Trade Rows Loom Over GM Export Treaty

MARK HENDERSON / London Times 28may03

A TREATY restricting exports of genetically modified crops is likely to come into force within weeks, threatening to ignite a fresh trade row between the United States, Europe and the developing world. The Cartagena Protocol, which was drawn up in 2000, needs to be ratified by just two more countries to become legally binding and grant governments strong powers to ban the import of certain GM crops. The agreement, which has been signed by 103 countries, but not by the US, forces exporters to provide detailed information about the contents and potential environmental risks of any GM shipments, at considerable cost, before a destination country is required to accept it.

Under its "precautionary approach", governments will be allowed to block imports if they are not satisfied with this information, although they must base such decisions on "sound science".

The protocol's provisions, however, conflict sharply with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, which allow imports to be restricted only when there is clear scientific evidence that a crop, either GM or conventional, could harm human health or the environment.

Lawyers, environmentalists and industry groups are agreed that a clash between the two sets of rules is inevitable, as anti-GM politicians, particularly in Europe, seek to prevent transgenic crops from reaching their markets.

Last week, the US announced it was to sue the European Union at the WTO unless it lifted its ban on the approval of new GM products. The introduction of the Cartagena rules is likely to trigger new trade disputes, not least as the US will be severely affected by them even though it has not signed the treaty.

The protocol was ratified last week by Colombia, where the Cartagena negotiations that led to the pact took place, bringing the number of ratifications to 48. It will come into force once it has been ratified by 50 countries.

Britain has signed but has yet to ratify the protocol, although this is due to take place shortly and the country could even be the one to tip the balance. The protocol will have to be incorporated into law by an Act of Parliament, and while no legislation has been tabled preparations are well advanced.

Klaus Toepfer, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said that the treaty would greatly strengthen the hand of countries not comfortable accepting GM products. "This gives power to the importers," he said. "With the protocol we have a very clear basis for transparent discussions on the shipping of GM organisms."

But he added: "There might well be a clash with the WTO at some stage. There might be a problem that the WTO is saying you have to take these products, and that the Cartagena Protocol is saying you are entitled to say no."

Environmental lawyers said that while the protocol and WTO rules have equal standing in theory, it would in practice be up to the WTO's disputes panel to decide if a country had really followed "sound science" in rejecting a GM product.

Another potential problem surrounds the issue of what constitutes a GM product under the Cartagena system. The protocol does not stipulate what percentage of a food shipment must be genetically modified for the rules to apply, and exporters are concerned that some countries will seek to use the system against conventional shipments that are not guaranteed to be 100 per cent GM-free. In countries such as the US, Canada and Argentina that grow GM crops on a large scale, these are often difficult to segregate from conventional crops, and a strict interpretation of the Cartagena rules would impose massive extra costs on exports.

Critics of the protocol say that it will create an unnecessary barrier to trade and hold up the introduction of GM crops in the developing world, which has most to gain from the technology.

Vivian Moses, the chairman of the pro-GM CropGen panel, said: "This seems to me an incredible degree of bureaucracy, building absurd structures in order to satisfy mythical needs."