Previous Online Discussions of the AHTEG

Dear All,

Let me repeat again my example of smoking set up in Mexico City. I said that colleagues in the conference room would not be happy when I smoked 20 cigars everyday. Then I reduced to 10 and that probably satisfied some of them but some others were not happy at all. Then I reduced to 5 and declared that that amount is acceptable in my own opinion and some colleagues supported me but others did not agree to. That caused confusion and conflicts. What I want to say is that the solution to the conflict will very well depend on the common standard. There is perhaps a smoking rule or threhold recommended by a professional doctor. The doctor would never to recommend that the amount of smoking is variable in that  room. We are all in one room and we have only one earth. I assume that the CBD or our activity would be desired to serve as a kind of doctor to provide a recommendation to solve any conflict on environment.

It is true that there is variation for each party. However, as an internatonal guildline, at least for parties, I still feel we should always try to develop international standards.

In addition to the text that indicated the variation in acceptability (line 488) other than set up a recommendation, in the terms used, I can still find a trace of individual tread instead of a recommended standard. The protection goal has to be recommended by CBD other than set up by individual party and even worse I found that the ecological function concerned would probably have to depend on the individual and potentially varied protection goals (line 1352-1353). That is not correct. I strongly encourage to delete the statement 'Which ecological functions or services are taken into account here will be dependent on the protection goals set for the risk assessment'. Or that sentence can be slightly changed into 'Which ecological functions or services are taken into account here will be dependent on the request of the risk assessment'.

Dear Wei Wei and all:

We supposed to have an examination of terms and I do not understand your statement. How do you link with the terminology.

To your statement, are we discussing on smoking or use of terms risk assessment of LMOs? You have a misappropriation of giving examples and there is a lack of logics of the example.

I am afraid of more than deviating from our discussion subjects and at this stage of reaching a lot of mutual understanding on the context of RA guiding document, I feel your statement is very unfruitful.

If you intend to discuss an environmental ethics text on threshold determination, you may go with a series of educational texts which are available at various places. But again, we are not exercising the issue.  We are on RA on LMOs.

Also guiding docs are for the countries which would need helps for initiating RA for AIA. Your statement may be deviating from how the liberty of each country to have own choices on the details and decision making processes. Other way, there is independence on how to make measurement as far as it fits with the ANNEX III and the guiding docs under the given conditions at each nation.

Guding docs should be tested more and widely,  and feedbacks are more priority than having the small number of present AHTEG members just continue on own statements.

Rgds,  Kazuo