[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I take the floor to express my strong
support for Senate advice and consent to ratification of the Convention
on Biological Diversity. The convention was ordered reported by the
Committee on Foreign Relations on July 11, 1994. Since that time,
attempts to bring it to the floor for consideration have been
frustrated. I am hopeful nonetheless that the Senate will be able to
act on this important convention prior to sine die adjournment.
The convention has three unobjectionable goals; the conservation of
biological diversity; the sustainable use of biological diversity; and
the fair and equitable sharing of its benefits. It was negotiated over
the course of 1\1/2\ years and was opened for signature at the Earth
Summit in June 1992.
The United States participated in the negotiation of the convention,
but the Bush administration ultimately decided not to sign, citing
concerns regarding the convention's financial mechanism, treatment of
intellectual property rights, and treatment of biosafety issues. I ask
unanimous consent that the Department of State's press release
announcing the decision to be inserted in the Record following my
remarks.
Upon taking office, the Clinton administration shared the Bush
administration's concerns with the convention, but recognized also that
the convention would enter into force with or without the United States
as a party. The issue thus became, How best could U.S. interests be
served?
The administration decided, correctly in my view, that the most
prudent course of action was to explore avenues that would allow the
United States to become a party to the convention, but that resolved
U.S. concerns. Working in close consultation with the pharmaceutical
and biotechnology industry, as well as environmental groups, the
administration succeeded in this task.
In transmitting the convention to the Senate, the administration
requested that seven understandings be included in the Senate's
resolution of advice and consent to ratification. These understandings
address each of the concerns first identified by the Bush
administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution reported by the committee appear immediately following my
remarks.
With these understandings in place, the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industries, industries that previously had opposed the
convention came out in support of U.S. ratification. I ask unanimous
consent that letters in support of ratification from the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and
Merck & Co, Inc. appear immediately following my remarks in the Record.
Mr. President, the convention was ordered reported from the Committee
on Foreign Relations on July 11, 1993, by a vote of 16 to 3. It also
enjoyed the strong backing of environmental community as well as the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. No witness testified
against the convention.
Support for the convention is not limited to these industries alone
however. The convention has received strong support from other sources
as well, including a broad range of agriculture groups. These include:
the U.S. Council for International Business, the American Seed Trade
Association, Inc., the Archer Daniels Midland Co., and the American
Corn Growers Association. I ask unanimous consent that letter from
these and other organizations in support of the convention appear
immediately following my remarks in the Record.
I was surprised therefore when we attempted to bring the convention
to the floor for consideration in August and an entirely new set of
questions was raised, some of which were truly bizarre. For example,
some opponents of the convention argued that the treaty would violate
the Constitution by forcing Americans to worship nature. Mr. President,
this sort of claim underscores the absurd and wildly unsubstantiated
charges that are being raised by some groups or individuals about the
convention.
More substantive questions were raised by a number of Members in a
letter to the majority leader asking that the Senate delay
consideration of the convention until a series of questions that they
had could be answered. That letter was sent on August 5. On August 8,
the Department of State provided a comprehensive response to those
questions. I ask unanimous consent that both the original letter and
the administration's response be included following my remarks in the
Record.
I would note that most of the questions raised in the letter were
never identified as issues of concern by the Bush administration, by
Members of Congress, or by outside groups during the course of
negotiations.
In addition to responding to the questions raised by Members of this
body, the administration also met with representatives of the National
Cattlemen's Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation to
discuss their concerns with the convention. These consultations
resulted in a memorandum of record sent by Secretaries Babbitt,
Christopher, and Espy to the majority leader on August 16. The
memorandum reflects those consultations and explains why ratification
of the convention is of fundamental national importance. I ask
unanimous consent that these items appear in the Record immediately
following my remarks.
(See exhibit 1.)
More recently Mr. President, the New York Times and the Washington
Post both ran editorials calling for the Senate to act on the
convention prior to adjournment. Just yesterday, this full page
advertisement appeared in both the Washington Post and the Washington
Times calling on the Senate to approve the convention. The ad is
sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund and the many business and
agricultural organizations concerned with America's interest in
conserving biological diversity. I ask unanimous consent that
editorials and advertisement also follow my remarks in the Record.
Mr. President, throughout the process of trying to bring the
convention to the floor, the administration has gone the extra mile,
indeed the extra 30 miles, to respond to questions raised about the
convention. I want to thank the administration for their efforts.
I also want to thank the majority leader for his leadership in
ongoing efforts to try to move the convention. It is a tribute to his
commitment to environmental issues that at a time when the Senate has
been grappling with up to five cloture petitions, he is willing to
devote time and effort to the convention. Supporters of the environment
will sorely miss his leadership in the years to come.
Mr. President, it is my hope that the Senate will yet be able to
consider the convention. At that time, I will respond in a more
substantive fashion to the concerns that have been raised. In the
meantime, however, I urge my colleagues to look at the material I have
submitted for the Record. I believe that a review of those materials
will show that the importance of the convention is clear, that the
questions about the convention have been answered, that the support for
the convention is there, and that it is time for the Senate to act.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1--Department of State: Office of the Assistant Secretary
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Negotiations on a convention on biological diversity, held
under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program,
concluded in Nairobi on May 22.
The United States strongly supports the conservation of
biological diversity and was an early proponent of a
convention. The United States is disappointed that the
negotiations on this convention have produced a text which we
believe is seriously flawed in a number of respects. The
United States is not willing to sign a convention that does
not address U.S. concerns; principal U.S. objections are
listed below.
The U.S. record on protecting biodiversity is unparalleled.
The Endangered Species Act requires that threatened and
endangered species be identified and given special
protection;
The United States has set aside nearly 180 million hectares
of public land where the diversity of native plant and animal
species is protected;
The United States is a strong proponent of the Convention
on the International Trade in Endangered Species.
However, issues of serious concern to the United States
were not adequately addressed in the course of the
negotiations of the framework convention. The United States
is particularly concerned about provisions related to:
Intellectual property rights (IPR): The convention focuses
on IPR as a constraint to the transfer of technology rather
than as a prerequisite;
Funding: The convention contains unacceptable language on
the transfer of funds from developed to developing countries:
The role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the
World Bank differs from that agreed to by the Participants in
the GEF less than a month ago.
The United States is prepared to help others protect our
world's biological resources, but the funding system must be
workable.
Biotechnology: The convention does not treat biotechnology
and biosafety appropriately.
In every negotiation, no matter how important the subject
matter, the actual outcome must always be considered; the
United States does not and can not sign an agreement that is
fundamentally flawed merely for the sake of having that
agreement.
As the record shows, the United States is committed to
protecting biological diversity. The United States will
continue to take measures domestically and internationally to
conserve and protect biological diversity.
____
Biotechnology Industry
Organization,
Washington, DC, March 9, 1994.
Re Convention on biological diversity
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Pell: In his letter of November 19, 1993,
transmitting the Convention on Biological Diversity to the
Senate, President Clinton specifically noted that adequate
and effective protection of intellectual property rights is
an important economic incentive which not only encourages the
development of innovative technologies, but which improves
all parties' ability to conserve and sustainably use
biological resources. To this we add that the conservation
and preservation of biological materials is an important
social goal. These resources are necessary to sustain our
biosphere and offer tremendous opportunities for the
development of new products to address human and animal
health, nutrition, and other societal needs for us and future
generations.
The biotechnology industry believes that the key element of
a fair and balanced Biodiversity Convention is a recognition
of the value of the products of nature, as well as the
contributions made by persons and institutions who modify
those products into useful articles of commerce. The value of
biological materials is enhanced when intellectual property
rights are created, protected and enforced by all nations.
Without adequate and effective intellectual property
protection there will be less incentive to make contributions
to developing nations whose territory encompasses much of the
worlds' biological material.
