Aust officials 'negative' on global GM protocol

Australia has no plans to sign an international protocol covering the environmental impact of trade in living genetically modified organisms (LMOs), with trade officials calling for more discussion on how it would affect grain trade.

Representatives from the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) recently attended the Third Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the Netherlands.

The protocol is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was adopted in January 2000. Currently 110 countries have signed the agreement, but only 17 have ratified it. The protocol will go into force once 50 countries have ratified it, a process that is expected to take place by 2003.

The protocol establishes an international regime to cover the environmental impact of trade in living genetically modified organisms (LMOs), which includes seeds and grains as well as other living plant material and animals. Processed products such as vegetable oils or cornflakes are not included.

According to Rhonda Piggott, DFAT's director of environmental strategy, Australia has no plans currently to sign the protocol.

"There is no timetable for the government to look at ratification," she said.

"In Australia's case we already do a lot of the things required by the protocol. In practical terms we could do what the protocol requires as we don't have much GM agriculture yet."

However, Piggott that there needed to be more discussion on how the protocol might affect Australia's grain trade. Australia's wheat exports alone are worth $5 billion per annum.

"There is still a lot of divergence in countries' positions," Piggott said. "It is a very ideological protocol."

'Scientific uncertainty'

"Overall our opinion of it is very negative," said James Molan, the AWB's government relations adviser. "We have concerns on how it will affect trade."

Molan said that while the AWB agreed that countries should be able to restrict trade in products they considered harmful to their environment or to human health, they could already do so under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures - they don't need the Cartagena Protocol.

"The important difference between the Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement is that under the WTO, restrictions on trade must be based on scientific principles, whereas under the protocol a country can demand that exporters prove their product is safe and then can still restrict trade based on supposed 'scientific uncertainty' - and if a country does this there is no recourse for the exporter," Molan said.

There are two major parts of the protocol of concern to Australia, Piggott said. They were Article 18, which concerns transport, handling and related issues, and Article 34, dealing with compliance regimes.

One of the sticking points concerning transport and handling is the issue of bulk shipments containing trace amounts of LMOs. For example, a 100,000 tonne shipment of non-GM wheat with less than one per cent of GM canola in it could be considered as falling under the protocol's mandate, according to Molan.

He said that the International Grain Trade Coalition, an industry group with representatives from Europe, the US, Canada, Argentina and Australia, had taken part in the negotiations, recommending a five per cent tolerance level for approved LMOs in a non-LMO shipment. This level is based on benchmarks used by Japan and the US organics industry.

However, Molan said that there had been no direction from the protocol on how the issue will be dealt with.

In addition, Molan criticised the protocol for delaying issues of compliance, liability and redress until after the protocol has been enacted.

"This is of great concern as it leaves significant uncertainty surrounding the protocol," he said.

Piggott said that Australia needed to take notice of the protocol, regardless of whether it became a signatory. "In reality there are implications for Australia whether we are a member or not," she said.