|
India has lost out on the opportunity to build a strong liability regime for developing countries which would enable them to protect their farmers and consumers from any damage caused by genetically engineered crops and products, reports Suman Sahai after the recent international convention in Bonn
Gene Campaign was the only Indian organisation to attend the fourth Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP4), held in Bonn from May 12-16, 2008. This was disappointing since the MOP presents an opportunity to not just follow the global negotiations but also to intervene with suggestions. Unlike the closed WTO process, negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol allow accredited NGOs to play a role. This could have been an opportunity for the many Indian groups involved with genetically engineered (GE) crops and products to learn and help influence the outcome in favour of developing countries.
What was really scandalous though was the non-performance of the Indian delegation. They were not prepared, had nothing to contribute and did not open their mouths during the four-day, heftily-contested negotiations, which focussed on developing a legally binding, international regime for Liability and Redress. India’s silence during the entire debate disappointed many who had hoped to see it in a leadership role, fighting for the environmental and health safety of people in all countries where GEOs are being produced.
As it was, Malaysia led the developing-country efforts, supported by the Philippines, Colombia and other Latin American countries and very decisively the African countries who were vocal, with firm arguments. To add strength to their case, the developing countries formed a block of 80 countries called the Like Minded Group, of which India was a member. The opposition to the international liability regime was consistent and led by Japan, Peru and Brazil. A strong liability regime is of crucial relevance to developing countries because it could provide them a means to protect their farmers and consumers from any damage caused by GE crops and foods. It is vehemently opposed by the biotechnology industry and countries like the US (which is a non-party), Canada, Australia and their friends like Brazil and Japan.
At one point it appeared as though the talks would break down. It was again the Malaysian delegation that fought to keep the talks going and asked for several closed-door meetings with allies to thrash out a counter-strategy to the Japan-Brazil-Peru-led opposition. Ultimately, the talks could be saved with an agreement to continue discussions in early-2009. However, after four days of negotiations at the Fourth Meeting of Parties there was still no agreement on liability. For now, the biotech industry and the developed countries have succeeded in blocking the emergence of a legally binding international liability regime.
Gene Campaign, which has been working on developing components of a liability law for India, had organised a panel discussion on a liability regime for developing countries parallel to the MOP4 meeting in Bonn. Some key consensus recommendations that emerged from that discussion are:
- There should be a strict liability regime for damages from GMOs and liability could be imposed, without the need to prove fault or negligence on the part of the defendant,
- The term “damage” should be given the widest possible interpretation and should include environmental damage, damage/risks to human and animal health as well as socio- economic damage including loss of income, damage to food security and livelihood, and to culture and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities;
- The liability for damage caused as a result of introduction of GEOs should be on the agencies producing and approving the technology. This will include public and private sector research agencies and the regulatory bodies of the state granting approval;
- Under no conditions will farmers cultivating GM crops be held liable even if pollen from their fields contaminates neighbouring fields
- Absolute liability should be imposed in the case of genetic contamination in areas that are crop centres of origin and where maximum genetic diversity is found. This stringent provision is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and inter-generational equity, which invokes safeguarding the environment and resources for coming generations;
- In the case of damage caused by GEOs, the time limit should take into consideration the fact that damage in biology may only appear after several generations. As such, an absolute time limit of 50 years (a period during which effects on two generations could be manifest) should be considered and
- Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) acting in the public interest should have the right to bring a claim for damages on behalf of those directly or indirectly affected.
These recommendations have been submitted to the secretariat of the Meeting of Parties as inputs from civil society.
(Suman Sahai has a PhD in genetics. She is the Director of Gene Campaign, a leading research and advocacy organisation working on farmer and community rights, bio-resources, IPR, indigenous knowledge and GE food and crops)
InfoChange News & Features, June 2008
|
