Fwd: Independent Science Panel for Biosafety

[Guest guest]

8 Mar 2004 14:18:08 -0000

Independent Science Panel for Biosafety

press-release

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

============================================

 

 

ISIS Press Release 08/03/04

Independent Science Panel for Biosafety

******************************

Independent Science

Panel (ISP) members Dr. Susan Bardocz, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Lim

Li Ching and Dr. Arpad Pusztai attended MOP 1. Between them,

they actively followed the negotiations and carried out many

activities around the meeting. These included speaking at

major side events, giving numerous interviews to journalists

and independent film-makers, taking part in an hour-long

programme for Malaysian national television, and providing

informal advice to NGOs and government delegates. It was

time well spent, as they lent much needed support to the

overwhelming majority of countries wanting a strong

Biosafety Protocol. To view press cuttings, please visit

Independent Science Panel website www.indsp.org

 

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first

international law to specifically regulate genetic

engineering. It entered into force on 11 September 2003 and

there are now 87 Parties to the Protocol. The First Meeting

of the Parties (MOP 1) was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

from 23-27 February 2004.

 

Biosafety Protocol Takes Bold Moves

*****************************

The First Meeting of the

Parties (MOP 1) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

adopted ten 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

policy measures to address the risks associated with genetic

engineering. Martin Khor and Lim Li Lin from the Third World

Network analyse the outcomes of MOP 1. International

regulation of the trade in genetically engineered organisms

took a vital step forward last week when governments adopted

several measures at the first ever Meeting of the Parties

(MOP 1) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety held in Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia. MOP 1 ended on 27 February 2004 with the

adoption of ten decisions on issues ranging from

information-sharing and finance to the handling of living

modified organisms (LMOs). (‘LMOs’ is the term used in the

Protocol for what is commonly known as genetically modified

organisms or genetically engineered organisms.) When

Malaysian Minister of Science, Technology and the

Environment, Datuk 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. These gains were largely due to the

fact that none of the Miami Group (a negotiating group of

some of the major exporters and producers of GE organisms)

are currently Parties to the Protocol. During the MOP,

although the views of the non-Parties were considered,

priority was given to Parties to the Protocol in drafting

proposals and in the negotiations on the text of decisions

for adoption. For many years now there has been growing

concern about the potential health, environmental and socio-

economic risks posed by genetically engineered crops and

food. Whilst 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 genetically engineered products

and for action to regulate them. After years of hard

negotiations, the Biosafety Protocol came into force last

September, and Malaysia hosted the first formal meeting of

the 87 countries that have joined it. Three of the most

important decisions adopted by MOP 1 were on: Measures for

handling, transporting, packaging and identifying LMOs, in

line with Article 18 of the Protocol; Establishing

compliance procedures and mechanisms for the Protocol; and

Establishing an expert working group on liability and

redress in the context of the Protocol. Handling, transport,

packaging and identification 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 risks to human health. For the first time,

the MOP has decided on the documentation that should

accompany three categories of LMOs: first, those that are

used as food or feed or for processing; secondly, those that

are for " contained use " (mainly in laboratories); and

thirdly, those for introduction into the environment (such

as genetically-modified seeds for planting). For the first

category, documents should clearly identify that the

shipment may contain LMOs for direct use as food, feed or

for processing and not intended for introduction into the

environment. The documents should include the common,

scientific and commercial names of the LMOs, the

transformation event code or its unique identifier code to

establish clearly the identity of the LMO and any unique

identification. An expert group was set up to elaborate

detailed requirements of identification of the LMOs under

the first category, and report to the next Meeting of the

Parties in 2005. The above measures are thus interim, and

countries are requested or urged to take them now. An

important step forward was that the decision recognised that

national legislation can require that the documentation

accompanying LMOs for food, feed or for processing are

identified as such with no ambiguity, when they are shipped

from one country to another under the procedures of the

Protocol. For the second category of LMOs, documents

accompanying them should clearly identify the LMOs by

specifying their common and scientific names, and that they

are destined for contained use. Additionally their

commercial names and new and modified traits and

characteristics may be included. Significantly, this

information includes the transformation event(s), risk

class, how they are to be used, and their unique

identification. For the third category, the documents should

clearly identify them as LMOs by describing their names and

traits (including transgenic traits such as transformation

events or unique identification). Additionally, their

commercial name, risk class and the required approval permit

for import under the Protocol may be included. The

documentation of LMOs under categories two and three must

also specify any requirements for safe handling, storage,

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.

 

Compliance On the compliance issue, MOP 1 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 MOP eventually established some

compliance procedures and mechanisms. A Compliance Committee

was set up, comprising 15 persons, three from each of five

regional groupings. Committee members shall serve

objectively and in a personal capacity. MOP 1 confirmed the

members from Iran, Malaysia, Tonga, Mexico, Colombia,

Barbados, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Mali, Hungary, Denmark,

Norway, Switzerland, among the 15 countries. 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 MOP. A Party

complained against has three to six months to respond, and

the Committee will consider the views of both the Parties

making and receiving the submission. The Committee can then

take measures including giving advice or assistance to the

Party and to develop a compliance action plan with a

timeframe, ask the Party to submit progress reports, and

make reports on efforts made by the Party to the MOP. In

turn, the MOP can decide on taking the following measures:

provide assistance, technology transfer, training and

capacity building measures; issue a caution; have the cases

on non-compliance published; or take other measures (to be

decided at the Protocol Parties' third meeting) in the case

of repeated non-compliance. Liability and redress The issue

of liability and redress was perhaps the most important for

developing countries, with developing countries (especially

from Africa) pressing that MOP 1 adopt a strong and clear

mandate to begin negotiations on an 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. During the negotiations of the Biosafety

Protocol itself, the issues was so divisive that in the end,

the compromise was to insert a provision in the Protocol

that requires MOP 1 to take a decision on a process to

elaborate international rules and procedure on liability and

redress. The MOP 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 analyse

potential and actual damage scenarios of concern in order to

identify situations for which international rules may be

needed, and analyse how international rules and procedures

on liability and redress can be applied to the damage

scenarios. It will also elaborate options for rules and

procedures, including definition, nature and scope of

damage, valuation of damage to biodiversity and human

health, threshold of damage, causation, channelling of

liability, roles of Parties of import and export, standard

of liability, mechanisms of financial security and standing

or right to bring claims. The working group will meet five

times and propose international rules and procedures on

liability and redress in a final report in 2007. The MOP

will then make a decision. Progress, but challenges still

remain Besides the measures taken on these three issues, MOP

1 also took decisions on seven other issues, including

capacity building, a medium-term work programme, 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 MOP 1. Dr Tewolde

Egziabher, a leading African scientist who is also head of

the Ethiopian delegation and coordinator of the Africa

Group, said he was especially pleased with the progress on

liability and redress, an issue which for years the

developing countries had been pushing for but which the

developed countries had been opposing. " Even at the start of

the Kuala Lumpur meeting, the developed countries were

stalling on this issue, but in the end we were able to

prevail on them. Besides the Africa Group, I must credit

Malaysia for being very active among the developing

countries for this. " He added that the liability issue was

critical as it was important that developing countries be

able to be compensated if their farms, environment or human

health were to be adversely affected by the imported LMOs.

An international liability regime would also cause the

private sector to be more careful and cautious in their

activities relating to LMOs. Tewolde was also happy that the

Protocol would have a relatively strong compliance

mechanism, unlike many other multilateral environment

agreements. " With such a mechanism, it would be more

difficult for Parties to shirk their obligations. " Regarding

the " Article 18 measures " , Tewolde said the MOP 1 decision

makes it easier for countries to insist that imported

products containing LMOs be labeled. He noted, however, that

most of the leading exporters of genetically engineered

products are not members of the Protocol and thus are not

obliged to follow its rules. Nevertheless, the decision at

MOP 1 would make it easier for importing countries to insist

that the imports containing LMOs be accompanied by proper

documentation, even from the countries that are non-Parties.

Tewolde added that the MOP 1 decision on LMOs for food, feed

or processing only covers interim measures but it was the

basis for a more detailed process to develop a lasting

system for the handling and transport of LMOs. " Biosafety is

important for African and other developing countries in

order to protect agricultural and animal biodiversity, " he

said. If there is unintended contamination by genetically-

modified substances, it can affect crop diversity,

agricultural productivity as well as human health. " I am

happy the Biosafety Protocol is moving from rules to

measures and action, but although we made good progress in

Kuala Lumpur, the challenges are very big and there's much

more to be done. "

 

===========================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-

sis.org.uk/ISPFB.php

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website http://www.i-

sis.org.uk/donations. ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit

organisation dedicated to providing critical public

information on cutting edge science, and to promoting social

accountability and ecological sustainability in science.

 

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML

please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our

mailing list - please reply to press-release

with the word in the subject field

=================================================== CONTACT

DETAILS The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097,

London NW1 OXR telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383

3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT

PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY

AND CONTAINS A LINK TO

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.