2nd meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 
Biological Diversity serving as the meeting of the Parties to the 
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety  -  Issue #1           

EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) <http://www.iisd.org>

Written and edited by:

Leonie Gordon
Stefan Jungcurt 
Pia M. Kohler 
William McPherson, Ph.D. 
Elisa Morgera 
Elsa Tsioumani 

Editor:

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Director of IISD Reporting Services:

Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Vol. 9 No. 316
Tuesday, 31 May 2005

Online at http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/bs-copmop2/ 

COP/MOP-2 HIGHLIGHTS: 

MONDAY, 30 MAY 2005 

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) 
opened on Monday, 30 May, in Montreal, Canada. Delegates convened 
in plenary and working group sessions. Plenary heard opening 
statements, and addressed organizational matters and standing 
issues. Working Group I (WG-I) addressed the Biosafety 
Clearing-House (BCH), and risk assessment and risk management. 
Working Group II (WG-II) considered capacity building, including 
the roster of experts, and notification requirements. 

PLENARY

OPENING STATEMENTS: COP/MOP-2 President Suboh Mohd Yassin, Deputy 
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Natural Resources and 
Environment of Malaysia, opened the meeting. Ahmed Djoghlaf, on 
behalf of UNEP Executive Director Klaus T�pfer, said combating 
hunger and achieving food security are laudable goals, in the 
context of development and biosafety. CBD Executive Secretary 
Hamdallah Zedan noted that 119 countries have ratified the 
Biosafety Protocol.

Referring to visa difficulties experienced by some delegations, 
CANADA reassured Parties that it will continue working with the 
Secretariat to ensure delegates may enter the country. Ethiopia, 
on behalf of the AFRICAN GROUP, and IRAN reported problems in the 
granting of visas.

CHINA noted its recent ratification of the Biosafety Protocol. The 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA and the PHILIPPINES reported progress towards 
ratifying the Protocol. BRAZIL, PERU and SWITZERLAND reported on 
national implementation. The Netherlands, on behalf of the EU and 
BULGARIA, stressed that the main objective of the meeting should 
be to further facilitate the Protocol's implementation, taking 
into account the interests of developing countries, and of both 
importing and exporting countries. SWITZERLAND expressed hope that 
COP/MOP-2 decisions will encourage more exporting countries to 
become Parties. 

Kiribati, on behalf of the ASIA AND PACIFIC GROUP, called for a 
stand-alone identification document accompanying shipments of 
living modified organisms for food, feed or processing (LMO-FFPs), 
and for building capacity for the Protocol's implementation. 
India, on behalf of the LIKE-MINDED MEGADIVERSE COUNTRIES, 
emphasized: capacity building; the financial mechanism; 
notification; and, with the AFRICAN GROUP and IRAN, the need to 
decide urgently on elements of documentation. The PHILIPPINES 
highlighted: the need to fund capacity building; exchange of 
information on socioeconomic impacts; and identification of 
LMO-FFPs. 

The PUBLIC RESEARCH AND REGULATION INITIATIVE noted the lack of 
public research sector involvement during the Protocol's 
negotiation. GREENPEACE, on behalf of several NGOs, presented a 
case of contamination in Japan involving genetically modified 
canola shipped from Canada, and urged delegates to adopt 
stand-alone documentation and an interim regime on liability and 
redress. The INTERNATIONAL GRAIN TRADE COALITION expressed concern 
regarding the Protocol's impacts, particularly regarding 
documentation requirements and liability, on the efficiency and 
cost of bulk trade in commodities. The GLOBAL INDUSTRY COALITION 
expressed concern that few import decisions and risk assessments 
have been registered with the BCH.

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: The Secretariat said the COP/MOP-1 Bureau 
will continue serving at this meeting. ETHIOPIA proposed 
discussing, under other matters, the issue of accessibility of the 
seat of the CBD Secretariat to delegates representing Parties and 
observers. Delegates adopted the agenda and organization of work 
(UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/1 and Add.1) with this addition. Birthe 
Ivars (Norway) and Orlando Santos (Cuba) were elected Chairs of 
WG-I and WG-II respectively. Sem Shikongo (Namibia) was elected 
Rapporteur of the meeting.

STANDING ISSUES: Compliance Committee: Compliance Committee Chair 
Veit Koester (Denmark) introduced the report of the Committee's 
first meeting (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/2), including its work plan 
and draft rules of procedure. BRAZIL, THAILAND, JAPAN and NEW 
ZEALAND expressed concern that some of the draft rules of 
procedure contradict the Committee's facilitative role and 
transparent procedures as outlined in Decision BS-I/VII 
(Compliance), particularly regarding rule 18 (Voting) providing 
for two-thirds majority decision making in the absence of 
consensus, and rule 14 (Conduct of Business) referring to closed 
sessions. Delegates decided to address these issues in a Friends 
of the Chair group.

