T&E Info Exchange

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - 2nd Meeting of the Parties (MOP-2)

After long and difficult negotiations, talks on documentation requirements for shipments of living modified organisms for use as food or feed, or for processing (LMO-FFPs) finally broke down on the last day of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP-2), gathering from 30 May to 3 June in Montreal, Canada. Concerns over impacts of such requirements on international trade clearly lay at the heart of the more hard-line positions.

Article 18.2(a) | Article 18.2(b,c) | Other decisions

Article 18.2(a): Labelling of LMO shipments

Discussions related to documentation requirements will focus on LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing (LMO-FFPs). Under Article 18.2(a) of the Protocol, countries agreed to label such shipments as "may contain" LMOs, but left detailed requirements, such as specification of their identity and any specific markings referring to the contained GMO, known as "unique identification", open for future negotiations. At MOP-1 in February 2004, Parties adopted "interim" measures (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 March 2004) and charged an expert group with looking into some of the more contentious issues, including the need to establish threshold levels of LMO content for cases of co-mingling of LMOs with non-LMOs below which labelling would not be required; the "may contain" language; and the use of unique identification.

Country Positions

The EU has been pushing for stringent documentation requirements that would mirror its domestic regulations on biotech imports. Together with Switzerland, they would like to introduce "unique identification" into the requirements (i.e. a code identifying a transgenic plant line) and have raised the need to address labelling thresholds.

In contrast, biotech exporters, including the US, Canada and Australia, have lobbied for minimising the documentation requirements as much as possible so as to avoid trade disruptions. While none of the biotech exporting countries has so far ratified the Protocol, Parties will need to take their concerns on board if they want to leave the door open for future ratification. Also, as pointed out by Australia, biotech exporting countries, even if they are not Parties to the Protocol, will nevertheless need to comply with the Protocol's requirements if they want to maintain or gain market access to Parties that have implemented the Protocol at the national level.

For further details on country positions, see coverage of MOP-1.

Discussion @ MOP-2

Mirroring debates during the Protocol's negotiations, it was again the use of "may" that deeply divided Parties. Several late-night sessions and a last-ditch attempt by Switzerland to put forward a compromise text on the final day failed to bridge the differences between the Parties and the decision was postponed to MOP-3.

The African countries, led by Ethiopia, fought hard to eliminate the "may contain" language, insisting that any shipment should be clearly labelled as "contains" LMOs and list all the LMOs that are or may be contained. Given the limited regulatory and monitoring capacities in many African countries, they would like to see the onus of assessing the LMO content of a shipment placed on the exporter.

The EU took a somewhat more flexible stance on the "may contain" language, provided that the LMOs that may be contained were clearly specified. The EU, however, insisted on references to thresholds that may be adopted on a national basis for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of LMOs (such thresholds are already in place in the EU under their traceability and labelling regulations).

Strongest resistance came from New Zealand and Brazil, and to a lesser extent from Peru. They stressed that the trigger for documentation requirements should be the intended content of the shipment rather than the content itself, which would exclude adventitious presence. Brazil, a staunch proponent of agricultural trade liberalisation in the WTO, has long been struggling with illegal plantings of LMOs in the country. While New Zealand does not export any LMOs at present, they also sought to defend their economic interests as an agricultural exporter (and a member of the Cairns Group in the WTO).

Decision: None.
The draft decision on Article 18.2(a) submitted by the Chair of Working Group I was included in the final report of the meeting.

Reactions

Many delegates expressed their disappointment with the failure to reach agreement. During the final Plenary, Tewolde Egziabher of Ethiopia invited developing country delegates to not give into the pressures "that want to cause global genetic pollution and escape unnoticed and unscathed". "Let us go back to our respective countries and thwart their design through national legislation," he urged. The EU lamented that proposals had been rejected without explanations why they were unacceptable, fearing that the failure may have negative impacts on achieving the objectives of the Protocol.

Brazil also expressed their regret at the lack of agreement, but felt that good progress had been made that could be built on at MOP-3. They would like to see a realistic, step-by-step approach, taking into account the wide variety of views. New Zealand rejected accusations that they were undermining the Biosafety Protocol. Environment Minister Marian Hobbs stressed the need for a labelling regime that was realistic and did not impose an unreasonable burden on exporters.

Civil society groups squarely laid the blame for the failure on the shoulders of Brazil and New Zealand. "The actions of Brazil and New Zealand are shameless," said Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace. "They have prevented the vast majority from bringing in rules that will protect the environment," she added. Juan Lopez, GM Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International accused the two countries of "hypocrisy and untruthfulness" and as serving the interests of the biotechnology industry and biotech exporting non-Parties. However, he also pointed to the more than 100 countries that had expressed their commitment to implementing strong requirements.

>Top

Article 18.2(b) on contained use and 18.2(c) on environmental release

General positions similar to those on Article 18.2(a) were also reflected in countries' submissions on the transboundary movement of LMOs for contained use under Article 18.2(b) and for intentional introduction into the environment under Article 18.2(c). The MOP-2 Decision requested Parties to submit information on experiences gained with the existing requirements "with a view to the future consideration of a stand-alone document". The EU in its submission outlined its national system which includes unique identification codes. The US, echoed by the Global Industry Coalition, said that current best practices were adequate and warned that additional requirements would be needlessly burdensome. It also pointed to difficulties for importers and exporters arising from the "paucity of information" available in the Biosafety Clearing-House.

In the end, Parties simply decided to consider the rules established under Articles 18.2 (b) and (c)as part of the mandated review of the Protocol's implementation five years after entry into force, but left the option open to discuss the use of a stand-alone document at MOP-3.

For further details on country positions, see UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/10/ADD1.

Decision: Paragraphs 2 (b) and 2 (c) of Article 18, Decision BS-II/10

>Top

Other decisions

While the rules of procedure for the Compliance Committee, which is charged with promoting compliance and addressing cases of non-compliance, were adopted at MOP-2, one bracket was left in the text after Parties failed to agree on the voting rules. Despite intense informal negotiations throughout the meeting, Panama and New Zealand in the end opposed the two-thirds majority decision-making (in cases where Committee members were unable to reach than consensus).

Decisions: Rules of procedure for meetings of the Compliance Committee, Decision BS-II/1.

Parties also reached important decisions on, among others, public awareness, capacity building, the Biosafety Clearing House and risk assessment. A complete list of the decisions made at MOP-2 is available here.

>Top

Final Report: UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/15