1. law, govt and politics
2. government

044698/EU XXV. GP
Eingelangt am 04/11/14
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 4 November 2014
(OR. en, fr)
14789/14
ENV 860
WTO 281
ONU 127
AGRI 657
INFORMATION NOTE
From:
To:
General Secretariat of the Council
Delegations
Subject:
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD):
Seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting
of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol to Biosafety (COP MOP 7)
(Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, 29 September - 3 October 2014)
Compilation of statements from the European Union and its
Member States
Delegations will find, for information, in the Annex a compilation of statements from the EU and its
Member States as delivered during COP MOP 7.
______________
14789/14
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
1
EN/FR
ANNEX
Seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the
Cartagena Protocol to Biosafety (COP MOP 7)
(Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, 29 September - 3 October 2014)
List of Contents
Opening Statement............................................................................................................................. 3
Item 4 – Report of the Compliance Committee ............................................................................... 4
Item 5 – Operation and activities of the Biosafety Clearing House............................................... 5
Item 6 – Financial Mechanism and Resources ................................................................................ 7
Item 7 – Cooperation with other Organizations, Conventions and Initiatives ............................ 9
Item 10 – Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification of Living Modified Organisms10
Item 11 – Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress ............. 12
Item 12 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management....................................................................... 13
Item 13 – Socio-economic considerations....................................................................................... 15
Item 14 – Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................................. 17
Item 15 – Assessment and Review of the Effectiveness of the Protocol ...................................... 19
Item 16 – Unintentional Transboundary Movements and Emergency Measures ..................... 20
Item 17 – Contained Use of Living Modified Organisms ............................................................. 22
Closing Statement ............................................................................................................................ 23
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
2
EN/FR
Opening Statement
1.
Mr Chair, during the course of this meeting, I am speaking on behalf of the European Union
and its 28 Member States.
2.
We would like to thank the government of the Republic of Korea for hosting this important
meeting in this beautiful country so rich in biodiversity and natural surroundings.
3.
A word of thanks is also due to the Secretariat for their work in the previous biennium and in
the run up to this meeting. We also express our sincere appreciation for the leadership of India
as President of the COP which facilitated activities in the past two years. We warmly greet
Korea as the incoming President.
4. We look forward to working together with you and all delegates attending this meeting. We
trust that we will not only have fruitful exchanges over the coming days, but, that we will also
focus our common efforts on implementing this Protocol. We attach great importance to
improving efficiency in our decision-making processes and in our structures in order to
continue to prioritize the full implementation of this Protocol, in close relationship to the
Convention and its other Protocol.
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. We once again wish you every success in conducting us
to achieve the maximum out of our meeting this week.
___________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
3
EN/FR
Item 4 – Report of the Compliance Committee
Compliance
x Chair, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the Compliance
Committee for its recommendations as contained in document before us. From the report, it is
clear that a significant number of Parties from all regions still struggle to comply fully with
the provisions of the Protocol.
x It is clear from the documentation that progress has been made and many Parties are engaging
proactively with the Secretariat to resolve any issues they may have. However, we note that a
number of gaps still remain, in particular as regards the adoption of national biosafety
frameworks.
x There are mechanisms in place to assist Parties to comply with the Protocol, including
requesting the help of the Compliance Committee. We note that in spite of the compliance
issues identified by the committee, it seems that not all of these mechanisms are being used to
their capacity.
x In this regard we would like to point to three issues in particular:
o From the notional allocation in GEF-5 for biosafety, only about 40% has been used
for biosafety activities. We will discuss this further under the agenda item of
financial mechanism;
o In addition, no Party has informed the Compliance Committee of challenges in
complying with the Protocol in order to obtain the assistance of the Committee.
o We have one small change to paragraph 3 of the recommendations so that we
Request Invite Parties and urge other Governments…..
x
We would like to see a decision on Compliance that encourages Parties that are struggling to
comply, to take full use of the instruments at their disposal.
Thank you, chair.
________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
4
EN/FR
Item 5 – Operation and activities of the Biosafety Clearing House
1.
Madame Chair, the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) is essential for the implementation of the
Protocol, and the progress made, as highlighted by the Secretariat, is much appreciated. The
European Union and its Member States thank the Secretariat for its work and want to
continue supporting the BCH, within the current resource constraints.
2.
The BCH has stepped-up its co-operation with other databases and clearing houses and should
continue to do so, not least, to avoid duplication of effort.
3.
The capacity-building initiatives of the BCH, in particular its Network of Laboratories, are very
important and coordinating them with those of the Parties to the Protocol - as we have done
with regard to LMO monitoring - is a cost-effective way of maximising the efficiency of our
efforts.
4.
Further development of the BCH should depend on feedback from its user community and
should be targeted towards the needs of its users. We ask the Secretariat to continue to collect
and analyse feedback received by making use of all available tools, in particular - but not
exclusively - those based on the internet.
5.
We acknowledge the increase in submissions of information by Parties and other Governments
to the BCH, which is a very important development. We note, however, that there is still
progress to be made and we call on the Parties to notify all their decisions concerning LMOs
related to the Cartagena Protocol to the BCH.
6.
We would like to see the dissemination of information further improved, e.g. by offering
aggregated and analytical information from the increasing body of information accumulated in
the BCH, making this wealth of knowledge better accessible.
7.
At a meeting of the national focal points of the EU and EU-Member States the decisions on
field trials for LMOs were identified as one of the remaining information gaps in the BCH.
8.
Therefore, we encourage the Secretariat to continue working with Parties in order to find
solutions for obstacles hindering the use of the BCH or the submission or retrieval of
information from the BCH, and we remind Parties of their responsibility to ensure that
adequate resources are available to allow information to be provided (and updated) on time.
9.
I would like to underline our appreciation, once again, of the work carried out by the BCH team
in the Secretariat and our willingness to continue to cooperate in the future.
On the Draft Decision:
10. While we support the suggested elements for a draft decision, we would, appreciate if a
reference to the further harmonisation of, and capacity building for, LMO monitoring is added.
We have the following proposals:
o
Add a reference to the other clearing-houses of the Convention in paragraph (b);
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
5
EN/FR
o
Introduce new text recalling paragraph 1 (a) of decision BS-V/2 inviting Parties and other
Governments to provide information on final decisions and the risk assessment summaries
regarding such decisions pertaining to intentional introductions of living modified
organisms into the environment for field trials, regardless of whether or not the living
modified organism will be subjected to future transboundary movements or
commercialization;
o
In old paragraph (d), corresponding to new paragraph (e), replace the word "urge" with
"invite" before the reference to the GEF;
o
We would then like to add a further two paragraphs:
- a new paragraph (f) requesting the Executive Secretariat to continue developing the
BCH taking due account of the needs of its user community with special emphasis on
the activities relating to the harmonisation of, and capacity building for LMO
monitoring, including the Networks of Laboratories; and
- a new paragraph (g) recalling paragraph 10 of decision BS-V/2 inviting Parties, other
Governments and relevant international organizations to provide funding and to
strengthen and expand initiatives, as much as possible in a coordinated way, aimed at
overcoming obstacles encountered by developing country Parties in meeting their
obligations under Article 20 of the Protocol.
11. We will hand over these proposals in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
6
EN/FR
Item 6 – Financial Mechanism and Resources
1.
First of all, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the Secretariat
for all the work undertaken in the preparation of COP-MOP 7.
2.
We welcome the document on Matters related to the Financial Mechanism and Resources with
respect to biosafety (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/7/4).
3.
We welcome the creation of programme 5 in the GEF-6 biodiversity focal area strategy,
reflecting the importance of the Cartagena Protocol.
4.
We are highly committed to the realization of the goals of the Cartagena Protocol. We
underline the low number of projects submitted to GEF and the low level of utilization of the
available funds for biosafety (BD-3). During the entire GEF-5 only 41% of the notional
allocation has been used by Parties. This has contributed to the GEF’s decision to reduce the
notional allocation for biosafety from $75 million in GEF-4 to $40 million in GEF-5 and $30
million in GEF-6.
5.
We consider that eligible Parties should prioritize biosafety projects during the programming of
their GEF-6 national allocations under the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources
(STAR), to fulfil their obligations under: 1. the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2. the
Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011-2020, 3. the
guidance of the Conference of the Parties to the financial mechanism.
6.
We note the need to ensuring a more efficient and responsive use of the available financial
mechanism to support capacity building projects at the national, regional and sub-regional level
and to establish a wide cooperation between Parties in organizing capacity building activities in
order to fulfilling obligations under the Protocol and to raise the awareness of the Cartagena
Protocol as a tool for sustainable development and the protection of biodiversity. These
capacity building activities could lead to a better chance of access to GEF funds through well
designed projects.
7.
We recommend to improve the wording under paragraph 13 on further guidance to the financial
mechanism. The GEF should be invited to support the eligible Parties, that have reported to the
Compliance Committee difficulties in complying with the Protocol, in different activities such
as the preparation of the third national report (or the first for the Parties that have not yet done
so), the implementation of national biosafety frameworks, and the engagement of experts from
the Biosafety Roster of Experts. However, we do not consider a focal area set-aside as the
appropriate means to this effect.
8.
We do not support the opening of a special financial window for supporting the implementation
of the Protocol set out under paragraph 13(c).
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
7
EN/FR
9.
We find the recommendations under “Mobilization of additional resources” important and we
recognize that the use of resources for biosafety should be included in their national budgets.
10. Let me close this statement, Mr Chairman, by informing you that we will hand our drafting
suggestions for the draft COP-MOP decision that reflect our views to the Secretariat in writing.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
__________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
8
EN/FR
Item 7 – Cooperation with other Organizations, Conventions and Initiatives
1.
The European Union and its Member States, would like to thank the Executive Secretary
for the information provided on activities taken to improve cooperation with other
organizations, conventions and initiatives.
2.
We support cooperation with other organisations, conventions and initiatives as a mean to
implement and to achieve the objectives of the protocol and of the Strategic Plan for the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011–2020.
3.
Given the current economic situation, we must underline that the budgetary aspect linked to
this topic is paramount and calls for a cautious approach. We consider the current level of
collaborative work with other organisations as adequate and believe that it should be
pursued to the same extent. At the same time, it is crucial in our view that any
coordination and collaboration with relevant organizations, conventions and initiatives is
prioritized and restricted to key areas of the Protocol, that, in our view, are capacitybuilding, information sharing, public awareness, public participation, risk assessment and
detection and identification of LMOs.
4.
We consider that efforts to gain observer status for the CBD in the relevant WTO
Committees should be continued.
5.
We will therefore provide the Secretariat with a new proposal for a draft decision reflecting
our position and look forward to discuss this issue further.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
9
EN/FR
Item 10 – Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification of Living Modified Organisms
1.
Madame Chair, I would like to thank the Secretariat for preparing both the Synthesis of
information on experience gained in relation to Article 18 paragraph 2(a), and the Analysis of
information on standards regarding Article 18 paragraph 3.
On article 18, paragraph 2 (a)
2.
The European Union and its Member States welcome the reminder to ensure that the
information required in this Article and in paragraph 4 of decision BS-III/10 to identify living
modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing, is incorporated
into the existing documentation accompanying the living modified organisms (LMOs).
3.
We appreciate the current flexibility provided by Decision BS-III/10 regarding the
documentation format, allowing Parties to decide on the most suitable format for conveying the
information requirements under this Decision. The exact format of the documentation is rather
less important than the objective of the documentation which is to share information.
4.
Despite the fact that the information submitted on experience gained was limited, it would
appear that there is a general support for maintaining the current documentation requirements.
As a result, we consider there is no need for harmonisation regarding the documentation format
or for a stand-alone document.
5.
We also recognize the need for cooperation and capacity building in implementing
identification requirements and we will continue to support Parties in this matter through,
amongst other thing, the electronic Network of Laboratories that was established through the
BCH.
On the Draft Decision:
6.
As regards the elements for a draft decision in document COP-MOP/7/8, we suggest to delete
the last paragraph (e) given the expressed support for maintaining the current flexibility
regarding the documentation format.
