AUT: English Chiapas al Dia 175 I

[CIEPAC <ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ENGLISH VERSION OF "CHIAPAS AL DIA" BULLETIN No. 175
CIEPAC
CHIAPAS, MEXICO
(September 18, 1999)


GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR MEXICO AND CHIAPAS
(II/II)


"The Chiapas program is the one I like best of all my businesses."
- Alfonso Romo, Chief Executive, Pulsar Group


	In the previous Bulletin on this subject (No. 165), we spoke in general
terms of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), also known as transgenetics.
 In this issue, we shall delve more deeply, emphasizing Chiapas, Mexico and
Latin America.

	As we will shortly see, in response to the dramatic progress of GMOs, and
to the creation of new pharmacological substances through bio-prospecting
in areas of great biodiversity (such as Chiapas), the Mexican government
and its regulatory agencies in these matters are poorly prepared for the
phenomenon.  The official sector has given confusing signs regarding its
willingness to supervise and to regulate a multi-million dollar business,
which everything seems to indicate will be of little benefit to Mexicans in
general, and to campesinos in particular, who are the ones who have been
improving crops for millennia.

	Given the slowness demonstrated by Mexican government agencies in
regulating the entrance into the country of transgenetic products, we can
suspect that the government has opted to simply let events take their
course.  They are aware that an open acceptance of GMOs, especially the
modified maize from the United States, could set off a wave of protests in
this country.  Regulation that would tend to restrict their access to the
Mexican market, however, would bring cries from the US side, so Mexican
officials have simply turned a blind eye.  Because of that, transgenetic
maize is entering Mexico without the most minimal control.

	Greenpeace in Mexico recently stated that 5 million tons of transgenetic
maize entered the country in 1998, and so far this year the figure is
around 3.8 million tons.  And, while transgenetic maize in Mexico is being
mixed with unmodified maize - without even the most minimal warning to
consumers - in the United States, the baby food company, Gerber, has stated
that it will not use transgenetic maize in their preparations for infants.
In Europe, companies do not have the option:  all transgenetic products are
prohibited by law in baby foods.  And in Japan it is obligatory to state
the presence of GMOs on the labels of food products.

	In Mexico, on the other hand, official agencies that supposedly have
jurisdiction in the matter are throwing the ball into each others' court.
The Department of Agriculture maintains that transgenetic maize is for
human consumption and is, therefore, not their responsibility.  The
Department of Health claims that it is for planting, and the Department of
Agriculture should take charge of the matter.

	Of greater concern is the fact that transgenetic maize can indeed
germinate, despite statements to the contrary by the Secretary of
Agriculture, Romarico Arroyo.  Greenpeace has been in the vanguard of these
protests.  Liza Covantes, coordinator of the environmental group, noted
that the fact that transgenetic maize produces pollen puts the 300 native
varieties of maize in Mexico at risk, because it could contaminate them.

	In an interview with El Universal newspaper (9/15/99), Covantes stated
that what Greenpeace wants is for the majority of the population to know
what is going on, that it be discussed among the different sectors, because
the people have the right to information, to choice and to the protection
of their natural resources.  The challenge, Covantes said, is in
confronting the Savia, Monsanto and Novartis (the primary producers of
transgenetics in the world) groups, because we know that they do very
strong lobbying work with the Mexican government.

	In the face of such lobbying, it will be difficult for Secretary of
Agriculture Arroyo to recognize the possible dangers of transgenetic
products.  But if he wanted to inform himself, he would not have to look
any further than another government agency, the National Commission of
Biodiversity (Conabio).  In a study, "Biological Diversity in Mexico," the
Conabio noted that "biotechnological research is aimed at commercial
agriculture and leads to the demand for protection of intellectual
property, with negative consequences for genetic diversity."  Without
underestimating the possible benefits that the new technology could bring,
the Conabio recognizes that biotechnology "represents a threat to species
and to ecosystems;  by introducing genetically improved  species, genetic
exchanges between native populations can be altered, even to the point of
the very disappearance of species in the ecosystems." (La Jornada, 7/12/99)

