Foro Internacional para el reconocimiento y la participación indígena

Biodiversidad-L.A.

Entre el 30 de enero y el 3 de febrero, se celebró el Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad, y como todo lo que atañe a este tema en particular, el reconocimiento de los derechos humanos de los pueblos indígenas especialmente, fue el eje central de las sesiones desarrolladas
De igual manera, se planteó como necesario el diseño de estrategias para facilitar la participación de las comunidades originarias en las decisiones políticas, sociales, industriales y económicas, en los estados a los que pertenecen.
Sin tener en cuenta las posibles exclusiones de la actividad social y política, los pueblos indígenas representados en el Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad, estuvieron presentes en todas las actividades que se desarrollaron en su marco, y definitivamente su presencia no fue de simples convidados de piedra, sino que su voluntad de participar les llevó a proporcionar aportaciones constructivas al proceso.
La primera posición que asumieron los representantes de los pueblos indígenas fue manifestar su preocupación por la falta de objetivos, que conduzcan a proteger los derechos que tienen a conservar su conocimiento tradicional. Consideran que la preservación de este conocimiento es el pilar fundamental para cimentar el respeto de los demás derechos, que como personas e indígenas tienen.
Las inquietudes por las políticas, que desde la UNICEF se plantean sobre los recursos genéticos de plantas para la alimentación y la agricultura, fue el segundo tema que los pueblos indígenas propusieron para su discusión. La importancia de este tema radia en que, si bien es cierto que se enmarcan en un régimen internacional propuesto, también es importante tener en cuenta el impacto ambiental que la implementación de estas especies pueda tener en los territorios indígenas y en el mundo entero.
Para sustentar las preocupaciones relacionadas con el uso de los recursos genéticos en las plantas, los representantes de los pueblos indígenas acuden al artículo 26 de la Declaración de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas:
"Art.26 - Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a poseer, desarrollar, controlar y utilizar sus tierras y territorios, comprendido el medio ambiente total de las tierras, el aire, las aguas, los mares costeros, los hielos marinos, la flora y la fauna y los demás recursos que tradicionalmente han poseído u ocupado o utilizado de otra forma. Ello incluye el derecho al pleno reconocimiento de sus leyes, tradiciones y costumbres, sistemas de tenencia de la tierra e instituciones para el desarrollo y la gestión de los recursos, y el derecho a que los Estados adopten medidas eficaces para prevenir toda injerencia, usurpación o invasión en relación con estos derechos". [1]
De otra parte, la Subcomisión de Derechos Humanos del Foro Internacional Indígena sobre la Biodiversidad, presentaron en una de las sesiones los informes relacionados con las gestiones realizadas con relación al Patrimonio cultural de los pueblos indígenas, la relación de estos con la tierra y su soberanía sobre los recursos naturales.
Finalmente, podría esperarse que la participación de los pueblos indígenas en este Foro Internacional sea el germen para que la biodiversidad sea un tema que ocupe los primeros lugares de las agendas sociales, económicas y políticas de las naciones.

Le Kenya tenté de rouvrir la chasse

Liberation
Faune. Nairobi voudrait réintroduire les safaris pour éliminer les animaux en surnombre.
par Hilaire AVRILQUOTIDIEN : mardi 21 février 2006
Nairobi correspondance

Le Kenya ne sait plus quoi faire de ses animaux sauvages. Plusieurs réserves sont même débordées par une surpopulation d'éléphants et d'antilopes. A tel point que les gardes forestiers du Kenya Wildlife Service envisagent de lever l'interdiction de chasser, décrétée en 1977.

Officiellement, il s'agit de réguler le surpeuplement de certaines réserves, qui finit par provoquer des nuisances. Pas méchantes lorsqu'il s'agit d'antilopes affamées qui s'échappent pour dévorer les potagers, mais plus préoccupantes dans le cas des éléphants. Exemple, le parc naturel de Shimba Hills («collines des lions»), dans le sud du pays, a une capacité d'accueil de 200 éléphants mais en abrite près de 700... Les pachydermes, affamés et à l'étroit, s'échappent fréquemment du sanctuaire pour aller saccager les fermes alentour. La pose ­ coûteuse ­ de barrières électrifiées n'y fait rien : les éléphants ont compris comment les arracher à coups de défenses et savent les franchir en évitant de poser le pied sur les câbles. Le seul moyen de les contenir, c'est de les abattre.
Braconnage. Aujourd'hui, seule la brigade Problem Animal Control est habilitée à supprimer les animaux devenus dangereux. Toute autre personne surprise en train de tuer une bête sauvage encourt une peine de sept années de prison. Le Kenya pourrait donc revenir sur ce principe. Certainement pas dans les semaines qui viennent, puisque le gouvernement est paralysé par une vague de scandales liés à la corruption, mais sans doute très vite, une fois la situation politique stabilisée.
Car réautoriser la chasse limitée et encadrée répondrait à une logique historique mais surtout financière. Jusqu'en 1910, pas moins de la moitié des revenus publics provenait des indemnités de chasse et de la vente de l'ivoire. La partie de chasse organisée en 1909 pour Theodore Roosevelt et son fils Kermit avait mobilisé 265 porteurs, bringuebalant argenterie, bibliothèque et coffre à spiritueux à travers la savane... Les safaris de luxe qui ont inspiré à Hemingway de nombreuses beuveries et quelques belles pages sont donc une source de devises difficilement résistible. En 1977, la dernière année de chasse autorisée, la manne perçue par le gouvernement kényan s'élevait ainsi à 20 millions de dollars ­ près de 67 millions d'euros actuels. Aujourd'hui, le secteur du tourisme représente près de 13 % du PIB.
Ce sont ces perspectives financières qui ont notamment poussé Julius Kipng'etich, directeur du Kenya Wildlife Service, à annoncer, en septembre dernier, la possible révision de la politique de conservation de la faune. Les autorisations de chasses payantes pourraient permettre une meilleure gestion des parcs naturels, qui manquent cruellement de personnel et d'équipement. L'Afrique du Sud, par exemple (lire ci-contre), empoche ainsi 138 millions d'euros par an. Mais, de l'avis des sceptiques, le modèle sud-africain omet un facteur essentiel : la corruption. L'interdiction totale de toute chasse ­ mis à part certains gibiers à plume ­, décrétée par le président kényan Daniel Arap Moi en 1977, résultait justement de l'incapacité des autorités à mettre un terme au braconnage qui a décimé les éléphants et quasi exterminé les rhinocéros du pays.
Hélicoptères. Les victimes de la «guerre des braconniers» qui a sévi dans les années 70 et 80 n'étaient pas toutes des animaux. Armés de fusils d'assaut Kalachnikov, des «bandits somaliens» venus du nord du pays auraient ainsi massacré plus de 15 000 éléphants pour leur ivoire, bon nombre de gardes-chasse et quelques touristes... Dans Tsavo, le plus grand parc du pays, les autorités utilisaient deux hélicoptères de combat Hughes, du même type que ceux dont les Américains se servaient au Vietnam, pour venir à bout des gangs de braconniers.
Le conflit s'est soldé par la victoire du gouvernement de Moi, célébré en grande pompe lorsque le Président fit brûler devant les caméras du monde entier l'ivoire de plus de 1 800 éléphants illégalement abattus. Quelques mois plus tard, la convention internationale sur le commerce des espèces en voie de disparition interdisait toute vente d'ivoire dans le monde et le cours s'effondrait, passant de 6 000 dollars le kilo à... 10 dollars en 1993.

Sur le même sujet: Les lions pas tirés d'affaire

SIN CONSERVACIÓN NO HAY DESARROLLO. Banco Mundial evalúa COINBIO

Noticias de Oaxaca
Viernes 17 de febrero de 2006. Núm. 10466

"Espero que no se olviden de San Isidro Chacalapa”, comentó Simeón Domínguez en la despedida, “porque vivimos en pobreza. El mensaje del comunero chontal fue claro y Juan Martínez, consultor del Banco Mundial, lo entendió perfectamente bien: “No sólo los recursos naturales son importantes, sino también las necesidades de la gente.” Su origen mixteco puede explicar su sensibilidad ante la pobreza de sus paisanos, pero sus palabras también dejaron una tarea para todos los que visitamos a Barra de la Cruz y San Isidro Chacalapa, comunidades de San Pedro Huamelula, pero independiente como Comisariado de Bienes Comunales. Estaban representantes del Banco Mundial,del banco Nafín que administra los recursos de COINBIO, del Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza, integrantes de las asociaciones civiles Comunitas y SERBO que han estado trabajando en estas comunidades, y por supuesto los funcionarios de Conservación de la Biodiversidad en Comunidades Indígenas de los Estadosde Oaxaca, Guerrero y Michoacán (COINBIO), programa gubernamental financiado por el Banco Mundial (BM). Con un presupuesto modesto de 7.5 millones de dólares para tres estados, pero para todo el ciclo (2002-2007), COINBIO ya ha entrado en la última fase, entonces tiempo para una evaluación de ‘mediotérmino’.

Aunque su trabajo ha sido irregular en el primer trienio por el cambio de los coordinadores, ahora parece haber encontrado un buen ritmo de trabajo, descentralizado hacia tres regiones (Costa,Sierra Norte y Yautepec-Istmo), donde se coordina através de los Comités Regionales de Recursos Naturales, compuestos por representantes agrarios de decenas de comunidades. Al nivel institucionalcoordina su trabajo sobre todo con la Comisión Nacional de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CDI) y con la Comisión Nacional de Áreas NaturalesProtegidas (CONANP, parte de SEMARNAT). Es el único programa al nivel federal, pero también estatal, que trata de integrar el desarrollo de los pueblos indígenas con la conservación de la biodiversidad, integración indispensable sobre todo en la chontal alta (Yautepec) y baja (Costa), una de las zonas más marginadas del estado, pero con recursos naturales excepcionales. Viendo esta realidad, la frase de JuanMartínez –tan vacía si hubiera salida de la boca de un político en campaña- cobra más importancia. El mayor reto de COINBIO en Oaxaca, de acuerdo a su coordinador Álvaro González, es como pueda generar políticas de conservación de la biodiversidad en territorios indígenas, apropiadas por instancias del gobierno. Sería un éxito demostrar que es factible que las comunidades conserven y manejen su territorio. Es el espíritu original de COINBIO. “El Banco Mundial fue el vehículo para que se llevara a cabo este proyecto piloto gestionando los recursos y ahora esperamos que el gobierno mexicano y las comunidades se encarguen a asentar esto como parte de la política pública en la conservación de la biodiversidad. Dicho de otra manera: La pelota está en la cancha suya. Veamos ahora si se queda como un proyecto interesante nada más, o si realmente sembramos una semilla que a nosotros, los mexicanos, nos toca regarla.”

Un experto considera probado que el cambio climático amenaza la biodiversidad

Las evidencias son más abundantes cada vez

Levante-EMV, Valencia El investigador Juan José Sanz, del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, aseguró ayer en Valencia que las evidencias indican que es la humanidad la que está afectando al clima de la tierra y la que puede estar interviniendo de forma negativa en la evolución de multitud de especies. Así, recientemente se ha publicado «un trabajo que permite conocer los efectos de este cambio climático sobre la extinción de plantas y animales a escala global en un corto período de tiempo», explicó. El impacto del reciente cambio climático se ha detectado a tres niveles: dinámica de poblaciones, distribución geográfica y fenología de las especies. «Hasta hace poco se pensaba que tendrían que pasar décadas para que el efecto del cambio climático sobre la biodiversidad se pudiera detectar. Sin embargo, en los últimos años el número de publicaciones científicas en este campo de investigación se ha incrementado notablemente, aunque uno de los aspectos aún por resolver consiste en conocer las posibles consecuencias del cambio climático sobre la viabilidad de las especies».
Juan José Sanz pronunció ayer en el Jardín Botánico de Valencia la conferencia «Consecuencias ecológicas del cambio climático»en el marco del ciclo «Biodiversidad y Conservación en el siglo XXI», organizado por la Fundación BBVA y el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Sanz manifestó que el cambio climático puede incrementar el efecto de otras amenazas para la biodiversidad, como pueden ser la polución, fragmentación y pérdida del hábitat. «La acción conjunta de todas estas amenazas producidas por el hombre actúan sobre la biodiversidad a tres niveles: individual o genético, de especie y de ecosistema», señaló el científico.

Tierras indígenas conservan biodiversidad

15.02.06 - BRASIL

Adital - Las Tierras Indígenas funcionan como barreras a la deforestación en la Amazonia, impidiendo la destrucción de casi 3,5 millones de hectáreas de florestas. En efecto, el 74% de las Tierras Indígenas (TI) poseen tasas de deforestación menores que las áreas de su entorno. Las informaciones constan en el "Diagnóstico sobre Tierras Indígenas Amenazadas en la Amazonia", realizado por la Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Amazonia Brasileña (COIAB), a través de su Departamento Etnoambiental. El documento fue divulgado hoy, miércoles 15, por la organización, en Brasilia.
El diagnóstico, realizado en cooperación con la organización no gubernamental Instituto de Conservación Ambiental (TNC), señala además, que mientras la tasa de deforestación en las Unidades de Conservación Federales es de 1,52%, en las Tierras Indígenas ese total baja al 1,10%. De esta manera, a pesar de recibir una cuantía mucho menor de recursos para su preservación, el papel de las Tierras Indígenas para proteger la floresta es notorio: protegen 90 millones de hectáreas, contra 65 millones de las Unidades de Conservación Federales. El estudio desarrolló un modelo que permite visualizar cuál sería la deforestación esperada dentro de los territorios indígenas, en el caso que ellos mantuviesen el mismo patrón de desarrollo en la región. La diferencia entre el escenario con y sin Tierras Indígenas genera un saldo positivo de 3,5 millones de hectáreas de florestas protegidas. Los patrones del estudio consideran los elementos que más contribuyen a la deforestación tales como: presencia de carretera asfaltada y camino de tierra, acceso fluvial, densidad poblacional y deforestación consolidada. Según el coordinador general de la COIAB, Jecinaldo Barbosa Cabral, el relevamiento realizado por la entidad, con el apoyo de la TNC, le demuestra al gobierno y a la sociedad brasileña en qué medida las Tierras Indígenas son estratégicas para la Protección de la Amazonia. "El diagnóstico presenta datos concretos sobre las amenazas que cercan a las Tierras Indígenas tanto en relación con la degradación ambiental, la explotación descontrolada e ilegal de los recursos naturales y de la biodiversidad, como el respeto de los riesgos de descaracterización socio-cultural de los pueblos indígenas, que milenariamente preservaron su entorno", afirma Cabral. Para Ana Cristina Barros, representante de la TNC en Brasil, "existen indicativos de que esa situación favorable, proporcionada por la presencia de los indios en la floresta, puede invertirse en el caso de que no haya apoyo para que ese modelo de utilización se mantenga". Para la TNC queda claro que las tierras indígenas no van a sustentarse por mucho tiempo como herramientas de protección eficiente de la biodiversidad si no existe un mayor apoyo para su manejo. "Las TIs pequeñas en regiones de fuerte presión ambiental - próximas a ciudades o carreteras - tienen una situación mucho menos favorable que las TIs mayores," ejemplifica Ana Cristina. El diagnóstico, realizado durante 18 meses por técnicos y científicos de la COIAB y de la TNC combinó imágenes de satélite con entrevistas realizadas por la COIAB a los líderes indígenas. Traducción: Daniel Barrantes - barrantes.daniel@gmail.com

CREARAN FONDO PARA INSTITUTO DE BIODIVERSIDAD ANDINO

El Informante (Peru)
Edición Nº 114 - Feb 2006
Por: karen Martínez/ El Informante

Fonam se encargaría de preparar proyecto
El Parlamento Andino suscribiría próximamente un convenio con el Fondo Nacional del Ambiente-Peru (Fonam) para la creación de un fondo fiduciario que permita el sustento económico del Instituto de Biodiversidad Andino con lo cual se dará vida a la propuesta que hizo ante ese organismos regional el congresista Luis Flores Vásquez (PP).
Así lo anotaron representantes de la Comisión Tercera de Seguridad Regional Ambiente y Ecología del Parlamento Andino durante la sesión que encabezó el congresista Flores Vásquez y en la que participaron la diputada ecuatoriana, vicepresidenta de esa organización parlamentaria, Juana Vallejo Klaere; y la directora ejecutiva del Fonam, Julia Justo Soto.
Fue después de una amplia explicación de la representante del Fonam sobre el funcionamiento de la entidad que funciona como entidad promotora e intermediaria financiera de la inversión pública y privada en la realización de inversiones y actividades orientadas a contribuir al desarrollo sostenible del país en los ámbitos del Cambio Climático, Construcción de Capacidades, Biodiversidad y Contaminación Local.
El acuerdo preliminar para que el Fonan se encargue de realizar el perfil del proyecto de creación del referido fondo fiduciario y luego del estudio de factibilidad debe ser aprobado por el Parlamento Andino en marzo del presente año. Entretanto, los miembros de la comisión expresaron su común acuerdo de que especialistas capaces de una entidad como el Fonam, que han demostrado capacidad de gestión, se encarguen de los estudios de la creación del fondo.
Flores Vasquez, destacó la importancia del referido fondo que será destinado al Instituto de Biodiversidad Andino porque servirá para que éste funcione y cumpla su cometido de estudiar, seleccionar y clasificar las especies y productos de los países que forman parte del Parlamento Andino. “De esta manera se tendrá un mejor conocimiento y manejo de sus recursos. ”, expresó.

PERU ENTRE LOS PRIMEROS
Justo Soto, indicó que entre los proyectos más importantes se encuentran los que generan nuevos negocios en beneficio del medio ambiente.
Indicó que el Perú es el sexto país en el mundo que exporta negocios, como en el caso de proyectos que califiquen al Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio MDL, como el proyecto que implica la reducción de emisión de dióxido de carbono a países que están obligados debido a convenios internacionales en los que se han comprometido.
Dijo que actualmente se están exportando cinco millones de toneladas anuales que significan al inversionista una recuperación de 25 millones de euros al año y una proyección de 120 millones de euros hasta el año 2012. Indicó que el éxito de la gestión del Fonam es fruto del trabajo ágil para cumplir con los encargos de promover las inversiones en el área, similar a la tarea que cumple un banco y trabajando de cerca con las empresas financieras y todos los operadores involucrados en la gestión y financiamiento ambiental.

UN Meeting Adopts Draft Global Regime On Use Of Genetic Resources

3/2/2006 Intellectual Property Watch
posted by Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen @ 9:13 pm

GRANADA, Spain - After intensive negotiations here this week, negotiators at a United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) conference adopted three draft documents recommending a new international regime for the use of genetic resources.
The recommendations, if adopted by the signatory nations of the 1992 CBD, could enhance the rights of indigenous and local communities to benefit when genetic resources or traditional knowledge from their areas are used in the development of products such as pharmaceuticals. The recommendations also could increase certainty for companies working in those areas.
While developing countries and the CBD secretariat welcomed the fact that a specific proposal for such a regime had been put forward, most developed countries and the industry were not welcoming the move.
“We are happy, but not satisfied with the outcome. But we are happy that we got something,” Desh Deepak Verma of the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests and head of the CBD “like-minded mega-diverse” countries group told Intellectual Property Watch.
But Alan Oxley of the Australian APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Study Centre, said the whole draft process had been irregular and too speedy because of the “lack of time given to countries to form a position.” If the draft would be continued to be pushed through and parties asked to sign it, it would end up being a “bad result” for all parties, he said. It is a “forced process” and on paper “it looks like a protocol” without an agreement that a protocol should be discussed, Oxley said.
The 30 January-3 February meeting, hosted by the CBD and the United Nations Environment Programme, was the fourth gathering of an ad hoc open-ended working group on access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources, which includes plants, animals and micro-organisms.
The CBD secretariat was “all smiles” at the decision to move ahead, according to one source. A spokesperson for the secretariat said that “we made headway with an international regime,” welcoming that the meeting ended with something specific instead of just being a discussion of all the options.
He said that they had made progress with a proposal to require certificates of origin but taken “one step backwards” on issues related to disclosure of origin in patent applications, referring to a number of brackets in the text. Disclosure requires indicating the country of origin in applications, and ensuring people who are sharing the resource have received prior informed consent and will share fairly in any benefits.

The Path Ahead
Spanish Chairwoman Margarita Clemente told Intellectual Property Watch that she was very pleased with the meeting and now the work could start as a path had been staked out with the draft. “As you walk you are staking out, making the way,” she said.
There is a main draft submitted by the chair and two draft recommendations developed by a focus group that worked in parallel with a “friends of the chair” group on 2 February. The focus group discussed a possible certificate of origin and measures to ensure compliance with prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms (disclosure issues).
A delegate from Brazil said that there was a still a lot of work to be done at the next CBD meeting on measures including disclosure.
Richard Kjeldgaard of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said that industry was present because if a treaty was formed they had to understand what this would mean for their companies as it could have some effect. As for disclosure, Kjeldgaard said it was “hard to tell in what direction it is going,” noting that the debate was premature as there was not even consensus on what disclosure was.
At a meeting two years ago of the countries that have ratified the CBD – the biannual Conference of the Parties – a mandate was given to develop an international regime which would regulate the access of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing between providers and users of these resources.
The draft texts will now be forwarded to the next Conference of the Parties meeting which will take place in Curitiba, Brazil on 20-31 March. This meeting will have the power to adopt the drafts formally if so agreed. The meetings are separate which is why it was “adopted” here, although it is only a draft recommendation.
An official from the Malaysian government, which is currently heading the CBD, said the regime drafts contained all the core elements such as benefit-sharing, compliance and enforcement, and disclosure requirements. He also welcomed that it spells out that the meeting in Brazil should establish a timetable for the negotiations, that the work towards adoption and conclusion of a regime should be fast, and that the work on a study on the present regulations in this area to identify what is missing (referred to as “gap analysis”) should be done in parallel and not hold up the work on the regime.
When the first draft of the regime was presented earlier in the week a number of developed countries said it was too early to discuss this and called for further gap analysis to be carried out first (IPW, Biodiversity, 1 February).
In general, the developed countries were against such a draft at this meeting, with Australia, Austria (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Canada and New Zealand taking the lead.
But a developing country official said that with all the brackets these countries had not objected to the draft as that would have made them “look bad.”
Apparently there was some disagreement within the European Union, with the French position of “putting the brakes on” dominating, according to two Swedish sources.
They said the European Union wanted disclosure but had put forward a proposal at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Sweden was positive to the proposal of certificates of origin and requiring disclosure of origin in patents, they said, supporting the Norwegian position which favours disclosure of origin and prior informed consent in patent applications.

Click below to access the CBD documents:

Draft international regime

Draft Recommendation on Certification of Origin

Draft Recommendation on Prior Informed Consent and Mutually Agreed Terms

Hungary to extend GMO ban

9TH FEBRUARY 2006

Budapest, February 9 (MTI) - Hungary will extend its ban on growing genetically modified maize, gov't officials told the press on Thursday. Hungarian researchers have recently found evidence that maize types freely traded in the European Union represent environmental and health risks, said Environment Ministry state secretary Andras Gombos. According to the researchers, the toxic content of these types of maize in wet weather conditions can become thousands of times higher than traditional pesticides, he added. The ban was introduced in January last year. Farm minister Jozsef Graf said it was in Hungary's economic interest to keep the country GMO-free.

Hungary is one of Europe's biggest grain producers.
He said Hungary would try to get European ministers to uphold the ban at a meeting in the summer.

--->And it's not just Hungary...
OTHER RECENT HEADLINES
Polish prime minister - "We do not want GMO"
Austria bans Monsanto's GM oilseed rape
Ban on growing GM soy in Romania
Greece extends ban on Monsanto biotech corn type

The case for science-based agriculture

Science and Development Network
David Dickson8 February 2006

Although GM crops are controversial, they can still play an important role in meeting the world's food needs. But the controversies do highlight the need for a robust regulatory framework.
There are several reasons why many poorer communities in the developing world feel justified in regarding modern science and technology with suspicion, if not scepticism.
Some of the reasons are based on practical experience. One example is the fact that the fruits of science often fail to reach the poorest levels of society. Think of the lack of even basic drugs in many parts of Africa, and the widespread problems of disease that result.
Another example is that it is often the poorest communities that suffer most from the side-effects of technology-based growth. Think of farmers falling ill or dying after exposure to chemical pesticides. Or the way that poor urban and rural communities in parts of the developing world are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, itself largely the result of the West's industrialisation.
But the distrust is also due to the fact that faith in scientific solutions may clash with the comforting certainties of traditional belief systems. This in turn means that these solutions may undermine not only the social practices that belief systems support — the most obvious example being traditional medicine — but also the social cohesion they generate.
Put these factors together, and the result is that, for all its promises, modern science often generates a sense of alienation, rooted in feelings of a loss of control. In principle, we can all subscribe to the idea that, as the philosopher Francis Bacon said, "knowledge is power". In practice, scientific knowledge is frequently seen as reinforcing the power of those who already have it — and, as a consequence, further disenfranchising those who do not.
Opposition to GM crops
Nowhere does this alienation appear more strongly than in the public opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops. Critics frequently label this opposition as 'irrational' or 'anti-scientific'. Such thinking is reflected in yesterday's verdict by the World Trade Organisation, which overturned European opposition to imports of GM crops from Argentina, Canada and the United States on the grounds that Europe lacked a sufficient scientific justification fior taking such action (see WTO says Europe's GM ban broke trade rules).
To some extent, the critics are justified. The 'science' that opponents of GM crops quote to support their cause is often misleading, incomplete, or just wrong. Think of the mileage given to the work by immunologist Árpád Pusztai, whose claim that eating GM potatoes can weaken the immune system is contested by most experts in the field, but remains widely quoted by GM opponents.
Or look at the claim that GM food can trigger allergies. The evidence is no stronger than data supporting claims that carbon dioxide emissions do not accelerate global warming. Yet those who readily reject the second claim often have little difficulty in accepting the first.
All this, however, misses the point that the opposition to GM crops is not grounded in a scientific assessment of their relative risks and benefits. Rather, it is strengthened by deeper feelings of mistrust and alienation, and the fact that GM technology meets many of the criteria for triggering such a reaction.
The roots of alienation
To start with, intervening directly with the genetic make-up of plants (and animals) is widely seen as a form of interference not only with natural processes, but also with traditional farming practices developed around these processes over centuries.
The crop science industry may claim that biotechnology has been with us ever since humans learnt how to ferment alcohol. But the industry also knows that when the techniques for manipulating genes were invented in the early 1970s, they represented a technological watershed that has transformed the sector.
Second, the international patent system, which controls access to intellectual property, inevitably means that those who seek to use GM technologies can only do so if they are prepared to give up some control of the practices involved (or are prepared to risk using them illegally).
This is the main criticism of the 'terminator technology' — crops engineered to produce sterile seeds. Farmers using such seeds must buy new ones every year, usually from multinational companies. This means they cannot follow the traditional practice of saving seed from one year to use in the next.
Third, people's sense of alienation can grow when foreign researchers take genetic resources overseas to be studied — with the potential for multinational pharmaceutical and chemical companies to make profits by incorporating the active ingredients into new products.
Opponents of this practice have successfully labelled it 'biopiracy'. The word encapsulates the feeling that native communities have been deprived of valuable possessions, often without permission, and with little or nothing in return (see African 'biopiracy' debate heats up).
Confusing science and politics
The problem with all of these arguments is that, despite raising legitimate concerns about how the modern technology is controlled, they can demonise the technology itself. And in doing so they also implicate the science on which it is based.
Sometimes linking the means with their ends is justified. The US National Rifle Association may claim that it is people — not guns — that kill, but that does not imply that guns are a neutral technology (significantly the US patent system refuses to offer protection to clearly anti-social devices, such as letter bombs).
For GM crops, however, this is far from being the case. The technology may have associated dangers that remain unknown, such as the long-term ecological impacts of growing GM crops.
But it is also clear that, provided the technology's use is properly monitored and controlled, it has the potential to meet the needs of farmers — both large-scale and small — as well as society's demands for cost-effective food production.
No-one is pretending the dangers do not exist, any more than they do with other modern technologies (such as driving cars or using contraceptive pills). Nor is this to argue against using caution wherever possible, particularly when some of the processes involved — ecological disruption is one example — are not properly understood.
But there is no inherent reason to believe that, given sufficient political commitment, the risks involved cannot be reduced to a socially acceptable level, just as they have been with these other technologies.
In other words, as with any other application of science, careful regulation can ensure responsible use of GM technology.
The case for better communication
None of this, however, addresses the key issue of alienation identified above. And until this is addressed satisfactorily, people will remain suspicious of GM technology.
One step towards reducing this distrust is greater transparency. Information about science — and the technology based on it — must be communicated in an accessible way.
It also means that information must not be restricted to the positive aspects of the technology, but must embrace all relevant data; nothing generates suspicion more than a sense that unfavourable data is being suppressed.
But communication has to take place in context. Preaching about the virtues of science-based agriculture without taking into account people's underlying concerns is unlikely to help.
Effective communication must involve an awareness of the factors that generate alienation and cause distrust of science, which in practice means giving people the information they need to retain a sense of control of what is important to them.
Such a commitment lies behind SciDev.Net's dossier on agricultural biotechnology (or 'agri-biotech'), as with the rest of our activities. When the dossier was launched, it was called 'GM crops', and focused exclusively on the scientific and political issues that need to be addressed by those faced with decisions about how to handle this new technology.
The decision to rename this dossier 'agri-biotech' reflects a recognition that GM technology is not the only way that modern science can boost food production. This is highlighted by a new policy brief outlining other high-tech approaches to crop and livestock farming that do not necessarily require GM techniques (see The role of non-GM biotechnology in developing world agriculture).
Meanwhile, two new opinion articles capture the ongoing debate about whether GM techniques are compatible with sustainable agriculture (see GM crops and pest control).
Behind this expansion of the dossier lies the conviction that a commitment to science-based agriculture is essential if the world in general — and developing countries in particular — are to meet the growing demand for food.
Equally important is a commitment to ensuring that new technologies are applied within a political framework that encourages social inclusion (for example, with adequate provision for benefit sharing, or for moulding intellectual property laws to local circumstances). This will minimise feelings of alienation and distrust.Paying attention to one and not the other significantly reduces the overall chances of success. Addressing the two simultaneously is a more challenging task. But it is essential if the promises of agricultural biotechnology are to be fulfilled. Shooting the messenger — the science on which these technologies are based — is not the answer.

Vapulea Sarukhán por inconsistente el reporte ambiental de la Semarnat

La Jornada, Miércoles 8 de febrero de 2006
Por ANGELICA ENCISO L.

"No tenemos capacidad de saber lo que está pasando realmente", señala el científico
Luege: "lo importante no es presentar algo a la conveniencia, sino simplemente la información"

Entre cuestionamientos a los datos que contiene el Informe de la situación del medio ambiente en México, así como críticas a la falta de una política transversal en la materia y a la minimización de temas centrales, como el de los manglares, fue presentado ayer ese documento elaborado por la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat).
El texto, que se divulga cada dos años porque así lo establece la ley, presenta una evaluación de 136 indicadores que fueron actualizados hasta el año pasado. En el acto, José Sarukhán Kermez, coordinador de la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, destacó errores en la información, la falta de cifras sobre deforestación y que la política de transversalidad sea inexistente.

Políticas de Estado
Sarukhán sostuvo que los tres secretarios que han pasado por la dependencia han tenido el deseo firme de esto, "pero a un secretario de Estado no le toca fijar políticas de Estado nacionales; éstas las fija el Presidente". Dijo que en la presentación del reporte del capital natural deberían haber acudido otras secretarías, situación que sí se habría presentado si el informe hubiera sido en materia económica.
La transversalidad, planteada como una política al principio de esta administración, tenía como finalidad involucrar a las dependencias federales que tienen que ver con rubros relacionados con la materia ambiental para que sus programas consideraran este aspecto.
Ante el titular de la Semarnat, José Luis Luege Tamargo, y de Christian Avérous, miembro de la división de Desempeño Ambiental de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos, el científico ex rector de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México enumeró una serie de datos que presentaban inconsistencias en el informe. Entre ellos, destacó el de la deforestación, ya que los inventarios forestales que se han realizado en el país no son comparables unos con otros.
"No tenemos capacidad de saber lo que está pasando realmente; el mejor indicador que podemos tener de cómo lo estamos haciendo, es saber lo que estamos perdiendo, y aún no lo podemos hacer en serio", indicó. Por ejemplo, mencionó que el documento señala que de las selvas húmedas queda 30 por ciento de vegetación primaria, pero recordó que en un análisis de la vegetación de las selvas en Veracruz se encontró que ahí quedaba menos de 10 por ciento en 1998.
Asimismo se refirió a la contradicción entre el planteamiento de que el país tiene mecanismos de protección de los manglares, con el hecho de que el documento plantee que entre 1990 y 2000 se perdieron 103 millones de hectáreas a una tasa de 1.9 por ciento, casi el doble del promedio mundial. "Me salta dónde están los mecanismos de protección ante estas tasas de pérdida, particularmente cuando uno se entera que hay concesiones de áreas de manglares para convertirlas en campos de golf o marinas."
Entre otros errores, se refirió a la cantidad de especies de mamíferos que existen en México, ya que son 512 y no 491, además de que el texto dice que hay 65 mil especies conocidas en el país, cuando la Comisión Nacional de la Biodiversidad reporta entre 95 mil y 100 mil. Más tarde, en conferencia de prensa, el científico acotó que en relación con los indicadores del reporte en materia de biodiversidad, fueron pocos los errores y que las inconsistencias se pueden presentar.

Lo importante, la información
Por su parte, Luege Tamargo defendió el documento que se hizo público "con sus inconsistencias, con posibles errores, y desde luego, con variaciones metodológicas muy marcadas", pero "lo importante no es presentar algo a la medida o a la conveniencia, sino simplemente la información".
Agregó que el reporte presenta una realidad dolorosa, que es la pérdida de biodiversidad, la destrucción de muchos ecosistemas, debido al crecimiento demográfico en los últimos años y a la ausencia de planificación, " a no contar con un ordenamiento ecológico del territorio nacional, a políticas erráticas, a corrupción, que han generado presiones muy fuertes".
Por su parte, Rodolfo Dirzo, miembro de la Academia de Ciencias de Estados Unidos, destacó que la biodiversidad es el único cambio ambiental irreversible, "no se puede hacer nada ante ello". Esta situación, que es importante para el planeta, en México es determinante, ya que aquí se encuentran 32 tipos de vegetación. Sostuvo que cada vez es más evidente que el planeta está en "estrés ecológico".

Rechazada la introducción de maíz transgénico en Bolivia

FOBOMADE / Rebelión
En fecha 14 de noviembre de 2005 fue emitida la Resolución Administrativa VRNMA Nº 135/05 que en su articulo segundo resuelve: “Rechazar toda solicitud sobre introducción de maíz genéticamente modificado al territorio nacional, para la realización de pruebas de campo, siembra, producción o liberación deliberada en el medio ambiente”. La Empresa Dow AgroSciences Bolivia S.A. presentó, en agosto del 2004 una solicitud para la realización de ensayos con maíz genéticamente modificado (resistencia al gusano cogollero y al herbicida glufosinato de amonio con maíz Bt, evento TC 1507). Los hechos políticos de junio precipitaron la salida de Erwin Aguilera, el ex ministro que aprobó la liberación comercial de soya transgénica de Monsanto y que probablemente hubiera también aprobado el maíz transgénico.
La primera solicitud de Dow AgroSciences Bolivia S.A. fue anulada por no cumplir procedimientos. Posteriormente la empresa presentó una segunda solicitud, que fue analizada en base a la normativa legal y tomando en cuenta las recomendaciones técnicas que establecen la alta probabilidad de contaminación genética de las variedades criollas de maíz debido a sus características de reproducción cruzada y el potencial de riesgo que esto presenta a la diversidad genética de este cultivo, ya que Bolivia es centro de diversidad genética del maíz. Asimismo determina, rechazar toda solicitud sobre introducción de maíz genéticamente modificado al territorio nacional para la realización de pruebas de campo, siembra, producción o liberación deliberada en el medio ambiente y encarga la ejecución y aplicación de la misma a la Dirección General de Biodiversidad. (Resolución Administrativa VRNMA Nº 135/05)
En Octubre de 2005 organizaciones de la sociedad civil se dirigieron a la Ministra Bozo para recordarle que: La región andina en su conjunto, es centro de diversidad de este cultivo; incluso para algunos investigadores, el centro de origen sería la zona chaqueña de Bolivia-Paraguay, por la presencia de maíces tunicados. La liberación del maíz transgénico implica la seguridad de contaminación de la gran variedad de semillas utilizadas en todo el país. Ello significa afectar un patrimonio genético y cultural desarrollado en miles de años por las diferentes culturas y pueblos que los habitan, así como poner en riesgo el material genético que se encuentra en los bancos de germoplasma de instituciones y de los agricultores.
Mas allá de esto, pone en riesgo toda la región andina como centro de diversidad del maíz, lo cual es absolutamente irracional tomando en cuenta los problemas que atraviesa en la actualidad el maíz en México, considerado el centro de origen.Por la información existente, las características de la polinización, manejo, selección e intercambio de maíz, extensión del cultivo en todo el país, así como las evidencias de contaminación en México; permitir el inicio de pruebas con maíz transgénico sería atentar contra uno de los principales patrimonios genético-culturales del país. Pondría en riesgo no solo el cultivo en los llanos, en la región andina, en los valles y en la amazonía, sino las propias políticas nacionales y regionales de recursos genéticos y de biodiversidad destinadas a la protección de estos recursos compartidos en la región andina.Nuestros pueblos manejan una gran variedad de maíz, de diversos tamaños, sabores, consistencia.
Así, cada plato tiene su tipo de maíz y cada región tiene su propia tradición, desde el Altiplano, los Valles, la Amazonía, el Chaco, la Chiquitanía, la Llanura Beniana, hasta el Pantanal. La diversidad de platos y formas de preparar el maíz es un reflejo de la cantidad de variedades cultivadas en todas las bioregiones y de las culturas que las habitan, pero es al mismo tiempo una muestra de la biodiversidad del país.

Ecotourism Blueprints for Success in a Free Market

The New Times (Kigali) January 31, 2006
Georgianne Nienaber
Kigali. Ecotourism is a lofty concept-effective zoning and land use planning, responsible stewardship of the environment, a strong, regulated tourism industry-all resulting in economic benefits flowing to local communities. There are, arguably, tens of thousands of articles, funded by NGO's, private institutions, and think tanks on the topic of tourism in Africa. Report after report on "sustainable development" in the third world argues incessantly about the pros and cons of the ecotourism model. Meanwhile, in the name of sustainable development, plants, animals and entire ecosystems are being held hostage by scientists and economists with little regard for the indigenous peoples who live there. While the concept of a tourism industry that enhances rather than destroys the land is the ideal, sometimes the practice of tourism presents an ugly face. In the eyes of the third world host country, the tourist often exhibits characteristics of a greedy lover-carelessly taking nature against her will, and abandoning the love affair after the novelty has waned. The end result is an unregulated "tourist" economy which generates tons of waste, consumes power and water, devalues local cultures, and adds to pollution. Rwanda is a beautiful country, brimming with heart-breaking vistas, Nyungwe and Akagera national parks, the Virunga Mountains, and a dynamic, resilient population. While there is potential for a cash economy in the coffee industry, the ultimate prize is the kingdom of the mountain gorilla, which, at the moment, seems to be ruled by environmental interests. In addition, the film industry, by producing the racist travesty, King Kong, has perpetuated the myth of a savage people inhabiting the darkest area of the world. Even the monster gorilla prefers the company of a blond white woman to his native environment. The mountain gorilla is the metaphor for Rwanda. Who has the right to claim the gorilla, and by implication, Rwanda? Once the prize is won, will it be forever spoiled? The Trojan horse of environmental aid packages conceals influence peddling and economic gain at the least, and nation building at the extreme. Meanwhile, the local population is forced into an unholy alliance between scientists and economic forces far beyond its control or understanding. In a Worldwatch paper, Travelling Light: New Paths for International Tourism, Lisa Mastny tells the cautionary tale of a small Indian fishing village with beautiful beaches that became the darling of European tourists in the 1960's. Within twenty years, the area was flooded with investment capital and the resulting hotels, souvenir shops and waste-generating infrastructure. Like the stock market, by the year 2000, visitor numbers dropped by over 40 percent. The economists rushed in, spending even more money on scientific study after scientific study on tourism, and came to the conclusion that what drove the tourists away was the waste which they deposited upon the pristine setting that lured them to India in the first place. Recyclable items such as glass, paper, and metal were not the problem and were reused by local industries. The biggest polluter was human waste, generated by tourists, which overwhelmed the local sanitation facilities. Sewage piled up in mounds or was dumped into streams, inviting cholera and other "third world" diseases. Not surprisingly, the tourists left in search of yet another pristine environment. In the words of local artist and activist Jayakumar Chelaton, no one cared about the health issues faced by the locals, "everyone wanted the beaches to be clean so it could get more business." The opposite side of the coin is the invasion of scientists who descend upon world heritage sites, in this case Rwanda's Virunga Mountains, claiming them as their own and creating a de-facto state of ownership under the guise of "protection" from tourism and the local population-read "poachers." The poaching argument appears to be a smokescreen for the real problem, which is an unstable society in Congo and surrounding areas. The poachers' snare is not set for the gorilla-it is utilized for game-and the gorilla becomes an unintended victim. Ironically, one wonders how much the scientists have accomplished, since there seems to be a surplus of "orphan" mountain and lowland gorillas in the Virungas these days. This, in turn, has led to yet another fundraising appeal by organizations who claim these animals as their own fiefdom. As a tried and true fundraising technique, it has been written that you can't go wrong to have the words "orphan" or "animal" in your appeal if you want to pull the heartstrings of donors. NGO's have hit a home run with the "orphan" gorillas. This attitude negates the possibility that the Rwandan and Congolese people are capable of managing their own resources. There seems to be confusion. Are tourists the problem, or is it the local, displaced society? Perhaps, it is the environmental NGO's themselves. On the other hand, properly regulated tourism has the potential to diversify economies and encourage investment of foreign capital. Environmental science, if it ever develops a heart and soul, has the ability to impart valuable information which will stimulate empathy for endangered species such as the mountain gorilla. As Rwandans reflect upon the twentieth anniversary of Dian Fossey's death, it is important to recognize that her biggest enemies were not the people of Rwanda, as myth would have the world believe. It was the western scientists of the USAID-funded Mountain Gorilla Project who wanted to drive her out of Karisoke. Surprisingly, the Mountain Gorilla Project was promoting ecotourism! Fossey was not only a scientist, she was also an artist with the soul of a poet. In her ground-breaking book, Gorillas in the Mist, Fossey was able to touch the hearts and minds of the world population, doing more for the survival of the mountain gorilla than anyone before or after her brief time on earth. Fossey recognized the dangers of unregulated tourism, but she also cultivated a dialogue with the world about Rwanda's heritage, and compiled a booklet on the cultural significance of the names attached to places in the Virungas. She funded this project with her own meager inheritance from a favourite uncle. Arguments about the conflicts between the human soul and science aside, tourism remains the purview of the most affluent share of the world's population, with 80 per cent of tourism coming from the western world, 15 per cent from East Asia and the Pacific, and the remainder coming from Africa and the rest of the third world combined. (Population Reference Bureau, www.prb.org). Ecotourism has great potential to enlighten the world about endangered species and ecosystems. But, it would be wrong to rely upon these hopes and statistics without a closer look. The most sought-after Holy Grail, the American tourist, might not be whom the host country expects, and certainly does not represent mainstream America, since fewer than 20 percent of Americans hold valid passports. By 2020, China is expected to become the fourth largest source of tourists worldwide-eclipsed only by Germany, Japan, and the United States (Worldwatch). Consider, also, that tourists are not a hardy lot. The affluent traveller, more often than not, will seek to replicate the lifestyle enjoyed in his/her country of origin. Multi-million dollar hotels are erected beside beautiful vistas-- usually water. Finally, the detritus of "civilization," in the form of excrement, garbage and detergents, is discharged into the once pristine environment. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) estimates that the average tourist produces one kilo (approximately 2.2 pounds) of litter and solid waste EACH DAY! (Worldwatch). Make no mistake about it; tourism is becoming a major contributor to the world economy. However, benefits must be weighed by examining direct and indirect beneficiaries. Tourism is outpacing the growth of the world economy by 35 per cent and reached $469 billion in 2000 (US Commerce Department figures). This may look good for Rwanda, but consider the fact that there may be another way to look at the economic impacts of tourism. Exactly where do these dollars go? Do they remain within the country which provides the ecotourism experience, or do they become an infusion into foreign business ventures? Tourism offers a unique opportunity for Rwanda to participate in the world economy, but will the benefits outweigh the dangers? Is responsible tourism a possibility, given the foreign interests which have such a strong presence in-country? How can the indigenous culture compete with the Western scientists and developers who dominate the local tourism industry? What, exactly, do the tourists want? What, exactly, are the scientists protecting? How can ORTPN take the lead in this debate? The story of tourism in Africa causes one to weep. In Kenya, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe the story of tourism is a tragedy in which western businesses sent most of the money back home to the colonialist developers. The higher purchasing power of tourists inflated local economies to the extent that artificial inflation raised property and food prices for the locals, pricing them out of land ownership. Foreign workers held the most lucrative management positions (Pera and McLaren, Globalization, Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: What You Should Know About the World's Largest Industry, (www.planeta.com), reducing the local "service providers" to little more than slave labour. Local culture was relegated to a side show and became the featured attraction at hotel and resort complexes. In one of the saddest stories to come out of Africa, fifty years ago Kenya's colonialist government drove the nomadic Masai population from their grazing grounds to accommodate the great white hunters intent upon slaughtering wildlife for trophy heads. The Masai have gained more autonomy in recent years, but wounds remain and resentments run deep. Echoing the experience of the Native American Indian, religious artifacts have been cheapened into souvenirs and, with the loss of the bedrocks of religious and cultural beliefs, alcoholism and other social ills have devastated portions of the population. The scientists then rushed into this uncharted void with their own solutions to the "problem" of tourism. The above-quoted statistics in this article were generated by statisticians and other scientists totally removed from the life experiences of the indigenous cultures they are funded to protect. What Rwanda should consider is a solid business management plan for its ecosystems, and its most valuable prize, the mountain gorilla. Rwanda's universities are populated with educated individuals with the expertise to approach the appropriate national institutes for funding to create such a plan. This indigenous economic approach will guarantee the survival of the gorilla, while providing a source of income for Rwanda that is self-contained and not dependent upon foreign interests and pseudo-science that's serves only one master. Being "green" should be more than a politically correct label. Ecotourism remains a decent concept. It is founded upon the recognition that responsibility predicates the rights of the tourists, scientists, businessmen, and economists to benefit from the land which bore our mothers.
PART 2 "As we invest in ending extreme poverty, we must face the ongoing challenge of investing in the global sustainability of the world's ecosystems." Rwanda is embarking upon a new year with the hopeful news that the Rwanda Office of Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN) has become self-sufficient and no longer dependent upon government funding (New Times, 04 January 2006). This is good news for the people of Rwanda, since it demonstrates that tourism and environmental concerns can coexist. The mountain gorillas, while still a fragile species, are thriving, and the maintenance of peace and stability within Rwanda's borders has emboldened tourists to make Rwanda a desired African destination. A'Kagera Park is rebounding, and the Nyungwe Forest is now a national park with a reputation of a high altitude rainforest environment that rivals any on the planet. Part I of this series examined the pitfalls of tourism, but Rwanda, as it rebuilds its infrastructure to meet the goals of Vision 2020, has a unique opportunity to plan for the future. Futures defined by self-sufficiency and careful planning can minimize the exploitation of the environment, culture and indigenous population, as other countries have shown. Rwanda can have it both ways--a robust tourism industry, with the inherent economic advantages--and an environment which provides a haven for the most endangered habitats and species in the world. Enactment and enforcement of strict zoning codes offers a hedge against creeping development and deforestation that could destroy Rwanda's environment--an environment which is recognized more and more as a valuable economic asset. Intelligent planning and allocation of resources afford the best possible protections from corruption and exploitation of this asset. While fraud and poverty will never be banished from even the most affluent societies, these twin pillars of evil can be contained if the local communities are given a chance to better themselves by involvement in the economic and environmental planning processes. Rwanda can then reap the rewards of better schools, well-staffed hospitals, and an improved infrastructure (especially the roads in Kinigi). As a Rwandan writer, Oscar Kimanuka, noted, "For a start, the dilapidated road from the outskirts of Ruhengeri town to the foot of the Birunga Mountains should be repaired for the benefit of the increasing numbers of tourists", (The East African , 15 November 2005). A good road would certainly benefit the villagers, as well. A decent thoroughfare to the gateway of the kingdom of the gorillas would limit erosion and water runoff, while increasing travel efficiency for park employees and villagers alike. The tourists are coming regardless, and the increased traffic is destroying an already inadequate roadway. As long as roads are not constructed through the gorilla habitat, this would not seem to be a problem. The International Council of tourism recently announced its "Mission Africa" programme, with the stated goal of tripling Africa's tourism exports by 2015. Mission Africa supports community based projects conceived with the support, but not control, of the academic world and corporate sponsors. Good, solid, business planning will be the hallmark of this effort. In order to compete in the world tourism market, Rwanda can build upon the example set by ORTPN and devise a tourism business plan that is self-sufficient. As Rwanda joins this free-market economy, learning to compete aggressively and fairly upon the world stage will, perhaps, become the greatest challenge. Accepting free hand-outs from foreign powers will not build Rwanda's strengths, nor will it demonstrate that Rwanda is able to reap the benefits and conquer the risks inherent in a free market. Fiscal accountability and positive cash flows demonstrate responsible, strong management of assets. The environment is, perhaps, Rwanda's greatest asset. Tourism statistics prove that Rwanda has a golden opportunity to chart her own future by utilizing the best that the market has to offer. She does not have to become a mirror for the problems faced in India or other once pristine environments that were ruined by tourism. The American State of Hawaii is a good example of an ecosystem on the brink of destruction that is experiencing a resurgence of stewardship for the environment. There are many stories of successful ecotourism projects in locales which face the same challenges as Rwanda. These small countries and island nations have proven that lack of geographic expanse does not have to limit tourism potential. Belize, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Jamaica, Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles--all encountered obstacles similar to those facing Rwanda. Each realized that unbridled tourism could become the most detrimental activity forced upon tiny ecosystems that could barely support the local flora and fauna to begin with. Some had native populations which did not share the same culture and heritage, adding to the complexity of organizing a consensus. What each of these successful projects recognized from the beginning was that government had the responsibility to maximize the tourist tax base for the benefit of the human population. This fact could not be ignored, and was, in fact, a sign of good governance. Once the interests of the environmentalists and the government were in sync, the solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems became relatively easy. This premise became part of the planning process, and cooperation predicated success. Goals were ranked and included in a comprehensive vision statement: education, enhancement of the local economy, marketing strategies, sustainable use planning (how many tourists can the ecosystem support), control of foreign investment, and finally, how to build an infrastructure without using all of the countries' natural resources to do so.