On article 18, paragraph 3
7.
We appreciate the analysis made by the Executive Secretariat based on the study about
information on standards which was submitted to the Parties at COP-MOP 6.
8.
We consider that the existing international standards, guidance and methods are sufficient. We
welcome, therefore, the suggested element for a draft decision inviting Parties and other
Governments to use existing guidance for handling, transport and packaging of LMOs.
9.
We believe that any duplication of work with other international bodies setting standards in this
field should be avoided. COP-MOP is not a standard-setting body.
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
10
EN/FR
On the Draft Decision:
10. As regards the draft decision in document COP-MOP/7/8/Add.1, the EU suggests removing
from paragraph (d) a proposal to review at COP-MOP 9 the need for developing standards.
11. We consider that standards have been already discussed in depth. One of the conclusions of the
study commissioned in 2012 is that the existing international standards, methods and guidance
are sufficient to achieve the purposes of the Protocol.
12. Our suggestion will be handed in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
11
EN/FR
Item 11 – Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress
1.
Mr Chair, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the Executive
Secretary for its valuable note updating Parties on the ratification - and on activities aimed at
promoting understanding, ratification and implementation - of the Nagoya Kuala Lumpur
Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress (the Protocol) adopted in 2010.
2.
We support concrete steps for the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Protocol
and the subsequent implementation by Parties. EU Member States are still in the process of
ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the Protocol: with so far, the EU and 14 Member
States having already done so. We are therefore half-way. The 14 other EU Member States are
still engaged in their internal procedures that will enable the ratification, acceptance, approval
or accession to the Protocol in the near future.
3.
We are prepared to continue to work, together with our CBD partners, towards the further
development of measures to support the international implementation of the Protocol, in
particular as regards, its effective implementation in response to prioritized needs as expressed
by Parties.
On the Draft Decision:
4.
Regarding the proposed elements for a draft decision we propose to split paragraph (d) in two
parts (d) and (e) to clarify that in (d) an invitation “to undertake or support the organization of
further awareness-raising and capacity-building” is addressed to “Parties and relevant
organizations”, while in (f) we propose to “request the Executive Secretary to collaborate with
relevant organisations in order to prepare, subject to the availability of funds, an explanatory
guide in order to expedite the entry into force and implementation of the Supplementary
Protocol”.
5.
Our suggestions will be handed in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
_______________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
12
EN/FR
Item 12 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management
1.
Madam Chair, first of all, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the
Secretariat and all the experts from Parties, non-Parties and relevant organizations who have
actively contributed to the various inter-sessional activities that have taken place since COPMOP 6. We wish to especially thank all those who participated in the testing process of the
Guidance on Risk Assessment. Moreover, we warmly congratulate the Secretariat, the members
of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group and the open-ended online expert forum for their
successful work.
2.
We believe the decision on Risk Assessment and Risk Management should aim to integrate all
topics of our discussions, including the Guidance, the mechanisms to update and improve the
Guidance, the package that aligns the Guidance and the Training Manual, capacity building
provisions, the extension of the mandate of both the Online Forum and the AHTEG, and
recommendations on how to proceed regarding the development of further guidance on specific
aspects of risk assessment.
3.
We can endorse the use and application of the Guidance in actual cases of risk assessment and
as a tool for capacity-building activities in risk assessment on the clear understanding that the
Guidance will be updated and improved to be ready for the eighth meeting of the COP-MOP.
4.
We are of the view that the updating and improving of the Guidance should take priority over
the development of further guidance. Further guidance should only be considered once the
present Guidance is updated. We want to stress that when developing further guidance the
results of the testing of the Guidance should be kept in mind and the needs of the Parties further
assessed.
5.
We also support the endorsement of the package that aligns the Guidance and the Training
Manual, on the clear understanding that the Guidance will be updated and improved.
6.
We support the draft decision suggested by the Executive Secretary on capacity-building in the
context of risk assessment and risk management.
7.
We support the extension of the mandate of both the open-ended online expert forum and the
AHTEG and suggest new terms of reference, where priority is given to the updating process of
the Guidance. The online forum should have a clear role in the updating process of the
Guidance in order to enhance the transparency of the inter-sessional work.