The Biodiversity Convention as written is an admirable set
of policy goals which have at their core the conservation of
biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components
and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of
the utilization of genetic resources. Unfortunately, we feel
these enumerated goals may be difficult to reach because the
technology transfer provisions of the Treaty are vague and
subject to undesirable interpretations. We believe that
the submission of an interpretive statement by the United
States with the instruments of ratification is an
important step towards ensuring that the Treaty is
implemented in a manner that furthers the mutual interest
of all nations which have become signatory. The additional
submission by the Administration of its views on the
Treaty to the Senate further clarifies how the United
States will implement the Treaty.
From the point of view of the biotechnology industry there
are two important questions which remain to be answered by
the Senate during the hearing process. We submit that for the
United States interpretive statement to have real world
significance, it must be accompanied by an expressed
willingness to withdraw from the convention in the event the
contracting parties reach interpretations on the issues of
intellectual property or governance which are counter to the
national interests of the United States. While we recognize
that the Convention already sets forth in its text the
withdraw option, what is missing from the Administration's
submission is a set of conditions under which that right
would be exercised. Intellectual property is the very life
blood of biotechnology and like other intellectual property
reliant industries we need to be assured that the United
States will withdraw from the convention if:
It is interpreted in a manner fundamentally inconsistent
with the minimum level of intellectual property protection
contained in the recent GATT round (this means the standards
and not the transition rules attached thereto); or
It is used to deprive any United States persons of a
recognized legal right to property.
We urge the Senate to obtain a second assurance, i.e., that
the United States will not seek, and will in fact oppose, the
development of a biosafety protocol under the convention. We
believe that creation of any such entity would not result in
scientific oversight to further ensure human safety, but
rather in promotion of a political agenda serving a purpose
other than science. Furthermore we believe the Administration
should publicly commit to:
The inclusion of broadly representative industry
participation in any and all international negotiations;
Insistence on a factual, science based approach to
regulation as the essence of any national regulatory scheme
for biotechnology processes and products; and
A clear statement that national laws regulating
biotechnology should be based on the products and not merely
on the fact that the process of biotechnology was used in
their development or creation.
BIO is trade association representing more than 500
companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers
and other organizations involved in the research and
development of health care, agricultural and environmental
biotechnology products. We respectfully submit these comments
on behalf of our membership and want to indicate our
willingness to appear as a witness at any future scheduled
hearing.
Very truly yours,
Carl B. Feldbaum,
President.
____
Merck & Co., Inc.,
Whitehouse Station, NJ, March 23, 1994.
Senator Claiborne Pell,
Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to you as Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Merck & Co., Inc. to urge your
support of a speedy ratification of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Senate approval of the Convention would
send a strong message to the world community that the United
States views the conservation and sustainable use of the
Earth's biological resources as a critical component of
future growth and development.
For Merck, the world's largest research-intensive
pharmaceutical products company, the loss of biodiversity
could literally mean lost opportunities for researching the
mechanisms of disease and discovering important new
medicines. Plants, insects, microorganisms and marine
organisms have yielded some of the greatest pharmaceutical
break throughs of this century, including Merck's Ivermectin,
an incredibly effective and safe anti-parasitic that prevents
the tropical disease Onchocerciasis, or river blindness. The
Company's ongoing agreement with the Instituto Nacional de
Biodiversidad (INBio) in Costa Rica embodies the principles
of resource conservation, sustainable development, technology
exchange and protection of strong private property rights for
which we believe the Convention would provide an
international framework.
As you may know, early on in the discussions over U.S.
ratification of the Convention, the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industries raised some serious concerns about
the potential for adverse interpretations of certain key
Articles that addressed intellectual property rights. Last
winter, Merck facilitated the creation of a working group of
six representatives of industry, environmental and policy
research organizations with interests in biodiversity and
biotechnology to address these concerns. The State
Department's Letter of Submittal to the Senate incorporates
the Interpretative Statement our working group sent to the
President and clarifies all ambiguities in a manner that
greatly enhances the potential for private sector
participation under the Convention.
It is for these reasons that I support ratification of the
Biodiversity Convention at the earliest possible date. If you
need additional assistance to resolve any outstanding
substantive concerns, please contact me directly or call
Isabelle Claxton in our Washington office at (202) 638-4170.
Sincerely,
P. Roy Vagelos.
____
U.S. Council for
International Business,
New York, NY, April 11, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to convey the views of the
United States Council for International Business (USCIB) on
the United Nations Framework Convention on Biological
Diversity. In this regard we are pleased to endorse
recommendations already conveyed to you by the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association and BIO, both of which are our
members, emphasizing the importance of strong intellectual
property right protection and objecting to a priori
regulation of biotechnology under the treaty.
The U.S. Council fully supports the goal of protecting the
world's biodiversity. Our membership includes companies that
have been leaders in studying and preserving biodiversity--
most recently through innovative partnerships with
appropriate institutions within developing countries. In many
developing countries. U.S. companies play a crucial role in
furthering technology cooperation related to biodiversity
protection and biotechnology. In addition, U.S. companies are
a source of foreign investment which in turn brings funds to
relieve poverty and lessen pressure on biological resources
in those countries.
The U.S. Council was pleased to note both in President
Clinton's November 19, 1993 letter of transmittal of the
Convention, and in the Department of State's November 16,
1993 letter of submittal of the Convention to the President,
strong statements of support for adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights.
It should be remembered that the interpretive statement of
the United States is only necessary because the Convention
combines unduly broad, vague and ambiguous provisions which,
U.S. industry fears, may be employed by other countries to
the detriment of United States interests, e.g. to deny or
undercut intellectual property protection or to impose
unreasonable technology transfer or financial requirements.
The United States should be a constructive force in
advancing its stated positions on the treaty in all
appropriate fora. In addition, the United States should
continue to strive to build support for its positions among
OECD countries and to ensure that the effectiveness of those
positions are not compromised by the actions of other
countries. In particular, the U.S. Government should be
insistent of intellectual property right protection and the
development of biotechnology for society's greater benefit.
Hence, as the Senate prepares to provide its advice and
consent to ratification of the U.N. Convention on Biological
Diversity, we strongly recommend that you and the Committee
obtain appropriate commitments from the Administration that
it will:
(1) vigorously defend intellectual property rights within
the terms of the Convention, and seek ways to build
incentives for protection of those rights into future
initiatives and instruments developed under the Convention,
and in other fora, such as the Global Environmental Facility
(GEF);
(2) oppose any process under the U.N. Framework Convention
on Biological Diversity which seeks to regulate products of
biotechnology based on the assumption that all such products
are intrinsically dangerous to human health and the world's
biodiversity. There is no need for a biosafety protocol. In
any event, biosafety should be regulated on the basis of
science, not fear.
The U.S. Council for International Business is the U.S.
affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the
Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD,
and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE). The
Council formulates policy positions on issues affecting the
increasingly globally-oriented U.S. business community
through committees and other working bodies drawn from its
membership of some 300 major multinational corporations,
service companies, law firms and business associations. It
advocates these positions to the U.S. Government and such
international organizations as the OECD, the GATT, ILO, UNEP
and other bodies of the U.N. system with which its
international affiliates have official consultative status on
behalf of world business.
Our Environment Committee is the leader among American
business organizations on international environmental policy
and has been involved on behalf of American business in every
phase of UNCED, including its follow-up within the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, and the
ongoing negotiations of the United Nations Biodiversity
Convention. Our Intellectual Property Committee has played a
major role in preparing business positions on this important
aspect of the GATT negotiations as well as on other
negotiations such as the U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Area and
NAFTA.
The U.S. Council is ready to discuss these matters further
with you, other members of the Committee, or with appropriate
members of your staff.
Sincerely,
Abraham Katz,
President.
____
American Seed Trade
Association, Inc.,
April 14, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to express the views of the
American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) and its members on the
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. On behalf
of the more than 600 members, I am pleased to add our
fundamental support for ratification of this important
intellectual property rights document, as it has been
interpreted by the ``interpretation statement'' that was
added by the United States and signed by President Clinton.
The ASTA, a national trade association representing the
American seed industry, supports the basic goal of
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in
the Convention. Further, we acknowledge the importance of
biological diversity for the evaluation and maintenance of
life systems. For these and other reasons, ASTA member
companies are actively engaged in the research necessary to
develop new or improved genetic resources in the form of seed
varieties. These efforts include the development of improved
varieties of wheat, corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and others, all
of which benefit American and international agriculture.
ASTA members invest millions of dollars each year in
research and development projects that yield improved genetic
strain of crop plants with better nutritional aspects and
enhanced pest resistance, as well as improved tolerance to
varying climatic conditions. These plants and their seeds are
sold throughout the United States and the entire world. ASTA
members expect to continue to invest heavily in the reserach
of new and improved plant varieties, with the modern methods
of biotechnology expected to play an increasing role.
Like other associated organizations, the ASTA was pleased
to learn of the President's strong statements regarding
intellectual property rights. The ASTA remains committed to
strong and meaningful statements and policies affecting
intellectual property rights and continues to devote a
significant amount of time and effort in advancing such
causes. In particular, our own efforts to amend the Plant
Variety Protection act of 1970 (S. 1406 and H.R. 2927)
reinforces this strong pursuit for members of the seed
industry and the plant breeding community in general.
ASTA is concerned, however, that careful attention should
be focused on potential interpretations of the text.
Therefore, as the United States Senate prepares to discuss
the merits of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity,
the ASTA strongly recommends that you and the Commission
secure from the Administration commitments that will:
(1) Continue to unconditionally defend intellectual
property rights of the Convention;
(2) Oppose any process under the U.N. Convention on
Biological Diversity which would seek to regulate products of
biotechnology based on an unfounded assumption that such
products are intrinsically dangerous to human health and
compromise the world's biodiversity; and
(3) Oppose the creation of a system of liability for
perceived past wrongs to the genetic base of a participating
party.
The ASTA Biotechnology Committee, comprised of member
companies with established biotechnology programs, has
reviewed the Convention, and in consultation with our Board
of Directors, has determined it is of significant interest to
the seed industry. In general, the ASTA views this
Convention's impact on intellectual property rights as
significant as language found in the GATT and NAFTA.
The ASTA would welcome the opportunity to discuss these
matters with you and other committee members if necessary.
Sincerely,
David R. Lambert,
Executive Vice President.
____
Biotechnology Industry
Organization,
Washington, DC, June 21, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building; Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
on behalf of BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, at
the Senate hearing, April 12, 1994, concerning U.S.
ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity. As
you are aware, BIO, which is the trade association that
represents more than 500 companies, academic institutions,
state biotechnology centers and other associations involved
in the research and development of health care, agricultural
and environmental biotechnology products strongly supports
speedy Senate ratification of the Convention.
We have received your follow-up question to be submitted
for the record in which you ask, ``What would be the impact
if the U.S. were to decide not to ratify the Convention, or
if no decision has been reached before the deadline for
countries to participate in the first Conference of
Parties?''
Preliminary meetings of signatory parties are already
taking place leading up to the first Conference of Parties
scheduled for November 28-December 9, 1994 in Geneva,
Switzerland. We believe it is essential that the U.S.
position on the protection of intellectual property, the
rights of parties under existing contracts and the
undesirability of creating a formal biosafety protocol be
appropriately represented at the Geneva Meeting. The position
of our government will be best put forward by having official
representatives at the conference table. It would be
unconscionable for the U.S. to stand aside while other
nations decide matters of importance to our economic future.
We are very appreciative of your willingness to consider
these views.
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Godown,
Senior Vice President.
____
Archer Daniels Midland Co.,
August 11, 1994.
Dear Senator: Attached is the case for Senate ratification
of the Convention on Biological Diversity which will have to
occur in the next few days. Failing this, the United States
will be excluded from the next international meeting being
held on this subject.
Archer Daniels Midland Company considers that it is
fundamentally important to American agribusiness, agriculture
and other industries that the United States include itself in
this Convention. It will be a sad day for us if these
meetings have to occur without an participation on our part.
We see no downside risk for our country in ratifying this
Convention.
Please consider the contents of this memorandum. We hope
that you will be able to support and advocate our
participation.
Sincerely,
------ ------.
____
Fact Sheet
agriculture and the convention on biological diversity
This Convention deals with issues of interest to U.S.
agriculture and agribusiness. U.S. ratification of the
Convention benefits U.S. agriculture in three important ways.
I. What the Convention will do:
1. Protect access to plant genetic resources
The U.S. depends on access to foreign germplasm for plant
breeding programs of such key crops as corn, wheat, soybeans,
potatoes, cotton, and most vegetables.
All of these crops originated in other parts of the world,
and the major sources of the variation essential to future
improvements, though traditional breeding and biotechnology
are located outside U.S. boundaries.
Access to this germplasm is essential to continuing to
improve the productivity of U.S. crops. Experts estimate that
this use of biodiversity to increase yields has added a value
of $3.2 billion to our $11 billion annual soybean production
and about $7 billion to our $18 billion annual corn crop.
Access to foreign germplasm also helps efforts to reduce
the need for pesticides and chemicals because such germplasm
can improve the ability of crops to combat disease and plant
pests.
Becoming a party to the Biodiversity Convention will ensure
that U.S. companies continue to have access to genetic
resources.
Already some U.S. researchers have been excluded from
germplasm collections in foreign countries.
The Convention will facilitate access to genetic resources
in these and other countries.
As a Party the U.S. will also have improved access to
material in national seed banks and the collections of
international centers.
2. Encourage conservation of biodiversity in developing
countries.
All countries, but especially the U.S., will lose if
genetic resources of value to agriculture are lost through
inadequate or non-existent conservation practices.
While the U.S. has an extensive and effective set of
conservation laws on the books, this is not the case in most
developing countries.
The Convention lays out a general framework relating to
conservation of natural resources (eg., parks, zoos, seed
banks).
The Convention recognizes that if developing countries can
benefit from providing their genetic resources to others they
will have incentives to make these resources available for
use now and in the future.
The Convention provides for development of voluntary
agreements between the providers of such resources and those
who wish to use them.
3. Limit regulation of biotechnology.
Ill-conceived regulation of biotechnology can place undue
restrictions on U.S. exports of biotechnology products.
One of the many reasons the U.S. biotechnology industry and
the Administration believe it essential to promptly ratify
the Convention is to ensure that any biosafety protocol,
should one be developed under the Convention, is
scientifically based and analytically sound, and does not
place undue restrictions on U.S. biotechnology products.
As a world leader in biotechnology the U.S. must
participate as a member of the Convention to guide these
discussions and protect our interests.
II. What the Convention will not do:
1. Affect farmers', ranchers', or foresters' ability to
produce food and fiber from their land.
The Convention will not affect U.S. livestock, poultry,
sheep, or hog policies.
References to alien species in Article 8(h) are intended to
address harmful or nuisance species such as insect pests,
noxious weeds, kudzu, and zebra mussels.
Such species have had profound adverse impacts on U.S.
agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and livestock.
Livestock are considered domesticated species and do not
fall within the scope of Article 8(h).
Impact domestic land-use and environmental policies
The Administration, in presenting the Convention to the
Senate, determined that no changes to existing statutes,
regulations, or programs are required. Nor is additional
implementing legislation required.
The Convention will not place any additional requirements
on private land use or otherwise encroach upon
constitutionally protected rights.
The Convention will not dictate U.S. environmental policy.
Unlike many treaties which set out very specific
requirements, the Convention on Biological Diversity is a
framework which is general and flexible.
Such flexibility is beneficial to the U.S. As a framework
agreement, the U.S. has maximum flexibility in determining
for itself how to implement the Convention.
Additionally if, in the future, more specific protocols to
the Convention are negotiated, the U.S. will decide at that
time, for itself, whether it is in its interest to become a
Party to those protocols.
Joining the Convention in no way commits the U.S. to a
particular course of action or dictates a particular outcome
of the ongoing discussions within the U.S. on these issues,
nor is there any international body under the Convention or
elsewhere that can determine U.S. policy.
The Convention's conservation provisions require no new
action by the U.S.
Reference in Article 8 (d) to promoting the protection of
ecosystems does not commit the U.S. to adopting any new
policy.
The Administration has made its position clear on this. As
stated by the President in his letter of Transmittal to the
Senate. ``Biological diversity conservation in the United
States is addressed through a tightly woven partnership of
Federal, State, and private sector programs in management of
our lands and waters and their resident and migratory species
. . . These existing programs and authorities are considered
sufficient . . . under the Convention.''
American Corn Growers
Association,
Washington, DC, August 24, 1994.
Dear Senator: There has been much discussion lately about
the Convention on Biological Diversity. The American Corn
Growers Association believes that ratification of this treaty
will be in the best interest of production agriculture.
For U.S. agricultural interests to be addressed, we must
first have a seat at the table. Only through ratification by
August 30th will the United States be able to partake of the
discussion and debate. In addition, by being a party to the
Convention, the U.S. will ensure continued access to genetic
resources. This is important to agriculture because access to
foreign germplasm for plant breeding programs for such crops
as corn help advance our ability to provide quality products
to our agricultural producers.
Of concern to some was the fear that the Convention could
be used in place of current U.S. laws. This is not the case.
The Convention's conservation provisions will not require any
new environmental laws or regulations. Nor does the
convention prohibit our country from enacting or amending
current environmental laws.
The American Corn Growers Association supports the
Convention on Biological Diversity and request that you
support it as well by voting to verify.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Gary Goldberg,
National President.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, August 5, 1994.
Senator George Mitchell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mitchell: We have a number of concerns
regarding the Convention on Biological Diversity (Treaty Doc.
103-20). We request that the Senate delay consideration of
the Convention until these concerns can be addressed. If a
delay is not possible, we will not be able to accept any time
agreement limiting debate.
The treaty itself is vague in many areas and some of its
provisions are contradictory. It appears that the treaty may
have implications for U.S. domestic law and environmental
policies. Before committing the United States to this
Convention with the Senate's recommendation of ratification,
we would like further information in a number of areas,
including, but not limited to, the following:
Why does this convention prohibit state parties from making
reservations to any of its provisions?
Will the understandings set forth in the resolution of
ratification protect the U.S. interpretation in the event of
a dispute?
Will the U.S. vote in decisions taken under this convention
be commensurate with its financial contribution to the
funding mechanism? If not, why not?
Could the eradication of ``alien species which threaten
ecosystems,'' called for by Article 8, affect U.S. livestock
policies?
Who will interpret ``as far as possible and appropriate,''
a clause which appears in several places in the convention?
Will the United States be subject to mandatory dispute
settlement?
How can the Senate, in fulfilling its Constitutional
responsibilities to advise and consent, review the provisions
of the treaty not decided until the meeting of the Conference
of Parties?
How will the ratification of this convention influence the
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act
and other domestic environmental legislation?
Will the provisions regarding access to genetic resources
(Article 15) impede United States access to germplasm and
other genetic resources contained in international collection
centers?
By what means will the Conference of Parties promote the
transfer of technology to developing countries (Article 16)?
Is it likely or possible that the Conference of Parties may
call for a biological safety protocol that will require a
license for the transfer of any biologically modified
organism?
These are just some of the issues that should be further
clarified before we can responsibly recommend ratification.
We understand that the primary argument for speedy
ratification is to ensure that the United States has a vote
at the Conference of Parties in November 1994. However, we
believe that the United States, as a major contributor to the
funding mechanism under this convention, will wield
considerable influence at the Conference of Parties even
without a formal vote. If anything, the U.S. negotiating
position will be strengthened by the continuing scrutiny of
the Senate. We note that this is the course successfully
followed by the United States in the Law of the Sea
Convention process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
------, Malcolm Wallop, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms,
Conrad Burns, Kit Bond, Lauch Faircloth, Thad Cochran,
Dan Coats, Larry Pressler, John W. Warner, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Bob Smith, Robert F. Bennett, Arlen Specter,
John C. Danforth, Slade Gorton, Pete V. Domenici, ----
--, Al Simpson, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, ------,
Dirk Kempthorne, Strom Thurmond, ------, Don Nickles,
Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Larry E. Craig, Phil Gramm,
Connie Mack, Hank Brown, Bob Packwood, Ted Stevens.
____
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.
George J. Mitchell,
The Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Leader: The Committee on Foreign Relations, with
broad bipartisan support, reported favorably the Convention
on Biological Diversity to the full Senate on June 29, 1994.
In response to requests for additional information by a
number of Senators, I am writing to share with you and your
colleagues the Administration's response. I am hopeful that
this information will provide the Senate the background it
needs to move forward expeditiously in providing advice and
consent.
The Clinton Administration has worked with affected
industry to address several concerns that existed at the time
the Convention was opened for signature. Based on the seven
understandings developed through cooperation with industry
and set forth in the proposed Resolution of Ratification, the
Administration urges the Senate to give its advice and
consent to this treaty. The understandings set forth in the
Resolution or Ratification clearly address concerns that were
previously expressed about the Convention's provisions on
technology transfer, finance and biosafety. In response to
these efforts, the affected industries, state and local
government officials and others now strongly support
ratification of the agreement.
We have endeavored to answer all questions about the
Convention and U.S. participation. The attached responses to
the good questions raised by a number of Senators will
further clarify the record and, we believe, provide Senators
with the assurances they need to support this agreement. Most
importantly, these responses make clear that: 1) no
implementing legislation is required--the US meets and
surpasses all treaty provisions--and the treaty provides
flexibility for future changes to U.S. law; 2) the treaty
does not and can not force the United States to undertake any
action incongruent with its interests (and preserves the
appropriate role of the Congress to provide advice and
consent to any significant agreement); and 3) because no
changes to existing statutes, regulations or programs are
required, the Convention will not have any effect on farmers,
ranchers or foresters.
I want to note that the timing of Senate consideration is
critical--the Administration and key industries believe that
it is essential that the U.S. complete work in time to enable
submission of our articles of ratification by August 30,
1994, thus enabling us to participate fully at the first
Conference of the Parties so that we can fully protect US
interests. Failure to achieve ratification could have
significant negative consequences for US interests.
Senate advice and consent would help complete the
significant efforts and sound principles undertaken on a
bipartisan basis by this and the previous Administration.
Having addressed the appropriate and legitimate concerns
raised in the past, it is now in the economic interests of
the United States to ratify this agreement. We are hopeful
that, pursuant to the recommendation of the Foreign Relations
Committee, which made a favorable recommendation on a 16-3
vote, the Resolution of Ratification can be deliberated in a
timely manner and that the full Senate will give its advice
and consent to ratification. The Administration stands ready
to provide any information that is necessary to facilitate
this action.
Sincerely,
Wendy R. Sherman,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
____
Convention on Biological Diversity
(The Administration's Responses to Questions Raised in a Letter to the
Majority Leader on August 5, 1994)
1. Why does this convention prohibit state parties from
making reservations to any of its provisions?
The purpose of the ``no reservations'' clause is to prevent
parties from picking and choosing which provisions they are
willing to accept.
2. Will the understandings set forth in the resolution of
ratification protect the U.S. interpretation in the event of
a dispute?
The United States is protected in the event of any dispute
because the Convention does not require the United States to
submit to binding dispute resolution.
The understandings are an authoritative statement of the
United States' interpretation of the Convention. They will be
deposited with the United States instrument of ratification
and will be circulated by the United Nations to all parties.
