THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

17 April 2004

Dear friends and colleagues,

RE:  JPAC CALLS FOR MORATORIUM ON GM MAIZE IMPORTS IN MEXICO

An advisory body to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a body set up by the North American countries to implement environmental-related issues under the NAFTA. has issued a letter to the environment ministers of Canada, Mexico and the US which among others, has recommended that a moratorium be imposed on imports of transgenic corn to Mexico “until the risks to human health, cultural integrity of maize producers in Mexico and the environment generally are better understood and appropriate long-term decisions can be made.”

The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), a 15 member volunteer body that provides advice and public input to the CEC on matters relating to the environment, made this statement following the a symposium organized by the CEC on maize and biodiversity in March in Mexico which attracted several hundred participants, including indigenous peoples and campesinos.

In its letter to the ministers, the JPAC expressed concern on the over-reliance on the ‘scientific method’ and ‘science based’ conclusions which it says can work to exclude indigenous peoples and the knowledge they possess.

It was also concern that there is an imbalance in terms of the risks and benefits associated with the importation of transgenic maize. Analysis has shown that corporations share most of the benefits and the producers and the environment share most of the risks if transgenic maize is imported.  (The JPAC letter is attached below)

Meanwhile, the Secretariat of the CEC will be finalizing a report entitled “Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico”, an independent report written by many of the world’s leading experts. The report was initiated in 2002 following a petition by several communities and NGOs to investigate the claim that GM material had been found amongst traditional Mexican varieties of maize despite a moratorium on its planting.

Under Article 13 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, a side accord to NAFTA, the CEC Secretariat appointed an international advisory group to steer the development of the report and advise the governments of Canada, Mexico and the US. The advisory group will present its recommendations to the three governments in June based, in part, upon public comments received today at the symposium.

The draft of the report is available at: http://www.cec.org/maize/resources/chapters.cfm?varlan=english) Also available are discussion papers relating to the ecological, economic and socio-cultural aspects of the issue of transgenic maize in Mexico.

With best wishes,

Lim Li Lin and Chee Yoke Heong

Third World Network

121-S Jalan Utama

10450 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Website: www.twnside.org.sg

REF: Doc.TWN/Biosafety/2004/F

Item 1

JPAC Bulletin

As per the NAAEC agreement, the JPAC provides its initial recommendations to the NAFTA ministers on transgenic maize in Mexico

Montreal, 13 April 2004 - Following the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s (CEC) symposium on maize and biodiversity, held on 11 March 2004, in Oaxaca, Mexico, the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) provided its initial recommendations to the CEC Council today-the three North American environment ministers-on the issue of transgenic maize in Mexico.

The symposium drew several hundred participants, including indigenous peoples and campesinos, and this diversity and the variety of comments expressed at the event brought a very ‘human face’ to this complex and controversial subject. JPAC feels strongly that it is essential that conservation of biodiversity not be separated from protection of cultural diversity. Indeed, all analyses should be based on a broad understanding of sustainable development and the interplay of environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts.

Several thoughts and observations are expressed in the JPAC letter of advice to the CEC Council:

·        There is an obvious imbalance in the composition of the Maize Advisory Group. Indigenous people are a minor component of the committee. Western institutions have great faith in the scientific method. Indigenous peoples, for most part, are sceptical of western science and instead have great faith in their own traditional practices and methods. 

·        Over-reliance on the ‘scientific method’ and ‘science based’ conclusions can work to exclude indigenous peoples and the knowledge they possess.

·        Various chapter authors of the draft report were unable to respond to the many indigenous presenters who attempted to discuss and articulate their relationship with maize as sacred, the center of life, their brother and part of their dignity and identify.

·        There is a very strong case to be made that governments should apply the precautionary principle in their decision-making processes, requiring industry to be comprehensive when submitting rationale and creating space for public debate.

·        A moratorium on imports of transgenic corn to Mexico should be put in place until the risks to human health, cultural integrity of maize producers in Mexico and the environment generally are better understood and an appropriate long-term course of action can be decided. 

·        Concerns were raised regarding the analysis of risks and benefits. It appears that the corporations share most of the benefits and the producers and the environment share most of the risks. It can be argued that the identification of benefits and risks is a value judgement, thus great care should be taken about how these benefits and risks are described.

·        The final report should be published before the Council session to permit a full discussion of its contents and identification of specific follow-up actions should be included at the agenda of the June Council Session in Puebla, Mexico.

Next JPAC Meeting

In parallel with the Council Session on 21-23 June in Puebla, Mexico, JPAC will organize a workshop on the future direction of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). Financial assistance is available. For more information, please consult the CEC web site at www.cec.org.

The CEC was established by Canada, Mexico and the United States to build cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement partners in implementing NAAEC, the environmental side accord to NAFTA.

The CEC addresses environmental issues of continental concern, with particular attention to the environmental challenges and opportunities presented by continent-wide free trade.

