Fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress (WGLR4) in the context of the Cartagena Protocol

MOP President Fatimah Raya Nasron (left) welcomed the Working Group's progress in gathering and reviewing a substantial amount of information and submissions. CBD Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf (center), stressed that the Working Group's fifth meeting must be financed through extra-budgetary means and said progress during this week will determine whether donors will see the fifth meeting as 'good investment.' Working Group Co-Chair Jimena Nieto, Colombia (right), stressed that only one more meeting is scheduled before the Working Group is to report to COP/MOP4 and expressed hope that delegates have come to the meeting with flexible negotiating mandates and appropriate spirit.

Working Group Co-Chair René Lefeber (left), highlighted the need to narrow down the options contained in the Co-Chairs' synthesis. Nicola Notaro, European Community (center), stated that there is no need to develop new rules or include any provisions on state responsibility. Worku Damena Yifru, CBD Secretariat (right), introduced a synthesis of proposed operational texts on approaches and options identified pertaining to liability and redress in the context of Article 27 of the Protocol, and explained that it integrates submissions that have been made in the form of operational text.

Desmond Mahon, Canada (left), suggested that additional proposals on administrative approaches need to be considered. Ben Turtur Donnie, Liberia, for the African Group (right), expressed preference for a combination of civil liability and administrative approaches.

Lenia Arce Hernández, Cuba (left), favored a legally binding instrument as the most effective option. Gurdial Singh Nijar, Malaysia (right), explained that if a victim was otherwise uncompensated, the state of export or the state of the national causing the damage could take on some compensatory element.

Nobuyuki Kikuchi, Japan (left), said he favored a non-legally binding instrument. Molly Rwigamba, Rwanda (center), opposed the two-stage approach, as proposed by the EU, because it might cause problems at the national level. Gerard van Bohemen, New Zealand (right) noted the absence of consensus on the nature and degree of risk.

Jeffrey Beattie, Palau (left), explained that, ultimately, state liability would complicate things. CBD Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf with Fernando Coimbra, Brazil (right)