Analysis of Public
Submissions
Analysis of
Public Submissions
3.
section 3.7 |
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
3.
Analysis of Public Submissions
22
3.7
International obligations
77
Background
77
Outline of this section
77
Trade and other agreements
77
Sovereignty issues
79
3.7 International obligations
Background
The Warrant, under items (d) and (l), called for information and views on,
respectively:
the international legal obligations of New Zealand in relation to genetic modification,
genetically modified organisms, and products
the international implications, in relation to both New Zealand's binding international
obligations and New Zealand's foreign and trade policy, of any measures that New Zealand
might take with regard to genetic modification, genetically modified organisms, and
products, including the costs and risks associated with particular options
To consider the strategies and processes open to New Zealand in relation to
genetic modification, the Commission needs to consider the international
agreements and arrangements New Zealand has entered into, the obligations that
arise under those agreements, and the implications that flow from them.
Outline of this section
This section of the report is short, mainly because just 1% of public submitters
made any comment on New Zealand's international obligations. Comments
centred on:
*
trade and other agreements
*
sovereignty issues.
Trade and other agreements
Of the 111 submitters who commented on international obligations, the largest
group (47.7%) focused on the World Trade Organization. The next largest group
referred to ANZFA, followed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
(See Table 3.14.)
If submitters did make comment on New Zealand's international agreements, they
were reasonably likely to argue that the county does not have any international
obligations. These submitters recognised that politicians in New Zealand may
International obligations affecting GM choices
Number
%
World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements generally
53
47.7
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ­ Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety
26
23.4
Submitter states there are no obligations
19
17.1
Rio Declaration
9
8.1
CER ­ Australia and New Zealand trade and other agreements
8
7.2
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
2
1.8
Other (mostly ANZFA)
50
45.0
The "Other" category included the following international agreements identified by public submitters:
*
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
*
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
*
UNESCO Rights of Disabled
*
development of a future Genetic Bill of Rights
*
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
*
Agenda 21
*
Basel Convention on Trans Boundary Movements of Hazardous Waste
*
IUCN Draft International Convention of Environment and Development/Earth Charter
*
Montreal Protocol
Multiple response
Table 3.14 New Zealand's international obligations affecting
genetic modification choices (n = 111)
p78 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
have signed treaties and agreements concerning genetic modification, but argued
that the country should not be bound by them. "This," one submitter wrote, "...
constitutes a time for drawing back from `binding international obligations' ...
where these affect the marketing and distribution of crop seeds and foodstuffs in
this country." Rather than being bound, New Zealand should renegotiate or
withdraw from its international obligations, reserving the right to make its own
democratic decisions without being pressured by other countries. The following
quote sums up a strong feeling expressed by submitters that New Zealand:
... should never accept any attempt to reframe protection of our biodiversity, environment
and the health, safety and indigenous and other cultural values of our people as `trade
barriers'. The people must be consulted and issues voted on in parliament if our
sovereignty is threatened in this way by trade negotiations and treaties.
Sovereignty issues
One group of public submitters argued that New Zealand's participation in the
international arena on genetic modification issues was a hindrance or threat to the
country's `sovereignty' or autonomy. They argued that this participation should
not be a basis for determining whether genetic modification technology and
products are allowed in the country. Submitters who were particularly concerned
about protecting the country's `sovereignty' or autonomy were mainly concerned
about the country's ecological integrity and preventing New Zealand's becoming a
"guinea pig" for other states and multinational corporations. Submitters also
raised other issues, including:
*
insufficient public input into international agreements that New Zealand
enters into
*
the opportunity New Zealand may have to opt out of agreements if they
conflict with, or fall short of, national policies and standards relating to
genetic modification
*
the impacts on trade agreements of New Zealand's genetic modification
stance. Submitters referred to the impacts of our nuclear stance on trade
relations
*
the degree to which New Zealand has to recognise and accommodate
international policies and standards. For instance, some submitters feared
that we might have to recognise and accept genetic modification technologies
covered by US or EU patents.
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p79
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3