Report of main proceedings for 11 February 2010
2nd Meeting of the Friends of the Co-Chairs on Liability and Redress under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
The Friends of the Co-Chairs met behind closed doors throughout the day and into the night to negotiate a provision on civil liability in the supplementary protocol on liability and redress.
CLOSED DOOR NEGOTIATIONS ON CIVIL LIABILITY
Behind closed doors, delegates sought to find a solution for the impasse on the one provision on civil liability to be included in the supplementary protocol. While the first paragraph on implementing the supplementary protocol and addressing damage to biodiversity including through civil liability approaches found broad agreement, contentious discussions continued over a similar provision covering traditional damage.
The group initially considered two options based on Wednesday night’s deliberations. The first option contained a non-derogation clause which clarifies that parties retain the right to provide in their domestic law for civil liability approaches to traditional damage, followed by a paragraph proposing how traditional damage can be addressed through civil liability. The second option contained only the latter paragraph reflecting the view of some countries that it was important to impose a positive obligation.
Delegates agreed to merge the two options for the purpose of further negotiations towards a political compromise on civil liability. A regional group proposed to simply add wording that parties may exercise their right by using civil liability approaches at the end of the non-derogation clause. The longer paragraph imposing positive obligations was bracketed as a whole. Many developing countries insisted that it was more important to spell out positive obligations, which could be followed by a non-derogation clause.
Negotiations continued into the night.
IN THE CORRIDORS
In front of the closed doors, other delegates and observers patiently awaited news on progress in the small group discussions. When asked about the vibe inside the room, delegates expressed diverging views: One described the talks as “straight-jacketed,” and anticipated a long night ahead saying the meeting was only now getting to the point where real opinions were on the table. Some expected that delegates would continue trying to wear each other out “until they practically fall over.” Another delegate saw this as a positive indication that delegates would “do what it takes” to come to an agreement.
The closed door negotiations were mostly described as moving in a circle between the advocates of a legally-binding civil liability provision, who reiterated demands embodied in previous political compromises, and those favoring domestic law by including a non-derogation clause.
While most agreed that the reference to civil liability when dealing with damage to biodiversity should be legally binding, several pointed out that the provision now states that parties “may as appropriate” use civil liability approaches, which is clearly a departure from the earlier formulation which had stipulated that parties “shall” also implement civil liability approaches.
Regarding the reference to civil liability when dealing with traditional damage, one delegate signaled readiness to accommodate national circumstances, as long as the provision imposed positive obligations, rather than constituting only a non-derogation clause. In turn, another delegate warned that a supplementary protocol cannot include an unspecified provision imposing positive obligations on civil liability that covers “all kinds of damage but doesn’t say how.” He further questioned the value of such a provision and of getting bogged down in ongoing discussions on this “side issue” when the “real issues,” such as the definitions of damage and operator, financial security and references to imminent threat of damage in the supplementary protocol remain unresolved.
As the day advanced, more and more delegates and observers expressed concern that the slow progress on civil liability would run down the clock. While most had expected that the meeting would leave some issues to be addressed at COP/MOP5, a number of delegates are now worried that “we are overloading the Nagoya agenda” which increases the risk of failure.
Late in the evening, one participant expressed a glimmer of hope by citing a famous proverb from her country that “the night is darkest just before the sun begins to rise.” Another quipped: “If all else fails, we can always adopt a politically-binding provision on civil liability,” using a term that seems to be en vogue since the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen failed to produce a legally-binding outcome.
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <[email protected]> is written and edited by Johannes Gnann, Stefan Jungcurt, Ph.D., Laura Russo, Nicole Schabus, and Liz Willetts. The Digital Editor is Leila Mead. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[email protected]>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <[email protected]>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development – DFID), the Government of the United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission (DG-ENV), and the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. General Support for the Bulletin during 2010 is provided by the Government of Australia, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI), the Government of Iceland, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Bank. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, the Province of Québec, and the International Organization of the Francophone (OIF and IEPF). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <[email protected]>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11A, New York, New York 10022, USA. The ENB Team at the Second Meeting of the Group of the Friends of the Co-Chairs on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety can be contacted by e-mail at <[email protected]>.