Negotiators Meet in Montreal to Finalize Biosafety Protocol

By Jim Fuller
Washington File Science Writer

Washington -- Negotiators from around the world will resume talks January 28 in Montreal in an effort to finalize a protocol to address potential threats to biodiversity posed by living modified organisms (LMOs).

The Biosafety Protocol is being negotiated under the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity that was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Upon entry into force, the protocol would regulate trade and other transboundary movement of products modified by genetic engineering.

"The ability of modern biotechnology to contribute to human well-being in the 21st century will be boosted dramatically if the international community takes action now to create credible and effective safeguards for the environment," said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, which administers the secretariat of the convention.

David Sandalow, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs and head of the U.S. delegation in Montreal, said the world cannot ignore the tremendous potential benefits of biotechnology. One of those benefits, he said, is to help reduce the pressure on forests around the world -- forests that are being cleared for farmland.

"The simple fact is that global population is going to increase by 50 to 100 percent in the next 50 years, and we cannot feed that growing population on current arable land with current agricultural practices," he said. "We need to find ways to improve and enhance agricultural productivity, and this technology offers an important potential tool."

With regard to the talks in Montreal, Sandalow said U.S. negotiators "are hoping to achieve a workable agreement that protects the environment without disrupting world food trade."

The resumed talks on the Biosafety Protocol, to be held January 20-28, follow the suspension of the First Session of the Extraordinary Conference of the Parties to the Convention last February in Cartagena, Colombia. Two rounds of open-ended informal consultations have been held since, the first in Montreal in July and the second in Vienna in September.

While the United States has signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, it has not been adopted by Congress. So while the United States cannot become a party to the protocol, it has nonetheless participated fully in the negotiations to date.

Officials in Cartagena were unable to finalize the text of a protocol due to a number of outstanding differences, including disagreement over the proposed scope of the treaty's regulatory powers.

One group of negotiators, which includes the United States and other major agricultural exporters, want to restrict the scope of the protocol to LMOs intended for introduction into the environment, such as seeds for planting or fish for release in lakes and streams. Another group of negotiators, which includes many developing countries, argues for a broader definition that would include LMOs that are agricultural commodities or that are used for food, animal feed or processing.

LMOs include various food crops that have been genetically modified for greater productivity or nutritional value, or for resistance to pests or diseases. About 40 new biotech agricultural products have completed U.S. federal regulatory requirements and may be sold commercially. They range from longer-lasting tomatoes to pest-resistant corn and cotton.

The commodities issue centers on the so-called Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) -- a procedure set out in the protocol to assure countries that they will be notified prior to the shipment of LMOs that may pose potential risks to biodiversity.

"We support an AIA focused on LMOs that will be intentionally introduced into the environment, such as seeds," Sandalow said in an interview. "We do not support an AIA that would extend to other types of LMOs in international trade, such as commodities, which are not designed to be introduced into the environment. We do not see how such an AIA would be practical."

Sandalow said bulk commodities, like corn for example, are shipped internationally in large quantities and mixed together at different destinations. "As I understand it, boats containing the commodity might stop in many different ports around the world, often picking up the product as well as dropping it off, so that there is significant mixing."

Sandalow said the only practical way to implement an AIA procedure that included bulk commodities like corn would be to segregate different shipments of corn. "And that would require massive new investments in infrastructure to allow the tracing of that produce from the place of import all the way back to the field where it was grown," he said.

Sandalow added that the Biodiversity Convention is an environmental agreement "and should not become an agreement that deals with other issues, for example, food safety, nor should it become a trade agreement. It is an agreement that should be focused on environmental issues."

With regard to another important issue being discussed by negotiators, Sandalow said the United States does not support a requirement for special documentation for commodity shipments outside the AIA procedure. He also emphasized that the shipping documentation issue should not be confused with consumer labeling. "The issue of consumer labeling is not on the table in the protocol negotiations," he said.

Some consumer groups in the United States are asking that labels be required on foods with bioengineered ingredients to give consumers more information. Some countries already require such labels.

Regarding another unresolved question, U.S. negotiators believe that the relationship of the protocol to other international agreements, such as those of the World Trade Organization (WTO), should be clearly stated to protect against disputes over this relationship in the future.

"We don't need any language (in the protocol) that subordinates one agreement to another or creates political hierarchies between agreements," Sandalow said. "In our view, trade and environment agreements have equal status, and we don't need language that would say something other than that."

U.S. negotiators also believe the protocol should help countries make informed decisions with regard to LMO imports through the timely sharing of information on LMO approvals and agricultural biotechnology development. Such information-sharing, which could include the use of the Internet, would help raise a country's comfort level with the new technology.

Overall, Sandalow believes an agreement can be reached in Montreal. "There has been less progress since Cartagena than we would have liked, but...there have been important new proposals for flexibility" put forward by the major exporting nations. "If other negotiating blocs are also prepared to show flexibility, a deal is possible. A deal would be desirable so that we would have an international instrument that would help us address this problem."

Sandalow also said that the views of various community, business and scientific groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) remain a central part of the U.S. policy development process.

"We've been in consultations with a broad range of viewpoints as we shape our policy," he said. "And it's important that we continue to do so. The lines of communications have to remain open. Most of the expertise on this topic...is outside the government."

Critics of agricultural biotechnology have expressed concern that the new technology creates uncertainties about long-term effects on human health and the environment. But those who support biotechnology point to the potential benefits, such as creating food crops with increased yields; improving the resistance of plants to pests, disease and environmental pressures; and helping to dramatically reduce the use of pesticides in many parts of the world. Food products with higher levels of vitamins or reduced saturated fats are also in development.

"I think it is important that we pursue the benefits of biotechnology as well as the risks," Sandalow said. "Any new technology has risks associated with it. In the United States, we have a regulatory apparatus for addressing the risks. At the same time, we should not ignore the tremendous potential benefits of biotechnology."

Agronomist Norman Borlaug, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 and is hailed as "The Father of the Green Revolution," asserts in a recent article that the application of current and new agricultural technology will enable the world to feed a population projected to reach 8,300 million by 2025. He said farmers worldwide will need to "have access to current high-yield crop-production methods and to continue biotech breakthroughs" to increase cereal crop yields by 80 percent to meet projected food demands.

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.