• by John Ashburne (nagoya, japan)
• Saturday, October 16, 2010
• Inter Press Service

A new international treaty on the safe use of modern biotechnology has just come into being, but developing countries say the real challenge lies in how its lofty ideas can be transferred into practical realities.

The importance of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was not lost, however, on the officials from 116 countries who approved it at the Oct. 11- 15 meeting here of the governing body of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

After all, the protocol took six years in the making before it was adopted at one of the largest intergovernmental meetings held on the safe use of modern biotechnology.

The biosafety negotiations took place ahead of more international discussions coming up in this central Japanese city, where the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 10) is being held for two weeks from Oct. 17. The year 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity.

The new supplementary protocol provides international rules and procedure on liability and redress that countries can seek for environmental damage to biodiversity resulting from the importation of living modified organisms (LMO).

'This is a very historic occasion. . . . We are very glad that the world has recognised there is the need for liability and redress,' said Gurdial Singh Nijar, director of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity Law at the University of Malaya. He pointed to the protocol’s Asia-Pacific roots, saying 'Malaysia started this whole process'.

'Asia and Pacific welcomes this new born baby here in Nagoya, and stands ready to move forward as appropriate to implement the new protocol,' added Sebastian Marino of the Office of the President of Palau, one of two officials tasked to represent the Asia-Pacific.

The treaty will be open for governments to sign up to, and comes into force 90 days after its ratification by at least 40 parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which it is supplementary to. The Cartagena protocol itself is in turn supplementary to the biological diversity convention.

But the concerns of the region’s officials, shared by other developing countries, were also evident.

Now that the legal framework is in place and reflects international consensus, it is time to see how resources will be put in its implementation beyond the obligatory conference-speak, they said.

In words that stood out amid the largely laudatory closing speeches of other nations, Marino explained: 'There remain serious issues in need of priority consideration and urgent action, (which include assistance in) capacity building, and human resources and infrastructure.'

'In addition, the Asia and Pacific group would like to highlight the equal importance of socio-economic considerations,' he said.

Marino was referring to governments’ right to refuse to import a genetically modified product if it may be perceived, by harming biodiversity, to damage the socio-economic well-being of the country or community into which it is being introduced. This was a veto option that many vested-interest groups would have been glad to see slip out of the limelight.

Indeed, an unspoken murmur of approbation could be felt from the African delegates in the conference room, who had feared that this edition of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP-MOP 5) would see the demise of the debate around this issue.

Somaly Chan, director of the Department of International Conventions and Biodiversity of Cambodia’s environment ministry, said: 'This is a good outcome and a great achievement.'

'We are satisfied, but in truth, only eighty to ninety percent. We still have great concerns about raising public awareness, and we worry about financial resources. Without capacity, we cannot effectively implement the Protocol on the ground,' she told IPS.

It is mandatory for protocol signatories to contribute to its trust, from which the core budget arises. As the senior European and Belgian representative Lucette Flandroy put it, 'The parties must do this. There is no escape.'

Yet these are lean times. At COP-MOP 5, this core budget grew, but only very slightly from the levels of COP-MOP 4 two years ago. 'The Europeans are blaming the credit crunch,' commented one seasoned observer, himself a native of that continent. 'Interesting to see them pleading poverty in this room.'

'We strongly recognise that it is our obligation to explore what is now happening with biosafety and biodiversity,' Somaly said. 'But without finance, and without information, this Protocol for us will be... useless.'

Once the protocol’s core budget is exhausted, developing countries’ only option is to seek voluntary contributions from other members and donors.

Leading the initiative is the Norwegian government, which even before the last day of the conference pledged a 75,000 U.S. dollar fund to help boost developing nations’ ability to carry out the protocol.

The transboundary movement of living modified organisms raises questions for each government, rich or poor, to decide on.

Casper Linnestad, senior adviser to Norway’s environment ministry, explained to IPS: 'When we consider importing GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to Norway, of course we consider environmental effects, health effects and ethics, but also socio-economic impacts. Namely, what will the effects be on sustainable development? Yet that is a topic that we have not yet fully resolved, even in Norway. It is an important topic.'

Apart from the issue of funds, poorer countries and smaller nations need to be able to understand the new treaty’s details in order to use it to protect their interests.

As Somaly explained, 'It is so very important for us, and we hope the media will help us to spread the news about this treaty to the less developing countries and small islands of our region.'

Said Linnestad: 'There are many important issues that are very difficult to resolve, because there are so many different views. To agree on all these decisions is really an achievement.'

© Inter Press Service (2010) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement