Index

Expert Opinion: Making the Cartagena Protocol work

By Veit Koester

The ongoing debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) commenced in the 1970s and the general trend is still that all GMOs are being put in the same box. They are either white or black. This, despite the fact that different GMOs may entail completely different risks and benefits.

No wonder, then, that the public is confused. No wonder so many people around the world want to rely on its own decisions and therefore demands to be fully informed and seeks labelling in order to make its own informed choices. No wonder, either, that a kind of GMO war is raging between EU on the one side and the U.S. and others on the other as the EU rejects importation of most GM products.

The issue of GMOs is complicated in itself. It is made all the more complicated by a number of related issues. Biodiversity is, to a large extent, the raw material for GMOs. However, the protection of biodiversity is not a simple issue. It includes the requirement that access to genetic resources is based on prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. Add to this the question of indigenous and local communities’ knowledge related to biodiversity and intellectual property rights (IPRs), and the trade and environment negotiations now underway in the WTO. The use of GMOs also has significant trade implications. An estimated 300 million metric tons of genetically modified grains, oilseeds and pulses are traded internationally each year, and the global area of these crops increased from less than five million hectares in 1996 to almost 70 million hectares in 2003.

The issue is particularly important for developing countries. While GMOs may pose risks to the environment or human health, they may also have the potential to advance sustainable development. This was the philosophy underlying the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000), which entered into force in 2003. This is why the Protocol—a central mechanism for international cooperation on the prevention and management of risks associated with GMOs—was strongly advocated by developing countries.

Hence, it seems obvious that developing countries should support the Protocol, promote its implementation and ensure that it works. For this to happen, it is necessary to build consensus on broader standards and guidance as early as possible, as opposed to getting stuck in the nitty gritty. Developing countries will suffer most if supplementary instruments are not in place in the Protocol. A poorly functioning Protocol will likely result in the GMO agenda being taken over by the WTO system, which arguably would be more problematic for developing countries.

While Southern solidarity remains an important value for developing countries, it has remained difficult to achieve and uphold in this area. The negotiation of the Protocol demonstrated specific difficulties in reaching common positions among developing countries because different developing countries have very different approaches to the importation and use of GMOs. These difficulties are probably even greater now because the number of developing countries relying, to some extent, on genetically modified crops has increased. A common approach presupposes coordination among developing countries. This could be facilitated by regional cooperation. However, it is equally important to develop policies reflecting national needs and conditions. Most importantly, national policies should be truly national and not influenced by industrialized countries. Much is at stake, including the risk of being influenced by multinational corporations. A balanced approach is needed; one that neither underregulates, nor over-regulates.

National policies should be the result of coordinated approaches between trade and environment ministries. Fighting for the precautionary principle in the framework of the Protocol and, at the same time, being skeptical of applying environmental principles to trade-related issues in WTO negotiations—as it appears is the strategy of some countries— does not make much sense. In this respect, it is essential to build developing country capacity, particularly in the area of policy coherence between the trade and environmental regimes.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a central instrument for international regulation of issues relating to the safe handling and managing of GMOs, especially in the transboundary context. The Protocol is, to a large extent, the creation of developing countries. Therefore, it is in their interest to contribute actively and constructively to ensuring that the Protocol is a well-functioning instrument.

The reality is that industrialized countries will be able to find ways and means to cope with the advent of GMOs, even if the Protocol does not function well. The real question is whether developing countries will be able to do so. In many respects, the Protocol represents the best chance for developing countries to pursue a balanced and equitable outcome to deal with the complex issues raised by GMOs.

Veit Koester, from Denmark, was with his country’s Ministry of Environment and is now the Chairman of the Compliance Committees of the Cartagena Protocol and the Aarhus Convention. This essay is written in his personal capacity.