ISIS Report 08/03/04
Independent Science Panel for Biosafety
Independent Science Panel (ISP) members Dr. Susan Bardocz, Dr. Mae-Wan
Ho, Lim Li Ching and Dr. Arpad Pusztai attended MOP 1. Between them, they
actively followed the negotiations and carried out many activities around the
meeting. These included speaking at major side events, giving numerous
interviews to journalists and independent film-makers, taking part in an
hour-long programme for Malaysian national television, and providing informal
advice to NGOs and government delegates.
It was time well spent, as they lent much needed support to the
overwhelming majority of countries wanting a strong Biosafety Protocol.
To view press cuttings, please visit Independent Science Panel website
www.indsp.org
|
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first
international law to specifically regulate genetic engineering. It entered into
force on 11 September 2003 and there are now 87 Parties to the Protocol. The
First Meeting of the Parties (MOP 1) was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from
23-27 February 2004. |
Biosafety Protocol Takes Bold Moves
The First Meeting of the Parties (MOP 1) to the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety adopted ten decisions. Three of them, on the handling of living
modified organisms, liability and redress, and compliance with the rules, were
especially important in taking the Protocol on its journey from rules to
practical policy measures to address the risks associated with genetic
engineering. Martin Khor and Lim Li
Lin from the Third World Network analyse the outcomes of MOP 1.
International regulation of the trade in genetically engineered
organisms took a vital step forward last week when governments adopted several
measures at the first ever Meeting of the Parties (MOP 1) to the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
MOP 1 ended on 27 February 2004 with the adoption of ten decisions on
issues ranging from information-sharing and finance to the handling of living
modified organisms (LMOs). (‘LMOs’ is the term used in the Protocol
for what is commonly known as genetically modified organisms or genetically
engineered organisms.)
When Malaysian Minister of Science, Technology and the Environment,
Datuk Law Hieng Ding, who chaired the meeting, used the gavel for the last time
after three weeks of negotiations on biodiversity and biosafety, there was some
satisfaction that progress, however modest, had been made to implement the
Protocol.
These gains were largely due to the fact that none of the Miami Group (a
negotiating group of some of the major exporters and producers of GE organisms)
are currently Parties to the Protocol. During the MOP, although the views of
the non-Parties were considered, priority was given to Parties to the Protocol
in drafting proposals and in the negotiations on the text of decisions for
adoption.
For many years now there has been growing concern about the potential
health, environmental and socio-economic risks posed by genetically engineered
crops and food.
Whilst the biotech industry claims that the process and products from
genetic engineering are safe, many governments and environmental and consumer
groups have asked for more information about genetically engineered products
and for action to regulate them.
After years of hard negotiations, the Biosafety Protocol came into force
last September, and Malaysia hosted the first formal meeting of the 87
countries that have joined it.
Three of the most important decisions adopted by MOP 1 were on:
- Measures for handling, transporting, packaging and identifying LMOs,
in line with Article 18 of the Protocol;
- Establishing compliance procedures and mechanisms for the Protocol;
and
- Establishing an expert working group on liability and redress in the
context of the Protocol.
Handling, transport, packaging and identification
Under Article 18 of the Protocol, countries shall take measures to
require that LMOs that move across borders are handled, packaged and
transported safely. The aim is to avoid adverse effects on biodiversity and
risks to human health.
For the first time, the MOP has decided on the documentation that should
accompany three categories of LMOs: first, those that are used as food or feed
or for processing; secondly, those that are for "contained use" (mainly in
laboratories); and thirdly, those for introduction into the environment (such
as genetically-modified seeds for planting).
For the first category, documents should clearly identify that the
shipment may contain LMOs for direct use as food, feed or for processing and
not intended for introduction into the environment.
The documents should include the common, scientific and commercial names
of the LMOs, the transformation event code or its unique identifier code to
establish clearly the identity of the LMO and any unique identification.
An expert group was set up to elaborate detailed requirements of
identification of the LMOs under the first category, and report to the next
Meeting of the Parties in 2005. The above measures are thus interim, and
countries are requested or urged to take them now.
An important step forward was that the decision recognised that national
legislation can require that the documentation accompanying LMOs for food, feed
or for processing are identified as such with no ambiguity, when they are
shipped from one country to another under the procedures of the Protocol.
For the second category of LMOs, documents accompanying them should
clearly identify the LMOs by specifying their common and scientific names, and
that they are destined for contained use. Additionally their commercial names
and new and modified traits and characteristics may be included. Significantly,
this information includes the transformation event(s), risk class, how they are
to be used, and their unique identification.
For the third category, the documents should clearly identify them as
LMOs by describing their names and traits (including transgenic traits such as
transformation events or unique identification). Additionally, their commercial
name, risk class and the required approval permit for import under the Protocol
may be included.
The documentation of LMOs under categories two and three must also
specify any requirements for safe handling, storage, transport and use under
existing international instruments, as well as domestic regulations and any
agreement between the exporter and importer.
The names and addresses of the exporters and importers and the contact
point for more information (including in case of emergencies) should also be
provided in the documents in all three categories.
Compliance
On the compliance issue, MOP 1 had a week-long intense debate on how to
deal with countries that do not comply with their obligations under the
Protocol. The European countries were especially keen to get a strong
compliance regime so that countries would take their obligations seriously.
The MOP eventually established some compliance procedures and
mechanisms.
A Compliance Committee was set up, comprising 15 persons, three from
each of five regional groupings. Committee members shall serve objectively and
in a personal capacity. MOP 1 confirmed the members from Iran, Malaysia, Tonga,
Mexico, Colombia, Barbados, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Mali, Hungary, Denmark, Norway,
Switzerland, among the 15 countries.
The Committee, which will meet twice a year, will receive cases
submitted to it of non-compliance. It will identify circumstances and causes of
these cases, provide advice to the concerned Party to assist it to comply,
review general compliance issues, take measures or make recommendations to the
MOP.
A Party complained against has three to six months to respond, and the
Committee will consider the views of both the Parties making and receiving the
submission. The Committee can then take measures including giving advice or
assistance to the Party and to develop a compliance action plan with a
timeframe, ask the Party to submit progress reports, and make reports on
efforts made by the Party to the MOP.
In turn, the MOP can decide on taking the following measures: provide
assistance, technology transfer, training and capacity building measures; issue
a caution; have the cases on non-compliance published; or take other measures
(to be decided at the Protocol Parties' third meeting) in the case of repeated
non-compliance.
Liability and redress
The issue of liability and redress was perhaps the most important for
developing countries, with developing countries (especially from Africa)
pressing that MOP 1 adopt a strong and clear mandate to begin negotiations on
an international regime.
They argued, in general, that in the event of accidents or incidents
where LMOs cause damage to farmers' crops, the environment or human health,
there should be a legally binding regime to determine who is responsible and
how redress or compensation can be made to the victims and for the harm
done.
During the negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol itself, the issues was
so divisive that in the end, the compromise was to insert a provision in the
Protocol that requires MOP 1 to take a decision on a process to elaborate
international rules and procedure on liability and redress.
The MOP eventually decided to set up a working group of experts on
liability and redress which will meet before next year's Meeting of the
Parties.
It will analyse potential and actual damage scenarios of concern in
order to identify situations for which international rules may be needed, and
analyse how international rules and procedures on liability and redress can be
applied to the damage scenarios.
It will also elaborate options for rules and procedures, including
definition, nature and scope of damage, valuation of damage to biodiversity and
human health, threshold of damage, causation, channelling of liability, roles
of Parties of import and export, standard of liability, mechanisms of financial
security and standing or right to bring claims.
The working group will meet five times and propose international rules
and procedures on liability and redress in a final report in 2007. The MOP will
then make a decision.
Progress, but challenges still remain
Besides the measures taken on these three issues, MOP 1 also took
decisions on seven other issues, including capacity building, a medium-term
work programme, information sharing and the biosafety clearing house, budget
and other financial issues.
Delegates to the meeting appeared to be rather satisfied with the
progress made at MOP 1.
Dr Tewolde Egziabher, a leading African scientist who is also head of
the Ethiopian delegation and coordinator of the Africa Group, said he was
especially pleased with the progress on liability and redress, an issue which
for years the developing countries had been pushing for but which the developed
countries had been opposing.
"Even at the start of the Kuala Lumpur meeting, the developed countries
were stalling on this issue, but in the end we were able to prevail on them.
Besides the Africa Group, I must credit Malaysia for being very active among
the developing countries for this."
He added that the liability issue was critical as it was important that
developing countries be able to be compensated if their farms, environment or
human health were to be adversely affected by the imported LMOs.
An international liability regime would also cause the private sector to
be more careful and cautious in their activities relating to LMOs.
Tewolde was also happy that the Protocol would have a relatively strong
compliance mechanism, unlike many other multilateral environment agreements.
"With such a mechanism, it would be more difficult for Parties to shirk their
obligations."
Regarding the "Article 18 measures", Tewolde said the MOP 1 decision
makes it easier for countries to insist that imported products containing LMOs
be labeled.
He noted, however, that most of the leading exporters of genetically
engineered products are not members of the Protocol and thus are not obliged to
follow its rules.
Nevertheless, the decision at MOP 1 would make it easier for importing
countries to insist that the imports containing LMOs be accompanied by proper
documentation, even from the countries that are non-Parties.
Tewolde added that the MOP 1 decision on LMOs for food, feed or
processing only covers interim measures but it was the basis for a more
detailed process to develop a lasting system for the handling and transport of
LMOs.
"Biosafety is important for African and other developing countries in
order to protect agricultural and animal biodiversity," he said. If there is
unintended contamination by genetically-modified substances, it can affect crop
diversity, agricultural productivity as well as human health.
"I am happy the Biosafety Protocol is moving from rules to measures and
action, but although we made good progress in Kuala Lumpur, the challenges are
very big and there's much more to be done."
| 
