The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
5.7 At the time of publication of our 1999 Report, an international treaty which addressed possible risks posed by the introduction of GM crops was not in force. Negotiations on a protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which focused on such matters, had been blocked by the US and a few other countries. However, agreement was reached in 2000 and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted by the parties of the CBD. It entered into force in September 2003. The Protocol was signed by 103 countries and has, to date, been ratified by 66 member states.5 Although the US participated in the negotiations of the Protocol, it is not a member of the CBD and hence the Protocol is not applicable to US trade relating to LMOs. The EU ratified the Protocol on 27 August 2002, when The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Transboundary Movement of Genetically Modified Organisms implemented the provisions of the Protocol into Community Law. The Protocol is an important regulatory device which relates directly to the trade and use of GM crops.
5.8 Article One lists the objectives as follows: ‘to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.’
The Protocol contains procedural rather than substantive measures, relating to the provision of information and the carrying out of tests to assess the safety of LMOs such as GM crops. Some of the main procedures introduced by the Protocol are described in Box 5.3.
5.9 The Protocol differs significantly from the WTO’s SPS in terms of provisions for risk assessment. Under the SPS, import restrictions can only be established on a temporary or provisional basis. The Protocol, on the other hand, endorses a more open-ended approach, drawing on the precautionary approach (see paragraphs 4.35-4.42). We welcome the development and implementation of the Protocol as an important and essential device in the regulation of the transboundary movement of LMOs, such as GM crops. However, with regard to the implementation of the Protocol, we caution against overly narrow application of the precautionary approach (see paragraphs 4.37-4.41). Due to international controversies about the use of GM crops, and due to lack of facilities for safety assessment, policy makers in developing countries are under substantial pressure to opt for a conservative interpretation of this approach. However, there is a real risk that highly restrictive legislation could considerably delay research, development and use of potentially beneficial GM crops in developing countries.
5.10 It could be argued that in view of the alleged risks posed by GM crops, developing countries should first implement rigid regulation which could then be deregulated as appropriate. However, significant difficulties can be encountered in the deregulation of previously established regulations, as revisions can be delayed considerably by unrelated political and administrative disputes. It is therefore important that all developing countries which are currently involved in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol consider carefully how to interpret the provisions of the precautionary approach, to allow for appropriate regulation before the need arises. We draw attention to our view that a highly restrictive interpretation of the precautionary approach is likely to ignore the possibility that, in some cases, the use of a GM crop variety may pose fewer risks than are implied by current practices or by plausible non-GM alternatives. In applying the precautionary approach, risks implied by the option of inaction (or by alternative actions) must also be considered.
| - Advanced informed agreement procedure (AIA): before exporting LMOs which are intended for release in the environment, the recipient country must be notified. The notification must include a detailed description of the LMO, including reference to existing risk assessment reports. Only upon consent of the recipient country may the export take place (Articles 7-10). |
| - Risk assessment: parties to the Protocol decide whether or not to accept LMOs primarily on the basis of scientific risk assessment procedures. Parties may decide to apply a precautionary approach and refuse the import of LMOs if the available scientific evidence is considered insufficient. Parties may also take into account socio-economic implications likely to result from the import of LMOs (Article 15). Article 15 enables a potential recipient to require the exporter to carry out a risk assessment. It may also charge the exporting country the full cost of the regulatory approval. |
| - Capacity-building and involvement of the public: Article 22 expects the parties to the Protocol to cooperate in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities. Article 23 requires the involvement of the public in the decision making process. |
| - Biosafety Clearing House: in order to assist parties of the Protocol in its implementation and in order to facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on, and experience with, LMOs, the Protocol established the Biosafety Clearing House as a central source of reference (Article 20). |
| - LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed: parties in developing countries can declare through the Biosafety Clearing House that they wish to take a decision based on risk assessment information before agreeing to accept an import (Article 11). |
5 Convention on Biological Diversity. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Available: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/. Accessed on: 2 June 2003.