R 171219Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3322
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC
FRG COLLECTIVE
EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS BERLIN 000195 
 
 
STATE FOR EB/TPP/MTAA/ABT SZYMANSKI AND OES FOR WOOD 
USDA FOR FAS SFROGGETT 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD TBIO KPAO
 
SUBJECT:  GERMANY TO FOLLOW EU LEAD AND SEES ITSELF AS A BRIDGE ON 
LIABILITY AND REDRESS UNDER THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY 
 
REF: STATE 11910 
 
 
¶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