Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - Correspondence with Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Submission of the Government of Australia

Views on items to be included in a medium-term programme of work of the COP-MOP

(para 12, recommendation 3/8)

Australia first submitted views on the medium-term work plan in 2001.  The following comments are resubmitted as they contain additions based on discussions at the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP 3).

Australia’s view remains that the medium term program of work of the COP-MOP, to be identified at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP-1), should be focused on the essential work of the Protocol:

• a review of the Protocol’s core operational elements, such as the Biosafety Clearing House and capacity building; and
• those issues for which a decision is required under the Protocol.  The order in which these issues are prioritised should be according to the timeframes set out in the Protocol, such as detailed documentation requirements (Article 18.2(a)) and liability and redress (Article 27).

As previously advised, the COP-MOP should concentrate efforts on the above to ensure that appropriate decisions are made in the interests of effective implementation of the Protocol, as agreed by the States who negotiated the text.

Experience with the Protocol is continuing to reveal the complexity of implementation issues and the need for considerable coordination at the national and international level.  It is important that Parties not develop an over-ambitious program that would lead to rushed and potentially ill-considered decisions.

Accordingly, the inclusion of non-essential items on the programme of work should be considered only after the essential work of the COP-MOP –as listed above - has been completed.  This would also allow countries time to identify what further work the COP-MOP may usefully undertake, based on Parties’experience implementing the Protocol. 

Australia continues to support informal liaison and exchanges of view between governments on issues that arise during ratification and implementation of the Protocol.  This can take place in bilateral, regional and multilateral contexts.  Australia would encourage governments to take advantage of scheduled meetings and visits for this purpose. 

A number of key decisions required by the Protocol are yet to be made.  Australia therefore considers that in the short to medium term, COP-MOP-1, after entry into force, and the Secretariat should focus efforts on completing the essential work on those particular issues which are scheduled to be finalised by COP-MOP-1.  At this stage it would be inappropriate to distract attention from resolving these issues by adding to the existing workload or creating new mechanisms to consider or clarify ‘other issues’.

Australia is also concerned about the potential for duplication of work being undertaken by other competent international organisations, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Organisation of International Epizooties and the International Plant Protection Convention. 

Accordingly, Australia wishes to reaffirm its bracketing of the list of proposed issues for clarification contained in the ICCP3 decision that is:

• categorisation of LMOs
• risk assessment and risk management
• establishment of harmonised rules for unique identification systems
• transboundary movements with non-Parties

In the case of transboundary movement with non-Parties, Australia wishes to reaffirm the status of the negotiated text on Article 24 which contains explicit provisions for trade with non-Parties and about which there are no uncertainties in relation to implementation.  For these reasons, the issue requires no clarification.