The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis of results

This IISD briefing note analyzes the results of the negotiations for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which concluded in Montreal in January 2000. The document examines the Protocol's scope, its operationalization of the precautionary principle, its complex relationship with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and the positions of the five major negotiating blocs.

• The Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure serves as the Protocol's core mechanism, requiring exporters to notify importing Parties in writing before the first intentional import of a specific living modified organism (LMO). The importing Party then has 90 days to acknowledge receipt and 270 days from notification to approve the import, prohibit it, request more information, or extend the deadline.
• LMOs intended for direct use as food, feed, or processing (LMO–FFPs) are excluded from the AIA procedure and instead follow a less restrictive process under Article 11. Under this regime, the responsibility shifts to importers to proactively announce regulations via the Biosafety Clearing-House, and exporters are not required to wait for a response or necessarily finance risk assessments.
• The Protocol incorporates a strong version of the precautionary principle, stating that a "lack of scientific certainty" should not prevent a Party from deciding how to handle the import of an LMO. This supplements the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) by providing detailed risk assessment guidelines in Annex II, explicitly allowing for socio-economic considerations, and potentially shifting the burden of proof and cost of risk assessments to the exporter.
• The relationship between the Protocol and the WTO remains ambiguous due to conflicting preambular statements. One statement asserts the Protocol does not change existing rights and obligations under other international agreements, while another states it is not intended to be subordinate to them. This creates a "conflict postponed" scenario where trade disputes regarding the Protocol's implementation would likely still be settled by the WTO.
• Negotiations were divided among five primary groups: the Miami Group (major LMO exporters seeking free trade and "sound science" standards), the Like-Minded Group (developing countries seeking strong protections and liability rules), the European Union (pushing for human health coverage and labeling), the Compromise Group (bridging gaps between blocs), and the Central and Eastern European (CEE) bloc (taking a middle-of-the-road approach).
• Liability and redress mechanisms were not finalized in Montreal; instead, Article 27 commits the first meeting of the Parties to establish a process to develop these rules and procedures within four years.

APA

Cosbey, A., & Burgiel, S. (2000). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis of results. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/biosafety.pdf

Chicago

Cosbey, Aaron, and Stas Burgiel. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis of results. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2000. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/biosafety.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cosbey |first1=Aaron |last2=Burgiel |first2=Stas |title=The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis of results |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=2000 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/biosafety.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cosbey2000cartagena, author = {Cosbey, Aaron and Burgiel, Stas}, title = {{The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis of results}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2000}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/biosafety.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }