| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Capacity Building|Portal|Archive|Risk assessment|Session 3   Printer-friendly version

Return to the list of threads...

To reply to a post you need to be registered to the forum and have signed-in. Please register or sign-in now.

Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Measures to enhance national capacities in environmental risk assessment and post-release monitoring LMOs [#718]
In order to address existing capacity building needs and gaps, we should look at:

1) identifying tranining programes for national and regional level i.e., short term and long term. This would allow for information and experiences exchange among parties, news initiaitives on enhancing regional cooperation on addressing the capacity needs and gaps. These needs and gasp are already identified in their respective individual NCSA Action Plan. This policy could be a good reference.

2. Developed, advanced developing countries should encourage the transfer of information of LMOs risks to LDC and countries with economies in transition to that they are in same position to address risks. This should avoid barriers. LDCs and countries with economic in transition should reveal the specific needs and gaps of capacity building in biosafty, which can be helped from others. Regional organizations can play in this respect.

3. Most severely lacking of capacity among LDCs are human technical and funding. These can be mobilized from donors, private companies and government of developed countries to provide through a regional project or bilateral project which can be effective. UNEP is handling biosafety capacity building project is a good modal. But they should go further so that capacity can be reached not at the policy level.

4. Inter-ministrial dialogue or regional dialogues should be a good way to post-release adn monitoring of LMOs. Regular regional Focal Point on CPB meeting is important to ensure the information among parties.

5. South-South cooperation  and North-South cooperation is a good mechanism to improve capacity building on risk assessment, which should not neglected. ASEAN cooperation with China, Japan and Korea, Australia is aggod example. Mainstreaming biosafety into their agenda is a good approach to increase mobilization of resources for capacity building on post-release and monitoring of LMOs.

Pisey Oum
Cambodia, CPB National Focal Point
(edited on 2008-11-07 14:55 UTC by Pisey Oum)
posted on 2008-11-07 14:49 UTC by Pisey Oum
Third Session: Measures to enhance national capacities in environmental risk assessment and post-release monitoring ofLMOs [#744]
Antonietta Gutiérrez Rosati

Address the needs and/or fill the gaps that limit the activities of post-release monitoring and RA should be cared, first at national level, this is important because only by building national capacities is possible to fulfill and generate real commitment with the objectives of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Additionally, as part of an effective compliance strategy a global networking structure must be building. This network collaboration is not necessarily a regional networking, this because there may be differences on approaches inside of the regions.

At national level focus must be done on generating technical and administrative capacities to monitor and attend RA. Each country should concentrate efforts to attend the needs of ANC. Equally important is to generate specific information in their own ecosystems, and this can be developed in coordination with the Academia.

For the mobilization of resources to build capacities on developing countries, interagency coordination should be developed, but should be avoided direct support of the biotechnology industry that could affect desirable national independence. As the industry is the interested actors on the decision-making processes, they could minimize the needs for RA and post-release monitoring of events.

In conclusion, should be avoided minimalistic positions on RA and post-release monitoring that can reach to positions as supporting deregulation. On the contrary it is urgent to accumulate information about the possible impact of LMO`s on biodiversity and human health and on this way we have a big challenge on how to invest on those issues.

Atender las necesidades o llenar los vacíos existentes que limitan las actividades de AR Y Monitoreo post liberación deben ser atendidos, primero por cada país,  esto es importante ya que solo construyendo capacidades nacionales es posible dar cumplimiento a los propósitos del Protocolo de Cartagena y generar reales compromiso con la bioseguridad.
Adicionalmente y como parte de luna estrategia de cumplimiento eficaz y colaboración global, estructurar redes de colaboración, no necesariamente regionales ya que pueden existir políticas o enfoques disímiles en el interior de las regiones sobre el tema.
La focalización nacional debe centrarse en generar capacidades administrativas y técnicas para el monitoreo y el AR y cada país debe concentrar esfuerzo en atender a las ANC. Igualmente es importante ir generando información específica en los propios ecosistemas y esto puede desarrollarse en estrecha coordinación con el sector académico.
En cuanto a como movilizar recursos para desarrollar capacidades en los países en desarrollo.  Deben desarrollarse coordinaciones multiagenciales, sin embargo debe evitarse la ingerencia de la industria biotecnológica que pudiera ofrecer apoyo directo en los países en desarrollo ya que siendo parte interesada en los procesos de decisión, podría minimizar al extremo las necesidades de AR y monitoreo post liberación de los eventos.
En conclusión, debe evitarse posiciones minimalistas en el AR y monitoreo post liberación siguiendo premisas  de desregulación, muy por el contrario debe acumularse información sobre impactos en la biodiversidad y salud humana asumiendo retos y responsabilidades compartidas para investigar en estos temas.
posted on 2008-11-10 22:28 UTC by Antonietta Gutiérrez Rosati
RE: Third Session: Measures to enhance national capacities in environmental risk assessment and post-release monitoring ofLMOs [#746]
It is true that the national needs/gaps concerning RA/RM and post- release monitoring most be cared, first of all, by each country. A political will aimed at this goal is strongly needed. If these gaps are not considered as a priority for the national agencies involved in the process, there won’t be effective outcomes. Nevertheless, in some countries like Cuba, these needs constitute the first point of the national agencies agenda, but the budget is not enough for addressing them appropriately. That is the reason why some countries need international projects aimed at the completion of that budget. On the other hand, I do believe that regional cooperation must be encouraged.  The exchange of experiences at regional and sub regional levels constitutes a very important issue. It allows the common use of the capabilities developed by other countries of the region, due to the similarities in language, culture etc, which enriches the experiences of all these countries.
posted on 2008-11-11 13:53 UTC by Lic. Lenia Arce Hernandez, Centro Nacional de Seguridad Biológica
RE: Third Session: Measures to enhance national capacities in environmental risk assessment and post-release monitoring ofLMOs [#778]
My Name is Alejandro Hernández, I work with Risk Assessment and Management, at the Biotechnology Program, Phytosanitary Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.

We do have regulated release into the environment, based on the national regulation, which is in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol.  LMOs (Risk assessment and management) must be analyzed and evaluated by a National Biosafety Commission prior any regulated release.

We have no unregulated status of LMOs. We have no commercial status, which means that all fields are constantly monitored.

Right now, we have approvals for seeds reproduction, as well as research. We have cotton, soybean, and small field trials of plantain, pineapple and rice. There are no moratoria of any kind in Costa Rica, nor restriction of third generation biotechnology products, but a well regulated procedure for every specific case.
Part of our regulation involves the constant monitoring.  We have two different monitoring systems, a private system (Legislation in Spanish:  available at http://cr.biosafetyclearinghouse.net/regulaciones/reglamentoauditorias.pdf  ) based on private Auditors and a government monitoring. Auditors must summit informs every month, or frequently depending on the activity.  We try to keep communication with local people where the projects are approved in order to have a third source of information.

Guidelines, more capacity, and experience share is always necessary and needed in order to improve the system, specially related to monitoring of third generation biotechnology products.
(edited on 2008-11-20 23:19 UTC by Alejandro Hernández Soto)
posted on 2008-11-20 23:18 UTC by MSc. Alejandro Hernández Soto, Costa Rica