Private Auditors Forced FAO to Cut Financing of IAEA/FAO Joint Division on Agriculture, while African Nations and China Fight to Save it
An internal report dated February 18, 2008, by the director general of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), obtained by EIRNS,
denounces the FAO's implicit criminal decision to dismantle the
FAO/IAEA Joint Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and
Agriculture.
The Joint Division, set up in October 1964, originates from
the earlier times of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace policy. It's
aim was "to ensure that the technical capacities of both FAO and
the IAEA are fully utilized for the benefit of Member States of
both organizations, by making available to them the results of
state-of-the-art scientific research and development in nuclear
techniques that are applied to soil science, plant breeding,
animal reproduction and health, insect pest control, and food and
agrochemical residue analysis. Nuclear and isotopic techniques
provide unique or substantial complementary value in addressing
food security and safety. Nuclear techniques are of great
socio-economic importance, as they are the only solution in
certain areas, and combined with modern biotechnologies, are
essential in providing more efficient ways of improving food
availability, accessibility and affordability."
The Joint Division is currently responsible for the
technical support of some 220 national and regional projects,
with an annual expenditure of some $10-15 million for equipment,
expert advice, and training. The fact that the number of projects
supported increased by 44% between 2002 and 2007 demonstrates the
relevance of these services. The Joint Division manages also
cooperation, publications, expert panels, and symposia connecting
over 400 research institutions and experimental stations in
member states and brings "scientists from developing and
developed member states with the aim of solving specific problems
of agricultural significance to developing countries."
"All major activities of the Joint Division address urgent
needs and requirements identified by both FAO and IAEA Member
States. The following achievements are but a few examples of
where the Joint Division has made significant contributions:
"* Development and release to farmers of thousands of crop
varieties improved through induced mutations which today cover
tens of millions of hectares;
"* Introduction and improvement of soil conservation
measures and efficient land and water management;
"* Control of major livestock disease vector and plant pest
populations through the integrated application of the sterile
insect technique and biological control agents;
"* Eradication of cattle diseases (e.g. rinderpest), through
the development of animal disease diagnostic tools;
"* Elaboration of international standards on pre- and
post-harvest pest control, including the irradiation of foods and
agricultural commodities to kill pathogens and insect pests."
The director general writes that "the withdrawal of FAO's
contribution to the Joint Division in 2009 (about 15.2% of total
funding) would result in a loss of resources of Euro 2.2 million,
primarily used for the funding of six professional and 20
technical staff members, the majority of whom are based at the
FAO/IAEA Agriculture and Biotechnology Laboratory in
Seibersdorf."
According to a high level source at the IAEA, the main
countries fighting to keep the funding are South Africa, Algeria,
China, Cuba, African nations, and others of the group of the 77;
while those silent or favorable to the dismantling of the Joint
Division were mainly the US and Europe.
The policy resulted after the FAO Conference decided on
November 2005 that an Independent External Evaluation (IEE), i.e.
private audit, of FAO should be conducted by a team of evaluators
whose report was submitted to the FAO Secretariat in October
2007. As our source indicated: auditors write what you ask them
to write.
The IEE report, which called on the FAO to restructure its
activities, was welcomed by the FAO Conference of November 2007.
Among its many other recommendations, the IEE proposed that FAO
"should cease to resource this joint work" with the IAEA,
primarily because the long-standing partnership "has ceased to be
one on which there is a high return in terms of outcomes and
impacts from FAO's investment." However, the IEE suggested that
"where there are strong synergies," they should be taken up in
partnerships under the respective FAO programs.
Notwithstanding that FAO's policy-making organs have not yet
made a final decision on this matter, the Director General of
FAO, in a letter dated 29 November 2007, gave the IAEA one year
notice, as contemplated by the existing cooperation arrangements,
to terminate the Joint Division.
The IAEA director general states that the programmatic
implications of the loss of FAO support to the Joint Division's
activities would "severely affect meeting the needs of Member
States, particularly in areas such as crop improvement and soil
conservation; land and water resources management; control and
eradication of major insect pests, as well as livestock and plant
diseases; elaboration and application of international standards
related to food safety; and the facilitation of international
trade. In addition to field projects, much of the applied
research conducted at the FAO/IAEA Agriculture and Biotechnology
Laboratory in Seibersdorf would also be negatively affected.
Another major consequence would be a significant decrease in the
ability of either or both organizations to deliver valuable
capacity building in developing member states. The above
mentioned loss of staff members would have significant negative
impacts on delivering the 2009 program of the IAEA and future
activities would also be constrained as highlighted in the
following examples:
Crucial and timely technical support for the
important pilot tsetse project in Ethiopia would be imperiled due
to staff loss, delaying R&D activities and implementation of mass
rearing facility which is of Africa-wide significance; Human
capacity-building in pesticide residue analytical services would
be discontinued, which would negatively impact both food safety
and access to markets for least developed countries; Activities
in support of mutation techniques at the cutting edge of plant
breeding would be at risk, limiting future successes to higher
yields, quality, disease-resistance, better adaptation to the
environment and improved nutrition for crops such as rice, wheat,
banana and cassava. Current work related to the early response to
avian influenza, which is a significant and potential deadly
threat to both human and animal health, would cease."
Heading the team of the Independent External Evaluation (IEE) that advised
the FAO to cut crucial funding of the lifesaving Joint Division
of the FAO and the IAEA on food and agriculture, was the Norwegian Leif
E. Christoffersen, a green development economist, with an address in Alexandria, Va.
Working for 28 years for the World Bank in the fields of
agriculture, rural development, environment and development
finance, he's also involved in Norwegian efforts to strengthen
the technical and scientific capacity of United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) in his capacity as Chairman of the
GRID-Arendal foundation in Norway (arctic studies). Linking
economic analysis with social and environmental analysis has been
a continuing professional interest.
His own CV says that Christoffersen sits on the Boards of
several environmental and educational institutions, including
Earth University in Costa Rica, and has led several institutional
and program evaluations, including the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) in 2001/2002, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (1993 and 1996), and Earth
University (2000).
In a long piece written in 1997 for the {Green Globe
Yearbook}, Christoffersen presents his mother, the IUCN, an
organisation founded in 1948 that, while for several decades
has played major leadership roles at both international and
national levels, it is not generally well known. Its members
include most of the environmental organizations around the world
concerned with nature conservation, but it has little if any name
recognition in the media or among public agencies outside its own
field. It has wielded considerable influence on international
environmental discussions and on the formulation of environmental
agreements, but this has been largely behind the scenes.
No wonder Christoffersen wants to avoid nuclear science to
protect humanity from tsetse flies: IUCNs aim was to mobilize
international support for efforts to preserve living species and
for the protection of habitats for increasingly endangered
species. Protecting nature against damaging interventions by
human activities was a major theme.
In a chronology of IUCN, Christoffersen indicates that in
1961, after years of continuing funding problems in IUCN, several
eminent personalities from science and business decided to create
a parallel, but complementary, body called World Wildlife Fund,
to focus on fund raising, public relations, and large scale
public support.
Of course, Christoffersen reminds us the fact that the
British scientist Sir Julian Huxley, one of IUCN's early
supporters, had also advocated a strong science base for the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), of which he was Director-General when IUCN was
established in 1948.
|