WTO Working Groups

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

This is a report that the USA is seeking a WTO working
group on Biotech.  I think we should really ask for a
WTO Working Group on Access to Medicines.  

 Jamie



------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest - Vol. 3, Number 45    15 November,
1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------


WTO MEMBERS PONDER BIOTECH WORKING GROUP

At a WTO Informal Heads of Delegation meeting on 6 November, the U.S. 
said it would seek the establishment of a WTO working group on 
biotechnology. While Canada and Japan have also called for similar 
working groups, the U.S. said its proposal called for a working group 
with a "well defined, narrow focus," which would only examine approval 
processes for products from emerging agricultural technologies, 
including biotechnology. The U.S. proposal does not include 
pharmaceutical products.

The U.S. made its recommendation for a working group after concluding 
that WTO Members would not support immediate negotiations on the 
approval process for biotechnology products (e.g. genetically modified 
(GMO) corn or soybeans). The U.S. proposal is more narrowly focused 
than the proposals put forward by Canada (supported by Japan). The U.S. 
argued that Canada's proposal was too broad and would delay the 
conclusion of the new round of WTO talks.

WTO Members are divided over the establishment of a biotechnology 
working group. The U.S., Canada, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay support 
the establishment of a WTO working group (though they do not 
necessarily agree on scope of work) as growers and/or supporters of GMO 
crops. This position reflects these countries' collective liberal 
position as part of the so-called Miami Group in negotiations toward an 
international biosafety protocol (see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest 
Vol. 3, No. 37, 20 September 1999, http://www.ictsd.org/html/story1.20-
09-99.htm ).

Asian countries led by Malaysia, and joined by Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, 
Norway, Peru, and Switzerland prefer to discuss the issue of 
biotechnology in forums outside the WTO, for instance through the 
ongoing negotiation process for a legally-binding biosafety protocol. 
However, some of these countries noted that the existing WTO Committee 
on Trade and Environment (CTE) could be an appropriate vehicle for 
biotechnology-related work.

Brazil and the EU have yet to take any position on the issue of a WTO 
working group on biotechnology. Australia, also a member of the Miami 
Group, said it would not support the establishment of a working group 
unless there is consensus among all WTO Members.

In other news, life sciences companies on 29 October offered a set of 
guarantees regarding the distribution and marketing of GMO products in 
Europe in an effort to end a de facto EU moratorium on the approval of 
GMOs.

The moratorium has been in place since June 1999 when EU environment 
ministers approved a revised 1990 Directive on the Deliberate Release 
of Genetically Modified Organisms (90/220). At that time Greece, 
France, Italy, Denmark and Luxembourg expressed strong support for a 
suspension of GMO approvals until changes to the existing GMO 
legislation are implemented, a process likely to take several years as 
the legislation makes its way through the European Commission and 
Parliament for approval. While ministers ultimately rejected the formal 
moratorium proposal, one is effectively in place since no new 
authorisations have been delivered for a long time, nor are likely to 
be in the near future.

Two biotechnology companies, Monsanto and AgrEvo, on 29 October put 
forward a proposal under which the companies would: ensure that all GMO 
products are labelled through all processing stages; seek approval of 
GMO applications for only 10 years, after which the companies would re-
apply for approval; and set up a system whereby GMOs could be traced by 
way of a coding system.

The companies' proposal essentially addresses the requirements agreed 
to by EU environment ministers under 90/220, which calls for, inter 
alia, a 10-year (renewable) licensing period for each GMO seed 
authorisation, post-marketing monitoring of GMO products, and required 
labelling of products containing GMOs above a certain threshold phases. 
The companies made their proposals at an EU experts meeting that was 
convened to address three applications for the distribution of the GMO 
seeds. The experts' panel is considered a test case to see whether the 
de facto moratorium will stay in place. The panel said it would put off 
its decision on the seed applications until after it had considered the 
companies' proposal.

Also in the news, the World Wide Fund For Nature International (WWF), a 
leading international environment organisation, released a report on 9 
November warning of the increasing number of GMO trees being planted 
without adequate controls and research into the environmental impacts 
of GMO forests. The report notes that commercial planting of GMO 
forests could begin within two years, most likely in Chile, China and 
Indonesia. The WWF report calls for strengthened regulations for field 
tests, including the examination of long-term environmental impacts. 
Further, WWF urged governments worldwide to declare a global moratorium 
on the commercial release of GMO trees until adequate research has been 
conducted and proper safeguards have been put in place. For details on 
how to access the report, please see Events and Resources, below.

"U.S. to seek biotech working group in WTO, later negotiations," INSIDE 
US TRADE, 12 November 1999; "WTO Members oppose creation of 
biotechnology group at upcoming talks," INTERNATIONAL TRADE REPORTER, 
10 November 1999; "Leading biotechnology firms offer to make 
environment guarantees on GMOs," INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT REPORTER, 10 
November 1999; "WWF exposes GM tree threat to world's forests," WWF 
PRESS RELEASE, 9 November 1999.


-- 
James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176