viernes, 12 de febrero de 2010

Pronunciamiento Público del Colegio de Biólogos del Perú

COLEGIO DE BIÓLOGOS DEL PERÚ

CONSEJO NACIONAL

PRONUNCIAMIENTO PÚBLICO

Publicado en diario Peru21, Domingo, 14 de febrero 2010, Pág. 13. http://e.peru21.pe/102/impresa/pdf/2010/02/14/232005.pdf

El Consejo Nacional del Colegio de Biólogos del Perú, el que está conformado por los veinte decanos regionales y el consejo directivo nacional en pleno, aprobó por unanimidad en sesión ordinaria del 6 de febrero de 2010 hacer un Pronunciamiento Público respecto de la denuncia penal por difamación agravada de que ha sido objeto el Dr. Ernesto Bustamante, quien es nuestro past decano nacional (2007-2009) y actual vice decano nacional (2009-2011).

Consideramos que es un error que el Poder Judicial haya admitido una denuncia hecha por la bióloga no colegiada Antonietta Ornella Gutiérrez Rosati, profesora de la Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, como consecuencia de sentirse ofendida en su honor al haber recibido críticas científicas, que fueron difundidas públicamente por el Dr. Bustamante en Radio Nacional y el diario El Comercio, a un informe científico presentado por la Dra. Gutiérrez ante autoridades del INIA y CONAM.

Este enojoso hecho ha suscitado amplias reacciones internacionales, como lo demuestra la aparición de un artículo en la prestigiosa revista científica internacional Nature Biotechnology calificando el mencionado proceso judicial como conducente a acallar el debate científico y el derecho a la libre expresión de los científicos y además criticando el sistema judicial peruano por penalizar una materia de orden académico y profesional.

Nadie debe ser acusado judicialmente por una crítica científica. El Art. 133° del Código Penal peruano dice expresamente que las críticas literarias, artísticas y científicas están exceptuadas de ser calificadas como difamación. En la ciencia estamos obligados a crear un ambiente de intercambio libre de ideas y debemos defender esta libertad.

Invocamos al Poder Judicial para que no intervenga en materias que solo deben ser resueltas entre científicos, y que el juicio a que ha sido sometido uno de nuestros agremiados y directivos nacionales en el Sexto Juzgado Penal de Lima sea llevado a una conclusión absolutoria actuando así en favor de la libertad de expresión de los científicos.


Dr. Hermes Escalante Añorga, Decano Nacional

Dr. Luis Carrasco Mendo, Secretario Nacional

Lima, 12 de febrero de 2010

viernes, 5 de febrero de 2010

Peruvian GM advocate faces criminal charges

Peruvian GM advocate faces criminal charges

by Lucas Laursen
Nature Biotechnology 28, 110 (2010) - February 2010
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n2/full/nbt0210-110a.html
Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

A.- To read the background to this story, please visit: "No hay Transgénicos en Barranca":

Parte 1: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-ha-transgnicos-en-barranca.html

Parte 2: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-hay-transgnicos-en-barranca.html

Parte 3: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-hay-transgnicos-en-barranca-3.html

Parte 4: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-hay-transgnicos-en-barranca-4.html


B.- And listen to the Radio Debate on:

http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/debate-en-radio-nacional-transgnicos.html


A molecular biologist could face a prison sentence for criticizing a report on transgenic gene spread. Ernesto Bustamante Donayre, vice president of the Peruvian College of Biologists, a professional organization, stands accused of defamation, a criminal offense, which in Peru can carry a prison term or fine.

What triggered the suit was his public criticism of a report prepared by Antonietta Ornella Gutiérrez Rosati, a biologist at the La Molina National Agricultural University in Lima, identifying a P34S promoter and NK603 and BT11 transgenes in 14 of 42 maize samples from the Barranca region. Gutiérrez sent summaries of her findings to both the National Agricultural Research Institute and El Comercio newspaper in 2007 calling for a moratorium on transgenic crops until biosafety regulations are in place to prevent the spread to human food.

Bustamante, a frequent contributor to radio and print, with no financial links to crop companies, described the alleged detection of three simultaneous transgenic events from two firms as “absurdly improbable” in his newspaper column and called for her claims to be peer reviewed. “The main point of my criticism,” Bustamante says, “was her going to the press instead of to her peers.” After Bustamante refused to retract his statements, Gutiérrez filed a suit for defamation.

She later presented her findings to the Peruvian Genetic Society of which she is president, but would not comment on the case, except to say that “you must use respect” in scientific discussion and that her critics have “polarized” the debate.

Although Peruvian farmers already import transgenic products for animal feed, several interest groups oppose their widespread introduction, which they label a foreign intrusion and threat to Peruvian biodiversity. An ongoing investigation is seeking to replicate Gutiérrez's findings, but the government lacks the regulations to enforce its biosafety laws even if it does find transgenic crop outcrossing.

The criminal case, however, threatens to stifle all scientific discussion. “Regardless of whether he gets sentenced or not I don't think anyone is going to criticize anything,” says plant scientist Wayne Parrott, from the University of Georgia, a regular visitor to Peru. Bustamante's colleague and supporter Luis Destefano Beltrán of the Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University agrees that “many people have tried to avoid taking sides.”

Peru retains criminal defamation laws, which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded in 1995 are incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights. Bustamante, who expects a ruling early this year, says, “The point is not whether I'm right or wrong. It's the fact that for criticizing somebody on scientific grounds I'm being tried in criminal court.”

Nature Biotechnology ISSN 1087-0156 EISSN 1546-1696

Peruano que apoya los OGM enfrenta cargos penales


by Lucas Laursen
Nature Biotechnology 28, 110 (2010) - February 2010
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n2/full/nbt0210-110a.html
Translated by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

A.- Para leer los prolegómenos de esta historia, favor visitar: "No hay Transgénicos en Barranca":

Parte 1: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-ha-transgnicos-en-barranca.html

Parte 2: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-hay-transgnicos-en-barranca.html

Parte 3: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-hay-transgnicos-en-barranca-3.html

Parte 4: http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-hay-transgnicos-en-barranca-4.html


B.- Y escuche el debate radial en Radio Nacional en:

http://cbperu.blogspot.com/2008/01/debate-en-radio-nacional-transgnicos.html


Un biólogo molecular podría enfrentar una sentencia a prisión por criticar un informe sobre propagación genética transgénica. Ernesto Bustamante Donayre, vice presidente del Colegio de Biólogos del Perú, una organización profesional, ha sido acusado de difamación, un delito penal, que en el Perú puede significar una condena a prisión o una multa.

Lo que provocó el juicio fue su crítica pública de un informe preparado por Antonietta Ornella Gutiérrez Rosati, una bióloga de la Universidad Nacional Agraria de La Molina en Lima, que identificó un promotor P34S y transgenes NK603 y BT11 en 14 de 42 muestras de maíz tomadas de la región de Barranca. Gutiérrez envió resúmenes de sus hallazgos a tanto el Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agraria como al diario El Comercio en 2007, haciendo un llamado para una moratoria sobre cultivos transgénicos hasta que se instalen regulaciones de bioseguridad para prevenir el pase a la comida para humanos.

Bustamante, quien contribuye frecuentemente en la radio y medios impresos, y que no tiene conexiones financieras con compañías agrícolas, describió la supuesta detección de tres eventos transgénicos simultáneos de dos compañías como “improbable y absurdo” en su columna del periódico y solicitó que esos estudios fueran evaluados por sus pares. “El punto principal de mi crítica,” dice Bustamante, “fue que ella haya ido a la prensa en vez de donde sus pares.”
Luego que Bustamante se rehusara a retractarse de sus afirmaciones, Gutiérrez entabló una demanda por difamación.

Ella luego presentó sus hallazgos a la Sociedad Peruana de Genética de la que es presidenta, pero no quiso comentar sobre el caso, excepto para decir que “uno debe usar el respeto” en la discusión científica y que sus críticos han “polarizado” el debate.

Aunque los granjeros peruanos ya importan productos transgénicos para forraje animal, varios grupos de interés se oponen a su introducción amplia, a lo que llaman una intrusión foránea y amenaza para la biodiversidad peruana. Una investigación actualmente en curso está tratando de replicar los hallazgos de Gutiérrez, pero el gobierno carece de las regulaciones para hacer cumplir sus leyes sobre bioseguridad inclusive si llega a encontrar entrecruzamiento transgénico de cultivos.

El caso penal, sin embargo, amenaza con ahogar toda discusión científica. “Irrespectivamente de si él es condenado o no, yo no creo que ya nadie se atreva a criticar nada,” dijo el científico de plantas Wayne Parrott, de la University of Georgia, un visitante frecuente al Perú. El colega y adherente de Bustamante, Luis Destefano Beltrán de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, concuerda con que “muchas personas han tratado de evitar tomar lados”.

El Perú mantiene leyes que penalizan la difamación, lo que la Comisión Inter-Americana de Derechos Humanos concluyó en 1995 que es incompatible con la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos. Bustamante, quien espera un fallo a principios de este año, dijo, “El punto no es si estoy en lo cierto o si me equivoco. Es el hecho de que por criticar a alguien en términos científicos estoy siendo juzgado en una corte penal.”

Nature Biotechnology ISSN 1087-0156 EISSN 1546-1696

jueves, 16 de abril de 2009

Doctored crops stir Latin American debate

Doctored crops stir Latin American debate

By Travis Lupick
The Straight, Vancouver, Canada
16 de abril, 2009
http://www.straight.com/article-214382/doctored-crops-stir-latin-american-debate

Standing on a street corner in downtown Cuzco, Peru, Abel Caballero looked to the surrounding mountains, which are home to hundreds of species of potatoes and maize. In a world increasingly populated by monocrops, they stand as a testament to how agriculture was practised for centuries. Protecting this biodiversity may have cost Caballero his job.

In the summer of 2008, he banded with a group of indigenous Peruvian farmers and local NGOs. Together, they overcame the wish of the federal government and the might of some of the world’s most powerful multinational corporations.

“It was hard,” said Caballero, who was the head of natural resources and environment management for Cuzco province when the ban was passed. “But from the very beginning, it was something that the communities asked for.…The people came to the government to ask it to push this issue.”

Less than one year later, Caballero resigned from the government for “political reasons”.

A genetically modified crop is a plant that has been genetically engineered to include a gene from another organism. Plants are genetically modified by agricultural corporations like Monsanto Company to introduce desirable characteristics, such as a resistance to pests.

Commercial production of GM crops—also known as transgenic crops, though the two are not exactly the same—began in 1996 in the United States. Canada followed suit the same year. Since then, controversy has followed GM crops into every country to which they have been introduced.

Supporters of GM crops champion the technology as a solution to rising food costs and even world hunger. Opponents charge that the proliferation of GM crops threatens biodiversity and could lead to the rise of superbugs and weeds immune to pesticides. Many claim that the implications for human health remain unknown.

The planet’s population is expected to grow to nine billion people by 2040. In a world of finite resources, the developing world has become the frontline for a competition between food consumption and agricultural production. In this war, GM crops have emerged as a controversial weapon.

What are people’s concerns about GM crops and how are they being dealt with in the developing world? Are GM crops the answer to how to feed a species possibly growing beyond what the planet can support? 2008 was a landmark year for GM crops, when the number of countries planting such crops reached 25—who is benefiting and who is losing out?

In February 2009, the Georgia Straight travelled to Peru and Honduras to investigate these questions and learn how developing nations in Latin America are dealing with the spread of GM crops. A tale of two countries emerged. GM crops are not grown in Peru, and the country’s indigenous people remain hostile to the technology. In Honduras, GM crops were introduced in 2002 and many farmers have embraced the technology.

Cuzco province, Peru

Photos by Travis Lupick

More photos below.

Cuzco, once the capital of the ancient Inca empire, has a strong agricultural tradition that focuses on biodiversity. This plays strongly into how farmers and, especially, indigenous communities in Cuzco province have reacted to the rise of GM crops. Caballero claimed that biodiversity is what GM crops threaten the most.

His push to ban GM crops from Cuzco province sparked a national debate and caught the attention of NGOs, governments, and multinational corporations around the world. The ban would not have happened without Alejandro Argumedo and the Association for Nature and Sustainable Development, a Cuzco-based NGO that focuses on links between environmental issues and indigenous people’s rights. Argumedo, a graduate of McGill University, is the group’s director.

