Band 3, Heft 4

Mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution become more and more important in the legal world. The decision of the WTO Appellate Body in the so-called “hormone case” highlighted the growing relevance of DR methods in the field of health and consumer protection. The pending case of GM food labelling in the European Community is one major example for the role of ADR in biotechnology law. As biotech is a delicate area of law which makes it extremely hard to analyse, define, and interpret the relevant provisions, it is predestined for the application of ADR. Sarah E. Hilmer shows that DR methods – including negotiation, mediation and arbitration – are an optional and appropriate answer to many different positions and interests of the many stakeholders being involved.

Introduction The field of biotechnology has lately been, and certainly still is, an area of great development. The movement of high technology in the today's world of the 21st century offers many possiblities, however sometimes towards a great amount of unknown factors.

Introduction On 19 May 2005, Indonesia set into force Regulation Number 21 on the Biosafety of Genetically Engineered Products (hereinafter: Biosafety Regulation), which implements not only basic requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Biosaftey Protocol, but also several provisions of Law Number 23 of 1997 on Environmental Management. According to art. 2 (1), the purpose of this Regulation is to ensure an adequate level of environmental safety, food safety and or animal feed safety of genetically engineered products (GEP) and its use in the area of agriculture, fishery, forestry, industry, environment and nonpharmaceutical health. In addition, the regulation should improve efficiency and effectiveness of GEP use for the people's welfare based on the principles of health and biological resource management, consumer protection and certainty in operating business. The regulation includes provisions on the type and requirement of GEP, research on and development of GEP, importation of GEP from foreign countries, assessment, release, and distribution and use of GEP, control of GEP, as well as on the institutional framework and cost.

Biotechnology Strategy Council The finalized 2002 Biotechnology Strategy Guidelines issued by the Biotechnology Strategy Council called for “unified planning, drafting and comprehensive coordination of budgetary allocation policies and their execution, for all budgets biotechrelated science and technology budgets (amongst the Council for Science and Technology Policy, related ministries and agencies)” and to “build up and improve the funding functions of budget-allocating institutions” with competitive research funds and transparent evaluation criteria. In the past, this biotechnology funding was jealously controlled by the differing government Ministries and agencies e.g., METI, MEXT, Ministry of Labor, Health and Welfare with their respective broad portfolios, and there were concerns that “eventually the bureaucrats walk off and follow the particular interest of their ministry”, with the result that “the Japanese scientific community does not have very much influence on research funding”. It remains to be seen whether the “unified planning, drafting and comprehensive coordination” will improve the implementation of the 2002 Biotechnology Strategy Guidelines discussed earlier.

Introduction In the 9 th Malaysia Plan, which was tabled in the Malaysian Federal Parliament on 31 st March, 2006, the Government of Malaysia has allocated one special chapter on the development of biotechnology in Malaysia. The 9 th Malaysia Plan says that ‘biotechnology is poised to be the next wave of knowledge based industries that will contribute to growth and wealth creation, new investment and employment opportunities as well as deliver social and environmental benefits’. One of the thrusts under the 9 th Malaysia plan is the creation of regulatory framework to facilitate the build up of strong and diversified biotechnology industry.

Introduction Several studies forecast that the share of biotechnological processes in the total sales volume of chemical products will probably soar to around 15–20 % by 2010. Alone for the chemical industry, the potential value added of biotechnological production has been predicted to reach € 11–22 billion worldwide annually by then. The value added stems not only from new biotechnological products, but also from the effects of improved manufacturing processes. At ACHEMA 2006 in May 2006 in Frankfurt am Main - the world's leading event for the process industries - besides the integral general topic Biotechnological Equipment, which focuses on the equipment sector a special Industrial Biotechnology Exhibition and a Partnering Conference took place, thus paying tribute to the growing significance of industrial biotechnology and supporting international networking.