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.