Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol Research Articles

Liability for Transboundary Damage of Genetically Modified Organisms: Existing Patterns and Application

Normative analysis found that for the application of liability for transboundary damage to genetically modified organisms, there are currently three liability patterns: traditional state liability, private law liability, and liability for transboundary damage. It will not be an effective solution to the problem of penalty for damages, if the above liability patterns apply to transboundary damage of genetically modified organisms separately. And this approach is inconsistent with the legal principles of relevant international law and judicial practice. So this article uses method of legal interpretation to analyze and interpret the provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity, The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol to clarify the true meaning of the provisions in depth, and eliminate errors and omissions. At the same time, this article uses the method of theoretical analysis to analyze the existing liability patterns. Finally, we found, the principle of timely and adequate compensation for victims should be implemented in complex realities, and genetically modified damage should be dealt with and in accordance with the attributes of damage, causation and other factors. According to these factors, we will divide transboundary damage of genetically modified organisms into three types: intentional transboundary movement, unintentional transboundary movement and illegal transboundary movement. To divide the transboundary damage to genetically modified organisms and apply different liability patterns according to different situations should be the best approach.

4. Mexico

This year, we report on the legislative activities in the forestry, climate change, and oil, gas, and energy sectors. The development of human rights protection in the environmental agenda witnessed expansion in the fields of public participation of Indigenous groups, the banning of pesticides, and air pollution. We observe further integration of international law into the national order on matters of living modified organisms, the ozone layer, and regulatory development in the oil and gas industry. The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress (Supplementary Protocol) was adopted by Mexico and published in the Federal Register (Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF)) on 26 February. The purpose of the Supplementary Protocol is to contribute to the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on biological diversity. Mexico is committed to issuing and enforcing existing domestic rules for addressing measurable or observable damage to biological diversity and the civil liabilities associated with intentional, unintentional, and/or illegal transboundary movements of living modified organisms.

Transboundary Movements of Genetically Modified Organisms and the Cartagena Protocol: Key Issues and Concerns

Biotechnology or the engineering of the genetic material of species can give way to avenues of possibilities for the benefit of people, fauna and flora but also has the potential of posing untold and undiscovered threats to human beings and other living organisms. One of the first attempts to legislate on international rules on biotechnology can be traced back to article 19 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. The CBD is indeed the first international legal instrument apart from the then European Community’s relevant directives to suggest that biotechnology is a matter of concern for the international community while providing a basis upon which more detailed procedures would be elaborated in the field of biosafety. While the CBD includes international rules on access to genetic resources, access to and the transfer of technology, the handling of biotechnology and the distribution of its benefits, it does not include a detailed regulation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their possible adverse effects on the environment, human and animal health. It was only with the coming into existence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol) to the CBD in 2000 that the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) such as genetically engineered plants, animals, and microbes were at last being catered for, albeit leaving aside the broader categories of GMOs. Due to the need for the negotiators of this protocol to make compromises, there were still key issues on the international biosafety framework pertaining mainly to the scope of the GMOs to be covered by this protocol and by the Advanced Informed Agreement procedure; identification and traceability issues; and liability and redress issues.
 Nine years after the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol the transboundary movements of GMOs have clearly increased with new categories of GMOs and genetically modified products to regulate. The debate on the safety of GMOs used for food and feed as well as the effects of GMOs on the receiving environment is still very lively throughout the world, amidst a lack of traceability of GMOs or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries. However, there has been some progress on liability and redress with regard to damage resulting from the transboundary movement of LMOs with the adoption of rules and procedures for liability and redress in 2010 with the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol "(hereafter the Nagoya SP)" to the Cartagena Protocol, which is yet to enter into force. There are also concerns on the harmonisation of national biosafety regulation, risk assessment and risk management standards, the interpretation of socio-economic considerations, and the monitoring of compliance with the provisions of the Cartagena The scope of the GMOs covered by the Cartagena Protocol is discussed first, which discussion is followed by the discussion of identification and traceability issues, the harmonisation of national biosafety regulation, the harmonisation of risk assessment and risk management standards, the scope of the relevant socio-economic considerations, implementation, and concerns about the settlement of disputes.

Bridging the Implementation of Nagoya-Kualalumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress in Indonesia

Aside the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, which is already ratified by Indonesian government with Law No. 11 Year 2013, the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress (NKL Supplementary Protocol) offers great benefits for “megabiodiversity” country like Indonesia. Despite the lack of awareness of this supplementary protocol, the need for ratifying is urge. This legal-normative research aims to seek the existing regulation in Indonesia to support the implementation of the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress, and to explore the readiness of the national legal system on liability and redress for biodiversity. Based on the several existing regulation, Indonesia, to some extent has the readiness to implement the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. This finding should be supported with more intens discussion on the protocol.

Liability Aspects Related to Genetically Modified Food under the Food Safety Legislation in India

The question of legal liability over injury arising out of the import and the introduction of GM food emerges as a crucial issue confronting to promote GM food and its derivatives. There is a greater possibility of commercialized GM food from the exporting country to enter importing country where status of approval shall not be same. This necessitates the importance of fixing a liability mechanism to discuss the damage, if any, occurs at the level of transboundary movement or at the market. There was a widespread consensus to develop the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and to give for a dedicated regime on liability and redress in the form of Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on the Liability and Redress (‘N-KL Protocol’) at the international context. The national legal frameworks based on this protocol are not adequately established in the prevailing food legislations of the developing countries. The developing economy like India is willing to import GM food and its derivatives after the successful commercialization of Bt Cotton in 2002. As a party to the N-KL Protocol, it is indispensable for India to formulate a legal framework and to discuss safety, liability, and regulatory issues surrounding GM foods in conformity to the provisions of the Protocol. The liability mechanism is also important in the case where the risk assessment and risk management is still in implementing stage. Moreover, the country is facing GM infiltration issues with its neighbors Bangladesh. As a precautionary approach, there is a need to formulate rules and procedure of legal liability to discuss any kind of damage occurs at transboundary trade. In this context, the proposed work will attempt to analyze the liability regime in the existing Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 from the applicability and domestic compliance and to suggest legal and policy options for regulatory authorities.

Transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms and the Cartagena protocol: key issues and concerns

Biotechnology or the engineering of the genetic material of species can give way to avenues of possibilities for the benefit of people, fauna and flora but also has the potential of posing untold and undiscovered threats to human beings and other living organisms. One of the first attempts to legislate on international rules on biotechnology can be traced back to article 19 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. The CBD is indeed the first international legal instrument apart from the then European Community’s relevant directives to suggest that biotechnology is a matter of concern for the international community while providing a basis upon which more detailed procedures would be elaborated in the field of biosafety. While the CBD includes international rules on access to genetic resources, access to and the transfer of technology, the handling of biotechnology and the distribution of its benefits, it does not include a detailed regulation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their possible adverse effects on the environment, human and animal health. It was only with the coming into existence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol) to the CBD in 2000 that the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) such as genetically engineered plants, animals, and microbes were at last being catered for, albeit leaving aside the broader categories of GMOs. Due to the need for the negotiators of this protocol to make compromises, there were still key issues on the international biosafety framework pertaining mainly to the scope of the GMOs to be covered by this protocol and by the Advanced Informed Agreement procedure; identification and traceability issues; and liability and redress issues. Nine years after the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol the transboundary movements of GMOs have clearly increased with new categories of GMOs and genetically modified products to regulate. The debate on the safety of GMOs used for food and feed as well as the effects of GMOs on the receiving environment is still very lively throughout the world, amidst a lack of traceability of GMOs or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries. However, there has been some progress on liability and redress with regard to damage resulting from the transboundary movement of LMOs with the adoption of rules and procedures for liability and redress in 2010 with the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol "(hereafter the Nagoya SP)" to the Cartagena Protocol, which is yet to enter into force. There are also concerns on the harmonisation of national biosafety regulation, risk assessment and risk management standards, the interpretation of socioeconomic considerations, and the monitoring of compliance with the provisions of the Cartagena The scope of the GMOs covered by the Cartagena Protocol is discussed first, which discussion is followed by the discussion of identification and traceability issues, the harmonisation of national biosafety regulation, the harmonisation of risk assessment and risk management standards, the scope of the relevant socio-economic considerations, implementation, and concerns about the settlement of disputes. KEYWORDS: genetically modified organisms; transboundary movements; biosafety regulation; Cartagena Protocol; harmonisation.

Recent Trends of Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress and Domestic Legislative Response

Recent Trends of Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress and Domestic Legislative Response

The Legal Significance of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol: The Result of a Paradigm Evolution

The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first global and comprehensive agreement providing for regulatory liability and a definition of damage to biological diversity. By voluntarily assuming a binding obligation to provide for prompt, adequate and effective response measures in the event of damage caused by the transboundary movement of living modified organisms, states expressly accept the responsibility that comes with their consent to the import of living modified organisms. The paper analyzes the evolution of liability mechanisms in international law that culminated in the adoption of the Supplementary Protocol.

The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An analysis and implementation challenges

The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress was finally adopted on 15 October 2010 at Nagoya, Japan. It was negotiated pursuant to a mandate established by the First Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties in 2004 under an enabling provision in the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. The Supplementary Protocol seeks to deal with damage to biodiversity as well as ‘associated’ traditional material or personal damage. It delineates two pathways to dealing with such damage: the administrative approach that empowers a competent authority to deal with the matter administratively, without initial recourse to courts; and a civil liability approach that requires litigants to seek private law remedies through national legal systems. However, while the Supplementary Protocol has elaborate and comprehensive provisions implementing the administrative approach, it incorporates only a single article on civil liability which does little more than exhort parties to continue to apply their existing domestic law on the subject or establish rules to deal specifically with the matter. This was not the outcome anticipated when the negotiations started. It was the expectation, primarily of developing countries then, that the prospective protocol would deal essentially with civil liability and set out substantive and procedural rules on liability and redress. This article traces how and why all this came to pass. It also analyses the provisions, and the implications, relating to the administrative approach and the single enabling article on civil liability. It deals also with the challenges in implementing the administrative approach, novel to most countries. Finally, it examines the prospect for the emergence in the future of a more elaborate international civil liability regime.

The Legal Liability Principles facing the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Focusing on the Regulation of Genetic Engineering of Germany

The Legal Liability Principles facing the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Focusing on the Regulation of Genetic Engineering of Germany

Legislative Measures for the Implementation of Nagoya-Kualalumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Legislative Measures for the Implementation of Nagoya-Kualalumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

A Study on the Establishing Process and Tasks of Nagoya-Kualalumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety -Focused on the Case of LMO's Release into Environment-

A Study on the Establishing Process and Tasks of Nagoya-Kualalumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety -Focused on the Case of LMO's Release into Environment-

The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress

The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress