Select a Specific Issue Area

 

 

 
Read the Backgrounder on the Biosafety Protocol | Read the Letter to President Clinton | Read the Press Release | Back to Main Safefood Index
 
Who Wants What at the International Biosafety
Protocol Negotiations?

The Miami Group (USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile)
The Miami Group, consisting of large grain commodity and GMO export countries, would like to exclude commodities from the agreement completely. This would leave the bulk (some 90%) of transboundary movements of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) unregulated (or at best subject to minimum information sharing provisions when they are first officially approved).
 
The Miami Group is adamant that the Protocol include a "savings clause" which would protect its "rights" under other international agreements, in particular, the World Trade Organization (WTO). In arguing for a savings clause, the Miami Group is pressing for trade concerns to prevail over those of human health and the environment. If the Protocol does include a savings clause, the right of countries, consumers and farmers to say "no" to GEOs would be severely curtailed. The current limitations of the WTO would also apply, for example, the inability to adequately apply the precautionary principle and the tendency to protect big business interests over the interests of citizens, consumers and the environment.
 
The Like Minded Group (LMG): over 100 developing countries and China
The LMG is particularly concerned that the scope of the Protocol and the Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure cover all GEOs including those for food, feed and commodities and contained use. The AIA requires exporters of GEOs to get consent in advance from importing countries. The LMG supports the rights of importing countries to accept, reject or place conditions on the GEOs in question, based on environmental, scientific, cultural and other relevant considerations. The LMG proposal would allow exemptions for GEOs that are human pharmaceuticals or for use in research.

The LMG is also concerned about the capacity of many developing countries to adequately regulate and handle GEOs. They would like assistance and time to implement the Protocol if it is agreed.
 
The European Union (EU)
The latest EU position was agreed at a meeting of EU Environment Ministers on December 13, 1999. The EU wants to resume negotiations where they broke off last Februrary in Cartagena. It states that it is determined to reach an agreement that includes GEOs for food, feed or processing as well as for cultivation. It has also stated that it will push for an "adequate" authorization procedure. The EU may decide to live with the current compromise on the precautionary principle and liability.
 
A key question at the talks will be how much further the EU will compromise in order to get an agreement; in particular, will the EU compromise on the relationship between trade and Biosafety? The Environment Council has stated that trade and environmental agreements or policies should be "mutually supportive and have equal legal status with other agreements and not be subordinate to such agreements." In practice, just conceding that the two only have equal standing may give the WTO the stronger hand because it has stronger enforcement mechanisms.
 
The Compromise Group (Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and others)
This group claim to be playing a bridging role where they are not necessarily agreed on all points but prepared to broker compromises. In Vienna last fall, where an informal meeting of the Parties occurred, the Compromise Group tabled ideas for an alternative (weaker) AIA procedure for GEOs including those intended for food, feed and processing. The Miami group would not agree to this compromise however.
 
The Central and Eastern Europeans
To date this group has essentially acted with the LMG.
 
Read the Backgrounder on the Biosafety Protocol | Read the Letter to President Clinton | Read the Press Release | Back to Main Safefood Index

Friends of the Earth - 1025 Vermont Ave. NW - Washington, DC 20005 USA Tel: 202-783-7400 - Fax: 202-783-0444 - email: foe@foe.org