GRAIN GROWERS OF CANADA | |
|
BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL - SHOULD CANADA RATIFY? |
 |
| by Cam Dahl, Executive Director Grain Growers of Canada | Les Producers De Grains
Du Canada |
The Government of Canada is responsible for negotiating international treaties and agreements. Many of these Protocols, Treaties, and Agreements are negotiated in relative secrecy with little feedback from those who they will affect.
Increased scrutiny by the public would provide a necessary check against the potential problem of special interests developing excessive influence in negotiations. The Cartagena Protocol is an example of one of these agreements that would benefit from a bit more farmer scrutiny.
In a nutshell, the Protocol was intended to put international processes in place to help ensure that trade in the products of modern biotechnology, does not negatively impact biodiversity. The fear is that the unintentional spread of genetically modified genes into native plant species would lower biodiversity.
While Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (under which the Protocol has been negotiated) we have not yet ratified the Protocol itself. The Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) asks that the Government of Canada not ratify this Protocol.
The GGC supports the objective of the Protocol which is to provide assurances that the products of modern biotechnology are traded in a safe and responsible manner with due regard to the protection of biodiversity.
However, the Canadian agriculture industry continues to have grave concerns regarding key outstanding issues in the Protocol text, which may result in significant negative impacts on our sector and on the Canadian economy as a whole, because of the limits that would be placed on trade. To date, we have not seen the necessary progress toward the resolution of these issues by the signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
We strongly believe that international agreements under the Convention should be designed to facilitate and enhance trade. In our view, the Parties at the recent meeting in Kuala Lumpur have demonstrated that they are motivated more by an objective to impede global trade.
Canada's world class regulatory system already examines issues related to potential environmental impacts. Canada's ratification of the Protocol would not contribute to our efforts to protect national or international biodiversity beyond the protections offered by our existing system. In other words, the objective of the Protocol would not be compromised by our decision not to ratify.
We are concerned that non-scientific parameters that are being included in the Protocol, will be used solely as non-tariff trade barriers. Furthermore, because of uncertainties in the Protocol, members of Canada's agriculture and agri-food industries are concerned that ratification may jeopardize the export of many Canadian grain and food products, even if these exports are not grown from the products of modern biotechnology.
For example, we are concerned that some countries could hamper flax exports, even though there is no GM flax commercially grown in Canada, because one variety of flax has previously been given regulatory approval. Furthermore, if the negotiations continue in the current direction, countries may be able to hinder the export of other commodities based on the passed approval for flax. Again, this is despite the fact that the variety in question has not been commercially grown in Canada.
Clearly, the implementation of trade barriers of this nature are not scientifically sound, are designed to block trade and protect other countries' domestic industries, not the environment. This was not the intent of the treaty and should not be a process legitimized by Canadian ratification.
A number of our major competitors on the world market have indicated that they have chosen not to ratify the Protocol. Canada's trading position would be disadvantaged if Canadian farmers were forced to abide by a newregulatory burden not required by competing nations.
Why would Canada choose to ratify an international agreement that will do little to add to our efforts to protect the environment, but will almost certainly place our farmers at a competitive disadvantage?
For these key reasons, we believe that the ultimate outcome of ratification for Canada will be an increase in unknown regulatory costs that are used to ensure that the responsible trade in the products of modern biotechnology becomes close to impossible. This is not acceptable.
We support the Government's efforts, in co-operation with the International Grain Trade Coalition, which has led to signing of an agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We strongly encourage the Government to continue working towards similar agreements with other nations.
It is our conclusion that the best option is to continue to use the "trilateral agreement" model to negotiate with countries that wish to facilitate trade, rather than to ratify the Protocol whose terms are determined by Parties intent on inhibiting global trade.
The negative manner in which some signatories of the Protocol and a number of special interest groups have received this agreement has only served to deepen our misgivings about Canadian ratification.
It would be helpful if you brought forward these concerns to your Members of Parliament to ensure that Canada bases its decisions on science and the principle of open, fair, and free trade.