| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Awareness|Portal|Archive|Forum|Online Discussion   Printer-friendly version

Return to the list of threads...

PP Forum: Techniques for engaging the public

Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5779]
Dear participants,

Welcome to Theme 6: Traditional techniques

Best regards,
Ulrika Nilsson
Associate Information Officer
Biosafety Unit
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
United Nations Environment Programme
413 St Jacques Street, Suite 800,
Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9
Tel: +1-514-287-8720
Email: ulrika.nilsson@cbd.int
Internet: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/
posted on 2014-04-23 00:42 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5789]
POSTED ON BEHALF OF JOHANSEN T. VOKER (MODERATOR)

Dear Forum Participants,

I am pleased and honoured to have been invited to moderate this online discussion.

Welcome to Theme 6 on Traditional techniques

We welcome you to answer the guiding questions listed below when the Forum begins 28 April.

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?

The discussion will take place for two weeks and I encourage you to prepare the answers to the questions and post your views as soon as possible in order to foster a lively debate.

Please note that participants must first sign in to the BCH in order to post messages.

Individuals wishing to participate via e-mail after these initial messages can choose to 'watch' the discussions taking place under the different themes. These individuals will then receive copies of the posted messages by e-mail.

If you have any questions or if you encounter difficulties in accessing the discussion sessions or posting your messages, please send an e-mail to: ulrika.nilsson@cbd.int or andrew.bowers@cbd.int

I look forward to reading your suggestions and comments.

Best regards,

Johansen T. Voker
Moderator
posted on 2014-04-24 15:09 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5893]
Dear all,

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

Either face-to-face (meetings) or using a written procedure. In the Netherlands, a written procedure is part of the formal decision-making process following an application involving LMOs.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

A written procedure as part of the formal decision-making process needs to be carefully regulated in order to give both citizens and the government the opportunity to respond to one another.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

A written procedure is a useful tool to give everyone the opportunity to respond at their convenience to a concrete (draft) decision on a given LMO. The existing regulatory framework provides the rules and timetable for this procedure. This procedure, among other things, requires the government to give a written response to all of the views expressed by the citizens. For an open discussion however, e.g. on LMO policy or regulatory framework, face-to-face meetings are more suitable.

Best regards, Annemiek
posted on 2014-05-06 12:44 UTC by Ms. Annemiek van Waterschoot, Netherlands
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5895]
Posted on behalf of Ivy Wellman, United Kingdom of Great Britain:

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?
The UK Government recognises a number of ways to encourage public participation, including written consultations, meeting stakeholders, workshops, letters and working/focus groups; all of these methods are used as appropriate.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?
Ad hoc basis, with an assessment made on the most appropriate way to engage on a particular issue or set of issues.  We often use a mixture of traditional techniques in order to build up a full picture of the questions being addresses.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?
Criteria to consider include level of interest, level of impact and degree of specialism. Geographic scope may also be a consideration.

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?
Defra publishes consultation papers in England in English as the national language.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?
Engagement should happen as early as possible; it may be appropriate to engage with different stakeholders at different times. It is UK Government policy to consult the public, either formally or informally, before making major changes to policy or regulation. Our legislation requires us to hold a public consultation before authorising LMO field trials.

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
This should be flexible to best suit the objectives of the consultation. In general we support being as transparent as possible.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK
posted on 2014-05-06 13:51 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5914]
Theme 6: Traditional techniques

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

There are different traditional options and techniques for that (printed materials, workshops, local meetings, press, magazines, radio and TV with relevance to alternative media -community broadcasting and TV-). In Colombia using one of them depend on intended public and local resources, under an adaptive scheme taking into account local facilities. One of the most effective has been radio due to wide dissemination and accessibility for all kind of public. Other way that we have implemented is putting relevant information on billboards of Local Governments Offices for information of interested stakeholders (farmers, local communities, local NGOs).   

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

In Colombia we have prioritize traditional techniques on ad hoc basis, through local meetings and workshops aimed at a wide audience, in order to facilitate a regional discussion.    

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

Main criteria are related with their social representativeness and level of interest, being desirable but not necessary to have knowledge and experience about specific topics on biosafety and LMOs.

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

It could be an adequate strategy for include all kind of public, specially for relevant and widely spoken languages. However, a great trouble for that is the country’s financial capability. However in the local context, the local traditional authorities can transmit the messages to their local languages.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

According with Colombia’s experience it is no necessary implementing specific techniques depending of a particular point. More important is to guarantee public participation across all the process, including after a decision making, independently of the kind technique used for that (modern or traditional).

Best regards,

Claudia Maria Villa
Alexander von Humboldt Institute
National Institute for Research on Biodiversity
posted on 2014-05-07 21:54 UTC by Ms. Claudia María Villa, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5903]
Dear all,
I have not seen much interaction on the themes suggested by the CBD Secretariat. Although, I thank everyone who participated in this online discussion. I moved to traditional techniques in engaging public into decision making.

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

Primary Traditional Techniques (PTT):
This would basically arise from interested stakeholder such as consumers or users or those who may affect by the LMOs application. That can be in a form of discussion at cafe shop, market place, or village level. Students may discuss on this as well through sharing any thing at a library. In Cambodia, farmers usually discuss at informal level on seed selection, crop diseases, and production etc.
Venue can be any where parties interested.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

Face-to-face meeting, exchange of email, and on ad hoc basis.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

- Most directed involvement in the crops;
- Most vocal on seeds;
- Farmers representatives;
- Consumer representative;
- provincial town rep;

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

- It depends upon audience taking part in the discussion.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

- Field trial;
- Import of LMOs;

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
- Yes, check-boxes.

best regards to all.

Pisey OUM, Cambodia's MOE/NSCB Sec.
posted on 2014-05-07 07:32 UTC by Mr. Meng Monyrak, Cambodia
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5904]
Dear all,

as a postdoctoral scientist at the Institute of Plant Biotechnology Outreach (IPBO) at Ghent University (Belgium) I am happy to contribute to this discussion.

I would like to use the field trial with Phytophtora resistant potatoes in Belgium 2011-2012 to give some examples on how public participation was facilitated.

The consortium responsible for the execution of the field trial prepared a brochure and background documents with information for the public. A website was launched with general information on the field trial where people had the opportunity to ask questions to the consortium. In addition, the consortium also organized an informative session to the neighbourhood as well as a round table session with different relevant NGO’s which was governed by a neutral moderator.

The application for, the launch and the harvest of the field trial were announced in the press to inform the public (TV, written press, radio). Along the field trial the website was continuously updated with news items. In addition, the field trials were open for a guided visit to everyone interested during which people received background information on the field trial, visited the trial and afterwards had the opportunity to ask questions. Over the two years a total of about 580 people visited the field trial.

The field trial knew a wide media coverage and initiated a public debate. The consortium partners engaged to take place in these debates (local or on TV) and continued informing the public by giving interviews to tv and the written press as well as lectures and seminars on GMO in general or the field trial specifically.

Upon completion of the field trial, the results were announced via the press and the final report (written as well as a video report) has been made publically available.

Kind regards,

Ine Pertry.
posted on 2014-05-07 12:19 UTC by Dr. Ine Pertry, Ghent University
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5910]
Dear All,

First my all my regrets for joining this on line forum in a late stage – with an on line forum on risk assessment going on in parallel with this forum it is not easy to find time for both.

Next my congratulations to the Secretariat, and to Ulrika in particular, for organising this forum, and to Johansen for moderating it, because I too believe that public awareness and public engagement are key in this area.

I just read the contributions to the 6 themes, and it is interesting t see how different this forum is compared to the forum on risk assessment. I think it is great that the discussion at one point happily continued in another language for a while. This may actually be a good model for next on line conferences, because there is always the – pertinent -  concern that colleagues may feel left out since everything is in English. This forum actually allows to switch between languages without any additional costs.

One thing that struck me was that most, if not all, contributions seemed to consider the “decision-making process regarding living modified organisms” to be limited to regulatory decisions based on risk assessment, such as decisions on placing on the market. 

I believe that that is not what article 23 intends, and – more importantly – that such a limited interpretation would be a missed opportunity for public awareness and engagement.

As regards article 23 itself, we should recognise that while the procedural articles talk about “potential adverse effects of a LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”, article 23 talks does not talk about potential adverse effects but has a broader scope where it refers to “in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”, which can include both benefits  and risks to  the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Given that the other contributions already addressed public engagement in regulatory decisions, I address hereafter decision making that is based on anticipated benefits, such as decisions in which areas to intensify public research in modern biotechnology.

In setting priorities for public research in modern biotechnology, a participatory approach involving the farming community can be very useful in identifying:
a. What are the key crops in a given country
b. What are the major challenges in the agricultural production of those crops (e.g. diseases, pests, weeds, droughts, etc)
c. The consequences of those challenges (e.g. %yield loss)
d. Current approaches to address these challenges (e.g. pesticide use)
e. Availability or development of conventional solutions (e.g. crossing with resistant varieties, IPM)
f. Availability or development of biotechnological solutions (e.g. marker assisted selection, mutation breeding, genome editing technologies and genetic modification/’Transgenics’.) 

Building on the approach taken during the implementation of some FAO projects in Eastern Europe, and other experiences, the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) conducted in collaboration with farmers organisations  in Europe a pilot project, which showed that this approach can be scaled up,a d could result in a web based database.

I decided to make this contribution  under this theme, because ‘traditional‘ in-person meetings have proven to work very well in working with the farming community to identify key challenges in the production of crops and the consequences of those challenges,  I chose this thread.

To address Johansen’s guiding questions for this theme:

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation?

>>> in-person meetings organised in collaboration with farmers organisations

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted:

>>> preferably on a regular basis, with clear questions to be discussed


3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

>>> for this approach: their involvement in the farming community

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

>> absolutely

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

>>>  development of priorities in public research in modern biotechnology.


6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?  

>>> yes


Looking forward to the remainder of this debate

Piet van der Meer
posted on 2014-05-07 16:08 UTC by Mr. Piet van der Meer, Ghent University, Free University of Brussels, Belgium, PRRI
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5946]
Responding to Piet, I think his posting would have been  better in the Risk discussion, recently concluded.  This forum is about "how," not "what."

I know from my work with NGOs in Africa that local communities and their organizations (as well as relevant experts) are often ignored by powerful "development" interests--eg, the Gates Foundation and its AGRA offshoot.  They seem to select discussion partners based on foreknowledge of what they want to hear.  This is not "participation," but manipulation.

Substantively, it is interesting that he ignores (in his categories e and f, conventional and biotech approaches)) the important developments in agroecology, which the World Bank and UN agencies (including UNEP, the parent organization of this discussion) have found much more suited to problems of the developing world --see  report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, IAASTD <http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/iaastd/tabid/105853/default.aspx> )
and which have been repeatedly endorsed by the UN's Special Rapporteur for Hunger, Prof de Schutter.
posted on 2014-05-08 16:29 UTC by Dr. Philip L. Bereano, University of Washington
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5941]
Posted on behalf of Milena Roudna, Czech Republic:

Theme 6 – Traditional techniques
• Traditional techniques are broadly used, mainly as meetings or workshops, being organized in local town halls, libraries, muzea or other traditional gathering places.
• More effective are face-to face meetings and debates.
• Invitation to participation through personal or written invitation, announcement on local board, through local media  - for success very important.
• Meetings in national language, if intended for general public (only experts meetings in some international language possible, with participation of foreign expert etc.).
• Participation of corresponding representatives of authorities and experts being able to answer questions profesionlly is necessary.
posted on 2014-05-08 13:52 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5945]
Dear All,

The followings are my comments for each question under this theme:

1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?
Seminar, workshop, forum and meeting are the most common traditional techniques to facilitate public participation. However, these techniques require a lot of resources and limited coverage in term of target groups. Since public comments are important aspect in decision making process of LMOs in Malaysia, we will make a public announcement in the form of standard notice published in 4 different newspapers (1 each in Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil) to invite public to participate and give their comments related to the application for approval for release activities. Notice will be made 2 times in the chosen newspapers at a two week interval. To complement this, we also write to several NGOs to invite them in giving inputs.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?
If it is part of approval process for an application, the technique used (i.e. public announcement in newspapers and notice to NGOs) can be planned ahead. Fact sheet will be prepared in dual language (English and Malay) that contains necessary information pertaining to the LMO to be released.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?
From our experience, to get local communities participation, the involvement of community leaders, local authority and NGOs are very crucial.