Interviewed at his home not far from Caballero’s office, Argumedo explained the alleged threats that GM crops pose to biodiversity. “The introduction of transgenics will change the very composition of what we have here,” he said.

According to Argumedo, Cuzco’s agricultural industry thrives because it is so diverse. Take potatoes, for example. Around Cuzco—3,300 metres above sea level and, historically, the centre of origin of the potato—hundreds of local varieties of the tuber grow at different altitudes and in different kinds of soil.

Argumedo argued that biodiversity is vital to meet the stresses that climate change is placing on agriculture. “The less diversity that you have, the greater the chance that crops will disappear because they will be more susceptible to dangers brought by climate change,” he said.

Argumedo explained that if GM crops were introduced to Cuzco province, gene migration from GM crops to conventional crops could eventually wipe out local seed varieties.

“Having a high genetic diversity that has been nurtured and developed for thousands of years is being lost very fast because of greed and the introduction of these technologies,” he said.

The potential elimination of biodiversity is directly related to farmers’ livelihoods, Argumedo continued. He explained that corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta AG hold patents on GM seeds. Farmers must sign agreements with GM seed suppliers promising that they will not save seeds for replanting from one season to the next. If GM seeds flowed into farmers’ conventional crops via wind, for example, fields could be “contaminated”. In such a case, the corporation holding the seed patent could file a lawsuit against the farmer for growing GM plants without paying for the patented seeds.

There are precedents for such lawsuits. In 2004, a case was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada after a Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser, discovered GM plants on his property. Schmeiser saved the GM seeds from these plants and cultivated the seeds for commercial sale. In Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, the court ruled that Schmeiser, having knowingly used the seeds, had infringed on Monsanto’s patent.

The “Saskatchewan case”, as the Straight found it’s widely known in Peru, is not unique. A May 2008 story in Vanity Fair claimed that U.S. court documents reveal that “Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country.” That story described situations where farmers swore they had never planted Monsanto’s seeds on their property but found themselves bullied into paying settlements to Monsanto to avoid exorbitant legal fees.

“Imagine what will happen if we are contaminated here,” Argumedo said. “Technically, everybody will be liable to Monsanto.”

A Monsanto representative was not made available for comment. In the past, Monsanto has said that cases like Schmeiser’s are incidents of the company simply protecting its patents.

Lima is a bustling capital city of eight million Peruvians. In the trendy neighbourhood of Miraflores, three of the country’s top biologists met with the Straight to explain their support for GM crops.

Ernesto Bustamante, national dean of the Peru College of Biologists, said that he has followed the rise of GM crops for more than a decade. “The introduction of genetically modified technology into Peru’s agricultural industry would actually mean an improvement to Peru’s economy,” he said.

Ernesto Bustamante (right) and fellow Peruvian
biologistsMarcel Gutierrez (centre) and Luis
Destefano maintain thatthe production of GM crops
would be a boon to Peru's economy.

Travis Lupick photo.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, the most common genetic modification present in agricultural crops is herbicide tolerance. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” varieties, for example, are tolerant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. This allows farmers to spray crops with Roundup and eliminate weeds without harming crops, and therefore increase efficiency.

The second most common trait available through GM technology is a resistance to certain insects. Bt-modified crops, for example, include Bacillus thuringiensis, an organic toxin deadly to certain insects. Bt varieties can minimize crop damage caused by pests and can be grown with fewer insecticides. Again, efficiency can be increased.

Many GM crops include a combination of both relatively common genetic modifications and other alterations, according to ISAAA’s 2008 executive summary on GM crops.

Bustamante explained that GM crops tolerant to herbicides can save farmers money on weeding. And Bt crops require a minimal amount of pesticides, which saves farmers more money and is also better for the environment.

“In 2020, we will have to feed seven million new Peruvians with the same land,” Bustamante noted. To meet rising demands for food staples in Peru, small farmers—who make up the bulk of the country’s agricultural industry—can benefit from GM crops, he said.

He conceded that GM seeds are more expensive than conventional varieties. But once the initial investment has been made, he said, farmers can increase profit margins through reductions in the use of pesticides and labour. Bustamante described a common belief that GM crops only benefit large corporations as a “fallacy”.

Potato Park, Peru

Photos by Travis Lupick

More photos below.

Back in Cuzco, far from Peru’s metropolitan capital, Argumedo said that it is the very genetic alterations that Bustamante champions that are a cause for concern. He explained that crops tolerant to herbicides, like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready maize, could cross-pollinate and pass this trait to other plants. The result could be varieties of weeds resistant to the most common herbicides, free to overtake farmers’ fields.

Crops modified to include Bt could place evolutionary pressure on insects, Argumedo continued. As more crops include Bt, that pressure could build. One day, insects could develop resistance to Bt and devastate crops until a new insecticide could be deployed.

In Lima, Bustamante dismissed such concerns. “When you plant genetically modified corn, you don’t only have a bag with 100-percent GM seeds,” he noted. In order to minimize evolutionary pressures on weeds and pests, every bag of GM seeds includes a small percentage of conventional seeds lacking genetic modifications. “So some of the corn in your field will be eaten by the insects,” Bustamante explained, “so you are not wiping out the species.”

Across town, Juan Risi, head of Peru’s National Institute for Agrarian Innovation, told the Straight that the federal government is handling GM crops with caution. He described the possible introduction of GM crops to Peru as “progress”, akin to upgrading from Windows XP to Vista. But he said that the government understands that “people are genuinely concerned.”

Risi explained that at the federal level, GM crops are technically not banned from Peru. But until biosafety procedures are introduced, permits are not being issued for their production.

According to Risi, Cuzco’s ban on GM crops could clash with future legislation drafted at the federal level. “Major guidelines in biosafety should be passed through the Ministry of Agriculture and through the national government,” he said. “And then the regional governments should be in charge of implementing them. It is not the other way around.”

Although Risi was quick to point out that the NIAI—as a regulatory body—has no official position on GM crops, he said that he does see potential benefits for Peru in GM crops.

For example, in both the Philippines and Honduras, Risi said, the introduction of GM maize resistant to pests has produced savings on pesticides and has made for higher yields for farmers.

