| | english | español | français |
The BCH will be migrating to a new platform between November 17th and 29th. During this time, the current BCH platform will be available in read-only mode (for searching and browsing only).
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Awareness|Portal|Current and planned activities:|Online Forum on the Action Agenda/Biosafety   Printer-friendly version

Online Forum on the Action Agenda/Biosafety

Return to the list of threads...

Forum

Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11115]
POSTED ON BEHALF OF THE MODERATORS OF THE FORUM

Dear Forum Participants,

We are pleased and honoured to have been invited to moderate the online discussions on non-state actors’ engagement in the Action Agenda for Nature and People.

Please find below the guiding questions for this theme below.

Please note that the discussions for the on Online discussion group 1: Emerging best practices, needs and opportunities and Online discussion group 2: Development of concrete and measurable commitments will be held from 27 September 2021 to 17 October 2021.

Please note that participants must register and sign into the BCH in order to post messages.

Individuals wishing to participate via e-mail after these initial messages can choose to “watch” the discussions taking place under the different themes. These individuals will then receive copies of the posted messages by e-mail.

We look forward to your discussions.

We would also like to encourage you to view the recorded session of the webinar on biosafety commitments to the Action Agenda if you were not able to participate in the webinar. The recorded webinar will be available at https://www.learningfornature.org/en/courses/biosafety-commitments-for-the-action-agenda-for-nature-and-people/

Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities

Online discussion, Guiding Questions:

1. Could you highlight some existing and upcoming legislation, strategies, programmes, networks, coalitions, advisory bodies and/or public consultations or other systems, frameworks or institutions that involved non-state actors? What were the successes or challenges?
2. What non-state actors are or should be involved in initiatives (e.g. the private sector, NGOs, farmers’ organizations, women groups, UN agencies, financial institutions, local governments, cities, scientific community, consumers, foundations, policy makers, regulators, indigenous peoples and local communities)? Do they have the most impact on reversing and halting biodiversity loss to support governments?  Which non-state actor is mostly impacted by LMOs?
3. In your experience, what type of capacity building activities can non-state actors undertake to support the capacity-building action plan for the post-2020 period?
4. What are some good practices in enhancing communication and partnerships between Parties and non-state actors?
5. What are some key events or initiatives that non-state actors are or should be involved in (e.g. Secretariat meetings and national and regional events such as Asia BCH Family, African Union meetings, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture meetings, regular regional or national events such as biodiversity/biosafety week)?

Best regards,

Moderators
• Austria:
Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch
• Croplife International:
Ms. Sarah Lukie
• Himalayan Folklore, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Networks, Federation of Kirant Indigenous Associations, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Nepal:
Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai
• Every Woman Hope Centre:
Ms. Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
• Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture:
Mr. Pedro Rocha
• KROK University:
Mr. Serhiy Vykhryst
• BCH Project Regional Specialist for francophone Africa:
Mr. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
(edited on 2021-10-08 18:43 UTC by Ulrika Nilsson)
posted on 2021-09-27 16:25 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11115 Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11119]
PUBLIÉ AU NOM DES MODÉRATEURS DU FORUM

Chers participants au Forum,

Nous sommes ravis et honorés d'avoir été invités à modérer les discussions en ligne sur l'engagement des acteurs non étatiques dans le Programme d'Action pour la Nature et les Peuples
Veuillez trouver ci-dessous les questions d'orientation pour le thème ci-dessous.

Veuillez noter que les discussions pour le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 : Meilleures pratiques émergentes, besoins et opportunités et Groupe de discussion en ligne 2 : Développement d'engagements concrets et mesurables se tiendront du 27 septembre 2021 au 17 octobre 2021.
Veuillez noter que les participants doivent s'inscrire et se connecter au CEPRB afin de poster des messages.

Les personnes souhaitant participer par e-mail après ces premiers messages peuvent choisir de «regarder » les discussions qui se déroulent sous les différents thèmes. Ces personnes recevront ensuite des copies des messages postés par courrier électronique.

Nous attendons vos discussions avec impatience.

Nous aimerions également vous encourager à visionner la session enregistrée du webinaire sur les engagements en matière de biosécurité dans le Programme d'Action si vous n'avez pas pu participer au webinaire. Le webinaire enregistré est disponible sur https://www.learningfornature.org/en/courses/biosafety-commitments-for-the-action-agenda-for-nature-and-people/

Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités

Discussion en ligne, questions d'orientation :

1. Pourriez-vous mettre en évidence certaines législations, stratégies, programmes, réseaux, coalitions, organes consultatifs et/ou consultations publiques existants et à venir ou d'autres systèmes, cadres ou institutions impliquant des acteurs non étatiques ? Quels ont été les succès ou les défis ?
2. Quels acteurs non étatiques sont ou devraient être impliqués dans les initiatives (par exemple, le secteur privé, les ONG, les organisations d'agriculteurs, les groupes de femmes, les agences des Nations Unies, les institutions financières, les gouvernements locaux, les villes, la communauté scientifique, les consommateurs, les fondations, les décideurs, les régulateurs, les peuples autochtones et les communautés locales) ? Ont-ils le plus d'impact sur l'inversion et l'arrêt de la perte de biodiversité pour soutenir les gouvernements ? Quel acteur non étatique est le plus touché par les OVM ?
3. D'après votre expérience, quel type d'activités de renforcement des capacités les acteurs non étatiques peuvent-ils entreprendre pour soutenir le plan d'action de renforcement des capacités pour la période post-2020 ?
4. Quelles sont les bonnes pratiques pour améliorer la communication et les partenariats entre les Parties et les acteurs non étatiques ?
5. Quels sont certains événements ou initiatives clés auxquels les acteurs non étatiques sont ou devraient être impliqués (par exemple, réunions du Secrétariat et événements nationaux et régionaux tels que Asia BCH Family, réunions de l'Union africaine, réunions de l'Institut interaméricain de coopération pour l'agriculture, réunions régulières événements régionaux ou nationaux tels que la semaine de la biodiversité/de la biosécurité) ?

Meilleures salutations,

Modérateurs

• L'Autriche:
M. Helmut Gaugitsch
• Croplife International :
Mme Sarah Lukie
• Folklore himalayen, Réseaux de connaissances et de peuples autochtones, Fédération des associations autochtones de Kirant, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Népal :
M. Kamal Kumar Rai
• Centre d'espoir Chaque femme :
Mme Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
• Institut interaméricain de coopération pour l'agriculture :
M. Pedro Rocha
• Université KROK :
M. Serhiy Vykhryst
• Spécialiste régional du projet CEPRB pour l'Afrique francophone :
M. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
(edited on 2021-10-08 18:43 UTC by Ulrika Nilsson)
posted on 2021-09-27 17:01 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11119 Tema 1: Mejores prácticas y oportunidades, el grupo de discusión en línea 1 [#11120]
PUBLICADO EN NOMBRE DE LOS MODERADORES DEL FORO

Estimados participantes del Foro,
Nos complace y nos honra haber sido invitados a moderar los debates en línea sobre la participación de los actores no estatales en la Agenda de Acción por la Naturaleza y las Personas

A continuación encontrarán las preguntas orientadoras para este tema.

Por favor, tengan en cuenta que los debates para el grupo de discusión en línea 1: Mejores prácticas, necesidades y oportunidades emergentes y el grupo de discusión en línea 2: Desarrollo de compromisos concretos y medibles se celebrarán del 27 de septiembre de 2021 al 17 de octubre de 2021.

Tenga en cuenta que los participantes deben registrarse e iniciar sesión en el BCH para poder enviar mensajes.

Las personas que deseen participar por correo electrónico después de estos mensajes iniciales pueden optar por "ver" los debates que tienen lugar en los diferentes temas. Estas personas recibirán copias de los mensajes publicados por correo electrónico.

Esperamos con interés sus debates.

También nos gustaría animarles a ver la sesión grabada del seminario web sobre los compromisos de bioseguridad en la Agenda de Acción si no pudieron participar en el seminario web. La grabación del webinar está disponible en https://www.learningfornature.org/en/courses/biosafety-commitments-for-the-action-agenda-for-nature-and-people/

Tema 1: Mejores prácticas y oportunidades

Debate en línea, preguntas orientadoras:

1. ¿Podría destacar algunas legislaciones, estrategias, programas, redes, coaliciones, órganos consultivos y/o consultas públicas u otros sistemas, marcos o instituciones que involucren agentes no estatales? ¿Cuáles fueron los éxitos o los desafíos?
2. ¿Qué actores no estatales participan o deberían participar en las iniciativas (por ejemplo, sector privado, ONG, organizaciones de agricultores, grupos de mujeres, organismos de la ONU, instituciones financieras, gobiernos locales, ciudades, comunidad científica, consumidores, fundaciones, responsables políticos, reguladores, pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales)? ¿Son los que más impacto tienen en la inversión y detención de la pérdida de biodiversidad para apoyar a los gobiernos? ¿Cuál de los actores no estatales se ve más afectado por los OVM?
3. Según su experiencia, ¿qué tipo de actividades de desarrollo de capacidades pueden llevar a cabo los agentes no estatales para apoyar el plan de acción de desarrollo de capacidades para el periodo posterior a 2020?
4. ¿Cuáles son algunas buenas prácticas para mejorar la comunicación y las asociaciones entre las Partes y los actores no estatales?
5. ¿Cuáles son algunos de los eventos o iniciativas clave en los que participan o deberían participar los actores no estatales (por ejemplo, reuniones de la Secretaría y eventos nacionales y regionales como la CIISB de Asia, reuniones de la Unión Africana, reuniones del Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, eventos regionales o nacionales regulares como la semana de la biodiversidad/bioseguridad)?

Saludos cordiales,

Moderadores
• Austria:
Sr. Helmut Gaugitsch
• Croplife Internacional:
Sra. Sarah Lukie
• Himalayan Folklore, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Networks, Federation of Kirant Indigenous Associations, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Nepal:
Sr. Kamal Kumar Rai
• Every Woman Hope Centre:
Sra. Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
• Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura:
Sr. Pedro Rocha
• Universidad KROK:
Sr. Serhiy Vykhryst
• Especialista regional del proyecto BCH para el África francófona:
Sr. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
(edited on 2021-10-08 18:44 UTC by Ulrika Nilsson)
posted on 2021-09-27 17:09 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11115 ، الموضوع الأول: أفضل الممارسات والفرص، مناقشة عبر الإنترنت، أسئلة إرشادية [#11127]
السادة المشاركون في المنتدى ،
يسعدنا ويشرفنا أن تمت دعوتنا لإدارة المناقشات عبر الإنترنت حول مشاركة الجهات الفاعلة غير الحكومية في أجندة العمل الخاصة بالطبيعة والناس
الرجاء الاطلاع على الأسئلة الإرشادية لهذا الموضوع أدناه.
يرجى الملاحظة أن المناقشات الخاصة بمجموعة المناقشة على الإنترنت عدد 1: أفضل الممارسات والاحتياجات والفرص الناشئة ومجموعة المناقشة عبر الإنترنت عدد 2: تطوير التزامات ملموسة وقابلة للقياس ستعقد في الفترة من 27 سبتمبر 2021 إلى 17 أكتوبر 2021.
يرجى الملاحظة أنه يجب على المشاركين التسجيل والدخول إلى غرفة تبادل معلومات السلامة الأحيائية من أجل إرسال الرسائل.
يمكن للأفراد الراغبين في المشاركة عبر البريد الإلكتروني بعد هذه الرسائل الأولية اختيار "مشاهدة" المناقشات التي تجري تحت المواضيع المختلفة. سيتلقى هؤلاء الأفراد بعد ذلك نسخًا من الرسائل المنشورة عبر البريد الإلكتروني.
نحن في انتظار مناقشاتكم
نود أيضًا أن نشجعكم على مشاهدة الجلسة المسجلة للندوة عبر الإنترنت حول التزامات السلامة الأحيائية ببرنامج العمل إذا لم تكن قادرًا على المشاركة في الندوة عبر الإنترنت. الندوة المسجلة على الويب متاحة على https://www.learningfornature.org/en/courses/biosafety-commitments-for-the-action-agenda-for-nature-and-people/

الموضوع الأول: أفضل الممارسات والفرص
مناقشة عبر الإنترنت ، أسئلة إرشادية:

1. هل يمكنك تسليط الضوء على بعض التشريعات، والاستراتيجيات ، والبرامج ، والشبكات ، والائتلافات ، والهيئات الاستشارية و/أو المشاورات العامة أو الأنظمة أو الأطر أو المؤسسات الأخرى التي تشارك فيها جهات فاعلة غير حكومية؟ ما هي النجاحات أو التحديات؟
2. ما هي الجهات الغير حكومية الفاعلة التي تشارك أو ينبغي أن تشارك في المبادرات (مثل الأعمال التجارية والمنظمات الغير حكومية والمزارعين والنساء ووكالات الأمم المتحدة والمؤسسات المالية والحكومات المحلية والأوساط العلمية والمستهلكين والمؤسسات وصانعي السياسات والمنظمين والشعوب الأصلية والمجتمعات المحلية)؟ هل لديهم أكبر تأثير لدعم الحكومات على عكس ووضع حدّ لفقدان التنوع البيولوجي؟ ما هي الجهات الفاعلة الغير احكومية التي تتأثر في الغالب بالكائنات الحية المحورة؟
3. في تجربتك ، ما هو نوع أنشطة بناء القدرات التي يمكن للجهات الفاعلة الغير حكومية أن تقوم بها لدعم خطة عمل بناء القدرات لفترة ما بعد 2020؟
4. ما هي بعض الممارسات الجيدة في تعزيز الاتصال والشراكات بين الأطراف والجهات الفاعلة الغير حكومية؟
5. ما هي بعض الأحداث أو المبادرات الرئيسية التي تشارك فيها أو التي ينبغي أن تشارك فيها الجهات الفاعلة الغير حكومية (مثل اجتماعات الأمانة العامة والأحداث الوطنية والإقليمية مثل مجموعة آسيا لغرفة تبادل معلومات السلامة الأحيائية ، واجتماعات الاتحاد الأفريقي ، واجتماعات معهد البلدان الأمريكية للتعاون في مجال الزراعة ، والاجتماعات المنتظمة الإقليمية أو الوطنية مثل أسبوع التنوع البيولوجي / السلامة الأحيائية)؟

تحياتي الحارة،
مديري المنتدى:
• النمسا:
السيد هيلموت جاوجيتش
• كروبلايف انترناشونال:
السيدة سارة لوكي
• الفولكلور في جبال الهيمالايا ، وشبكات المعارف والشعوب الأصلية ، واتحاد جمعيات السكان الأصليين في كيرانت ، وجمعية حفظ التنوع البيولوجي للأراضي الرطبة في نيبال:
السيد كمال كومار راي
• مركز أمل كل امرأة:
السيدة إديل كوين أغباجبو
• معهد البلدان الأمريكية للتعاون في الزراعة:
السيد بيدرو روشا
• جامعة كورك:
السيد سيرهي فيكريست
• الاختصاصي الإقليمي لمشروع غرفة تبادل معلومات السلامة الأحيائية لأفريقيا الناطقة بالفرنسية:
السيد محمد الياس كشك
(edited on 2021-10-08 18:44 UTC by Ulrika Nilsson)
posted on 2021-09-27 21:29 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11130]
Уважаемые участники Форума,

Для нас большое удовольствие и честь быть приглашенными модерировать онлайн-обсуждения, посвященные участию негосударственных субъектов в Программе действий в интересах природы и людей.

Обратите внимание, что обсуждения в онлайн-дискуссионной группе 1: Новые передовые практики, потребности и возможности, а также в онлайн-дискуссионной группе 2: Разработка конкретных и измеримых обязательств пройдут с 27 сентября по 17 октября 2021 года.
Для того, чтобы отправлять сообщения, участники должны зарегистрироваться и войти в Механизм посредничества по биобезопасности (МПБ).

Желающие участвовать посредством электронной почты могут после этих первых сообщений выбрать функцию «наблюдать» (“watch”) за обсуждениями по разным темам. В этом случае они будут получать копии сообщений по электронной почте.
Мы с нетерпением ждем ваших обсуждений.

Мы также хотели бы предложить вам ознакомиться с записью веб-семинара, посвященного вопросам обязательств по биобезопасности в соответствии с Программой действий, если вы не смогли принять в нем участие. Запись веб-семинара доступна по адресу https://www.learningfornature.org/en/courses/biosafety-commitments-for-the-action-agenda-for-nature-and-people/

С наилучшими пожеланиями,

Модераторы

• Austria:
Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch
• Croplife International:
Ms. Sarah Lukie
• Himalayan Folklore, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Networks, Federation of Kirant Indigenous Associations, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Nepal:
Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai
• Every Woman Hope Centre:
Ms. Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
• Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture:
Mr. Pedro Rocha
• KROK University:
Mr. Serhiy Vykhryst
• BCH Project Regional Specialist for francophone Africa:
Mr. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
(edited on 2021-10-08 18:44 UTC by Ulrika Nilsson)
posted on 2021-09-27 21:50 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11115 主题 1:最佳实践和机遇 [#11136]
代表论坛主持人发布

尊敬的各位论坛与会者:

我们非常高兴且荣幸受邀主持关于非国家行动者参与自然与人类行动议程的在线讨论。

以下是本次会议主题的指导性问题。

请注意,在线讨论第1组:新出现的最佳做法、需求和机会,以及在线讨论第2组:制定具体和可衡量的承诺,将于2021年9月27日至10月17日举行。

请注意,与会者必须在注册并登录BCH网站后方能发布信息。

在收到这些初始信息后,后续希望通过电子邮件参与的个人观众可以选择“观看”不同主题下的讨论。之后,您将通过电子邮件收到所发布信息的副本。

我们期待您的讨论。

如果您无法参加网络研讨会,我们还鼓励您观看“对行动议程的生物安全承诺”的网络研讨会的录制会议。录制的版本可在 https://www.learningfornature.org/en/courses/biosafety-commitments-for-the-action-agenda-for-nature-and-people/ 进行查看。

主题 1:最佳实践和机遇

在线讨论,指导性问题:

1. 您能否重点介绍一些现有的和即将出台的、涉及非国家行为者的立法、战略、项目、网络、联盟、咨询机构和/或公众协商,抑或是其他系统、框架或机构?其成功或挑战是什么?
2. 哪些非国家行动者正在或应该到倡议中来(例如私营部门、非政府组织、农民组织、妇女团体、联合国机构、金融机构、地方政府、城市、科学界、消费者、基金会、政策制定者、监管者、原住民和当地社区)?他们对扭转和阻止生物多样性的丧失是否起到最大的影响以支持政府?其中,哪个非国家行动者主要受到改性活生物体的影响?
3. 根据您的经验,非国家行动者可以开展什么类型的能力建设活动来支持后 2020 时期的能力建设行动计划?
4. 在加强缔约方和非国家行动者之间的沟通和伙伴关系方面有哪些良好做法?
5. 有哪些非国家行动者正在或应该参与的重大事件或倡议(例如秘书处会议和国家及区域活动,如亚洲 BCH 家族、非洲联盟会议、美洲农业合作研究所会议、定期的区域或国家活动,例如生物多样性/生物安全周)?

谨致以最诚挚的问候。

会议主持人:
•奥地利:Helmut Gaugitsc先生
•国际植保协会:Sarah Lukie女士
•喜马拉雅民间传说、土著知识和民族网络、基兰特土著协会联合会、尼泊尔湿地生物多样性保护协会:Kamal Kumar Rai先生
•妇女希望中心:Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu女士
•美洲农业合作研究所:Pedro Rocha先生
•克罗克大学:Serhiy Vykhryst先生
•BCH非洲法语区项目区域专家:Mohamed Elyes Kchouk先生
(edited on 2021-10-08 18:45 UTC by Ulrika Nilsson)
posted on 2021-09-27 23:55 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11141]
Regarding Developing countries, Small islands and Countries in Economic transition, the lack of decisions and Risk assessments on LMOs have several reasons especially socio-economic related ones.
Thus, from the non-state actors:
- key stakeholders (especially businessmen, seed producers, seed users, etc.) might have the most important role and impact on government decisions about the establishment of regulations that would control LMOs movements inside and outside the country's frontiers. Thus preventing contamination of landraces (plants, animals), agro biodiversity and biodiversity in their country and in their region;
- NGOs would be the most important actors to assist governments in capacity building on Biosafety issues (and probably on much more issues) since very often governments don't have the appropriate means to ensure a continuous capacity building for everybody; NGOs can mobilize competent individuals (especially scientists) to ensure trainings and effective conservation measures including risk assessments of LMOs, identification of existing LMOs, vulgarisation of technical issues, ant assisting in taking sound decisions.
posted on 2021-09-30 00:57 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11141 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11143]
Good day to everyone! Dear moderators, many thanks for interesting questions.

Allow me to provide answers to them.
1. In our national legislation, the mechanisms of participation of the non-state actors are established. For example, our Law «On safety in genetic engineering activities» and developed by-laws to it stipulate, that the public concerned should be involved in decisions on the LMO risk assessment and procedure on this is given in the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus of June 12, 2019 No. 382 «On a Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering Activity and the Issuance of an Authorization Document». On the global level, non-state actors' participation is pointed in the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols, for example, Article 14. “Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Impacts” it is written, that each Contracting Party, as far as possible and as appropriate, shall introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity to avoid or minimize such effects and, where appropriate, allow for public participation in such procedures. In Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, it is written that "the Parties shall: 1 (a) Promote and facilitate public awareness, education, and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health". In the Aarhus Convention, in the 6 bis amendment to the Aarhus Convention mechanisms of participation are given.
At the national level, we have an Inter-departmental Council for the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Council on Genetically Engineered Organisms, which takes decisions on risk assessment and gives permissions on the release of LMOs into the environment (any scale, starting from release for field trials). Representatives of the Aarhus Centre and scientists from various institutions participate directly in discussions and decision-making of these Councils. On the global level, usually, discussions on different aspects of biodiversity protection and conservation, as well as concerning LMOs, include NGOs and representatives of the indigenous people and local communities. I believe such an approach when non-state actors are as much as possible involved in the discussions and decision-making, starting from the AHTEG groups to the COP-MOP is a success story because they may share their valuable experience and their voices are heard, they may influence the decisions. Some challenges that may arise, especially for NGOs and indigenous people, and local communities, are that they need to be prepared for discussions on very complex scientific topics, such as LMO, synthetic biology, DSI, and others. I think that capacity-building initiatives for these non-state actors could be a good solution.
2. I think, that all the non-state actors should be involved, because without consolidated participation, interaction, we will not be able to address the great environmental threat that has emerged. Scientists based on the most recent advances in science are those who are primarily involved in the development of the solutions on how to protect nature; regulators also those who are primarily involved and responsible for the risk assessment, control, monitoring, and supervision of the pollutants, invasive alien species, modern biotechnologies, and others; women groups, indigenous people and local communities, NGOs, youth is the driving force, and it is their initiatives that will make it possible to raise issues at the national and international levels. Of course, without the leadership of the UN agencies and their consolidated work it is impossible to solve all issues on the global level. If the private sector and farmers would not be involved in the initiatives, they will not understand the emergency of issues, and even if all other listed groups will take an action, this leads to nowhere, because farmers and the private sector will not understand why it is necessary to move to the nature-based solutions and what are mechanisms of this shift. Without the goodwill of the local governments, their understanding of the emergent issues, there will not be a solution on the local level, and, as a consequence, on the global level. Without the involvement of financial institutions, it would be impossible to launch any program on conservation and protection. Therefore, it is only through the close cooperation of all groups, a good result would be achieved.
3. I think it could be a various range of initiatives, depending on the countries` emerging issues, starting from education and explanation of the most critical issues related to biodiversity protection and conservation, biosafety, and biosecurity, climate change to all stakeholders who take or are involved in the decision. From our side, we took a commitment to the development of the strategy and approaches to the non-authorized LMO detection, because we revealed this could be critical. The other countries may reveal other critical issues.
4. I think their involvement in all discussion groups at the MEAs that take decisions.
5. I believe that the non-state actors should be involved in all the discussions and initiatives on the national, regional, and global levels.

Best regards,
Galina Mozgova,

Head of the National Coordination Biosafety Centre, the Institute of Genetics and Cytology, NAS of Belarus. BCH NFP
(edited on 2021-10-03 14:02 UTC by Galina Mozgova)
posted on 2021-10-01 10:28 UTC by Dr. Galina Mozgova, Belarus
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11144]
More cohesion and collaboration between stakeholders, NGOs, Secretariat and youth involvement is required  for a deliberation on sustainable development..I agree that few group s have been doing great..we also need to reorient our approach for biodiversity conservation from institution driven to community driven especially in Asia Pacific..

Dr Md Afjal Ahmad PhD
Delegate-COP-14 to UNCCD
Assistant Professor of Agriculture Plant Physiology
Banaras Hindu University BHU Varanasi India
afjalahmad@bhu.ac.in
posted on 2021-10-01 10:42 UTC by Dr DR MD AFJAL AHMAD, Department of Plant Physiology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, BHU, Varanasi, India
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11145]
The indigenous peoples in our local communities have lived in harmony with nature over the years, so we have to recognize and acknowledge the role of these indigenous knowledge . A wealth of local innovations and traditional ecological knowledge which has helped Africa to survive over the centuries can be explored and tapped into.
posted on 2021-10-01 11:59 UTC by Mrs Asikaralu Okafor, Village Farmers Initiative (VFI)
This is a reply to 11145 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11146]
Dear Mrs. Asikaralu Okafor,

Thank you for your contribution to the online discussion. You are encouraged to send more messages in reaction to the provided questions, to enrich the discussion on the importance and features of the Action Agenda for Nature and People.

Happy Independence Celebration!


Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu (Ms.)
Executive Director
Every Woman Hope Centre
Abuja - Nigeria
(edited on 2021-10-01 15:07 UTC by EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU)
posted on 2021-10-01 14:55 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11144 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11147]
Dear Dr. Md Afjal Ahmad (Ph.D),

Thank you so much for your message. The suggestions therein, are noted. Please feel free to make more contributions, as you may wish, to enhance our discussion.

Best regards,

Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu (Ms.)
Executive Director
Every Woman Hope Centre
Abuia-Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-01 15:40 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11148]
Dear colleagues,

Thanks for the start of what I hope will be a very stimulating discussion. This comment relates to all 5 of the guiding questions posed by the moderators. It would be useful to have, as background information, a better idea of what non-state actors have already been doing that could be seen as supporting the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. During the introductory webinar, we heard a description of the work done by CropLife to advance the goals and operability of the Cartagena Protocol. I would like to learn more from them and other non-state actors on this forum about other work they have already done to build capacity and to implement the Protocol, in a wide variety of areas, such as risk assessment, LMO identification, understanding of the technology, etc. This would provide our discussions with a common starting point for discussion.
posted on 2021-10-01 18:07 UTC by Mr. Hector Quemada, Western Michigan University
This is a reply to 11143 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11149]
Dear Dr. Galina Mozgova,

Thank you for your submission which highlighted some existing legislation and frameworks that involved the non-state actors. Your contributions regarding the successes and challenges, as well as your suggestions on the non-state actors that should be involved in initiatives are equally noted.

Please remember to include your institutional affiliation, current responsibilities, main area of expertise and, where applicable, the recent relevant initiatives related to the programme of work and/or Article 23 you have been involved in when posting your messages. Try to keep your messages short, concise and focused, as each message should not exceed 300 words (or no more than a full screen long).

Kind regards,

Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu (Ms.)
Executive Director
Every Woman Hope Centre
Abuja-Nigeria.
posted on 2021-10-01 18:15 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11141 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11150]
Dear Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk,

Thanks so much for identifying the key stake holders, with significant roles in government decisions, on the establishment of regulations that would control Living Modified Organisms’ (LMOs) movements within and outside country frontiers, including the impact on land races and agrobiodiversity in their countries and regions. Your recommendations on the role of Non–Governmental Organizations (NGOs), towards capacity building on biosafety issues, to ensure and facilitate effective conservation measures including; risk assessments of LMOs, vulgarization of technical issues, as well as for informed decisions are equally noted. This is relevant for this discussion.

Best regards,

Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu (Ms.)
Executive Director
Every Woman Hope Centre
Abuja-Nigeria.
posted on 2021-10-01 18:24 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11150 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11151]
Dear All,

A new law on GMOs drafted recently in Moldova is harmonised with the Aarhus Convention and expressively point out a mechanism of public information and participation to decision making process, involving various forms of such interraction, as ex. Public hearings, public consultation via posting notifications and decisions on websites, BCH, membership of NGOs in Biosafety Commission etc.
A very large spectrum of non governmental actors should be part of the process of communication and public involvement,  including academia, farmers, seed producers, importers, professional associations, agricultural, environmental NGOs, media, consumer associations, local communities, houskeepers, students, youth etc.
The non=state actors may bring an important contribution to extend biosafety knowlege being supportive to the government legislative initiative and enforcement,  to be part of control  and inspection  rides, LMOs detection and identification, risk assessment etc. Public information, awareness and training might be a considerable helpful area of collaboration for the non-state sector.  Socio-economic consideration is a special area of its involvement providing a social questionnaire on people’s thoughts, believes, perseption, fears and wishes related the LMOs use.
Capacity building to enforce communication and non state involvement should be enforced in continuation, the meetings and trainings at regional and national level, organised by the CBD  and AArhus Convention secretariats, regional (EU) and NGOs, would be very much welcone and helpful.

Angela Lozan, MD
posted on 2021-10-01 19:13 UTC by Ms. Angela Lozan, Republic of Moldova
This is a reply to 11143 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11152]
Thank you Galina for this perspective. However, while you are focusing on public participation in decisions and risk assessments, we rather seek "actions" that might be taken by non-state actors. Participation in discussions and other instances might not be sufficient to be involved in Biosafety issues and the protection of Biodiversity as we intend to do by 2030 (or 2050).
You are right regarding the support of UN agencies, but still this wouldn't be enough because the gap to fill is huge and even UN agencies would not be able to fill in the gap.
I rather consider that next COPMOP should propose/impose to Parties that part of the money received by governments in grants or direct loans from World Funding Agencies should be devoted to non-state actors including local governments and cities which are closer to Biosafety/Biodiversity issues than centralized governmental agencies. That's by the way one of the scopes of Edinburgh Declaration (https://www.gov.scot/publications/edinburgh-declaration-on-post-2020-biodiversity-framework/pages/how-to-sign/)
posted on 2021-10-02 08:12 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11144 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11153]
You are right Dr Md Afjal Ahmad.
We therefore should request from governments at COPMOP to dedicate part of the funding they receive (grants and/or loans) to non-state actors which are closer to Biosafety/Biodiversity issues than centralized agencies, especially local governments and cities. This would enlarge our scope of action (I insist on ACTION) in order too reach our targets by 2030
posted on 2021-10-02 08:18 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11145 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11154]
Right!
So we should request at COPMOP governments to dedicate part of grants and loans they receive to protect Biodiversity and Biosafety to local communities.
posted on 2021-10-02 08:21 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11155]
Dear all,
My name is Pedro Rocha, I am international specialist in biotechnology and biosafety at the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).
IICA responds to the mandate of the Ministries of Agriculture of its member countries (in the Western Hemisphere) through the Inter-American Board of Agriculture (IABA). More than ten years ago, the IABA gave the Institute a mandate to work on biotechnology and biosafety, and about six years ago, it instructed to work more closely with representatives of the non-governmental /state sector. Based on the above, I will now answer some of the questions:
1. The IABA's decision to interact with non-state actors enabled IICA to facilitate interaction between governmental and non-governmental bodies, which has led to participatory technical processes that have made it possible to discuss various issues from different angles, jointly generate proposals for norms, and carry out training and communication exercises, among other things.
2. As mentioned in previous comments, the involvement of most (if not all) non-state actors is ideal. Non-state actors play a fundamental role, for several reasons: they are the vast majority of the population, they are aware of the day-to-day and, ultimately, they are the ones who accept or reject products derived from technologies.
5. For more than ten years, IICA has developed training activities in biotechnology. For example, courses in risk analysis (2013), synthetic biology (2015), genome editing -both theoretical and laboratory- 2019, 2020, 2021) in which around 22 countries of the hemisphere have participated and in which regulators, developers, seed marketers, international organizations and decision-makers have been represented. In addition, IICA has either organized or co-organized communication exercises, which have focused mainly on communicators and policy makers. Most activities have been face-to-face, but with the pandemic, training through virtual means has been exploited to the maximum. -TRANSLATION LATER-
Pedro
(edited on 2021-10-02 16:10 UTC by Pedro Rocha)
posted on 2021-10-02 16:02 UTC by Dr. Pedro Rocha, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
This is a reply to 11120 RE: Tema 1: Mejores prácticas y oportunidades, el grupo de discusión en línea 1 [#11156]
Apreciados todos,
Mi nombre es Pedro Rocha, especialista internacional en biotecnología y bioseguridad (B&B) en el Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA).
El IICA responde al mandato de los ministerios de agricultura de sus países miembros (del hemisferio occidental) a través de la Junta Interamericana de Agricultura (JIA). Desde hace más de diez años, la JIA entregó el mandato al instituto de trabajar en B&B y hace alrededor de 6 años, se dio la instrucción de trabajar de manera más articulada con representantes del sector no gubernamental. Con base en lo anterior, paso a contestar algunas de las preguntas:
1. La decisión de la JIA de interactuar con los actores no estatales permitió al IICA facilitar la interacción entre organismos gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, lo que ha dado lugar a procesos técnicos participativos que han permitido discutir diversos temas desde diferentes ángulos, generar conjuntamente propuestas de normas y realizar ejercicios de capacitación y comunicación, entre otros.
2. Como se mencionó en comentarios anteriores, la participación de la mayoría de los actores no estatales (si no todos) es ideal. Los actores no estatales juegan un papel fundamental: son la gran mayoría de la población, están al tanto del día a día y, en última instancia, son los que aceptan o rechazan los productos derivados de las tecnologías.
5. Desde hace más de diez años, el IICA desarrolla actividades de formación en biotecnología. Por ejemplo, cursos en análisis de riesgo (2013), biología sintética (2015), edición génica -tanto teórica como de laboratorio- 2019, 2020, 2021) en los que han participado alrededor de 22 países del hemisferio y en los que han estado representados reguladores, desarrolladores, comercializadores de semillas, organizaciones internacionales y tomadores de decisiones. Además, el IICA ha organizado o coorganizado ejercicios de comunicación, los cuales se han enfocado principalmente en comunicadores y formuladores de políticas. La mayoría de las actividades han sido presenciales, pero con la pandemia se ha aprovechado al máximo la formación por medios virtuales.
Pedro
posted on 2021-10-02 16:10 UTC by Dr. Pedro Rocha, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
This is a reply to 11143 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11157]
Totally agree with point 2 of Galina. Active participation of all actors is needed because consequences impact all of us.
Pedro
posted on 2021-10-02 16:15 UTC by Dr. Pedro Rocha, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11158]
My answers to the questions are:

1(i) The Programme of Work on PAEP regarding LMOs: http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art23/resources.shtml priority areas included building joint initiatives for training activities and communicate biosafety to high-level, media, women, youth, IPLCs.

ii). The Implementation Plan for the CPB and Nigeria’s position for CPB Post-2020, alongside the Africa Biosafety Commitment enhance shared responsibilities of all stakeholders including indigenous and local communities for its achievement.

iii). The GBF aim to galvanize urgent and transformative actions by Governments regarding LMOs and engage more non-state actors such as; NGOs, private sector and women towards vision 2050.

iv). The action Agenda is also mobilizing commitments from non-state actors to rebuild our human-nature relationship”.

2. All non-state actors should be involved in initiatives, as there can be no effective conservation programs without involving them. They have all it takes towards reversing and halting biodiversity loss to support governments? 

i). LMOs have impacted all lives, especially farmers, women, youth and the IPLCs as it has contributed in conservation and sustenance of biodiversity by making available plants that can withstand abiotic factors that mitigate the effects of climate changes, while contributing in sustainable agriculture and food security.

3. Non-state actors, such as development agencies should support national efforts to establish local, sectoral and national information management systems, by providing training opportunities NGOs, research institutions and the media and subsidizing the publication of reports.

4. The good practices include the establishment of effective communication strategy; to improve synergy, enhance public awareness for informed choices, improving public participation in decision-making processes, and making available database on relevant topics for public use.

5. Non-state actors should be involved in all events and initiatives to defend interests in important negotiation meetings, adopt common positions/consensus or develop alliances with other groups to keep the momentum.


Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu (Ms.)
ED/EWHC
Abuja-Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-03 21:59 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11159]
The successes of involving the non-state actors include the integration of scientific and traditional knowledge in conservation plans and the development of strategic plans for improved environmental education that provides guidance and support for educators at all levels.

The challenge is that the non-state actors especially the NGOs need support to be strengthened to help government assess biological resources in their respective regions/nations, as well as convey new concepts in conservation strategies to meet changing conservation needs.


Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
ED/EWHC
Abuja-Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-03 22:38 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11160]
In Ecuador legislation is prohibitive regarding LMOs. Our current constitution, adopted in 2008, declares our country as free of transgenic crops. This declaration was clearly influenced by environmentalist groups as the scientific community remained silent, or was not heard, during the constitutional debates. All the consequences of this decision remain to be seen but so far it is clear that even though we are free to import and consume products of LMOs, we can´t produce them ourselves. Denying farmers the capacity to compete with new technologies has pushed them to use transgenics illegally. Illegal GM crops are hard to spot and they are often out of reach for risk assessment or for the application of measures to mitigate possible environmental effects. Our case highlights the importance of having several non governmental parties involved in the discussion of legislation related to LMOs, putting forward arguments supported by evidence.

Francisco Flores
Associate Professor
Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas
Ecuador
(edited on 2021-10-04 01:44 UTC by Francisco Flores)
posted on 2021-10-04 01:44 UTC by Mr. Francisco Flores, Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas
This is a reply to 11160 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11161]
Thank you Mr. Francisco Flores for your input.
It's the situation of many countries although not banning LMOs as in Ecuador.
The final conclusion is that LMOs are "circulating" without control in the country. There might be advantages in using these LMOs but there might be also disadvantages or misuse and other consequences on farming and biodiversity as well.
It's therefore clear that a solution should be sought!
That's why we are seeking non-state actors to raise such issues and inconsistencies that might threat our biodiversity/agrobiodiversity. I guess that farmers and businessmen could take the lead in repairing such situations, while NGOs and Agencies could act towards building capacities, assessing risks and support other non-state actors in there efforts of biodiversity conservation.
posted on 2021-10-04 05:23 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11160 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11162]
Thank you Mr. Francisco Flores for your message which clearly illustrates Ecuador’s sensitive situation, which is similar to that of the emerging technologies regarding the use of LMOs. This is a clear demonstration of the need to support and strengthen the NGOs to increase awareness for the urgent need to establish a biosafety system in Ecuador. Remarkably, increased awareness of the global need to protect biodiversity and human health from potential adverse impact of modern biotechnology brought Biosafety to the forefront of world attention. Biosafety regulations involve all the processes and procedures employed to minimize, prevent or eliminate any potential adverse impact that may result from the use and/or application of modern biotechnology and its products (GMO). This regulation has a great impact on the ecosystem and livelihood through one health approach, with full knowledge that deliverables of biosafety cuts across human and socio-economic development. It is very relevant at this juncture and Ecuador should endeavor to comply.


Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
ED / EWHC, Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-04 07:32 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11159 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11174]
In agreement with the comments of Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu and Galina Mozgova, scientists should be included as non-state actors in biosafety discussions, as they bring technical knowledge and can contribute to innovative solutions.
posted on 2021-10-04 17:23 UTC by Dr Stephanie James
This is a reply to 11145 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11176]
In support of the comment by Mrs Asikaralu Okafor, Village Farmers Initiative (VFI)- what is the best way to reach NGOs or other non-state actors that represent traditional information and knowledge? Is there a forum or other mechanism within which such NGOs organize at the national or regional level to facilitate exchange of such information among themselves but also organizations external to them. Information on how to reach these local or national organizations with traditional expertise and knowledge should be shared publicly to foster access and open communication and collaboration.
thank you

brinda dass, The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, USA
posted on 2021-10-04 18:28 UTC by Dr Brinda Dass, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
This is a reply to 11148 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11177]
In response to the thoughtful comments in post #11148, I would like to highlight the work that the private sector has done to support implementation of the Biosafety Protocol and the commitments made in support of the Action Agenda.  One of the key areas where the private sector can contribute to capacity building in biosafety is in the area of risk assessment. To that end, CropLife International recently embarked on a multi-year project to encourage the modernization of risk/safety assessment requirements for the products of plant biotechnology and to encourage enhanced regulatory cooperation.  We have recently published seven peer reviewed publications that detail recommendations for which studies should comprise a risk/safety assessment for genetically modified crops given the almost 30 years of experience we now have cultivating and regulating these crops. These publications provide guidance to countries as they work toward full implementation of the Biosafety Protocol provisions on risk assessment. They are consistent with the general principles of Annex III of the Biosafety Protocol and serve as a comprehensive capacity building tool to facilitate science-based decision making on imports and cultivation of living modified organisms. CropLife International commits to continuing to play a leading role in furthering the discussions about regulatory capacity building, and to work together with governments, public institutions, and other stakeholders in this area. We have linked these papers in our Action Agenda commitment and welcome input and questions on them from all stakeholders.  We welcome and support similar commitments from other non-State entities are are available to share our lessons learned in biosafety capacity building with other entities looking to undertake similar supporting activities.
posted on 2021-10-04 18:33 UTC by Ms. Sarah Lukie, Croplife International, Global Industry Coalition
This is a reply to 11141 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11178]
In response to the insightful comments in post #11141, I would also like to support the comment that the private sector, including the technology providers/seed companies, have an important role in supporting capacity building efforts to establish regulations to manage LMO movements inside and outside of countries' borders. In addition to the risk assessment capacity building initiatives undertaken by the private sector through CropLife International referenced in another comment in this forum, I would like to draw your attention to efforts to share information with Parties and other Governments regarding LMOs present in global trade which can only be provided by the developers of these products themselves.  CropLife International proactively considered what additional information would benefit Parties and other Governments to facilitate global trade of LMOs and subsequently developed and maintains three publicly available online databases that are intended to contribute to national implementation of the Protocol through the provision of transparent, clear and complete information. These databases help fulfill several of the requirements set out in the Protocol and supplement the value of the BCH:
• The BioTradeStatus Website – The BioTradeStatus website provides information from CropLife International member companies on their global biotech product approvals as well as the commercial status for those approvals. It is the only public source that provides information on commercial status of LMOs.  This database was made interoperable with the BCH so that users could search an LMO record on the BCH, and link directly to the commercial status data for that product.  http://www.biotradestatus.com/

• The CropLife International Detection Methods Database – The Detection Methods Database is a central repository where CropLife International members have made their detection methods for commercialized biotech-derived products — and related materials and information — available in an online and searchable database.  This also is shared through the BCH to ensure that records for LMOs are linked to their detection methods information. https://detection-methods.com/

• The Database on the Safety and Benefits of Biotechnology – The CropLife International Benefits Database is a regularly updated database of published papers and reviews demonstrating the benefits and safety implications associated with the use of LMOs.  It was developed to support efforts to implement Article 26 of the Protocol which allows for Parties to consider socio-economic considerations in decision-making on import of LMOs. http://biotechbenefits.croplife.org/

These commitments and actions undertaken CropLife International are particularly relevant because of their contributions to support further implementation at the global, regional and national levels, through cooperative initiatives across sectors and stakeholders, in support of the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework’s goals and the associated Action Agenda.
posted on 2021-10-04 18:42 UTC by Ms. Sarah Lukie, Croplife International, Global Industry Coalition
This is a reply to 11141 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11180]
Posted on behalf of Dr. El Khitma El Awad Mohammed:

I do agree with the professor 's message. NGOs can play an important role in the CB in different disciplines of BS. Again the role Non state actors is to support in the implementation of laws any other decisions to be made in supporting of implementation of BS issues.
Regards
EL khitma EL Awad
  Higher Council for Environment and. Natural Resources
Sudan
posted on 2021-10-05 21:22 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11148 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11181]
Posted on behalf of Mr. Rami Abdel Malik, Project Manager of the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH III) project,

Inputs on BCH III project's work to support the Cartagena Protocol:

Goal: To provide support to eligible parties for GEF funding to build and sustain individual and institutional capacities for effective participation in the BCH in line with COP/MOP Decisions for effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol.

Description: UNEP-GEF joint venture and global project launched in September 2016 to extend the BCH Project phase II to the last eligible 76 countries. The project is executed and managed by the BCH III team within the UNEP Law Division.

Components: The first two components focus on national BCH capacity building and establishing procedures, the third one on regional networking and experience sharing, while the last one looks at ensuring global sustainability of the BCH beyond the project, through the Regional Advisors system.

Innovative aspect: The Regional Advisors system is a flexible system to avail technical assistance on biosafety issues. It is composed of 19 Regional Advisors in 6 regions- a group of contracted consultants who conduct Biosafety and BCH trainings. This system could be scaled for other CBD and Biosafety projects.

Key achievements undertaken:

• Training of countries' biosafety stakeholders (government representatives and regulators but also industry, importers, farmers, NGOs and media) through 3 national workshops by country: 43 countries have completed 87 workshops: 38 their 1st workshop, 30 their 2nd workshop, 18 their 3rd workshop, and 1 country held an additional 4th workshop (request from country),

• Training of BCH National Focal Points: 7 regional trainings in 6 regions for 60 NFPs, 2 global training of over 30 NFPs during COP13 and COP14,

• Training of trainers of the Regional Advisors Network

• 2 regional Trainings of trainers in the Caribbean and Asia for National Focal Points and National Authorized Users,

• Supporting the Secretariat of the CBD with the development of the new BCH platform: financing agreements to assess current BCH platform services and hire a web development consultant to help with the migration; production of training videos for BCH users to get used to the new BCH platform before the official launch.

• Supporting not only the project, but also the CBD and biosafety as a whole with the launch of a BCH communication and outreach campaign: production of animated video and country testimony videos, social media toolkit and key messages, in partnership with ICGEB.

Resources: all Regional Advisors create, develop, and customize global, regional and national workshops utilizing pre-developed training material from the project's Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), hosted on UNEP servers.

Please find more information on ongoing and upcoming work under Theme 3 and 6.
posted on 2021-10-06 13:58 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11120 RE: Tema 1: Mejores prácticas y oportunidades, el grupo de discusión en línea 1 [#11187]
Estimados participantes y moderadores del foro

En Colombia han existido aportes importantes de parte de actores no-estatales para la implementación del Protocolo de Cartagena, principalmente en los aspectos de conciencia y participación pública y desarrollo de capacidades. En cuanto a los más pertinentes, se considera que todos los actores no-estatales, son importantes en la cadena de interacción de los aspectos relacionados a la conservación del ambiente y que le son transversales a la Seguridad de la Biotecnología. Por otra parte, la adopción de tecnologías puede influir en diferentes niveles a los diversos actores de la sociedad civil, dependiendo de sus actividades comerciales, cosmovisiones y ámbitos de vida, ésta influencia puede ser percibida como positiva o negativa de acuerdo a los aspectos anteriormente mencionados.

Respecto a las actividades de creación de capacidad que pueden ser apoyadas por actores no-estatales, en relación al plan de acción de desarrollo de capacidades para el período posterior a 2020, se podrían considerar las relacionadas con recopilación de información sobre seguridad de la biotecnología y elaboración de informes; acceso a infraestructura, conocimientos técnicos y datos científicos pertinentes; manipulación, transporte, envasado e identificación de OVM; acceso a materiales de referencia y procedimientos de muestreo; consideraciones socio-económicas y valores de referencia sobre la situación de la diversidad biológica.
posted on 2021-10-08 21:28 UTC by Mrs Carolina Villafañe, Colombia
This is a reply to 11119 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11190]
Bonjour à toutes et à tous
Il est clair que pour atteindre les objectifs escomptés pour la conservation de la biodiversité d'ici 2030 (ou 2050), beaucoup d'efforts doivent être fait à l'échelle locale. La contribution des acteurs non-étatiques (Villes, ONG, Centre d'excellence, et principaux intervenants) demeure primordiale vu que les gouvernements ne contrôlent pas tout.
Cependant, si certains acteurs non-étatiques disposent de grands moyens (financiers et moraux) la majorité des villes et ONG vivotent grâce aux dons encore très maigres du gouvernement et des bailleurs de fonds. Il est donc très important d'augmenter ces dons pour les villes et les ONG locales soit via les principaux bailleurs de fonds internationaux soit par le biais des gouvernements. Ces derniers doivent allouer plus de fonds aux villes et aux ONG locales et décentraliser leurs actions.
Dans notre cas, la ville d'Hammam-Lif (Tunisie) est située au flanc du Park National du Boukornine mais ne dispose d'aucun moyen de préserver la biodiversité du Parc et de ses alentours (qui ne sont pas dans les limites du parc) et n'a même pas le droit d'y intervenir car tout est centralisé entre le Ministère de l'Environnement et la Direction Générale des Forêts (Ministère de l'Agriculture). C'est pourquoi, outre l'augmentation des dons pour les villes et les ONG, les gouvernements doivent s'engager à intégrer les villes et les ONG dans leurs programmes de Conservation de la Biodiversité.
Cordialement
Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
posted on 2021-10-09 11:29 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11119 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11193]
Bonsoir à tous et à toutes
De nombreuses bonnes propositions ont deja été faites pour la conservation de la biodiversité. En plus de ces propositions, au Burkina Faso nous avons fait une étude des secteurs ayant un fort impact sur la perte de la biodiversité. Les secteurs de l’Agriculture, des Mines et de l’Urbanisation ont été identifiés comme ayant un fort impact négatif sur la conservation de la biodiversité. Il a alors été identifié en collaboration avec les acteurs privés de ses secteurs (associations des producteurs, les industriels, les semenciers, les miniers et les promoteurs immobiliers) les actions urgentes à mettre en œuvre d’ici 2030 pour limiter ou réduire leur impact sur la conservation de la biodiversité.
posted on 2021-10-10 19:22 UTC by M. Mathurin Wend-rabo Rouamba, Burkina Faso
This is a reply to 11181 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11195]
Dear Dr. Rami Abdel Malik, Project Manager of the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH III) project,

Thanks for your information. 
My country also participated in the first phase of BCH project. Many important and useful activities were done during the project. Especially with performing several workshops we succeeded to inform governmental and non-governmental organizations about the importance of Biosafety and BCH.
I would like to know if the project still is active and My country could apply for the Second or Third Phase of the project?
Best Regards
Nasrin Esmaeilzadeh
Iran BCH Focal Point
posted on 2021-10-11 09:13 UTC by Ms. Nasrin Sadat Esmaeilzadeh Arabi, Iran (Islamic Republic of)
This is a reply to 11148 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11197]
In response to Hector's comments, I would like to mention that for the Americas, IICA is trying to have at least one in-person technical training annual event -at least before the COVID pandemics-. In these events, we usually invite regulators from the different countries of the Western hemisphere and we try to have the participation of speakers from different sectors (universities, private companies, agriculture, environment). These meetings have been quite useful because we are interested to exchange information from different stakeholders and by doing that to have an integral and objective perspective of topics such as Risk Assessment, SynBio, Understanding the technology, etc.

It is clear that because of pandemics, virtual meetings are almost a rule now. However, the pandemic has shown the relevance and need for in-person meetings, for example, to discuss regulatory issues in a more open and relaxed way and to have better training events (more interaction).

Best regards,
Pedro
posted on 2021-10-11 17:37 UTC by Dr. Pedro Rocha, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
This is a reply to 11187 RE: Tema 1: Mejores prácticas y oportunidades, el grupo de discusión en línea 1 [#11198]
Coincido con Carolina en la multiplicidad de acciones de capacitación en las que los actores no estatales pueden tener un papel relevante. Además, es necesario poder llevar a cabo dichas acciones de manera articulada con actores estatales para poder optimizar recursos (tiempo y dinero), alinear posiciones, reconocer responsabilidades y definir acciones concretas. Con este modo más acordado, se podría transitar de manera veloz y efciente en temas relacionados con la diversidad biológica. Actuar de manera fragmentada difícilmente nos permitirá salir de la situación de deterioro en la que encontramos.
Cordial saludo,
Pedro
posted on 2021-10-11 17:49 UTC by Dr. Pedro Rocha, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
This is a reply to 11195 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11201]
Dear Nasrin
Thank you for your input to the forum.
Iran has participated in both first and second phase of BCH Projects (BCH1 and BCH2).
All eligible countries have participated in the first phase of BCH Projects (2004-2018). It was the initial period following the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
The second phase (2008-2018) was the period following the revamped version of the BCH as technologies have evolved. Only first 50 countries participated (including Iran).
The third phase (BCH3, 2014-2022) includes countries which didn't participate in the second phase.
You may have a further look at these phases of the BCH Projects at UNEP website at https://www.unep.org/resources/report/building-capacity-effective-participation-biosafety-clearing-house-bch-cartagena
Again thank you for your post
Mohamed
posted on 2021-10-13 03:59 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11201 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11202]
Dear Mohamed

Thank you for your informative answer, but Iran did not participate in the second or third phase of the BCH project.
Upon successful completion of the first phase of the BCH project (the project was completed on time and the final report was approved by UNEP), my country applied to participate in the second phase of the BCH project but we did not receive any response.

Kind Regards
Nasrin
posted on 2021-10-13 10:12 UTC by Ms. Nasrin Sadat Esmaeilzadeh Arabi, Iran (Islamic Republic of)
This is a reply to 11202 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11203]
Dear Nasrin
According to this document (https://publicpartnershipdata.azureedge.net/gef/PMISGEFDocuments/Biodiversity/Global%20-%20(3856)%20-%20Building%20Capacity%20for%20Effective%20Participation%20in%20t/08-28-09%20PIF%20document%20revised.doc) Iran was listed as eligible to the BCH2 project. So, either you have been within the 50 first countries which endorsed the BCH2 project, or you have been outside the 50 first countries and in this case you are eligible for BCH3.
Best regards
(edited on 2021-10-13 13:11 UTC by Mohamed Elyes Kchouk)
posted on 2021-10-13 13:06 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11148 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11208]
Dear colleagues, I have read with interest the discussion over the past couple of weeks, and appreciate the wide range of views expressed. I am writing to follow up on my initial post. Thanks to Sarah Luke (#11177), Rami Abdul Malik(#11181) and Pedro Rocha (#11197) for responding with very interesting and useful information on the efforts of their respective organizations to further the goals and enhance the operability of the Cartagena Protocol. I am struck by the apparent paucity of efforts by others. With that in mind, I think that the calls for increased funding for NGOs and local governments, such as those expressed in #11159, #11190 and elsewhere, should come with the realization that there has been little track record of these entities (due to their lack of opportunity), and that, therefore, accountability mechanisms should be put in place to assure that deliverables and goals are met by recipients of any funding. In that regard, those organizations who have already been working in this space, such as   CropLife, BCH III, and IICA could be looked to for guidance or examples of what and how things could be done.
posted on 2021-10-14 03:48 UTC by Mr. Hector Quemada, Western Michigan University
This is a reply to 11208 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11209]
Thank you Mr. Hector Quemada for your post (#11208)
We all agree that a great number of non-state actors are needed to achieve 2030 (2050) targets on Biosafety & Biodiversity conservation. I also agree with you that many of them don't have experience in managing projects and funds. So we have to choose either working with them and taking some reasonable risk or leaving governments continue on the actual slow pace which will prevent us from achieving our targets.
I guess that we need to agree on the first option. Provide non-state actors with necessary funds to achieve 90% of our targets with the risk that some of them might not be able to do it either because of their inadequate competency or 'corruption'.
I'm convinced that governments which receive official grants and loans from world institutions should be bound by a kind of mandatory agreement that part of these funding should go to cities (especially) and NGOs. So multiplying actors and covering wider areas. This is in my opinion the main output needed from the Edinburgh declaration at next COPMOP.
Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
posted on 2021-10-14 07:31 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11190 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11210]
Bonjour à tous et toutes
Effectivement, il faut tenir compte des politiques pour l'atteinte des objectifs dans la conservation de la biodiversité. Le système de gouvernance doit permettre aux acteurs locaux d'intervenir et d'être responsables de la gestion des parcs, forêts, et autres espaces pour la conservation de la biodiversité. En effet, les acteurs locaux sont premiers bénéficiaires mais et surtout les premiers perdants lors de la perte de la biodiversité. Un plaidoyer doit être donc fait pour une plus grande implication des acteurs locaux étatiques ou privés, et la mise à disposition de ces acteurs des fonds pour mener à bien leur mission. Au Burkina Faso par exemple, il existe un fond minier alimenter par les sociétés minières. Une partie de ce fond est destinée aux acteurs locaux (communes) pour réaliser des activités de développement mais aussi des actions pour la conservation de la biodiversité.
posted on 2021-10-14 09:48 UTC by M. Mathurin Wend-rabo Rouamba, Burkina Faso
This is a reply to 11190 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11211]
Bonjour chers participants aux échanges;
La conservation de la biodiversité et son l'utilisation durable reste un défi pour notre humanité et particulière pour les zones tropicales qui abritent une forte et riche diversité. Si beaucoup de projets  sont lancés pour aménager et créer des mécanismes de gestions de ces ressources, il demeure que les résultats sont toujours mitigés. Une des raisons serait le manque de responsabilisation des acteurs qui vivent au quotidien à coté de ces ressources forestières. Il faut travailler plus avec les villages riverains des ressources, aussi demander leurs avis sur les méthodes que ces riverains trouvent pertinents pour la conservation. Nous devons avoir à l'esprit que les sociétés ont de la mémoire, du moins pour les zones que connait bien. En Afrique lorsqu'il s'est agi de créer des zones de conservation, les propriétaires des lieux ont été exproprier sans ménagement. ils vivent avec cela dans leur esprit et le transmet à leurs descendances. Ce qui pourrait expliquer les cas d'occupations arachique que l'on constate dans pratique toutes les forêts classées en Afrique l'Ouest francophone.  Reparons ce tord en posant des actes de réconciliation entre les agents de l'état en charge de la conservation et les populations. Ensuite reconnaissons que ces domaines appartient à ces populations. Ce n'est qu'après cela on pourra s'assoir avec ses population pour dresser un schéma d'aménagement participatif des ressources de la localité en tenant compte des besoins de la population.
Je fait tout ce développement, car j'ai eu la chance de travailler avec des populations locales qui ont décidé de façon consensuel de dégager des espaces de conservations villageoises. Ces espaces ne sont pas gardés par un agent de l'état, ni un forestier. Mais, ils ne sont pas anthropisés.  ce qui me convient que les meilleurs gardiens et gestionnaires des ressources sont les populations riveraines à ces ressources, si elles sont bien impliquées
posted on 2021-10-14 16:24 UTC by PhD student Zézouma SANON, National Biosafety Agency
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11212]
In Nigeria, the NBMA Act. 2015 as amended is the requisite legislation governing all matters of Biosafety and Biosecurity in the country,  there are no upcoming legislation but there are a handful of developed guidelines in the pipelines to be presented for legislation, or there are series of guidelines in one pipeline to be fully developed and presented to the National Assembly

