|
ISIS Report 08/03/05
Iraqi Government Urged to Revoke "Cynical and Wicked"
Patent Law
Dr. Brian John
A
fully referenced
version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website.
Details here
"Cynical and wicked" imposition on occupied Iraq
Aid agencies and NGOs across the globe have been reacting with horror
to the news that new legislation in Iraq was carefully put in place last year
by the United States that will effectively bring the whole of the
country’s agricultural sector under the control of trans-national
corporations. This spells disaster for the Iraqi government and the
country’s farmers, paving the way for companies like Monsanto and Syngenta
to control the entire food chain from planted seed to packaged food products
[1].
The new Iraqi Government is now being urged to revoke Order 81, the
offending piece of legislation signed and brought into force by Paul Bremer,
the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, on 26th April
2004.
NGOs have described Order 81 as "cynical and wicked", as the section
relating to the registration and protection of plant varieties was slipped in
almost as an appendage to an Order dealing with patents, industrial design,
disclosure of information and integrated circuits [2].
The manner in which this Order was imposed on the people of Iraq is an
outrage in itself. There was virtually no Iraqi input into the wording of the
Order, as the country and its people were on their knees following the Iraq War
[3].
The Preamble to the Order justifies its provisions as "necessary to
improve the economic condition of the people of Iraq", desirable for
"sustainable economic growth", and enabling Iraq to become "a full member of
the international trading system known as the WTO". But when one looks at
paragraphs 51 to 79 of the Order, it is clear that they have been designed
simply to facilitate the takeover of Iraqi agriculture by western biotechnology
corporations.
It is not surprising that Order 81 was written as "enabling legislation"
for American corporate interests. The US Agriculture Department, which aided
Bremer in writing the Order, was headed by ex-management of the huge US seed
and biotech companies, such as Monsanto and Cargill [4]. Ann Veneman, who
recently resigned as US Secretary of Agriculture, had a long career working for
large US agribusinesses before going to work for the government. So did Dan
Amstutz who headed Iraq’s agricultural reconstruction.
The Order fits neatly into the US vision of future Iraqi agriculture
– an industrial agricultural system dependent on a small number of cash
crops, with large corporations selling both chemical inputs and seeds.
It also arises naturally from the USAID programme in Iraq, which
unashamedly confirms the thesis that foreign aid programmes are primarily
"commercial opportunity" programmes designed for the benefit of American
companies [5].
Iraq’s food crisis exploited
Iraq was once self-sufficient in agriculture and the world’s
number one exporter of dates. It is the acknowledged centre of origin of many
cereal varieties that have been exported and adapted worldwide.
Twenty seven percent of Iraq’s total land area is suitable for
cultivation, over half of which is rain-fed while the balance is irrigable.
Wheat, barley, and chickpeas are the primary staple crops, with wheat being
traditionally the most important crop. Before the First Iraq War, average
annual harvests were 1.4 million tonnes for cereals, 400 000 tonnes for roots
and tubers, and 38 000 tonnes for pulses. Over the past 20 years, Iraq’s
agricultural sector has collapsed, and only half of the irrigable area is now
properly utilised [6]. It is not known how many of the country’s 600 000
farmers are still able to produce food. Grain production during 2003 was less
than (space) one-half the grain production in 1990; andagricultural production
has been declining by an average of 2.6 % per year since.
Today more than 50 percent of the population is affected by food
insecurity. The Oil-For-Food Programme, while essential to the humanitarian
situation in Iraq, was a severe disincentive to food production. Over half of
Iraq’s total food requirement is imported, and a large portion of the
population is dependent upon externally-financed food rations for survival. The
World Food Programme (WFP) plays a key role in coordinating the flow of food
aid; and recently, three million tonnes of wheat have been imported yearly,
mostly from Australia, to be distributed to Iraqis as part of their food
rations. Farm machinery and equipment are in short supply amid water shortages,
low technology uptake, and a lack of profit incentive. The cost of food rations
provided to Iraqis is estimated at over $2 billion per year.
The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) officials and the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID) Agriculture Reconstruction and
Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) are continuing to implement a national
wheat production campaign, so as to reduce the dependency on aid. Under the
campaign, 1 500 tonnes of wheat seed has arrived in Mosul. ARDI procured the
seed to assist the MOA to distribute high quality, certified seed to as many
farmers as possible.
Over 400 tonnes of this seed has already been distributed and
incorporated into high-profile "reconstruction and re-education" programmes,
and another 4 000 tonnes are on their way. We have been unable to discover
which varieties are involved, who the seed owners are, and the terms under
which the seed stocks are being "donated".