Financial mechanism: The Secretariat introduced a note on the 
financial mechanism and resources (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/5). The 
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) reported on its relevant 
activities. COP/MOP-2 President Yassin proposed that discussions 
on this item resume in conjunction with discussions on capacity 
building. 

Cooperation with other organizations: The Secretariat introduced a 
note on cooperation with other organizations, conventions and 
initiatives (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/6). Several participants noted 
the importance of cooperation with other bodies, including: the 
World Trade Organization; the Codex Alimentarius Commission; the 
Secretariat to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, 
Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in 
Environmental Matters of the UN Economic Commission for Europe; 
and the World Customs Organization.

Administration and performance of trust funds: Executive Secretary 
Zedan presented a report on the administration of the Protocol and 
the income and budget performance of the three trust funds 
established to finance activities under the Protocol 
(UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/7 and Add.1). COP/MOP-2 President Yassin 
said the Bureau will discuss ways to secure funding and the cost 
implications of activities to be undertaken before COP/MOP-3, and 
report to plenary. 

Liability and redress: Ren� Lefeber (the Netherlands), Co-Chair of 
the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts 
on liability and redress, reported on the meeting held in Montreal 
immediately prior to COP/MOP-2. Plenary took note of the report. 

WORKING GROUP I

BIOSAFETY CLEARING-HOUSE: The Secretariat introduced documents on 
the operation and activities of the BCH (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/3), 
including a draft multi-year programme of work (MYPOW), and on the 
internal review of the BCH (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/INF/1). Many 
countries welcomed the MYPOW. SWITZERLAND called for a focus on 
the structure and function of the BCH central portal and, with 
SOUTH AFRICA, on information content and management. The REPUBLIC 
OF KOREA suggested accelerating MYPOW timeframes. Stressing the 
key role of the BCH in implementing the Protocol, many developing 
countries emphasized capacity building and non-internet 
accessibility, and highlighted, inter alia, building national 
capacities for data collection and making information available in 
different languages. 

The EU underscored the interoperability of central, regional and 
national databases. CUBA urged the flexible incorporation of 
information in formats not currently used by the BCH. SYRIA, 
EGYPT, MALAYSIA and KENYA called for regional capacity-building 
workshops. ARGENTINA noted that capacity building should be 
available to Parties and non-Parties without discrimination. 
THAILAND suggested using statistical data in the BCH review.

The FAO described the International Portal on Food Safety, Animal 
and Plant Health, stressing the FAO's commitment to 
interoperability with the BCH. The GLOBAL INDUSTRY COALITION 
called for enabling Parties to fulfill information-sharing 
requirements. The INTERNATIONAL GRAIN TRADE COALITION said that 
posting information on LMOs not in commercial use can lead to 
unnecessary documentation costs. WG-I Chair Ivars said she will 
prepare a Chair's text for further discussion.

RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT: The Secretariat introduced a 
document on risk assessment and management (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/
2/9) and a compilation of guidance material (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/
2/INF/2). 

Several countries supported elaborating guiding principles on risk 
assessment and management, with UKRAINE saying they should include 
minimum requirements and allow for national-level flexibility, and 
COLOMBIA recommending they not be prescriptive or constraining. 
The AFRICAN GROUP, NORWAY, PANAMA, MALAYSIA, CUBA and others 
supported establishing a subsidiary scientific body to elaborate 
such guidelines. MEXICO, JAPAN, INDIA, NEW ZEALAND and UKRAINE 
noted that such a decision would be premature, with BRAZIL 
explaining that it should be based on risk assessment needs 
identified in the interim national reports, scheduled for 
submission in September 2005. Many countries emphasized capacity 
building, in particular regional workshops for sharing 
experiences, and called for posting guidance on risk assessment 
and management on the BCH central portal. WG-I Chair Ivars said 
discussions will resume Tuesday morning. 

WORKING GROUP II

CAPACITY BUILDING: The Secretariat introduced notes on the status 
of capacity-building activities and use of the roster of experts 
(UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/4 and Add.1) and relevant information 
documents (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/INF/7-10).

SWITZERLAND reported on a coordination meeting of institutions 
offering biosafety-related training and education programmes. 
Several delegates emphasized: developing institutional, financial 
and technical capacity for implementing the Protocol; capacity 
building in risk assessment and management, and in detection, 
identification and monitoring of LMOs; and regional and bilateral 
cooperation. AUSTRALIA prioritized border controls, and science-
based national decision-making frameworks. Several developing 
country delegates stressed the need to extend GEF funding to 
address countries' currently identified capacity-building needs 
and urged donor countries to contribute. Many called for 
simplifying procedures to access GEF and donor support, and for 
coordinating donor assistance. 

On the draft decision, the EU suggested that the proposed 
questionnaire address constraints in using the roster of experts 
and the Coordination Mechanism, and MEXICO that the decision 
include corrective measures to address these constraints. PERU 
stressed information exchange and data management, including 
ensuring full participation in the BCH. COLOMBIA, SAUDI ARABIA and 
the GEF stressed the need to guarantee the sustainability of 
capacity-building activities. 

CAMEROON called for strengthening research for country 
assessments. MALAYSIA prioritized public research and quick LMO 
assessments. ARGENTINA indicated that storage capacity should be 
included among infrastructural needs. The US recommended focusing 
on exports of LMO-FFPs and LMOs for research. On the review of the 
action plan, AUSTRALIA proposed assessing the effectiveness and 
outputs of already allocated funds. 

On the roster of experts, WG-II Chair Santos reported that the 
Executive Secretary has not received any requests from Parties for 
the use of the roster and related funding. ARGENTINA, UGANDA, 
CAMEROON and GABON stressed the need to publicize the roster and 
promote awareness of available funding. The GLOBAL INDUSTRY 
COALITION suggested introducing a quality control system. WG-II 
Chair Santos said a Chair's text will be drafted.

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: The Secretariat introduced the document 
on options for implementing notification requirements 
(UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/8). The EU, NORWAY, SWITZERLAND, SOUTH 
AFRICA, FIJI, BRAZIL, NEW ZEALAND, PERU, INDIA and ARGENTINA 
suggested keeping the issue under review pending submission of 
interim national reports. ALGERIA, MEXICO, MALAYSIA and CUBA said 
some guidance could be adopted while continuing to benefit from 
national experiences. WG-II Chair Santos said discussions will 
resume on Tuesday morning.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Disagreement over the Compliance Committee's rules of procedure 
gave plenary an early thrill, as some Parties felt that majority 
voting in the Committee, even as a last resort, was incompatible 
with the envisioned non-adversarial nature of the compliance 
process. While several noted that voting issues are always tricky, 
others feared that this represented an attempt to limit the 
Compliance Committee's reach. Meanwhile, participants were 
optimistic that difficulties in finding a Chair for the Friends of 
the Chair group would soon be resolved, wishful that this 
contretemps does not reflect a substantive divergence of opinions 
on the measures the Committee is entitled to take.

In contrast to the uneventful discussions in WG-II, WG-I got off 
to a rocky start as many countries, champing at the bit to tackle 
documentation requirements, wanted to jumpstart considerations of 
the matter and make full use of the time available. Others, 
however, preferred to consider the issues before them in the order 
laid out in the agenda adopted just hours before. Some delegates 
felt that, in light of the ensuing detailed discussions on risk 
assessment and management, the strategy of disposing of less 
controversial topics first may backfire and is unlikely to save 
much time for discussions on documentation.




This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is 
written and edited by Leonie Gordon, Stefan Jungcurt, Pia M. 
Kohler, William McPherson, Ph.D., Elisa Morgera, and Elsa 
Tsioumani. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. The Editor is 
Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the Director of IISD 
Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the 
Government of the United States of America (through the Department 
of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and 
Scientific Affairs), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the 
Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the 
United Kingdom (through the Department for International 
Development - DFID), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the 
Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of 
Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development 
Cooperation - BMZ), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 
the European Commission (DG-ENV), and the Italian Ministry of 
Environment. General Support for the Bulletin during 2005 is 
provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the 
Government of Australia, the Austrian Federal Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, the 
Ministry of Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Ministry of Environment and the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, SWAN International, the 
Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global 
Environmental Strategies - IGES), and the Japanese Ministry of 
Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and 
Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI). Specific funding for 
coverage of this meeting has been provided by the New Zealand 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Funding for translation of 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into French has been provided by 
the International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the 
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by 
the Ministry of Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do 
not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. 
Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-
commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For 
information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide 
reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting 
Services at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, +1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. 
#21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. The ENB Team at COP/MOP-2 can be 
contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

---
You are currently subscribed to enb as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subscribe to Linkages Update to receive our fortnightly, html-newsletter on 
what's new in the international environment and sustainable development arena: 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm
- Archives of Climate-L and Climate-L News are available online at: 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/climate-L.htm
- Archives of Water-L and Water-L News are available online at: 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/water-L.htm

Reply via email to