Opinion - Interviews   

"Science without conscience is worse than no science"

Gargi Parsai

Jacques Diouf,Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, has strong views on the issue of genetically modified organisms. In an interview, he says we need to put in place an internationally agreed regulatory framework.

Jacques Diouf: "There is a need to invest in rural infrastructure, technology." — Photo: R.V. Moorthy

How is India moving towards the World Food Summit goal of reducing hunger by half by 2015?

India has made progress from having 25 per cent of its population undernourished in the base period used by the World Food Summit in 1992 to 21 per cent in the period of 1999-2001, which is a progress. But if you are projecting it in cutting by half the number of hungry people, that is not sufficient. Because the population is growing at 1.6 per cent you need to cut even more the number of undernourished people to achieve the goal.

What is your sense of the direction in which the Indian Government is moving in food and agriculture?

We appreciate the new focus and priorities of the Indian Government to the rural sector, particularly that it has agreed to invest more in agricultural, water and rural infrastructure. We have also discussed the importance of contract farming — to allow farmers to produce under legally agreed conditions — and the whole question of productivity, which has been on the rise with the green revolution, but has stagnated. On the environment side is the whole question of reforestation but also of community forest development.

What is theFAO's role in legislation and the regulatory framework to protect farmers' rights?

After seven years of long difficult negotiations, FAO member countries arrived at a unanimous decision on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources that recognises the rights of breeders, farmers and research institutions who have improved seeds to a level where someone adds a gene [and develops a variety]. We have to address the issue of how these will concretely benefit farmers and that the benefits would be effectively shared between the farmers and those who will invest in additional work on improving these genetic resources.

What about the Intellectual Property Rights on varieties developed from resources taken from the common gene pool?

We are working on the need to address the issue of the common interpretation of the provisions of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, the Convention on Bio-diversity, and the provision of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the WTO.

There is a lot of focus on diversification. In view of your projections this year of a drop in cereal production, is that a sustainable goal?

There will be a drop in cereal production to demand and as a consequence an obligation to draw on the stocks that exist. World population is expected to move from six billion to nine billion ... by which year, is controversial. That would need about 60 per cent of the present world production against constraints on land, soil, water, productivity and so on. To achieve that is no miracle. You have to invest in rural infrastructure, technology, conservation, and marketing.

The FAO seems to have changed its stance last year towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs). You've talked of wearing two hats on this?

There has been no change. We have always been wearing two hats. One is of being an organisation which, with the World Health Organisation, sets standards through the Codex Alimentarius [food code] for the quality [and safety] of food. On the other hand, we help developing countries build their institutions and train their people to be up to the level of scientists, policy makers, and research institutions in the developed world.

Our second hat is that we are saying that biotechnology has a great potential and progress made on molecular biology which is allowing us to do gene mapping, the possibility of transferring genes, of introducing genes directly resistant to drought, disease and so on, is positive. Human progress is based on the progress of science. But science without conscience is something worse than no science. Therefore we have to be careful on how and on what we use the science and we have to look in advance at the possible problems on the environment and on human health. We, therefore, are saying that we need to get an internationally agreed framework — not a framework pushed by specific interests, financial interests — where we will discuss the principles to be applied to GMOs, such as the problem of experimentation, labelling, the principle of precaution and many other aspects where the fight is going on. Therefore we tell countries that each of them has a responsibility to apply the principle of precaution. And how to apply that principle scientifically needs to be addressed internationally. Up till the time this is done, it is up to the national governments to adopt national legislation to protect the environment and the health of people and to ensure that they do not take undue risk. But at the same time we do not also say that we do not want any science when other people are developing it and may end up being more powerful and we will have to go and buy the seed from them.

What about the influence of industry on nations on these issues? You have the example of the study on rats fed on GM maize...

Industry is defending its interest and there is nothing wrong in that. At the same time other people have to defend the interests of their populations and environment and put in place the right regulations and practices.

But industry getting into research in corn, canola, cotton, and soya is not going to solve the problem of food security.

Yes, but why aren't governments investing in products that are more important for their populations? They have to decide their national budgets and priority. National governments are responsible to their people and accountable to them.

How actively are you involved in the WTO negotiations? Are you consulted?

We are not involved in consultations because the legal framework of the WTO is for negotiations among member states. But we are recognised by the WTO in capacity building. Also all the standards that are applied in the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) system are the standards of the FAO and the WHO on the Codex and the standards of FAO and of the International Plant Protection Commission. The WTO does not create those standards. It applies them to deal with any disputes arising within nations that are trading in agriculture commodities.

So has the shift in focus resulted in budget cuts for the FAO?

Naturally the cut-off of resources of the FAO makes it more difficult to perform its job. We have a budget of regular programme to the tune of $750 million per biennial but we received this year per biennial $150 million additionally in voluntary contributions, an indication of countries [willingness] to provide us additional resources. But we prefer to have the resources in the regular programme so that they are not subject to priority setting.

A recent National Survey in India showed that 40 per cent farmers would quit farming given the choice and that only a minuscule per cent knew about the WTO...

The negotiations within the WTO are negotiations of governments. What each government does to educate its population is a national problem. We can only ensure that those who go to negotiate are adequately trained and empowered to be able to defend the interests of their farming community. We bring all the data and information at their disposal. For example, we are saying it is not fair to provide up to $300 billion of support to farmers in the developed countries against the poor farmers of developing countries. But each country would have to negotiate the interests of its farmers on its own.

How do you view your partnership with India?

I view it with a lot of prospects and hope. We are happy that India is willing to work with FAO to assist other developing countries in Asia and Africa in particular through the South-South cooperation. We also want to build on the experience of Indian institutions in research, particularly in the seed sector so as to not have to re-invent the wheel in other countries.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Bihar Assembly election, Mark II
Mubarak and his political shell game
France looks to firm up ties with India
America bids farewell to the rule of law
Flat tax is economic nonsense
Imaginary friends
Clash of Titans
She is Indian first
Who is to blame?
A welcome decision
"Science without conscience is worse than no science"

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu