THE NEW BIOSAFETY
PROTOCOL:
The Fight for the Right to Say No to
GMOs
"Pas d'OGM dans mon assiette! No GMOs on
my plate!" chanted the hundreds of people
marching through the streets of Montreal,
Canada in January. FoE activists from
Canada, England, Wales and Northern
Ireland, Germany, Paraguay, the United
States, Uruguay and the FoE Europe office
were amidst the crowds braving the coldest
day of the winter - minus 38 degrees
centigrade. They came to Montreal to call
on the assembled governments of the world
to prevent biotechnology companies from
'force feeding' the public GMOs
(Genetically Manipulated Organisms) in our
food and agriculture. Governments were
meeting in a last attempt to agree on a
Biosafety Protocol - international rules to
protect biodiversity and human wellbeing
from the very serious risks posed by the
import and export of GMOs. Delegates were
faced with the essential question of what
comes first when regulating GMOs: people
and the environment or free trade?
If, in the environment and trade debate
which brewed through the final days of the
old millennium, the demise of the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment was
the entrée and the collapse of the WTO
talks in Seattle the main course, then the
Biosafety Protocol was the dessert. Whereas
the thousands of people on the streets in
Seattle were intent on stopping the WTO
talks, FoEI and the other assembled NGOs in
Montreal were determined to see a Biosafety
Protocol emerge from the talks.
Attempts to agree upon global GMO
regulations have been dogged with
controversy since negotiations began six
years ago. In February 1999, talks broke
down completely in Cartegena, Colombia due
to the blocking actions of the 'Miami
group', a small number of GMO and grain
exporting countries led by the USA.
Following hot on the heels of the 'battle
in Seattle', where the issue of GMOs caused
key divisions and threats of trade wars
between the US and Europe, the Biosafety
negotiations were the show down between
trade and GMOs.
What was at stake was the right for
countries to refuse GMO imports, to be
informed about intended shipments
containing GMOs, to decide whether to
accept these shipments, and to do so not
just on the basis of risk assessment but
using the precautionary principle and
socio-economic considerations. Of course
none of this was popular with the countries
that have committed themselves to GMOs or
those that have already profited from the
sneaky introduction of GMOs into food and
agriculture. Even in the final hours, they
fought the principles of biosafety and
attempted to weaken the Protocol to the
point that it would help rather than
control trade in GMOs. And it looked as if
they would succeed.
Some people claimed that things would
never be the same again after Seattle. For
the Biosafety Protocol, the test came in
the early hours of the morning following
what should have been the last day of
negotiations. Suddenly, after days and
nights of tense negotiations, there was a
breakthrough. We witnessed the moving scene
of Teowalde, the Ethiopian delegate and
leader of the group of developing countries
representing most of the world's people,
finding final agreement among his
colleagues on a last compromise text, and
thus having the final say on whether there
would be a Protocol or not. It was
imperfect, but it was a crucial defeat for
the Miami governments, and a few minutes
later the Colombian chairman announced to a
standing ovation that we had a Cartegena
Protocol on Biosafety.
Breakthrough
So why did this minor miracle occur in
Montreal, and what does it mean?
The efforts of the NGOs that have
invested in the Protocol made a difference;
in fact, some of its wording was probably
originally drafted by FoEI's Dan Leskien.
The FoEI team in Montreal worked hard:
persuading the Canadian Environment
Minister to attend by putting up 'missing
person' posters of him in key places,
briefing the media, lobbying delegates, and
providing surprise receptions and menus
full of GMOs for the attending ministers.
It was the old-fashioned political pressure
applied around the globe that ensured that
over 40 ministers attended the meeting, and
campaigning at the local level by a wide
range of NGOs that put concern about GMOs
firmly on the agenda, particularly in
Europe.
In the end, it seemed that the majority
of the world's governments were not
prepared to accept the bullying tactics of
the US and its cronies, and the outcome of
Seattle must have strengthened their
resolve. The Miami Group saw the writing on
the wall: they knew they had to cut their
losses due to increasing internal friction,
crumbling support for GMOs at home, and
falling share prices for their main biotech
lobbyists such as Monsanto. They knew that
if they put off the Protocol for another
year, the opposition would only be stronger
and the outcome likely worse from their
point of view.
Despite the existence of the WTO and the
insistence by some countries that GMOs are
no different from other goods, this new
multilateral environmental agreement
implies that GMOs
are
different and
that there is a case for powerful rules
outside the trading system. However, the
Protocol is just a start. Although it does
not apply to all GMOs, commodities
containing GMOs are included and countries
have the right to refuse them on the basis
of a strongly-worded precautionary
principle. Although the Protocol does not
automatically require GMOs to be separated
out from other commodities, this may well
be the practical outcome of many of the
rules. Even on the crucial issue of whether
a country wishing to ban GMOs could be
overruled by trade laws, the outcome is not
completely clear. The wording can be read
either way, which at least leaves room for
argument and presents a further hurdle to
the first country that dares to initiate a
trade war on GMOs.
So things have changed. The balance has
tipped in our favour, and we have the first
multilateral environmental agreement of the
millennium. But it's not over yet. The
debate on GMOs, trade and environment will
move into several other fora: the Codex
international panel on food safety will
discuss GMOs this month in Japan, the OECD
is holding a conference in Scotland to
manufacture support for GMOs, the EU and
the USA are setting up biotech 'dialogues'
in Brussels, agriculture talks are due to
kick off in the WTO, food security and
sustainable agriculture will be on the
agenda of the Commission for Sustainable
Development ...
Meanwhile, FoEI is planning a
network-wide campaign, and we should be
able to maintain the momentum built up in
Montreal and Seattle. Our challenge is to
gather public support by making trade and
environment issues real for ordinary
people, and by helping citizens to exercise
their right to say no to GMOs. We still
have plenty of work on our plates - and
hold the GMOs!
Liana Stupples, England
Wales and Northern Ireland
For a more technical
briefing and further information on the
campaign, see the FoE Europe website
(www.foeeurope.org).