2. Initiate a process for preparing a long-term strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020: Capacity building on the understanding and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

3. Commission a study to provide the knowledge-based for the preparation of long-term strategic framework: Such emerging issues as in different countries which are critical in relation to Biosafety, Biosecurity, Gene Drive, Gene Editing and Climate Change, Nature-Based Solution for Biodiversity and Eco-system Restoration

4. Non States actors play a major role in the policy decision-making of nation-states and significantly influence legislation. they mobilize and lobby members on decisions of public interest, collaborations with academic institutions, private sector entities, NGOs, and creating a round table framework where all inputs will be addressed through Public PrivateParnerships and drafting communication guidelines.

5. As stated earlier through Public Private Partnership a national Biodiversity day should be enacted to bring together non-state actors such as the academic institutions, NGOs private entities to mobilize and lobby members for full participation and awareness on Biodiversity issues.
   Relevant Non State actors should a also be co-opted as members of the Conference of Parties to the Meeting of Parties on Biological Diversity
posted on 2021-10-15 14:22 UTC by Ms. Josephine O. Osagie, Nigeria
This is a reply to 11208 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11214]
Thank you Hector. It was a very consistent comment.
In Moldova there are 2 Aarhus Centers in the Republic of Moldova, one in Chisinau - hosted by EcoContact NGO and one in Tighina / Bender - hosted by AO "Pelican".
The Aarhus Center assists the Government in implementing the Aarhus Convention and helps citizens to understand and exercise the rights that the Convention offers. In order to achieve sustainable results in the field of environmental protection, the Aarhus Center within the EcoContact aims to achieve the following strategic objectives:
- Promote the implementation of the Aarhus Convention through an active dialogue between the Government, NGOs and the general public;
- Promoting access to environmental information and increasing public participation in decision-making;
- Promote the implementation at national level of the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.
For the purpose of harmonizing national legislation with Directive 2001/18 / EC on the deliberate introduction into the environment of genetically modified organisms has been developed a new draft law on genetically modified organisms. The draft law contains mandatory provisions on transparency, information and public consultation in the decision-making process regarding the introduction of GMOs and products resulting from these.
The Aarhus Center of the EcoContact NGO has participated at public consultation campaign to discuss the draft law on GMOs. As the result of this public consultation, a new specific chapter on Public participation has been included in the draft law and is focused to establish a mechanism for public information and participation, in accordance with the Art. 6 and 6bis of the Aarhus Convention.
The draft law was consulted with the institutions involved and civil society was placed on the MADRM WEB page http://www.madrm.gov.md at the Transparency directory decision-making and on the government portal at the following sites:
https://www.madrm.gov.md/ro/content/anun%C8%9B-privind-ini%C8%9Bierea-elabor%C4%83rii-proiectului-legii-privind-organismele-modificate-genetic 
https://cancelaria.gov.md/sites/default/files/document/attachments/proiectul_515.pdf
https://particip.gov.md/ro/document/stages/anunt-despre-consultari-publice-la-draft-law-on-genetically-modified-organisms-unique-number-515madrm2020 /7542
At the same time, the draft law was presented to civil society in two seminars organized within the project of DonauSoja “Increasing the competitiveness of the agri-food sector by integrating it into domestic and global value chains, especially in the soybean sector ".
During the years 2017-2020, the National Commission for Biosafety of Moldova has reviewed total 31 applications and notifications submited by various economic operators seeking authorization of import of meal obtained from genetically modified soybeans. Requests and Notifications were placed on the WEB page of the Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment for information and public consultation.

Thank you for a very interesting exchange of opinions.
Angela Lozan, MD
posted on 2021-10-15 14:59 UTC by Ms. Angela Lozan, Republic of Moldova
This is a reply to 11174 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11216]
I wish to register my agreement with the comments of Stephanie James [11174] and Galina Mozgava [11143] on the value and importance of including scientists and researchers, universities and research institutes as non-state actors willing and able to help achieve the CBD objectives and the Sustainable Development Goals.

In particular, academia can play a useful role as a source of information and capacity building for biosafety, which must be evidence based to drive consensus towards beneficial outcomes.

More generally, scientific research will be critical to achieve the appropriately ambitious objectives of the post-2020 biodiversity framework, both to develop new strategies and tools to meet the challenges of addressing the various drivers of biodiversity loss, and to monitor and evaluate our progress.

Specific examples involving Imperial College London that I am aware of include:

(1) scientists at Imperial College London involved in research on LMOs (including engineered gene drive organisms) have been sharing information and engaging in dialog in order to help build biosafety capacity (e.g., IICA meetings as mentioned by Pedro Rocha [11155] and similar meetings organised by the ISAAA.

(2) the Pan African Mosquito Control Association (PAMCA) organises an annual training on the research on gene drive organisms for vector control that builds the capacity of various African actors (researchers, regulators, etc.) on this topic and related biosafety aspects. Imperial College London and its partners in Target Malaria from IRSS in Burkina Faso, MRTC in Mali, UVRI in Uganda have been sharing their knowledge on gene drive organisms during those training sessions, and these contributions have been greatly appreciated.
posted on 2021-10-15 15:37 UTC by Mr. Austin Burt, Imperial College London
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11217]
Dear Colleagues,
This is Wei Wei, an academic staff from the Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). In 2016, the CAS had invited experts from its affiliated institutes and published a full issue on biosafety in the Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, totally including 11 papers covering GMOs, invasive species and synthetic biology etc. This journal is a think tank journal directed and sponsored by the CAS and focuses on strategic and decision-making research.
I believe that this could be a good practice of engagement of an academic non-state actor in mainstreaming biosafety and disseminating elated scientific knowledge.
Thanks for your attention.
Wei
posted on 2021-10-15 15:54 UTC by Mr. Wei Wei, China
This is a reply to 11217 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11218]
Dear colleagues
I truly agree with your posts (#11216 & #11217) and invite biotechnologists to contribute more widely and efficiently to assist decision makers in regard to biosafety issues. Their input in capacity building and risk assessments would be very valuable and appreciated.
Besides, popularization of scientific aspects and awareness of biosafety aspects of different audience categories are very important, continuous and essential activities for the future of LMOs as engines of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation.
posted on 2021-10-15 17:28 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11211 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11219]
Merci Zézouma SANON pour voter post
Vous soulevez là une question très sensible. Il est certain que plusieurs communautés locales ont été marginalisées alors qu'elles sont les meilleurs conservatrices de la biodiversité. A défaut de chercher un "coupable" historique l'homme dispose de plusieurs moyens pour rendre hommage à ces communautés et les réhabiliter. Cela va dépendre de nos gouvernants. En attendant, ou parallèlement, on se doit de renforcer les communautés existantes. J'ai déjà cité l'implication des Parties dans la mise en place d'un système de financement des cités et des villes et des communautés locales. Et ce, en réservant une partie des fonds dont ils disposent pour ces groupes ou même  groupuscules dans le cadre de conventions ou d'accords contraignant. Il faut soutenir ces options à la prochaine COPMOP. Il faut soutenir la déclaration d'Edinburghk qui est à mon avis une excellente initiative.
posted on 2021-10-15 17:50 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11210 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11220]
Merci M. Mathurin Wend-rabo Rouamba pour votre post.
J'ai abordé cet aspect de financement dans ma réponse (#11219) à votre compatriote. C'est aussi une option intéressante pour nos gouvernants.
Le bonjour à toute votre équipe.
posted on 2021-10-15 17:55 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11222]
1.a. The mechanism of participation of indigenous peoples and other non-state actors is established in the Philippines. For instance, in an issuance prescribing policies, laws and regulations, and procedures jointly by several government agencies for research and development, handling and use, transboundary movement, release into the environment, and management of genetically modified plant and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology being revised, a series of stakeholder’s consultation was done to elicit comments was conducted.

Success in incorporating provisions relevant for indigenous peoples. Challenge in the virtual setting.

b. The Convention on Biological Diversity has established participatory mechanisms and practices for indigenous peoples in the CBD meetings, especially in the ad hoc open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j). COP 14 also adopted a comprehensive and participatory process for the development of the post-2O20 GBF. The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IFB), the caucus of indigenous participants in the CBD, were able to actively participate in the different meeting and were able to deliver the interventions in the different matters that are of concern to indigenous peoples and local communities and stressed the importance of indigenous and local knowledge innovations, practices. However, it is to be noted that there are some who were not able to participate due to technical difficulties and time zone challenges. Further, during the virtual SBSTTA-24 and SB-3 formal meetings, the IIFB representatives were not given the floor to provide interventions on numerous occasions. 

2. The IPBES Global Assessment recognizes the central role of indigenous peoples and local communities in achieving the objectives of the Convention and its Protocols; thus, they should be involved.

3. Capacity-building is dependent on the needs of each country. However, there should be a separate capacity-building activity dedicated to addressing the needs of indigenous peoples. It is also to be noted that the past capacity-building activities related to biosafety did not include representatives from indigenous peoples as enumerated in #11181.

5. All national, regional, and global activities and events should involve non-state actors, including indigenous peoples.
posted on 2021-10-16 00:11 UTC by Ms. Milanie June Cadalig Batang-ay, Tebtebba Foundation
This is a reply to 11217 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11226]
Dear Wie Wei, dear colleagues,

I would like to thank Wei for this post. In my point of view this is indeed a remarkable achievement and a good-practice example how academic research and science can provide a lot of important input to the biosafety debate within the Agenda for Nature and People. I regard it as particularly important that broad and cross-cutting experiences are shared, as in the case of the CAS example provided by Wei, which broadly covered GMOs, invasive species and synthetic biology.

I am working at an institution - the Environment Agency Austria - which is addressing the science/policy interface in our daily project work and we are very pleased to receive objective, factual input from academic institutions on topics which are debated intensively at the regional, national and international level. Providing this information in a form and content understandable broadly to a wider audience in the interested public is another important asset.

I would be happy to get to know some more examples like this from the academic world. I wish all colleagues interesting remaining hours of this very special and important online forum discussions.

Kind regards

Helmut Gaugitsch
Environment Agency Austria
posted on 2021-10-16 09:42 UTC by Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch, Austria
This is a reply to 11217 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11227]
Thank you Mr Wei Wei for sharing this information.
Could you specify the issue number of BCAS.
Thank you
posted on 2021-10-16 10:15 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11219 RE: Thème 1 : Bonnes pratiques et opportunités, le groupe de discussion en ligne 1 [#11229]
Dear Zézouma SANON,

Thank you once again for this wonderful contributions you made. I completely agree with what you said, nature is becoming impatient with us humans on every day basis, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be at the fore front of this restoration process. We need to begin to take urgent actions towards this direction starting with the next COPMOP.

Asikaralu Okafor
Village Farmers Initative (VFI)
Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-16 10:54 UTC by Mrs Asikaralu Okafor, Village Farmers Initiative (VFI)
This is a reply to 11222 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11232]
Dear colleagues,

I would like to draw you attention to the Pocket guide on promoting effective access to information and public participation regarding living modified organisms/genetically modified organisms, developed under the auspices of both the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).

The Pocket guide is an informal tool that seeks to help various stakeholders, including, of course, non-state actors, strengthen their capacities for effective access to information and public participation in decision-making processes regarding LMOs/GMOs.

The Pocket guide is available at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/outreach/Pocket%20Guide.pdf and https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/Pocket%20Guide.pdf
posted on 2021-10-16 23:26 UTC by Mr. Serhiy Vykhryst, KROK University
This is a reply to 11227 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11233]
Dear Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk,
Dear Moderator Dr. Helmut Gaugitsch,

Many thanks for your kindly comments. I highly appreciate.

This issue was published in issue no. 4 of 2016. Here is a link for your information (http://www.bulletin.cas.cn/zgkxyyk/ch/reader/issue_list.aspx?year_id=2016&quarter_id=4). Unfortunately they are in Chinese for easy access by policy makers in China but with English abstracts.

In addition to publishing and disseminating scientific knowledge and professional recommendations, encouraging its academic staff to participate in the activities and discussions related to biodiversity conservation and biosafety issues organized by the Secretariat or other related organizations could be also a good practice of engagement of an academic non-state actor.

Best regards

Wei
posted on 2021-10-17 00:01 UTC by Mr. Wei Wei, China
This is a reply to 11226 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11234]
Dear Helmut and colleagues,

In response to Helmut's inquiry, I would like to make everyone aware of a useful resource on the topic of genetic biocontrol, and especially gene drives, which is a topic of much discussion these days under the CBD and Cartagena Protocol. This site, the GeneConvene Virtual Institute (https://www.geneconvenevi.org), is an initiative of the GeneConvene Global Collaborative (https://fnih.org/what-we-do/geneconvene), within the United States Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The Virtual Institute aggregates, curates and shares knowledge to advance understanding of  genetic biocontrol technologies, such as gene drive, as well as selfish genetic elements found throughout nature. I would like to especially bring your attention to the ongoing webinar series, which explores various aspects of genetic biocontrol, including gene drives.

Furthermore, there is the African Genetic Biocontrol Consortium (https://www.genbioconsortium.africa), whose member organizations are committed to contribute and expand Africa’s self-determination through research, development, and use of genetic biocontrol approaches to control and eliminate malaria and other vector-borne diseases in Africa.
posted on 2021-10-17 04:52 UTC by Mr. Hector Quemada, Western Michigan University
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11240]
Posted on behalf of Liliane Déborah BLE MACHADO

Tema 1: Melhores práticas e oportunidades, grupo de discussão online 1. [#11233]
Comme nous avons pu le remarquer pendant le webinar, il est important que chacun travaille avec ce qu'il a et avec sa communauté.

Moi personnellement je fais partie d'un groupe de volontaires en Angola en protection de l'environnement, Ecoangola. J'ai un DEA en Gestion et valorisation des ressources naturelles et spécialisation entomologie, et je souhaiterais faire ma thése de doctorat, après 10 ans, en Permaculture. Je suis entrain d'écrire des projets pour des communautés démunies que j'espère pouvoir mettre à fonctionner l'année prochaine.

Mes projets sont d'enseigner des communautés démunies aux nouvelles techniques agricoles: agroforesterie, agrotourisme. Cette approche sera participative. Nous allons utiliser leur connaissance de la région, leurs habitudes culturelles, leur expérience et combiner á celles que nous avons qui ont eu du succès.
Aussi m'investir dans la production de biofertilisants à partir des ordures organiques pour aider à restituer et à protéger la biodiversité des sols. Utiliser aussi les réseaux sociaux pour montrer la valeur de la biodiversité.
Pour moi ces petites actions seront comme des micro climats qui pourront montrer l'importance de la biodiversité et la nécessité de la préserver. Montrer qu'il est possible d'être riche et en même temps protéger la biodiversité.
Dans le groupe EcoAngola nous avons conçu un projet de permaculture. je lui ai donné le nom de Ya tchi Yetu, langue nationale kikongo, qui signifie la terre nous appartient. Ce nom montre la responsabilité que nous avons vis à vis de notre habitat et montre aussi que si nous prenons soin de lui il nous le rendra " au centuple". Ce projet a été financé par l'Ambassade Britanique en Angola pour 9 mois.
Donc c'est mon projet pour aider ma communauté et je pense profiter de chacune des expériences de ce beau programme pour enrichir nos projets.

Je vous souhaite une bonne semaine à vous et à votre équipe.

--
Liliane Déborah BLE MACHADO
00244924405483
00244919195905
posted on 2021-10-17 08:23 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11243]
Dear Colleagues,

This Yuhan BAO, a PhD candidate from Tsinghua University working on the responsible research and innovation of synthetic biology.

Youth and scientist are both important actors within the CBD progress.

An online forum on synthetic biology and biodiversity convention was held on 14th this month during COP15 by me and youth researchers of synbio from China. Most of the youth researchers are the members of iGEM teams. This forum was designed to promote the responsible research and innovation of synbio (to deal with big challenges in a responsible way), and also make people aware of the discussion of CBD and relevant protocols. More than 2000 people watched this online forum.

Some of the Chinese iGEMers are trying to research synbio in a responsible manner and aimed to protect biodiversity. Such as to design a new kinds of yeast by producing a new kind of bacterial endotoxin to replace Tachypleus Amebocyte Lysate and protect the endangers species. They are also aware of the issues of safety issues and try to achieve the goal of ‘safety by design’.

This forum was supported by some associations of synthetic biology in China. I would say from the perspective of governance of emerging technologies, the self-regulation is quite important and practical than formal regulation at early stage. To promote more scientist be aware of the progress within CBD and become more responsible could be the first step and important measures. Therefore, the commitment and action from youth scientists and association of scientists is quite important for the goal of CBD and Cartagena protocol.

During this forum, an achievement and also a potential non-state actor commitment was the negotiation and publish of youth declaration on RRI and Biodiversity.  The full name is Declaration of Chinese Synthetic Biology Youth Researchers on Responsible Research & Innovations for Biodiversity Protection. It had been reached an agreement by the forum participants and organizations and is now open for more advice and signature as a draft.

This Declaration contained the recognition of the relevant topics concerning synbio within CDB including safety and benefits sharing. It also contained a series of commitments on the following issues:

1. Responsible research and innovation of synbio to meet the grand challenges
2. Comply with the formal regulations and ethical guidelines
3. Conduct comprehensive risk assessment for the ongoing research and put for efforts on the R&D of safety and escapes prevention technologies.
4. Improve the establishment of scientific community and conclude more best practices, guidelines for research and application.
5. Promote public communication and information-sharing.
6. Promote communication of synbio or bioscience with other disciplines such as ecology, environment, law, ethics and etc.
7. Enhance communication with other counties’ youth especially those from developing countries, to promote the development and biodiversity protection for developing countries.
8. Respect traditional knowledge of biodiversity and hereditary resources, try to explore the feedback mechanisms to let more people benefits from technologies.

The full text of this Declaration would be published after more negotiation and feedback in our country. And we want this declaration could be accepted by more youth synbio researchers such through the committee of iGEM, make this declaration a global youth declaration. If you have any suggestions please tell me, and I will also update our progress.
(edited on 2021-10-17 15:58 UTC by Yuhan Bao)
posted on 2021-10-17 15:53 UTC by Yuhan Bao, School of Public Policy and Mangement, Tsinghua University
This is a reply to 11243 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11248]
Dear colleagues,

I would first like to thank the secretariat and the moderators for organizing such inspiring discussions. My name is Sarah Agapito and I am a Senior Researcher at GenØk – Centre for Biosafety in Norway. I hold a PhD in Plant Genetics and I am currently involved in scientific projects on detection and identification of gene-edited organisms as well as on off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas9 applications.

GenØk is the Norwegian National Competent Authority in biosafety since 2007. GenØk has delivered GMO relevant capacity building activities at national and international level in support of ODA (official development assistance)-countries with training and advice on risk assessment and management of GMOs. Such capacity building projects have had an exit-strategy to secure local sustainability. Its advisory strategy is to contribute with science-based advice to national and international authorities for implementation of the Gene Technology Act in Norway, EU Directives and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. As a research institute, the core of GenØk activities is based on conducting research and research-based activities with the aim to contribute to safe use of biotechnologies. As a national competence center, we have a responsibility to investigate any adverse effects genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may have on health, environment and society.

GenØk’s capacity building activities have always prioritized the involvement of all actors and stakeholders. The biosafety courses included participants from the private sector (also as speakers), NGOs, farmers’ organizations, UN agencies, local governments, academia, consumers, policy makers, regulators, indigenous peoples and local communities, journalists, and others. This also reflects in our interdisciplinary approach which includes both natural and social sciences. These activities have been funded by Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Norwegian Agency for Exchange Cooperation (Norec) and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has got a very good evaluation (link to the report here: http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FinalReport_130116.pdf).

We consider some good practices in enhancing communication and partnerships between Parties and non-state actors:

- Transparency, such as access to biosafety information, is key to ensure non-state stakeholders’ active participation within biosafety issues.
- Capacity building with a holistic view of ecosystems functioning, biodiversity protection goals and precautionary approach is also a fundamental requirement for non-stakeholder engagement.
- Well-balanced and democratic environments such as the activities provided under the CBD and Cartagena Protocol for information sharing and communication.
- Dedicated funding for non-stakeholder participation in key events and initiatives but also funding for promoting their own events.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide some information about our work.

Best regards,

Sarah
posted on 2021-10-17 23:56 UTC by Dr. Sarah Agapito-Tenfen, GenØk Centre for Biosafety
This is a reply to 11209 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11252]
Dear All,
My name is Piet van der Meer, I have been involved in the CBD and CPB negotiations for the Dutch Ministry of the Environment from the late 1980s through 2000, after which I supported CEE countries with biosafety legislation and have been in charge of the UNEP GEF Biosafety Implementation projects. In 2004 I turned to providing biosafety support to governments and international organisations and since 2006, I also teach about biosafety at various universities.
Turning to this interesting debate, I think that the exchange between Hector Quemada [#11208] and Mohamed Elyes Kchouk [#11209] touches on an important issue, i.e., the effectiveness funding. I believe that Mohamed’s suggestion that the choice is either working with non-state actors to or maintaining the slow pace of state actors is not that black and white choice we are confronted with. It is not ‘either - or’. In some cases, state-actors can be more effective and in other cases non-state actors can be more effective. Having worked both state actors and non-state actors, I know that the great advantage of non-state actors is that they can be refreshingly direct.  Finally, I very much agree with Hector that regardless who the beneficiary is, accountability should be a cornerstone of public funding, whereby we should understand accountability to mean a justification of how the funds will contribute to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Piet
posted on 2021-10-18 06:56 UTC by Mr. Pieter van der Meer, Ghent University
This is a reply to 11243 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11253]
Thank you Mr. Yuhan BAO for this valuable information and the commitment of your university.
I would like to ask you if there are NGOs involved with you in this important initiative and are they covering all your country or limited to few regions?
best regards
Mohamed Elyes Kchouk
Regional Specialist for BCH in African Countries
posted on 2021-10-18 08:48 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11248 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11255]
Dear Sarah,

Thank you very much for sharing information about your work and for identifying some of those good practices which should be communicated and applied as widely as possible.
posted on 2021-10-18 11:32 UTC by Mr. Serhiy Vykhryst, KROK University
This is a reply to 11253 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11257]
Dear Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk,

Many thanks for your question and which give me a chance to make this more clear. This commitment is not from our university, but from several NGOs of youth and synbioers.
It includes:
1. CCiC, CCiC is the Conference of China iGEMers which is a nation wide youth organization which comprised of all the Chinese youth who participate the iGEM, it mainly represent the Chinese youth synbioers.
2. ShenZhen synthetic biology association, Shenzhen is the innovation center of synbio in China which concentrate the most researcher and companies of synbio, and this association is one of the most important NGOs in China of synbio.
3. Youth Science Exploration Action Network, this action network is a new youth organization which are launched by several youth from nationwide and NGOs with some support from government. It is developing very fast, I'm a memeber of this organization, and the forum I mentioned is initiaited from this network. This network aims at tacke the grand challenges including climate change and biodiversity loss by science exploration and innovation, this network does not regard itself as a national NGOs, it will include more youth from international society in the future.


Yuhan
posted on 2021-10-18 13:34 UTC by Yuhan Bao, School of Public Policy and Mangement, Tsinghua University
This is a reply to 11234 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11260]
In response to Hector's comment #11234, on a subject that is very much under discussion within the Biosafety Protocol context, it would be useful for participants to hear more information about the initiatives listed.  In particular, do the consortia/collaborations/institute support any biosafety capacity building, or develop any materials that are germane to the risk assessment or synthetic biology discussions under the Protocol?
posted on 2021-10-18 21:41 UTC by Ms. Sarah Lukie, Croplife International, Global Industry Coalition
This is a reply to 11202 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11263]
Dear Nasrin,
Regarding your country's participation to BCH Projects, please note that follow ups on decisions or requests for clarification in this respect are in the mandate of the GEF and should be communicated by your GEF Operational Focal Point to the GEF Secretariat.
I hope this helps.
All the best
Mohamed
posted on 2021-10-19 09:05 UTC by Prof. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk, Tunisia
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11267]
In the Philippines, the government is in partnership with non-state actors, like the ISAAA an international organization and the BCP, an NGO, in conducting public seminar, forum, scientific symposium, roundtable discussions, production of books on the different aspect of biotechnology and biosafety, other printed materials (primers, brochures, newsletters, magazines, comic books, posters, infographics), development of dedicated websites on biotech and biosafety, conduct of biotech fairs and exhibits.

With these, I think non-state actors can help assist in capacity-building for the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology, in IEC activities for meaningful public participation and education, in co-organizing and sharing of resources, expertise, facilities and other logistics.

Massive online info-sharing, strengthening information capacities are important for the public to develop a better understanding of the entire value chain of living modified organisms and the international biosafety regulations that govern them.
posted on 2021-10-22 03:14 UTC by Ms. Maria Lorelie U. Agbagala, Philippines
This is a reply to 11267 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11272]
Posted on behalf of Mr. Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai, Himalayan Folklore, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Networks, Federation of Kirant Indigenous Associations, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Nepal:
Dear Maria,
Thank you so much for the valuable all information and the documents that already prepared, I  think it is great to share with wider and make convergence explore the importance issues from non-state. How is possible to access the documents? is there any provision to get the documents for capacity building for non-state?

Thanks with regards
Kamal
SEWA Kirant Indigenous Morning
No Hand shake, No Hug COVID-19
Kamal Kumar Rai
Researcher on Indigenous Science and Philosophy
Mother Nature and Indigenous Relationship
SWBC - Nepal
Po Box: 12476
Kathmandu
Nepal
E-mail: ipskirantsampang@gmail.com
posted on 2021-10-22 12:58 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11267 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11275]
Anent my statement under this theme, BCP means Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines and IEC means Information, Education and Communication.

Thank you.
Maria Lorelie Agbagala
posted on 2021-10-23 00:02 UTC by Ms. Maria Lorelie U. Agbagala, Philippines
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11276]
Dear All,

Thanks for. all your contributions...
Synthetic biology and biosafety in somewhat a new form of science in it's initial exploitation in Africa and mostly Uganda as a country.
However, I am glad to share that the non-state actors are doing a great work to nurture this area among the young people in Africa and Uganda in specific. Recently, there was an Inaugural Synthetic biology Conference organised by Synbio Africa in partnership with other non-state actors from 14-16th October, 2021 which some of you might have attended.  Themes ranging from biosafety and biosecurity, Agricultural innovations, renewable energy, biosensors and diagnostics, bioinformatics and data science. The main objective of the  conference was to promote synthetic biology and biosafety innovations to address global challenges at national level through youth involvement.
As of now, there's still a lot of work to be done with regards to more communication arenas especially on how.tl reach out to the academia as well as involve indigenous communities to this area.

Thank you.
Asianzu Blessing Apamaku
Administrator,
Kichini Gardeners Initiative
Kampala,Uganda.
posted on 2021-10-24 04:09 UTC by Ms. Asianzu Blessing Apamaku, Kichini Gardeners
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11277]
My name is Adam Cornish and I am the national focal point to the Cartagena Protocol for the United States. I serve as a biotechnology advisor at the U.S. Department of State, where I collaborate with a diverse range of partners to encourage the use of effective, science-based, and risk-proportionate approaches when reviewing products of biotechnology, including the subset of which meet the definition of a living modified organism (LMO). I appreciate the chance to provide a perspective on the role of non-state actors in achieving biosafety goals, as well as gaining insights from other forum participants.

Question 3 - In your experience, what type of capacity building activities can non-state actors undertake to support the capacity-building action plan for the post-2020 period?

Non-state actors can enhance understanding of the role of the Protocol to a broad range of stakeholders, while also encouraging engagement on topics relevant to the Protocol that are undertaken by multilateral organizations, individual countries, and the BCH. They have the ability to communicate with non-experts on specific topics underneath the Protocol and enhance understanding that fosters engagement on issues relevant to their stakeholders.

Topics for communication could include:
-The scope and purpose of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. As described by others in this forum, the Protocol serves two interrelated purposes: 1) To ensure that the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and release of any living modified organisms are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological diversity, specifically focusing on transboundary movements; and 2) To enable the safe use of modern biotechnology in order to achieve the great potential it has for humankind, such as meeting biodiversity conservation objectives. The first purpose permits the second to be fully realized – effective policies for the review of LMOs both ensures safety of the organisms in relation to biodiversity, while also allowing their use to accomplish goals for developers, producers, and consumers. 
-The existing policies, frameworks, and guidelines that have allowed countries to effectively assess the risks of LMOs and enabled their use to achieve benefits while ensuring safety in the use of the products.
-The robust nature and scientific basis of these policies that already support countries in achieving diverse objectives.

Thank you - I appreciate the chance to share perspectives on this important subject.

Adam Cornish
(edited on 2021-10-24 10:52 UTC by Adam Cornish)
posted on 2021-10-24 10:51 UTC by Mr. Adam Cornish, United States of America
This is a reply to 11115 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11282]
Re-posted on behalf of Ms. Milena Roudna, former focal point of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of the Czech Republic:

Dear Colleagues,

On the basis of the Czech experience with non-state actors I am sending contribution to the discussion - the theme 1 and the theme 3.

1. Best practices and opportunities

We have some good experience mainly with scientific-technical societies (transfer of scientific and technical progress to public), civil societies and local communities.
Most important is communication and contact with representatives of these groups. Following step is to find understandable way of transferring the knowledge and general information.

Milena Roudna
posted on 2021-10-24 15:37 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11282 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11285]
‘Good’ points, Milena. The interaction between dedicated scientific-technical representatives and those from civil groups could assist in producing biosafety-related information that’s intelligible to members of the general public (and stimulate public awareness of the issues).

Kind regards,

Fred E.A. Phillips
posted on 2021-10-24 21:33 UTC by Mr. Fred Phillips, UNEP BCH Regional Advisor
This is a reply to 11276 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11288]
Dear Asianzu Blessing Apamaku,

Thank you for your contribution to the online discussion and your remarks on the activities of non-state actors and the youth in the area of Synthetic biology and biosafety are noted. Your concern regarding the challenges in communication of relevant information highlights the importance of youths and non-state actors involvement and making commitments towards the Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol and the Capacity-building Action Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

These commitments are invitations to join the global movement of people committed to finding ways to accelerate progress in biosafety goals. The commitments shall inspire parties and regions to facilitate awareness raising activities to disseminate adequate information on implementation strategies. It shall relatively enhance the involvement of the IPLCs and promote public understanding and stewardship, as well as creating a groundswell of action for nature and people.

The non-state-state actors and the youths are therefore encouraged to harness this opportunity and make commitments to connect and mobilize actions for biodiversity, including biosafety, in support of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and the Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
ED/EWHC, Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-24 23:12 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11212 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11289]
Dear Ms. Josephine O. Osagie,
Many thanks for your contribution, which gave insights to the activities of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) of Nigeria, under the leadership of Rufus Ebegba (Ph.D), Director-General/CEO, NBMA.

The efforts of the Agency to enhance capacity building on the understanding and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is noted, including her recognition of the significant role of the non-state actors in nature-based solutions for biodiversity and ecosystem restoration.

This is a right move in the right direction to mobilize full participation and facilitate awareness on biosafety and Biodiversity issues in Nigeria.

Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
ED/EWHC, Nigeria
posted on 2021-10-25 00:14 UTC by MRS EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU, EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE
This is a reply to 11276 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11293]
Posted on behalf of Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai, Himalayan Folklore, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Networks, Federation of Kirant Indigenous Associations, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Nepal:

Dear Asianzu Blessing Apamaku,

Thank you so much for the important information, I did not know about the SynBio Conference. I agree we have to lots of work on these issues from IPLCs, women and youth perspective. I am continuing on the subject.

Thanks with regards
Kamal
posted on 2021-10-25 14:26 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11282 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11295]
Posted on behalf of Mr. Kamal Kumar Rai, Himalayan Folklore, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Networks, Federation of Kirant Indigenous Associations, Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Nepal:

Dear Milena,

Thank you so much for your contribution and all the information, access information and transformation, sensitization and collective participation are important. Thanks a lot, much appreciated,

Kamal
Nepal
posted on 2021-10-25 14:47 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11217 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11296]
Posted on behalf of Ms. Priscilla Nzamalu, Ark of Food and Nutrition Security/Sovereignty (AFANSO):

I am very supportive and grateful of Wei's observation about the publishers. I would encourage farm research, pilot projects and practical demonstration of what works and what won't work so that society can work with true evidence.

With great gratitude,

Priscilla
posted on 2021-10-25 14:52 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11267 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11297]
Posted on behalf of Ms. Priscilla Nzamalu, Ark of Food and Nutrition Security/Sovereignty (AFANSO):

In addition to what others have said regarding book printing, information sharing and capacity building, earth workshops are encouraging forum for information sharing and message delivery to the public. Biosafety is key to good living.

Priscilla Nzamalu
posted on 2021-10-25 14:55 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 11289 RE: Theme 1: Best practices and opportunities, Online discussion group 1. [#11299]
Posted on behalf of Ms. Yolanda Teran, University of New Mexico:

Biosafety is a critical issue for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. There are some points that need to be taken on consideration:

- Not all IPLCs have access to a computer and internet connection, in that regard it is not easy for us to access the Clearing House to get the information.
- IPLCs need to work more in the development of biocultural community protocols to upload in the Clearing House
- Need capacity building on biosafety for IPLCs including women and youth, on LMO and its consequences on IPLCs livelihoods taking in consideration the report on article 26 of Cartagena Protocol. Need sustainable financial support and technical and human resources.
- Include more participation of IPLCs from multidisciplinary fields, including the Indigenous elders' wisdom, Indigenous Epistemologies, the sacredness of Mother Earth and all her ecosystems and the compliance of consultation and Free, prior and informed consent and the precautionary mechanisms.

Yupaychanimi

Yolanda
posted on 2021-10-25 14:59 UTC by Ms. Ulrika Nilsson, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety