Update for Thursday, 4 October 2001

Delegates to the second Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP-2) continued their deliberations in two Working Groups. Working Group I (WG-I) addressed: handling, packaging, transport and identification; reporting and monitoring; information sharing; and other issues necessary for the Protocol's implementation. The group also considered the results of the contact group on Article 18.2(a) which met briefly early in the morning. Working Group II (WG-II) discussed Chair's recommendations on liability and redress, compliance, decision-making procedures, guidance to the financial mechanism, and capacity building and the roster of experts. Above photo: Christophe Bail (center), in discussion with delegates from the European Community and a few of its  member states during the morning session of Working Group 1.

WORKING GROUP I:

HANDLING, PACKAGING, TRANSPORT AND IDENTIFICATION:

During a morning contact group session, delegates discussed the revised elements for a draft recommendation on the modalities for a process for discussion on Article 18.2 (a). Several editorial amendments were made to various paragraphs. Left photo: Contact Group I chair Eric Schoonejans (France) in consultation with WG-I chair François Pythoud (Switzerland)

REPORTING AND MONITORING:

The Chair presented draft recommendation UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/WG.I/L.2, which was accepted without amendment.

INFORMATION SHARING:

INDIA opposed language stating that provision of BCH pilot phase CD-ROMs should be subject to the availability of necessary financial resources. Noting this comment, the recommendation was adopted.

OTHER ISSUES NECESSARY FOR THE PROTOCOL'S IMPLEMENTATION:

Delegates considered a Chair's Text. In the first paragraph, inviting governments to submit comments on issues requiring guidance and clarification during the Protocol's ratification and implementation, CANADA proposed alternate language on "possible mechanisms to consider issues, exchange views and, as appropriate, provide guidance." Left photo: Canadian delegates in discussion with an Australian delegate regarding the Chair's text.

The US suggested deleting the paragraph's list of possible issues, which included: categorization of LMOs; risk assessment and risk management; establishment of harmonized rules for unique identification systems; and transboundary movements between Parties and non-Parties. Right photo: Cathy Enright (US) making an intervention during WG-I.

Audia Barnett (JAMAICA) (Left) said the issues could be listed "inter alia."

WORKING GROUP II:

LIABILITY AND REDRESS:

During discussions on the draft recommendation, WG-II Chair Mohammad Reza Salamat (Islamic Republic of Iran) proposed, and delegates agreed to invite CBD Parties to organize workshops on liability and redress as soon as possible and before MOP-1. Left photo: The dias during WG-II

On operational text regarding the establishment of the experts' group, the US (right) proposed, and many supported, adhering to the wording of Article 27 of the Protocol that the group should be established with respect to the appropriate elaboration of international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress.

After some discussions, delegates agreed on a proposal from AUSTRALIA, that the experts' group should carry out the process pursuant to Article 27.

COMPLIANCE:

WG-II considered a draft recommendation submitted by the Chair, forwarding the text of the Experts' Meeting to MOP-1. To accommodate the case that MOP-1 does not occur in April 2002, delegates agreed that specific timelines might need to be altered. The recommendation was accepted with some minor edits.

DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES: 

WG-II considered a draft recommendation, as well as outstanding issues in an annex with sections on guidelines and procedures to facilitate decision making by Parties of import. Regarding the annex, delegates agreed to delete language on whether the Party of import "may" or "should" inform the Party of export or the notifier of its request for assistance.

Following informal consultations, John Neville (SEYCHELLES) proposed language suggesting that, while other mechanisms should be kept under consideration, the roster of experts and the BCH are among the main mechanisms to provide support.

Following brief debate on a EUROPEAN COMMISSION suggestion regarding MOP-2 adopting procedures to facilitate decision making from Parties of import of LMO-FFPs, the suggestion was withdrawn and the recommendation was accepted.

GUIDANCE TO THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM:

ARGENTINA, supported by BRAZIL, CHILE, KENYA and MEXICO, objected, expressing concern that such a process could delay capacity building efforts especially with regards to interim activities, including ratification efforts. The US rescinded his proposal and the recommendation was agreed.

CAPACITY BUILDING AND THE ROSTER OF EXPERTS: 

The chair of the contact group reported on its work and presented draft recommendations on capacity building and the roster of experts. They were adopted, along with the draft report of WG-II (UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/WG/II/L.1), with minor edit

ENB SNAPSHOTS:

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.