3. Will the U.S. vote in decisions taken under this
convention be commensurate with its financial contribution to
the funding mechanism?
The United States objective is a rule of procedure relating
to the funding mechanism that fully protect its interests as
a major donor. The United States has supported a rule in the
rules of procedure requiring that all decisions related to
the funding mechanism be made by consensus. Only as a party
will we be able to block consensus on the rules of procedure;
as an observer we would have no such ability.
It should also be noted that the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) currently operates the financial mechanism.
The GEF is responsible for actual decisions on biodiversity
project funding. The instrument restructuring the GEF also
gives the United States a vote commensurate with our
contribution.
4. Could the eradication of ``alien species which threaten
ecosystems,'' called for by Article 8, affect U.S. livestock
policies?
No. The Convention will not affect U.S. livestock policies.
Cattle (as well as poultry, sheep, and hogs) are considered
under the Convention to be ``domesticated species''--not
alien species--and thus not subject to Article 8(h).
5. Who will interpret ``as far as possible and
appropriate,'' a clause which appears in several places in
the convention?
This phrase is a common one in international agreements. It
is a phrase that protects, not restricts, the interests of
parties. In this Convention the phrase was deliberately
inserted in order to give each party substantial flexibility
in determining how best to implement the Convention. The
United States will decide for itself how it will implement
the Convention and how it interprets the phrase ``as far as
possible and appropriate.''
6. Will the United States be subject to mandatory dispute
settlement?
No. Dispute resolution involving the United States under
the Convention is limited to non-binding conciliation.
Binding dispute resolution (either through arbitration or
submission of the dispute to the International Court of
Justice) is optional.
The United States will not opt for binding dispute
resolution under the Convention.
7. How can the Senate, in fulfilling its Constitutional
responsibilities to advise and consent, review provisions and
processes of the treaty that are not included in the treaty,
but will be decided at the Conference of Parties?
It is common practice in international agreements to assign
certain functions to the Conference of the Parties. Under
treaties such as this, the rules of procedure are always
decided at the first Conference of the Parties, typically
after the Senate has given advice and consent. Examples
include the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer; the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
the Antarctic Environmental Protocol; the Cartagena
Convention (Caribbean); the SPREP Convention (South Pacific);
CITES; London (Dumping) Convention; Convention for a North
Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES); Convention for
the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific
Ocean; and the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in
the North Atlantic Ocean.
In addition, the Administration stands ready to apprise,
and seek the views of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and any other interested Members on the status of U.S.
participation in the Convention whenever the Committee deems
appropriate. This will enable the Senate to remain fully
advised of key developments related to the Convention.
8. How will the ratification of this convention influence
the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act and other domestic environmental legislation?
The conservation provisions of the Biodiversity Convention
are broad, framework provisions. They deliberately leave to
individual countries to determine how the Convention should
be implemented, as far as possible and as appropriate for
each country.
There are many ways that the United States could craft a
statute and still remain in compliance with the conservation
provisions. Thus, the Convention will not require any change
to any U.S. statute, regulation, or program. No additional
implementing legislation is required. At the same time, the
Convention would not foreclose amendment of domestic
environmental legislation.
9. Will the provisions regarding access to genetic
resources (Article 15) impede United States access to
germplasm and other genetic resources contained in
international collection centers?
No. The United States and all other countries will continue
to have open access to collections of the International
Agricultural Research Centers of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research. The Convention should
also serve to facilitate access to collections recently
closed to us where some countries have been waiting for a
mechanism to establish benefit sharing arrangements. Overall,
the Convention will enhance access to germplasm.
10. By what means will the Conference of Parties promote
the transfer of technology to developing countries (Article
16)?
Following a dialogue with U.S. industry and others, we have
developed an interpretation of the Convention and an approach
for its implementation that we believe is fully consistent
with U.S. public and private interests.
However, the Convention is clear: the Convention does not
compel the involuntary transfer of technology to developing
countries. The Convention promotes transfer of technology by
encouraging voluntary, mutual agreements between the
countries of origin of genetic resources and those entities
that seek to commercially utilize those genetic resources.
11. Is it likely or possible that the Conference of Parties
may call for a biological safety protocol that will require a
license for the transfer of any biologically modified
organism?
One of the many reasons the U.S. biotechnology industry and
the Administration believe it is essential to promptly ratify
the Convention is to ensure that any biosafety protocol--
whether it includes a licensing requirement or not--is
scientifically based, analytically sound, and does not place
undue restrictions on U.S. exports of biotechnology products.
Industry believes the United States can more effectively
represent its interests in this regard as a party, rather
than as an observer. Although the United States would not be
obligated to become a party to a biosafety protocol with
unacceptable provisions, the existence of a protocol among
other countries could have significant adverse impacts on
U.S. industry.
____
The Secretary of State;
Washington, August 16, 1994.
Hon. George J. Mitchell,
The Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Leader: As you are aware, several issues have been
raised recently by agricultural organizations regarding the
Convention on Biological Diversity, which is now before the
full Senate for advice and consent to ratification.
Representatives of the Departments of State, Agriculture
and Interior have consulted with several agricultural
organizations to answer their questions and address any
concerns. The enclosed Memorandum of Record reflects those
consultations and explains why ratification is of fundamental
national importance. The Memorandum represents the Clinton
administration's views as expressed during these
consultations.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that from
the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no
objection to this Memorandum of Record.
We hope that this information will help the Senate to
complete the ratification process as soon as possible. For
the reasons expressed throughout this year, we believe
failure to ratify the Convention before adjournment would be
detrimental to our interests, most especially those of our
important agribusiness and biotechnology industries.
Sincerely,
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
Mike Espy,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Warren Christopher,
Secretary of State.
Enclosure.
____
Memorandum of Record
Pursuant to questions posed to the Administration by
several agricultural organizations (Tab A), the Department of
State, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
the Interior state the following on the importance of rapid
ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and
further elaborate on the letter and questions and answers
submitted to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders by the
Department of State on August 8, 1994 (Tab B).
benefits to agriculture
U.S. ratification of the Convention benefits U.S.
agriculture by providing leverage to limit the restriction of
U.S. exports of biotechnology products, safeguarding U.S.
access to agricultural genetic resources, and encouraging
conservation of such resources in other countries.
The majority of important U.S. agricultural crops and
livestock originated in other parts of the world, and the
major sources of the variation essential to future
improvements, through traditional breeding and biotechnology,
are located outside U.S. boundaries (Tab C).
Access to this germplasm is essential to continued
improvement in the productivity of U.S. crops. For example,
experts estimate that our use of plant genetic material to
improve agronomic traits and increase yields has added a
value of $3.2 billion to our $11 billion annual soybean
production and about $7 billion to our $18 billion annual
corn crop. Access to foreign germplasm also helps efforts to
facilitate the development of crops resistant to diseases and
plant pests. Bioengineered products are making an ever
increasing contribution of major economic value to
agricultural advancement.
The U.S. must ratify the Convention by August 30 so that it
can participate fully to shape discussions on the regulation
of biotechnology that will occur at the first Conference of
the Parties in November. There is strong pressure among
countries who are already Party to the Convention to push
ahead with development of a biosafety protocol on the safe
transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms
resulting from biotechnology.
Ill-conceived regulation of biotechnology can place undue
restrictions on U.S. exports of biotechnology products
whether in the agricultural or pharmaceutical areas. One of
the many reasons the U.S. biotechnology industry and the
Administration believe it essential to promptly ratify the
Convention is to ensure that any biosafety protocol, should
one be developed under the Convention, is scientifically
based and analytically sound, and does not place undue
restrictions on U.S. export of biotechnology products.
As the world leader in biotechnology the U.S. must be at
the table as a party to the Convention to guide these
discussions and protect our interests.
