WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/149
28 June 2000
(00-2645)
Committee on Trade and Environment Original:  English
RESPONSE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) TO THE CHAIR OF THE CTE
Communication from the CBD Secretariat
This background paper is circulated to Members of the CTE in preparation for the
MEA Information Session on 5 July 2000.  It contains the response of the Executive Secretary ofthe CBD to the request of the Chair of the CTE for information on the CBD.
_______________
I. MEMBERSHIP
A. W
HICH COUNTRIES ARE PARTY TO THE MEA?
1. There are 177 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  A list of those Parties is
contained in Annex I of this paper.
2. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the C onvention (the Biosafety Protocol) was adopted
on 29 January 2000.  It was opened for signature in Nairobi from 15 to 26 May 2000 and
since 5 June 2000 has been open for signature in New York where it will remain open
until 4 June 2001.  As of 15 June 2000, 67 States and the European Community have signed the
Protocol.  A list of those signat ories is contained in Annex II.  The Protocol will enter into force
ninety days after the deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification. A copy of the Protocol has been
provided in document WT/CTE/W/136.
3. The Conference of the Parties has established an Intergovernmental Committee for the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) to prepare for the first meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
The first meeting of this Committee will be from 11 to 15 December 2000 in France.  A key
preparatory activity of this Committee and the Secretariat will be to promote signature and ratification
of the Protocol.  Many Parties to the Convention have already indicated to the Secretariat that they
intend to sign and ratify the Protocol as soon as possible.  At its fifth meeting, held in May 2000, theConference of the Parties adopted Decision V/1, in which it approved a programme of work for the
Committee.  The work plan is based on the premise that the Protocol will enter into force before the
sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to be held in April 2002.  The work plan is reproduced
in Annex III.
B. W
HO, IN YOUR VIEW , ARE “KEY PLAYERS ’ THAT ARE NOT YET PARTY TO THE MEA?
4. The objectives of the Convention are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable
use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of
genetic resources.  Accordingly, countries that contain significant amounts of biological diversity or
important elements of this diversity and/or technologies for its sustainable use may be considered as
having a “key role” to play in the Convention and are thus “key players”.  Moreover, in light of thelatter objective, those countries that use or import products derived from biological diversity are alsoWT/CTE/W/149
Page 2
important.  Under these criteria, all States that are not Parties to the Convention are in the view of the
Secretariat “key players” that are not yet party to the MEA.
5. As yet there are no Parties to the Biosafety Protocol.  Nevertheless, the objectives of the
Protocol are “to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer,
handling and use of living modified organisms re sulting from modern biotechnology that may have
adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into
account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements”.  Accordingly,
countries that transfer, handle and use living modified organisms (LMOs) or contain significant
amounts of biological diversity or important elements of this diversity may be considered as having a
“key role” to play in the Protocol and are thus “key players”.  Under these criteria, all States that do
not become Parties to the Protocol will be regarded by the Secretariat as “key players”, and every
effort will be made to ensure that these States are able to ratify the Protocol.
C. WHO ARE THE NON -PARTIES THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MEA AND WHY HAVE
THEY NOT JOINED ?
6. The Convention does not have a compliance procedure.  There has been no formal assessment
of compliance by Parties or non-Parties with the provisions of the Convention.
7. Article 26 of the Convention does, however, require Parties to present to the Conference of
the Parties reports on measures that they have taken to implement the provisions of the Convention
and their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the Convention.  The Conference of the Parties
requested that Parties submit their first report by 31 December 1998.  In the absence of any
compliance procedure, information regarding Part ies' compliance with the Convention derives from
their reports.  One non-Party has submitted a report.
8. The Secretariat is aware of a variety of reasons why States have not become Parties to the
Convention.  Some non-Parties are currently undertaking the process of ratification and expect to have
this completed in due course.  Others are experiencing a level of domestic difficulties that prevent the
necessary action to ratify the Convention.  In other countries, the necessary public or political support
does not exist.
9. The nature of the question is not relevant to the Biosafety Protocol for the moment.
Article 34 of the Protocol does anticipate a procedure for reviewing compliance.  The details of this
procedure remain to be determined, with Article 34 providing that the first meeting of the Parties to
the Protocol will “consider and approve cooperative procedures and institutional mechanism to
promote compliance and address issues of non-compliance”.  These procedures shall include
provisions to offer advice or assistance.  Article 34 explicitly provides that any compliance procedures
shall be separate from and without prejudice to the dispute settlement procedures and mechanismsestablished by the Convention.  Article 33 also provides for a reporting process on measures to
implement the Protocol.  The work plan of ICCP also provides for Article 34 to be considered at its
first meeting and Article 33 at its second meeting.
II. TRADE MEASURES
A. W
HAT ARE THE TRADE MEASURES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED ) IN THE MEA?
10. The text of the Convention does not explicitly refer to trade measures.  Nor does the
Convention generally prescribe specific measures.  The provisions of the Convention, with a few
exceptions, set goals.  The specific measures required to achieve these goals are largely the
prerogative of Parties.WT/CTE/W/149
Page 3
11. The Convention does, however, contain a number of provisions that are generally understood
to require measures by Parties that could have consequences for trade.  Provisions of the Convention
that are often characterized in this way include:
(a) Article 6(b), which calls upon Parties to “[i]ntegrate, as far as possible and as
appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevantsectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programme and policies”;
(b) Article 7(c), which calls upon Parties to “[i]dentify process and categories of
activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and monitor their effects”.
Article 8(l) then provides that Parties shall as far as possible “regulate or manage the
relevant processes and categories of activities” so identified;
(c) Article 10(b), which provides that Parties shall “[a]dopt measures relating to the use
of biological resources to avoid or minimi ze adverse impacts on biological diversity”;
(d) Article 11, which calls upon Parties to “adopt economically and socially sound
measures that act as incentives for conservation and sustainable use of components of
biological diversity”;
(e) Article 14, which requires Parties to introduce environmental impact assessment
procedures;
(f) Article 15, which establishes a basis for the regime for access to genetic resources
based on the fair and equitable distribution of the benefits arising from their use;  and
(g) Articles 16 and 19, which require Parties to take measures to promote the transfer of
relevant technologies.
12. How these and other aspects of the Convention relate to the issue of trade measures in general
and the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime in particular has been described by the Secretariat
to previous sessions of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) (see documents
WT/CTE/W/64, WT/CTE/W/92 and WT/CTE/W/116).
13. The Protocol makes specific reference to trade agreements in its preamble, which recognizes
that “trade and environment agreements should be  mutually supportive with a view to achieving
sustainable development”.  It is also noted in the preambular paragraphs that “this Protocol shall not
be interpreted as implying a change in the rights and obligations of a Party under any existing
international agreements” and this “recital is not intended to subordinate this Protocol to other
international agreements”.
14. As with the Convention, the operative text of the Protocol does not explicitly refer to trade
measures.  Nor does it generally prescribe specific measures.  The specific measures required toimplement the provisions of the Protocol are largely the prerogative of Parties.
15. The Protocol does, however, contain a number of provisions that are widely understood to
potentially require measures by Parties that could have consequences for trade.  Important provisions
in this respect are expected to be:
(a) Article 11 and the procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as
food, feed, or for processing;
(b) Article 15 and the risk assessment procedures;  andWT/CTE/W/149
Page 4
(c) Article 18 and labelling requirements.
16. Other provisions that potentially require measures by Parties that could have consequences
for trade are:
(a) Articles 7-10 on the advanced informed agreement (AIA) procedures;
(b) Article 14 on bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements;
(c) Article 16 on risk management;
(d) Article 21 on confidential information;
(e) Article 25 on illegal transboundary movements;
(f) Article 26 on socio-economic considerations;  and
(g) Article 27 on liability and redress.
17. Article 18 and paragraph 7 of Article 10 (decision-making procedures) will be considered by
the ICCP at its first meeting.  Article 27 is due to be considered by the ICCP at its second meeting.
B. HAVE ANY DECISIONS BEEN TAKEN THAT CONTAIN ADDITIONAL TRADE MEASURES ?
18. As noted above, many of the provisions of the Convention set broad goals.  Understanding the
actual impact they have on trade and other sectors is not possible without reference to the decisions of
the Conference of the Parties.  The fifth and most recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties was
in May 2000.  The decisions adopted at this m eeting are contained in Annex III to the report
(UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23).
19. A summary of decisions from previous meetin gs of the Conference of the Parties has been
provided in documents WT/CTE/W/64, WT/CTE/W/92 and WT/CTE/W/116.
20. Important decisions of the fifth meeting of the COP in terms of any additional trade measures
as follows:-
Decision Title
V/5 Agricultural biological diversity:  review of phase I of the programme of work and
adoption of a multi-year work programme
V/8 Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species
V/15 Incentive measures
V/16 Article 8(j) and related provisions
V/18 Impact assessment, liability and redress
V/24 Sustainable use as a cross-cutting issue
V/26 A. Access and benefit-sharing arrangements
V/26 B. The relationship between intellectual property rights and the relevant provisions of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the
Convention on Biological DiversityWT/CTE/W/149
Page 5
21. Copies of these decisions are available from the Secretariat and its homepage
(www.biodiv.org ).  Some brief highlights of these decisions follow.
