Dear participants to the Open-ended Group and AHTEG,

This is a kind reminder that the discussion on "LM trees" will be open till 31 January 2012 at 1:00 a.m. GMT.

In this discussion, participants to the Open-ended Group and AHTEG are invited to suggest ways to improve the third draft of the guidance on "Risk Assessment of LM Trees" (please see document attached to the message in the discussion page http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/discussiongroups_ra.shtml).

Thank you and best regards,
Manoela

POSTED ON BEHALF OF ELIZABETH BRAVO

Please see attached file.

Dear Beatrix,
Thank you for your latest version of the guidance for LM trees.  I appreciate that several of my suggestions to the previous draft in the on-line forum were incorporated.  I am attaching suggested edits to the current version here.  In a few cases these are reiterations of some points that I feel are of particular importance but which did not make it into the current version.  There are still some areas where there is overlap with points that should be made in the Roadmap as they relate to general considerations for all LMO plants, not just trees.  Removing those points would help make this document more concise.

Going through my notes from the previous on-line forum I realize that in my earlier suggestions I gave citations to scientific articles on early selection in trees but forgot to add those to the Literature section of the guidance.  I apologize for that oversight and have added the full citations to this version.

I think there have been positive changes made to the document but still believe more work is needed, and so am a little disappointed that there has been only one other comment (so far).  I hope that this reflects the difficulties of finding time in already very busy schedules rather than the forum members feeling “burnt out”.  My own experience is that thoroughly reviewing the document takes a great deal of time and work in keeping track of the different versions and edits so I appreciate your efforts.

Best regards,
Les

Dear Colleagues,

I appreciate the efforts of the chair and contributors in reaching this version of the document and appreciate the opportunity to give the following suggestions again. 

1. In general, the guidance in this document on conducting the risk assessment for trees is applicable to more than LM trees and is already covered by the Roadmap.  For this reason, in my comments on the previous version I suggested removal of text that appears to be redundant with the Roadmap. It appears that substantial revisions to the main Roadmap are not envisioned in the process remaining for the AHTEG, but still it should be possible to avoid the impression in the Tree guidance that most of these concepts have already been addressed. 

2. Also, in my suggestions for the previous draft I proposed text changes that would  remove guidance in the Tree document that is not unique to LM tree risk assessments.  It is important that the document more effectively identify the different types of trees and associated unique characteristics that may impact risk assessment for confined and unconfined environmental releases.  This is still not adequately addressed to draw distinctions in habitats, intensity of management, and biology of the various species.

3. In my previous suggested text revisions, I offered text in the introduction to make clear the wide range of uses for trees in agriculture, forestry, and ornamental use.  As one example, fruit tree cultivation, breeding etc. is fundamentally different from that of forest trees.  There is also very little information in this document that is relevant to fruit trees or trees used for ornamental purposes.  These concepts are still not clear in a way that is relevant and useful for someone conducting a risk assessment.

4. I hope that the chair will reconsider the contents of the file I attached previously with suggestions for clarifying these and other aspects of the document. 

I have not resubmitted the same attachments here, but instead I urge the chair to reconsider the files I sent in the previous round of comments, namely:

risk assessment of living modified trees_nov 2011 comments_dh.docx
risk assessment of living modified trees_nov 2011comments clean_dh.docx

I look forward to having further face-to-face discussions on these and related issues with the chair and members of the SWG in Bonn.

Sincerely,

David Heron

Dear Beatrix and all:

First of all, I appreciate the efforts of the discussion members  with parallel activities on home job and this discussion.

While I had placed my base comments, I would be echoing David Heron on the points.

1. Avoid overlaps with the Raodmap
2. Cite only specific points on ""Tree""
3. Focus on specific type of trees.

Especially, on number 3, many of LMOs can be handled in Roadmap, and all types of trees should not be in the guiding doc as the primary focus as it makes complication to the beginners. Biology of trees are not primary focus as again, it is indicated in Roadmap elements. Fruit plantation trees can be referred to Roadmap as they are crops, and more specificity can be made on plantation "forest" trees on the LMO tree guidance doc? In the past biology specificity such on LMO mosquitoes and also trait specificity on abiotic stress tolerant crops were discussed, and both were rather oriented to specific points than general citation to make another mini-roadmaps. The same consideration shall be considered on LMO trees for making clarity of the direction of the doc.

I would not be touching the language cosmetics until the principle is well determined on the LMO trees.

Although I have quite constraints to participate the next SWGs in Bonn, I would appreciate letting me to talk during the SWGs by e-media such by conference call.


Kind regards,


Kazuo Watanabe

Dear Beatrix,

Thanks for the new draft. I note that several earlier comments from various PRRI members have been taken on board, and I look forward to discussing the other – some more fundamental - comments  with you and the SWG colleagues in Bonn.

Given that the task of this on line conference is “discussion on ways to improve the 3rd draft of the guidance on "Risk Assessment of LM Trees", I believe – as you will also so in the attached track changes and comments - that the document would greatly benefit from limiting it to points to consider that are specific to trees, to avoid overlap - and possible confusion - with the roadmap.

I trust that in Bonn we will be able to quite quickly identify those aspects that are specific to trees.

See you in February and my thanks to you and the Secretariat for making the February meeting possible!

Piet

Dear Members,

I’d like to thank the Organizers for the opportunity to contribute to the present guidance and congratulate AHTEG for the work accomplished so far. Please, find attached my contributions.

G. Pasquali

Dear Manoela and ATHEG friends,

I am pleased to submit comments on ways to improve the 3rd draft of the guidance on "Risk Assessment of LM Trees", and would like to thank the ATHEG for its work.
You will note that this is my first participation at the on line forum, and I hope to contribute to our task.
Kind regards

Rodrigo C A Lima