Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 6 • Number 4 • 3rd March 2006

MOP-3: LABELLING FOR BIOTECH EXPORTS UP FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN

Do More

Download this issue

See also

MOP-3: LABELLING FOR BIOTECH EXPORTS UP FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN

After Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety failed to reach agreement at their last meeting, documentation requirements for shipments of living modified organisms (LMOs) are again likely to dominate the agenda of the third Meeting of the Parties (MOP-3), to be held from 13-17 March in Curitiba, Brazil. Parties will be under some pressure to finalise this issue which they had been mandated to agree on within two years of the Protocol’s entry into force in September 2003.

Given the fundamental differences among Parties — which had already threatened to derail negotiations of the Protocol itself — and the lack of dialogue and progress since the last meeting, observers have expressed scepticism that an outcome beyond the status quo could be achievable at MOP-3. However, the fact that Brazil — one of the key opponents to extensive documentation requirements — is hosting the meeting and would likely prefer to see a conclusion of the negotiations at the meeting might provide the needed political impetus for discussions. To facilitate this process and bridge the gap between the different positions, Brazil is convening a informal meeting with key countries ahead of MOP-3.

LMO commodities in the spotlight

The negotiations on documentation requirements for LMOs for use in food and feed and for processing (LMO-FFP) aim to further elaborate on the provisions o Article 18.2(a) which requires LMO-FFPs to be labelled as "may contain" LMOs and as not intended for release into the environment. African countries in particular continue to push for deleting the word "may", instead calling for a mandatory requirement to declare all LMOs contained in a shipment. At MOP-2, the EU had been willing to accept a reference to "may", provided that a clear specification of the LMOs that may be contained in the shipment was included. These proposals, however, had proven unacceptable for some countries, notably Brazil and New Zealand, and Parties in end had to postpone the negotiations to MOP-3. Other contentious issues include whether to us an existing document (such as the commercial invoice) or a stand-alone document to provide the required information; and what additional information, such as a unique identifier code, should be provided.

In the absence of agreement at MOP-2, countries continue to operate based on an interim decision adopted at MOP-1. The decision elaborates somewhat on Article 18.2(a), but simply "urges" Parties to implement additional requirements while still leaving a number of options open for some of the more controversial issues. Beyond the Article 18.2(a) requirements, the interim decision urges Parties and other governments to require information on the name of the organism and the transformation event or unique identifier code. No new draft text has been put forward for discussion at MOP-3 at this time. Instead, the Secretariat’s paper (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/3/8) on the issue outlines three options, namely to base discussions on the Chair’s texts adopted at the Open-ended Ad hoc Technical Expert Group and at MOP-2; only on the MOP-2 Chair’s text; or the interim decision adopted at MOP-1.

Other issues at MOP-3

A number of other issues have been placed on the agenda of MOP-3. Among them, Parties will debate the need for standards on the identification, handling, packaging and transport practices in LMO trade as mandated by Article 18.3 of the Protocol. In preparation for MOP-3, the Secretariat reviewed the suitability of existing rules and standards, including, among others, those provided by the WTO, FAO, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the WHO, the OECD and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/3/8/Add.2). The review concludes that none of these standards comprehensively cover the scope of Article 18. The paper notes that most of the existing standards aim to protect human, animal or plant health rather than biodiversity per se; that many labelling requirements deal with food products that are largely outside the scope of the Protocol; and that many of the rules and standards are limited to certain geographical or political regions (such as the EU or the OECD). The paper suggests that Parties should proceed by soliciting views on potential gaps in existing frameworks by MOP-5 and to continue gaining experience on implementing the Protocol’s current provisions (under Article 18).

How to deal with cases of repeated non-compliance of the Protocol is also expected to come up at MOP-3. This question had proven controversial at MOP-1, in particular the use of trade sanctions as a possible compliance measure. Also on the agenda are issues related to risk assessment and risk management, including the need for additional guidance and capacity building on risk assessment. Issues related to liability and redress — a particular concern of many African countries — will also be touched on at MOP-3 although substantive discussions on a possible legally binding regime are likely to be left to the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group which at MOP-1 was tasked with elaborating options for elements of rules and procedures by 2007 (see related In Brief, this issue).

Additional Resources

Daily reporting will be provided by IISD Linkages.

ICTSD reporting.