y que muestra las experiencias internacionales de las empresas Chinas en la construcción de represas, de igual modo el Movimiento Ríos Vivos y CENSAT Agua Viva harán el lanzamiento oficial  de un documental  que da cuenta de los desplazamiento forzados por represas en Colombia.

Las sesiones también compartirán perspectivas y puntos de vista frente al comercio regional y continental, las propuestas de descarbonización de las economías para mitigar el calentamiento global del planeta las implicaciones del Acuerdo del Arco del Pacífico, entre otros, que solo son posibles mientras por medio de la intensificación de explotación de los bienes de la naturaleza y grandes proyectos de infraestructura.

Finalmente es importante señalar, que las diversas jornadas de reflexión en torno a la Cuenca del Río Magdalena es un espacio que convoca a todos los actores y sectores interesados, para que expresen su puntos de vista y proyecten o socialicen algunas propuestas y alternativas que contribuyan a la soberanía de los pueblos y al buen vivir de los colombianos y colombianas.

Para ver el detalle de la programación de los diversos espacios de debate, visite: http:otrosmundoscol.wordpress.com. Inscripciones en: otrosmundoscol@gmail.com

FECHAS Y LUGARES

Abril 26	Foro Río Magdalena: Agua Dulce e inversión Extranjera. Auditorio Boyacá – Congreso de la República de Colombia Hora: 9 am a 2 p.m. Entrada libre con inscripción previa hasta martes 23 de abril. Transmisión en Directo por el Canal Institucional y Canal Congreso
Abril 30	Panel cuenca río Magdalena, Inversión Extranjera y Economía Global Auditorio Camilo Torres. Facultad de derecho, Universidad Nacional, Bogotá Hora: 02: 00 p.m. a 06 p.m.
Mayo 4	Panel Río Magdalena, megaproyectos y culturas de agua. IInstitución Educativa Laureano Gómez. San Agustín, Huila Hora: 09 a 01 p.m.

CONVOCAN

Ríos vivos Colombia

Otros Mundos Colombia

International Rivers

Wilson Arias CAstillo

Censat Agua Viva

Asoquimbo

http://otrosmundoscol.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/cuenca-rio-magdalena-inversion-extranjera-y-economia-global/

International Indigenous Peoples Workshop on Aid and Development Effectiveness

Baguio City, Philippines       April 22, 2013

Today, on the 22^nd day of April 2013, 36 delegates from indigenous peoples and communities worldwide and advocates gathered in Baguio City for an International Indigenous Peoples’ Workshop on Aid and Development Effectiveness. This statement is the synthesis and resolution of the workshop.

Indigenous peoples (IPs) through their organizations, pursue a movement for indigenous peoples rights and  self determined  sustainable development ,that  is now a sustained presence in the global CSO (Civil society Organization) arena. Yet  on current global processes and debates on development aid and effectiveness, IP participation is minimal, unofficial and usually by determined  assertion; thus they are denied opportunity to benefit from such processes. This perpetuates the historical  discrimination and marginalization of Indigenous Peoples since colonial times; on socio–political and economic benefits and advancement of society, or so called “development”.

A.     Nature of  Development Aid and Indigenous Peoples

At present, foreign aid and development cooperation exists between states, dominated by the ruling elite, and multilateral agencies; and  CSOs like IP organizations are marginalized.  Present official development cooperation primarily serves the interests of donor advanced capitalist countries and operates under the dominant global capitalist system.  Fundamentally, it is a continuation  of past colonial exploitation now imposed  by donor countries under the scheme of neoliberal globalization.  It is surplus capital out to generate more profit, rather  than enable the self-reliance and sustainable development of IP communities and recipient countries. In fact  “development funding” in the hands of multilateral agencies like the World Bank, or multinational corporations like Shell, and our very own governments; have been the scourge of indigenous peoples in development aggression. And supposed  social development funding components  in the hand of governments and big international NGOs, are self serving for them, and are usually tainted with corruption. Thus such funding  that supposedly address poverty and other basic social needs, remain to be just mere rhetoric.

