Third Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP-3)
The Hague, The Netherlands
22-26 April 2002

Daily Web Coverage:  Images and Real Audio
                

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

April 22

April 23

April 24

April 25

April 26

ENB Summary

April

HTML

PDF

TXT

29

 ENB daily reports

April

HTML

PDF

TXT

26
25
24
23

Highlights for Tuesday 23 April 2002

Delegates to the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) met in two Working Groups throughout the day. Working Group I (WG-I) discussed: handling, transport, packaging and identification; infor≠mation sharing; and other implementation issues. Working Group II (WG-II) discussed liability and redress, and compliance. Contact groups on outstanding provisions regarding documentation in Article 18.2 and on compliance also met. Left photo: The dias of Working Group I chaired by FranÁois Pythoud (Switzerland).

WORKING GROUP I: HANDLING, TRANSPORT, PACKAGING AND IDENTIFICATION

Delegations continued discussions on particular recommendations not agreed by the expert groups (UNEP/CBD/ ICCP/3/7/Add.2 and 7/Add.3) on documentation regarding: living modified organisms (LMOs) for contained use (Article 18.2(b)); LMOs for intentional introduction (Article 18.2(c)); and LMOs for food, feed or processing (LMO-FFPs) (Article 18.2(a)).





Egypt, for the AFRICAN GROUP, noted implications for liability in cases of incomplete information.




ETHIOPIA requested consideration of LMOs in transit and pharmaceuticals for humans and animals.





ARGENTINA, stated that documentation should not prevent commodity trade, noting that the two-year period would allow countries to better determine necessary future requirements.
INFORMATION SHARING:




NORWAY, called for rules for use of unique identifiers, and advocated an open-ended expert group to develop recommendations on the issue for the first Meeting of the Parties (MOP).




CANADA suggested that national and international organizations provide options for unique identifier systems.
WORKING GROUP II: LIABILITY AND REDRESS
On the expert groupís terms of reference (TORs), many supported the groupís open-ended composition, flexibility of its TORs and periodic reports to the MOP. Delegates highlighted the type, definition and threshold of damage.





Cameroon, on behalf of the AFRICAN GROUP, stressed inter-generational damages and linked compliance to liability and redress.




AUSTRALIA recommended coherence on definitions used under the Protocolís Article 27 and CBD Article 14.2 on liability and redress.
COMPLIANCE:
The Secretariat introduced UNEP/CBD/ ICCP/3/4 and INF/3. Delegates agreed to focus on bracketed text. On the section on objective, nature and underlying principles, many developing countries favored retaining reference to common but differentiated responsibilities and deleting the specific refer≠ence to Rio Principle 7.



KENYA, supported by others, proposed a new option: referencing the principle in both the section on underlying principles and the section on measures to promote compliance.
 



NORWAY supported text specifying that committee members serve in their individual capacity and in the Protocolís best interest.
RECEPTION: HOSTED BY T HE GOVERNMENT OF THE NETHERLANDS

ENB Snapshots:


Links:

The CBD home page

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety home page

ENB Coverage of COP-6 |
COP-5 |SBSTTA-7 |WG on Article 8(j)-2|WG-ABS-1 |

COP-6 Provisional Agenda |PDF|WORD|

COP-6 Information for Participants in PDF

CBD-Handbook

IISD Introduction to the CBD Process

 

|| Back to Linkages home || Visit IISDnet || Send e-mail to ENB ||
ÔŅĹ 2002, IISD. All rights reserved.