Also likely to be addressed at the first Conference of
Parties in November are issues concerning access to genetic
resources. The U.S. depends on access to foreign germplasm
for plant breeding programs of such key crops as corn, wheat,
soybeans, potatoes, cotton, and most vegetables. These crop
improvements enhance our ability to provide quality forage
for our livestock. In addition, introduction of genetic
material from foreign animal breeds into our domestic
livestock is crucial for improving livestock productivity,
meat and fiber quality and other essential traits.
By becoming a party to the Biodiversity Convention, the
U.S. will ensure continued access to genetic resources.
Questions of sovereignty over genetic material and concern
that holders of such material receive appropriate
compensation for providing such material have begun to
jeopardize U.S. access to foreign material, particularly in
the developing world. Already some U.S. researchers have been
excluded from germplasm collections in foreign countries on
the basis of such concerns.
The Convention will provide a forum to facilitate access to
genetic resources in these and other countries. As a Party to
the Convention, the U.S. will be able to work with other
countries of the world to develop effective means to
safeguard the open exchange of such material, building on the
principles of open access and mutual agreement to such
exchange. This will ensure and improve our access to
important genetic material, whether in private hands,
national collections or international centers.
The Convention also encourages conservation of such genetic
resources in other countries. All countries, but especially
the U.S., will lose if genetic resources of value to
agriculture are lost through inadequate or non-existent
conservation practices. The U.S. enforces an extensive and
effective set of conservation laws, yet this is not the case
in most developing countries. The Convention lays out a
general framework relating to conservation of natural
resources.
The Convention recognizes that if developing countries can
benefit from providing their genetic resources to others they
will have incentives to make these resources available for
use now and in the future. The Convention provides for
development of voluntary agreements between the providers of
such resources and those who wish to use them.
private sector involvement
As stated in the Report of the Secretary of State
transmitted to the Senate by the President, ``the
participation of the private sector greatly enhances the
attainment of economic value from genetic resources.''
Historically, the private sector in the U.S., including
foresters, farmers, and ranchers, has had a vital and
critical role in protecting and enhancing biological
diversity. In addition, as stated above, agriculture
producers need biological diversity to ensure adequate plant
and animal genetic resources for improving and protecting
domestic production of food and fiber. Access to the world's
genetic resources is critical to agricultural production. For
these reasons it is imperative that the U.S. agricultural
sector participate in future international conferences on
implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
We recognize that the private agricultural sector--by
harnessing biological and natural resources--has produced
enormous benefits for the U.S. and its people. The
agricultural industry has similar productive contributions to
make during consideration of these issues internationally. In
this regard, the Administration will conduct briefings and,
consistent with applicable law, solicit views on upcoming
issues prior to meetings of the Conference of the Parties and
other critical events. The Administration will work to
facilitate the participation of representative stakeholder
interests, including those from agriculture, as observers at
such meetings and, if appropriate and within delegation size
constraints, as private sector advisors on the U.S.
delegation. In addition the U.S. will use the opportunity of
future meetings of the Convention to emphasize the importance
of private sector arrangements with regard to the use and
conservation of biodiversity.
the convention may not be used in place of u.s. laws
The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention
provide a broad framework for the conservation of biological
diversity. The United States already has some of the world's
most comprehensive and advanced programs for protecting
public lands and enforcing environmental laws. In fact, the
laws and regulations of the U.S. related to public land
management and private land practices impose a higher
standard than that called for in the Convention. For example,
with regard to protected areas, the President cited, in
his letter of Transmittal, the ``extensive system of
Federal and State wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries,
wildlife management areas, recreation areas, parks and
forests'' that already exists in the U.S.
Concerns have been expressed that the implementation of the
Convention's conservation provisions may require new
environmental laws or regulations or that the Convention
itself could be used as the basis for regulatory action. The
Administration has determined that neither is the case.
Implementation of the conservation provisions of the
Convention will not require any change to any U.S. statute,
regulation, or program. As stated in the report to the
Secretary of State transmitted to the Senate by the
President, ``No additional legislation is required to
implement the Convention. The United States can implement the
Convention through existing Federal Statutes.''
The Convention will not provide new authority for any
administrative, civil, or criminal action not permitted under
domestic law.
the convention does not prevent amendment of environmental legislation
Concern has been raised that ratification of the Convention
by the U.S. could prevent any amendment of U.S. environmental
laws. The conservation provisions of the Biodiversity
Convention are broad, framework provisions. They are
deliberately flexible enough to allow individual countries to
determine how the Convention should be implemented, as far as
possible and as appropriate for each country. There are many
ways that the United States could craft relevant statutes and
still remain consistent with the conservation provisions of
the Convention. As noted above, in many respects existing
environmental laws and regulations impose a much higher
standard than what is required by the Convention. Although
some basic environmental statutes are necessary to implement
the Convention, we do not anticipate scenario in which the
Convention would impede amendment of a domestic environmental
statute.
the convention does not provide for a private right of action
Concerns have been expressed that domestic laws and
regulations would be subject to challenge by private persons
as not being in compliance with the Convention.
The Convention sets forth rights and obligations among
countries. The Convention does not, expressly or by
implication, create a private right of action under which a
private person or group may challenge domestic laws and
regulations as inconsistent with the Convention, or failure
to enforce domestic laws or regulations promulgated
thereunder.
no binding dispute resolution
Concerns have been raised that the Convention might allow
other governments to force changes in U.S. domestic laws and
policies through binding dispute resolution. This is not the
case. Dispute resolution involving the United States under
the Convention is limited to non-binding conciliation.
Moreover, such procedures may be initiated only by a Party to
the Convention; they are not available to private persons or
groups. Binding dispute resolution (either through
arbitration or submission of the dispute to the International
Court of Justice) is optional. Accordingly, the Department of
State, in reply to a question from Senator Pell for the
record, stated that ``the United States will not opt for
compulsory dispute resolution under the Convention.'' This is
consistent with past practice in environmental agreements in
which the U.S. has not accepted binding dispute resolution.
effect of amendments or protocols on the united states
Concerns have been raised about the possible future impact
of protocols to the Convention on U.S. domestic environmental
laws. No amendment or protocol is binding on the United
States without its express consent. Amendments to the
Convention (apart from annexes which are restricted to
procedural, scientific, technical, and administrative
matters) will be submitted to the Senate for its advice and
consent.
With respect to protocols, we would expect that any
protocol would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and
consent; however, given that a protocol could be adopted on
my number of subjects, treatment of any given protocol would
depend on its subject matter.
attachments
Tab A--Letter to Majority Leader Mitchell on August 5.
Tab B--State response to Mitchell letter of August 5.
Tab C--Examples of the Value of Biodiversity to U.S.
Agriculture.
____
Examples of the Value of Biodiversity to U.S. Agriculture
Prior to European settlement, the U.S. was largely void of
plant or animal species of current commercial importance.
Native plant species were pecan, blueberry, cranberry,
tobacco, and sunflower. Animal species included longhorn
cattle and buffalo. Americans have been and continue to be
dependent upon the rest of the world for plant and animal
genetic resources as a germplasm base for commercial
agriculture. Based on commercial acreage, over 99 percent of
U.S. crops are planted to plant species introduced from other
countries. While the U.S. has developed a National Plant
Germplasm System and is developing a similar system for
animal germplasm, it is estimated that the germplasm
repositories in the U.S. now represent only about 50 percent
of available world resources.
The Convention on Biological Diversity stresses the
sustainable use and management of biological diversity for
agricultural, medicinal and industrial purposes. The
convention will allow the U.S. to collaborate with countries
by working together to preserve biodiversity of interest to
all nations. U.S. agriculture has significantly benefitted
from conservation of biological diversity in foreign
countries and will continue to benefit through U.S.
ratification. Numerous examples of agricultural benefits of
biodiversity can be cited, but a few are worth mentioning.
In 1970, a severe disease epidemic, later identified as the
southern leaf blight fungus, threatened the U.S. corn crop.