22. In Decision V/5, the COP indicated that identification of appropriate marketing and trade
policies in the context of incentives that enhance positive and mitigate negative impacts of agriculture
will be an important activity for the programme of work.  Furthermore, in Decision V/15 the COPrequested the Executive Secretary to collaborate with relevant organizations to gather information and
case studies on this topic. In Decision V/5, the COP also encouraged Parties and Governments to
support the application of the Executive Secretary for observer status in the WTO Committee on
Agriculture.
23. In Decisions V/16 and V/26, the CO P reaffirmed the importance of sui generis systems for
the protection of the traditional knowledge of in digenous and local communities and the equitable
sharing of benefits arising from its use.  In these decisions, the COP also requested the ExecutiveSecretary to transmit these decisions and its findings to the secretariats of WTO and WIPO.  In
Decision V/26, the COP also invited WTO to acknowle dge relevant provisions of the Convention on
Biological Diversity and to take into account the fact  that they are interrelated with the provisions of
the TRIPs Agreement and to further explore this interrelationship.  In the same Decision V/26, the
COP renewed its request to the Executive Secretary to apply for observer status in the TRIPs Council.It also invited Parties and relevant organizations to submit to the Executive Secretary information on a
set of specific questions regarding the role of intellectual property rights issues by 31 December 2000
and requested the Executive Secretary (see documen t UNEP/CBD/COP/5/8, paras. 127 to 138), on the
basis of these submissions and other relevant material, to report on these issues to the second meeting
of the Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit-Sharing, or the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing.
C. H
AVE NON -COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES BEEN ENFORCED ON PARTIES ?
24. The Convention does not establish a formal “compliance” procedure.  As explained above,
Parties are, however, required to report on the measures they have taken to implement the Convention
and their effectiveness.  In many of these reports Parties have indicated that further measures arerequired in order to fully implement the Convention and/or meet its objectives.
25. Moreover, the Convention contains numerous mechanisms and provisions intended to assist
developing country Parties implement the Convention.  An important aspect of these commitments is
the financial resources provided by the financial mechanism to developing country Parties.  Article 5
of the Convention also provides that Parties shall cooperate either directly or through competent
international organizations. Further details regarding such mechanisms is given below.
26. The Convention also contains a procedure for settling disputes between Parties (Article 27
and Annex II).
27. This issue is not of relevance with respect to the Protocol for the foreseeable future.
D. H
AVE THE TRADE MEASURES ASSISTED IN ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF YOUR AGREEMENT ,
AND WHY ?
28. Trade measures are a significant tool for achieving the aims of the Convention in a number of
ways.
29. At the international level, the Conference of th e Parties has considered trade measures in a
number of decisions.  One important example of the effect of trade measures on the development of
the Convention is seen in the work of the Conference of the Parties with respect to agriculturalWT/CTE/W/149
Page 6
biological diversity.  Decision III/11, on conservatio n and sustainable use of agricultural biological
diversity, establishes a multi-year programme of activities.  The aim of this programme is to promote
the positive effects and mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural practices on biological diversity.
It also hopes to promote the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of actual or
potential value for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of theuse of genetic resources.  In this Decision, the Conference of the Parties acknowledged the importance
that trade measures will play in achieving these aims.  Accordingly, the Conference of the Parties
encouraged the WTO, through its Committee on Trade and Environment, to consider developing a
better appreciation of the relationship between trade and agricultural biodiversity.  At its fourth and
fifth meetings, the Conference of the Parties reconfirmed the importance of trade measures by
requesting the Secretariat to apply for observer status in the WTO Committee on Agriculture.
30. Another important area is the relationship be tween the Convention and the TRIPs Agreement.
This is the area where there has been considerab le discussion regarding the compatibility of the CBD
and WTO regimes.  As the CBD Secretariat has previously informed the CTE, the COP has
repeatedly stressed the need to ensure co nsistency in implementing the CBD and the WTO
Agreements, including the TRIPs Agreement, with a view to promoting increased mutual
supportiveness and integration of biological diversity concerns and the protection of IPRs.  In thisregard, the COP specifically invited the WTO, in Decision IV/15, to consider how to achieve these
objectives in the light of Article 16, paragraph 5, of the CBD, taking into account the planned review
of Article 27.3(b) in 1999.  From the viewpoint of the CBD, the crucial issue is the need
for sui generis systems to implement the provisions of the Convention.  In Decisions V/16 and V/26,
the COP reaffirmed the importance of such systems for the protection of traditional knowledge ofindigenous and local communities and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from its use and
requested that those decisions be transmitted to the Secretariat of the WTO.  In Decision V/26, the
COP also invited the World Trade Organization to acknowledge relevant provisions of the CBD and
to take into account the fact that they are interrel ated with the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement and
to further explore this interrelationship.
