THE BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL AND ITS SOCIO‐ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SEEDS OF DISCORD

Abstract

Given that there is a certain level of environmental uncertainty associated with the products of biotechnology (BT) in addition to the possibilities of negative impacts arising from trans‐boundary movements of genetically modified organisms (GMO), the urgency for an international agreement to regulate trade in GMOs was recognized. The Biosafety Protocol is such an international environmental agreement. This protocol is charged with designing a comprehensive international regulatory approach to the protection of biodiversity and to establish rules to manage the environmental risks of trans‐boundary movements of GMOs.

Corresponding author. Email: Frank G. [email protected]

The Protocol has major implications both for the technology addressed in the Protocol and for international trade. It is the first major international agreement to use the “precautionary principle” explicitly to allow the restriction of trade in products because they were produced using a specific technology, namely BT. This paper intends to provide a critical socio‐economic assessment of the central issues addressed in the Protocol with regards to agrobiotechnology and biodiversity.

Keywords:

• Biosafety protocol
• GMO
• Biodiversity
• Socio‐economic consequences

Notes

Corresponding author. Email: Frank G. [email protected]

* The BSP focuses actually only on the unintended environmental consequences of agrifood BT, however, it could be argued that the intended consequences of BT represent a more severe environmental threat, namely through the creation of monocultures which lead to a decline of biological diversity3 and 4.

* The USA, the largest industrial producer of GMOs, was relegated to observer status in the negotiations of the BSP, since it has not ratified the Convention of Biological Diversity, and thus, is formally not obliged to follow the terms of the BSP.

† Under the “Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) under the WTO, a country may impose a temporary restriction on imports, but the country is obliged to make serious efforts and to provide scientific evidence to uphold its decision.

* For a detailed discussion of the BSP see e.g. references5 and 6.

* Falkner presents a general discussion about international trade and agricultural BT1.

† Streinz discusses in detail – mainly from a legal perspective – the PP and its application in various areas, such as public security, food law, and environmental law7.

* Nottingham identifies in context with GMOs, twenty areas where concern has risen and where the PP should be applied8.

* A UK‐opinion poll, conducted in 1998, complied the following results: 77 per cent of the public surveyed would like all GM‐food products and crops banned, while 61 percent stated that they would not like to consume them. Opinion polls with similar results were conducted in other EU‐countries9.

* For a detailed discussion of IPRs see10, 12, 13, and 14.

* The resolution of this issue requires empirical evidence.

† For a detailed interpretation and analysis of TRIPS, see20 and 21.

* According to Williams, any attempt to avoid biotechnological patenting according to these ‘exemptions” will be expediently dealt with by the dispute settlement mechanism20.

* A sui generis system is a system of legal right specifically adopted to “inventions” which are different from standard IPRs protection schemes such as patents and copyrights.

* Some estimates of annual values on medical plants used by ICs‐companies (sometimes referred to as biopiracy) refer to $32 billion, and the value of “undiscovered” DCs‐plant‐based pharmaceuticals in topical forests is put at $150 billion. These resources could become eventually patented products and re‐sold to the countries of origin: what a travesty of equity and fairness20.