The salvation of our corn crop was found in diverse varieties
resistant to the disease which were maintained by U.S. plant
breeders. The genes that provided leaf blight resistance had
originally been introduced from Mexico. We do not know where
or when the next epidemic will hit important U.S. crops, such
as late blight of potato, the disease which caused the Irish
potato famine and is now a renewed threat to potato
production worldwide. Potatoes are one of the world's leading
non-cereal sources of calories. We do not always make the
connection between the French fried potatoes we consume and
biodiversity, but the connection is very real. At least 13
species of potatoes have been used in developing the
varieties currently grown in the U.S. Many more wild potato
species are under investigation as sources of disease and
insect resistance, stress tolerance and nutritional quality
for developing and developed nations. Diversity found in
cultivated varieties or wild species of potatoes could be the
key to resistance to the new strains of the late blight
fungus that have recently caused serious production losses in
the U.S. There has also been a recent discovery of resistance
to the Colorado Potato Beetle and the source of resistance
can be traced to wild potato species in South America. It is
the interest of the U.S. that Parties to the Convention
assure that these wild genetic resources are adequately
protected. Ratification of this treaty will allow the U.S. to
sit in the table with other Parties when world conservation
priorities are established.
The peanut, a native of South America, is an important cash
crop for our Southern states and a favorite food of American
consumers. However, due to its susceptibility to a horde of
insect and disease pests, the peanut is largely dependent
upon germplasm introduced from abroad for its continued
productivity and improvement. In a recent breakthrough, three
species of wild peanuts found in Bolivia and Paraguay have
been successfully hybridized with cultivated peanuts to
produce breeding lines with high levels of resistance and
even immunity to root knot nematodes and certain leafspot
diseases. These are the most virulent pests affecting U.S.
peanut production and the use of germplasm not native to
the U.S. will greatly reduce the need to use chemical
pesticides. The Convention specifically calls for all
nations to safeguard their resources and make them
available to contracting Parties.
We know that our insurance policy against such epidemics is
found in collections of cultivated and wild relatives, such
as those maintained by the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and having access to additional germplasm now not available
in the U.S. This biological diversity insurance policy
includes not only that housed in collections outside the
country of origin of the species, but also the genetic
resources preserved within the country of origin, such as the
perennial relative of corn [Zea diploperennis] protected in a
Mexican reserve and known to be tolerant or immune to seven
of nine tropical corn viruses. Resources such as these and
others will be of high priority for Parties to the
Convention.
The food industries not only benefit from conservation of
crop plants and their wild relatives, but also from countless
beneficial microbes. One example is the new, award winning
development of a FDA approved food additive, Gellan Gum, by
Merck & Co., Inc. This product performs in a variety of ways
as a gelling agent and suspending agent and is now used in
confections, beverages, bakery goods, and jams worldwide.
This product with current estimated annual sales worldwide of
$10 million was not developed from a little known Amazonian
plant, but from a newly discovered species of bacteria
[Pseudomonas elodea] growing in a Pennsylvania pond. The
value of undiscovered biological resources in our own
backyard may be as important as that found in tropical
rainforests. This treaty signifies our intent to sustainably
use our own biological resources as well as continued
reliance on the rest of the world.
The U.S. wheat crop is now under siege from a foreign
insect known as the Russian Wheat Aphid. Over 26,000 samples
of wheat were examined for possible resistance to this
serious new threat. Only four sources of multiple resistance
to this pest were discovered, all originating from countries
of Southwest Asia and Eastern Europe. These varieties had
been maintained by the USDA for 20-35 years before the
present value was recognized. We might assure that today's
genetic resources still exists for tomorrow's unforeseen need
such as that demonstrated by these native varieties from
Southwest Asia.
Soybeans are one of the most important agriculture products
and exports for the U.S. All the progenitors and relatives of
soybeans are native to foreign countries. Together with
researchers in Australia, U.S. scientists have recently
discovered new species related to the soybean that may
provide future sources of disease resistance to U.S. soybean
varieties. We are totally dependent on other nations to
protect and preserve the ecosystems where these and other
significant wild crop relatives occur. This treaty signifies
the intent of contracting parties to conserve and manage such
resources for the benefit of all humankind.
We need not look far to find examples of domestic
biodiversity benefiting agriculture. In California the entire
walnut industry, with an annual average value of over $250
million, literally rests on a rare plant species. The entire
walnut production depends on using a rare native California
walnut [Juglans hindsii] as a rootstock on which to graft
varieties of the walnut of commerce. Without this native
species walnuts would not be as productive in the soils of
California.
The contribution of our native wild grape species as
rootstocks for grapes worldwide is perhaps the most important
contribution of U.S. biodiversity to world agriculture. The
grape industry estimates that 95 percent of wine grape
production in Europe uses American rootstocks. Our commitment
to protecting our own biological resources is as of much
concern to foreign countries as our concern for protection of
biological diversity in foreign countries, especially that of
developing countries.
While foods of animal origin today supply two-thirds of the
protein, one-third of the energy, 80 percent of the calcium,
60 percent of the phosphorus and significant quantities of
trace elements and ``B'' vitamins to the average Americans'
diet, the ancestors of almost all of the animal germplasm
needed to supply these nutrients were imported from other
countries. Suitable native breeds of livestock simply were
not available. Therefore, the importation of specific breeds,
stains and flocks of livestock and poultry was an absolute
necessity to the development of U.S. animal industries.
As an example, three beef cattle breeds--Angus, Hereford,
and Shorthorn--which were imported from Great Britain between
1830 and 1865 have served as the foundation for the modern
beef industry. From the 1960's to present, the additional
importation of exotic beef cattle germplasm has greatly
facilitated the production of today's lean beef. In the dairy
area, today's high producing Holstein cow was developed in
North America from European ``black and white'' ancestors.
The original genetic stock for the major white breeds of
swine in the U.S. were imported from Great Britain and
northern Europe about 1900. These breeds were used
extensively in breeding programs to produce today's lean pig.
Approximately 5 years ago, Chinese swine were imported and
are not being evaluated for genetic resistance to diseases
and increased litter size. The transfer of these traits into
our domestic breeds will help improve production efficiency
of the U.S. swine industry.
Recent examples of how imported germplasm has assisted the
U.S. sheep industry are the importation in the 1960's of the
Finnish Landrace breed which produced multiple births, and
the importation of the Texel sheep in the 1980's to improve
lean lamb production. It is important to U.S. animal
industries to continue to have access to animal genetic
stocks of the world.
____
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 26, 1994]
The Biodiversity Treaty
One of the casualties of the mismanagement of this session
of Congress and the current rush to adjourn could be the
international Convention of Biological Diversity. It would be
a major loss.
The Clinton administration signed the agreement in June of
1993; the Bush administration had declined. The principal
goal is to preserve the present array of living species in
the world, and diversity within each species. Scientists
estimate that 20 percent of currently living plant and animal
species could otherwise be lost by the year 2020. Much of the
loss would occur through the destruction of forests and other
development in the Third World. But the rest of the world
would feel the effect. The United States, for example, is
heavily dependent on plant strains from abroad to maintain
the vitality of basic corps--corn, soybeans, wheat--and their
ability to resist disease. The same is true for other food-
producing countries.
The convention would seek to preserve not just the species
themselves but international access to them. Safety and other
standards could also be set for world trade in plant and
animal strains produced through biotechnology, a subject of
huge importance to U.S. industry. And because there are costs
to conservation, richer countries, including the United
States, would make contributions to help and induce poorer
countries to conform.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the
convention this June by 16 to 3. All Democrats and five
Republicans--Richard Lugar, Nancy Kassebaum, Hank Brown,
James Jeffords and Judd Gregg--voted aye. Three other
Republicans--Jesse Helms, Larry Pressler and Paul Coverdell--
voted no. Some agricultural groups then expressed alarm about
some aspects of the pact, as have conservative organizations
that see it as an environmental wedge and threat to U.S.
sovereignty. Bob Dole and 34 other Republicans wrote majority
leader George Mitchell asking that floor consideration be
delayed until some questions could be answered. The
administration provided answers; most of the agricultural
groups have since withdrawn or muted their objections, and
such influential agribusiness organizations as the Archer
Daniels Midland Co. have joined the biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries in support. But a filibuster or
possibly even the threat of one could still derail the
convention.
The Republicans asked, among other things, whether the
convention would preempt and force changes in U.S. law. The
administration says U.S. law is already well in advance of
what the convention requires. It also says the convention
couldn't be used by environmental groups as a basis for
domestic litigation, as some critics profess to fear. Nor
would there be a lack of control over the U.S. financial
contribution to the undertaking.
A first conference of the parties to begin the
implementation of the convention is scheduled Nov. 28. The
United States will have a delegation there no matter what,
but plainly in a stronger posture if the Senate has voted
aye. Surely the Senate can find the means to brush aside the
remaining weak objections and cast that vote before it goes
home.
____
[From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1994]
Biodiversity Pact on the Ropes
Chances that the Senate will ratify an international
agreement aimed at preserving the world's biological
diversity are diminishing as fast as the organisms the pact
is designed to protect. Republican opposition and Democratic
lethargy are combining to frustrate approval of the
biodiversity convention, thus keeping the U.S. out of step
with most of the rest of the world in the fight to save a
wide range of biological species and habitats.
The convention was one of the major treaties approved at
the 1992 world environmental summit meeting in Rio de
Janeiro. It sets no firm requirements to save species or
habitats but commits the signatories to develop national
plans aimed at doing so. The treaty also seeks to promote an
equitable sharing of benefits between the developing nations
that possess biological resources and the industrialized
nations that seek to use them for medical or agricultural
purposes.
President Bush positioned the U.S. as an environmental
outcast when he refused to sign the treaty because of
ambiguous subsidiary clauses that seemed to threaten
important American interests. Mr. Bush was right to be
worried, and this page largely agreed with his reservations.
One clause could be construed as giving poor countries
control of the mechanism through which money would be raised
and distributed for conservation projects. Other clauses
looked as if they might threaten the protection of patents
and intellectual property rights or impose undue
restrictions, based on bogus safety concerns, on
biotechnology exports.
Fortunately, these and other concerns have been addressed
through clarifying interpretations issued by the Clinton
Administration. President Clinton has signed the treaty and
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has strongly
recommended ratification. Even some of the groups originally
concerned about the treaty--notably the biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries--are now supporting prompt
ratification. So are scientific and environmental
organizations.
Even so, ratification has been held up by Republican
opposition, triggered initially by Senator Jesse Helms, the
ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and
then swelling to include 35 Senate Republicans, led by Bob
Dole, the minority leader. The Republicans argue that the
Administration's interpretations are not binding on other
signatories and that some clauses could be construed to
undermine this nation's ability to strike its own balance
domestically between environmental values and competing
interests.
The opponents fretted, for example, that clauses requiring
nations to promote the protection of habitats and species
might be used to push for ``absolute'' protection of the
environment in the U.S., at the expense of commercial or even
recreational purposes. That seems a far-fetched leap from a
vaguely worded treaty with lots of weasel words, especially
since the Clinton Administration insists the treaty neither
requires nor prohibits changes in American environmental
laws.
The opposition has already delayed ratification beyond the
deadline that would have allowed the U.S. to participate as a
signatory at a critical organizing meeting in late November.
Americans can still participate as observers. Better yet, if
the Senate ratifies the convention, they could attend with
the added influence of a belated signatory.
Delay is not only pointless; it could be harmful. The U.S.
needs to join this effort not only to enhance the global
environment, but for its own good as well. Otherwise,
American leadership in biotechnology and agriculture may be
threatened as other countries deny the U.S. access to their
genetic and biological resources.
____
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1994]
Biodiversity is Crucial to Our Future
The Convention on Biological Diversity is the first
comprehensive international agreement committing governments
to conserve the earth's biological resources and use them in
a sustainable manner. By producing clean water, oxygen, and
food, biodiversity plays a critical role in maintaining the
planet's life support systems.
The agreement is now before the Senate for approval. To
date the Convention has been signed by over 160 countries and
ratified by over 90, including the entire European Union,
Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The United
States is one of the few industrialized nations yet to ratify
the agreement.
Unfortunately, the Biodiversity Convention has stalled in
the Senate because of partisan politics. This must stop.
Neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue, the Convention
is important to our nation as a whole, including U.S.
business interests and agriculture.
Though the Convention is currently in limbo, the 103rd
Congress is still in session, meaning the Senate still has
time to consider the agreement and vote its approval.
The following are examples of the wide support the
Convention has received from the environmental, business, and
agricultural communities.
Th Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), representing
over 500 biotechnology companies, university labs, and
others, ``strongly supports speedy Senate ratification''
because the U.S. must be ``at the conference table'' to
protect U.S. interests in ``matters of importance to our
economic future.''
BIO, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and the
American Seed Trade Association: ``As representatives of
major U.S. industries which are successfully working to
create new medicines, food, and agriculture products, plus a
substantial number of jobs for U.S. citizens, we declare our
support for the Biodiversity Convention . . . Senate
ratification should proceed at the earliest possible time.''
Merck & Co., a U.S. pharmaceutical company, one of the
largest in the world, urges ``support of a speedy
ratification of the Convention,'' noting that biodiversity
has generated ``some of the greatest pharmaceutical
breakthroughs of this century.''
New York Biotechnology Association: ``. . . ratification of
the Convention on Biological Diversity is a matter of prime
importance to the further development of the biotechnology
industry in the State of New York.''
Archer Daniels Midland Company, one of the largest
agribusiness companies in the country, states that ``. . . it
is fundamentally important to American agribusiness,
agriculture, and other industries that the United States
include itself in this Convention. It will be a sad day for
us if these meetings have to occur without any participation
on our part. We see no downside for our country in ratifying
this Convention.''
Farmers Union: ``The National Farmers Union (NFU) and its
253,000 family farm members strongly urge you to ratify the
Convention on Biological Diversity before you adjourn in
October.''
The American Corn Growers Association ``. . . believes that
ratification of this treaty will be in the best interest of
production agriculture. For U.S. agricultural interests to be
addressed, we must first have a seat at the table. . . . In
addition, by being a party to the Convention, the United
States will ensure continued access to genetic resources.
This is important to agriculture because access to foreign
germplasm for plant breeding programs for such crops as corn
will advance our ability to provide quality products to our
agricultural processors.''
American Soybean Association: ``[We] hope for expedited
consideration of the treaty.''
National Cooperative Business Association: ``We believe
that prompt consideration [or ratification] by the Senate in
September is critical if U.S. interests are to be brought to
bear on the implementation of the Convention. [We] hope that
its approval is not delayed any further.''
American Farm Trusts represent thousands of farmers, rural
residents, and others concerned with protection of farmland
and conservation of natural resources. Ratification of the
Biodiversity Convention would be a key step in the
establishment of a sustainable national agricultural system,
which is essential to the livelihood of the American farmer.
Protection of biodiversity will help ensure the protection of
strategic farmland--a primary resource for the future of
American agriculture.
World Wildlife Fund: ``The Biodiversity Convention is the
first concerted effort by the world community to conserve the
planet's irreplaceable, but vanishing biological wealth. An
enlightened self-interest, for the benefit of both present
and future generations, should compel prompt ratification by
the U.S. Senate.''
There's still time for the 103rd Congress to ratify the
Biodiversity Convention before the scheduled October 7
recess.
This message is brought to you by World Wildlife Fund and
the many business and agricultural organizations concerned
with America's interest in conserving biological diversity.
For more information: 1250 24th Street N.W., Washington, DC
20037.
____________________