Course: Agriculture Trade Negotiation and SPS/TBT Professor: Christian Haberli Class: MITPL 4 Group: 3 Members: Đô ̃ Thi ̣ Phương Mai – 1606060024 Nguyêñ Hoaǹg Nam – 1606060025 Lê Phương Nam – 1606060026 Hô ̀ Thi ̣ Hôǹg Ngân – 1606060027 Lê Hôǹg Nhung – 1606060028 Đô ̃ Quang Phong – 1606060029 Topic: Which WTO, TPPA and EVFTA rules determine Vietnam’s policy space for the regulation of genetically modified food, feed, and seeds (domestic production, imports and consumption, labelling and marketing)? What is your opinion on the pros and cons for the GMOs? Which differences apply to these three application? Please separate political, economic and legal argument. Participating in international trade agreements is indeed an opportunity but the challenges still are many, especially for an agricultural economy like Vietnam. The awareness and condition for food safety between developed countries and developing one are rather different. For examples, GMOs – genetically modified organisms is still considered as an innovation in food security by many Vietnam people, especially in the climate change context, Vietnam farm land is shrinking due to sea level rise. In contrast, the EU considers this food biotechnology as a threat to humanity health and banned it at many levels. In such a manner, how Vietnam can govern it rules and products to meet the need of international partners. The thesis expect to add some valuable suggestions. According to (Yara, 2015), 14a genetically modified organism, or GMO, is an organism that has had its DNA changed by genetic engineering.6In most cases, GMOs have been altered with DNA from another organism, these organisms are sometimes referred to as "transgenic" organisms. There are two very different point of view about GMOs. According to (Klumper, W. & Qaim, 2014), a meta – analysis of biotechnology impact has shown that 5pesticide use is down 37%, yields are up 22%, and farmer income rose 68%. Some people believe in GMOs and see it as the way out for the growing population to come. However, there are others consider GMOs nothing but the risk to environment and human health. In November 2012, there was a study by Gilles-Eric Seralini which found the link between rat tumors and genetically modified corn. The study is considered the first and long term significant research about the negative impact of GMOs to health. There are also studies about environmental effect of GMOs, as stated in (IRT, 2005), “pesticide-producing crops poison nearby rivers, lakes, ponds and beneficial insects”. The debate goes on, each country has it owns argument about GMOs, however, participating in mutual trade agreements requires members to follow certain regulations. Some most important WTO agreements related to GMOs are SPS, TBT, TRIPs and Cartagena protocol. 11SPS Agreement establishes rules that limit the ability of states to adopt trade-restrictive regulations without “scientific justification” 1 products including GMOs. It 1also states that measures only to extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. The only exception is given 9in Article 5.7 where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient for safety, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures. But those 19measures must be based on a risk assessment2. This means 1importer or member state have to prove if the risk with a certain GMO are large enough. The main focus of the TBT work are food labeling. Mandatory labeling requirement3 on products including GMOs, 1even if it does not treat imports differently than domestic products, is not permitted if it is maintained "without sufficient scientific evidence“ (Article 2 SPS Agreement) or if it restricts international trade more than is "necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective4. Importing countries could set their own safety standards on GMOs, but The agreement encourages governments to apply international standards so that the trade of good-enough GMOs will not be restricted by some unnecessary higher standards of some countries. According to (Debra M Strauss, 2009), the TRIPS 1obliges member states to patenting biotech inventions (products and processes) and plant varieties. Patent 1 Article 2.2 1Member States are required by Article 2.2. to “ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure ... is based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence 2 Article 5.1 3 Annex 1.1-3 tbt 4 (Article 2 TBT agreement 1protection in this field gives the corporations unprecedented control over research and development as well as over whole food chain. Besides the1patenting protects the companies’ rights of existing GM production even when they are not yet approved for commercial 1production, the company's strategy then is the protection of future production. This agreement, however, allows temporary exclusion from patentability when countries with scientific evidences think that it 10is necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid prejudice to the environment. Cartagena Protocol provides 18rules for international trade in Living Modified Organisms (GMOs that have not been processed). LMOs exported “for international introduction into the environment” requires advance informed agreement from local authorities. Besides LMOs for food, feed or processing require prior information through a 3“biosafety clearing house” which is a mechanism set up by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to facilitate the exchange of information on Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) and assist the Parties to better comply with their obligations under the Protocol. In another different international agreement – TPPA, GMO is understood as 2products of modern biotechnology (PMB). It means agricultural goods, as well as fish and fish products, developed using modern biotechnology, but does not include medicines and medical products (Article 2. 19). To trade products of modern biotechnology, TPPA regulates as follows: - 2Each Party shall, when available and subject to its laws, regulations and policies, make available publicly: (a) any documentation requirements for completing an application for the authorization of a PMB; 12(b) a summary of any risk or safety assessment that has led to the authorization of a PMB; (c) a list or lists of the PMB that have been authorized in its territory. - The Parties establish a working group on PMB 2under the Committee on Agricultural Trade for information exchange and cooperation on trade-related matters associated with PMB. - 4The Working Group shall provide a forum to: (a) exchange, subject to a Party’s laws, regulations and policies, information on issues, including on actual and proposed laws, regulations and policies, related to the trade of PMB; 2(b) further enhance cooperation between two or more Parties, when there is mutual interest, related to the trade of PMB. However, TPP countries have little commonality in terms of GMO regulatory regimes, specifically as below table in the Annex. In case of EVFTA, some regulations seems relevant. They are listed in the following chapter: 13Chapter 6: Technical Barriers to Trade; Chapter 7: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures; Chapter 15: Trade and Sustainable Development. In chapter 6 and 7, there are regulations of TBT (standard, technical regulation, procedure, …) and SPS ( regulations protecting human life, animal, plant health,..); in chapter 15: noted messages about protecting environment, .... However, there is no provision by which the Parties have agreed how to deal with GMOs. Therefore, we can apply WTO’s regulations in GMOs’ cases because WTO is the international organization in which, Vietnam and EU are both the members. Regarding Vietnam context, the government has taken GMOs into consideration as long as this new concept has appeared here. Vietnam has regulated GMOs since 2005: Decision No. 212/2006/QD-TTg dated August 26, 2005 is now replaced by 7Decree No. 69/2010/ND-CP dated June 21, 2010 (amended in 2011). General requirement for GMOs to be used as food or animal feed is that they must be granted Certificate on satisfying conditions to be used as food or animal feed by 7the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and Ministry of Health. These ministries strictly control and manage all the procedure. Basing on the WTO, TPPA and EVFTA rules concerning GMOs, our group has drawn some policy space for Vietnam. First of all, since GMOs is a new concept for Vietnamese in general and Vietnamese farmers in particular, understandings on GMOs must be improved- the core one- by raising the awareness, by further researching, by controlling (applying the rules efficiently and strictly) and by receiving assistance from developed countries (they are ahead of the GM technology and help exchange information or experience). Second, attracting the investments in new GMOs research and production should be encouraged, paving the wave for lower cost but higher quality products. Furthermore, the conventional agriculture sector could not be forgotten. The question how to combine the conventional and the new technology one and how to protect the farmers should always be raised. Besides, developing must be accompanied by environment protecting in order to develop sustainably. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment plays the main role in guiding and ruling the standard of the producing process and the outcomes. As mentioned above, GMOs has just been known for a short period, there must be a certain lag between regulations and implementations. The relating authorities should follow closely all the activities and the implementation of the rules ratified. Last but not least, the problem of rising competitiveness between Vietnamese products and others and between Vietnamese agricultural firms and others will be regularly mentioned. In such a currently globalized world, if the quality remains the same let alone goes down, it is left behind with no chance of competing. Training skills for the human resources, investing in advanced technology, thinking of new things may be some solutions that the government should focus on. The paper could not be completed without the suggestions and knowledge from Professor Christian Haberli. Thank you very much. ANNEX TPP Countries’ Regulation of GMOs 15Australia Brunei Canada Chile Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Peru Singapore United States Vietnam SPS CPB Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Cultivation Ban Import Ban Not nationally but depends on individual No States Yes (no regulation yet developed) No Yes No No No Yes Yes (until 2022) Not applicable No No Yes (no regulation yet developed) No No No No No No Yes (until 2022) No (no regulation yet developed) No No Labelling Yes Not applicable No No Yes Under development No Yes n.a. No (no regulation yet developed No Under development REFERENCES Debra M. Strauss (2009), The application of TRIPS to GMOs, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228151408_The 17_Application_of_TRIPS_to_GMOs_ In ternational _Intellectual_Property_Rights_and_Biotechnology European Union – Vietnam Free Trade Agreements, available at: http://portal.moit.gov.vn/fta/ IRT 16(2005), Dangers to the Environment, available at: http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo- education/dangers-to-the-environment/5Klumper, W. & Qaim, M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One 9, e111629 (2014). The Government of Vietnam (2011). Decree No. 69 8/2010/ND-CP. Available at : http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&mode=detail &document_id= 152715 Trans – Pacific Partnership Agreement, available at: http://wtocenter.vn/tpp/full-text-and- summaries-tpp Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartagena_Protocol_on_Biosafety Yara (2015), Our Position On GMOs, available at: http://yara.com/doc/40874_PP_GMO15.pdf