Online Real-time Conference for Asia-Pacific on Socio-economic Considerations in Decision-making concerning Living Modified Organisms (English)
Automatic translations by Google: French | Spanish
Thank you, Secretariat.
Distinguished colleagues,
Good day and welcome to the real-time online conference for Asia and the Pacific. It is an honour for me to chair this conference.
This series of regional online conferences was requested by the Parties in decision BS-V/3 adopted at their fifth meeting. The conference is intended to:
(i) facilitate the exchange of views, information and experiences on socio-economic considerations on a regional basis; and
(ii) identify possible issues for further consideration
The regional online conferences are also intended to build on the information gathered during the online discussion groups on socio-economic considerations that were held from March to May 2011 through the Biosafety Clearing-House.
Our discussions today will focus on the following three areas:
- National experiences with socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making;
- Considerations driving inclusion of socio-economic issues in biosafety decision-making; and
- Other issues for further consideration. |
The outcomes of this online conference and those from the other regions will serve as inputs for the workshop on socio-economic considerations, which is tentatively scheduled for November 2011. Furthermore, the Parties also requested the Executive Secretary to synthesize the outcomes of the online conferences and workshop and submit a report to the sixth meeting of the Parties for consideration of further steps.
The real-time conferences are, therefore, an opportunity to provide information and views from your perspective, learn from the views of others and consider possible ways forward.
The importance of active participation and open sharing of information to make this conference a success cannot be stressed enough.
On this note, I declare the conference open!
We will now move to Item 2. Organizational Matters; sub-item 2.1 Adoption of the agenda. |
| Agreed to agenda but will it be broken down further |
I invite you to turn to the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/1/1, which was prepared by the Secretariat and reflects the objectives of our meeting.
Unless you have amendments or objections to any of the items, I propose that we adopt the agenda of the meeting as contained in document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/1/1. |
| Agreed to agenda. No amendments or objection. |
I see no more requests for the floor.
The provisional agenda as before us is adopted.
Let us now turn to agenda Item 2.2, Organization of work. |
Our conference is scheduled to last for approximately four hours. I propose that we have a break of 15 minutes half-way through the conference or as needed.
I would draw your attention to the fact that this conference will follow the rules of procedure of a face-to-face meeting. This means that Parties to the Biosafety Protocol will have the opportunity to speak first, followed by non-Parties and then observers.
I trust that you have prepared your interventions on the basis of the questions contained in the annotations to the provisional agenda that was made available by the Secretariat as document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/1/1/Add.1.
I propose that we make use of these questions to assist our deliberations today on each substantive item on our agenda.
I also propose that we take up the items on the agenda sequentially and, as Chair, I will endeavour to keep the discussions moving through the different agenda items in a timely manner. I encourage you to participate in the discussions in a prompt, direct and open manner.
Is there any objection to this organization of work? |
I see no objection. The proposed organization of work is adopted.
I now invite you to turn to item 3 on the agenda.
ITEM 3. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES |
The first substantive issue for us to consider is:
ITEM 3.1. NATIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS IN BIOSAFETY DECISION-MAKING
This item is intended to respond to the first objective for the conference. I propose that we spend approximately one hour and a half on this item.
We will use the questions from the annotated agenda (document UNEP/CBD/BS/ REGCONF-SEC/1/1/Add.1) to structure the discussions. |
I will now open the floor on the first guiding question:
(a) Has your country included provisions on socio-economic considerations in its national biosafety framework, biosafety policy, legislation and/or regulations? If yes, briefly describe the relevant provisions.
The floor is open for your comments. |
Our Laws: Biosafety Act 2007
Section 35 Taking of decision by the Board or Minister
The Board or Minister shall not be prevented from taking a decision, as appropriate, under Part III or Part IV, where there is lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of living modified organisms or products of such organisms on human, plant and animal health, the environment and biological diversity and may also take into account socio-economic considerations.
Our Regulations: BIOSAFETY (APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION) REGULATIONS 2010:
Socio-economic considerations
25. The Board or the Minister, in taking into account socio-economic considerations pursuant to section 35 of the Act, may consider –
(a) the changes in the existing social and economic patterns and means of livelihood of the communities that are likely to be affected by the introduction of the living modified organisms or products of such organisms;
(b) the effects to the religion, social, cultural and ethical values of communities arising from the use or release of the living modified organisms or products of such organisms. |
| Thank you Ramatha. Lets now hear from others |
| Good morning to all. In addition to Mr Letchumanan's intervention, I would add, the following information for Malaysia:
The National Policy on Biological Diversity 1998, which includes biosafety issues, in its action plan with regard to developing policies, regulations, laws and capacity building on biosafety, already foresaw the need for adoption of “an Environmental Impact Assessment procedure for biotechnology research and activities, including assessment on safety and social impacts”.
The function of the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC), as spelled out in the Section 6(2) is “to provide scientific, technical and other relevant advice to the Minister or the Board”. Additionally, the members of GMAC shall consist of experts from various science-based and other relevant disciplines (Section 6(5)). The inclusion of “other relevant advice” and “other relevant disciplines” in the function and membership of GMAC is also understood to facilitate the inclusion of socio-economic considerations.
The highest decision-making body, the National Biosafety Board, shall also have “not more than four other persons who have the knowledge or experience or both in any of the disciplines or matters relevant to this Act” (Section 4.2)). This again was crafted to be wide enough to include persons who have knowledge or experience in scoio-economic issues. |
| Thanks Lim for your views. At the borader level socio-economic considerations we mean taking into account a broad spectrum of concerns about the actual and potential consequences of biotechnology, such as impacts on farmers’ incomes and welfare, cultural practices, community well-being, traditional crops and varieties, domestic science and technology, rural employment, trade and competition, the role of transnational corporations, indigenous peoples, food security, ethics and religion, consumer benefits, and ideas about agriculture, technology and society |
| India has a mechansm to conduct the socio-econimic considerations |
First of all I would like to introduce our basic principles based on the domestic low.
Cartagena Act (Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity through Regulations on the Use of LMOs) is the law that regulates the use of LMOs, to ensure the precise and smooth implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on the Biosafety to Convention on Biological Diversity. This act provides for rules to assess the effect of LMOs on biological diversity in advance and also the way to appropriately use LMOs. The Cartagena Act separates uses into two types and uses different approaches for evaluating each type.
In this Cartagena Act, use under the open system (type 1 use: uses for conveyance and cultivation for food, feed etc.) is approved only when the LMOs are judged not to cause adverse effect on biological diversity.
(I will write next part soon.) |
| But in India we need to take detailed measures to address SE issues. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety allows specifically for the taking into account of socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making, but limits such considerations to those that arise from the impact of LMOs from modern biotechnology on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Countries may wish to take into account additional socio-economic considerations in biosafety regulations, which they may do as long as these rules comply with any other international obligations by which they may be bound. Socio-economic considerations can be taken into account in at least four different phases in biosafety decision-making: during the development of a domestic biosafety regulatory regime; during the risk assessment for a particular modified organism; after a risk assessment; and during the appeal, review or renewal of a permit |
It is stipulated in Article 4 (5) of Cartagena Act, “The competent minister must, when recognizing that no adverse effect that could pose an unacceptable risk of impairment to the preservation of species or populations of wild fauna or flora or any other Adverse Effect on Biological Diversity could arise when making Type 1 Use in accordance with the Type 1 Use Regulations pertaining to an application for approval in paragraph 1, give approval for said Type 1 Use Regulations, taking account of the content of consultation with Experts under the provisions of the preceding paragraph and the Basic Matters.”
It shows Japanese fundamental principles that use of LMOs should not be limited by other factors when the risk of LMOs are sufficiently-low as a result of scientific risk assessment.
On the other hand, Article 26 of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety stipulate “may take into account, consistent with their international obligations, socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity". This addition has been introduced to limit the scope.
In Japan, socio-economic impact arising from the impact of LMOs is unexpected circumstances under our strict risk assessment and risk management. Furthermore it should be noted here that our principals have already reflected in the domestic law (Cartagena Act). |
| Malaysia has just identified the broad scope, Good to see the scope from India. |
Sorry for my repetitive intervention from Japan.
The following is the reference of our regulatory system.
Reference
Domestic Law (Cartagena Law)
http://www.bch.biodic.go.jp/english/law.html |
| I have observed (particularly in Bangladesh) that people having views against LMOs are vocal in the mass media. Scientists are communicating very minimum or not at all in the newspaper and televisions. Therefore, poilicy makers particularly concerned ministers often self-restraint for real time decision. Although they are in favor of pro-LMOs and biosafety protocols. |
| I think it is important to note that while Article 26.1 of the Protocol socio-economic considerations can be interpreted to be limited to socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities, it should be borne in mind that the Protocol sets minimum standards and Parties have the sovereign right to take stricter action as defined by their national needs.