Mindful of this fundamental flaw and danger, IPs can view the development aid as an opportunity and should not default to states and big international NGOs to have monopoly over development funds. We must critique and continue to propagate our analysis in this global discourse; as we create our own spaces,  assert our collective rights and advocacy on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and achieve gains for present and long term social well being.  We engage based on our needs, and wherever possible and appropriate.  We pursue our own alternative development framework that is self-determined and sustainable. 

 B.     Indigenous Peoples  Currently not engaged in development Aid Processes

While there is an active indigenous people’s movement advocating the defense of  collective rights to life, land and cultural integrity, not  many indigenous peoples organizations  engage in the development funding  discourse, or  specifically on aid and development effectiveness; more so in the global arena. It is too far away from  day to day community life and struggles. And the usual encounter with “development funding” has been with development aggression, that has been the target of our past and present struggles. So other views on development funding specifically on development aid, that maybe beneficial to indigenous peoples has yet to be widely understood.

The wide gap has then to be addressed, among indigenous peoples  in the understanding and engagement on development discourse, specifically on aid and development effectiveness. This workshop on Aid and Development Effectiveness for Asia-Pacific with participants from Africa and Latin America is an effort towards levelling of understanding and global unification of IPs to engage in this undertaking. 

There are a number of indigenous people’s organizations or IP advocate institutions at the national- global regional- and international levels, already engaged in the aid and development effectiveness process; with initial access to some development funding.  The gap within the IP movement has to be bridged, through more information sharing and capability building. Community level organizations will have to be serviced by wider formations with relative capacity. That is why it is useful to build wider alliances at local,  national, geographical regional, and international levels. Capability building shall also  ensure understanding of the Indigenous Peoples agenda for  self determined and sustainable development , whose details  embody the richness of our diversity ; and united by common principles and aspirations.

C.      CPDE as Opportunity for IP Engagement in Development Aid Processes

 With the CSO Platform for Development Effectiveness (CPDE), there is organized  opportunity for the Indigenous Peoples Movement  to engage on development  aid processes in the global arena, wherein other sectors are already actively engaged. As a people’s movement that seek unity with all other progressive forces for mutually beneficial endeavours, it is to the advantage of the IP movement that we engage in CPDE as a forum to advance our IP agenda – for self determined and sustainable development; that address both our immediate and long term  socio-economic-political–cultural programs  for empowerment and people’s welfare.

As a people’s movement, we participate in the CPDE:

1.      To project our views and criticism of development aid,

2.      To advocate on our position that development funds should support self determined and sustainable development of Indigenous peoples and other sectors of society,

3.      To access development funding for our needs to further build self reliance, and that such funds be directly released to IP organizations, and

4.      To continuously build unity with other sectors on development funds and effectiveness.

As we engage on development aid discourse through the broad CPDE forum, and may even access official development aid funds; we do not forget the reality of  inequality and exploitation engendered by development aid. In fact, it is now time to collect the historical debt due us. 

 D.     Coordinating Group for IP Constituency and Immediate Activities

Towards representative and broad participation of Indigenous peoples, and meaningful engagement in the Aid and Development Effectiveness agenda, an international coordinating  group for the Indigenous Peoples Constituency of the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness(CPDE) is gradually being composed, to be finalized within April –June,2013. The Coordinating Group shall be composed of representatives from grassroots based Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and networks from Asia, Africa, Latin America, North America and the Arctic region; where most indigenous peoples are concentrated. From this  International Indigenous Peoples Workshop on Aid and Development Effectiveness, representatives from Africa and Latin America will join the initial composition of the Coordinating group from Asia –Pacific, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) and Asia Pacific Indigenous Youth Network (APIYN), and from international – Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL).

