| | english | español | français |
  Home|RARM Portal|AHTEG|Past Activities of the AHTEG|Online Discussions|SWG Post-release Monitoring   Printer-friendly version

SGW on Monitoring of LMOs Released into the Environment

Return to the list of threads...
Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Item 5: Type of guidance document – technical only? [#2598]
Item 5: Type of guidance document – technical only?

One SWG member felt that the guidance document we are preparing here should only be “technical” in nature. That is (though please correct me if I have misinterpreted!), the guidance should only discuss the issues of “what” pertaining to monitoring –what is adequate or what is relevant to consider for monitoring (methods, indicators, etc) under the Protocol. In this case, issues of “how” monitoring should be carried out (e.g the discussion on decisionmaking, public participation, socioeconomics, dissemination) would not be included.

Question: Do you feel that the monitoring guidance document should focus on the technical aspects of “what” only or should it include the “how” as well?
posted on 2011-08-11 20:08 UTC by David Quist
RE: Item 5: Type of guidance document – technical only? (reply of Hans Bergmans) [#2611]
The document should cover issues that are related to Annex III of the Protocol, and as such it will be technical in nature, i.e., on the role that monitoring plays in science based environmental risk assessment.
It follows the guidance of the Roadmap, where we also point out what the relation is between environmental risk assessment and a number of other issues. Already in the Roadmap we point out that monitoring helps the decision making.
As to other aspects: it is clear from the Roadmap what we can take on board and where we should stay away from. I find it difficult to answer to your list of issues:
- discussion on the role of monitoring in decision making: OK, but its role is not different from risk assessment in general,
- public participation: what do you mean? Results from monitoring should be publicly available, for instance.
- socioeconomics: has no relation to the monitoring that we are talking about, but is an issue (including its monitoring) as a related issue.
- dissemination: what do you mean?  Results from monitoring should be publicly available, obviously.

As to your question: Do you feel that the monitoring guidance document should focus on the technical aspects of “what” only or should it include the “how” as well?
In general we should talk about what, and about how ‘what’ determines the ‘how’, for instance the quality of data; this is basically the nice-to-know vs. need-to-know discussion.
posted on 2011-08-18 15:11 UTC by Mr. Hans Bergmans, PRRI
RE: Item 5: Type of guidance document – technical only? (reply of Hans Bergmans) [#2624]
The guidance document should relate to Annex III and the Roadmap which are science-based. The "related issues" of the Roadmap may come into play in how to use the results of the monitoring is applicable, but that is decision-making and not how/what to monitor
posted on 2011-08-18 21:57 UTC by Ms. Esmeralda Prat, CLI representation
RE: Item 5: Type of guidance document – technical only? [#2636]
The guidance should discuss the issues of “what” pertaining to monitoring – as well as "how" this can (but not should) be done in terms of methods, indicators, etc under the Protocol, as well as how data can be interpreted. 

Yet, other issues as decision making, public participation, socioeconomics, dissemination should stay out of this guidance.

Piet
posted on 2011-08-18 22:33 UTC by Mr. Piet van der Meer, Ghent University, Belgium
RE: Item 5: Type of guidance document – technical only? [#2653]
I am not sure on this question and how the technical nature of the document related only to the "what".
I do think that the monitoring guidance document should focus on the technical aspects of “what” (what could you monitor: e.g a particular exposed non target organism)as well as the technical aspects of “how” (how are you going to monitor: e.g. methods, “where” regions, “when” time,) and on the technical aspects of “why” (why are you going to monitor, this is what do you technically need to monitor and not what would be nice to monitor).
But I do not see the relation of the issues you associate with the other “how” (e.g the discussion on decisionmaking, public participation, socioeconomics, dissemination) which might be important to consider as “related issues” but represent so different aproaches and components that I do not see them as part of this guidance.
posted on 2011-08-19 05:07 UTC by Ms. Sol Ortiz García, Mexico