|
Fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress (WGLR4) in the context of the Cartagena Protocol
22-26 October 2007, Montreal, Canada
|
|
Highlights from Tuesday, 23 October
|
On Tuesday morning, the Working Group met in plenary and continued exchanging views on options for elements of rules and procedures on liability and redress. The plenary discussions focused on the definition of damage and administrative approaches. In the afternoon, two contact groups convened and continued consideration of these issues.
Photo: Working Group Co-Chairs
René Lefeber, Netherlands, and Jimena Nieto, Colombia
|
|
|
Options for elements of rules and procedures on liability and redress: Damage |
On damage to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components, Desmond Mahon, Canada (left),
preferred limiting application to transboundary movements. On special measures in case of damage to centers of origin and centers of genetic diversity to be determined, Beate Berglund Ekeberg, Norway (right), agreed that there was no need for special rules on this issue.
|
On special measures in case of damage to centers of origin and centers of genetic diversity to be determined, Ronilo Beronio, Philippines (left), suggested adding a reference to an appropriate mechanism for valuation of such centers. On damage to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components, Fernando Coimbra, Brazil (right), indicated that damage to human health should also be covered.
|
Terrence Gilliard, Saint Lucia (left), questioned the need for special emphasis on protected species and habitat. On the valuation of damage to conservation of biological diversity/environment, Colombia (right), noted that valuation definitions relate to channeling liability. |
Argentina (left) suggested reference to tangible and significant damage, that is permanent or long-term, and to link it to effects on conservation and sustainable use. On the valuation of damage to conservation of biological diversity/environment, Philip Bereano, Washington Biotechnology Action Council (left), stressed the need for valuation of the actual loss. |
Options for elements of rules and procedures on liability and redress: Administrative approaches |
Duncan Currie, Greenpeace International (left), called for a more precise definition of "operator" and recommended including prevention, remedies and a compensation fund. Gurdial Singh Nijar, Malaysia (right), clarified that administrative approaches simplify actions by allowing states to require the operator to take action through administrative rather than court procedures. |
Nievia Ramsundar, Trinidad and Tobago (left), highlighted the need for an efficient template for administration. Piet van der Meer, Public Research and Regulation Initiative (right), stressed that the administrative approach provides quick remedies without court action.
|
Working Group Co-Chairs René Lefeber, Netherlands, and Jimena Nieto, Colombia (left). On administrative approaches based on allocation of costs of response measures and restoration measures, Papa Méïsa Dieng, Senegal (right), noted that the African position had to be understood in the context of states authorizing transboundary movements of LMOs and the exporter being subject to state control.
|
Contact Group Chair Jürg Bally, Switzerland, and Worku Damena Yifru and Ulrika Nillsson, CBD Secretariat |
Delegates from the US, EU and South Africa during the contact group meeting |
Contact Group: Administrative approaches |
Contact Group Chair Jane Bulmer, UK (center), with Kathryn Garforth and Lyle Glowka, CBD Secretariat |
Relevant links
Links
to IISD RS resources
|
Please e-mail the Digital Editor should you have any questions regarding the content of this page.
|
|