Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
09BERLIN195 | 2009-02-17 12:19:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy Berlin |
R 171219Z FEB 09 FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3322 DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC FRG COLLECTIVE EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE |
UNCLAS BERLIN 000195 |
1. Summary: The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) will represent Germany at the upcoming meeting in Mexico City of the Group of the Friends of the Co-Chairs Concerning Liability and Redress. BMELV will be represented by Wolfgang Koehler and Dr. Jan-Erik Buchardi, both from the biotech office. End Summary. 2. Germany will not have a separate agenda for Mexico. They will follow the EU approach, which was coordinated at an expert meeting in Prague on February 5, 2009. Without going into detail, BMELV described the EU position or approach as acting as a mediator. BMELV said that it intends to assist in the process of finding a compromise between the extreme positions of Malaysia on the one side and New Zealand, Canada, and the US on the other side. 3. Definition of Damage: Germany reports that the EU wants to limit the applicability of damage to biodiversity as laid down in the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). However, if the damage can be directly linked to the cause, the EU is prepared to open up that definition to other areas. 4. Definition of the Operator: Germany indicates that the EU agrees with the US position to limit it to the entity in control of the living modified organism (LMO) at the time the activity causing the damage occurs. 5. Standard of Liability: Germany feels that the civil law system that exists in Germany and other EU countries is sufficient and that definitions for liability and redress should be non-binding. This also applies to financial security. German officials can support terminology such as "parties may ..." for use in connection with financial security. In this context, German officials referred to the controversial discussions about a national German liability fund for biotech crops, which were inconclusive. 6. Binding vs. Non-Binding: German officials state that the civil law section of the intended agreement should be non-binding. Germany supports binding commitments only where those would be already covered by existing EU regulations and would require no legislative changes. This is currently only foreseen in the administrative portions of the document. 7. Comment: Germany sees itself as a bridge builder. "For the sake of peace" (Koehler's terminology), Germany would be willing to compromise "here and there". As in past discussions, Germany wants these discussions to succeed, even if it means making compromises that might not necessarily be in alignment with German or EU overall interests. End Comment. Koenig |