The purpose of the meeting is to consider a motion regarding the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the Cartagena Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, and his officials. We will hear first from the Minister of State and then take contributions from members.
Cartagena Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity: Motion.
I am pleased to introduce the motion on ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety and thank the committee for agreeing to take it so soon. Ratification is an important part of our EU Presidency preparations. The first meeting of the parties to the protocol, at which Ireland will lead the EU delegation, has been brought forward to February 2004.
To explain the background to the protocol, it is necessary to go back to the United Nations Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. One of key outcomes of that historic summit was agreement on the convention on biological diversity, the objective of which is the conservation and sustainable use of the world's biological diversity. For the purpose of the convention, biological diversity relates to the variability among living organisms from all sectors, including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems. With Dáil approval, the convention was ratified by Ireland in 1996.
Article 19 of the convention required the parties to consider the need for, and the modalities of, a protocol on biosafety, focusing specifically on transboundary movement of living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. A living modified organism, generally referred to as an LMO and essentially the same as the more familiar "genetically modified organism" or GMO, means any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. After more than five years of negotiations, the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety was finalised in January 2000. Ireland signed the protocol in May that year and, as signalled in the motion, it is now proposed to ratify it.
The protocol focuses, in particular, on the transboundary movement of LMOs, that is, movement of LMOs between countries for intentional release in the country of import. Based on the precautionary approach established in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the fundamental objective of the protocol is to ensure the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs. This objective will be achieved primarily through implementation by parties of an "advanced informed agreement" or AIA procedure under which consent must be sought in advance of the first time transboundary movement of an LMO from one country to another. The required consent must be obtained from the country of import which may refuse consent on the basis of a sound scientific risk assessment.
Central to implementation of the protocol will be a biosafety clearing house to facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on LMOs and assist parties in implementing the protocol. On this point, I emphasise the recognition in the protocol of the limited capacity of many countries, particularly developing countries, to cope with proposed releases of LMOs to the environment. The biosafety clearing house will be a particularly important resource for these countries and its importance in this regard is explicitly recognised.
The scope of the protocol is the transboundary movement of LMOs for release into the environment in the country of import. Its provisions do not apply to the movement or use of LMOs for food, feed or processing uses. However, the protocol does not preclude the application of domestic requirements to such uses in the country of import. Within the European Union the marketing of GMOs for food, feed and processing purposes is regulated and these controls, soon to be strengthened with the coming into effect of a new regulation on GM food and feed, will continue to apply.
The European Union has a substantial regulatory framework on modern biotechnology which covers proposed releases of GMOs into the environment, as well as proposals to market genetically modified products for food, feed and processing uses. For the purposes of the protocol, the Union has decided to strengthen the regulatory framework by adopting a specific regulation on the transboundary movement of GMOs. This new regulation was adopted in March this year and is due to be published shortly. On the basis of implementing existing and agreed new EU regulatory provisions, the Union and its member states will fulfil the requirements of the protocol.
In this country the EPA is the competent authority for EU legislation on releases of GMOs to the environment. The agency will be designated as the competent authority for the purposes of the protocol. EU policy and legislation on GM food and feed are matters respectively for the Departments of Health and Children, and Agriculture and Food. As I said, the advanced informed agreement procedure under the protocol does not apply to the transboundary movement of LMOs for food and feed purposes. The only requirement under the protocol in relation to GM food and feed is for information sharing through the biosafety clearing house.
Before concluding on EU legislation, ratification of the protocol by the Union and its member states will not lead to an increased level of uses or releases of GMOs in the European Union. Any proposal to release a GMO into the environment in the Union, or place a GM food or feed product on the EU market, will remain subject to the EU regulatory framework on modern biotechnology. Ratification of the protocol will not change this position. The principal objective of ratification by the Union and its member states is to participate in ensuring minimum safety standards for the transfer, handling and use of LMOs, consistent with EU regulatory requirements, apply at a wider international level.
On foot of ratification by 50 signatories, the protocol entered into effect on 11 September this year. As a result, the first meeting of the parties to the protocol will take place in Malaysia in February 2004. This first meeting will be an integral part of the seventh meeting of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, at which the Irish and EU delegations will be lead by the Minister, Deputy Cullen.
Subject to all necessary requirements being in place, it was always the intention to ratify the protocol in time to enable Ireland to participate as a full party at the first meeting of the parties. As I indicated, for reasons which are a matter between the United Nations and the Malaysian authorities, arrangements for the meeting have been brought forward to February. We, therefore, need to lodge our instrument of ratification in November 2003 in order that we are recognised as a full party 90 days later and in time for the meeting. Dáil approval to ratify the protocol is necessary. This requirement arises from the provisions of Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution regarding any charge on public funds. The protocol was negotiated, and will operate, under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
Implementation of the protocol will be funded from the administrative budget for the convention. Ireland's current contribution to the convention is approximately $27,000. While ratification of the protocol will not involve a new charge on public funds, it is expected to give rise to an increase in the national contribution towards the cost of administering the convention. On these grounds, Dáil approval is being sought.
The protocol is a major international agreement, involving almost 200 countries. Its primary objective is to ensure the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs, particularly in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. For parties, it is a commitment to safety and environmental sustainability for the benefit of present and future generations, without compromising potential benefits from modern biotechnology.
In providing a regime for the transboundary movement of LMOs, the protocol recognises "the crucial importance to humankind of centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity". However, it also recognises "that modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures for the environment and human health". It seeks to meet this fundamental requirement for adequate safety measures. With an emphasis on precaution and scientific risk assessment, it provides a basis for parties to evaluate potential benefits and risks and make consistent and environmentally sound decisions. In addition, the biosafety clearing house will contribute to greater effectiveness of implementation as well as greater transparency and easier access to information on releases and uses of LMOs across the world.
Within the European Union we are fortunate to have a comprehensive and up-to-date regulatory framework on modern biotechnology. We also have a well-developed capacity to deal with individual proposals to release GMOs or market GM food or feed products. Other countries, particularly those with economies in development, are less well prepared to deal with the environmental implications of LMOs. The protocol will assist in closing that regulatory and capacity gap and give real and practical effect to the commitment of all of the parties to the conservation and sustainable use of the earth's biological resources. It is no surprise, therefore, that the protocol enjoys strong support both within the European Union and at a wider international level. I commend ratification to the committee.
I thank the Minister of State.
I welcome the Minister of State and the proposal before the committee. There appears to be a great deal of urgency in having the motion approved. I presume it will be in order that Ireland will be able to participate as a full party at the first meeting. However, progress has been delayed for a number of years. In that regard, the Minister of State referred to the first moves made at the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Was there a particular reason for the delay, particularly as we are now being ask to ratify the protocol as a matter of urgency?
As stated earlier, moves in this area date back to the Rio de Janeiro meeting. There have been developments in the interim but the protocol was only finalised in 2000. Therefore, while it might appear that this matter dates back to the early 1990s, it actually only dates back to 2000.
An essential item of EU legislation and a specific regulation on the transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms was only adopted in March this year and has yet to be published in the Official Journal. Publication is expected shortly. It was essential to know the full extent of the provisions of the relevant EU legislation and establish a clear position on implementation prior to commencing the ratification process. The meeting, as a result of negotiations between the Malaysian authorities and the United Nations, has also been brought forward to February next year.
After the signing of the protocol, there will be a period of 90 days before Ireland becomes a full member. Even if Ireland was not going to be leading the EU delegation in Malaysia, we would want to be part of the process as we want to lead by example. I am certain that the 15 member states and the accession states will, more than likely, be full members by that time.
As the Deputy is aware, 50 is the threshold and a total of 65 out of up to 200 states are involved. While this matter is important to everyone in Europe, it is perhaps even more important to the developing economies.
I support the motion. I apologise I was not present for the briefing but my absence was due to circumstances beyond my control. Leaving aside the European Union, have the other major economic powers, for example, the United States, ratified the protocol?
The United States has made few advances in respect of this matter. It is interesting that the Deputy should ask this question. From time to time the question, "Which side are we on?", is posed. Our position in that regard is clear; we are totally in favour of the protocol and have progressed matters as quickly as possible. The United States will not be a party to it and might never sign.
What reasons has it given for failing to ratify the protocol and what implications does this have for our trading relationship with the US? What is the meaning of the second paragraph on the second page and what are the implications of it? It states:
The advanced informed agreement, a decision procedure under the protocol, does not apply to living modified organisms intended for direct use as food, feed or for processing. However, the protocol does not preclude domestic requirements. Within the EU regulatory requirements already apply in these areas.
The EU regulatory framework is much broader and covers a much wider area. This protocol deals primarily with LMOs to be introduced directly into the environment for cultivation. The use of LMOs as food or feed for processing is not regarded as introduction into the environment in the country of origin.
While the United States has not given reasons for not signing the protocol, this has no implications for our trading relationships with the US. The US will have to comply with EU requirements if it wants to trade with us. While it will exercise pressure through the WTO, we know precisely where Europe stands.
The protocol does not apply to organisms intended for direct use as food, feed or processing. Surely LMOs in food and feed will end up in the environment anyway.
I am told it is regulated within the EU but not globally.
I do not understand.
There is a regulatory structure in place for processing within the EU and it is much wider and stronger than this protocol. There is no international protocol on food, feed and processing. This is the first step and hopefully the UN will some day want to emulate what the EU is currently doing.
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation and arranging the briefing from his officials. I also thank his officials for the time they took in taking us through this protocol. The motion before the committee is that the protocol should be agreed and I am happy to support that.
While this protocol is limited in its scope and applies to seeds, as I understand it, it is obviously important in the overall picture of GMOs. The protocol provides for a regime whereby there are requirements for notification when seeds are being transferred from one country to another and for a system of approvals to be given by the state and for the lodgement of approvals and regulatory framework within this UN clearing house. All this is certainly positive.
It must be acknowledged that in the EU the precautionary principle has, generally speaking, been applied to the approach to GMOs, whether they are seed, food, feed or processing. The EU has taken a fairly cautious approach to the GM issue, while recognising the potential of biotechnology in food production. I share the view articulated in the phrase the Minister of State drew attention to: "modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures for the environment and human health." The caution most of us have regarding the advances being made in biotechnology is that it is happening at a rapid pace. The pace of those developments and particularly the commercial exploitation of them and consequent displacement of traditional agriculture and food production are of major concern.
That the US has not signed the protocol is a matter of serious concern. We know the principal commercial interests that are seeking to advance GM foods and crops throughout the world are US-based. As we know, they are seeking to have GM seeds used in crop production in many parts of the world. Once those seeds are used they cannot be renewed and every year the user must return to the commercial interest to buy new seeds. A new dependence is being created between food producers and the commercial companies that are producing the seeds.
We also know of considerable political pressure being put on the EU by the US to relax the regime we have on GM seeds and foods. As part of a parliamentary delegation to the US some months ago, the frequency with which members of Congress and members of universities raised this issue struck me. The EU's response must be that the issue is not on the agenda until the US signs the international conventions, such as this, which govern GMOs. It is not acceptable that the US can say some UN agreements and protocols must be complied with to the point where it is prepared to go into conflict to enforce them, while on the other hand conventions such as this are not complied with. I hope that Ireland, when it assumes the EU Presidency, will make it clear that the relaxation of the EU regime on GMOs is not on the agenda for as long as the US refuses to sign up to the Cartagena protocol and other conventions on the protection of the environment.
I too appreciate the briefing yesterday from Mr. Ryan and his officials and we are a little wiser today about this complex issue.
I know this has the support of the Green Party here and in other countries as well as NGOs like Greenpeace which are also concerned with biodiversity, so there is no disagreement on that score. The Minister of State mentioned that passing and enforcement of this protocol would not lead to more GM, which is an interesting way of putting it. I thought this was to be restrictive, a bit like saying the safety belt would not lead to more fatalities in crashes.
I want to focus on the precautionary principle within the protocol. If that precautionary principle is at the heart of the agreement it means countries have the right to ban or restrict the importation or use of LMO or GMO organisms when there is a lack of scientific knowledge or consensus regarding their safety. Does that lack of consensus allow for the creation of GMO-free zones?
I use GMO deliberately because the LMO reference is something of a misnomer. A living modified organism could be a strain of tulip bulb that has been bred for years. We are talking about genetic modification here so I am using GMO, which I hope is the correct term in this context. Regarding a lack of consensus, tests were done by Gavin Ramsay's team at the Scottish crop research unit in Dundee recently. Those showed that the previous expectation, that coexistence could be organised at a very short distance between genetically modified and conventional or organic crops, is now not as obvious as was first thought. For example, 26 kilometres was recorded as the distance pollen could travel. Can we and the European Commission say that on the basis of this or similar protocols, it is feasible for certain areas to be declared GMO-free if a national parliament so decides?
Austria wanted to do this, and this area needs to be investigated. Does the Minister of State see any answer to this? The European Commission seems to be saying different things - Commissioner Byrne says it is not possible to have a GMO-free zone while Commissioner Walstrom seems to have a different view. We in Ireland need to clarify the position following the passing of this protocol as it can be taken that it will be passed.
As Deputy Gilmore said, it should be clear we are not talking about genetically modified biotechnology in terms of laboratory or medical applications. Those are well regarded and critical applications, particularly in dealing with diabetes and other illnesses, while we are discussing the wider natural environment.
Biodiversity is falling all the while in the meantime and I ask the Government to keep its focus not just on the GM restrictions and regulation in that area but on falling biodiversity. Volunteers and NGOs have responded to this - for instance, Irish Seed Savers of Scarriff, County Clare, is maintaining gene banks of seeds which are disappearing from commercial use and which in some cases are illegal for commercial use. The Laytown ecology centre, Sonairte, has very old apple trees which are maintaining a gene pool which would otherwise disappear. Is the Minister of State aware of that aspect of biodiversity as well as the GM aspect? Can we have any part of Ireland declared GMO-free?
A number of issues have been raised to which the Minister of State might like to respond.
I will deal with the initial questions first. I could not disagree with anything Deputies said about caution, the rapid pace of development and the pressure that might be exerted by the United States. We are well aware of those matters. This is not on the agenda and we will resist it until such time as the US decides to sign this protocol. Of course the US is using the World Trade Organisation as a forum or vehicle to exert pressure on the EU over the de facto moratorium which exists in the EU regarding GMOs. I assure Deputies that both in our capacity at national level and while we hold the Presidency, we will be totally committed to ensuring safety precautions are taken while we will be totally opposed to this issue appearing on the agenda. The United Nations must adhere to more stringent regulations in relation to GMOs because the EU regulatory framework is much stronger than the protocol. The more States that ratify this protocol the better and stronger it is. We expect that by early next year the number will be well over 100 and that all EU member states should have signed up. I have no issue with what Deputy Gilmore said.
Regarding Deputy Sargent's comments about Commissioners Byrne and Walstrom, I am not aware of any differences in views within the Commission. The Deputy will know that the zones are being dealt with at present by the agriculture directive. As for the question of this protocol leading to widespread use of GMOs, the protocol recognises the crucial importance of genetic diversity to mankind and acknowledges public concern about potentially adverse effects of LMOs on biological diversity.
The matter of LMOs and GMOs was an obvious question for me also and there appears to be very little difference between them. LMOs is a term used more globally while GMOs is used within the Union. I am told that LMOs will germinate while GMOs may not, depending on the modifications made to them.
The protocol also recognises that modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures for the environment and human health. The whole objective is not to block potential benefits. There will be potential benefits, but we must ensure, based on the precautionary approach, that LMOs are moved across boundaries and released into the environment, and that an adequate level of protection is in place for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The protocol addresses the level of safety in this area rather than the level of activity and this, of itself, should not generate an increased level of activity.
The clearing house which was mentioned will be all-important to European countries but perhaps more important to the developing countries which might not have the necessary expertise or knowledge. There will be a roster of experts who could assist developing countries, countries that are in transition and that will be extremely important to them.
In relation to Commissioners Walstrom and Byrne, I am not aware of any difference of opinion between them. The European GM-free zones will be dealt with through an agricultural directive in the form of guidelines which are currently being prepared. They are much more of a legal than an environmental matter.
Do members have further questions? That concludes the select committee's consideration of the motion and it is obliged to report to the Dáil on the matter.
Members will have received a draft report of a meeting. Is it agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Minister of State, DeputyGallagher, and his officials for attending today's meeting and their assistance yesterday.
I thank the Chairman and the members for agreeing to take this motion so quickly in view of the time constraints that prevail. I am sure everyone here is much more informed and enlightened.
I will give the Minister of State the green light but members have some homework to complete.
I remind members that the joint committee will meet at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 November. The purpose of that meeting will be to discuss planning with representatives of various organisations. The organisations which have confirmed to date are departmental officials, An Bord Pleanála, the Irish Planning Institute, An Taisce, the Rural Dwellers Association and the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability. The Institute of Architects confirmed by telephone today that a representative of its organisation will also be in attendance. When we receive the full list of attendees the draft programme of the day will be drawn up and circulated to members for their observation and if they wish to make comments they may do so. The timetable will be agreed and adhered to on the day. We will have to stick strictly to an agenda and timetable to give everyone attending an equal opportunity to participate. We will allow the attendees to speak for ten or 15 minutes and then we will have a question and answer session. It is possible that members from other committees will want to attend and participate at different stages. That is to be expected. I take it members are happy with that.
Some slight concern was expressed about electronic voting last week. We have taken that matter up with the Minister and he suggested, as a first step, that the committee might first view the operation in the Custom House and if they have any concerns he would be more than happy to come before the committee and talk to members about it. If members agree, arrangements could be made for the committee to go over——
Could a machine be brought here?
We could check that with the Minister, but it was suggested that we would go to the Custom House. We will see if what the Deputy asked is possible. That has happened before so I am sure we could make that——
A machine should be brought here to show all Oireachtas Members how it operates in advance of the local elections. We were given a demonstration of the operation of such a machine some years ago, as were other parties. The right place to show the operation of such a machine is here.
From the point of view of asking questions, the members of a small committee such as this one would have a better chance of getting information if only they, as opposed to the 166 Members of the Oireachtas, were shown the operation of the machine.
Are we on record?
We are.
I have slight reservations not in regard to the physical examination of the machine but that there should be a full briefing on what safeguards have been incorporated in the system to ensure that there can be no external interference. I am concerned about that aspect especially when I see our website is down at the moment and that the voting system could be affected by a virus. I want to get guarantees that the system is secure and safe and that we will not have a problem on the big day. The issue is not so much the viewing of the machine but getting people who would be qualified to answer relevant questions regarding the security of the system.
The Minister promised that members could go over there to view the system in operation, have a briefing immediately afterwards and raise any questions they may have. If we were to see the system in operation, it would give us a better understanding of it.
Perhaps the people concerned will bring a machine here and we would be able to see it in operation.
Is that what members want?
Some of us have operated such a machine in real life, but that does not give one much information about how it could be hacked.
There is a new machine now - the machine that will be used is not the one to which Deputy Sargent referred as that one was faulty.
If members are in agreement, we will ask the people concerned to bring a machine here if that is possible.
I am not concerned about the physical workings of the machine but the aspects referred to by Deputy Allen. Would the machine be subject to a potential technological breakdown or could it be hacked? If there are officials with a competency in this area, they should be invited to advise us on this, but perhaps we should also seek independent advice on it, the advice of people who may have a contrary view on it. I am not an expert on it, but doctors differ and patients die. Other people with a competency in this area might suggest that these machines are not foolproof.
These are the people who are probably most familiar with it. As a first step, we could have a briefing. We can try to organise that here and if we want to take the matter further, we can do so.