In this regard several Parties have national biosafety laws that allow them to take into account socio-economic considerations not limited to those arising only from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Many other Parties have similar provisions in their draft regulatory frameworks. Of course, in framing their national laws, Parties work in the context of their respective realities and this is accordingly reflected in the scope of the socio-economic provisions. |
| Same in India Uttam. We need more communication on this between science and society which should include various stake-holders but in equal terms |
| The dialogue between the different stakeholders are very important. In India, it has been found that farmers are completely ignorant of what the technology is and how to handle it. |
| Do you include benefits on Modern Biotech in Socio-ecomic considerations in India. Can someone clarify. Thanks |
| Yes.The economic benefit is a criteria used in the assessment. |
| There is no one view on the methodology of assessment in the realm of SE but this should be included. as of now the applicants for events are just asked to give SE implications but there is no common guidelines for them which creates confusion. |
| I believe that cost-benefit and economic analysis is part of the socio-economic assessment but that there needs to be focus also on the social, cultural, religious, ethical, etc. aspects. Taken all together this can help inform the decision-making process.
I also agree with the comments regarding public participation (or rather, the lack thereof). Hence, the incorporation of socio-economic considerations, particularly by participatory research can also help to start addressing this gap. There is a close connect between socio-economic considerations and public participation. |
| Yes the impacts on competition; the effects of potential contamination of non-GMO crops; and the significance of who controls the tools of production. |
| Often applicant may just give more on the benefits and less on the adverse effect. Should there then be a standard template?
Also how do we valuate the loss? any standad procedure? |
| Comon guidelines may include some of the points mentioned by Sachin in the begining. We must have to to include profit to the farmer, employment, health benefit (particularly for crops with high pesticide use such as eggplant, vegetables). framers perception about the LMOs would also be important. If any farmer has been exposed to any LMO technology then his views need to be incorporated.ncorporated. |
| it is very important that we consider the plurality of methodology in SEC. if we do not have any more requests specifically on country experiences, then we move to next question. |
Thank you for your interventions. Let us now please turn to the next question:
(b) What experience does your country have with implementing socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making? (For example, has your country taken socio-economic considerations into account in making a decision on a specific LMO or conducted a general technology assessment?)
The floor is now open. |
• No/very little experience on LMOs as there were no critical needs thus far in particular for FFP and also there has been no application for planting GMOs.
• However as we received application to carry out field trial for limited release of transgenic mosquito and TMOF-Trangenic yeast the need to consider socio-economic considerations – positive and negative became more apparent.
• In this case the promoter agency is bound to carry out a general technology assessment . There is uncertainty if Biosafety consideration are given equal treatment. |
| I agree with Letchumanan, we should work towards a common template |
| Ramatha is making a very important point |
| I agree that the experience is limited in Malaysia as the Biosafety Act has only been recently implemented.
Nonetheless, in the recent assessment for approval of a field trial involving LM mosquitoes, the National Biosafety Board it the text of its decision that was made public, stated that it took into account socioeconomic considerations, including the number of deaths and the cost of medication due to Dengue. No detail on how the Board made the socio-economic assessment is provided to the public, however, as Mr Letchumanan states, the socio-economic impacts are obviously important.
However, some other efforts have been taken to raise the issue of socio-economic considerations. In Malaysia for example, the Islamic perspective is very important as Islam is the official religion. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has in the past made effort to hold dialogues with the relevant stakeholders looking at religious views on biotech and biosafety. |
| Cambodia doesn''t has the experience in biosafety decision-making |
No we do not have.
Aside from socio-economic consideration, however, in order to seek a comment from the public at large, the government invites the public to offer their opinions as “public comments”. All of these comments are posted in Japan BCH (Biosafety Clearing House) with reply form government.
Public comments in J-BCH(in Japanese)
http://www.bch.biodic.go.jp/bch_3_1.html |
In light of Malaysia's views following may also be considered:
• Conduct broad, socio-economic research that considers and compares a range of potential approaches to poverty and food insecurity, including, but not limited to, agricultural biotechnology (examples of methods are the “sustainable livelihoods” framework and the “systemic relevance” assessment);
• Carry out further research into the viability of the various approaches to address poverty and food insecurity identified in initial socio-economic research – these approaches may or may not include biotechnology;
• Conduct ex-ante and ex-post surveys of the potential and actual economic impact – on all levels of society – of the adoption of GMOs. Empirical studies should be carried out on a long-term scale, as the distribution of benefits and costs may change over time;
• Examine, develop, and put into place, where possible, mechanisms for the public to participate in biosafety decision-making. This should take place beginning at the earliest point possible (such as in the broad socio-economic research mentioned above) and continue throughout the entire process;
• Examine existing biosafety regulatory systems in developing countries in Asia to see where in the systems socio-economic considerations could be taken into account |
| In addition, conduct potential impact on reduction of production and income risks to the farmers. Bt cotton has been adopted so fast because reduction of production risks. |
| I agree with Sachin. Some ideas are good.
I also found people are not much exposed to socioeconomic issues that they just in general, dont have the capacity to respond unlike the more interested and educated ones. The whole idea needs a long lead time for Asian to pick up? |
| If I recall correctly, during the evaluation of the dossiers for some LMO-FFP GM maize in Malaysia, there was discussion as to the need to assess the potential socio-econommic implications of the GM maize grain coming into the country, as Malaysia also has local maize and there were concerns of any potential contamination on our small farmers. So, even for FFP applications, there could be potential socio-economic implications on local agriculture. |
| Lim, impllications for local agri (culture) are very important. Common template should take note of that, if at all it comes up |
| Idea of common tempalte by Letchumanan, that way is very important |
| It has been found in india that farmers are not given proper training on handling Bt cotton which resulted in not only the misuse of technology but also the de-skilling of farmers. What role does the developer of the technology play here? I think the idea of a common template becomes very relevant here. |
| Yes, in response to Sachin, also, impacts on local and indigenous communities. |
| I believe in a common template it is upto the countries if they want to use all the variables or not but at least they know the specrum that may be considered. |
| Sure Lim communities are part of the local cultural mileu. On Common tempalte yes minimum required parameters may come from an int framework |
| As of the socio-economic impact, variability among regions, types of farming and years would be substantial. Seems very difficult to draw clear guidance for LMO decision-making. |
| I agree to Mr Ramatha. yes, it is upto the countries. But there need to have some "common minimum" program amogn the countriesespecially those sharing the same concerns |
| I agree, Role of international forum will be to provide options to the national leaders and policy makers. |
| any other national experiences? |
Thank you for your interventions. Let us now please turn to the third question under this item:
(c) What have been the main challenges and obstacles to taking socio-economic considerations into account in decision-making? How have these been addressed?
The floor is now open. |
| i agree with Reji. On Masashi's view that it is difficult to draw clear guidelines - I believe clear guideline will be a longterm objective as we discover new issues. |
| true. could you elaborate little more on what problems you faced in drawing guidelines, because this is important |
| The effect of LMOs from socio-economic viewpoints must be heterogeneous. Consequently, reflecting the result of socio-economic assessment to the approval of LMOs in national level might generate a national debate in Japan. |
Question (c)
• Lack of capacity to carry out accurate/scientific analysis to ascertain the negative impact of GMO products.
• Lack of capacity to carry out valuation in terms of dollars and cents of the positive and negative impacts of GMO.
• Unable to decide on what species the GMOs products must be tested on for ascertaining the detrimental effect if any.
• In the absence of lack of knowledge on the above (3rd bullet) how to justify stopping the release of GMO when the socio-economic impact are positive.
• As such juncture decisions are arrived based on the current policy of the government to enable modern biotech industries but to follow the regulatory requirement of Biosafety.
• If there are no clear risks – modern biotech activities are to be given approval with terms and conditions. These terms and conditions will be monitored by the regulatory agency. Approval can be withdrawn if clear risk are identified in post release monitoring. This is a big task and requires more human resource and technical capability. |
| The issue can be approached from several directions, e.g. “what can we do with this new technology?” or, “how can we best meet the needs of the poor?” This starting point can play a strong role in determining the conclusion; we believe that the starting point should be the interests of the poor, and that the poor must be allowed to articulate their own needs and aspirations. But the voices of the poor, like the rest of society, will not necessarily be in unison. Integrating socio-economic considerations into biosafety decisions is a difficult and complex challenge in Asia, as in the rest of the world, and to expect a clear-cut path forward or a decisive call for a halt regarding the use of biotechnology might not be realistic. With objective, thorough socio-economic research, and inclusive, transparent dialogue policy-makers in Asian countries will be better positioned to meet this challenge. |
| I believe that while there are challenges to taking socio-economic considerations into account, including the lack of experience and capacity, the inclusion of socio-economic considerations would help countries to approach decision-making on LMOs in a more sustainable, comprehensive and holistic manner.
One challenge is the need to consider not only socio-economic impacts of the LMOs per se, but also the technological package that they are bundled with e.g. in the case of herbicide tolerant crops.
On guidance - this should be flexible enough to be useful to national contexts, but set some minimum standards |
| Lack of consensus is also a major problem in drawing clear guidelines. Perhaps, each country needs to start with why we neet it? What causes the problem and can the GM technology solve the problem?, etc |
| Agree with Sachin we must aspire to be in a better position to make decision every time so that the learning curve keeps improving.
Also agree with Lim - I am sometimes puzzled if agencies have entered into a proper package with developers. |
| I agree participatory approaches to socio-economic research are also important for addressing some of the challenges that have been identified. |
| That is right but we need to include some measures in SE framework in respective national legislations irrespecrtrive of int. consensus. |
| Economies are not at same positions, countires are not in same positions and social situations are different |
| In this respect, the national context is important. The implementation of socio-economic considerations within the biosafety frameworks at the national level would involve a complex piecing together of the national policy with regard to socio-economic considerations in the context of biosafety (which is determined by national needs and priorities), together with the rights and obligations that a country is committed to at the international level. |
| When new products are introduced particularly in an area of critical importance decision making isnt that easy - fear that we may miss out. Any views? |
| For example to combat denggi |
| All countries have one common thing, achieve food and nutrition security for all. Therefore, socio-economic considerations at the country level may be analyzed from that view point. |
| We have only few more minutes left for this question. if we do not have any more intervention specifically on challenges, we move to the next one. |
| Also we can think multiple layers for LMO decision-making, such as national/regional/local level etc. So, SE consideration could be taken into sub-national levels which would be different from national authorization system. |
| But producers and impoact on them has also to be there Uttam!!! |
| Thanks everyone. It is now time for me to move out for another commitment |
| Thank you Dr. sachin for being with us |
| In response to Mr Letchumanan's earlier question, I think that is why we need to look at biosafety decision-making in the broad sense, not only from the scientific risk assessment, but to take into account socio-economic considerations, to look at other, perhaps less risky, alternatives and to make sure that the technology assessments is robust, and to also acknowledge uncertainties. |
Thank you. I invite you to move to the final question under this agenda item:
(d) Does your country have experience with socio-economic considerations in other sectors besides biosafety? (For example, have socio-economic considerations been included in decision-making processes for other products such as pharmaceuticals or in planning and decision-making for development projects using methodologies such as social impact assessments or strategic environmental assessment?)
This question is intended to identify relevant experience and information on socio-economic considerations in other fields besides biosafety.
The floor is open for your interventions. |
| I am aware that socio-economic considerations have emerged within at least these two formal contexts in Malaysia – development planning and environmental impact assessment – although there are likely to be other avenues where social impact assessment (SIA) is used.
The Federal Department of Town and Country Planning has included SIA in development plans (structure plans, local plans). The role of SIA is further strengthened with the inclusion of ‘social implications’ of development within the Town and Country Planning Act (amendment 2001), which requires appropriate and sufficient addressing of social impact as a consequence of plan proposals. The implementation of Local Agenda 21 projects also includes a social component.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been a mandatory requirement for prescribed activities in Malaysia since 1988. Social impacts are in some cases taken into account, including the SIA elements of public participation, public opinion sampling and public meetings. Economic valuation and cost-benefit analysis are also required in EIAs.
Given that there are these processes that incorporate socio-economic considerations, there is a Malaysian Association of Social Impact Assessment comprising academics, practitioners etc. whose expertise would be invaluable to the biosafety arena. |
| agree with Lim - some of these method are well established. |
| ...perhaps because of a greater concern which were developed over many years. |
| SE in biosafety need a lot more time to build the momentum. We must move on a expedited phase. |
| I think issue is bit complex. There is some difference in SEC in general and biosafety. |
| In biosafety we may have the trade concerns as well which need not be there in environmental impact assessments. |
I thank all of you for the lively discussion on national experiences. I propose that we now move to the next item on the agenda:
3.2 CONSIDERATIONS DRIVING INCLUSION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES IN BIOSAFETY DECISION-MAKING
This agenda item is also intended to respond to the first objective for the conference. I propose that we spend approximately one hour on this item.
As outlined in the annotated agenda, paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Biosafety Protocol allows Parties to take socio-economic considerations into account in their decision-making on living modified organisms but it does not require Parties to do so. Countries that decide to include socio-economic considerations in their decision-making will do so for specific reasons or in order to achieve certain goals or objectives.
I suggest that we again use the questions from the annotated agenda to structure the discussions. |
I will now open the floor on the first guiding question:
(a) What goals does your country wish to achieve by taking socio-economic considerations into account in decision-making on LMOs?
The floor is now open. |
• To ensure what we do not miss out the benefits of LMO
• To ensure that in the eager to benefit from LMOs we don’t lose out what we already have today due to contamination..etc |
| As mentioned above, in Japanese regulatory system, socio-economic consideration is NOT taken into account in decision-making on LMOs. It can be said that regulatory decision-making (i.e., authorization) regarding the use of LMOs is made based on scientific risk assessments. Socio-economic consideration is rather left to the domain of private farm/business decision-making. |
| countries may consider reduction in hunger and poverty through development and farmings of LMOs. |
| This is to achieve desired SE benefits of LMOs and see these are fairly distributed. Also, what are issues, institutional etc to achieve SE impact. |
| ultimately we want prosperity |
| Biosafety assessment should be limited to environment and health safety. However Socioeconomic is an important tool tool to address the long term benefits of a product say GM crop to farmers eg Bt cotton in India. |
| I think that countries would also want to ensure that there are no or minimal socio-economic impacts, e.g. if contamination occurs, if there are threats to farmers' rights.
Ultimately the inclusion of socio-economic considerations helps countries to approach decision-making on LMOs in a more sustainable, comprehensive and holistic manner, particularly in the long term. |
| Are there examples of SEC paying attention to issues related to achieve desired impacts of LMOs; are the institutions adequate to take this tech to farmers? |
| The Summary Report of the Survey on Socio-economic considerations conducted by the Secretariat (UNEP?CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/10) has useful information on this issue, in regard to countries' goals, priorities etc |
| I wonder, if any country has any stated position on what they aim to achieve by taking SEC |
| SE assessment is highly complex for a country like India and cannot be quantified at the pre-release stage and therefore integrating it in the decision making process often may not provide the real picture. The SE assessment should continue post release stage. What is important is to integrate experience from existing GMO releases for arriving at methodologies to conduct SE. |
| this is much beyond than goals, priorities--this are institutional issues |
Thank you. Let us please move to the second question:
(b) What socio-economic factors would need to be assessed to achieve the goals identified?
The floor is open. |
| Economic benefits, their distribution, value of ecosystem services, social choice, mechanism to deliver the technology etc |
| sustainability is also a crucial parameter |
| I think it is very important to employ assessment activities maintaining transparency and applying sound, evidence-based procedures in an accountable and predictable way throughout decision-making process.
I understand this is one of the reasons why Japanese regulatory system does not take into account socio-economic consideration as regards of LMO decision-making. |
| Mr Ramatha, do you mean to say economic benefits and costs? |
| Yes I agree, sustainability is very important parameter |
| This TWN publication on 'Potential Socio-Economic, Cultural and Ethical Impacts of GMOs: Prospects for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment' provides detail on some of the socio-ecomomic considerations that may be taken into account. These include control over tools of and relations to production, income and wealth distribution, income security, rural labour, markets, trade, coexsistence and GMO contamination, organic agriculture, food security, food aid, IPRs, impact on farmers' rights, impacts on women, consumer concerns. It is available at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/biosafety/pdf/bio08.pdf |
| costs considerations also includes negetive impacts or loss if any. In addition, impact on non-adoptors is also important factor. |
| Trade related issues may also impact SE assessment |
| yes suresh. their ability to maintain their production tools is a major consideration. |
| I wonder if there can a modelling approach where all encompassing socioeconomic benefit and loss can be computed? |
| we need to expand a bit this sustainability issue. This should also consider externalities , both positive and negative, impact on biodiversity, value of ecosystem services in the context of value attached by the society |
| Yes, modeling can be done. |
| yes, Ramatha, there are economic methods for assessment of economic benefits and costs, but less examples of ecosystem services etc |
| I agree modelling and economic assessments are useful, but they do have methodological constraints. Also, social issues are probably more complex, but need to also form part of the socio-economic assessment. I agree that placing SEC within a sustainability context is important and should be explored further |
| I agree with Lim Ching that developing methodological tools for capturing socioal concerns is a huge challenging task |
| At country level it must decide to place a value on all parameters and be consistent. A modelling approach may then work ? |
| one issue in economic modelling is roubstness of the results. we need to have fair degree of confidence on the results because some of the parameters considered are based on subjective assessment. |
| I guest it will still provide a guide to 1st assessment? |
Thank you once again. Let us please turn to the final question under this agenda item:
(c) What capacity-building does your country require to meet the goals identified?
The floor is open for your comments. |
| As previously repeated, socio-economic consideration would be outside the scope of regulatory decision-making in Japan.
However, various stakeholders would be interested in these issues at the stage of actual use of LMOs and, therefore, government would need to disseminate accurate and well-balanced information of LMOs based on scientific risk assessment using multiple opportunities to the public. Opportunities of capacity building would be desirable to be provided in order to facilitate the communication among stakeholders and understand various information related to LMOs. |
| Risk assessment on release of LMOs in particular new LMO that may come with no proper dossier but may have potentially high benefits
Educating the politicians on SEC |
| I believe the following would be useful:
- Development of a conceptual framework
- Identification of key parameters/end points and assessment goals
- Participatory research on socio-economic impacts
- Mechanisms to integrate socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making |
| First thing is to develop information base for this kind of analysis. We need to develop capacity on SE assessment. Methodological issues related to sustainability, environmental risk etc need more attention. |
| Sorry I mean SE assessment not risk assessment.... |
| Yes I agree. Capacity building needs to develop methodologies and quidelines for undertaking pre and post release SE assessment |
| I agree with Lim Ching. First and foremost, we need to have conceptual clarity. Once we have the clarity, then move on to methodology issues. |
| there is a need to develop some understanding based on pre and post-release SE assessment exercises. |
| Apologies. I have to take leave now. |
| Thank you Mr. Ramatha for your very productive interventions. |
| Agree that methodologies are important, particularly for assessing social impacts, but that a clear conceptual farmework and identifying the parameters and assesment goals would be important to tackle first. |
| We should approach this in a step wise manner |
| there should be more clarity on developing a framework for systematic assessment of social choice which is important for decision making. |
| it was pointed out in earlier interventions that countries are not able to bring out clear guidelines on SEC because of various issues. clarity on what needs to be done is the most crucial factor. |
| this is a evolving process and as we learn from the experience these guidelines will improve further |
| In India, one such requirement would be educating farmers on how to handle LMOs. As of now they are not aware of what they are supposed to do with bt cotton |
| I agree we follow a step wise manner. Existing Methodolgies and best practices of SE assessment of agriculture non GM comodities would provide the basis for developing a framework followed by best practices followed in countries that have release LMO. |
| yes, post-release regulations and monitoring are important, which often get less attention. But these responsible for some of avoidable negative externalities. |
| developing conceptual clarity is an area where capacity building is required. there could be many other areas as well. what are they? |
| very important, Mr Suresh |
| Any other capacity building requirement which you think is important? |
| I think there is a need for improving conceptual clarity on all issues of SEC and this will improve gradually. But we need to make a start and countries like India where issues are many, potential benefits are enormous, should take a lead. |
| I agree fully with Dr Suresh |
| Imlications to other international obligations also needs to be fully explored. |
I thank you all for your participation and the interesting interventions that we’ve had so far.
I now suggest that we break for 15 minutes.
We shall continue our discussion on the next and final substantive issue on the agenda (Item 3.3) as soon as we return from the break.
I kindly ask you to be back at your computers in exactly 15 minutes as we will recommence on time.
The meeting is adjourned until 05:40 (GMT). |
Distinguished delegates,
Welcome back to our conference. I trust you are refreshed and ready to continue. I invite you to turn to the third and final substantive item on our agenda:
ITEM 3.3. OTHER ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
As I indicated at the beginning of the conference, one of the objectives for the conference is to identify possible issues for further consideration. These issues will help to inform the organization of the workshop on socio-economic considerations scheduled to take place later this year. The issues will also be included in the synthesis of the online conference that will be submitted to the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties on the Biosafety Protocol (COP-MOP 6) for its consideration.
We may again use the questions from the annotated agenda as the starting point for our discussions under this item.
I propose that we spend most of our remaining time on this agenda item. |
I will now open the floor for your comments on the first guiding question:
(a) How should operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the Period 2011-2020 be implemented? The operational objective is “to, on the basis of research and information exchange, provide relevant guidance on socio-economic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms”.
The floor is open. |
| - Formation of a body such as a regionally-balanced Open-Ended Working Group or Expert Group on socio-economic considerations to develop further guidance on the issue
- Guidance could including developing a conceptual framework, identifying key parameters, leading to a roadmap. |
| Thank you Lim. again, conceptual clarity becomes very crucial. |
| It seems this is really a difficult topic |
| if there is no further request, we will move on to the next theme |
| The above points I made could also be complemented by seting up a mechanism to facilitate research and information exchange, which could build on of the Secretariat's SE portal, as well as providing acccess to relevant research. |
| perhaps we need to draw on the idea of "common template" while seeking to establish mecahinsms for the exchange of information. |
Thank you very much. Let us please move to the second question under Item 3.3.:
(b) What are some key issues for your region that should be discussed during the workshop on socio-economic considerations?
The floor is open for your views. |
| some of the issues which we already heard as challenges in conducting SEC could be some key issues relevant for the region as whole |
| issues, methods, experiences, policy making, capacity building |
| potential contribution of the LMO to total production, farm income, reduction in cost of production, prices, nutrition, etc. |
| The workshop should build on the online forum and regional conference. There has been a lot of very useful information collected, also in the submissions made. The following would be also useful:
- Analysis of examples of policy recommendations that take into account socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making
- Analysis and lessons learnt from integration of socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making and other decision-making areas
- Identifying further the capacity-building needs of countries. Survey carried out by Secretariat (summary report UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/10) could be a good starting point. |
| reduction in production risk, possibility of inequality in the society, etc. |
| I would emphasis on the capacity building needs. |
| Impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity becomes important for this region, given the richness in natural resources this region is having. |
Thank you for sharing your views.
I invite you to consider a further question:
What are some key issues for your region that should be discussed at COP-MOP 6 in the context of socio-economic considerations?
The floor is open. |
| COP-MOP 6 is in a position to bring together the various threads on socio-economic considerations that have been raised and build on the work that has been carried out already. Developing guidance to assist Parties and capacity building |
| many points relevant to this issue has been made already in the initial sessions. |
| Sorry, my last sentence was cut off because I was running out of time! I did not mean that COP-MOP 6 itself develops guidance, this task is best left to an expert group, but COP-MOP 6 could put the mechanisms in place |
Thank you for the points you have raised.
I invite you now to raise any other issues for further consideration that have not already been identified.
The floor is now open. |
| are there any initiative by CBD for capacity building for SEC |
| Yes, i agree a mechanism through CoP- MoP would be appropriate. Probably the outcome of SE confernce will provide some ideas in this area |
| We do not currently have any specific capacity-building activities for SEC but there have been activities in the past. In 2008-2009, the CBD Secretariat worked with UNEP-DGEF on a project on SEC that involved scoping work carried out by a consultant, a workshop with a group of experts and a survey on socio-economic considerations. A summary of the results of the survey were published as document UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/10 and is available at the following link: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/mop-05/information/mop-05-inf-10-en.pdf.
Also, the Coordination Mechanism on capacity-building under the Biosafety Protocol has considered this issue. At its most recent meeting in April of this year, it provided advice on the organization of the workshop on socio-economic considerations that is scheduled to take place this year. |
Thank you very much for all your comments and your active participation. I am confident that the deliberations under this regional conference have provided an important opportunity for us to exchange information on socio-economic considerations at the regional level.
The conference has also provided valuable input to the workshop on socio-economic considerations and the deliberations on this matter that will take place at COP-MOP 6. |
| I should also add that participants may wish to consult decision BS-V/3 adopted at the last meeting of the Parties as it provides the mandate for the current activities on socio-economic considerations including these online conferences. The relevant section of the text of the decision is available here: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_art26/bsv3.shtml |
| the workshop should provide a clear guideline for capacity building--this is very important. CBD can follow it up later for implementation |
| if no other comment, we will move on with the next step in the agenda |
This concludes our consideration of the substantive items under agenda item 3.
We will now move to:
ITEM 4. OTHER MATTERS
I will open the floor for a few minutes for any suggestions, comments, etc. that you may wish to make that are relevant to the mandate of this conference.
The floor is now open. |
We may now move to the final item on our agenda for today:
ITEM 5. CLOSURE OF THE CONFERENCE
As we approach the end of our conference, I would like to invite the Secretariat to make some final remarks.
Secretariat, you have the floor. |
We would like to thank all the participants for taking part in today’s real-time conference. A special thanks goes to Mr. Reji Joseph for his work in chairing the conference.
The Secretariat’s experience with real-time conferences over the past few years has demonstrated that they are a good means of sharing information and building common ground prior to face-to-face meetings. We are confident that the outcomes from today’s conference and those from the other regions will similarly set the stage for the workshop on socio-economic considerations that is to be held later this year.
The full transcript of this conference will be available on this web page a few minutes after the closure of the conference. We encourage you to read the outcomes from the other real-time conferences.
Thank you all and enjoy the rest of your day! |
Thank you, Secretariat both for your remarks and for your assistance in organizing this conference.
I would like also to thank all the participants and guests who have taken part in making today’s conference a success. I think we can all look forward to following the next steps on this challenging issue under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
With that, I declare the Asia and the Pacific Real-time Online Conference on Socio-Economic Considerations, closed.
Thank you! |
List of Participants
| Chair Person |
# |
|
Reji Joseph
Research and Information System for Developing Countries
|
72 |
| Party |
# |
|
Ratanak Duong Mun
Cambodia
|
1 |
|
Ranjini Warrier
India
|
8 |
|
Sachin Chaturvedi
India
|
16 |
|
Suresh Pal
India
|
17 |
|
Hiroki SASAKI
Japan
|
2 |
|
Masashi Tachikawa
Japan
|
10 |
|
Letchumanan Ramatha
Malaysia
|
27 |
|
Watcharin Meerod
Thailand
|
- |
| Observers |
# |
|
Li Ching Lim
Third World Network
|
23 |
|
Uttam Kumar Deb
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
|
10 |
| Guests |
# |
|
Anna Buccio
CBD
|
- |
|
Masakuni Ueta
SCBD
|
- |
|
Rodrigo Diaz
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino
|
- |
| Secretariat |
# |
|
Charles Gbedemah
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Erie Tamale
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Giovanni Ferraiolo
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Kathryn Garforth
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
3 |
|
Stéphane Bilodeau
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
