Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 4 • 5th March 2004
BIOSAFETY MEETING MOVES ON LABELLING, COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
BIOSAFETY MEETING MOVES ON LABELLING, COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP-1) — convening from 23 to 27 February in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia — took the first step towards establishing an operational framework for the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol by making important progress on documentation requirements, compliance, liability and redress and the Biosafety Clearing House. Many delegates and observers, including the usually critical non-governmental groups, generally welcomed the agreement reached in Kuala Lumpur, while the US and other biotech exporters criticised the outcomes for failing to take into account trade implications.
Labelling for LMO commodities expanded
On documentation, governments operationalised the existing requirements under Article 18.2(a) by requesting Parties and urging other governments to require all shipments of living modified organisms for food and feed or for processing (LMO-FFP) to use the commercial invoice or other documents to specify that the shipment "may contain" LMOs and as not intended for introduction into the environment. Government were also asked to include a contact point and the name of the importer, exporter or other appropriate authority (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 20 February 2004). In addition, the Decision expands on existing requirements by ‘urging’ Parties and other governments to require information on the name of the organism and the transformation event or unique identifier code. While the additional information is only optional — following objections by Mexico to language that would ‘request’ such information — it nevertheless marks a step beyond the requirements originally included in Article 18.2(a).
A technical expert group, open to all governments, was charged with elaborating the documentation requirements for LMO-FFPs further — including additional information, the use of unique identifiers and if possible labelling thresholds and a review of sampling techniques. The Protocol mandates Parties to agree on these requirements within two year of its entry into force, which effectively means by MOP-2 in the second quarter of 2005. Some observers expressed doubts that the group would be able to agree on these questions during their five-day meeting, raising the possibility that MOP-2 could leave some issues for further discussion.
Parties also elaborated on the already more stringent documentation requirements for shipments of LMOs destined for release into the environment under Article 18.2(c). Such shipments will be accompanied by information on the name of the organism, transformation event or unique identifier code, any handling requirements as well as the risk class of the LMO where appropriate.
Progress on compliance
Procedures and institutional mechanisms for compliance — to be adopted by MOP-1 as mandated in the Protocol — proved to be one of the main sticking points in the negotiations, in particular discussions on who could submit a complaint and consequence of non-compliance. In the end, the compliance Decision establishes a 15-member Compliance Committee, which will receive submissions from any Party with respect to itself and from "any Party, which is affected or likely to be affected, with respect to another Party". In cases of non-compliance, the MOP can decide to provide technical assistance, caution the concerned Party and/or publish the case in the Biosafety Clearing House. The contentious issue of how to address repeated non-compliance, for instance through the use of trade sanctions, was left for MOP-3 to discuss. The trade concerns underlying these discussions were also reflected in the final plenary when the US noted its understanding that non-compliance measures developed by the MOP would be consistent with international law.
Liability — priority for Africa
During the MOP, Twolde Egziabher from Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stressed the great importance which they attached to the question of liability. Liability "is badly needed … for the caution we will force on those who export," he noted. African countries called for a legally binding regime to deal with liability that would allow countries to seek compensation from exporters if LMOs contaminated their environment or damaged their health. While a decision on this question was left for a later date MOP-1 set up a technical group of experts and a working group. The working group, which was charged with elaborating options for elements of rules and procedures, will complete its work by 2007.
Some reactions
Many civil society groups welcomed the outcomes of MOP-1 while recognising that more work needed to be done. "Those requirements are not sufficient to protect the environment and the food chain from contamination, but they are an important first step that governments should implement immediately," said Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace. In a joint statement a group of developmental and environmental non-governmental organisations, strongly criticised excessive influence on the negotiations by non-Parties, which they felt was jeopardising the discussions. In the end, they thanked Parties for their "determination and hard work" that they had demonstrated "in seeking solutions to difficult dilemmas".
The group also sharply criticised the US-Canada-Mexico deal, which sets out documentation requirements for LMO commodities (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 20 February 2004, referenced above), as a "model to evade the Protocol". In particular, they criticised the deal’s 5 percent labelling threshold for effectively opening the door to transgenics "with no evaluation of the risks" and for seriously jeopardising the subsequent export possibilities of signatory countries. They called on the Latin American and Caribbean countries that had been approached to join in the accord to reject "this ‘model of implementation and compliance’ that only favours the commercial interests of countries that have not ratified the Protocol".
In its assessment of the MOP-1 outcomes, the US noted "that countries are moving away from practical steps very quickly in the direction that could have consequences," according to Deborah Mala of the US State Department’s Biotechnology Trade Policy Division. With reference to the fact that none of the major biotech producers and exporters, including the US, Argentina, Canada and Australia, has so far ratified the Protocol, she added that "a lot of decisions here have been made by the importers without a real understanding of the implications". During the final plenary, Australia expressed disappointment that the views of non-Parties had not been taken adequately into account in decision-making, calling for the record to note that the MOP cannot make requests to non-Parties. In response, the MOP-1 President stressed that Decisions are not legally binding for non-Parties.
Decisions of MOP-1 will be available shortly on the CBD website.
ICTSD reporting; ENB Vol. 9 No. 289; "Europe OKs new rules for biotech labels," AP, 27 February 2004; "MOP1: ‘Celebrate the Protocol’," NGO STATEMENT, 27 February 2004; "Global deal struck on stricter Gm trade rules," REUTERS, 27 February 2004; "The Trilateral Agreement of US-Mexico-Canada: a "model" to evade the Protocol," 26 February 2004.