	If studies are lacking, some ten institutions, coordinated by the Conabio
and the National Commission of Science and Technology (a Mexican federal
agency) published another document entitled "Living Organisms Modified in
Mexican Agriculture:  Biotechnological Development and Conservation of
Biological Diversity."  In a letter directed to President Zedillo, the
agencies stated that "the absence of evidence concerning dangers to the
environment should not be interpreted as the absence of risks?The
unprecedented newness of modern biotechnological products makes it
necessary to proceed with special responsibility and caution, when the
purpose is to release a transgenetic into the environment or to use it for
consumption."  (La Jornada, 7/6/99)

	The calls for prudence and more information by the scientists seem
sensible in the light of the news that is coming in concerning GMOs.
Monsanto, for example, has developed a new variety of potato ("New Leaf")
that contains a bacterial toxin (Bt), which is fatal to the Colorado
beetle, a pest of potatoes in the United States.  This new potato is,
therefore, registered as a "pesticide" by that country's Environmental
Protection Agency (Ref:  Pollan).  The effects in human beings of eating
this "potato pesticide?"  Up to this moment, unknown.  There have been no
studies carried out in this regard.  And, what is perhaps even worse, the
effects on the environment of the "leaks" of the altered genes in the GMOs
- something which is known to occur - are also unknown.

	The Director of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, Andrew
Kimbrell, stated that, in his opinion, such escapes are inevitable.  He
said that "biological pollution will be the environmental nightmare of the
21st century.  This is not like  chemical pollution, such as an oil spill,
which eventually disperses.  Biological pollution is an entirely different
model, more like a disease.  Is Monsanto going to be held legally
responsible when one of its transgenetics creates a super-weed or a
resistant insect?"  (Pollan)

Bio-prospecting and Bio-piracy in Mexico

	Attention has been attracted in Mexico to the agreement reached in
November 1998 between Diversa Corporation and the Institute of
Biotechnology of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), of
which little is known.  We know that it is a three year agreement through
which Diversa, of San Diego, California, will receive Mexican biodiversity
samples, collected in its tropical jungles and low jungles, deserts,
volcanoes and geo-tropical sites.  Through its technology, Diversa will try
to isolate genomes of the bio-mass (the samples) delivered by the UNAM, in
order to identify new compounds that "can benefit humanity," in the
company's words.

	Mexico is an exceptional location, the Diversa Corporation notes, since
its varied geography contains 34 eco-climates, versus only 4 in the United
States.  In addition, with only 1.3% of the land on the planet, it contains
14.4% of the species in the world.

	In exchange for the bio-mass samples they will receive, Diversa agrees to
train and equip UNAM scientists to gather the species.  It also commits
itself to paying the UNAM royalties for any commercial product they are
able to develop from compounds deriving from the samples.

	This agreement, however, has raised suspicions and complaints.  To this
day, the Mexican public does not know the terms of the agreement with
Diversa.  Nor is it known where they are going to be working, the total
compensation the UNAM will be receiving, and, primarily,  UNAM's rationale
for transferring and commercializing genetic resources that do not belong
to them.  As noted by Economics Ph.D.  Alejandro Nadal, Mexico is a
signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by the
Mexican Senate in 1993, which establishes that genetic resources are public
property and, therefore, the UNAM has no right to profit from them.  Even
if the Conabio did participate in the negotiations between the above
mentioned parties, it is not the proper agency to be participating in these
kinds of arrangements.  The National Ecology Institute should have
participated, but the Institute has not yet established regulations in this
area.

	Another concern is the total silence about the peoples who inhabit the
areas where the samples will be gathered.  What participation will there be
from the persons living in the areas of harvesting, and what benefits will
this accord bring to them?  Diversa's press bulletin is silent in this
regard.  As Nadal aptly notes, "it is even more surprising that the UNAM
and Conabio dared [to sign with Diversa], a United States company, when one
takes into consideration the fact that that country is not even part of the
convention on Biological Diversity.  The US refusal to sign the convention
(already ratified by 150 countries) is based on their disagreement with the
articles on the distribution of benefits derived from genetic resources and
its implications for patents."

