Forum: Letter to Dr. Martin Khor, Third World Resurgence

SUBJECT: Recent articles on the CGIAR Plant Genetic Resources-process in Diversity magazine Vol. 10, No.2, 1994 (P.R. Mooney: The World Bank Transforms a Bio-Conventional Proposal for Intergovernmental Oversight into a Bio-Adversity Battle over Governance of the CGIAR, p. 5) and Third World Resurgence No. 48, June 1994 (Protests Against World Bank's Attempted Take-over of Gene Banks, p.6)

Dear Dr. Khor,

I have read the above mentioned articles on FAO/CGIAR and the PGR-process. In my work at SAREC I have been attached to the CGIAR in different capacities for over 13 years and I also participated in the Swedish delegation to the CGIAR Mid-Term-Meeting in New Delhi. The "Diversity" (Pat Mooney) and the "Third World Resurgence" (Third World Network/TWN) - reports from the Delhi-deliberations on the FAO/CGIAR PGR-process are not giving a fair description.

1. There was not and has never been a strategy by the World Bank to "take over" the gene banks belonging to the IARCs of the CGIAR. Rather, the World Bank, as most CGIAR-donors, is eager to conclude the agreement with FAO regarding the IARC genebanks. But this process must be given the necessary time. By the very governance structure of the CGIAR itself - as tailored in the early days by for example Sir John Crawford and still maintained - such a take- over is structurally impossible. CGIAR is not a monolithic structure but in essence a bilateral organization. Furthermore, the World Bank's share of the total CGIAR core budget is at present less than 15 per cent. Only the European donors to the CGIAR hold close to a 50 percent share. These bilateral donors (not multilateral) to the CGIAR could easily challenge the World Bank if they found it necessary.

2. The offer of additional World Bank funds through the CGIAR as delivered by Mr. Serageldin (CGIAR-Chair) at the Delhi-meeting belonged to the agenda item "1994 funding deficit" and definitely not to the agenda item "Stripe review of PGR" that also included the FAO/CGIAR model-agreement. The additional funds that Mr. Serageldin pledged from the World Bank resulted from a world wide appeal made before the Delhi-meeting by Mr. Preston (World Bank), Mr. Diouf (FAO), Mr. Speth (UNDP) and Mr. Serageldin (CGIAR) to CGIAR-donors in order to reduce the 1994 CGIAR core funding deficit. If CGIAR donors could mobilize additional funds, the Bank indicated its willingness to provide "matching funds" up to a maximum of USD 20 million. In this way, for example, Sweden has provided an extra core contribution of SEK 10 million during 1994. This budgetary process has thus definitely nothing to do with the FAO/CGIAR PGR-process.

3. The above mentioned articles have thus misinterpreted and mingled what took place under two different agenda items at the CGIAR Delhi-meeting. This fact is also obvious when studying the official printed report of the meeting.

4. If these misinterpretations from the Delhi-meeting later became "the issue" at the Biodiversity Convention Meeting in Nairobi in late June 1994, they obviously created a lot of waste of very expensive time that could have been better used for further interaction and bridging between the present unfortunately separate FAO/CGIAR-, CGIAR-, and the Convention-processes.

5. International NGOs like RAFI and TWN have a great and a very serious responsibility in providing correct information on any process of relevance for the follow up of the ratification of the Biodiversity Convention.

My conclusion is that both "Diversity" and "Third World Resurgence" have given a misleading report on the FAO/CGIAR-PGR-process at the CGIAR Delhi-meeting. When RAFI joined the CGIAR Stripe Review chaired by Henry Shands (USDA) last year and in addition, together with SAREC/IDRC and IPGRI, joined the Crucible Project-study on plants and patents, this marked a very healthy proof of a promising constructive interaction between the CGIAR and international NGOs. I am very convinced that this constructive dialogue should continue and be intensified.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Carl-Gustaf Thornström

Head, Rural Development and Environment

Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation

with Developing Countries (SAREC)