Update for Tuesday, 2 October 2001

Delegates to the second Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP-2) met in two Working Groups throughout the day. Working Group I (WG-I) discussed: information sharing; handling, transport, packaging and identification; monitoring and reporting; and other issues necessary for the Protocol's implementation. Working Group II discussed capacity building, guidance to the financial mechanism, decision-making procedures, and liability and redress. Regarding the organization of work, the ICCP Bureau decided that WG-I would consider monitoring and reporting, and WG-II would address guidance to the financial mechanism and compliance. Additionally, Veit Koester (Denmark) and ICCP Chair Amb. Philémon Yang (Cameroon) would conduct informal consultations on rules of procedure and the Secretariat respectively prior to further decision by the Bureau. Above photo: The morning dias of Working Group I chaired by François Pythoud (Switzerland)

WORKING GROUP I:

INFORMATION SHARING:

The Secretariat summarized the technical review of the BCH's pilot phase (UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/9/Add.1). Many delegates expressed general satisfaction with progress made. Developing countries stressed the need for capacity building, including hardware and software supply, financing, training and public awareness.

ARGENTINA, JAMAICA, PANAMA, PERU and URUGUAY also called for needs assessments, and regional and sub-regional information-sharing activities. Left photo (L-R): Delegates from Panama and Peru

INDIA (right) requested a CD-ROM version of the BCH to be distributed to Parties.

The US (left) urged developing countries to use the BCH tool-kit to assess capacities and prioritize needs.

HANDLING, TRANSPORT, PACKAGING AND IDENTIFICATION:  

Delegates addressed recommendations from the background document (UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/12) and the report of the Experts' meeting (UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/12/Corr.1). Most supported use of existing documentation systems while developing a new international system to meet requirements of Article 18.2(b) on contained use and 18.2(c) on intentional release.

The EU (left) noted that an eventual new system could identify and bridge gaps in current systems. 

JAPAN stated that documentation should be simple, uniform and contain all necessary information to make decisions.

The REBUBLIC OF KOREA  (right) noted that LMO-FFPs need special handling for storage and processing to prevent release into the environment.

MONITORING AND REPORTING:

ARGENTINA (left) called for financing to enable developing countries to produce reports.

OTHER ISSUES NECESSARY FOR THE PROTOCOL'S IMPLEMENTATION:

The Secretariat recalled items from Monday's discussion, including: clarification on categorization of LMOs; non-Parties; the nature and extent of responsibilities of exporting Parties as to notification; socio-economic considerations; risk management and assessment; guidance on monitoring and reporting; and cooperation between activities of the Protocol and work of the Interim Committee on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) of the International Plant Protection Convention. 

WORKING GROUP II 

CAPACITY BUILDING:

The Secretariat introduced documents UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/10 and Add.1. Most delegates supported the draft Action Plan for Capacity Building, the Implementation Tool-kit and the Sequence of Actions.

GUIDANCE TO THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM:

The Secretariat introduced document UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/5. The EU supported the background document's recommendations and requested that the CBD Executive Secretary compile a list of related capacity-building activities to avoid duplication of efforts. Regarding a recommendation on assessing the financial needs of implementing the Protocol from 2002-2006 based on developing country submissions, ARGENTINA and CUBA (left) called for a timetable for submissions.

DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES: 

The Secretariat introduced, and many delegates supported, document UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/11.

The SEYCHELLES (left) noted some countries' inability in building standing national capacity for decision-making.

LIABILITY AND REDRESS: 

CANADA (left) and the EU also expressed commitment to the four-year timeframe to finalize the liability and redress regime, whereas AUSTRALIA and JAPAN noted that the limit is only indicative.

SIDE EVENT: Luncheon hosted by UNEP and GEF Promoting  THE GLOBAL PROJECT ON THE development of National Biosafety Frameworks

Left photo: The dias during the UNEP-GEF luncheon hosted by Klaus Töpfer (center) with (L-R) Christopher Briggs, Ahmed Djoglaf, Philemon Yang and Hamdallah Zedan

PHOTOS from the RECEPTION:

The CBD and UNEP hosted a reception where delegates and staff of enjoyed great food and entertainment after a full day of work.

ICCP-2 meeting website  with official documents and information for participants (PDF or DOC)
CBD Secretariat web site 
Biosafety Clearing-House
ENB Summary of ICCP-1(HTML, PDF and TXT)
ENB daily website coverage, photos, RealAudio files and daily reports from ICCP-1
IISD analysis of the Cartagena Protocol
 

Subscribe to Linkages Journal for free

Catch-up on the latest news, information and analysis from international environment and development negotiations with Linkages Journal. Each month, Linkages Journal - the sister publication of Earth Negotiations Bulletin - updates readers on what's been happening and what to expect in key negotiations and processes, including those on climate change, forestry, desertification, biodiversity, wetlands, ozone, chemical management, trade, and development.