	The UNAM, Nadal continues, "is committing a serious mistake in opening the
door to contracts that will end up, de facto, in the privatization of the
genetic resources of Mexico."  And that is precisely what is happening in
Chiapas right now.  In an arrangement that repeats what was agreed to
between the UNAM/Conabio and Diversa Corporation, the College of the
Southern Border (Ecosur) signed, on May 28, 1999, an "Agreement for the
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Distribution of Benefits
with the ICBG-Maya" with the University of Georgia in the United States and
Molecular Nature Limited, headquartered in Wales, the United Kingdom.  The
Agreement is an attempt to formalize the protection of intellectual
property and distribution of benefits for the project called
"Pharmaceutical Investigation and Sustainable Use of Ethno-botany and
Biodiversity Knowledge in the Mayan Region of Los Altos of Chiapas."  (The
ICBG-Maya emerged in 1998 with the approval of the above project, through
the National Institute of Health in the United States, as part of their
International Collaboration in Biodiversity Groups, or ICBG).

	In the Agreement, the signatory parties recognize that biodiversity in Los
Altos contains "valuable and key consumables," recognizing "the need for
financially compensating the communities of the region in case commercial
products are discovered, including patentable pharmaceutical products,
developed from the biological samples collected."

	In order to be on the safe side, the parties recognize, however, that such
products developed from the samples of plants, or other substances in Los
Altos, could take many years to be produced.  Because of that, the
agreement offers palliative measures, or, if you would like, it strings the
communities along, in the form of some development programs (whose number
and magnitude are not specified), for the purpose of "developing
alternative forms of creating and distributing benefits (not specified),"
"including those related to health improvement, conservation and the
sustainable use of biological resources, as well as alternative forms of
economic development (not specified either)."  These alternative forms for
creating and distributing benefits will be provided for in other agreements
to be made at unspecified dates.

	In order to control and distribute the eventual benefits, the parties
agreed to establish an NGO, Promaya, that will participate in negotiations
on the distribution of royalties, as well as the granting of licenses.

	The Agreement is of exceptional interest, because it once again confirms
the notion that those benefiting the least from bio-prospecting agreements
(such as those signed by the UNAM and Ecosur) are the indigenous peoples.
The Ecosur Agreement, for example:

1.  Excludes by omission any organization representing the communities of
Los Altos of Chiapas, at least in the initial stages during which the
project's general framework will be discussed and ground rules will be
established.

2.  It establishes, on the other hand, an NGO (Promaya), without any
representation of the indigenous of Los Altos, but which aspires to be in
charge of negotiating the provision of biological samples with the
communities, in addition to controlling and distributing the resulting
benefits.

3.  It also excludes entities such as the OMIECH (Organization of
Indigenous Doctors of the States of Chiapas), which has had a presence in 9
municipalities and 29 communities in Los Altos, the Northern region and La
Selva of Chiapas for the last 15 years.  The OMIECH is made up of
herbalists, midwives, folk healers, bonesetters, pulsadores and
prayer-givers, with an extraordinarily rich archive of knowledge about
plants and traditional medicines, and which would be a logical counterpart
for the Agreement.

4.  It has no expiration date, but it can be revoked by the decision of one
of the parties.  However, none of the parties represent the interest of the
local peoples, the primary providers of knowledge and biological samples.

5.  Royalties, benefits and earnings from all of this may indeed arrive,
but one does not know when that will occur.  Promaya will establish, when
there are benefits to distribute, their administration, in accords reached
separately with the various participating communities.

6.  While the alleged benefits are being received, there will be
"sustainable development" programs, which are not gone into in any more
detail in the Agreement.  The source of financing for these programs is not
specified, nor the probability of obtaining them.  The investments in these
"sustainable" programs, however, will be deducted from any possible
monetary benefits that might result further along.

7.  Similarly to the agreement signed by the UNAM, this agreement between
Ecosur and the University of Georgia was signed by an official agency, in
this case the National Indigenous Institute, the main instrument of the
Mexican state for the assimilation and "mestizoization" of the indigenous
peoples.

8.  Without the consent of any representative indigenous body - and without
the definition of fundamental aspects - Ecosur has already begun carrying
out bio-prospecting work in the municipalities of Oxchuc, Tenejapa,
Chenalho and Las Margaritas in Chiapas, according to denunciations by the
State Council of Indigenous Traditional Doctors and Midwives of Chiapas.

