| | english | español | français |
  Home|RARM Portal|AHTEG|Past Activities of the AHTEG|Online Discussions|SWG on Roadmap   Printer-friendly version

Sub-working Group on the Roadmap for Risk Assessment

Return to the list of threads...
Comments on the Roadmap 7 March 2010 from David Quist [#1620]
Dear AHTEG members, Secretariat and Chair,

Please see the attached documents:

- Comments to the Roadmap 7 March2 2010
- Responses to Roadmap comments 7 March 2010 left by other AHTEG members

General comments:

1) The treatment of uncertainty and data quality is non sufficient in Annex III. These are perhaps the most important aspects for arriving at truly a scientifically robust RA. Therefore, as a scientist, I have to support these elements as essential components of a “scientifically sound” RA that deserve proper treatment.  While the methods for achieving them, or any standards as “the” standard is not universally accepted, adopting “a” standard, which we can recommend and provide guidance on, is fully supportable.

Therefore, I have to insist that taking on the large-scale changes/deletions as suggested by some would undo much of the hard work that we have already undertaken, and would leave us with less than practical document to advance in Nagoya.

2) I disagree with the assertions of others that the additional consideration for decisionmaking should be removed. The inclusion of the “related issues” section was agreed to at AHTEG1 as reported in UNEP/CBD/BS/AHTEG-RA&RM/1/3 30 April 2009. I think it is useful to help describe the process of risk assessment, management and decisonmaking that the RA is a part of.

Further, we are describing the risk assessment as a process, not as existing in a vacuum. This necessitates the description of the RA within the process that leads to decisionmaking. To not include these portions of the process would not be helpful to understanding how these processes are linked.

3) Streamlining and redundancies proposed by others (and of course myself) that preserves the essence of passages should be considered.

Note bene, with the exception of considerations under #3 above, places where I have not proposed removal of existing text should be considered explict support for their inclusion in the Roadmap.

Kind regards from 70N,

David Quist
posted on 2010-03-14 22:32 UTC by David Quist
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.