The principles of management of biodiversity are today defined on a global scale as the increased interaction of human societies compels us to have a global perception of the stakes involved. But international negotiation that has mainly focussed on experts’ debates and lobbying has kept most of the citizens out of it. Working out global decisions democratically is a tricky exercise. The activities of the Biodiversity Workshop contribute towards it under two main streams.

The first one supports the participation of local communities in the in situ management of resources. Indeed conservation of biodiversity in gene banks, zoos and botanical gardens, favoured till date, appear henceforth as an expensive measure and their efficiency is also questionable. New programs on management of biodiversity are now trying to take into account the central role played by rural communities. The implementation of policies for protection of biodiversity by communities, considered to be marginal as regards development and modernisation, raises a number of questions, especially regarding governance.

The second stream, that is at the interface of science and society, is about controlling the diffusion of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. GMOs are products of recent biotechnologies which enable the transfer of a gene and its characteristics from one organism to another. The rapid diffusion of GMOs under market influence is bringing about a large number of new dangers not only for the environment but also for the autonomy of actors in the food-processing industry and the health sector. Appropriation of life through patents and the economic and legal transformations that it entails calls for a large scale consultation of professionals with citizens on collective interest and society’s choice.

Debating on the implications of GMOs in agriculture

At the intersection of these two streams, three international workshops on ‘GMOs and agriculture’ were held in Morges (Switzerland) 1997, in Bruxelles (Belgium) in April 1998 and in Rishikesh (India) in December 1998.

The first workshop was held a few months before the Swiss referendum on ‘Initiative for genetic protection’ had proposed to ban the dissemination of GMOs in the environment. The conclusions reproduced in a publication ‘Aliments transgéniques: des craintes révélatrices’ (by FPH, Paris, 1998) raise the profound question of a society on the choice of development. The lack of information and opacity in the scientists’ and the policy makers’ discourses are seen as being responsible for the deficiency in democracy. There is an increased awareness about the fact that industrial progress no longer caters to a rationale of precaution.

The second workshop extended the debate to Europe, where the cultivation of transgenic crops had provoked a strong agitation. The discussion of actors with contradictory interests focussed on the relationship between research and sustainable agriculture, as reported in the publication ‘Le piège transgénique ?’ (FPH, Paris, 1998). It is obvious that GMOs are in complete contradiction with the principles of socially fair and sustainable agriculture that we hope to have in Europe. Constraints on freedom of choice are becoming more apparent as bioindustries consolidate themselves into monopolies. "It is increasingly difficult for a scientist to carry out research in an independent manner, for a farmer to promote an agriculture without GMOs, and finally for the consumer to avoid transgenic food in his plate."

If this is of such a great concern in Europe, then what about farming in the South, which is rich in labour and diversity ? This constituted the theme of the third workshop. Implications of GMOs on biodiversity and rights of communities appeared as a serious threat, and the need for information on biotechnologies and a transcontinental solidarity, was strongly felt (see Biodiversity, Community Rights & GMOs).

Vigilance and moratorium on GMOs

We concluded that the speed of transformations in the area of genomes resembles a wild race that is no longer under anybody’s control. The public debate has barely begun when "the commercialisation of biotechnological innovations is hurling people into a law less area, as there is no time to draw up legislations." Two priorities have become vital. First, to organise a citizens’ vigil on GMOs to make information accessible to all, and to pressurise the policy makers to act in the direction of the principle of precaution. Second, to support an international civil movement to demand a moratorium on the applications of genetic engineering in agriculture, and "to collectively build social conditions for their acceptability in an unhurried manner."

* The biodiversity workshop is supported by many programmes and policies of the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the progress of humankind: the AVE program, the APM program because it is about changing agricultural systems and farmers, the INO program because we have to be able to control genetic engineering ; the DPH policy, as exchange of experience is central to the Interface project and the INI policy, which initiated the three international workshops on GMOs and agriculture.

Interface project The biodiversity workshop of the Alliance, also strives to build a process of exchange of knowledge between associations of the North and the South. The process, called Interface, is co-ordinated by the Bibliothèque d’échange de documentation étudiante (Bédé) in partnership with the associations Accessit and Area-ed. Since 1997, a first series of tools in the field of biodiversity is being set up: documents giving a summary of experiences, website, CD-ROM. Interface is open to collaboration and wishes to extend its interest to other themes.

Return to Top