8.
As regards the issue of the identification of LMOs or specific traits that (i) may have or (ii) are
not likely to have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, we welcome the information gathering
with respect to specific sections of the BCH and support continuing contributions to these
sections. However, in our view, the AHTEG should not consider further guidance on this issue.
9.
We welcome the questions to the Third National report format on the use of the Guidance in
order to collect information regarding indicators under operational objective 2.2 of the Strategic
Plan 2011-2020.
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
13
EN/FR
10. The EU and its Member States recognize that synthetic biology is a matter of interest for the
Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols, and, that if a product of synthetic biology
is a LMO, then the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol apply. We therefore recommend
pursuing a coordinated approach between the mother convention and the daughter protocols.
Given that at COP 12, consideration will be given to convene, subject to the availability of
financial resources, an open-ended online forum followed by an open workshop of experts with
collective knowledge of the Convention and its Protocols and with terms of reference that
include working towards an operational definition of synthetic biology comprising inclusion
and exclusion criteria, we consider it somewhat early to discuss synthetic biology at this COP
MOP.
11. Let me close this statement, Madam Chair, by informing you that we have some drafting
suggestions to the draft COP-MOP decision reflecting our views and we will hand them over in
writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
14
EN/FR
Item 13 – Socio-economic considerations
1.
Mr Chair, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the Secretariat for
their extensive work with the online discussion groups, the regional conference and in
particular the organization of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Socioeconomic considerations (SEC) in Seoul in February 2014.
2.
We welcome the continuation of activities to fulfil operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic
Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the Period 2011-2020. We believe that, in
order to reach the best possible result, those activities should follow a stepwise approach, and
make full use of the 6 remaining year time period up to 2020.
3.
We consider that any outcome of the future work on SEC has to remain within the scope of
Article 26.1, which is formulated on a voluntary basis, and has to respect the clear and
fundamental distinction between risk assessment and SEC.
4.
We consider that it is necessary to contemplate SEC in a balanced way, taking into account
both possible positive and negative impacts.
5.
As regards the suggested elements for a draft decision by the COP-MOP, we have the
following comments:
- We welcome the progress made by the AHTEG, and we support its extension, subject to the
availability of funds. We believe that its composition should be maintained to ensure
consistency of work, and its Terms of Reference should be adapted to the activities to be
performed, following a stepwise approach, during the next intersessional period until COPMOP 8. We welcome, the continuation of the convocation of online discussion groups prior
to the AHTEG, but we believe that the online discussions should also consider one more
topic, namely: “the environment-related aspects of socio-economic considerations” This
topic derives from the debates in the AHTEG and in our view requires further conceptual
clarification. We recognize that the compilation of information about policies, laws and
practical applications of socio-economic considerations can assist Parties to make
differences between the risk assessment process and the socio-economic consideration
process.
- Regarding the commissioning of a study on international agreements, this topic has already
been dealt with extensively in previous online discussions and documents prepared for the
Parties. Furthermore, in a context of budgetary constraints, resources should be concentrated
on core activities necessary to fulfil the objectives of the Protocol. Therefore, we propose to
remove in paragraph 5 letter (c) point (iii).
6.
We will provide the text proposals for amendments to the draft COP-MOP decision to the
Secretariat to reflect our suggestions and look forward to discussing this further.
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
15
EN/FR
7.
Finally, we would like to inform the Parties that, at European level, a technical working group
has been established – the European Socio-Economic Bureau (ESEB) – to suggest a framework
for carrying out analysis on the socio-economic implications of cultivation and use of GMOs in
the EU. The indicators and methodologies developed by ESEB could be a good starting point
for developing the guidance document foreseen under operational objective 1.7.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
16
EN/FR
Item 14 – Monitoring and Reporting
1.
Mr Chair, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the Secretariat for
preparing the note suggesting a draft reporting format for the third national reports, as well as
for the work on the dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the
Strategic Plan and its review.
2.
We believe that national reports along with the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) should be the
main instruments for data collection and for reporting all initiatives in the context of
implementation of the Protocol.
3.
The wide participation of Parties in the second national reporting was most welcome and we
call on Parties to give priority to the next round of national reporting – the third reports - in
order to achieve not only higher reporting rates but to benefit from the increased, shared
information.
4.
As national reporting evolves, it is useful to keep the process and objectives of our monitoring
and reporting efforts under review. There is a need to ensure continuity and comparability
across data when, for example, updating the reporting format.
5.
In this respect, we welcome the format suggested by the Secretariat, in particular the retention
of all questions from the second national report format that require regular updating, the
introduction of all questions from the survey on the indicators and the deletion of questions
from the second national report format whose answers are already available through the BCH.
On the Draft Decision:
6.
In general, we support the draft decision proposed by the Secretariat. We have, however, two
suggestions:
o
Each Party should be able to adapt format reporting requirements depending on their
implementation status. By this we mean that an additional simplified format can be
proposed for those Parties that are in full compliance with their reporting obligations so as
to avoid these Parties providing the same information over and over. Apart from alleviating
the burden on Parties, this would also mean that the Secretariat need not process the same
and static information several times. For this reason, the EU proposes a new paragraph in
the draft decision, between current paragraphs (a) and (b), requesting the Secretariat to
introduce such an additional simplified format.
o
In order to align the recommendation in paragraph (b) with previous Decisions we suggest
to remove the word "national".
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
17
EN/FR
On the Draft Format for the Third national Report:
As regards the specific questions proposed for the third national report, we would have one
suggestion:
o
7.
We propose to remove question 97. This question is not related to the implementation of
the Protocol nor the indicators of the Strategic Plan, and does not provide added value to
the testing that was carried out in a very structured way last year.
Our suggestions will be handed in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
18
EN/FR
Item 15 – Assessment and Review of the Effectiveness of the Protocol
1. Mr Chairman, the European Union and its Member States would like to thank the Secretariat
for all the work undertaken in the preparation of the third assessment and review, for the survey
to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan, and for the proposed
methodological approach.
2. We support the proposal of the Secretariat to combine the third assessment and review of
effectiveness of the Protocol with the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan, as well as to
request input from the Compliance Committee.
3. We agree with the Secretariat on the importance of the timely and thorough submission of data
by the Parties for their national reports, as well as the urgency to register all mandatory data in
the BCH (Biosafety Clearing House).
4. At the same time, with the aim to save resources, we do not support the establishment of an
ATHEG. Instead we suggest to give the respective tasks to members of the Liaison Group,
which are selected taking into account a balanced regional representation, with the aim to (i)
review the information gathered for the mid-term evaluation of the strategic plan, (ii) undertake
the third assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol, and (iii) submit the findings
and recommendations to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the
meeting of the Parties.
5. We ask the GEF (Global Environmental Facility) to support Parties in the collection of national
data and consultation on the third national reports.
6. We will provide the Secretariat with our drafting suggestions to the draft COP-MOP decision
that reflect our position.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
19
EN/FR
Item 16 – Unintentional Transboundary Movements and Emergency Measures
1.
Madame Chair, first of all, thanks are due to the Secretariat for its work on this issue.
2.
The European Union and its Member States are convinced that existing elements under the
Protocol already help and guide Parties in taking appropriate responses to unintentional
transboundary movements and to initiate necessary actions, including emergency measures.
3.
We also consider that the views and information compiled by the Executive Secretary on
challenges and experiences relating to the implementation of Art. 17 have been provided by a
limited number of Parties and, therefore, they are not sufficient to draw conclusions on the need
for guidance and tools to facilitate appropriate responses to unintentional transboundary
movements.
4.
For these reasons, we are not in favour of starting work on additional tools and guidance before
having a better view on the difficulties and barriers of implementing the requirements under
Article 17 of the Protocol.
5.
However we acknowledge the importance of the implementation of Article 17 of the Protocol
and are willing to work to build the capacities necessary for detecting occurrences that lead, or
may lead, to an unintentional transboundary movement of LMOs.
6.
