Colonialism: the occupation and territorial exploitation carried out by force by the European powers against peoples considered backward or wild (Encyclopedia Treccani).
To understand where the third stage of the attack (digital neo-colonialism) came from, we can start from 1992, at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. We were still in what I call the age of dreams, convinced as we were that, after the Cold War, the construction of a different, more peaceful and tolerant world had begun. The victory that was being prepared for the democrats led by Bill Clinton was a sign of a change of course, while for us Europeans, the signing of the Maastricht Treaty made us "Europeans" for all intents and purposes (or so we believed) and, further south, a peace agreement put an end to the long civil war in Mozambique.
We forgot, or did not want to see, that all this was only appearance. Yet the invasion of Iraq only dated from the previous year, as did the dissolution of Yugoslavia (1990) and the beginning of the various local wars (Slovenia, 1991; Croatia, 1991-1995; Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995), the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan (1992) and the civil war that continued in Algeria. And so, while in Italy the massacres of Capaci and Via d'Amelio eliminated the judges Falcone and Borsellino, proud antagonists of the mafia power; the year ended with a new American military operation in Somalia.
All this to say that, as often happens, we saw what we wanted to see (or, perhaps, what the dominant media had imposed as the official narrative).
The Earth Summit saw the signing of the Convention on Biodiversity (these were still years when we were talking about biodiversity and not about ecosystem services as I explained in the previous webinar), with 3 declared objectives:
- The conservation of biological diversity
- The sustainable use of its components and
- The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of using these genetic resources, including through fair access to genetic resources and appropriate technology transfer.
The CBD will give an important boost to a process that, born within FAO thanks to the mind and effort of "Pepe" Esquinas, would become the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2001.
It would take years for governments to ratify it, but in the meantime, innovative principles came through the front door, stating in particular that the past, present and future contribution of farmers in all regions of the world, particularly those in centres of origin and diversity, to the conservation, improvement and provision of these resources was the basis of farmers' rights.
It will also be thanks to this trail of "rights" that in 2004, after long and difficult negotiations, the Guidelines for the Right to Food were approved. This proposal originated within civil society organizations and was brought to FAO where it was negotiated in a collaborative spirit that was hailed by all as a very innovative method.
Two years later, thanks to the impetus of just two countries, the Philippines and Brazil, and with the full support of FAO's Director-General, the International Conference on Agrarian Reform in Porto Alegre was approved and realized in March 2006. This positive period continued when it seemed possible to make a real impact on international agendas related to natural resources.
Last but not least, it was the 2010 Nagoya Protocol, which had to specify the Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism, which came into force in 2014: the real key point of all previous efforts, because it was going to discuss how to share, concretely, the benefits realized on the natural resources of which the peasant, indigenous, pastoral and fishing communities were the first maintainers and improvers, over which governments claimed their exclusive right to negotiate in international treaties and, on the other hand, the private sector that wanted to access those resources, use them and patent them for their own benefits.
Slide
In short, everything seemed to be going in a more democratic direction, yet I decided to call the decade that began in 2010 the Age of Disillusion, and not only because of the financial crisis that began in 2007 in the United States.
The clearest signal was the Rio+20 conference, to "celebrate" 20 years of the Earth Summit. If the first had been a summit of Heads of state and government, with some representations of civil society and the private sector, the 2012 summit was exactly the opposite: more than 2700 representatives of the private sector invaded Rio to lead, from inside and outside, the Summit which showed, in all its evidence, "the corporate capture of the UN by the private sector".
In the concluding statements, Banks, Politicians and Multinationals expressed themselves in the same language about the environment. As I explained in the previous webinar, since 2005 the new "religion" of ecosystem services had been launched, that is, the marketing of the environment. The next step was to certify it at the highest levels: this is what the Rio+20 was for! The mechanism was that of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), whose foundations were laid since the Earth Summit, and which now includes 200 of the world's leading multinationals. Considered one of the most influential forums in the world (which should come as no surprise to anyone), it is considered to be one of the main sources of private sector resistance to any policy aimed at dealing with Climate Change.
The central issue that Rio+20 had to address was the Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism, so that it would have clear rules to enforce worldwide.
The scheme is summarized in this slide:
1. Prior Inform Consent is requested and obtained, resulting in a
2. Permit that is issued and, immediately after,
3. Published in the ABS Clearing House
4. The Clearing House generates an internationally recognized certificate of compliance (IRCC), which includes a unique identifier for tracking.
5. Now, genetic resources can be used
6….
7. Finally, the checkpoint communicates information to the national authorities.
The principle is therefore clear and simple in theory: to access genetic resources you need to ask for and obtain a permit. The point is that genetic resources, in practice, are translated with genetic sequences, i.e. information that can be digitized. This is where the private sector lobby has focused: to consider Digital Sequence Information (DSI) as something different from genetic material, which falls under the CBD. According to them, the CBD refers clearly and only to "genetic material" and not to abstract information. Expanding the CBD to include this specification would require the reopening of global negotiations on the entire Convention.
The practical effects then become obvious: if I take the information sequence of a certain material, and reuse it to recombine it and make other derived products out of it, I do not get under the CBD and therefore do not have to apply ABS.
On the contrary, both the farming communities and the countries that are the repositories of this genetic material wanted the ISD to be included in the CBD, but this is still under discussion. However, hopes are limited.
To be more specific, let us remember that the DSI can be achieved in 3 different ways:
1. The first is through the mechanism indicated above, which translates ABS into practice;
2. The second is through the (ongoing) biopiracy (i.e. going to areas of high biodiversity, scanning the material directly on site - then without taking it away, and then uploading it to parent companies' databases to recombine it. All this without asking anyone anything and without paying anything.
3. The third is to use the gene banks.
The private sector is clearly not interested in the first way (asking permission and having to share the benefits). The second is officially outlawed, although it is a growing problem ... so it remains the third way ...
The global strategy, which we are beginning to understand, starts with what has been called the Food Action Alliance. Basically the new narrative, after convincing us that natural resources management had to be done through the market (remember the previous webinar? ), took a second step to clarify how fundamental is the role of the private sector (not the small companies, but the large Corporations) (Rio+20 served this purpose) and the third was to promote the global alliance between this private sector and the United Nations (whose political agendas had already been largely influenced for several years in favor of these Corporations - last but not least, the well-known Voluntary Guidelines for Good Governance of the Earth in 2012).
This new step forward has been promoted by the Davos Forum which has taken on the burden (and the honor) of promoting this FAA, to which some Big NGOs (the BINGOs) have been associated, all with a 3-point lobbying agenda:
- Promoting a World Food Systems Summit (WFS) (and to do so they waited for the moment of the transition between the former Director-General of FAO, Brazilian Graziano and the new, Chinese: in this interregnum they were able to manoeuvre for the WFFS to be held in New York and not in Rome, at FAO, as would have been logical, thus also reducing the possible Chinese influence; the aim of this WFFS, originally planned for next year, is to record a greater change in the multilateral system of the United Nations, privileging the relationship with the private sector (that of the WBCSD in fact) to the detriment of legitimate governments.
- The second axis of work concerns the reform of the Agricultural Research Centres (CGIAR) system so as to take control of it (with substantial and targeted subsidies). The key issue here is that the CGIAR controls the gene banks I was talking about earlier about the DSI... get the trick?
- Last but not least, taking control of Big Data through the creation of an International Council for Digital (to manage the huge mass of digital DNA and DSI data).
In summary:
The Summit provides the framework,
CGIAR the delivery system and the
BIG DATA the final product.
A concrete application concerns the fight against malaria, carried out by the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation that would like at all costs to find a pharmaceutical solution to the problem. Too bad that there is probably one, natural, and that this is the grain of sand that Big Pharma (with its ramifications up to the United Nations) wants to eliminate so as not to block its designs.
For 2000 years a plant, Artemisia annua, has been cultivated in China, which has proved to have extremely positive effects in the fight against malaria. Widely used by the Vietcong during the Vietnam War, it started to be cultivated in Africa, together with its local variety, Artemisia afra, an endemic, indigenous plant known by the indigenous peoples. All this did not please the pharmaceutical giants who for decades have decided that the fight against malaria should be done through synthetic products from their laboratories.
Bill Gates with his intention to find a vaccine within a generation. Synthetic products were searched for in Artemisia annua, isolating one component, then patented. A series of specific treatments, called ACT, the tests made using the Artemisia plant, both the annual and the afra, to make infusions, are giving much more positive results, without secondary effects and, above all, it can be directly produced by all farmers because they only need to keep a few plants close to home to make preventive infusion treatments.
At an international level, the pressure on the WHO has led the latter to declare that Artemisia is not recommended for the fight against malaria, thus confirming who really co-manages in this agency.
Final considerations:
Vandana Shiva reminds us that the Israeli company Evogene has patented a computer program for reading the plant genome, signing an agreement with Monsanto granting it exclusive rights on a whole series of genes identified by them. A similar work on digital mapping of the genetic heritage of traditional seeds is being done by another companỳ, DivSeek and they are certainly not the only companies in this promising market. A parallel path, but aiming at the same goal, has been undertaken by Syngenta to sell access to sequenced genetic data of traditional seeds coming from international gene banks (whose control is one of the objectives of the new colonization).
Slide
Passing through digital DNA means skipping everything about rights and benefit sharing, which will thus remain only in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry. This is why digital DNA control becomes the key to the future, both for those who want to fight biopiracy and for those who want to exploit even more the potentialities offered by recombinations and modifications (drugs but also GMOs).
Now the Covid, and then what?
- outbreaks of the virus, the origin of which has been localized in various species of bats, are more frequent in areas of central and western Africa that have recently undergone deforestation processes. FAO, for its part, had already reported this link in 2006, with an article published in the magazine Unasylva
- The risk of disease outbreaks is not only increased by the loss of habitats, but also by the way they are replaced. In order to meet a growing demand for meat, an area equivalent to that of the African continent has been deforested to raise animals for slaughter. Some of these are then illegally marketed or sold on live animal markets. There, species that would probably never have crossed paths in the wild are kept caged side by side and microbes can easily move from one to the other. This type of development, which has already produced the Sars Coronavirus in the early 2000s, could be at the origin of the current Covid-19.
Recalling Laudato Sì
Given the scale of change, it is no longer possible to find a specific, discrete answer for each part of the problem. It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental
As my friend Pepe Esquinas says:
”for someone who thinks s/he's too small to make an impact, maybe s/he's never slept with a mosquito in the room”
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento