Juan
Mayr Maldonado, Minister of the Environment in Colombia and architect
of the agreement, spoke with Tierramérica about the situation. Excerpts:
-TIERRAMERICA:
There are suspicions that transgenics or genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) may represent risks for humanity, but is there any concrete
scientific evidence of cases in which these organisms have produced
negative effects in human health or in the environment?
-MAYR: So far there is not enough scientific
evidence about the risks that GMOs could pose for human health or
the environment. Recently the results of a couple of studies were
released that show, on one hand, the reduction of the monarch butterfly
population in the United States presumably as a consequence of planting
genetically modified maize and, on the other, the possible harmful
effects that genetically modified potatoes that contain the CaMV
35S have on young mice. However, the conditions and the interests
that influenced these experiments mean they are not very conclusive.
The fundamental thing is that this dense fog of uncertainty, more
than leading to hasty judgements of who is responsible, is a call
for greater development of such research.
- For some sectors, it is apocalyptic
to say that the release of GMOs would cause the catastrophic loss
of biodiversity. What is your opinion?
- The adjective 'catastrophic' is in itself
an exaggerated premise. There are insufficient elements to affirm
that the release of GMOs would translate into a loss of biodiversity.
The GMOs are part of that biodiversity, except they are not the
result of the methods traditionally applied in improving species.
GMOs did not create a previously non-existent situation of risk
for biological diversity. It has been and continues being threatened
by other factors such as deforestation, burning, the invasion of
exotic species, among others, and one could add the products of
modern biotechnology to the list. Furthermore, there are those who
believe that GMOs represent an opportunity not only to reduce the
environmental impact of pesticide use but also to preserve biodiversity
to the extent that it would eliminate the need to expand farmland
and thus would prevent the rampant deforestation we have seen in
recent years.
- Many scientists think the lack of certainty
in this field - as also occurs with the issue of climate change
- should not stand in the way of decisive action. Is it this preventive
stance that has inspired the efforts behind the Biosafety Protocol?
- Yes, the Precautionary Principle is the main
axis of the Protocol and as such is the tool that prevents their
goals from merely left on paper. This Principle impedes the lack
of scientific certainty about GMOs from turning into an obstacle
for each country to take appropriate decisions about importing such
products. This is essential because in the environmental sphere
preventive measures are always superior to the results of later
corrective measures.
- Last May 24, the Protocol was signed
in Cartagena after nearly five years of negotiations. How would
you summarise its relevance to the world?
- The Protocol has great relevance at
the global level in various respects. First because it is the product
of a negotiation process that, despite being in the middle of a
big controversy about biotechnology's ethical, socio-economic, environmental
and public health repercussions, allowed us to achieve excellent
results through transparent proceedings and innovative and participatory
spaces for debate. Moreover, in this process, for the first time,
international trade and the environmental agenda faced each other
under equal conditions. And that is important because the protection
of the environment has been subordinate to economic issues in the
negotiation and implementation of other global agreements. The Protocol
also marks a milestone in the development of modern biotechnology
because not only does it provide a legal framework to promote regulation,
but also because, through the Precautionary Principle, it creates
the instruments so that the signing Parties protect their national
interests as far as the preservation of biodiversity and human health.
- What concrete mechanisms allow the
Biosafety Protocol to prevent or minimise the potential risks of
GMOs?
- Together with the Principle of Precaution,
the Protocol includes the Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) mechanism.
This procedure means that, prior to importing GMOs for use or trade,
the exporting party must provide the necessary information so that
all potential risks may be evaluated and appropriate decisions made.
Without the express and written consent of the importing country,
trans-border shipment of such products should not take place.
- The labelling issue has been quite
controversial. Many sectors oppose labelling that is specific because
of costs or the fear it could create among consumers. What type
of regulations does the Biosafety Protocol include in this respect?
- In the Protocol it was established
that those products arising from recombinant techniques involving
genetic material must be labelled ''may contain'' GMOs. It was an
important step related to the assessment of risk and to the reservations
expressed by consumers and some non-governmental organisations about
the use of biotechnology. However, according to Article 18, in a
period no longer than two years after the Protocol has taken effect,
the Parties will make a decision about the inclusion of the specific
identity and any exclusive identification necessary for GMOs destined
for intentional introduction into the environment.
- The Biosafety Protocol should now
be entering the implementation phase. What comes next? What obstacles
lie ahead?
- We continue to build institutional
and human capacity in the areas of biosafety and biotechnology.
This involves the creation of a regulatory framework, an administrative
framework, and of mechanisms for risk assessment, decision-making,
information management and participation of interested parties and
civil society. This process will take time, but obstacle in the
short term is financing. Though the Protocol contains provisions
for international co-operation in capacity building and the transfer
of technology, developing countries must find additional alternatives
to obtain resources. For the time being, one option is to manage
these issues at the sub-regional level.
- Has there been progress in national
legislation on the issue? Because the big question is, who would
pay for the environmental damage caused by GMOs?
- In Colombia, as in other developing
countries, there are working groups to reinforce the existing legislation
and develop the necessary regulations. But the problem of responsibility
and compensation for potential environmental damages is something
that still needs to be resolved. Though the Protocol's Article 27
includes a clause that obligates the Parties to initiate a process
to develop a regimen of responsibility and compensation within four
years following the Conference of Parties (to the Convention on
Biological Diversity), little progress has been made in international
environmental law, in part due to the resistance of some industrialised
countries.
|
