Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Statement by the Government of Australia

Final plenary session, Biosafety Protocol MOP2 – 3 June 2005

Mr President

Thank you for giving me the floor to make this statement on behalf of the Government of Australia. We would also like to thank you, Mr Chairman, and other officials who have facilitated this second meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol.

Mr President, it is not well known that Australia is a megadiverse country with about 10 per cent of the world’s biodiversity. We have a strong and abiding interest in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Australia is, and will continue to be, an active party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. We take very seriously our obligations under the CBD and other international environment conventions and agreements.

Australia is also a centre for research, development and investment in modern biotechnology. Therefore, Australia is pursuing the responsiblemanagement of biotechnology by maintaining a strong science-based domestic regulatory regime. We are watching with interest as many countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and many of our important trading partners, develop their biotechnology policy settings and approaches. And where possible, we would like to work together to maximize the mutual benefits of rigorous, science-based biosafety frameworks.

Australia has, therefore, a range of interests at stake in the discussions under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.  Although we are a non-Party, we have sought to better inform ourselves about the workings of this new international instrument. And we are closely following the progress towards implementation by Parties.

Mr President, we recognise the spirit of compromise which delegations have shown during MOP2 in progressing the implementation of the Protocol, while pursuing their important national interests. My delegation has sought to contribute positively to the process, by drawing on our national experiences as a megadiverse nation with an effective biotechnology regulatory system.

We trust that this has contributed to a better understanding of conventional and biotech exporter country positions, particularly the importance of practical, cost-effective outcomes that are consistent with other international obligations.

Mr President, we have observed this week’s proceedings with great interest and have developed a better understanding of the Protocol and Parties’ interests. But there are aspects of the process that has characterized this meeting, and some of the decisions agreed today, which Australia can not support. Many of our concerns are based on the view that effective implementation of existing commitments under the Protocol will achieve more practical progress towards the Protocol’s objective of “contributing to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs”, than seeking to expand the agenda and workload of the Protocol.

We understand effective implementation to consist of measures that are science-based and avoid undue burdens and compliance costs.  In that context, we welcome decisions which are based on practical experience.

This applies particularly in circumstances where many Parties are encountering challenges in developing their national regulatory frameworks and fully meeting their existing commitments. In particular, Mr President, we are concerned about:

• The apparent desire of many Parties to reinterpret or expand closely negotiated text of the Biosafety Protocol, that ignores the intent and content of the compromises in the Protocol
• Many Parties’ willingness to expand their work into policy areas which we believe are not central to the Protocol, such as socio-economic considerations, and the potential duplication of work within existing international organisations such as Codex Alimentarius or the International Plant Protection Convention which develop recognised standards
• The unnecessary haste in pursuing the establishment of a liability and redress regime under the Protocol, without any common understanding of the nature of damage which might result from transboundary movements of LMOs or the scope of such liability regime, and
• Any suggestion that decision-making under the Protocol and its associated bodies should be anything other than based on consensus, with maximum transparency and due process for all concerned.

Mr President, during the past week my delegation has highlighted the importance of governments taking responsibility for the effective implementation of the Biosafety Protocol at the national level. The Protocol is not a substitute for rigorous, science-based national biosafety frameworks. National, not international, action is required to establish robust institutional frameworks for legislative, science-based risk assessment and decision-making and border control measures.

Australia recognizes that effective capacity building can assist the many parties facing challenges in implementing their obligations under the Protocol. We have, therefore, been a significant contributor to the Global Environment Facility, committing AUD 184 million since 1991. And we continue to work with countries in the Asia-Pacific region to develop their institutional biosafety capabilities.

In conclusion, Australia notes that Parties were not able to reach a decision on documentation requirements. Mr President, no decision is better than a bad decision. Clearly Parties have decided that more time and experience are necessary before making any decision on this important and complex subject. We believe this is wise. Decisions taken by Parties will have significant impacts on us all as beneficiaries of the international trade in essential food, feed and fibre. Adventitious presence of GMOs in non-GMO shipments should not be a trigger for documentation requirements under Article 28.2 (a). Australia remains willing to work with others on these important issues.

Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to present Australia’s views. I request that this statement be incorporated into the formal record of this meeting. Thank you.