Jun 10, 2005

Archive

Send

Conference on the Cartagena Protocol in Montreal

No agreement on international labelling regulations

The second Conference of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Montreal has been unable to agree on firm rules for providing information for transboundary trade in genetically modified agricultural products. The issue of just how much information exporters should provide for their customers when exporting bulk shipments of agricultural raw materials which may contain material from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) proved to be particularly controversial. This point is sure to be back on the agenda at the next conference in Brazil in March 2006.

From 25 May to 3 June representatives of the 119 parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety met in Montreal to negotiate its implementation. Representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as environmental, industry and trade associations, were also able to participate in the debate in so-called contact groups.

The UN Cartagena Protocol regulatestransboundary trade in living modified organisms (LMOs), including seed andunprocessed agricultural raw material such as maize, rape and soya beans. Theagreement was adopted in 2000 and entered into force in September 2003. Althoughthe EU has ratified the biosafety agreement, the USA is not one of thesignatories.

In accordance with the protocol, allinternationally traded LMOs and information relating to their safety analysismust be recorded in a central record office, the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH).In addition, exporters of agricultural products must inform their customers whenshipments contain LMOs.

Agricultural raw materials “may contain GMOs”

Agricultural raw materials “may contain LMOs”.Just how detailed the information must be for shipments of raw materialsintended for direct processing into food or feed in the importing country (sonot released into the environment as seed) remains contentious. Agricultural rawmaterials such as these tend to be combined into shipments of up to 100,000 tonsand so contain mixtures of different varieties, the precise composition of whichis generally not known. The Cartagena Protocol allows exporters tolabel these shipments with the wording "may contain living modified organisms".However, it also requires the signatory states to take a decision on thisprocedure within two years of it coming into force, in other words by September2005.

Delegates in Montreal focussed on the following questions in response to this issue:

• Does the labelling have to include a comprehensive list of the GMOs contained in a shipment, or will it suffice to state that they “may contain LMOs permitted in the country of origin”?
• Should there be an exception to the documentation requirements for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of LMOs (as with the EU rules) and should the individual states be able to specify thresholds for them?
• Do exporters have to submit the information in an additional document or can they use invoices and delivery notes for this purpose?

Veto by Brazil and New Zeeland

Despite lengthynegotiations, no agreement was forthcoming in these areas. A group of developingcountries, supported by environmental organisations, advocated the mostcomprehensive documentation requirements. Otherwise it was feared that vitalsafety-related information concerning agricultural imports could be withheldfrom them. Other participants, led by Brazil and New Zeeland, focussed on thetime and expense involved for both exporters and importers. Their preferredlabelling solution was, they claimed, more practical without compromising thesafety standards in agricultural trade.

A compromiseput forward by the Swiss delegation at the last minute also collapsed due toobjections from Brazil and New Zeeland, so the parties adjourned theirnegotiations until the next conference. This will be held in Curitiba (Brazil)in March 2006. Until then, agricultural traders must continue to use theexisting wording of the protocol. The negotiations have no direct impact onEU imports, since the Biosafety Protocol does not override EU labelling andtraceability regulations.

Many positive outcomes in Montreal.

“The disappointment at not achieving consensus on some issues should not be allowed to overshadow the many positive achievements of this meeting”, declared Hamdallah Zedan in response to the failure of the negotiations. He is Executive Secretary to the UN Convention on Biodiversity and its Biosafety Protocol. Zedan referred to the numerous other topics of negotiation at the Montreal conference. Amongst other things, participants adopted a multi-year programme of work for the Biosafety Clearing House and capacity-building measures for developing countries in the areas of biosafety and development of their own national statutory provisions.