Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 3 • Number 15.5 • 8th September 2003

WORKSHOP 2: Risk, Precaution and Biosecurity

Do More

See also

Special Issue - 8 September 2003

WORKSHOP 2: Risk, Precaution and Biosecurity back

The Workshop brought together participants from many different backgrounds working on issues related to trade, biotechnology and invasive alien species (IAS). Ranging from the contamination of native maize varieties in Mexico to the threats posed by species carried in ballast water, the discussions raised a number of broader issues, such as precaution, transparency, the relationship between the environmental and trade regimes, and flexibility for decision making. Participants from the biotechnology and IAS communities recognised the importance of learning from each other’s experiences and joining their efforts to address the overarching issue of trade as it might foster or alleviate biodiversity loss and ultimately the pursuit of sustainable development.

The pervasiveness of uncertainty

Participants recognised the pervasive and often irreducible nature of uncertainty, calling for a greater emphasis on anticipation rather than reaction as a significantly less costly approach. This emphasis was apparent in the IAS context, where participants noted the importance of prevention and the control of pathways, rather than dealing with invasive species once they have become established. Similar concerns were also raised in the context of biotechnology, in particular with regards to the contamination of native maize varieties. Many stressed the need for the WTO to take this reality into account. At the same time, there was widespread recognition of the difficulty in separating legitimate environmental and conservation concerns from protectionist intent. Indeed, this dilemma was seen as endemic to the entire trade and environment debate and as a central concern that should be reflected in the articulation of problems and proposed solutions.

Transparency and inclusiveness in research and decision-making

The need for increased transparency and inclusiveness in the formulation of national regulations (including biotechnology regulations), WTO dispute settlement processes and in multilateral trade negotiations repeatedly arose in the discussions. Konrad von Moltke used the inadequate reflection of uncertainty in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), which he said was largely a result of poor negotiations, as an example to highlight the need for more openness of trade negotiations. The importance of inclusiveness was also stressed with regard to the settlement of disputes in the WTO, which continues to be conducted with little input from stakeholders, as well as in the area of biotechnology, including the case of contamination of native maize varieties in Mexico (see below). The issue also arose during discussions on possible conflicts of interest regarding research funded by the private sector. Citing evidence that the source of funding can indeed affect the outcome of research, participants stressed the need for involving all stakeholders, including local communities, in the research, for complete and open transparency on funding sources, and for the dissemination of research results to the public.

Maize contamination in Mexico - a wake-up call for the global community

The contamination of Mexican native maize varieties with genetically modified organisms (GMO) was seen as a "wake-up" call for the global community to act and take steps that such contamination will not be repeated, including for other staple crops important to developing countries, such as rice, mustard seed, cotton and soy. Representatives from the Consejo Indigena Popular de Oaxaca made a strong case for the cultural and social importance of maize to their peoples, and their dependence on native varieties for their livelihoods. It was widely recognised that any discussions on biotechnology, in particular in centres of origin, needed to integrate indigenous peoples’ voices and concerns. Participants also stressed the need to take into account the unpredictable nature of introducing living modified organisms into the environment due to the complexity of ecosystem processes.

Affirming the equal status of the trade and environment regimes

Participants called on governments to affirm that there is no hierarchy between the environmental and trade regimes; rather each should deal with its own jurisdiction, which should not be prescribed by the negotiations under paragraph 31(i) of the trade and environment mandate. Also, disputes and issues should be addressed in the appropriate forum with the expertise and jurisdiction to address them. Moreover participants noted the inadequacy of the WTO system to deal with certain environment-related issues and to take into account biological realities, including uncertainty. The WTO was seen by many as placing trade liberalisation above the pursuit of environmental, socio-economic and cultural priorities. They also stressed the need for greater dialogue between the WTO and Secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements (MEA), including the involvement of MEA Secretariats as observers in the relevant negotiations.

One participant noted that the relationship between the regimes should not only be looked at from a legal perspective, but also within the political context. Thus, while there might legally be no hierarchy, the political reality was often different due to power imbalances within and outside the WTO and the dependence of developing countries on market access and the resulting exposure to ‘coercion’.

Preserving flexibility for decision making

Participants stressed the need to provide countries with the space to decide what risk they were willing to accept and whether to adopt biotechnology. This issue was also cited in the context of African countries’ approach to the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, where countries had aimed to entrench their sovereign rights in the Protocol. The Protocol was seen to provide a reference point to invoke a common sense concept like precaution and recognise space for domestic decision making. Similarly, the rejection of GM food aid was cited as an example for countries’ desire for space to decide on the appropriateness of biotechnology for development.

Konrad von Moltke encouraged countries to take advantage of the "multi-unilateral" nature of the SPS Agreement, which has led countries to interpret and implement the Agreement according to their priorities until challenged in the WTO dispute settlement system. The example of New Zealand dealing with IAS by regulating pathways was cited as a good example of this approach.

Biotechnology and invasives - a rose by another name

There was widespread agreement regarding the need to identify and take advantage of the overlaps between the GMO and IAS issues and to identify specific areas where both communities could work together. Some areas could include the improvement of risk assessment methodologies, the integration of precaution in risk assessment and management, capacity building, and development of appropriate legal and regulatory measures. While IAS have already had significant environmental, social and economic impacts, the issue continues to attract limited attention. Participants noted the potential of looking at the experiences gained in the biotechnology debate, including the establishment of the Biosafety Protocol, in an effort to give more impetus for the development of international and national measures to combat the spread of IAS. The communities can also join efforts and resources to develop appropriate tools that can address issues arising from IAS and GMOs, and explore further the synergies of the two issues.