Submission of the Government of Australia

Views on Article 18.2a

(pursuant to ICCP2 recommendation

The Biosafety Protocol is intended to assist countries to safeguard their biodiversity when making decisions on the import of LMOs.  It facilitates the provision of information by which countries can:

• make scientifically sound and transparent case-by-case assessments about whether the import of an LMO (or group of LMOs) would pose any risks to their biodiversity; and
• take appropriate risk management action if necessary (based on those assessments).

It is important to recognise that the key source of such information under the Protocol will be the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH).   It is not intended that shipping documentation substitute for or duplicate the detailed information provided through the BCH.  There has appeared to be some confusion about this during recent intergovernmental discussions.

For the functionality and credibility of the Protocol, it is essential that information under Article 18(2)(a) be:

• Clear and simple.  This would facilitate appropriate science-based decisions and avoid creating misunderstandings with importing parties.  It would also avoid unnecessary impediments to commerce through costly and overly-complex information requirements.  Information not needed to assist countries to make decisions under the Protocol’s regime, such as quality considerations, should not be required under Article 18(2)(a).
• Timely.  In line with the timeline agreed by participants at Montreal, Australia recalls the necessity of resolving the details of the information requirements in the first sentence by the time of entry into force of the Protocol.  This suggests a step-wise approach, with those elements on which a decision is required no later than two years after the date of entry into force, being left for subsequent consideration.

Specific Elements of Article 18(2)(a)

First Sentence

• Nature of the information - Australia suggests that a standard statement be agreed to the effect that:

This shipment may contain living modified organisms for direct use as food or feed, or for processing.  This shipment is not intended for intentional introduction into the environment.

On the basis of the specific commodity involved and the country of origin of the shipment are known, importing countries could use the Biosafety Clearing House database to review the information on potential LMOs that may be involved.

• Presentation of the information – Australia suggests that in line with the approach to 18(2)(b) and (c), such a statement could be provided on accompanying documentation provided by the originator and/or required by existing international documentation systems.
• Contact point – Australia suggests that in the first instance, the contact point be identified as a representative of the originating party, who would readily have basic information associated with details of the consignment.  Should additional information, such as the nature and safe handling of the LMOs, be sought by importers, they should draw on the Biosafety Clearing House database.

Second Sentence

Australia suggests that in line with the text of the Protocol, and the lack of agreement on the requirements of the first sentence, consideration should not be given to the detailed requirements referred to in the second sentence at this time.  An opportunity to draw on the experience of Parties with implementation of the requirements of the first sentence of Article 18(2)(a) would be an important input to these subsequent considerations. 

Progress

Australia considers that a Meeting of Experts to clarify the elements of the first sentence of Article 18(2)(a) is a priority and would be prepared to ensure a suitable expert was made available to participate.