Foreign aid – a nice little earner
Order 81, like the other 99 orders brought into law at high speed by
Paul Bremer on behalf of the Coalitional Provisional Authority, was conceived
by the US administration as part of the plan to install a "friendly and
compliant", and essentially colonial regime in Iraq. The Order explicitly
states that its provisions are consistent with Iraq’s "transition from a
non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free market economy
characterised by sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a
dynamic private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms
to give it effect." Pushing for these "transitional reforms" in Iraq has been
the USAID, which has been implementing ARDI since October 2003. For this
purpose, a one-year US$5 million contract was granted to the US consulting firm
Development Alternatives, Inc, followed by a further $96 million contract.
There has been great speculation in sections of the American press about
the fate of Iraqi oil sales revenues since the invasion. Only a part of it
seems to be accounted for, and auditing procedures appear to have been corrupt.
Some $9 billion worth of oil revenues seem to have vanished, and may simply
have been recycled by the US Administration as multi-million dollar "aid" from
the people of United States to the people of Iraq [7].
ARDI claims it is rebuilding Iraq’s farming sector, but its real
intention is to develop agribusiness opportunities for western corporations.
According to GRAIN and other NGOs, "reconstruction" is not necessarily about
rebuilding domestic economies and capacities, but about helping corporations
approved by the occupying forces to capitalise on market opportunities in Iraq.
The legal framework laid down by Bremer ensures that although US troops may
leave Iraq in the conceivable (forseeable) future, the US domination of
Iraq’s economy will be sustained in law by one hundred very convenient
Orders.
Order 81
The critical part of Order 81 deals with plant variety protection
(PVP). Superficially, its purpose is to protect the rights of those who develop
new and improved plant varieties [2], but it means that in future Iraqi farmers
will be forced to plant "protected" crop varieties defined as new, distinct,
uniform and stable. The new law makes a very basic change to Iraqi
"intellectual property" law, for the first time recognizing the "ownership" of
biologic material and paving the way for the patenting of life forms. It also
opens the way for genetically modified crops to be introduced into the country.
Crucially, there are no special provisions for GM crops - they are treated as
no more novel (and no more controversial) than new varieties developed through
conventional breeding programmes.
Where ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned, and
royalties will have to be paid by the farmer to the registered seed "owner".
Farmers will be required to sign contracts relating to seed supply and,
probably, to the marketing of the harvest. Where GM crops are involved (and
possibly in other cases as well) they will also be required to sign contracts
for the purchase of herbicides, insecticides and fertilisers.
Strictly, the new law does not prohibit saving seed from the harvesting
of traditional or long-established varieties that are deemed to be "matters of
common knowledge" [2, 4]. But with Iraqi agriculture in a state of crisis,
there are (gap) critical seed shortages; and as mentioned earlier, the
"reconstruction" of the food supply system involves (includes) a substantial
involvement on the part of USAID and other food donor organizations giving
"high quality seed" to farmers along with technical advice. It is inevitable
that that (most of this) seed comes from US registered varieties, and that
within a year or two, philanthropy will be replaced by the collection of seed
royalties. In addition, Order 81 allows plant breeders to claim ownership of
old varieties (and to call them "new" varieties) if they are the first to
describe or characterize them. They can then also claim ownership of related
crops that are "not clearly distinguishable from the protected varieties". The
control of all protected varieties will last 20 years for field crops and 25
years for trees and vines. Farmers who save seed or otherwise break their
agreements, and farmers unlucky enough to find the adventitious presence of
"registered varieties" in their fields, can be prosecuted; or else their
harvests, tools and buildings will (may) be destroyed. Conversely, farmers will
have no right to claim compensation from the seed owners who, for example,
allow their GM crops to pollute organic crops and destroy livelihoods in the
process.
Heads I win, tails you lose
In the end, the Iraqi farmer will have two choices. He can go it alone,
and try to grow crops from seeds of "traditional" crops that have become rare
during decades of war and sanctions; or he can sign up to the food aid /
agricultural programme and then buy seeds from companies like Monsanto, Dow,
Syngenta and Bayer. If he chooses the first option he may be left out in the
cold during the reconstruction programme [1, 4]. If he chooses the second
option, after a period of free handouts and advice, he may be trapped into a
high-cost cash crop economy from which he will find it impossible to escape. He
will also be forced to use seeds that appear to be high yielding but which may
in reality turn out to be ill adapted to his local environment; so crop
failures and even famine may follow.
It was some 10 000 years ago that the people of the fertile-crescent,
now Iraq, began saving seeds from wild grains and planting them. That marked
the beginnings of agriculture and western civilization. The saving and sharing
of seeds in Iraq has always been a largely informal matter. Local varieties of
grain and legumes have been adapted to local (space) conditions over the
millennia, and are resistant to extreme heat, drought and salinity. They are
not only a national treasure for Iraq but could well provide key genetic
resources for agriculture in other parts of the world as global warming takes
effect.
In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers still saved seed
from their own stocks for replanting, or purchased from local markets. Order 81
will put an end to all that, and will brutally disregard the contributions
Iraqi farmers have made over hundreds of generations to the development of
important crops like wheat, barley, dates and pulses. The new law, in allowing
old varieties to be genetically manipulated or otherwise modified and then
"registered", amount to legalising the theft of inherited intellectual property
owned by traditional farmers, the loss of farmers’ freedoms, and the
destruction of their food sovereignty.
Germplasm held in trust?
In recognition of the unique "seed heritage" of Iraq, traditional
varieties have been saved as from the 1970s in the country’s national gene
bank in Abu Ghraib outside Baghdad. There is concern that most of these may
have been lost during the latter years of Saddam Hussein and in the recent
conflict. However, the Syria-based Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centre and the affiliated International Centre
for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) still hold accessions of
several Iraqi varieties in the form of germplasm. These collections comprise
the agricultural heritage of Iraq and they should now be repatriated. But CGIAR
is reluctant to give assurances on this [8]. Ominously, germplasm held by
international agricultural research centres belonging to the CGIAR has been
"leaked out" for research and development to Northern scientists [1]. Such
"biopiracy" is fuelled by an IPR regime that ignores the prior art of the
farmer and grants sole rights to a breeder or researcher who claims to have
created something new from varieties made by generations of indigenous
farmers.
Wider implications
The US has now effectively declared a new war against the Iraqi farmer.
Order 81 also goes against the United Nations Millennium Forum Declaration [9]
which aspires to "move towards economic reforms aimed at equity, in particular
to construct macroeconomic policies that combine growth with the goal of human
development and social justice; to prevent the impoverishment of groups that
have emerged from poverty but are still vulnerable to social risks and
exclusion; to improve legislation on labour standards, including the provision
of a minimum legal wage and an effective social system; and to restore
people’s control over primary productive resources as a key strategy for
poverty eradication." The signatories to the Declaration also seek "to promote
the use of indigenous crops and traditional production skills to produce goods
and services; to exempt developing countries from implementing the WTO
Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement and to take these rights
out of any new rounds of negotiations, ensuring that no such new issues are
introduced; and to examine and regulate transnational corporations and the
increasingly negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt
by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable."
Order 81 is also in clear contravention of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in that it will increase chemical use, reduce the number of
planted crop varieties, accelerate the trend towards monoculture, and decrease
biodiversity [10]. Biosecurity will also be negatively affected, and the
negative social effects will include population displacement, rural decline and
an extension of (poverty and) urban slum dwelling. As to the Biosafety
(Cartagena) Protocol dealing with GMOs and their transboundary movement, the
Order is apparently designed to flout its aims and objectives, as there is no
mention of any regulation of GM crop shipments, plantings, harvesting or
export. It is no coincidence that neither the US nor Iraq has signed the CBD
and the Cartagena Protocol.
The Food Aid Convention (cf Articles iii, viii and xiii) states that GM
food aid should only be offered and accepted after recipient countries have
discarded "conventional" alternatives and non-GM food aid as non-options [11].
The United States is a signatory to this Convention, but it has been widely
accused of violating it whenever it suits its own interests to do so.
The Rio Declaration (1992) includes many progressive principles,
including the polluter-pays-principle (the polluter bears the costs of
pollution) or the precautionary principle (carry out environmental assessments
to identify adverse impacts and eliminate any potential harms from a project
before it is started). It advocates that today’s development shall not
undermine the resource base of future generations and that developed countries
bear a special responsibility due to the pressure their societies place on the
global environment and the technologies and financial resources they command
[12]. These principles are all flouted in Order 81.
The 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Food and
Agriculture (supported by the FAO and the Convention on Biological Diversity)
acknowledges that plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are the raw
material indispensable for crop genetic improvement, whether by means of
farmers’ selection, classical plant breeding or modern biotechnologies,
and are essential in adapting to unpredictable environmental changes and future
human needs; that the past, present and future contributions of farmers in all
regions of the world, particularly those in centres of origin and diversity, in
conserving, improving and making available these resources, is the basis of
Farmers’ Rights; and that the rights recognized in this (the) Treaty to
save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other propagating material,
and to participate in decision-making regarding, and in the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from, the use of plant genetic resources for
food and agriculture, are fundamental to the realization of Farmers’
Rights, as well as the promotion of Farmers’ Rights at national and
international levels. Order 81 is in clear violation of these principles.
Order 81 was supposedly drafted by the Coalition, and it supposedly
represented the consensus view of the Coalition partners, including the UK and
various other members of the EU. The Order extends the patenting of life forms
into the area of crops and agriculture, in spite of a massive ethical debate
about this within Europe. It also treats GM varieties as if they are no
different from new "conventional" varieties, which is in clear contravention of
EU policy [13]. Those who drafted Order 81 were clearly happy to see the
farmers of that blighted country blighted further by a "green light" for GM
contamination of the food supply and by commercial enslavement. This is an
edited version of an article posted by GM Free Cymru, 4 March 2005.
| |
|