But in Cuzco, opposition to GM crops remains steadfast. At a community meeting, Edgar Gonzales, a coordinator for Potato Park, a nearby biological reserve, warned that the introduction of GM seeds could create “complete dependence” on GM crops and on the corporations who own them. “Food security and food sovereignty would completely fail, and this is a threat to indigenous peasant farmers,” he said.

A few days later, outside the town of Písac, the Straight attended a meeting of representatives from the six indigenous communities that live in Potato Park. Looking down into a great valley that lies below the park’s headquarters, a park worker named Ricardo Paceo explained the importance of the reserve to the Straight. “This park is like a dream for us because it conserves our biodiversity and our culture and it is run by us,” he said.

Potato Park was declared a zone free of GM crops long before Cuzco’s provincial ban took effect. A testament to biodiversity, it boasts an estimated 700 local varieties of potato. Listening to Paceo speak with his fellow community representatives, it was clear that GM crops will not enter Cuzco province without a fight.

On his family-run farm in Honduras, Francisco Paz grows genetically modified maize, which he says produces greater yields than conventional crops. Travis Lupick photo.

Francisco Paz’s farm lies at the end of a long dirt road in the interior of Honduras. A family man who has worked corn fields since he was a young boy, Paz and his farm embody the struggle of poor farmers in developing nations.

“I think that biotechnology is the solution to the problem of hunger in the entire world,” Paz stated confidently. “It is a great advantage, and this year I am going to increase the area where I plant transgenics to more than 50 percent.”

Agriculture is vital to Honduras. The nation is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. According to a 2007 World Bank fact sheet, more than 50 percent of the Central American country’s 7.5 million citizens live below the poverty line.

Walking through corn fields and ducking under the occasional fence of barbed wire, Paz told the Straight that he started experimenting with GM crops about a year ago. Very quickly, he said, the benefits were obvious.

According to Paz, the 40-percent-higher price that he pays for GM seeds is quickly recouped through savings on pesticides and labour.

Paz said that compared to conventional varieties, his GM crops produce greater yields, require fewer chemicals and less labour, and incur smaller losses to insects.

To minimize certain risks associated with growing GM crops, Paz said that he follows simple instructions provided by Monsanto. He cultivates conventional varieties of corn around his GM crops and grows GM crops on areas of his farm separated from conventional crops.

By his own admission, Paz is a true convert to biotechnology. “The only way that you can reduce hunger is to get better yields,” he said. “Transgenics can do this.”

Not far from Paz’s farm is the small town of El Paraiso. There, Nelson Sanchez sells seeds wholesale to farmers in the region. Interviewed in a dimly lit stockroom, Sanchez said that his interest in GM crops was sparked by a demand from consumers.

Since he introduced GM seeds to his customers in mid-2007, business has not changed much, he noted. The number of farmers buying GM seeds has increased but not enough to significantly affect his profits. According to Sanchez, more awareness of GM varieties is needed before sales will take off.

Still, Sanchez said that the benefits are clear to him. “Farmers have made several comments,” he noted. “They use less herbicides and less pesticides for insects, so there are positive effects.”

Honduras

Photos by Travis Lupick

At the centre of agriculture in Honduras is the Pan-American College of Agriculture, better known as Zamorano, an American-registered institution that draws both students and teachers from across Latin America.

When the Straight arrived on a hot day in February, María Mercedes Roca, a professor of biotechnology and an outspoken advocate for GM crops, immediately launched into a defence of GM crops with an attack on conventional farming practices.

“Managing diseases the way we have done for the last four or five decades with chemical pesticides doesn’t work because we are creating resistance to chemicals,” she argued. For Roca, GM crops are an environmentally friendly technology that humans can use to meet growing demands for food.

A former member of Greenpeace and now serving on Honduras’s National Committee for Biosafety, Roca said that Zamorano has conducted biosafety trials for Monsanto. She maintained that risks associated with GM crops have been greatly exaggerated. As an example, she showed the Straight a Honduran newspaper clipping that quoted a member of parliament who claimed that GM maize grown in Honduras was linked to the spread of HIV.

Walking Zamorano’s fields, Roca listed opponents’ concerns about GM crops and then quickly explained why she has concluded that each one is baseless.

The risk of cross-pollination is nothing new to agriculture and has been dealt with for hundreds of years, she explained. At Zamorano, crops are planted at different times, fields growing different crops are separated by a minimum of 20 metres, and four-metre-high walls of king grass separate fields to catch seeds travelling in the wind.

Health and environmental concerns related to Bt-modified crops are equally unfounded, Roca continued, making no effort to hide her frustration. After more than a decade of scientific research and commercial production in the U.S., “there is no evidence that suggests that transgenic crops are worse for the environment or worse for human health than their conventional counterparts,” she claimed.

Roca conceded that the relatively high cost of GM seeds is prohibitive for many poor farmers. But she noted that nobody is forcing anybody to grow GM crops.

For subsistence farmers who don’t have access to high-quality soil, fertilizer, and irrigation, GM crops often don’t make sense, Roca said. “On the other hand, if you even have the bare minimum, it pays. And if you are an industrial producer, it makes every sense.”

In the green hills surrounding Cuzco, indigenous people continue to practise agriculture the same way that their families have for generations. Communities plant seeds that have slowly adapted to their specific environments. Villages share their prized varieties of maize and potatoes with neighbouring settlements. And an equilibrium with the earth is maintained.

“Western thinking demands that biodiversity is converted into a commodity and made a product for the market,” a farmer named Luis Revilla told the Straight in Cuzco. “The consequence of this, we do not know.”

A world away, in the impoverished country of Honduras, subsistence farmers are increasingly looking to GM crops as a tool to lift them out of poverty.

“Like everything in life, there is a risk,” Paz said on his farm in Honduras. “But I make more money from transgenics.”

Amid all the controversy is the simple fact that humans may one day soon live on a planet that can no longer support them. As Roca told the Straight in Honduras, if GM technology is an evil in this world, it may be a necessary one.

