Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

The International Protocol on Biosafety, after the last venue Cartagena (Colombia ) just called Cartagena Protocol, is entered into force on 11 September 2003 international follow-up agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It regulates the first international legally binding cross -border transport, handling and use of genetically modified organisms. It describes measures are provided to protect the genetic resources of potential hazards that may be associated with the release of genetically modified organisms.

Key points

The key elements of the Protocol on Biosafety are:

• If living modified organisms are to be exported to another country to be released there in the environment, is to maintain a specified information and decision-making procedures (Advanced Informed Agreement Procedure ). The exporting country is obliged to inform the recipient country to make all information available, which are needed for a safety assessment. This may prohibit the import, if plausible doubts about the safety of the environment, biodiversity and human health exist. Unlike the World Trade Agreement no sound scientific evidence is needed to justify a ban. The protocol allows the States thus to impose precautionary import bans.
• When you trade in genetically modified organisms such as Soybeans or corn to be processed immediately to food and feed in the importing country, this procedure does not apply. The exporting States undertake to make available to all relevant safety information an international clearing house. Importing countries can fall back on if necessary.
• When trading with GMOs with the intention of releasing the consent of the importing country is always required - but not on exports of GMO products if a release is not provided. The exporting country is responsible for ensuring that the recipient country, all security-related information and intelligence.

Ratification process

The negotiation of a protocol on Biosafety was adopted in 1995 by the then 170 member countries of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. A similar conference of States Parties was started in 1999 in Cartagena, Columbia and adopted in 2000 in Montreal. In 2003 it was legally binding with the ratification by 50 states. Meanwhile, 159 States and the European Union have recognized the protocol. Not a signatory to include some countries with high agricultural exports such as USA and Australia. Other world agricultural exporters that are signatories to the Cartagena Protocol, but have not ratified, are Argentina and Canada. 166 have already ratified it, including not only Germany, almost all EU countries. It was agreed also holding regular follow-up conferences that deal with the implementation of the Protocol. The first of these conferences took place in 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, where the establishment of a clearinghouse for Biosafety and questions were decided on liability law and documentation of cross-border deliveries of eligible organisms. The clearinghouse is intended to get access to all national and transnational genetically relevant data.

Relationship to WTO agreements

The Cartagena Protocol was designed by lawyers as confused, bad, referred incompletely and without reference to the WTO Agreement. It can not ensure that its commissions are not used to make arbitrary and unjustified discriminatory restrictions on international trade.

Criticism

The protocol has been criticized by the biologist Willy de Greef from the University of Ghent, since it constitutes a serious threat to the efforts of public research to make lasting contributions to food security and health care in developing countries. The protocol was an attempt of the ban on agricultural biotechnology under another name. For example, it complicates the spread of golden rice. There was criticism that no representatives of the reputable science were present at the first round of negotiations, but more than 100 representatives of NGOs, which would represent a science and technology- hostile agenda. Of the more than 20 presentations on agricultural biotechnology to have not one dealt with their benefits and potential.

A core recommendation of a meeting convened by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in May 2009 panel of experts is to free the Green genetic engineering of excessive and unscientific regulation. In particular, it calls for a revision of the Cartagena Protocol, the export European-style regulation in developing countries.