Center for Bio-diversitetEuropean Union and biodiversity |
To the Commision / Agriculture DG
att: Leo Maier & Adelmo Moreale
In view of the fact that genetic erosion is
continuing on a broad front whereas action is being taken in
respect of individual breeds [and] varieties we feel that it is
important that the EUs new genetic resources regulation
represents a full commitment to the obligations in the 1992 Rio
Convention on Biological Diversity.
This can only happen on the following basis:
(1) By creating favourable conditions for the
general publics use of domesticated biodiversity in their daily
lives by rationalising the rules in all fields of EU legislation
having an impact on how accessible and attractive that diversity
is.
(2) By giving the people the right to that
biodiversity on their own terms and acknowledging that
biodiversity is a function of cultural diversity.
(3) By [acknowledging] that domesticated
biodiversity means more than just threatened farm breeds and
thus favouring all man-made animal breeds which do not belong to
modern intensive farming breeds.
(4) By [acknowledging] that NGOs in this field are
not the same as in many other fields because, unlike, for
example, nature conservation associations, we tend our part of
the biodiversity with feed, water and weeding every day. Which
is why support to NGOs in this field needs to be more flexible.
(1) Rationalising EU legislation
The more difficulties and requirements there are
imposed on animals and plants the smaller their populations
become. That is why it is very important for the conservation of
biodiversity in EU countries that those elements of the
Convention which oblige the signatories to integrate respect for
biodiversity into their legislation, to identify rules which
suppress biodiversity and to introduce rules which favour
biodiversity are implemented without delay.
Those elements of the Convention do not seem to
figure at all in the discussion of the new EU genetic resources
regulation.
The Convention states that signatories must, inter
alia:
identify processes and categories of activities
which have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,
and monitor their effects through sampling and other techniques
(Convention, Article 7(c)),
develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or
other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened
species and populations,
where a significant adverse effect on biological
diversity has been determined pursuant to Article 7, regulate or
manage the relevant processes and categories of activities
(Convention, Article 8(k) and (l)),
integrate consideration of the conservation and
sustainable use of biological resources into national
decision-making,
adopt measures relating to the use of biological
resources to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on biological
diversity
(Convention, Article 10(a) and (b)).
Where domesticated biodiversity is concerned, the
EUs rules on livestock husbandry and veterinary conditions are
actually a serious threat to biodiversity. Probably more
important than national rules; in any event the Danish
authorities reject all criticism from NGOs by referring to the
fact that these are EU rules.
We therefore need to find new solutions for all
those cases which do not involve diseases which are a serious
threat to human health.
In Denmark the authorities meet any proposal in
that direction with derision; but the likelihood is that there
are already two veterinary standards for the same disease: one
for wild animals and one for animals in captivity. With a little
commonsense the border between the two standards could be
shifted so that small livestock herds are excluded from the
agriculture rules. Thus small herds which are not in contact
with the major foodstuffs industry, for example, are vaccinated
against foot and mouth, etc., in cases where there is a risk.
Conservation is supported by the commitment and
desire of the general public to participate in breeding which is
not motivated by profit, activities which create value for
society but which cannot be expressed in financial terms. So it
is not possible to preserve a broad biodiversity while at the
same time continuing to impose more and more bureaucratic and
veterinary requirements on breeders. That trend must not just
stop, it must be reversed or else the traditional breeding
culture, which has hitherto preserved much of the biological
diversity, will disappear.
Rules the only purpose of which is to regulate the
large-scale production of livestock and crops cannot be imposed
on small-scale producers without crowding them out. A holding
earning good money can survive almost unlimited bureaucratic
difficulties provided it makes a net profit; but if the
incentive is not financial potential new producers will drop out
if the going gets too hard.
It is important to recognise that breeders not
making a financial profit have a different relationship to their
animals than modern large-scale producers, a relationship that
is more akin to that which people have to their dogs or horses
or which countryfolk had to their domestic animals in
traditional farming culture. So there is no chance of success
unless those breeders are exempted from the customary
bureaucratic measures for the agriculture sector, just as the
disease-related slaughter policy is unacceptable for animals
kept for cultural and social purposes. Where animals are
concerned, it is precisely bureaucracy and veterinary policy
which are the two greatest barriers to realising the great
potential for grass-roots participation which exists in the rich
European countries.
The slaughter policy is a threat to biological
diversity both because small populations genetic basis can be
reduced to dangerously low levels under adverse circumstances
and because the latent threat of the slaughter of a years
unprofitable breeding work will keep interested people from
getting involved in breeding.
An International Evaluation of Danish efforts to
conserve domestic livestocks genetic resources actually
recommends special dispensations at national and European level:
New rules to control the outbreak of diseases, or
merely to increase standards in animal welfare, can have an
adverse impact on keeping breeds in conservation plans.
RECOMMENDATION: Where safe and appropriate there
should be exemptions from certain animal health provisions at
both national and European level.
(Alderson, Mousing and Oldenbroeck, Copenhagen,
May 2002)
Agriculture organisations have apparently from
time immemorial believed that unregistered livestock on small
holdings presents a disease risk, but the truth is that most
outbreaks of disease originate on intensive farms where the
animals immune system is working overtime, and it would greatly
benefit both animal welfare on small holdings and genetic
diversity if backdoor sales of industrial hybrids could be
banned and instead traditional old-fashioned breeds and their
farmyard crosses could be made more accessible to people who
wish to rear a few animals for domestic needs.
In the same way, there is apparently a handed-down
view that the exchange of small amounts of plant material (e.g.
potatoes) between allotment owners is a greater threat than the
import of vast quantities from other parts of the world.
Finally, we must recognise that consumers and
tax-payers will scarcely keep on accepting an animal health
policy based on the financial concerns of the sector. Consumers
do not comprehend the slaughter of healthy animals because of
diseases that do not infect humans and which the animals can
readily survive or be vaccinated against by their profit-hungry
owners.
(2) The biological and cultural diversity
We doubt that the obligations under the Rio
convention can be upheld without incorporating protection of the
traditional farming culture. The highly technical gene-oriented
model will demand greater financial resources while at the same
time conserving less.
Breeders of traditional breeds and varieties are
not farmers in the modern sense; rather they are small-scale
breeders, hobby breeders, self-sufficient breeders, pure
breeders and similar cultural niches where the traditional
farming culture has survived since it was forced out of
productive agriculture many years ago by considerations of
efficiency, just like the traditional breeds we wish to
preserve.
The Rio convention obliges us to conserve animals
and plants in situ; but also to protect and promote the
traditional lifestyle and culture that belongs with rearing
domestic animals and growing crops. This is a question of the
peoples rights to preserve the living cultural heritage and to
manage it in accordance with their own traditions and customs,
and the regulation by experts of what should be conserved and by
what means, such as we have experienced in Denmark, does not
live up to the Rio convention. Signatories to Rio undertake to:
respect, preserve and maintain knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities
embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity
(Convention, Article 8(j)), and
protect and encourage customary use of biological
resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that
are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements
(Convention, Article 10(c)).
Where both animals and plants are concerned, the
grass-roots participation of the people in conservation work is
for a totally different reason than the production-oriented
interest modern agriculture has in preserving genes with
production potential.
That distinction is quite pronounced in a highly
productive country such as Denmark where agricultural production
is a highly specialised, closed industrial sector and hobby
breeders can afford to produce animals or plants exclusively for
conservation purposes, aesthetic qualities, historical interest,
taste - ignoring a return in quantity terms.
When breeds or varieties lose their financial
significance they either disappear or producers continue to
breed them for other reasons such as conservation,
thoroughbreeding, competitions - thus for cultural and social
purposes.
Under the right conditions traditional breeds can
become popular for such alternative purposes, perhaps so popular
that aid schemes become less important for them - that is
already the case for poultry, pigeons, ducks, geese, sheep,
goats and horses. The problem for these species is not a dearth
of interested breeders but that the breeders are being
frightened off by the maze of rules, bureaucracy and stringent
animal health regulations.
So the cultural dimension and the promotion of
breeding for purposes other than production are very important
in our rich country where agriculture is too efficient for
traditional breeds and where, in contrast, ordinary people can
afford to rear animals for cultural purposes.
The breeding culture is also a valuable lifestyle
in terms of both the environment and society because it gives
people more things to do in their leisure time, does not consume
resources and reinforces local social networks.
It is important the legislators and administrators
acknowledge that modern productive agriculture to a large extent
represents the opposite interests and that the rules should be
adjusted to take account of current breeders and favour the
production of animals and plants for purposes other than pure
production.
The grass-roots will take great profit from having
our raison dÍtre acknowledged through the establishment
of a structure with the direct objective of safeguarding the
interests of the popular breeding cultures more cultural and
social use of the biological diversity, and not simply of having
us along as a compulsory appendix to conservation efforts the
purpose of which is to secure the raw material for agricultures
improvement work. In most areas our interests are quite
different from those of agribusiness and there is a need for
quite different measures to preserve the popular cultural
tradition surrounding hobby farming and conserve species
diversity and variation.
In Denmark the Centre for Biodiversity has
proposed to Food Minister Mariann Fischer Boel setting up a
Committee for biological and cultural diversity; something
similar would be advantageous at EU level because not only
national law, but to a large extent EU law too affects
developments.
Without breeders and the breeding culture
cultivated plants and livestock would be homeless so it is a
major paradox that the authorities make life so difficult for
breeders that they give up hobby farming while at the same time
devising fine aid schemes for the preservation of old
breeds/varieties!
Indications from the livestock genetics committee
in Denmark are frightening, since the rate of replacement among
producers who are contracted through attractive livestock
premiums is incredibly high in comparison with the breeds with
which the breeders have a link through a breed association -
regardless of whether they receive support or not!
It has been found that aids neither replace the
commitment of breeders who have selected breeds out of affection
nor compensate for the bureaucracy or difficulties involved in
constantly registering and finally those same aids just trigger
another burst of rules and forms.
(3) Greater latitude in definitions
The new genetic resources regulation should be
made broader, beyond the formulation that genetic resources
cover species which are or may be important for agricultural
production. Precisely in the most developed parts of the world
where many breeds and varieties have already been converted to a
primarily cultural use, e.g. many breeds of poultry and horses,
and where the survival changes of many breeds depends on their
finding a niche where their productive characteristics are
replaced by a more recreational purpose.
In addition, there are many breeds of pigeons,
dogs and cats that have never been bred with a view to food
production in Europe; instead they are bred for social
functions, for amusement or for display for various purposes.
Article 2 of the Convention on Biological
Diversity defines precisely those domesticated or cultivated
species as: species in which the evolutionary process has been
influenced by humans to meet their needs.
Many third world countries list in the FAOs World
Watch List breeds which are only produced for cultural purposes
and entertainment and we in the EU should understand that mans
needs go far beyond agricultural products we can eat, and we can
afford to preserve species without production potential.
In The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm
Animal Genetic Resources the FAO describes domestic animals
cultural significance as follows:
Domestic animals as social and cultural assets
Many communities have traditions and lifestyles
that are fundamentally linked to domestic animals. While it is
not always possible to assign monetary values to such linkages,
the non-monetary values to local community identity are
essential.
Social and cultural values are often
underappreciated outside indigenous and local communities.
However, to many communities, livestock and particular genetic
types of livestock are fundamental aspects of social and
cultural identity, linked to marriage, religious practices and
other community events. (p. 11) Rome 1999
and in its Primary Guidelines for Preparing
National AnGR Management Plans the FAO stipulates the best way
to describe each individual breed as follows:
List all important uses of livestock in the
nation. These will obviously include the production of food,
fibre and animal power, but should not neglect the value of
manure for fuel and fertiliser; recreational, cultural and
religious uses; and the use of farm animals as a method of risk
reduction and holding and protecting assets in unstable
economies. (p. 49)
The new regulation should start from a broader
view of what biological diversity is. It is possibly best
defined by describing what it is NOT. Biological diversity is
not worldwide breeds or industrial hybrids.
Biological diversity is not a collection of
numbered genes defined by scientists in the service of
agribusiness - it is a dynamic quantity in constant interaction
between committed breeders, nature and time.
Biological diversity is not an end-product which
we can preserve and freeze but a dynamic evolution of old and
new gene combinations.
If we wish to preserve biological diversity we
will need to do something for the entire living cultural
heritage and something extra for breeds only found in a few
countries or of particular genetic value.
(4) EU support to NGOs
The peoples participation in conserving the
biological diversity is mostly completely unorganised; people do
it out of tradition and do not connect it with the wider context
of the preservation of varieties, etc. We consider that to be
the traditional lifestyle and breeding culture that the Rio
Convention calls on us to promote and preserve. It is a peasant
culture and cannot by definition by registered, organised, etc.,
without losing its character.
The organised associations role is to increase
quality, e.g. by facilitating the exchange of plant material
which is often highly local to a broader circle, by
disseminating information, e.g. by promoting understanding of
the importance of avoiding incrossing and inbreeding and by
maintaining a different approach to and understanding of
biological diversity than the systems technical and
productivity-oriented view of plants.
For those reasons financial support to NGOs should
be directed much more towards local and regional information;
conditions that projects should always cross country borders are
irrelevant in the context of biological diversity because it is
much more the result of localising than of globalising. Some of
the most obvious approaches will be linked to small regions
within a single Member State.
© Center for Bio-diversitet. Denmark
latest update January 2004.
Please link to - http://www.biodiverse.dk - only!
Center for Bio-diversitet is an independent NGO/CSO information-center. We aim to promote biological diversity and the protection and conservation of old and new varieties with valuable characteristics.
Editor: Heine Refsing