Background Briefing on the Biosafety Protocol

Greenpeace International, January 2000

Final negotiations for a Biosafety Protocol will take place in Montreal, Canada on 24-28 January 2000. This Protocol will create international environmental rules to prevent risks caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The particular focus is on rights for countries to decide in advance whether or not they want to accept shipments of GMOs coming into their ports.

The US and Canada, along with Argentina, Australia, Chile and Uruguay were responsible in February 1999 for the collapse of the ministerial negotiations in Colombia where the Protocol was due to be agreed. Their main objection was, and still is, that countries should not be able to refuse the imports of genetically engineered food on the basis of concerns about threats to the environment or human health.

In spite of the strong forces close to the biotechnology industry calling for "free trade" at any price there are many governments and businesses in favour of precautionary action. The European Union (EU) adopted in June 1999 a de-facto halt on new commercial releases of GE crops until at least 2001. A Brazilian court ruled in August 1999 against any releases of GE soy in the country. Gerber Baby Food, the biggest baby food producer in the US have announced that it will only use organic ingredients to avoid GE ingredients. Food giant, McCain announced in November 1999 that it will refuse to accept GE potatoes in Canada.

The US and Canada attempted to influence the recent negotiations on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules (Seattle, USA, November 1999) so that exports and imports of GE food would be regulated by international trade rules rather than environmental protection rules. Since the WTO rules are heavily weighted to promote trade rather than protect the environment, this would mean that countries would find it extremely difficult to refuse imports of GE food where they have concerns about the environment. Due to the collapse in those negotiations, this particular attempt failed but it is likely that these countries will try to undermine the Biosafety Protocol negotiations so that they can force trade in GMOs to be paramount to biodiversity considerations.

History

In 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, world governments signed The Biodiversity Convention. At the centre of this convention was the goal of "conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity".

Negotiations for a Biosafety Protocol were set up by the Second Conference of Parties to the Biodiversity Convention, in Jakarta, November 1995. In February 1999, government representatives from 135 countries failed to reach an agreement on the Protocol in Cartagena, Colombia. The Cartagena meeting was intended to be the final meeting of governments to conclude the text of the Protocol but resulted in an unprecedented collapse in the negotiations for a UN international environmental agreement.

Senior civil servants met in Vienna in September 1999 to see whether the Protocol could be rescued. At that informal meeting, it was agreed that the political will existed to conclude a text on the Biosafety Protocol at a resumed session of a meeting of the world’s environment ministers. This meeting will take place from 24-28^th January in Montreal, Canada.

The players

The main proponent of the biotechnology industry’s efforts is the United States, even though the country has not ratified the Biodiversity Convention and thus is considered a "non-Party" in the process. It is leading the fight to prevent the Biosafety process, and protect the interest of the American biotech industry. In Cartagena, the US formed the so-called Miami Group with other major grain exporting countries, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay to oppose all environmental and health safeguards.

The de-facto halt in new GE crops adopted by the 15 countries of the European Union in June 1999 is likely to have had some effect on its international Biosafety policy. In December 1999, the EU altered its negotiating position from its earlier compromise in Cartagena. It now agrees on the importance of precaution and the need for information, notification and consent for GMOs which are intended for food, feed or for processing as well as for seed. The EU has stressed the objective of traceability which would be a prerequisite for labelling and segregation of genetically modified crops. The EU also needs to fight hard to ensure that the Biosafety Protocol rules are not subordinate to international trade rules, such as those of the WTO.

The developing world sees itself as standing to lose the most in the face of Northern-based biotechnology company pressure and is arguing for the strongest possible environmental and health rights under Biosafety Protocol. It has grouped itself into the Like-Minded Group which is made up of the G77 group of developing countries except for Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, but with China. These 75 countries, across Africa, Asia and South America, fear a major loss of biodiversity and income as genetically engineered crops replace traditional farming methods.

There are two other negotiating groups formed for the Biosafety Protocol negotiations. The Compromise Group, which is made up of Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland, whose main negotiating stance is that they are prepared to pool their diverse positions positively to encourage the conclusion of a Biosafety Protocol. The other group is the Central and Eastern European Group, of whom several members hope to become members of the European Union. The agro-chemical biotech industry, such as Monsanto, has targeted countries such as Georgia and Ukraine to cultivate its GE crops in this region where few rules on biosafety exist.(1)

The key issues at the centre of the negotiations are the following:

1. Will a country have the right to say no to all genetically modified organisms, entering its territory in order to protect its biodiversity and human health?
   
2. Will the Biosafety Protocol be based on the "precautionary principle"?
   
3. Who will pay compensation if a genetically modified crop "goes wrong"?
   
4. Will GE crops be segregated from conventional crops, and will food products containing GMOs labelled?
   
5. Will free trade rules override the rights created under the Protocol?
   
6. Will products made from GMOs also be covered by the Protocol?
   
7. Will living modified micro-organisms be covered by the Protocol so that national authorities can prevent their escape e.g. through waste water?
   
8. Will there be a socio-economic impact assessment as demanded by developing countries who want to ensure that impacts of GMOs on sustainable uses of biodiversity and traditional industries are assessed?
   
9. How much information does a company need to release on a GMO product and how much can it hide as "confidential business information"?
   
10. What is the role of non-Parties, such as the US, in these negotiations and will they respect the rules of the Protocol?

Biosafety Meeting: Montreal, Canada

20-21 January 2000 - Meetings of negotiating groups
22 January 2000 - Informal exchanges between the negotiating groups
23 January 2000 - No meetings scheduled – report back to capitals
24-26 January - Extraordinary Conference of Parties begins - formal negotiations
27-28 January 2000 Ministerial section of the meeting

References:

(1) See Greenpeace investigations on Monsanto’s transgenic potato on the loose in Georgia (August 1998) and in Ukraine (September 1999)

top / home