For  wider participation and continued education sessions of indigenous peoples on Aid and Development Effectiveness initiatives and processes, activities are proposed on occasions of big international indigenous peoples’ meetings and gatherings. These include an indigenous peoples’ caucus and side event on  “Effectiveness of Development Aid” during the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)  from May 20-31, 2013 in New York, USA; and a “Global Indigenous Peoples’ Workshop on Aid and Development Effectiveness” shall  be held during the Global Preparatory Meeting on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in Alta, Norway from June 8-14, 2013.***

Major Groups: NGO, Women, Farmer’s, Workers and Trade Unions, and IPs, Youth and Children, (science and technology) at the Asia-Pacific Regional Implementation Meeting on Rio+20

The following statement was made on behalf of the following major groups: NGO, Women, Farmer’s, Workers and Trade Unions, and IPs, Youth and Children on April 23rd, 2013.

We thank the Chair and the Secretariat for their hard work.

We express our disappointment with the failure to agree a strong outcome document in the Asia-Pacific Regional Implementation Meeting on Rio+20. The Chair’s Summary is the weakest outcome. We regret that member states did not use the opportunity to set a regional plan for implementation of the sustainable development agenda and Rio+20 outcomes.

While we recognize that the Chair’s Summary reflects the various views that came out of the meeting, we emphasize that the following issues are not adequately reflected.

1. Human Rights are recognized but we reaffirm that these are guiding principles for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals must be firmly grounded in a human rights-based approach. We welcome the recognition of gender equality and women’s autonomy of their bodies and sexual health and reproductive rights. We also emphasize that Indigenous People’s Rights as enumerated in UNDRIP must also be respected, protected and realized. We strongly emphasise that peace and security are highly important issues in the Asia-Pacific Region and are an integral element for sustainable development.

2. High Level Political Forum: We reiterate that the HLPF should be the highest political and decision making forum for the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a balanced manner. Governments at the highest level agreed in Rio+20 to establish an universal intergovernmental HLPF which means that universal membership must allow for the participation of all states on an equal basis, in particular in decision-making. Member states must have a role in negotiating and drafting outcomes containing recommendations and decisions.

3. Means of Implementation: We recall that the Rio+20 outcome established a sustainable development financing strategy for mobilizing additional resources. It also established a technology facilitation mechanism to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of environmentally sound technologies. We regret that these two outcomes are not mentioned in the Chair’s Summary. Concern about the current intellectual property rights regime were raised by both governments and major groups but is regrettably not reflected. We also recall the polluter pays and precautionary principles, technology assessment and taxes for polluters in addition to a financial transaction tax are critical elements for means of implementation.

4. Agriculture: We welcome the recognition of food sovereignty and agrarian reform but we reiterate that agrarian reform must be genuine and farmer centered. We express serious concern with the recommendation of “doubling agricultural production without increasing land use” unless clearly stated that this excludes large-scale industrial, chemical, energy and water and grain-intensive agricultural, livestock and food production. We strongly call on governments to adopt biodiverse, ecological agriculture. There should be recognition and measures to address the alarming global trend of land, resource and ocean grabbing and exploitation.

5. Inclusion: Asia- Pacific is very diverse and vulnerable countries including SIDS and LDCs should be fully and meaningfully included and not relegated to annexes. Special efforts should be made to include marginalized and vulnerable groups within sustainable development.

6. Participation: We welcome the support for multi-stakeholder processes throughout the Chair’s Summary but emphasize that engagement with the private sector must be complemented by accountability. We call on the governments to recognize the contributions that civil society is making and call for our participation to be formalized. There can be no sustainable development without full, meaningful and effective participation of civil society and people’s movements.

We appreciate the inclusion of the need for a transformative development agenda which rethinks the concept of growth and tackles the root structural causes of inequality alongside reform of economic governance and within our strained planetary boundaries. We challenge governments in the region to be bold and embrace this agenda as an example to other regions of an alternative way forward to achieve sustainable development.  

Groups Globally Oppose Plans to Burn Wood for Electricity Citing Impacts on Forests, Climate, Communities

For Immediate Release   24 April 2013

London, England – In conjunction with an action in London today outside of the Drax power plant, organizations and networks from around the world released an Open Letter expressing opposition to plans by UK utility Drax to burn nearly 16 million tonnes of mostly imported wood biomass, in a coal power station [1].

Drax is one of several European companies converting older power stations from burning coal to burning wood pellets or co-firing pellets combined with coal. US and Canadian energy companies are also investing in biomass power stations and co-firing coal with wood. This trend, supported by renewable energy policies, is establishing massive new demand and international trade in wood pellets, and represents a huge threat to forests, biodiversity, climate and communities.

Lacking forest resources to meet their own demand, European energy companies like Drax seek to import pellets especially from the southeastern US and British Columbia, Canada. In the longer term, they plan to invest in pellets made from industrial tree plantations in South America and/or Africa.

Campaigners warn that mounting evidence clearly indicates that the massive demand for wood pellets by Drax and other energy companies threatens to accelerate both climate change and deforestation, contribute to air pollution, and is falsely supported as “carbon neutral.” This, in spite of mounting evidence, shows that burning trees for electricity results in more CO2 emissions even than burning coal.  The carbon debt created lasts decades or even centuries.

The rise in deforestation for biomass also diminishes carbon sequestration in forests, results in degradation of soils, waterways and biodiversity, and is contributing to speculative investment and “land grabs” which are often displacing forest dependent communities.[2]

Furthermore, in the US, this fast-growing new demand for wood is being used by biotech company Arborgen [3] to justify development and commercialization of risky genetically engineered, fast growing and freeze tolerant eucalyptus trees.  The US Department of Agriculture is currently considering Arborgen’s petition requesting legalization of some of their GE eucalyptus lines [4].

Anne Peterman from Global Justice Ecology Project and the Stop GE Trees Campaign explains: “False claims that bioenergy is low-carbon and sustainable are being used by Arborgen and other biotech firms who seek commercial release of their fast growing GE trees. Arborgen has targeted the US South for massive industrial plantations of their freeze tolerant eucalyptus from South Carolina to Texas.

“These GE eucalyptus have been called ‘flammable kudzu’ due to the fact that they are both fire-prone and highly invasive.  They also require vast quantities of water, will deplete already stressed freshwater resources in the region, and will displace wildlife. The Stop GE Trees Campaign, with more than 250 member groups, is planning to protest Arborgen’s plans for deregulation at the upcoming Tree Biotechnology 2013 conference in Asheville, NC next month,” she continued.

Rachel Smolker from Biofuelwatch states: “Today, environmental and social justice groups worldwide are standing in solidarity with protests against one of the world’s biggest biomass power companies, Drax.  These protests follow just over a week after a global day of action initiated by Australian activists attracted worldwide attention (see: http://biomassacre.com/) and just weeks prior to protests planned at the upcoming tree biotechnology conference. It is high time that policymakers take note: burning trees for electricity is unacceptable and should not be subsidized as ‘clean, green, sustainable or renewable.’”

Contacts:

Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch (Co-Director). +1.802.482.2848 (office), +1.802.735.7794 (mobile). rsmolker@riseup.net

Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project (Executive Director), STOP GE Trees Camapign (Coordinator), +1.716.931.5833 (office) +1.802.578.0477 (mobile) globalecology@gmavt.net

Notes:

1] The Open Letter can be found at http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/DRAX-AGM-signon.pdf.  It is supported by 48 non-UK organizations, including Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition and World Rainforest Movement.  Separately from the letter, 16 UK-based groups are supporting a protest outside the Drax AGM today:  http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/drax-agm-targeted-over-biomass-conversion-plans/.

[2] For a list of studies, please see http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/resources-on-biomass/. Note: UK coal cofiring is in part driven by the introduction of new regulations on sulphur dioxide emissions. Coal plants that would otherwise have to shut down, can meet the new standards by partial substitution of wood, thus perpetuating the lifespan of these polluting  facilities.

[3] Arborgen is a joint initiative of timber companies International Paper, MeadWestvaco and Rubicon.

[4] See: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0030-0001