9.  It says nothing concerning the activities of anthropologists Brent
Berlin and Elois Ann Berlin, who are from the University of Georgia,
co-signers of the Agreement, and who have been in Mayan lands for 11 years,
gathering information about treatments by the indigenous of a wide range of
sufferings with native plants.  How much information and how many samples
have the Doctors Berlin already taken out, which will not be recompensed to
the communities, because of their having begun their investigations prior
to the agreement?

	As we pointed out in the previous Bulletin on transgenetics, the United
States is the world leader in the research and distribution of GMOs.  To no
one's surprise, it is also the leader in terms of the number of patents
awarded for living organisms.  The RAFI organization established a point
system in order to ascertain which countries have patented the most living
forms.  The United States has the highest marks, with 90 points.  The
countries of the European Union average 66, Canada has 48.  India has
refused to patent any life form, and has zero points.  Mexico still figures
among the countries with fewer points, with 10, with one patent having been
awarded in our country for the "dragon tree" (Croton sp.), and with patents
under study for the cloning of animals and for human growth hormones.

	It would not be unusual for Mexico's partners in NAFTA (the US and Canada)
to exert pressure for the adoption of the same flexibility they have in the
awarding their businesses patents on natural life forms.

	As a demonstration that nothing is now immune from being patented, it is
interesting to note - thanks to RAFI's documents - that the Biocycle
company in the United States has received a patent to protect their rights
over human umbilical cord cells (Homo Sapiens species, Patent No.
5,004,681).  These cells could be of crucial importance, according to RAFI,
in the treatment of bone diseases, but the physician who wants to use them
in the operating room or for transfusions would have to pay Biocycle for
the right.

	RAFI has also prepared a list of almost 70 companies, primarily
pharmaceutical, who are carrying out bio-prospecting or bio-piracy work.
Some of them, who have dealings on our continent, are mentioned below.

1.  The American Cyanamid company (US headquarters) is looking for surface
plants in arid regions, in order to extract assets for the protection of
plantings and for their pharmaceutical development.  They are carrying out
work in Mexico, Chile and Argentina, and, according to RAFI, they have
reached an agreement with the UNAM, of which nothing is known.

2,  The International Organization for Developing Chemical Sciences
(Belgium) is looking for trees, shrubs, insects, amphibians, fungi,
microbes and other natural species in Latin America and in other parts of
the world.  They say they will depend on the indigenous in order to locate
rare species, but that they will work "equitably and ethically" with them,
in order to "sustain bio-prospecting on a commercial scale."

3.  The Pharmacogenetics company (US) is looking for natural products for
the development of pharmaceuticals, and they say they are completely
dependent on the indigenous of Latin America for the identification of
plants for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, based on the products and uses of
the indigenous.

4.  Merck and Co. (one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the
world, based in the US) is seeking fungi, microbes, maritime organisms and
plants in Latin America, based on indigenous wisdom.  They say that they
have already used the experience of the Brazilian indigenous in the use of
the Ureu-wau-wau plant in order to patent an anti-coagulant made from an
extract.

	Another name which comes up frequently is Conservation International (CI),
an environmental NGO with headquarters in the United States, but with
offices in 23 countries all over the world, including an office in Tuxtla
Gutierrez, the state capital of Chiapas.  CI has picked two areas in Mexico
of particular interest:  the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez) in the
northern part of the country, and the Selva Lacandona in Chiapas.  In the
Selva Lacandona, CI is promoting four projects:  eco-tourism, artisanry
with Tzeltal women, environmental protection and sustainable development of
natural resources in the selva.  The four programs maintain CI technicians
in the Selva Lacandona, and they are in close contact with the people
living there.  It is interesting to note, however, that RAFI includes
Conservation International on their global list of companies and
intermediaries who are carrying out bio-prospecting and bio-piracy.  It so
happens that CI has an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb (another large
US pharmaceutical company) to establish a program of "Apprentices of
Chamanes" (or, traditional doctors).  In addition, CI has a "global accord"
with Hyseq, a US company that studies genomes, in order to facilitate their
access to biological resources for their programs of developing
pharmaceuticals.  It will be CI's regional offices that establish the
agreements to distribute benefits, but neither CI nor Hyseq are offering
more details.

