 |
|
TEXT 8. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION: BIO-TECHNOLOGY AND LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Throughout history, farmers have used selective breeding to alter their livestock and crops for qualities sought by the farmers or consumers. They have also applied biological fermentation to produce new products and increase the period of conserving food. These techniques rely on genetic variation, including mutations, already present in species and populations of flora and fauna. All major crops and farm animals are the product of some degree of human intervention.
Genetic modification or biotechnology differs from the directed but natural processes of selective breeding. Genetic engineering isolates single genes from an organism and transfers one or more to another organism, across populations and across species or phyla. Animal genes may be inserted into plants and vice versa. Once inserted, the genes may be transmitted to subsequent generations.
Genetic engineering has reached the point where living organisms can be adapted and created in the laboratory. Many of these living modified organisms (LMOs) are not intended to stay in the laboratory, however. The introduction of herbicide resistance into virtually all major crops as a means of making it easier to control weeds is expanding. In addition, genetic engineering of micro-organisms has developed as an alternative strategy to improve pest control. Genetically altered corn and soybean seeds are already in use in different countries including the United States, Argentina, and Brazil. The use of biotechnology to raise crop yields has received the most publicity and been the most controversial, including efforts to broaden the germplasm basis from which new genetic combinations can be created and improving and speeding up the propagation of plants. The most widely used and commercially successful application of plant biotechnology is the rapid and large-scale multiplication of plants through clones produced in tissue culture. The technique is currently used to mass-produce ornamental, fruit, vegetable, medicinal plant and tree species. Many scientists see biotechnology as permitting them to pursue plant breeding efforts, with favourable impact on food supplies, the nutritional content of food, international trade in agricultural products, the environment and existing plant resources. The commercial nature of many of these potential benefits is a source of conflict, particularly between developed and developing countries who disagree over access to, control of, and benefits from primary and modified genetic resources.
Aware of possible benefits, a substantial number of scientists nonetheless urge caution in releasing genetically engineered organisms, because of the possibility that such organisms might have an unfavourable impact upon the environment and because considerable scientific uncertainty exists about the scope and degree of the environmental risks. There is fear that the LMOs, as living organisms, could evolve into destructive pathogens. Moreover, genetically altered genes may naturally transfer to wild-grown relatives, with unforeseeable consequences. Thus far, the major negative impact that has been identified and studied is the harm to monarch butterflies caused by the protein used in genetically altered corn to repel certain pests.
Particular concerns arise over the release of LMOs in or close to a centre of genetic diversity of that crop. Mass production of identical plant materials may introduce greater danger of genetic destruction because all specimens may become equally vulnerable to a single disease or pest leaving no resistant varieties as alternative sources. The widespread use of cloned crops or artificial seeds to replace sexually reproducing crops may thus increase crop vulnerability. Finally, the release of genetically modified micro-organisms (bacteria and fungi) could pose particular problems. Very little is known about microbial communities; few have been named or studied. However, current research indicates that natural genetic transfer between different micro-organisms is relatively frequent, making it conceivable that engineered species could transfer throughout the microbial world in unpredictable ways.
The 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity defines biotechnology to mean any technological application that utilizes biological systems, living organisms, or derivations of them, to make or modify products or processes for specific use. Widespread controversy surrounds the question of the potential risks associated with the handling and introduction into the environment of living modified organisms (LMOs) or, as they were first referred to, genetically-modified organisms. The need to promote biosafety has centred on two related issues:
1) The handling of LMOs at the laboratory level, in order to protect workers and prevent the accidental liberation of such organisms into the surrounding ecosystem ("contained use");
2) The need for regulatory systems to govern the deliberate release of LMOs into the environment, either for testing or commercial purposes.
Uncertainty surrounding the environmental impacts of LMOs is recognized in the Convention, which does not define the term "living modified organism" but calls on the contracting parties to consider the need for modalities of a protocol setting out procedures for the safe transfer, handling and use of any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the environment. The Convention itself obligates parties to "provide any available information about the use and safety regulations required by the contracting party in handling such organisms, as well as any available information on the potential adverse impact of the specified organisms concerned" to any party into which those organisms are introduced.
In respect to in situ conservation, the CBD requires the parties to establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology which are likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account the risks to human health. The Convention also calls for implementing the rights of countries of origin of genetic resources or countries providing genetic resources, particularly developing countries, to benefit from the biotechnological development and the commercial utilization of products derived from such resources. Both the CBD and Agenda 21 adopted by the Conference of Rio de Janeiro on Environment and Development encourage such technology in order to increase benefits from biological resources. The Convention encourages parties to develop national legislation that promotes rights associated with intellectual property and informal innovations, including farmer and breeder's rights.
After extensive negotiations, the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a Protocol on Biosafety on January 29, 2000. The objective of the Protocol is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health and specifically focusing on transboundary movements. The Protocol does not apply to the transboundary movement of living modified organisms which are pharmaceuticals for human use and that are addressed by relevant international agreements or organizations.
The Protocol institutes an "advance informed agreement" procedure, which is a kind of prior informed consent procedure before certain transboundary movements of LMOs. Thus, the state of export must notify or require the exporter to notify, in writing, the competent national authority of the state of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of a living modified organism. Annex I of the Protocol specifies the information that must be transmitted. The importing state has 270 days from the date of notification to make a decision on permitting or denying the importation and must transmit the decision to the notifying party and to a Biosafety Clearing House established by the Protocol. A risk assessment report may be used as part of such a procedure in place of domestic regulatory framework.
States parties agree to take appropriate domestic measures aimed at preventing and, if appropriate penalizing illegal transboundary movements of living modified organisms carried out in contravention of domestic measures to implement the Protocol. Generally, states parties are to promote and facilitate public awareness, education, consultation and participation, encompassing access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported, but the notifier is permitted to identify information to be treated as confidential. The characterization of precaution became a focus of debate during negotiations for the Biosafety Protocol, especially concerning the extent to which measures could be taken by states to exclude LMOs either on scientific or socio-economic grounds. In the end, it was agreed that parties must undertake a process of scientific risk assessment that conforms to the Protocol's requirements (carried out "in a scientifically sound and transparent manner," on a case by case basis, according to the provisions of Annex III).