Previous Online Discussions of the AHTEG

Dear AHTEG members,

Thanks for your feedback on the suggested changes coming from the scientific editing process.

Most of the comments provided by you during the 72-hour review period were straight forward recommendations to return to the original text and were taken onboard. Nevertheless, in a few cases, the comments were not simply a matter of going back to the original text but rather merging the editor’s recommendations and the original text.

Accordingly, there are six points in the monitoring section of the Guidance where Helmut and I made an attempt to amend the text as some of you have suggested (i.e. integrating the editor’s recommendations and the original text).

To give you a chance to have a look at these six points, we will have a very short review period (36 hours) during which you may indicate if you have an objection to one or more of the suggested changes. The six points are marked in track changes. Comments were included to help understand the rationale behind the suggested changes.  

At this late stage of development, it is no longer possible to do any further drafting of the text. Therefore, in accordance with what was agreed in Montreal, if an objection to a suggested change is raised, the section of the text will be reverted back to what it was at the end of the meeting in Montreal.

So, PLEASE INDICATE ONLY THE POINT(S), IF ANY, WHERE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTED CHANGE keeping in mind that it will be reverted back to the text as it was at the end of the meeting in Montreal.

To download the edited Guidance (version of 10 July 2012), please click on the link “See this post in the online forum” at the bottom of this message when reading it thorough email or go to http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_ahteg_ra.shtml. You will need to sign in to the BCH to access this page.

This discussion will run for 36 hours and will close on 12 July 2012 at 2:00 a.m. GMT.

Thank you and best regards,
Manoela

Thank Manoela and Helmut for the hard works.

On the last point (page 55, points to consider small letter e), I would propose to keep that point. If we need explanation, we can use a similar sentence to point (d). Point (e) may read as 'if the environmental change of both biotic and abiotic affect the conclusion and result of montoring or affect the dynamic of the monitored LMOs'. The environmental change could probably affect the choice of monitoring methods, reference points and monitoring duration.

Dear all,

I agree with the compromise editing proposed in this new version by Helmut and the Secretariat.

Warm regards to all,
Eliana

Dear All:

Thank you for the work.  Here are my comments.
Point 1:  I agree to keep both, parametres and endpoints
Point 2: changes that may lead to adverse effects as suggested by the editor
Point 3: I agree with the editorial proposel
Point 4: I agree to keep both, range and magnitude
Point 5: Keep "resulys and conclusions"
Point 6: Keep "potential for the environmental changes, both biotic and abiotic"

Cheers

Elizabeth Bravo