|
THE food “summits” at Clark and UP diverged in their conclusions
and recommendations on key points. But they converged on genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Both chose to be silent about them.
In the face of growing populations and shrinking
farm lands, can enough food be produced in the immediate future
without GMOs? This question needs to be assessed scientifically so
that correct policies could be formulated and implemented.
A group of biotechnology companies led by
Monsanto and Syngenta asked the World Bank (WB) in 2002 whether it
recommended GMOs to its developing country members.
The chief scientist at that time was Robert
Watson. He suggested that the WB take the lead by financing a review
of the entire range of agricultural technologies and policies.
Thus, the International Assessment of
Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) came
into being with funds provided by the United Nations, the WB and
some member countries.
In defining its mission, IAASTD went beyond food
production to include rural development, people empowerment, social
justice and environment.
It asked: “How can we reduce hunger and
poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable,
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development
through the generation, access to, and use of agricultural knowledge
science and technology?”
By broadening its remit, the IAASTD had to
become inclusive. It invited not only agricultural scientists and
economists to join it in its work but also experts in rural
development and gender issues as well as advocates of organic
farming, sustainable agriculture and trade specialists.
As to be expected, the exchange between and
among these groups was not only of views but also of blows. The
scientists complained that some of the inputs were of little value
in scientific terms. The activists complained that their
contributions were either being diluted or ignored. There were
walkouts; frayed tempers were a daily occurrence.
Somehow an uneasy consensus emerged. Except on
GMOs. Greenpeace was uncompromising; the scientists of the biotech
companies were equally firm.
To give an example. The GMO working group
proposed this formulation: “[there were] lingering doubts about
the adequacy of efficacy and safety testing.” As a guide to
policy-making this finding is next to useless.
Perhaps the view of the Alliance Executive of
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
illustrates the dilemma better. Emile Frison, the chair, told
Science (March 14, 2008): “The reader would get a rather negative
view about agricultural research in general.” He went on to say
that the chapters in the assessment report “might undermine
support for research.
If this is so, then the IAASTD undercut its own
reason for being. From the start, the WB and Watson wanted to call
urgent attention to the need for greater effort in and support of
agricultural research, particularly in biotechnology.
Keith Jones of CropLife International, an
industry group, told Science: “The report tends to overstate the
potential of organic and ‘ecological’ agriculture which [is not]
a viable solution for boosting global agricultural productivity.”
In talking about agriculture, as Watson kept on
saying, it’s not possible to limit the analysis to food
production. Agriculture has economic, social, political, and
cultural functions that are often difficult to separate one from the
other.
To put all this in a common frame, the WB
proposed to model the outcomes and interrelationships of the broad
policy scenarios of the IASSTD. The International Food Policy
Research Institute kicked in $450,000 to get it off the ground. But
Greenpeace objected because the models were not “transparent,”
meaning that the past cannot be a guide to the future. The project
was abandoned.
Watson confessed “extreme” disappointment in
the decision of some company scientists to withdraw instead of
battling it out in the working groups. Many of them felt that the
process was stacked against them. Also, many of them are not used to
talking to opponents whose reasoning and language they have
difficulty understanding.
CGIAR, however, chose to stay with the process.
“It’s more constructive,” Frison said, “to make our points
as a participant.”
This month, the 90 governments that make up
IAASTD will meet in Johannesburg, South Africa to consider a
synthesis report and the Global Summary for Decision Makers.
Can the original objective of the assessment
still be realized? Many scientists don’t think so. Robert
Paarlberg, an agricultural economist at Wellesley College in
Massachusetts said that “it’s a document that has much less
scientific credibility.”
A great opportunity was lost.
opinion@manilatimes.net
|