African 'biopiracy' debate heats up

Talent Ngandwe
2 February 2006
Source: SciDev.Net

[LUSAKA] The debate is intensifying over how local communities should share the benefits of research based on Africa's biodiversity while protecting the intellectual property rights of the researchers involved.
As the UN Convention on Biological Diversity meets in Spain this week for international negotiations on this and other issues, some environmental groups say it should declare a moratorium on foreign researchers using biological resources until it can sort out rules on how benefits can be shared fairly.
"It's about cases of biopiracy or, to use the more old-fashioned term, theft," says Jay McGown, author of the report released on Monday (30 January) by the US-based Edmonds Institute and the African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa.
But some of the companies the report names say the study is flawed and shows poor understanding of how products are researched and developed. They point out that such research can benefit developing countries by, for instance, producing drugs against neglected diseases.
The report describes 34 recent examples of Western laboratories developing drugs, cosmetics and industrial products using material from African plants, animals or microbes.
"It's unbelievable how much has been taken without public accounting, and probably without any permission from the communities involved," says Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety.
"Biopiracy is rampant," agrees Lloyd Thole, executive secretary of Zambia's National Science and Technology Council. He told SciDev.Net that a policy on indigenous knowledge, genetic resources and benefit sharing would be presented to the Zambian cabinet this year.
The report cites the example of an appetite suppressant developed and patented by the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research from the Hoodia cactus, used traditionally by the indigenous San people for the same purpose.
The council sold exclusive rights to a British company to develop a weight loss drug. Only after a public outcry about the lack of benefit sharing with the San was a deal brokered that pledged a percentage of royalties to them (see Bushmen to share gains from 'slimming cactus').
At the time, the council's director general described the agreement as a model of engagement between a high-level research institution and an indigenous community, but the authors of this week's report describe the royalties as "miniscule".
The report also describes a patent held by UK-based SR Pharma on the use of a bacterium isolated in Uganda to treat chronic infections, including HIV/AIDS.
But Iain Ross, the company's chair, told SciDev.Net that the bacterium occurs worldwide, and is just one of many that researchers are assessing as potential sources of drugs to treat diseases in the developing world. He added that the US National Institutes of Health are funding trials in Tanzania to see whether the microbe can be used to treat tuberculosis.
"The report's authors didn't do their research properly," says Ross. "They imply that SR Pharma went to Africa and stole something, which isn't true."
Ross told SciDev.Net that the company has spent more than US$50 million researching the bacterium's potential but has "never made any money".
Also named in the report is Anne Wright of US-based Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution.
She says that before starting any research, her team "works with the government, appropriate agencies and scientists within the country of origin to obtain informed consent for the work and to obtain all required permits for collecting and exporting specimens."
"I remain hopeful that one of our compounds will be developed into a marketable drug," she told SciDev.Net. "In such a case there will be a monetary return to the source country, funding to allow our research to continue and a new treatment for a dreadful disease. I think that would be a win-win situation."
The report also questions whether the US-based universities of Texas and Georgia should have been able to patent a product for treating sunburn that is based on extracts of tamarind seeds. Tamarind is native to Africa, and its seeds have been used traditionally to treat a range of disorders, including burns.
But Jim Arie, director of the Centre for Technology Development at the University of Texas, told SciDev.Net that exclusive rights to intellectual property do limit access to products by patients in developing countries.
He added that his university agrees that rules should be ratified to eliminate these barriers and to ensure that patents do not impede research on neglected diseases in these countries.
Link to full report Out of Africa: Mysteries of access and benefit sharing

La ONU clausura hoy el Foro sobre Biodiversidad con escasos logros

m.a.molina / efe
3 de Febrero de 2006

Granada. El Foro Indígena Internacional sobre Biodiversidad, que desde el 23 de enero ha estado reunido en Granada, resaltó ayer que falta voluntad política para colaborar en la preservación de los recursos naturales y los conocimientos tradicionales de la comunidad indígena, y reclamó el derecho de esa población al acceso y distribución de sus recursos medioambientales.
El co-presidente del foro, Onel Masardule, explicó que durante esta semana de reuniones se lograron ciertos logros, aunque manifestó "una profunda decepción" por la falta de participación y de compromiso de los Gobiernos internacionales para garantizar que el grupo de trabajo designado cumpla las tareas que le han sido encomendadas.
Desde el Foro, que se clausura hoy, instaron a los todos gobiernos a evaluar el impacto de las Terminator –semillas transgénicas– en los pueblos indígenas, comunidades locales y pequeños agricultores.