As regards the Draft Decision, we would like to propose the following amendments:
o To delete paragraph (a) which provides the same recommendation as in paragraph (c) of the
draft decision on the Biosafety Clearing House. The issue is considered more relevant to the
BCH;
o To address the need to clarify what constitutes unintentional transboundary movements in
contrast with illegal transboundary movements and what type of information should be
exchanged through the BCH for facilitating implementation of the requirements under
article 17 and article 25 of the Protocol. We therefore propose to add two new paragraphs (e)
and (f) (iii) inviting Parties to submit their views and requesting the Executive Secretary to
compile them and suggest clarification on this issue for consideration at COP-MOP 8.
o To remove paragraph (e) (iv), which proposes to set up an Informal Advisory Committee
(IAC) for the development of technical tools and guidance. We are not in favour of
establishing an informal advisory committee with this mandate, since the Network of
Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of LMOs can better serve this purpose.
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
20
EN/FR
We also have the following suggestions:
o To include a reference to article 25 (illegal transboundary movements) in old paragraph (e)
(ii) and (iii), corresponding to new paragraphs (f) (ii) and (iv). Implementation of articles 17
(unintentional transboundary movements) and 25 (illegal transboundary movements) could
face similar challenges. Any action taken for facilitating appropriate implementation of
article 17 may be also considered in the context of article 25.
7.
Our suggestion will be handed in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
__________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
21
EN/FR
Item 17 – Contained Use of Living Modified Organisms
1.
Madame Chair, the European Union and its Member States effectively implement the
provisions of the Protocol on the contained use of living modified organisms through a number
of monitored mechanisms. We consider that existing provisions of the Protocol, including
exemption from the Advance Informed Agreement Procedure, are fit for purpose.
2.
We also consider that existing documentation for the handling, transport, packaging and
identification of living modified organisms is flexible and informative.
3.
In order to support Parties in the implementation of the requirements relating to the handling,
storage, transport and use of living modified organisms destined for contained use, it is helpful
if relevant information can be exchanged through the Biosafety Clearing-House. We therefore
welcome the proposal by the Executive Secretary to collect such information, tools and
guidance. To increase its usefulness, we propose that this initiative should be extended to
include collecting practical experiences and also by inviting international organisations to
contribute to this gathering of information.
4.
Given the extent of existing information and guidance on contained use, we consider that
collecting this information effectively and understanding the experience of using it should be a
first step. The development of additional tools and guidance is premature and should only be
envisaged where a need is expressed by a significant number of Parties and existing
information is not sufficient to meet these needs.
5.
We have some drafting changes to suggest to parts (a) and (c) of the draft decision that are in
line with this position. We will give these in writing to the Secretariat.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
____________________
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
22
EN/FR
Closing Statement
Monsieur le Président,
Au nom de l’Union Européenne et ses Etas Membres je souhaite vous remercier, ainsi que vos deux
Co-Présidents, pour nous avoir emmenés collectivement vers la réussite de cette réunion. Je
voudrais également remercier le Secrétariat pour son soutien sans faille – et à toute heure – et je
n’oublie pas les interprètes et tous ceux qui ont contribué à la réussite des travaux. Je voudrais aussi
remercier toutes les délégations qui ont montré un esprit constructif pour aboutir à des décisions qui
auront des effets réels pour tous.
Nous remercions, enfin, tout spécialement nos hôtes coréens pour la chaleur de leur accueil malgré
le froid à l’extérieur comme à l’intérieur. Finalement, ces conditions climatiques nous ont
rapprochés et unis vers le succès.
Je voudrais seulement ajouter que nous regrettons le fait que beaucoup de documents en préparation
de cette réunion sont arrivés très tardivement. Ceci rend la coordination de nos positions très
difficile et j’espère que cela pourra être amélioré à l’avenir.
J’aimerais conclure en soulignant l’intérêt que nous portons particulièrement à l’implémentation du
Protocole et nous saluons l’échange que nous avons pu avoir sur ce sujet lors de la séance spéciale.
Dans ce contexte, je soutiens pleinement ce que mon collègue de la Mauritanie vient de présenter.
14789/14
ANNEX
KS/am
DG E 1A
www.parlament.gv.at
23
EN/FR