Cartagena Protocol

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The International Protocol on Biosafety , called the Cartagena Protocol for short after the last place of negotiation, Cartagena (Colombia) , is an international follow-up agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity that came into force on September 11, 2003 . For the first time, it regulates the cross-border transport, handling and handling of genetically modified organisms in a binding manner under international law . This includes measures to protect genetic resources from possible dangers that may be associated with the release of genetically modified organisms.

In 2010 it was supplemented by the Nagoya Protocol , including the Aichi goals .

core items

The key points of the Protocol on Biosafety are:

  • If living genetically modified organisms are to be exported to another country in order to be released into the environment there, a specific information and decision-making process must be observed (Advanced Informed Agreement Procedure). The exporting country is obliged to make all information available to the recipient country that is necessary for a safety assessment. This can prohibit imports if there are plausible doubts about the safety for the environment, biological diversity and human health. In contrast to the world trade agreements , no sound scientific evidence is necessary to justify a ban. The protocol thus allows states to impose import bans as a precaution.
  • When trading in genetically modified organisms such as For example, if soybeans or maize are immediately processed into food and feed in the importing country, this procedure does not apply. The exporting states undertake to make all security-relevant information available to an international clearing house. Importing countries can use them if necessary.
  • When trading in GMOs with the intention of releasing them, the consent of the importing country is generally required - but not when exporting GMO products if a release is not intended. The exporting country is responsible for ensuring that all security-relevant information and findings are available to the recipient country.

Ratification process

The negotiation of a protocol on biological security was already decided in 1995 by the then 170 member states of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. A corresponding conference of the contracting states began in 1999 in Cartagena, Colombia, and passed in Montréal in 2000 . It became legally binding in 2003 when it was ratified by 50 states. 159 states and the European Union have now recognized the protocol. Some countries with high agricultural exports such as the USA and Australia are not among the signatories. Other world agricultural exporters who have signed but not ratified the Cartagena Protocol are Argentina and Canada. 166 have already ratified it, including Germany and almost all EU countries. It was also agreed that regular follow-up conferences would be held to deal with the implementation of the protocol. The first of these conferences took place in 2004 in Kuala Lumpur , where the decision was made to set up a clearing house for biological safety as well as questions about liability law and the documentation of cross-border deliveries of relevant organisms. The clearing house is to have access to all national and transnational genetically relevant data.

Relationship to WTO Agreement

The Cartagena Protocol has been described by lawyers as confused, poorly designed, incomplete and without reference to the WTO agreements. It cannot ensure that its commissions are not used to arbitrarily and unjustifiably discriminatory restrictions on international trade .

Overview of all meetings

criticism

The protocol has been criticized by the biologist Willy de Greef of Ghent University as a serious threat to public research efforts to make sustainable contributions to food security and health care in developing countries. The protocol is an attempt to ban green genetic engineering under a different name. For example, it makes it more difficult to spread the golden rice . It was criticized that no representatives of serious science were present at the first round of negotiations, but that over 100 representatives from non-governmental organizations who represent an agenda that is hostile to science and technology. Of over 20 presentations on agrogene technology, not a single one dealt with its benefits and potential.

A key recommendation of a panel of experts convened by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in May 2009 is to free green genetic engineering from excessive and unscientific regulation. In particular, she advocates a revision of the Cartagena Protocol, which exports European-style regulation to developing countries.

literature

  • Christoph Bail, Robert Falkner, Helen Marquard: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling Trade in Biotechnology With Environment and Development? Earthscan, 2002, ISBN 1-85383-840-3 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. October 13, 2010 on: Transgen.de
  2. ↑ treaties.un.org
  3. ↑ AsifQureshi: The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety and the WTO co-existence or incoherence? ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 49, 2000, pp. 835-855. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / 69.90.183.227
  4. ^ B. Eggers, R. Mackenzie: The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. In: Journal of International Economic Law. Vol. 3, 2000, pp. 525-543.
  5. ↑ Meetings of the COP-MOP at bch.cbd.int, accessed on November 21, 2015.
  6. ^ Willy De Greef: The Cartagena Protocol and the future of agbiotech. (PDF; 281 kB) In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 22, 2004, No. 7, pp. 811-812.
  7. ↑ Vatican panel backs GMOs (PDF; 184 kB). Nature Biotechnology , Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 11.