I have the honour to speak on behalf of G77 and China – consisting of more than 130 countries.

The draft decision under discussion is taken from Rec. 4/7 of the 4th meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Article 8(j).

We note with appreciation the report of the 4th Working Group on 8(j), and we wish to stress the importance of its work to examine the potential socio-economic impacts of GURTs on indigenous and local communities and on Farmers’ Rights.

G77 and China believe that GURTs technologies can have far-reaching and negative impacts on farmers, indigenous peoples and local communities – particularly on their traditional knowledge, innovations and practices. We are concerned that GURTs technologies could introduce multiple hazards for farmers, indigenous peoples, biodiversity and food security, especially related to traditional seed-saving practices. This could well pose an irreparable threat to the reportedly 1.4 billion people worldwide who rely on farm-saved seeds for production, and indeed, their very survival.

For this reason Decision V/5, which we all adopted, makes it clear that no field testing or commercial use be approved by Parties until thorough and validated research on ecological and socio-economic impacts and any adverse effects for biodiversity, food security, human health and of the technology itself have been carried out and in a transparent manner.
Paragraph 1 of the Draft Decision reaffirms unequivocally Decision V/5. That means no field trials or commercial use of GURTs.

However Paragraph 2.b. introduces language that allows “case by case risk assessment.” We are concerned. Because this innocuous reference to “case by case risk assessment” would potentially allow field tests. This, instead of re-affirming Decision V/5, would undermine it. This, Mr. Chair, is clearly unacceptable.

We ask, therefore, that the re-affirmation of Decision V/5 in paragraph 1 be retained. But paragraph 2.b be deleted in its entirety.

In short, Mr. Chairman, paragraph 2.b is not to be.