Vital steps at international biodiversity meet

Vital steps at international biodiversity meet

Martin Khor
The Star
Asia News Network
Selangor, Malaysia

The first meeting of the parties of the Biosafety Protocol,
which is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ended on
Friday with the adoption of 10 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 measures to
address the risks associated with genetic engineering.

International regulation of the trade in genetically modified
products took a vital step forward last week when governments
adopted several measures at the first-ever meeting of the parties
to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol held in Kuala Lumpur.

The meeting, dubbed MOP1, ended last Friday with the adoption
of 10 decisions on issues ranging from information-sharing and
finance to the handling of living modified organisms (LMOs).

When Science, Technology and Environment Minister 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.

For many years now there has been growing concern about the
potential health and environmental risks posed by genetically
engineered (GM) crops and food products.

While 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 GM products and for action to regulate them.

After years of hard negotiations, the Biosafety Protocol came
into force last September, and Malaysia was chosen to host the
first formal meeting of the 87 countries that have joined it.

The most important decisions adopted by the MOP1 were on:

o Measures for handling, transport and identifying LMOs, in
line with Article 18 of the protocol;

o Establishing compliance procedures and mechanisms for the
protocol; and

o Establishing an expert group on liability and redress in the
context of the protocol.

Until the protocol came into force, there have been no
international regulations on the export or import of food, seeds
and other products containing LMOs.

This has left consumers and farmers around the world wondering
whether the food they eat or the imported seeds they plant had
been genetically modified.

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 health risks.

For the first time, the MOP1 has decided on the documentation
that should accompany three categories of LMOs: First, those that
are used as food, feed and for processing; second, those that are
for "contained use" (mainly in laboratories); and third, those
for introduction into the environment (such as genetically
modified seeds for planting).

For the first category, the documents should include the
common, scientific and commercial names of the LMOs, the
transformation event code or its unique identifier code, and the
identity of the LMO and any unique identification.

An expert group was set up to detail the requirements of
identification of the LMOs under the first category, and report
to the next meeting of the parties next year. The above measures
are thus interim, and countries are urged to take them now.

For the second category, documents accompanying them should
clearly identify the LMOs, their common and scientific names,
that they are destined for contained use; their commercial names
and new and modified traits and characteristics.

For the third category, the documents should clearly identify
and describe the LMOs, their names and traits (including
transgenic traits such as transformation events), risk class and
the required approval permit for import under the protocol.

The LMOs under categories two and three should also be subject
to any requirements for safe handling, 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.

On the compliance issue, the MOP1 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 MOP1 eventually established some compliance procedures and
mechanisms.

A Compliance Committee was set up comprising 15 persons, three
from each of five regional groupings. One of the Asian
representatives appointed was Gurdial Singh Nijar, professor at
the Law Faculty of University Malaya.

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 meeting of
parties.

The issue of liability and redress was perhaps the most
controversial, with developing countries (especially from Africa)
pressing that MOP1 adopt a strong 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.

The MOP1 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 analyze potential and actual damage scenarios of
concern to identify situations for which international rules may
be needed, and analyze how international rules and procedures on
liability and redress can be applied to the damage scenarios.

The MOP1 also took decisions on seven other issues, including
capacity building, a medium-term work program, 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 the MOP1.