31. Numerous Parties have indicated in their national reports that they have considered the role
that trade measures can play in achieving the aims of the Convention.  Several have stated that they
have taken trade measures to implement the aims of the Convention.
E. D
OES THE MEA CONTAIN INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE COUNTRIES TO JOIN , AS WELL AS
FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION ? (EXAMPLE : TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER , MARKET INCENTIVES ,
CAPACITY -BUILDING )
32. The Convention, like the other UNCED agreemen ts, recognizes that to achieve its aim
developing countries need to be able to participate fully and effectively in the process.  Because of
capacity restraints, most developing country Part ies need assistance to ratify the Convention,
implement its provisions and participate in its decision-making processes.
33. The fact that most biological diversity resides within developing countries has meant that the
Convention contains an extensive array of provisions addressing these needs.  For example, theConvention contains provisions addressing:  transfer of technology (e.g. Articles 16 and 19);  market
incentives (e.g. Articles 10 and 11);  capacity-building (e.g. Articles 12 and 18);  financial support for
implementing the Convention (Articles 20 and 21);  as well as participating in its decision-making
(e.g. Decision IV/17, table 4, Special Voluntary Trust Fund for the Facilitating Participation of Parties
in the Convention Process for the Biennium 1999-2000);  awareness-raising (e.g. Article 13);scientific and technical cooperation (e.g. Article 18);  research and training (e.g. Article 12);
exchange of information (e.g. Article 17);  sustainable use of biological diversity (e.g. Article 10);
and incentive measures (e.g. Article 11).WT/CTE/W/149
Page 7
34. Indeed, the whole approach of the Convention is based on the principle of common but
differentiated responsibility, as exemplified in paragraph 4 of Article 20, which provides that “the
extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under this
Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their
commitments under this Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and willtake fully into account the fact that economic and social development and eradication of poverty are
the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties”.
35. The Protocol places a similar emphasis on ways and means of meeting the needs of
developing countries to ensure they are able to pa rticipate fully and effectively in the process.  Key
provisions in this respect are Article 22 on capacity-building and Article 28 on financial mechanism
and resources.  Article 22 provides that Parties shall cooperate in development of human resources
and institutional capacities in biosafety.  Article 22 also provides that for these purposes the needs ofdeveloping country states for financial and technological resources shall be “taken fully into account”.
Cooperation to this end shall include scientific and technical training in the proper and safe
management of biotechnology and in the use of risk  assessment and risk management for biosafety.
36. Article 28 provides that the commitments contained in the Convention with respects to
financial resources are applicable for the Protocol.  The financial mechanism of the Convention (theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF)) is also the financial mechanism for the Protocol.  In effect, this
means that developing country Parties to the Protocol  will be able to approach the GEF for financial
support for the incremental cost of the capacity- building requirements arising from the Protocol.
Paragraph 3 of Article 28 also provides that the meeting of the Parties may provide guidance to the
financial mechanism with respect to the cap acity-building needs outlined in Article 22.
37. Other important provisions with respect to promoting capacity can also be found in Article 23
on public awareness and participation;  Article 25 on illegal transboundary movements;  and
Article 26 on socio economic considerations.
38. The importance of these provisions is reflected in the work programme of the Committee,
which is dominated by the need to develop the capacities of developing country Parties to effectivelyimplement the Protocol and participate in its deve lopment.  For example, the first meeting of the
Committee will consider Parties’ needs with respect to information requirements, and capacity-
building, as well as existing programmes to meet these needs.  The second meeting of the Committee
will also consider guidance to the financial mechanism.
F. H
OW HAVE THESE INCENTIVES WORKED AND WHO HAS FUNDED THEM ?
39. The Convention has been ratified by 177 Parties and enjoys almost universal support from
developing and developed countries.  By this measure, the incentives to join the Convention haveproved effective.
40. Assessing the effectiveness of such measure in facilitating implementation is a much more
difficult and complex task.  National reports on the implementation of the Convention have been
received from 113 Parties and one non-Party.  A preliminary synthesis of the information contained in
these reports was provided to the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties(UNEP/CBD/COP/4/11/Rev .1).  A further analysis of the reports was prepared for the fifth meeting of
the Convention’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/14).  The main conclusion of these documents is that implementation of the
Convention at the national level has been initiated in most countries and attention has also been given
to regional cooperation.  The vast majority of countries are developing national biodiversity strategiesand action plans.  The successful development and implementation of national biodiversity strategies
and action plans is clearly linked to other key provisions of the Convention, the most prominent ofWT/CTE/W/149
Page 8
which are public education and awareness and the adoption of appropriate incentive measures.  The
national reports identify the need for continued technical and financial support for both the planning
and implementation phases.  These needs involve capacity-building, the sharing of information and
experiences, and access to expertise and financial resources.
41. The financial mechanism of the Convention has played an important role in addressing these
needs and providing incentives to Parties to join  and implement the Convention.  The mechanism is
operated by the GEF and is funded by contributions from States.  The GEF, in its capacity as the
structure operating the financial mechanism, has approved projects amounting to over $600m.  The
Conference of the Parties undertook its first review of the effectiveness of the financial mechanism at
its fourth meeting.  The results of this review are contained in Decision IV/11.  The Conference of the
Parties, although welcoming the efforts made to date by the GEF, did recognize that further
improvements are needed for the effectiveness of the financial mechanism.  In this respect the
Conference of the Parties made a number of recommendations of a procedural nature for the GEF.
42. Paragraph 3 of Article 20 provides that developed country Parties may also provide financial
resources related to the implementation of the Convention, through bilateral, regional and other
multilateral channels.  The Conference of the Parties requested Parties to include information on their
financial support for the objectives of the Convention in their national reports.  The informationprovided by developed country Parties in their national reports illustrates that the level of financial
support provided bilaterally to developing country Parties is several times that provided through the
GEF.  These levels are even more significant in an environment of declining overall levels of aid
assistance and indicate that biological diversity remains an important issue.  It should be noted that
funding from national budgets for domestic measures are considerably more than the support providedbilaterally and the GEF.
43. The obligation to support such incentives not only falls on developed country Parties:  the
Convention also contains references to international organizations and private entities.  For example,
Article 5 provides that Parties shall cooperate where appropriate through competent international
organizations in respect of areas beyond national jurisdiction and on other matters of mutual interest.Paragraph 4 of Article 21 provides that Parties “shall consider strengthening existing financial
institutions to provide financial resources for the purposes of the Convention”.
44. Specific references to the private sector are found in Article 10(e), on sustainable use of
components of biological diversity;  paragraph 4 of Article 16 on access to and transfer of technology;
and paragraph 4 of Article 19 on handling of biotechnology and distribution of its benefits.
45. Clearly, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of such measures with respect to the
Protocol.  Nevertheless, as was noted previously, mo st of the above provisions of the Convention are
applicable for the Protocol and consequently their effectiveness in the context of the Convention is
most likely to be relevant for the Protocol.
46. The importance of providing effective incentives in order to promote ratification of the
Protocol is evident in the work programme for the Committee for its first two meetings (with
items 1, 2 and 3 of the first meeting and items 4 and 6 of the second meeting being directly concernedwith these issues).
III. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
A. H
AS IT BEEN USED IN MATTERS DEALING WITH TRADE ?
47. The dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention, as provided in Article 27, has not been
used for the settlement of matters dealing with trade or any other matter.WT/CTE/W/149
Page 9
48. The Protocol does not anticipate the establishment of a new dispute settlement mechanism.
By the virtue of Article 32 of the Protocol, th e provisions of Article 27 of the Convention are
applicable for Parties to the Protocol.
IV. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
49. The most important development of the last year is the adoption of the Protocol.  The
provisions of the Protocol are generally understood to potentially have a significant relationship with
the international trade regime.  Development of almost all the provisions of the Protocol will entail a
careful consideration of the international trade regime's disciplines.  As pointed out above it is
expected that the most critical provisions with respect to this relationship will be:
(a) The labelling requirements of Article 18 and the relationship of measures taken to
implement these provision and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT
Agreement);
(b) Article 11 and the procedures for living modified organisms intended for direct use as
food or feed or for processing and the SPS Agreement;  and
(c) Article 15 and the risk assessment procedures and how they relate the Codex
requirements.
50. Although there has been considerable atten tion focused on the potential conflicts between
multilateral environmental agreements and the inte rnational trade regime, in the case of the
relationship between the CBD, its Protocol and the WTO, the “win-win” situations are very
significant.  A particularly important “win-win” situation, as far as the CBD is concerned, is the issue
of subsidies.  Developments within the WTO on this issue with respect to fisheries or forestry would
not only further the aims of the WTO (trade liberalization) but may have great significance for theCBD as well.  The same is the case for ecolabelling.
51. Despite this there seems to have been more attention recently on the potential for conflict
between multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO.  A recent focus of this attention has
been the Biosafety Protocol.
52. It must be stressed, however, that the provisions of the Protocol as adopted do not conflict
with the WTO disciplines.
52. This does not mean that the two regimes will automatically develop harmoniously.  The
different cultures and approaches of the two regimes may result in divergent approaches.  For
example, different and divergent approaches may develop as a result of the different standards or
approaches used to regulate new technologies.  For example, under the WTO, standards are to be
based on “sound science”, whereas under the Protocol they can be based on a precautionary approach.There may also be problems with the implementation and application of risk assessment procedures,
in particular who will have to bear the costs (paragraph 3 of Article 15) and the lack of an equivalence
provision in the Protocol.
53. Nevertheless, the most important conclusion about any relationship is that the potential for
conflict and the significance of the “win-win” scenarios only highlight the importance of continuingdirect cooperation between the CBD and the WTO.
54. It is important to stress the fact that the Secretariats of the CBD and the WTO have placed
great importance on developing this cooperation.  At the behest of the COP, the Convention
Secretariat has, since 1996, been working closely with the WTO.  We have regularly shared draftWT/CTE/W/149
Page 10
documents.  For example, from our side we have benefited from comments on the following
documents:
(a) UNEP/CBD/COP/3/22, on intellectual property rights, prepared for the third meeting
of the Conference of the Parties in 1996;
(b) UNEP/CBD/COP/3/23, on the relationship between the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, also prepared for the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 1996;
and
(c) UNEP/CBD/ISOC/5, on the relationship between intellectual property rights and the
relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights and the Convention on Biological Diversity, prepared for the Inter-
Sessional Meeting on the Operations of the Convention in June 1999.
55. The Convention Secretariat and the WTO actively participate in one another’s meetings.  For
example, in 1999, the Secretariat participated in the CTE, the High-Level Symposium on Trade and
Environment and the third Ministerial Conference in Seattle.  In turn the WTO regularly participates
in meetings held under the Convention.
56. The level of cooperation could, however, be improved.  From the perspective of the
Convention, the most important issue for the immediate future is its application for observer status in
the TRIPs Council and the Committee on Agriculture.WT/CTE/W/149
Page 11
ANNEX I
Parties To The Convention On Biological Diversity (15 June 2000)
1.  Mauritius (4.9.92)
2.  Seychelles (22.9.92)
3.  Marshall Islands (8.10.92)4.  Maldives (9.11.92)5.  Monaco (20.11.92)
6.  Canada (4.12.92)
7.  China (5.1.93)8.  St. Kitts & Nevis (7.1.93)9.  Ecuador (23.2.93)
10. Fiji (25.2.93)
11. Antigua & Barbuda (9.3.93)12. Mexico (11.3.93)13. Papua New Guinea (16.3.93)
14. Vanuatu (25.3.93)
15. Cook Islands (20.4.93)16. Guinea (7.5.93)17. Armenia
1 (14.5.93)
18. Japan1 (28.5.93)
19. Zambia (28.5.93)20. Peru (7.6.93)21. Australia (18.6.93)
22. Norway (9.7.93)
23. Tunisia (15.7.93)24. Saint Lucia
2 (28.7.93)
25. Bahamas (2.9.93)
26. Burkina Faso (2.9.93)
27. Belarus (8.9.93)28. Uganda (8.9.93)29. New Zealand (16.9.93)30. Mongolia (30.9.93)
31. Philippines (8.10.93)
32. Uruguay (5.11.93)33. Nauru (11.11.93)34. Jordan (12.11.93)
35. Nepal (23.11.93)
36. Czech Republic
3 (3.12.93)
37. Barbados (10.12.93)38. Sweden (16.12.93)
39. European Comm.
3 (21.12.93)
40. Denmark (21.12.93)41. Germany (21.12.93)42. Portugal (21.12.93)
43. Spain (21.12.93)
44. Belize (30.12.93)45. Albania
2 (5.1.94)
46. Malawi (2.2.94)
47. Samoa (9.2.94)
48. India (18.2.94)49. Hungary (24.2.94)50. Paraguay (24.2.94)
51. Brazil (28.2.94)
52. Cuba
3 (8.3.94)
53. Sri Lanka (23.3.94)54. Ethiopia (5.4.94)
55. Dominica
2 (6.4.94)
56. Italy (15.4.94)57. Bangladesh (3.5.94)58. Luxembourg (9.5.94)
59. Egypt (2.6.94)
60. Georgia
2 (2.6.94)61. UK (3.6.94)
62. Chad (7.6.94)
63. The Gambia (10.6.94)64. Micronesia (20.6.94)65. Malaysia (24.6.94)
66. Benin (30.6.94)
67. France (1.7.94)68. The Netherlands
1 (12.7.94)
69. Kenya (26.7.94)
70. Pakistan (26.7.94)
71. Estonia (27.7.94)72. Finland (27.7.94)73. Greece (4.8.94)
74. Grenada (11.8.94)
75. Kiribati
2 (16.8.94)
76. Romania (17.8.94)77. Austria (18.8.94)
78. Indonesia (23.8.94)
79. Slovakia
3 (25.8.94)
80. Costa Rica (26.8.94)81. Ghana (29.8.94)
82. Nigeria (29.8.94)
83. Guyana (29.8.94)84. Djibouti (1.9.94)85. Kazakhstan (6.9.94)
86. El Salvador (8.9.94)
87. Chile (9.9.94)88. Iceland (12.9.94)89. Venezuela (13.9.94)90. Comoros (29.9.94)
91. Bolivia (3.10.94)
92. Republic of Korea (3.10.94)93. Senegal (17.10.94)94. Cameroon (19.10.94)
95. DP Republic of  Korea
3 (26.10.94)
96. San Marino (28.10.94)97. Swaziland (9.11.94)98. Zimbabwe (11.11.94)
99. Viet Nam (16.11.94)
100. Switzerland (21.11.94)101. Argentina (22.11.94)102. Myanmar (25.11.94)
103. Colombia (28.11.94)
104. Côte d'Ivoire (29.11.94)105. Dem. Rep. of the Congo (3.12.94)106. Equatorial Guinea
2 (6.12.94)
107. Sierra Leone2 (12.12.94)
108. Lebanon (15.12.94)109. Jamaica (6.1.95)110. Lesotho (10.1.95)
111. Panama (17.1.95)
112. Ukraine (7.2.95)113. Oman (8.2.95)114. Cambodia
2 (9.2.95)
115. Central African Rep. (15.3.95)
116. Mali (29.3.95)117. Cape Verde (29.3.95)118. Russian Federation (5.4.95)
119. Guatemala (10.7.95)
120. Uzbekistan
2 (19.7.95)121. Niger (25.7.95)
122. Honduras (31.7.95)
123. Israel (7.8.95)
124. Algeria (14.8.95)125. Morocco (21.8.95)126. Bhutan (25.8.95)
127. Mozambique (25.8.95)
128. Solomon Islands (3.10.95)129. Togo
1 (4.10.95)
130. Botswana (12.10.95)
131. Republic of Moldova (20.10.95)
132. Guinea-Bissau (27.10.95)133. Sudan (30.10.95)134. South Africa (2.11.95)
135. Nicaragua (20.11.95)
136. Latvia (14.12.95)137. Singapore (21.12.95)138. Syrian Arab Republic (4.1.96)139. Suriname (12.1.96)
140. Poland (18.1.96)
141. Lithuania (1.2.96)142. Yemen (21.2.96)143. Niue
2 (28.2.96)
144. Madagascar (4.3.96)
145. United Rep. of Tanzania (8.3.96)146. Eritrea
2 (21.3.96)
147. Ireland (22.3.96)
148. Bulgaria (17.4.96)
149. Rwanda (29.5.96)150. Saint Vincent and the        Grenadines
2 (3.6.96)
151. Slovenia (9.7.96)
152. Cyprus (10.7.96)153. Congo (1.8.96)154. Trinidad and Tobago (1.8.96)
155. Iran, Islamic Republic of (6.8.96)
156. Kyrgyzstan
2 (6.8.96)
157. Mauritania (16.8.96)158. Qatar (21.8.96)
159. Bahrain (30.8.96)
160. Turkmenistan
2 (18.9.96)
161. Lao People’s Democratic        Republic
2 (20.9.96)
162. Haiti (25.9.96)
163. Croatia3 (7.10.96)
164. Belgium (22.11.96)165. Dominican Republic (25.11.96)
166. Turkey (14.2.97)
167. Gabon (14.3.97)168. Burundi (15.4.97)169. Namibia (16.5.97)170. Tajikistan
2 (29.10.97)
171. Liechtenstein  (19.11.97)
172. The former Yugoslav Republic of        Macedonia
2 (2.12.97)
173. Angola (1.4.98)
174. Tonga2 (19.5.98)
175. Palau2 (6.1.99)
176. Sao Tome and Principe (29.9.99)
177. United Arab Emirates  (10.2. 00)
1Acceptance of the Convention  2Accession to the Convention  3Approval of the ConventionWT/CTE/W/149
Page 12
ANNEX II
PARTIES WHICH HAVE SIGNED THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
At the closing of COP-5 on 26 May 2000, the following 68 Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity had sign ed the Protocol on Biosafety:
Algeria Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina Austria
Bahamas Bangladesh
Belgium Benin
Bolivia Bulgaria
Burkina Faso Central African Republic
Chad Chile
Colombia Costa Rica
Cuba Czech Republic
Denmark Ecuador
Salvador Ethiopia
European Community Finland
France Gambia
Germany Greece
Grenada Guinea
Haiti Honduras
Hungary Indonesia
Ireland Italy
Kenya Lithuania
Malaysia Malawi
Mexico Monaco
Morocco Mozambique
Namibia Netherlands
New Zealand Nicaragua
Niger Nigeria
Norway Peru
Philippines Poland
Portugal Rwanda
Samoa Slovak Republic
Slovenia Spain
Sri Lanka Sweden
Switzerland Togo
Turkey Uganda
United Kingdom VenezuelaWT/CTE/W/149
Page 13
ANNEX III
WORK PLAN OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE
CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
A. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ICCP AT ITS FIRST MEETING
1. Decision-making (Article 10, para. 7)
Issue:  Identification of basic elements for appropriate procedures and mechanisms to
facilitate decision-making by Parties of import.
2. Information-sharing (Article 20, Article 19)
Issues:
• Determination of needs of Parties;
• Overview of existing activities/systems and possibilities for cooperation;
• Design of data-input systems;
• Development of common formats for reporting, e. g., decisions, national legislations, points of
contact, focal points, summaries of risk assessments, etc.;
• Development of operational systems, informat ion-management policies and procedures for
receiving and making information available, including quality-insurance procedures;
• Means to ensure confidentiality of information;
• Financial and technological resource requirements;  and
• Other issues (such as Article 5).
3. Capacity-building (Article 22, Article 28)
Issues:
• Identification of the needs and involvement of Parties;
• Establishment and role of the roster of experts;
• Overview of completed activities in the field of biosafety (e.g., capacity-building workshop in
Mexico);
• Overview of existing programmes/projects/activities and possibilities for cooperation (e.g.,
UNEP activities and possible role);
• Multilateral, regional and bilateral cooperation and the need for common understanding and
harmonization;
• Involvement of the private sector;
• Elements of capacity-building with respect to risk assessment and management in accordance
with Article 15, Article 16 and Annex III of the Protocol;
• Role of the Secretariat of the Convention;WT/CTE/W/149
Page 14
• Financial and technological resource requirements;  and
• Other issues (such as Article 6).
4. Handling, transport, packaging and identification (Article 18)
Issues:
• Overview of relevant international rules and standards pertaining to handling, transport,
packaging and identification;  and
• Consideration of modalities for developing standards with regard to handling, transport,
packaging and identification.
5. Compliance (Article 34)
Issues:
• Elements for a compliance regime;  and
• Options for a compliance regime.
B. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ICCP AT ITS SECOND MEETING
1. Liability and redress (Article 27)
Issue:  Elaboration of a draft recommendation on the process for elaboration of international
rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from
transboundary movements of living modified organisms, including, inter alia :
• Review of existing relevant instruments;  and
• Identification of elements for liability and redress.
2. Monitoring and reporting (Article 33)
Issue:  Format and timing for reporting.
3. Secretariat (Article 31)
Issue:  Development of a programme budget for the biennium following the entry into force
of the Protocol.
4. Guidance to the financial mechanism (Article 28, para. 5, Article 22)
Issue:  Elaboration of guidance for the financial mechanism.
5. Rules of procedure for the meeting of the Parties
Issue:  Consideration of rules of procedure.
6. Consideration of other issues necessary for effective implementation of the Protocol
(e.g., Article 29, para. 4)
7. Elaboration of a draft provisional agenda for the first meeting of the PartiesWT/CTE/W/149
Page 15
Items for continued consideration from the first meeting of the ICCP
8. Decision-making (Article 10, para. 7)
9. Information-sharing (Article 20)
10. Capacity-building (Article 22, Article 28, para. 28)
11. Handling, transport, packaging and identification (Article 18)
Issue:  Modalities for a process for discussion on Article 18, paragraph 2 (a) by the first
meeting of the Parties.
12. Compliance (Article 34)
__________