Travis Lupick was in Honduras as a recipient of the Seeing the World Through New Eyes fellowship, funded by the Jack Webster Foundation and CIDA.

sábado, 6 de diciembre de 2008

Public Debate on GMOs - Peruvian Times

Agriculture Ministry opens public debate on use of genetically modified seeds

http://www.peruviantimes.com/agriculture-ministry-opens-public-debate-on-use-of-genetically-modified-seeds/

Peruvian Times, 6 de diciembre 2008

The Ministry of Agriculture is calling for a public debate on the use in Peru of genetically modified seeds and crops. It has posted a draft on its website on regulations governing biotechnology and security. The document covers the procedures for importing, trading, producing and research of Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs.

Carlos Leyton, the minister of Agriculture, stressed he has no intention of giving priority to the issue of importing GMOs, or transgenics, to Peru and that he expects the draft to serve as a basis for debates throughout the country.

The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment are currently working together to define the viability of using GMOs, a sharp change in policy compared with the battles that were waged over the issue between both ministries earlier this year.

Then minister of agriculture, Ismael Benavides, and his closest advisor on GMOs, scientist Alexander Grobman, were strongly in favor of developing genetically modified crops, particularly for biofuels, but they were strongly opposed by the fledgling Ministry of Environment and its minister, Antonio Brack, who said GMOs were favored by big corporations and big money and had never improved the lives of small farmers.

Executive laws issued late in June this year included a series of decrees that lifted restrictions and tight supervision on the import and use of transgenics in Peru. The decrees were strongly criticized by the Peruvian Environmental Law Society, SPDA. At the same time, Brack argued that importing transgenics would endanger Peru’s biodiversity, particularly in such crops as corn, and took his campaign for a transgenic-free country to the public.

In the October cabinet shuffle, sociologist and then-president of the Arequipa Region, Carlos Leyton, succeeded Benavides in the Ministry of Agriculture and immediately made clear that GMOs were not one of his priorities. He and Brack have met several times to discuss policies.

However, despite the joint team of specialists now working between the two ministries, the new draft regulations still do not include the Ministry of Environment as one of the institutions to be involved in the supervision and decision-making processes governing GMOs.

Dr. Antonieta Gutierrez, a leading professor at the Agrarian University in La Molina, considers the draft outdated because it does not include the Environment ministry, and believes it is important to find other options in order to protect Peru’s biodiversity.

However, Ernesto Bustamante, president of Peru’s College of Biologists, is keen that the regulations be finally made into law in order to begin using GMOs, which he believes will generate great opportunities in Peruvian agriculture.

Leyton believes the country cannot prohibit the use of transgenics across the board, but he also does not believe they should be promoted for massive use. “The needs must be analyzed, case by case,” he said, “and that requires a strict biosecurity framework of regulations.”

viernes, 5 de diciembre de 2008

Reglamento de Bioseguridad en Radio Libertad

Entrevista en Radio Libertad (Lima, Perú) al Dr. Ernesto Bustamante realizada por los periodistas Ángel Arévalo y Dianny Loza, sobre Productos Transgénicos y el Reglamento de Bioseguridad en Agricultura en el programa "El Reportero" el 5 diciembre de 2008.







PARTE 1 DE 2:







PARTE 2 DE 2:



jueves, 4 de diciembre de 2008

Reglamento de Bioseguridad - El Comercio

Diario El Comercio, jueves 4 de diciembre de 2008

http://www.elcomercio.com.pe/edicionimpresa/Html/2008-12-04/minag-pone-debate-publico-reglamento-transgenicos.html

NORMA SOBRE BIOSEGURIDAD

Minag pone a debate público el reglamento de transgénicos

Ministro Carlos Leyton recalca que el documento debe ser discutido. Proyecto define sanciones para el uso ilegal de estos organismos

Por Marienella Ortiz

Luego de una larga espera, el Ministerio de Agricultura (Minag) prepublicó en su página web el borrador del reglamento sobre bioseguridad que establece los procedimientos para la importación, comercialización, producción e investigación de semillas y granos transgénicos en el territorio peruano.

El ministro de Agricultura, Carlos Leyton Muñoz, dejó en claro que su despacho no tiene la intención de dar prioridad al ingreso inmediato de transgénicos al país. Por el contrario, sostuvo que este borrador servirá como un documento base para próximos debates descentralizados.

Actualmente, el Minag junto con el Ministerio del Ambiente, han conformado un grupo de trabajo técnico para definir la viabilidad de los organismos vivos modificados o transgénicos. Cabe mencionar que este esbozo de reglamento no incluye entre los entes competentes en esta materia al Ministerio del Ambiente, un tema que sigue en discusión.

Leyton resaltó la importancia de definir el marco regulatorio sobre bioseguridad, que permita al Gobierno sancionar el uso ilegal de los transgénicos en nuestro territorio. El documento plantea multas de hasta 100 UIT (S/.350.000) para quienes los usen de manera irregular.

GENERA DEBATE
La difusión del documento será el punto de partida de un gran debate. El presidente del Colegio de Biólogos, Ernesto Bustamante, expresó su expectativa en que pronto sea publicado oficialmente el reglamento oficial, mediante un decreto supremo.

Consideró que lo diseñado en el borrador es viable y que cualquier modificación se podría realizar una vez que el documento oficial esté en marcha. Recalcó que los transgénicos generarán grandes oportunidades al país.

En cambio, Antonietta Gutiérrez, catedrática principal de la Universidad Agraria La Molina, enfatizó en que el documento está desfasado y que no debería publicarse. Refirió como ejemplo que ya hubo cambios en la estructura del Estado, como la creación del Ministerio del Ambiente.

Gutiérrez consideró que la coordinación entre los sectores Agricultura y Ambiente debe encontrar otro camino para el tema de los transgénicos que no ponga en peligro la biodiversidad de nuestro país.

En los próximos días, la discusión será más intensa.
Pasos para el proceso de certificación
Para la producción, comercialización o investigación de productos transgénicos, en el sector agropecuario en territorio peruano, será necesario un proceso de certificación ante el Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agraria (INIA), según el proyecto de reglamento en discusión.

Dicha instancia crea un grupo técnico sectorial para que evalúe las solicitudes de inscripción de transgénicos. Así se determinará si procede el registro, para lo cual hay tres opciones:

1. Que se considere que no existe riesgo para la salud humana y a la diversidad biológica. En ese caso es aceptado.
2. Que el registro venga acompañado de un sistema de gestión de riesgo, hasta que se determine que no causará impactos negativos.
3. Que no se registre porque queda constatado que será nocivo para la salud humana y la diversidad biológica.

DATOS
Aparece tras una larga espera
4 Este reglamento sectorial nace de la Ley 27104, Ley de Prevención de Riesgos Derivados del uso de Biotecnología, del año 1999.
4Previamente, se dio el reglamento de la ley en el 2002. Desde entonces estaban pendientes los reglamentos del Minag, Digesa y Producción.

domingo, 23 de noviembre de 2008

DECLARACIÓN DE LIMA - APEC

DECLARACIÓN DE LIMA



firmada en Lima por 21 líderes de las Economías de APEC el 23 de noviembre de 2008



Extracto de la Declaración de Lima:



"... We pledged cooperation to bolster conditions conducive to promoting agricultural research and development. We directed APEC to help member economies develop science-based regulatory frameworks to benefit from the potential of agricultural biotechnology...".



http://www.apec.org/etc/medialib/apec_media_library/downloads/news_uploads/2008/aelm/aelm.Par.0002.File.tmp/08_aelm_LeadersStatement.pdf



Extracto del discurso pronunciado por el presidente Alan García, anfitrión de la Cumbre APEC Perú 2008, en la ceremonia de presentación de la Declaración Final de los líderes de APEC (Fuente: Diario El Peruano 24-11-2008).

"...que la humanidad tiene un mercado activo que está en todos los hogares, a través de la comunicación y el internet, pero que tiene por sobre todo una capacidad científica y tecnológica en la ingeniería genética, en la nanotecnología, en la digitalización, que como proceso está comenzando recién..."



SIXTEENTH APEC ECONOMIC LEADERS' MEETING

"A NEW COMMITMENT TO ASIA-PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT"

Lima, Peru, 22-23 November 2008




We, the Economic Leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, gathered in
Lima, Peru, under the theme: “A New Commitment to Asia-Pacific Development”. The theme chosen for APEC 2008 highlights the importance of reducing the gap between developed and developing member economies. We are committed to strengthening the social dimension of globalization and ensuring that all members and all sectors of our economies can access the skills and opportunities to participate in, and benefit from, regional and global trade and investment.

The current global financial crisis is one of the most serious economic challenges we have ever faced. We will act quickly and decisively to address the impending global economic slowdown. We welcomed the monetary and fiscal stimulus provided by APEC member economies and will take all necessary economic and financial measures to resolve this crisis, taking the necessary actions to offer hope to those most in need. Our resolve to address the deteriorating global economic situation, and support a prompt, ambitious and balanced conclusion to the WTO Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, is outlined in a separate statement issued at this meeting.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

Advancing Regional Economic Integration

Last year we agreed to an ambitious long-term agenda to strengthen regional economic integration. We welcomed the 2008 progress report from Ministers and officials on efforts to achieve this goal. We endorsed the 2009 work plan for the APEC Regional Economic Integration (REI) Agenda in order to build upon this year’s accomplishments on REI and to accelerate efforts in all areas of this agenda.

Our goal of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region will be achieved through a series of unilateral reform measures combined with bilateral, regional and multilateral liberalization. We are committed to continuing the implementation of APEC’s REI Agenda. In that regard, we:

• welcomed progress made by member economies towards the Bogor Goals of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region. We reinforced our commitment to achieving the Bogor Goals to promote growth, development and a rapid recovery from the current global slowdown.

• we commended the progress made in examining the prospects and options of a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) as a long-term prospect. We noted advice from Ministers that while an FTAAP would likely be of economic benefit to the region as a whole, there would also be challenges in its creation. We instructed Ministers and officials to undertake further steps in examining the prospects and options of a possible FTAAP, including by conducting further analytical work on the likely economic impact of an FTAAP, and discussing the possible capacity building requirements for any possible future negotiations. In addition, we instructed officials to undertake initiatives designed to promote greater convergence among economies in key areas of APEC’s trade and investment portfolio, including areas such as customs administration, trade facilitation and cross-border services.

• welcomed five new model measures, resulting in a set of 15 completed chapters for Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that will promote high-quality RTAs/FTAs and greater consistency and coherence among these agreements in the region.

• endorsed the continued process of implementation of APEC’s second Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP II) to achieve our stated goal of reducing trade transaction costs by an additional five percent between 2007 - 2010.

• welcomed the APEC Investment Facilitation Action Plan (IFAP) to improve the investment environment in the region and commended the initiation of the study of bilateral investment agreements and core-investment-related activities of existing free-trade agreements.

• emphasized the importance of strengthening financial markets in the region and welcomed the capacity building activities initiated by APEC Finance Ministers to reform capital markets. We recognized the pressing need for infrastructure development in APEC economies and welcomed the work undertaken by Finance Ministers on linkages between private public partnerships and capital market development. In this regard, we called on Finance Ministers to examine more fully the means to optimize linkages between private infrastructure finance and growth and development.

• reaffirmed our commitment to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the region, and reiterated the importance of comprehensive and balanced IPR systems that provide for and protect the incentives that encourage creation and innovation. We will continue to promote greater collaboration among our IPR experts and enforcement authorities.

• we welcomed the progress by economies to implement the APEC Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Initiative as well as efforts to improve patent systems in the region and look forward to further progress in this area next year.

• welcomed the Digital Prosperity Checklist as an important tool in APEC´s efforts to promote sustained economic growth through the use and development of information and communication technologies.

We welcomed the views and work carried out by the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) on improving the business environment, and called for an active participation of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the REI agenda.

We asked Ministers and officials to continue the implementation of the REI Agenda as outlined in the progress report and report back to us in 2009 with a summary of steps taken to promote this agenda.

Noting the increased economic integration in the region, we also discussed Australia´s suggestions on how regional architecture can keep pace with changing circumstances.

Implementing Structural Reform

We agreed that our Leader’s Agenda to Implement Structural Reform (LAISR) is a central element of APEC’s agenda, integrating the three pillars of trade and investment liberalization, business facilitation, and economic and technical assistance and cooperation. We reiterated the fundamental importance of tackling ‘behind-the-border’ barriers to trade and investment in the creation of well-performing, resilient and robust economies.

We welcomed the outcomes of the Structural Reform Ministerial Meeting (SRMM), held in Melbourne in August 2008 and noted the endorsement by Ministers of APEC’s Good Practice Guide on Regulatory Reform. We recognized the importance of developing a program of practical support for member economies to successfully undertake structural reform. This includes capacity building initiatives in the areas of regulatory reform, corporate governance and other LAISR areas. We encouraged active participation in the voluntary system of peer or self-review of our economies’ efforts to implement structural economic reform.

We welcomed publication of the annual APEC Economic Policy Report and the accelerated work plan for Private Sector Development endorsed by Trade Ministers in June.

Improving Food Security in the Asia-Pacific

We are deeply concerned about the impact that volatile global food prices, combined with food shortages in some developing economies, are having on our achievements in reducing poverty and lifting real incomes over the last decade. The poor are especially vulnerable to increases in food prices. We support a fully coordinated response and a comprehensive strategy to tackle this issue through the Comprehensive Framework for Action developed by the United Nations (UN) Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis. We will support the application and implementation of this Framework within the region, as appropriate.

Individual and collective policy responses to expand food and agricultural supply in the region should strengthen market forces to encourage new investment in agricultural technology and production systems. A prompt, ambitious and balanced conclusion to the WTO DDA negotiations would deliver substantial improvements in market access and reduce market-distorting measures in global agricultural trade.

We commended the work that APEC has undertaken in the area of food and agriculture, and welcome the work plan endorsed by APEC Ministers to refine and strengthen APEC’s agenda to meet current and emerging food security challenges. We also recognized the role of ABAC in raising the importance of food and agricultural issues on the APEC agenda.

We directed APEC to increase technical cooperation and capacity building that will help foster agricultural sector growth, including efforts to increase food production; improve agricultural education; enhance natural resource management; promote the development of next generation biofuels made from non-food materials; build well-functioning markets and regulatory institutions; and make food storage, transportation, and distribution systems more efficient. We pledged cooperation to bolster conditions conducive to promoting agricultural research and development. We directed APEC to help member economies develop science-based regulatory frameworks to benefit from the potential of agricultural biotechnology.

ADDRESSING THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF GLOBALIZATION

Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Asia-Pacific

We stressed that globalization based on economic, social and environmental progress can bring sustainable benefits to all APEC economies, their business sectors and their people. CSR can reinforce the positive effects that trade and investment have on growth, competitiveness and sustainable development. We encourage responsible and transparent business conduct that adheres to local legislation and regulations and takes into account guidelines related to CSR that have been developed by multilateral bodies, as appropriate.

We agreed that given increasing expectations amongst global consumers, investors and business partners regarding responsible and sustainable business practices, the voluntary activities that comprise CSR will remain an important aspect of doing business in the 21st century. We recognize that all stakeholders in our communities benefit when governments foster a business environment that encourages voluntary CSR practices. This will create greater value both for businesses and for the societies in which they function.

We welcomed the work that has been undertaken within APEC to promote CSR awareness and capabilities in the region, and future work that will encourage dialogue on CSR among relevant stakeholders including: businesses, governments, employees, communities, consumers, investors, and non-governmental organizations. We recognized ABAC’s efforts in promoting CSR awareness and uptake in the region through the dissemination of information regarding CSR principles, practices and benefits.

We encouraged companies to incorporate CSR into their business strategies to take account of social, labour and environmental concerns. The development of CSR in the region will depend on the different domestic economic, social and cultural context of APEC members. We agreed to promote CSR practices in APEC economies on a voluntary basis in business operations of all sizes to complement public policies that foster sustainable development.

Combating Corruption in the Region

Corruption in both the public and private sectors is a serious threat to social and economic development in the region. We recognize that when criminal entities collude with corrupt public and private sector officials, it results in a culture of impunity and financial exploitation of the legitimate economy. We agreed to leverage our collective will to combat corruption and related transnational illicit networks by promoting clean government, supporting public-private partnerships, fostering market integrity, and transparent financial systems. We recognize that the criminalization of corruption can facilitate greater regional cooperation.

In support of our earlier APEC anti-corruption commitments, we commend efforts undertaken by member economies to develop comprehensive anti-corruption strategies. These include efforts to restore the public trust and protect against the abuse of our financial system through financial intelligence and law enforcement cooperation related to corrupt payments and illicit financial flows. These anti-corruption activities through APEC are consistent with the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which we encouraged economies to ratify and implement, where applicable. We also supported the revised Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations, where appropriate.

We welcomed the Lima Anti-Corruption Declaration on Financial Market Integrity through Effective Public-Private Partnerships and the APEC Guidelines for Public-Private Action against Corruption.

Strengthening Cooperation and
Capacity Building in APEC

APEC’s program of Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH) is essential to achieving our objective of building capacity in a range of sectors in APEC economies. We reaffirmed our commitment to the Manila Framework, which serves as the basis for the implementation of the ECOTECH activities outlined in the Osaka Action Agenda. We welcomed contributions from economies to APEC’s capacity building programmes.

We welcomed China’s proposal to host the 5th APEC Human Resources Development Ministerial Meeting in 2010. Ensuring that all members of our economies receive a quality education is critical to achieving social, individual, economic and sustainable development. It enables people to take advantage of the opportunities created by globalization. We supported the efforts of APEC Education Ministers to strengthen education systems in the region including ongoing support to the APEC Education Network. We welcomed the research-based steps taken by APEC in the areas of mathematics and science; language learning; career and technical education/technical vocational education and training; and information and communication technologies (ICT) and systemic reform. We support the recommendation of Education Ministers to facilitate international exchanges, working towards reciprocal exchanges of talented students, graduates and researchers.

We reaffirmed our commitment to build regional capacity to minimize health-related threats including avian and human influenza pandemics and communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS. We welcomed continuing efforts to ensure economies are well prepared to deal with health threats and to respond to them in a way that minimizes their adverse impacts on human welfare, trade and investment. We reaffirmed our commitment to improve food and product safety standards and practices to facilitate trade and ensure the health and safety of our populations. We endorsed the work of the APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum’s Partnership Training Institute Network and called on Ministers to take additional steps to enhance food and product safety next year.

