INTERVIEW WITH PAUL NICHOLSON.
Paul Nicholson is director of Basque organization EHNE, which actions address issues of rural development, and farmers cooperation. He is also a board member of the Confédération Paysanne Européenne, the main organization to relay the interests of European farmers on the political scene.
In the frame of organic certification, the use of certified seeds has been made mandatory, and derogations will certainly be increasingly difficult to obtain in the future. Could you explain me if, and how this regulation constitutes a social and environmental threat ?
I think what we’re speaking here is not the objectives of certification itself, but how it’s being implemented and what it means to the local traditional farmers. And today we have serious problems of application. First of all, its first impact is that it’s a private certification scheme, which is very costly and generate a homogeneity of the seeds. And we are losing many seeds, local traditional seeds, because there is no commercial interest to have them certified. Now the solution is not for them to have a commercial interest, but to permit them being used for organic certification schemes. The whole issue of patents of seeds is similar as to conventional agriculture, in that sense the whole certification application is one of concentrating seeds in a few hands, and destroying what can be local seeds, local varieties, and local knowledge, and food…
What do you think are the main implications on the social aspects of agriculture of such an obligation, specifically on the existing networks for seed exchange ?
I think what will happen is that local farmers, and especially small farmers, will to some extent continue resisting the application of these seeds, and perhaps many small farmers will leave organic certification schemes, and develop local labels, local self-certification schemes with consumer groups.
Do you also expect that farmers who want to improve varieties by crossbreeding have difficulties to get certified due to this rules ?
If they want to maintain an official certification scheme, yes. I think the difference here will be where will you sell? If you want to sell in the big supermarket, I think the big supermarket are interested in certification schemes. Therefore it will be in the local markets where there will be a chance to develop such labels.
Does that mean that organic agriculture is losing its ability to defend its own values ?
For the small farmers certainly. I think already we are seeing that organic farming is being taken over to a certain extent by the commercial interests. I prefer having the organizations with me to use more the sense of agroecology, and that is a different issue.
Do you think that the potential positive issue is the creation of self-certification ?
Yes, that is certainly a interesting development, as especially it has to deal with the relationship between citizens as consumer groups and farmers. The direct relationship is strengthened by these schemes. In Europe, we’re seeing a development of these examples; in France for example the AMAP movement, in Spain the Arcon movement. This will be a very bottom-up, very horizontal process. I think this is very good for the future.
Could you give some indications about how such self-certification labels must be developed, and what are the errors to avoid ?
My organization, the Basque farmer union EHNE, are working on this; we have already mapped out certain conditions. In fact, in these farming groups there are other people that are more knowledgeable than I myself. I will give you their contacts if you want to.
In South America they are working a lot on the issue of participative networks, with the Ecovida group in Brazil, and the Mealla organization. There is a strong movement leaving IFOAM.
Interview realized by phone on February 18, 2008.
——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–
Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity : The Economic Myths
Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is carving out a role for itself in the global governance of intellectual property regimes. The WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPs, establishes standards of rights that all WTO members must provide through seven fields of intellectual property. TRIPs came into effect in 1995 and will soon have to be fully implemented by developing countries, (2000 for developing countries and 2005 for less developed countries). Failure to comply will result in trade sanctions.
This briefing examines the economic costs and benefits of TRIPs, with special regard for developing countries and their wealth of biological diversity. In particular, challenges three myths about intellectual property rights (IPR) and economic development: The technology transfer myth, the innovation myth and the investment myth.
The costs of TRIPs could well outweigh the benefits for countries of the South. Transnational corporations (TNCs) will gain expanded market control, but the South is not bound to attract investment, technology transfer or experience economic growth because of stronger IPRs. Prices in certain sectors such as seeds and medicines will rise; monopoly conditions will constrain national firms; and the South’s subsidy to Northern research and development (R&D) will rise. In the long-term, the socio-economic fabric that supports innovation in the South will erode.
GAIA/GRAIN Issue no. 3, October 1998
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=14
——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–
“If this is your land,” he asked, “where are your stories?”
a Gitksan elder from British Columbia confronted by a government land.
