Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 3 • 20th February 2004
TRADE @ MOP-1: WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR…
TRADE @ MOP-1: WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR…
The first meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol (MOP-1) is set to get underway in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 23 February for a week of discussions on implementation details of the Biosafety Protocol, including documentation requirements for shipments of living modified organisms (LMOs), capacity building, compliance and liability. Labelling of LMO shipments is again likely to prove contentious, as many details remained unresolved at the April 2002 meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP; see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 2 May 2002).
On the sidelines of the meeting, the US, Canada and Mexico are expected to seek further support for a trilateral agreement signed in November last year, setting standards for labelling of LMO shipments. Civil society groups have sharply criticised the deal, arguing that it undermined the documentation provisions of the Biosafety Protocol.
Labelling of LMO shipments
As mandated by Article 18 of the Protocol, shipments of LMOs for use in food and feed and for processing should be labelled as "may contain" LMOs and as not intended for release into the environment (para. 2a). The Article furthermore requests the MOP to take a decision on the detailed documentation requirements "including specification of their identity and any unique identification" within two years after the Protocol’s entry into force (September 2003). A number of issues were raised at the ICCP in this context, including the type and extent of accompanying information; the implications of the "may contain" requirement; the need for unique identification; the unintentional presence of LMOs, including unauthorised LMOs, and the related question of labelling thresholds; identity preservation; and testing standards. While MOP-1 is not expected to agree on any of these points, Parties will need to set the parameters for further discussions.
The submissions from governments and organisations on this item highlight the opposing views (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/1/INF/3). The EC — which has one of the world’s most stringent import regimes for LMOs — is likely to push for documentation requirements that correspond to its own regulations. The EC, together with Switzerland, supports the use of "unique identification" for documentation (i.e. a code identifying a transgenic plant line), citing the OECD system as a possible model, which was also adopted in the EC regulations. In addition, the EC acknowledges the need to address labelling thresholds for the unintentional presence of LMOs. The new EC regulations set a threshold of 0.9 percent, below which genetically modified products are exempt from labelling, and 0.5 percent for the adventitious presence of GMOs that are unauthorised but have nevertheless been assessed as risk-free (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 July 2002). The environmental group WWF would like to see even stricter requirements, arguing that it would be "inappropriate" to set minimum thresholds for LMO content and that all LMO shipments, which may contain LMOs should be subject to the Protocol’s identification requirements.
In contrast, the main LMO exporters, such as the US, Australia and Canada — which have yet to ratify the Protocol — would like to keep documentation requirements to a minimum so as not to hinder trade in LMOs. The US and Canada believe that documentation requirements under para. 2a should not apply to the unintentional presence of LMOs. The US furthermore supports the proposal of the International Grain Trade Coalition to establish a 5 percent labelling threshold, below which LMO shipments would be exempt from the documentation requirements of para. 2a. Moreover, Australia and Canada would like to see discussions on detailed documentation requirements postponed to a later date to allow Parties to gain experience with implementing the "may contain" labelling requirement. Not being Parties to the Protocol, these countries will not be eligible for voting at MOP-1. Nevertheless, the current Parties — predominately developing and European countries — will need to find a balance between implementing the strict requirements that many of them have advocated in the past while not closing the door to future ratifications by countries favouring less stringent rules.
US-Canada-Mexico deal
A deal struck between the US, Canada and Mexico — partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — in November 2003 already sets standards for some of the issues that are likely to come up at MOP-1. Specifically, the agreement sets a 5 percent threshold below which shipments are excluded from being labelled as "may contain" LMOs. The unintentional presence of LMOs will not trigger any labelling requirements. The information will be provided on the invoice accompanying the shipment and no other documentation will be required. The three countries are expected to lobby for the use of the agreement as a template for discussions at MOP-1. Mexico is said to have made efforts to bring other Central and South American countries on board, with Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay reportedly having expressed some interest.
Civil society groups have attacked the deal as an attempt to undermine the Protocol and "pre-empt some of the decisions of the Parties to be adopted", according to Eric Darier of Greenpeace. Mexican farmers and activists in particular have expressed concern that biotech corn, imported for food and feed, might be used for planting in Mexico and could contaminate or displace native maize varieties. Such contamination was found to have already occurred in late-2001 in Mexico, leading to an investigation by the NAFTA Commission on Environmental Co-operation, which is set to release its first draft report in March.
Additional Resources
ICTSD reporting; "Greenbacks set to colour biodiversity meet," IPS, 4 February 2003; "Mexico looking South to expand GE trade agreement," FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS, 15 December 2003.