A group of Alliance partners composed of K.N. Tiwari, Director of Disha, a voluntary organization based in Saharanpur (North India) committed to protect the livelihood of weaker sections and to challenge various kinds of social discrimination, of Save the Seeds himalayan movement and Bharat Dogra, freelance journalist who has worked on the transformations of India rural society for the last twenty years, took the initiative to welcome the third and last meeting on the stakes of GMOs in agriculture supported by FPH (see Biodiversity Workshop).

This meeting was held from 5 to 10 December 1998 in Rishikesh (India). It helped to build an intercultural reflection on the stakes of Genetically Modified Organisms in agriculture and their impact on the rural societies of the South. Carine Pionetti relates the main elements of the debates. We are also reproducing the final declaration approved by all participants at the end of the meeting.

It is not a matter of chance that the last part of a series of three meetings on GMOs in agriculture took place in India. India is one of those countries where farming still ranks high and the concept of "rural communities" preserves its true meaning. Also, India is the site of numerous initiatives not only in the field of conservation of biodiversity but also in community rights and in local political control.

About forty participants from Asia, Africa, America and Europe gathered at the foothills of the Himalayas to exchange their view points on the advent of GMOs on the appropriation of genetic resources and on the plurality of knowledge systems.

The exchange proved to be fruitful from the very first session.

Even if GMOs have not yet made their appearance felt in Africa, the manipulation of the living has provoked fundamental questions of ethics and moral values that have almost been dispensed with in the industrialised countries. We realised that in Nepal as in Algeria, the question is not a mere "Yes" or a "No" to GMOs. The rural populations of these countries are more concerned about optimising their food produce, often in a bid to ensure their survival. We learnt with great shock that the firm Monsanto had proceeded to conduct trial tests of transgenic cotton in many states of India without the farmers’ consent. If the farmers’ situation in the United States is less precarious, it is also far from being enviable as debts pose a major problem.

The picture is hazy, and illustrates only too well the lack of transparency around GMOs whether it is India, France or Thailand. The governments give truncated information on this subject to the civil society and refuse to impose strict safety measures on genetic manipulations and on the dissemination of GMOs in the environment. As for industrialists, what interest would they have in pressing for transparency which can hold them responsible for their actions in case of a problem?

It therefore seems urgent to not only circulate recent and clear information on GMOs, new biotechnologies and food processing industries, but also to develop like in Nepal, India and Zimbabwe, viable production systems which rely on local resources and knowledge. This calls for a need to concurrently implement laws which enable communities to manage their genetic resources and favour recognition of their innovations.

C.P.

Return to Top