The conclusions of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety fail to address fully a central concern of developing countries: the social and economic impact of genetic modification technology.
THE First Meeting of the Parties (MOP1) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from February 23 to 27. It was attended by 87 countries, including India, which are currently party to the Protocol. The Biosafety Protocol derives from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which was adopted in 1992 in Nairobi. It was concluded in 2000 after several years of negotiations, and is the first binding international agreement dealing with biosafety with respect to genetically modified organisms, which the Protocol refers to as Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). The Protocol itself came into force on September 11, 2003, when the requisite number of Parties had ratified it. India is a signatory to the Biosafety Protocol and is bound by its provisions.
The provisions relate both to domestic measures that Parties have to implement and to the trans-boundary movement of LMOs. Domestic measures require Parties to regulate and control the risks associated with LMOs that may have an impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and on human health. There is a special focus on the risks associated with the release of LMOs in centres of origin and diversity. This would apply to India with the case of rice and other crop varieties, for which it is a centre of origin and diversity. The trans-boundary movement of LMOs would touch upon trade in genetically modified foods and, where relevant, aid consignments.
Over the years of negotiations for the Biosafety Protocol, certain issues remained contentious, over which consensus could not be reached, chiefly because of the opposition of the United States (which is not a member of the CBD or the Protocol) and its allies, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, forming the Miami Group. Some of these unresolved issues were brought to Kuala Lumpur, and these included identifying shipments of LMOs; dealing with Parties that do not comply with the provisions of the Protocol; and fixing liability and paying compensation in cases where damage has occurred owing to the trans-boundary movement of LMOs.
Ten major decisions were taken at the Kuala Lumpur MOP1. Of these, the three most important were: measures for handling, transporting, packaging and identifying LMOs in line with Article 18 of the Protocol; establishing compliance procedures and mechanisms for the Protocol; and establishing an expert working group on liability and redress in the context of the Protocol. Under Article 18 of the Protocol, countries are required to take measures to ensure that LMOs that move across borders are handled, packaged and transported safely. The aim is to avoid adverse effects on biodiversity and risks to human health. MOP1 decided that there would have to be distinct documentation to accompany the three categories of LMOs. These are LMOs to be used as food or feed or for processing (FFP); those that are for "contained use" as in laboratories; and those meant for introduction into the environment, for example, genetically modified seeds for planting. For the FFP category, documents should clearly identify that the shipment may contain LMOs for direct use as food or feed or for processing, but not for introduction into the environment. The documents should include the common, scientific and commercial names of the LMOs, and the method of genetic modification. An expert group was set up to develop a detailed implementation proposal for this.
For the category of LMOs meant for laboratory use, accompanying documents should clearly identify the LMOs by their common and scientific names and state that they are destined for contained use. Their commercial names and the new and modified traits and characteristics should be included. For the third category, like GM seeds, the documents should clearly describe their names and traits, specially the transgenic traits, the genetic transformation events and unique identification. The commercial name, risk class and the required approval permit for import under the Protocol should also be included. The documentation of LMOs under categories two and three must also specify any special requirements needed for safe handling, storage, transport and use under existing international instruments, as well as domestic regulations and any agreement made between the exporter and the importer. On the compliance issue, MOP1 had a long debate on how to deal with countries that do not comply with their obligations under the Protocol. The European countries were especially keen to get a strong compliance regime so that member-countries would take their obligations seriously.
India took an ambiguous stand on compliance, not supportive of a strong compliance mechanism. This was probably because of the perception that it would one day be an exporter of genetically modified foods and products and therefore would not want to confront a rigorous compliance regime. India's weak stand on compliance is not a wise one. First, it would encourage bad practices at home. A not-always-literate farming community, traders who are not in tune with international practices, and the overall poor level of awareness about the implications of genetically modified crops for the environment and human health could create dangerous situations. Strong compliance is needed at home, to protect us from ourselves and from others.
Despite the progress made at MOP1, it remained a matter of concern that the conclusions failed to take on board a central concern of developing countries: that of the social and economic impacts of genetic modification technology. This is of crucial significance to India and other developing countries where the impact on small farmers and their livelihoods could be considerable. Although it is very important to monitor genetically modified crops for their impact on biodiversity and the environment as well as the health of humans and animals, it is equally important to watch out for the social and economical implications of this technology for farmers and consumers in developing countries. The social and economic costs of this technology could be highly significant in the agricultural situation of the South and this should be monitored as critically as health and the environment.
It is a pity that the discussions at the Biosafety Protocol did not take up the social and economic aspects even though some country delegations, especially the African Union, flagged the issue repeatedly. The African countries in fact were trying to keep the focus on this aspect alive at all levels of the discussions accompanying the meetings. Although India did mention socio-economic concerns in the official interventions, there was little follow-up or lobbying to create a strong pressure group that would put the issue on the main agenda. As a result, it was not included in the main conclusions of MOP1.
It is short-sighted to overlook the fact that genetic modification technology could turn out to be counter-productive in the agricultural economies of developing countries. If it were to displace small farmers, the impact would be detrimental. In fact, in genetic modification research there is considerable emphasis on producing through genetic engineering products that are at the moment produced only in developing countries. One may recall what happened to vanilla. Madagascar, once the largest producer of vanilla, earned sizable revenue for its farmers through its export. Determined to break this monopoly, U.S. laboratories succeeded in synthesising vanilla and the markets, flooded with the cheaper version, turned away from the natural vanilla produced by Madagascar. This resulted in big economic losses and hardship for farmers in Madagascar. Similarly, sugar-producing countries in Asia have suffered at the hands of another laboratory-based substitution. Cornstarch is used to make high fructose corn syrup, which has displaced sugar in large amounts from sectors like confectionery. In fact, most of the genetically modified corn that is being grown by the U.S. and Canada is used either in the production of high fructose corn syrup or as animal feed.
A strong line of genetic modification research in the West currently is attempting to produce the characteristics of coconut and palm oil in the more common canola (a form of mustard). Canola grows in countries in the temperate zone whereas coconut and oil palm grow in the tropics. Many farmers in Asia earn a livelihood from the export of coconut and palm oil, both of which are sought-after in the U.S. and Europe for their special properties like high lauric acid content. When genetic modification technology creates canola plants that produce oils with high lauric acid content, it would mean the loss of markets for farmers growing coconuts and oil palm in countries like India and Malaysia.
Given the potential of this technology to damage the agricultural prospects of developing countries, its social and economic impact must be taken on board in the international agreements on biosafety, through the Biosafety Protocol.
In effect this would mean that countries should have the right to refuse the import of a genetically modified crop that could displace the produce of their own farmers, without attracting penalties and sanctions of the kind that happened in the E.U.-U.S. case. The E.U., which has had a de facto moratorium on genetically modified crops, refused the exports of corn and soybean from the U.S. and was hauled by that country to the World Trade Organisation Dispute Settlement Court and threatened with huge fines for refusing U.S. imports, an act, the U.S. claimed, was trade distorting. Such a situation could easily arise for India and other developing countries if they were to refuse imports of genetically modified foods on socio-economic grounds, unless this was regulated through the internationally binding nature of the Biosafety Protocol. It is in India's interest to ensure that socio-economic concerns as provided for in Article 26 of the Protocol are brought on to the main agenda.