We are concerned that gender discrimination continues to have a significant impact on our economies. We committed to strengthening the capacity of APEC members to ensure that gender considerations are taken into account in the development of trade and economic policy, and to ensuring that the region’s women are better able to participate in and benefit from regional and global trade.

ENHANCING HUMAN SECURITY IN THE REGION

Combating Terrorism and Securing Regional Trade

Enhancing human security and protecting the region’s business and trade against natural, accidental or deliberate disruptions remains an enduring priority for APEC, and an essential enabling element in APEC’s core trade and investment agenda.

We agreed that international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery pose a direct threat to our vision of free, open, peaceful and prosperous societies, and reaffirmed our commitment to eliminate these threats. Since 2001, we have worked together with a common understanding that all terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable, and must be unequivocally condemned, especially when they target or injure civilians, or use the abhorrent practices of suicide bombing and hostage taking. Terrorism in all forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, is a profound threat to the peace and security of all people, and of all faiths. Terrorist acts cannot be excused or justified by any alleged cause, conflict, oppression, or poverty.

We agreed that terrorist attempts to abuse or corrupt trade flows, finance, transportation, travel communications and modern technologies will not be tolerated. We pledged our full cooperation to ensure that the flow of people, goods and investments remained secure and open, and that economies and markets operated without disruption. We welcomed the initiative of a group of member economies led by Singapore to undertake a Trade Recovery Programme pilot exercise in 2009. We recognized the important role played by the UN and its Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We stressed the need for implementation, where applicable, of UN counter-terrorism measures and the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing. We urged APEC Ministers and officials to continue to help secure the region’s economic, trade, investment and financial systems from terrorist attack or abuse and trade-based money laundering. We welcomed the ongoing efforts of the international community to combat piracy and armed robbery at sea and encouraged further concerted efforts to fight against piracy.

Disaster Risk Reduction, Preparedness and Management

The frequency and intensity of natural disasters related to the distortion of climate patterns in the region is increasing and the location of, and growth of, cities and mega-cities in vulnerable areas increases the impact of catastrophic events. Improving risk reduction, disaster preparedness and management in the region is a critical human security issue facing the region. We agreed that the challenges in this area are significant and growing in complexity and required greater international cooperation and coordination with the private sector, international organizations and non-government organizations.

We recognized that there continues to be operational challenges in regional disaster responses and greater coordination is needed as the number of disaster management arrangements and players in the region continues to grow. We agreed that greater focus is needed on disaster risk reduction, emergency preparedness and building domestic disaster management capabilities. In this regard, we welcomed the adoption of an APEC Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness and Response initiated by Peru; the APEC Principles on Disaster Response and Cooperation proposed by China; the Stocktake on Disaster Management Capacity Building Needs; and welcomed the Australia-Indonesia proposal for a Disaster Risk Reduction Facility and its linkages to APEC economies and the APEC Task Force on Emergency Preparedness.

We endorsed the priority APEC has given to promoting risk management, business resilience and public-private sector partnerships, and supported efforts to prepare economies for the recovery phase. We instructed officials to undertake long-term capacity building projects aimed at accelerating recovery in disaster affected areas in APEC economies and supported the inclusion of education on disaster issues in school curricula where appropriate.

CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY SECURITY AND CLEAN DEVELOPMENT

Our ability to successfully confront the challenge of climate change will be crucial to the wellbeing of future generations. As a global issue, climate change must be addressed in a comprehensive manner, through international cooperation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2009. Reducing poverty is likely to become more difficult in those developing economies most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and related natural disasters. We reaffirmed our commitment to the Sydney APEC Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development.

We support decisive and effective long term cooperation now, up to and beyond 2012 to address climate change under the UNFCCC, in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We welcomed decisions taken by the international community at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in 2007 and the efforts to build a consensus on long term cooperative action, including a global emission reduction goal. We also noted the declaration in this regard by the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit held in July this year. We recognize the economic diversity and different domestic circumstances of individual APEC economies in addressing climate change.

We reaffirmed our commitment to the Action Agenda announced as part of the Sydney Declaration. We appreciate and encourage the efforts of individual APEC economies to meet these goals. We also welcomed the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Network for sustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation (APFNet) and appreciate China’s commitment to further financial support for this initiative. We expressed support for the cooperation and capacity building for climate change mitigation and adaptation, including those that promote the development and deployment of clean technologies. We appreciate Australia, Japan and the United States' financial support for the Climate Investment Funds, particularly the Clean Technology Fund.

We recognized the value of conservation, sustainable forests management and land use practices and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and agricultural soils for carbon sequestration in the global response to climate change.

Recognizing that climate change could impede economies’ abilities to achieve sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty, we strongly support international cooperation and capacity building for mitigation and adaptation as objectives that should be equally pursued, including those that promote low-emissions technology development and transfer to, and financial support for, developing economies. We also call for additional and coordinated efforts to better understand vulnerabilities caused by the impact of climate change on our oceans and their resources to develop more effective adaptation strategies. We endorsed the positive contribution of the Major Economies Leaders’ Declaration to the UNFCCC. We committed to concerted action under the UN and complementary processes to reach an equitable and effective post-2012 international climate change arrangement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Conscious that access to adequate, reliable, clean and affordable energy resources is vital to sustaining economic prosperity in the region, we reaffirmed our commitment to supporting the energy needs of regional economies by promoting open energy markets and free energy trade and investment. Such markets are crucial to the development of renewable sources of energy and the dissemination of low emission energy technologies, including new and alternative energy resources and technologies. We encouraged our officials to promote such developments and urge them to pursue regional energy efficiencies and maximize the potential development of clean energy technology.

Strengthening APEC

APEC is the pre-eminent forum for economic cooperation in the region. We are committed to strengthening APEC’s institutional processes to ensure it remains responsive to a rapidly changing global environment. Cooperative action within APEC can contribute to better outcomes on the major international challenges we face. We welcomed advice from APEC Ministers on the successful establishment of a Policy Support Unit in the APEC Secretariat as well as progress on the appointment of an Executive Director of the APEC Secretariat for a fixed term.

We endorsed in full the Joint Statement of Ministers at the 20th APEC Ministerial Meeting.

We welcomed the offer of
Indonesia to host APEC in 2013. We welcomed the invitation from the Prime Minister of Singapore to meet again in Singapore in 2009.