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?
Yes, it is feasible. As commented earlier, we make the public announcement in 4 different newspapers and prepare the fact sheet in English and Malay.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?
Traditional techniques are useful at all points of decision making process on LMOs. We have used it during the process of biosafety framework formulation, prior and after making a decision on LMOs release. However from our experience, to make it more effective, these techniques and online modern techniques should complement each other.

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
This may depend on the users for that information. In our case, as these comments/opinions will be used by the National Biosafety Board in their decision making process, a summary will be prepared and presented as a report with the original feedbacks attached to it.

As for my final words, I would like thank the Secretariat for organizing this forum. It gives chance to all participants to share their experience as we realize more efforts can and need to be done towards public engagement and getting the public to participate.

Best regards
Johnny
posted on 2014-05-08 15:32 UTC by Mr. Johnny Anak Andrew, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5965]
Posted on behalf of Abisai Mafa, Zimbabwe:

Dear Forum Participants,

Here is my contribution to theme 6: Traditional Techniques


1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?
Traditional techniques in my country centre on publicizing a meeting through invitation to the public and stakeholder representatives to a meeting to discuss or input into a policy or decision making process. This is reinforced by official invitation letters to relevant bodies/organizations. Meetings are held at known public meeting places such as town halls, churches, schools, hotels and sometimes open spaces.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?
These meetings are moderated by the competent government body in this case the National Biotechnology Authority. Sometimes expert s are invited to give scientific inputs and stakeholders given platforms to interrogate the issues and suggest policy proposals.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?
It is possible to use local languages but it is costly and challenging

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?
This should be based on local needs but the minimum is in the development of a regulatory framework and prior to a decision on import.

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
This is not a requirement in our current legislation. It is a good practice if resources permit.
posted on 2014-05-09 12:33 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5966]
1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?
2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

In the Philippines, there are levels of PP for decision-making regarding a particular application: posting of notice, solicitation of written comments (public consultation), and formal hearings.

The National Biosafety Framework (EO 514) requires that notice to all concerned stakeholders be adequate, timely and effective and posted prominently in public places in the areas affected (and in the case of the national media, in the national print media). Where it is limited primarily for contained use, posting of notice of filing of the application is deemed sufficient. After local officials at the baranggay (smallest local government unit) level are briefed, the Public Information Sheet (PIS) is posted for 3 consecutive weeks in at least 3 conspicuous places in the barangay and/or city/municipal halls where the proposed activities will be conducted.

For public consultation, relevant stakeholders are informed (through the same process of posting of notice) and given opportunity to submit comments on an application for field test, propagation or importation for food and feed, or for processing of regulated article.

Formal hearing (public hearing, face-to-face meeting) is required only when the Scientific and Technical Review Panel report indicates that the proposed release (field test) may pose significant risks to human health and environment.

Although the information contained in the PIS is required to be in layman terms, such posting is hardly adequate or effective in inviting real public participation and providing information to the public. It consists mainly of posting of a few pages of information on the bulletin board of the barangay/municipal/city hall. Adequate and effective notice to all concerned stakeholders requires at least more direct communication (say, through regular mail) to affected members of the community, such as farmers. Further, the PIS template is inherently biased as it explicitly requires statement of advantages of the trait, potential benefits, and countries where approvals have been granted (not the disadvantages, potential harm, and denied  applications). Further, information on a pest-protected plant's effects on only the target organism is required, while that on non-target organisms is not. This is hardly the ecosystem-based approach that the CBD espouses.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?
Everyone who may be affected should be invited to participate. Technically, everyone is invited through the PIS to participate. However, farmers, inasmuch as their livelihood and health are directly dependent on biodiversity, should always be adequately and effectively informed and consulted even if the LMO is not intended as a crop.

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?
Definitely. This is required by the law, given that the Philippines has many dialects, and people may be much less comfortable communicating in the national language. However, meetings may pose difficulties when officials or proponents hail from outside the community (which is most of the time) and do not speak the local dialect.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?
At all stages of the decision-making process, traditional techniques should be used to accommodate sectors of society that may not have access to modern means of communication (eg. internet).

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
posted on 2014-05-09 12:34 UTC by Ms. Rosette S. Ferrer, Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5976]
1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

Depending on the topic, the place has to be chosen. In the case of Bolivia if you want to reach social organizations you have to either go to the towns where they have their central office or get out to a public meeting place. But when discussing specific topics, we have had good results using our meeting room (which also helps our budget). But in other occasions the public meeting has to go out of the city and gather the participants in a meeting room from a hotel or similar. The main thing with public meetings in Bolivia is that you have to have present that food has to be invited, and that can also influence on the budget available for the meeting.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

It is always desirable to have a face to face meeting. Most of our society is not used to virtual meetings and in some cases there can be misunderstandings.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

Bolivia has a wide variety of ecosystems and needs in each of them. However, the use of LMO’s is mainly in low lands (east part of the country). This is the reason that it is easier to invite the local communities once the area is identified. There is a procedure and a good response on those local communities to participate when invited to meetings.

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

Same as in theme 5.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

Usually one of the topics that raise more discussion when addressing LMOs, is the misinterpretation on what is this technology about. But in order to capture the real gaps of information, these types of meetings can be useful as focal groups, that will help to identify what are the concepts or technical things that are harder to understand. If socioeconomic considerations will be evaluated after an LMO is imported, the public participation is needed to collect data through surveys and previous indicators that should be established.

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?

If it is a survey which has clear indicators and what it will measure there is no problem. For other topics, I don’t think that a simplified format is the best way to address more complex issues about LMOs.
posted on 2014-05-09 15:58 UTC by Sra. Cecilia Gonzalez, Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#6009]
Public participation can be facilitated by town hall meetings, national consultations, focus group meetings, talk shows, press releases, documentaries, posting of documents in libraries and banks.

The traditional techniques are conducted on an as needed basis.  Face to face meetings and question and answer sessions are also held.

In Saint Lucia, we only have two languages and both are used interchangeably at these meetings.

To invite local communities to participate, as much as possible, transportation fees should be paid for them to get to the venues of the discussions and refreshments should also be provided as much as possible, as well as the creole language or that where the communities feel most comfortable should be spoken.  Local communities should also have a stake in the subjects under discussion.

Traditional techniques should be used at all stages of the process so that the fullest support of communities and the public could be obtained.

If the simplified format reflects clearly what the public said, it should be allowed, otherwise it is better to have the original formats.
posted on 2014-05-14 20:43 UTC by Ms. Anita James, Saint Lucia
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#6026]
Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5779]

Here are my comments on the theme 6.

• In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

The most traditional technique to facilitate public participation is survey by filling in questionnaire in written or electronic format or through online survey (modern technique).

• How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?

Face-to-face meeting is the most traditional format of public discussions, and sending out a questionnaire is the most popular technique for public participation in Belarus.

• In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

I think there are no special criteria to invite local communities to participate - all of them should be invited for discussion. It should be their choice to participate in the proposed event or not.

• Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

In Belarus, it is unfeasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national languages (Russian and Belarusian) because almost 99,5% of population speaks and writes in Russian or Belarusian.

• In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

Public discussions should be organized prior to making a decision on an import of any LMO and a field trial under the first release in the environment.

• Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?

Public comments should not be provided in a special format - people should feel themselves free in provision of their opinions in any format they prefer.

Best regards, Elena Makeyeva, Belarus.
posted on 2014-05-16 06:08 UTC by Assoc. Prof. Elena Makeyeva, Belarus
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#6033]
Posted on behalf of Mr. Wouamane Mbele, Cameroon:

Dear Participants, please find below my comments on theme 6:

• In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?
Traditional techniques include public meetings, with debates, radio and TV debates.

• How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?
Ad hoc basis, including face to face meetings with questions and answers sessions.

• In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?

All stakeholders should be invited.

• Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?
Yes it is feasible if need be.

• In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?
At all these points.

• Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
Simplified format.
posted on 2014-05-16 09:03 UTC by Mr DECLAN AMBE
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#6049]
Dear All,

my views on the said topic

1) Through meeting halls

2)Face to Face meeting

3)For awareness and benefits

4)During trails

5)no public opinions should not be provided.
posted on 2014-05-16 19:08 UTC by KARIPALLI AGNES RAJU, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY-KOLKATA (Ministry of Commerce and Industry , Govt.of India)
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5870]
Dear all,
1, in our experience ,the primary traditional techniques to facilitate pubic participation the techniques should take place in market place ,in local and town hall meetings

2, the traditional techniques are conducted in face to face meetings

3, in our experience the criteria to invite local communities to participate should be day market,

local meeting
4,yes, it is feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the the national official language
5, in our experienc the decision making process should be used in developmentof regulatory frameworks
6, public comments and opinions schould be provided in a simplified format

best regrds
posted on 2014-05-05 07:24 UTC by Mrs. Marie Blandine Ramanantenasoa, Madagascar
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5918]
In Thailand  there are many traditional meetings organized by traditional people or local communities or  farmers, themselves. They are face-to-face and very interactive meetings  to come up with some solutions . And in some critical issues/solutions , they nominate their representative(s) to discuss with involved government agencies and/or decision makers.  GMO issue discussion sometimes is  included in meetings of organic farming , sustainability agriculture ,traditional agriculture ,etc..
posted on 2014-05-08 07:58 UTC by Ms. Praopan Tongsom, Thailand
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5977]
- In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?

According to our experience, local meetings are often a good resource to interact with the public and various interest groups is presented; also hold that the type of meeting-in our case-is very useful and also allows to perform the query, empower attendees and send a message of free access to information and a transparent handling of it.

- How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?
They are generally found face to face dealings with stakeholders, usually use a (small) group of technicians who form an ad-hoc group to lead the process of consultation and exchange of views.

At this point, we believe that is really important work in the context of approaches and exchange of information so that these exercises are reliable and that the results enjoy the credibility and support of all involved.

- In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?
Should approach from responsible and directly involved to perform the exercise that is transparent, objective and meets the "ought" to collect and report the views and considerations of local communities under their conditions and needs.

- Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?

As we have noted in other subjects in which they have thought, considering the results obtained with other instruments had to deploy resources provided in a language other than Spanish (official language of El Salvador) reaffirm, once again, we stand on that if you want to portray the reality of the country in such a sensitive issue that is a priority surveys attached to the handle with national native language formats since this is a guarantee that the views remain faithfully reflected.

- In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?

We believe that should be used both in the development of regulatory frameworks and processes derived from field tests, this as a guarantee of the public to participate freely, but also coordinated and informed that the results obtained are reliable and sufficiently representative.

- Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?

We firmly believe that if comprehensive reporting format could help a lot.
posted on 2014-05-09 16:05 UTC by Lic. Jeremias Ezequiel Yanes, El Salvador
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#5998]
Dear all tank you for participation

1. the traditional techniques to use are:  meeting face to face, the discussions by group (old, young people, adult and women) these last are especially recommended in the villages. 

2.The places of meetings are on levels :  village, district, communes , department and national.  With Benign, at the village it is often under a tree or a public place, with the district, it is the conference room of the district, with Commune it is the room of
conference of the commune, at the department, it is the room of conference of the prefecture.  These meetings can regular or specific that will depend on the committed process. 

3.  The experienc in this field wants that the people to be invited are those which can be used
as relay in the villages, districts, commune, departments and
national nevels.  organized Groups, traditional, religious, Man of
political opinion ; 

4.  In the villages, it is recommended to hold
the meetings directly in the language spoken in the village.  To the
level of the districts if there is homogeneity of language, the same
technique is recommended, in the commune in the event of uniformity
of language, at the level departmental and national it will be
difficult to use another language that the official language. 

5. Being given that the importation of a OVM, contributes to the
resolution of one problem at the base, for the level of the producers,
it is necessary to engage from the very start of the process :
development and adoption of the lawful framework until the tests in
field. 
6.  The comments and opinions of the public on all the levels
will have to be consigned in report and protected electronic
file.  This will allow to return there where necessary.

M. KAKPO Comlan Marcel, National Focal Point of PCB  Republic Of Benin
Director of Beneese Center of biodiversity, Ecotourism and Seeds
posted on 2014-05-11 19:00 UTC by Mr. Comlan Marcel KAKPO, Ministère de l'Environnement, de l'Habitat et de l'Urbanisme
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#6019]
1. Les techniques traditionnelles  à utiliser sont: les réunions en face en face, les discussions par groupe ( vieux, jeunes, adultes et femmes,) ces dernières sont surtout recommandées dans les villages.

2. Les lieux de réunions sont au niveaux ci-après : village, arrondissement, mairie, département et national. Au Bénin, au village c’est souvent sous un arbre ou une place publique, à l’arrondissement, c’est la salle de réunion de l’arrondissement, à l mairie c’est la salle de conférence de la mairie, au département, c’est la salle de conférence de la préfecture.
Ces réunions peuvent régulières ou ponctuelles cela dépendra du processus engagé.

3. L’expérience dans ce domaine veut que les personnes à inviter sont celles qui peuvent servir de relais dans les villages, arrondissements, mairies, départements et national. Les groupes organisés, chefferies traditionnelles, religieux, Homme d’opinion politique.

4. Dans les villages, il est recommandé de tenir les réunions directement dans la langue parlée dans le village. Au niveau des arrondissements s’il y a homogénéité de langue, la même technique est recommandée, dans les mairies en cas d’uniformité de langue, au niveau départemental et national il sera difficile d’utiliser autre langue que la langue officielle.

5. Etant donné que l’importation d’un OVM, concourt à la résolution d’un problème à la base, au niveau des producteurs, il faut engager dès le début du processus : de l’élaboration et adoption du cadre réglementaire jusqu’aux essais en champ.

6. Les commentaires et avis du public à tous les niveaux devront être consignés dans rapport et fichier électronique sécurisé. Ce permettra d’y revenir en cas de besoin.
posted on 2014-05-15 13:00 UTC by Mr. Comlan Marcel KAKPO, Ministère de l'Environnement, de l'Habitat et de l'Urbanisme
RE: Theme 6: Traditional techniques [#6035]
1. In your experience, which are the primary traditional techniques through which to facilitate public participation? Should the techniques take place in selected areas (e.g. local and town hall meetings, libraries, market places)?
Dans notre pratique au Burkina Faso, les techniques traditionnelles que nous avons utilisées et trouvées les plus efficaces pour le participation du public sont les rencontres que nous organisation en nous déplaçant dans les localités. Ces rencontres peuvent concernées un seul groupe cible ou un ensemble de groupe cible. Le choix du lieu est généralement conditionné par la capacité de la salle. Nous avons toujours évité la place du marché où le débat serait difficilement gérable.

2. How is the traditional techniques conducted (e.g. regular or ad hoc basis, face-to-face meetings, question and answer sessions)?
Les rencontres sont  des sessions face-à-face. Nous commençons par introduire le sujet en faisant des exposés sur la problématique et en donnant ensuite la parole aux participants pour les questions qui sont suivies de réponses. Il faut surtout dans de tels cas, permettre au public de poser toutes les questions qu’il souhaiterait.  Un certain nombre de rencontre est prévu par an lors de l’élaboration du programme d’activité mais la localité concernée change à chaque fois dans un soucis de pouvoir couvrir au mieux le territoire national. Le soucis d’une périodicité de ces rencontres est une doléance formulée chaque fois par les participants à la fin d’une session. Ceci est difficile compte tenu des coût que cette activité engendre.

3. In your experience, what should the criteria be to invite local communities to participate?
Dans notre situation du Burkina, nous asseyons lors de telles rencontre d’avoir une représentativité de toutes les organisations existants dans la localité. Selon la localité, un nombre plus important de participants est affecté à un groupe plus spécifique (producteurs, associations de femmes et de jeunes…).

4. Is it feasible to enable traditional techniques in languages other than the official national language(s)?
Les techniques traditionnelles doivent toujours prévoir des sessions où les débats puissent se mener simultanément  dans la langue nationale et aussi dans la langue de la localité pour permettre la participation du plus grand nombre.

5. In your experience, at what point(s) in the decision-making process on LMOs should traditional techniques be used (e.g. development of regulatory frameworks, field trials and/or prior to or after making a decision on an import of an LMO)?
Les techniques traditionnelles doivent être envisagées à toutes les étapes du procéssus de prise de décision. Ces rencontres devraient être périodiques lors des essais sur le terrain pour permettre aux producteur de suivre de bout en bout le processus et d’être témoin des mesures de précautions qui sont prises et des résultats obtenus.

6. Should public comments and opinions be provided in a simplified or original format (e.g. summaries/checkbox or registers or full reports)?
Les formats simplifiés sont à encourager
posted on 2014-05-16 09:45 UTC by Pr. Chantal Yvette Zoungrana Kabore, Burkina Faso