Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 

30 May - 3 June 2005, Montreal, Canada 

 

 


 

 Earth Negotiations Bulletin - ENB

 

English  

French

Spanish

Daily Web coverage

HTM

PDF

TXT

HTM

PDF

TXT

HTM

PDF

TXT

 Curtain
 Raiser

 Mon 30

 Tue 31

 Wed 1

 Thu 2

 Fri 3 & SUMMARY

Click on the above days to view previous ENB Web coverage.

 

 

 

 

Highlights for Tuesday, 31 May 2005

 

Delegates to the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP/MOP-2) convened in two working group sessions. Working Group I (WG-I) addressed risk assessment and risk management, and handling, transport, packaging and identification (HTPI). Working Group II (WG-II) considered notification requirements and socioeconomic considerations. A contact group addressed documentation for living modified organisms for food, feed or for processing (LMO-FFPs).

Above photo: Working Group II participants discuss a draft decision on notification requirements.

 


WORKING GROUP I

RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT:

 

 

 


The EDMONDS INSTITUTE warned the premature adoption of a common approach would condemn Parties to apply outdated methodologies. 
Above photo: Beth Burrows (Edmonds Institute)


The REPUBLIC OF KOREA emphasized dialogue between scientists and policy makers. 
Above photo L-R: Sang Jun Lee and Suh Jae-Hwa (Republic of Korea)


ARGENTINA said the scope of risk assessment under the Protocol  should not extend to health.
Above photo: Alejandra Sarkis (Argentina)

 

 

HTPI: Documentation for LMO-FFPs (Article 18.2(a)):

 

 

 


Ethiopia, on behalf of the AFRICAN GROUP, said the Chair’s text was unsatisfactory, and called for basing discussions on Decision BS-I/6 (HTPI) and stressed the need for “zero tolerance” for unapproved LMOs in commodity shipments. Above photo L-R: Lilian Nfor (Cameroon) in consultation with Tewolde Egziabher (Ethiopia)


The EUROPEAN COMMISSION called for including in documentation the 
LMO’s common, scientific and commercial names and its unique identifier, 
and supported allowing importing Parties to decide whether to receive the information in commercial invoices or in a stand-alone document. 

Above photo L-R: Nicola Notaro and Soledad Blanco (EC)
 

 


LIBERIA urged all Parties to reassess their positions for compromise and, with many others, supported the establishment of a contact group to further consider the issue. 
Above photo: Johansen Voker (Liberia)


CANADA said the Chair’s text reflects an important step forward that is 
inclusive and accommodating for all countries as exporters and importers, 
and builds on Decision BS-I/6 to provide a starting point for 
an implementable decision. Above photo: Stephen Yarrow (Canada)

 

 

 


INDONESIA said that identification requirements should not affect domestic regulation. Above photo L-R: Utami Andayani (Indonesia) with Amparo Ampil ( The Philippines)


SOUTH AFRICA offered to share its experience with the shipment of LMOs.  
Above photo: Maria Mbengashe (South Africa)

 

 

OTHER SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ISSUES:

 

 


NEW ZEALAND stressed that the Protocol does not, and should not, exempt LMO veterinary medicines from the advance informed agreement procedure or documentation requirements at this stage. She noted that Parties could initially use the simplified procedure of Article 13 to exempt LMO veterinary products that meet their requirements and, once a number of Parties have agreed on similar products to be exempted, the issue of excluding them could then be raised at the MOP. Above photo: Jane Coombs (New Zealand)


SWITZERLAND asked for guidance on the status of documentation 
requirements for LMOs that are veterinary products not intended for 
introduction into the environment. 
Above photo: François Pythoud (Switzerland)

 

 

 

 

 

WORKING GROUP II

 

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:

 

 

 


THAILAND suggested keeping the issue of notification requirements under review pending submission of interim national reports. 
Above photo: Vanida Khumnirdpetch (Thailand)


The PUBLIC RESEARCH AND REGULATION INITIATIVE suggested 
notification reflect the low risk level of confined small-scale field trials.

Above photo: Jesse Machuka (Public Research and Regulation Initiative)

 

 

 

 


BRAZIL opposed a reference to penalties for infringing notification requirements. 
Above photo: Brazilian delegates in consultation.


CUBA called for language on the sovereign rights of transit States in
the operative part of the decision. 
Above photo: Hector Conde (Cuba)

 

 


CONTACT GROUP:

 

 


Above photos L-R: Contact Group Co-Chairs Nematollah Khansari (Iran) and François Pythoud (Switzerland) reviewing text on documentation
requirements for LMO-FFPs; attentive participants in the contact group session. 

 

 

 

 


Above photo L-R: Mexican delegates Elleli Huerta, Fran Acevedo, Amanda Galvez, and José Luis Flores  reviewing the Co-Chairs' text prepared during a short dinner break. 


            Above photo: Delegates from the EU reviewing the Co-Chairs' text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This service was prepared in cooperation with the CBD Secretariat