The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis of results

The document examines the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It details the Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure for living modified organisms (LMOs), the specific treatment of LMOs intended for food, feed, or processing (LMO-FFPs), and the operationalization of the precautionary principle. The analysis highlights the tension between environmental protection and WTO trade rules, noting that while the Protocol provides a framework for risk assessment and socio-economic considerations, potential implementation conflicts may still be settled in the WTO.

• The Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure requires the exporting Party to notify the importing Party in writing before the first intentional import of an LMO. The importing Party then has 90 days to acknowledge receipt and 270 days from notification to approve, prohibit, or request more information on the import.
• LMOs intended for direct use as food, feed, or for processing (LMO-FFPs) are exempt from the AIA procedure. Instead, they follow a less restrictive process where the responsibility shifts to the importer to announce regulations via the Biosafety Clearing-House, though shipments must still be identified as containing LMO-FFPs in documentation.
• 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 react to 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 and allowing for socio-economic considerations.
• The relationship between the Protocol and the WTO remains ambiguous. The text includes preambular statements that the Protocol does not change existing rights and obligations under other agreements, but also that it is not intended to be subordinate to them, creating a 'conflict postponed' regarding which rules prevail in trade disputes.
• Negotiations were divided among five main groups: the Miami Group (major LMO exporters seeking free trade and 'sound science'), the Like-Minded Group (developing countries seeking strong protections and liability), the European Union (pushing for human health coverage and labelling), the Compromise Group (bridging gaps), and the CEE bloc (focusing on practicality).
• A concrete mechanism for liability and redress for damages resulting from the transboundary movement of LMOs was not settled in Montreal; instead, the Parties committed to establishing a process to elaborate these rules 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} }