ENB @ WGLR-2; 20-24 February 2006; Montreal, Canada

ENB Summary
English
Español
Français

Highlights for Tuesday, 21 February 2006

On Tuesday, 21 February, the second meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on liability and redress in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety discussed options for elements of rules and procedures referred to in Biosafety Protocol Article 27, including the definition and valuation of damage, and causation. The meeting was adjourned at 4 pm to give regional groups time to coordinate, and the Working Group will continue its discussions on Wednesday.

Above photos L-R: View of the plenary; Co-Chairs René Lefeber (The Netherlands) and Jimena Nieto (Colombia).

PLENARY: OPTIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE DEFINITION OF DAMAGE

Traditional damage: On Tuesday morning, delegates discussed "traditional damage."



Zimbabwe, for the African Group, said traditional damage should be retained amongst the optional components of the definition of damage. Above photo: Abisai Mafa (Zimbabwe)	Austria, for the EU, proposed addressing traditional damage to the extent it is not covered by other options. Above photo: Thomas Loidl (Austria on behalf of the EU)	Co-Chair Lefeber concluded that traditional damage will be retained as an option but that its relationship to other options requires further consideration.

POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO VALUATION OF DAMAGE TO CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY:

On Tuesday morning, participants addressed possible approaches to valuation of damage to conservation of biodiversity, focusing on two options identified in the co-chairs’ synthesis: Cost of reasonable measures taken or to be taken to restore the damaged components of biodiversity; and monetary compensation.



Washington Biotechnology Action Council suggested that monitoring costs must also be considered recoverable. Above photo: Philip Bereano (Washington Biotechnology Action Council)	Norway supported the EU's submission on the valuation of damage relating to “primary restoration” and “complementary restoration." Above photo: Beate Bergluno Ekeberg (Norway)	Liberia argued that reference to monetary compensation should be deleted, since the valuation of damage is only for purposes of restoration. Above photo: Johansen Voker (Liberia)



Malaysia said that limiting compensation raises the issue as to who should pay to monitor how compensation is spent. Above photo: Gurdial Singh (Malaysia)	Iran noted that in cases of genetic damage, which cannot be reversed, compensation may have to be continuous. Above photo: Nemat Khansari (Iran)	The US described their national experiences with the Superfund and the Oil Pollution Act, noting that monetary compensation is considered only after restoration has occurred. Above photo: Kathryn Youel Page (US)

RECEPTION HOSTED BY THE GLOBAL INDUSTRY COALITION:

Above photos L-R: Doris Ponzoni and Michael Leader (Global Industry Coalition) welcomed delegates to the reception as well as presented a paper on defining damage.