JPAC is a 15-member, independent, volunteer body that provides advice and public input to Council on any matter within the scope of NAAEC.

All JPAC and CEC official publications can be found on the CEC web site at or contact Manon Pepin, the JPAC Liaison Officer, at mpepin@ccemtl.org.

Documents attached:

·        JPAC Letter to Council on Maize and Biodiversity Symposium of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, dated 13 April 2004

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, Bureau 200

Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2Y 1N9

Tel: (514) 350-4300; Fax: (514) 350-4314

E-mail: info@ccemtl.org

Web site: http://www.cec.org

Item 2

Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC)

Comité Consultivo Público Conjunto (CCPC)

Comité consultatif public mixte (CCPM)

13 April 2004

The Honorable David Anderson Minister of the Environment (Canada)

Ingeniero Alberto Cárdenas Jiménez Secretary, Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (Mexico)

Administrator Michael O. Leavitt Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency

RE: Maize and biodiversity symposium of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Dear Council members:

The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) was pleased to participate in the CEC symposium on maize and biodiversity, held on 11 March 2004, in Oaxaca, Mexico. The event drew hundreds of participants, many of whom were indigenous peoples and campesinos who are directly affected and very much concerned with the issue of transgenic maize in Mexico. The organizers are to be congratulated for facilitating this broad representation.

The symposium succeeded in bringing a ‘human face’ to this very complex and controversial subject. Discussion at conferences and similar gatherings often tends to focus on scientific and technical aspects rather than human impacts and consequences. What we learned from our participation is that the conservation of biodiversity cannot be separated from the protection of cultural diversity. A better understanding and respect for the human and social context is called for in this debate. Indeed all analyses should be based on a broad understanding of sustainable development and the interplay of environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts.

In this context, we have several important thoughts and observations to share with you as the report is being finalized.

The first is that the emphasis on ‘scientific method’ and ‘science based’ conclusions can work to exclude indigenous peoples. The scientific method is based on a western worldview that is predominantly limited to the physical world that sees its objects of study as inanimate things. Since most of the Western World is based on the scientific method, its institutions of government, industry, business and academia are, for most part, limited to this worldview. Although scientists often claim that their study is objective, they express their values through their work.  Unfortunately, when western scientific methods interact with indigenous worldviews, its own institutional biases and ethnocentric values become apparent. The indigenous worldview, as we were told, includes the spiritual, the emotional, the intellectual and, of course, the physical.  The arguments expressed by participants at the symposium clearly articulated how traditional food production and consumption are expressions of cultures that have been sustained by a respect for nature rather than a desire to control it.

It was also quite apparent at the symposium that the authors of the various chapters were unable to respond to the many indigenous presenters who attempted to discuss and articulate their relationship with maize as sacred, the center of life, their brother and part of their dignity and identify. We must also not underestimate the intellectual capability of the indigenous people in the region. Their understanding of maize biodiversity is based on 6,000 years of practice, observation and spiritual insight. Their opinions on the effects of transgenic maize should be carefully considered and evaluated.

Secondly, there is an obvious imbalance in the composition of the Advisory Group. The majority of the members are from academia, industry and NGOs. Indigenous people are a minor component of the Committee. This imbalance fails to recognize the importance and the significance of indigenous thought in addressing this question. Disqualifying indigenous people on the basis of language and scientific credentials is, in our opinion, a form of institutional discrimination. Ideally, there should have been an equal balance of indigenous peoples and scientists on the Advisory Group.

This imbalance may result in the promotion of a position that is directly contrary to the views of the indigenous peoples in the area. Western institutions have great faith in the scientific method. Indigenous peoples, for most part, are sceptical of western science and, instead, they have great faith in their own traditional practices and methods.

We learned much about scientific uncertainty at the symposium, both from the formal presentations and from the public interventions. JPAC is expecting that the final report will address the scope of this uncertainty.  There is a very strong case to be made here for governments to apply the precautionary principle in their decision-making processes, to require that industry be comprehensive when submitting rationale and to create space for public debate. Minimally, a moratorium on imports of transgenic corn to Mexico should be put in place until the risks to human health, cultural integrity of maize producers in Mexico and the environment generally are better understood and appropriate long-term decisions can be made.

Finally, we are very concerned about the analysis of benefits and risks discussed at the symposium. It appears that the corporations share most of the benefits and the producers and the environment share most of the risks. It can be argued that the identification of benefits and risks is a value judgment, thus great care should be taken about how these benefits and risks are described.

We are looking forward to the publication of this report and a fulsome discussion on the contents of the final report and identification of specific follow-up actions during the June Council Session in Puebla, Mexico.

Sincerely,

[Original signed]

Donna Tingley JPAC Chair for 2004

cc.        CEC Alternate Representatives CEC Executive Director CEC Director of

            Programs Head, Environment, Economy and Trade program Maize Advisory

            Group of the CEC Secretariat JPAC members