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

ENB Summary
English
Español
Français

Highlights for Thursday, 23 February 2006

On Thursday, 23 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 continued discussions on options for elements of rules and procedures referred to in Article 27 of the Biosafety Protocol. In the morning, delegates addressed various issues, including mechanisms for financial security, settlement of claims, and standing to bring claims. In the afternoon, delegates concluded discussions on the criteria for the assessment of the effectiveness of any rules and procedures referred to in Biosafety Protocol Article 27, and adopted an indicative list that will be annexed to the report of the meeting. They also concluded discussions on the co-chairs' synthesis report.

Above photo: Rapporteur Maria Mbengashe (South Africa) (center) in informal consultation with delegates from the African Group.

MECHANISMS OF FINANCIAL SECURITY:

Supplementary collective compensation arrangements:

On Thursday morning, delegates discussed supplementary collective compensation arrangements based on the options contained in the co-chairs’ synthesis, namely: funds financed by contributions from biotechnology industry to be made in advance; funds financed by contributions from biotechnology industry to be made after the occurrence of the damage; public fund; and combination of public and private funds.



Co-Chair Lefeber noted that the polluter-pays-principle would prevail in cases where states have not violated international law, but noted that there are exceptions where liability cannot be channeled to the polluter. Above photo L-R: Co-Chair Lefeber, Co-Chair Nieto and Rapporteur Mbengashe (South africa)	Zambia, on behalf of the African group, proposed retaining for further consideration the options of: funds financed by contributions from biotechnology industry to be made in advance; and the combination of public and private funds. Above photo: Dorothy Kangwa Mulenga (Zambia)



Senegal supported the option of funds financed by contributions from biotechnology industry to be made after the occurrence of the damage, and questioned the legal basis for funds where contributions are made in advance. Above photo L-R: Papa Méïsa Dieng and Mandiaye Ndiaye (Senegal)	Responding to Senegal , Co-Chair Lefeber gave some examples such as the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, and indemnity obligations. Above photo L-R: Co-Chair René Lefeber with Charles Pirotte (EC) and Alejandro Lago Candeira (Spain).	Above photo L-R: ENB Writer Kunbao Xia in discussion with Jeffrey Beattie (Palau) and Weixue Cheng (China)

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS:



Mexico expressed interest in including inter-State dispute settlement procedures, but said further analysis is needed. Above photo: Elleli Huerta Ocampo (Mexico)

Namibia , for the African Group, said that all the dispute settlement options in the co-chairs' synthesis should be retained.

Above photo: Chris Nghaamwa (Namibia)

Canada said that without a clear resolution on other issues, such as damage and valuation, a discussion about the claims methodology would be premature and abstract.

Above photo: Desmond Mahon and Anne Daniel (Canada)

ENB SNAPSHOTS:

Above photo L-R: Amy Laurenson (New Zealand), Anne Daniel (Canada), Kathryn Youel Page (US) and Sarah Wynn-Williams (New Zealand) in informal consultations regarding options on "Biosphere" or "Biodome".

Above photo L-R: Duncan Currie (Greenpeace international), Dan Ogolla (CBD), Worku Damena (CBD), Co-Chair Lefeber and Co-Chair Nieto verifying text.

Above photo L-R: Abisai Mafa (Zimbabwe) in discussion with Christopher Gashirabake (Uganda)