Theme 4: Conclusions and recommendations

The points raised during this online forum make it clear that there are already a large number of international bodies of experts currently undertaking work on rules and standards with respect to identification, handling, packaging and transport of goods, including LMOs.  Having the experts from these other organizations participate in this forum has been very useful as we have been able to learn about the potential for collaboration among international organizations on this issue.  Given the existing work plan of the Parties to the Protocol, and the limited budget for any new activities, I support the intervention made earlier that the Secretariat should establish formal contact with the other organizations, such a ISTA, ISO , CEN , CAC ,IPPC , FAO through meetings, workshops, missions etc., to support their work in building a comprehensive and non-redundant approach to standards of LMOs shipments.  This will allow the Protocol Parties to leverage the work going on by qualified experts in other international fora and avoid the duplication of resources and efforts.  In addition, I suggest that the Secretariat continue its collaboration with IPPC, OIE, UNECE, etc and when appropriate gaps are identified by the Parties, these gaps should be directed to those organisations already addressing identification, handling, packaging and transport.. The goal in further discussions by the Parties under Article 18.3 should be to ensuring awareness of existing requirements under other international agreements and organizations and to further create synergies and avoid duplication of efforts.  Therefore, I suggest, after following the online discussion closely, that any further development or refinement of rules and standards for identification, handling, packaging and transport of LMOs could be referred to the organizations already addressing those matters.  
 
-Wendelyn Jones on behalf of the GIC

Dear Wendelyn Jones,

Yes, establishing coordination with other relevant international organizations is important and necessary.

In fact, I suggested additional organizations (such as WTO and FAO) and UN treaty secretariats (such as ITPGRA, CITES and Basel Conventions) that should also be included in the coordination efforts (see http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/theme1_art18.shtml).

Another organization that I now remember to suggest is the WHO (especially, its Food Safety Department: see http://www.who.int/foodsafety/en/). To my knowledge and after the 2004 megastudy in modern food biotechnology, human health and development, its World Health Assembly (WHA) has not mandated any other biosafety work, and therefore, not provided any budget for WHO to continue such work.

Of course, what developing country Parties can do themselves is:
* At the WHA, propose specific biosafety work programme for WHO to undertake.
* Use the Codex Trust Fund to enable their participation at Codex Alimentarius meetings.
* Persuade their national experts to volunteer for the various expert group meetings for which the WHO (Food Safety Department) does not always get adequate experts, particularly from developing countries.

Yet, as it is clear from this Forum's discussions, there are significant gaps, are there not? Who will fulfill these gaps (see (see http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/theme2_art18.shtml), if not the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol and the CBD Secretariat?

Mandates of other international organizations and UN treaty secretariats is restricted to their scope of work, their treaty obligations and member/Party needs that are not exactly the same as the Protocol provisions, are they not?

And not all countries/Cartagena Protocol Parties can become members of some organizations such as the UNECE or the OECD. Then there are challenges that a Party encounters with non-Parties as is clearly being experienced by Mexico.

Moreover, there is a limit to what one international organization can request another to do, is there not?

From: gunasutra@yahoo.in