	Another interesting association of Conservation International is the one
it has with another giant company, this time a Mexican one, the Pulsar
Group.  The Pulsar Group has been mentioned in another issue of this
Bulletin (see the "Analysis" section on the CIEPAC web page), as one of the
largest agro-exporters in the world.  In Chiapas, they have expanded the
mono-culture of export products, such as the African palm, ornamental
plants and the guadua bamboo.  They have sales in 110 countries, with
production and/or research facilities in 36 countries, employing more than
25,000 persons and generating 66,000 indirect jobs through their
agricultural businesses.  In 1996, their global sales exceeded 2.5 billion
dollars.  According to an article in the Excelsior newspaper of Mexico City
(1/20/97), Pulsar's businesses "are extremely varied, such as the one that
intends to relocate one million farmers in China."

	The Pulsar Group established the CIICA (International Center for
Agricultural Research and Training) in Frontera Hidalgo, Chiapas, where
they are carrying out research in genetics and phytology.  In addition,
they have 300 hectares for experimenting with the practices and techniques
developed in the laboratory.  The CIICA also has a Plant Pathology
Laboratory that carries out a biotechnology program, dedicated to producing
genetic stock of papaya resistant to a particular disease caused by a virus.

	Currently, Pulsar, through its Agro-biotechnology Division - previously
called Seminis, and now Savia - is the world leader in the sale of seeds,
with 22% of the world market.  We remember that seeds were the precise
center of one of the most red-hot debates concerning the issue of GMOs.
For biotechnology businesses, one of the greatest achievements in their
search for control of the food chain has been the development of sterile
seeds (the so-called "terminator" technology).  These seeds force farmers
to buy their seeds each season (obviously from the same large companies
that are developing the technology), in this way destroying the thousand
year old practice of saving seeds for the next sowing.  One can understand,
then, the statement attributed to Alfonso Romo Garza, the leader of the
Pulsar Group, who attempted to compare his company with Microsoft:  "The
seeds are the "software," and we have the seeds."

	Among their many activities, the Pulsar group has been promoting a scheme
of mono-culture in Chiapas, which has been criticized for its devastating
effects on ecosystems.  Mono-culture wears out the land where it is
planted, especially in the thin fertile layer of the tropics, and it must
be abandoned after a few years.  Ronald Nigh, of the Dana Association in
San Cristobal, commented, in an article written in March 1997 that the
Pulsar Group, among others, is planning on planting 300,000 hectares of
eucalyptus in Chiapas.  Such plantations will have a life span of 30 years
at the most, at the end of which the lands will be "seriously degraded."
It is far from being a sustainable project, Nigh adds.  Mono-culture,
Michael Pollan says, is probably the single most powerful simplification of
modern  agriculture.  But mono-culture does not fit well with nature.  In
its simplest expression, a field planted with identical plants is extremely
vulnerable to insects, weeds and diseases.  Mono-culture is the reason for
almost all the problems afflicting modern agriculture, and the reason for
almost all the chemical products designed to correct the problems.

	In spite of promoting agricultural practices of doubtful environmental
sustainability, the Pulsar Group has found an excellent partner in
Conservation International, supposedly for helping in the conservation of
the Selva Lacandona.  The Pulsar Group has, in fact, donated the sum of $10
million USD to CI, at $2 million USD per year, from 1996 to 2000, for
"conservationist efforts."  The conservation programs, relates a CI press
bulletin, will be headed by a team of engineers and scientists from the
Pulsar Group and Conservation International, and will be carried out in the
Selva Lacandona.  CIICA of the Pulsar Group will establish experimental
areas within the Lacandona in order to identify "agricultural techniques
that will improve the quality and performance of the trees and crops
planted by local campesinos."

	Pulsar's donations will finance CI programs that will train campesinos in
the Lacandona to create investments through mechanisms that are
"environmentally friendly."  The campesinos will learn to work the land in
a "buffer" zone around the selva, emphasizing the planting of bamboo,
African palm and ornamental plants.

	The suspicion exists, however, that there is quite a bit behind these
"environmentally friendly" plans.  We would advance as an alternative
hypothesis that the primary motive behind the actions by Pulsar and the CI
is bio-prospecting and, possibly, bio-piracy, which is being disguised with
a thick ecological veneer.  Through RAFI, we know that the CI is already
collecting plants and micro-organisms in the countries where it works, and
of their "strategic alliance" with multinational pharmaceutical companies
in order to identify and to document the use of traditional medicines by
indigenous peoples.  The CI itself recognizes that it has become the leader
in the arena of bio-prospecting, "involving local communities, governmental
agencies and NGOs in the discovery and development of genetic plant and
animal resources."

	Because of this, the Pulsar Group's "donation" could more likely be a
remuneration (but free of taxes, since it's a donation) for services lent
by CI in bio-prospecting within the Selva Lacandona.  Pulsar has the
technology, the resources and the business knowledge to know that there are
large rewards awaiting the "discovery" of some medicinal property extracted
from samples from the Lacandona.  CI "facilitates" the Pulsar Group's
entrance, it helps orient its technicians in the prospecting, while at the
same time pacifying local populations with programs that promote the
expansion of mono-crops around the Selva, while projecting a conservation
façade to the world.

	Emerging from this review of bio-prospecting in regions known for their
biodiversity, is the urgent need for the regulation of everything related
to the new biological technology.  In this regard, at the current moment
(the middle of September), Mexican officials are participating in Vienna,
Austria in international negotiations in order to reach agreement on a
bio-security protocol.

	Pressure must be put on officials to reach a good protocol, that puts
"conservation and the maintenance of biological diversity,  taking into
account human health, above all other international accords." (Greenpeace)
It is also urgent that laws be established, from a bio-ethical standpoint,
that will assure that poor campesinos do not end up, one more time, the
most marginalized by these scientific advances.


For more information:

· Dana Association: danamex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
· Enciso, Angelica, La Jornada, July 12, 1999, "Monsanto aplica pruebas a
doce transgenicos para su venta en Mexico", p.64.
· Guillen, Guillermina, El Universal, September 15, 1999, "Si se reproduce
el maiz transgenico: Greenpeace".
· Nadal, Alejando, La Jornada, March 11, 1999, "UNAM-Diversa: ?duenos de
recursos geneticos?
· OMIECH: omiech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
· Perez, Matilde, La Jornada, July 6, 1999, "Alertan cientificos sobre
riesgos de transgenicos para la biodiversidad", p.52.
· Pollan, Michael, New York Times, October 25, 1998, "Playing God in the
Garden", Sunday Magazine Desk.
· Seabrook, Charles, El Universal, February 21, 1999, "Investigan
propiedades curativas de plantas en Chiapas, expertos de EU", p.1.
· www.conservation.org
· www.diversa.com
· www.monsanto.com
· www.rafi.org
· www.segcoam.com.mx/103.Pulsar.html	


Miguel Pickard

Center   of   Economic   and    Political    Investigations   of  Community
 Action,   A.C.
CIEPAC
CIEPAC, member of the "Convergence of Civil Organizations for Democracy"
National Network (CONVERGENCIA), and member of RMALC (Mexico Action Network
on Free Trade)


 ******************************************
Translated by irlandesa for CIEPAC, A.C.
******************************************


Note:  If you use this information, cite the source and our email address.
We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their
comments on these Bulletins.  CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and
non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to
continue offering you this news and analysis service.  If you would like to
contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your sending to
the bank account in the name of:


CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank:  BANCOMER
Bank Account Number:  1003458-8
Branch:  437
San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.
Thanks!


Note:  If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version
of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to the
e-mail address shown below.  Indicate whether you wish to receive the email
or the "attached file" (Word 7 for Windows 95) version.


Email:                           ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


VISIT OUR WEB SITE:        http://www.ciepac.org/ (Visit us:  We have new
maps on the situation in Chiapas)



_________________________________________________________________________

CIEPAC, A.C.
Center for Economic and Political Investigations of CommunityAction
Eje Vial Uno Numero 11
Col. Jardines de Vista Hermosa
29297 San Cristobal, Chiapas, MEXICO
Telephone/Fax:	In Mexico:	01 967 85832
Outside Mexico:      +52 967 85832



	
	

	

_____________________________________________________________________
CIEPAC, A.C.
Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria
Eje Vial Uno Número 11
Col. Jardines de Vista Hermosa
29297 San Cristóbal, Chiapas, MEXICO

Tel/Fax:	en México	01 967 85832
		fuera de México	+52 967 85832
Página Web:	www.ciepac.org
________________________________________________________________________


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---