Online Forum on the Action Agenda/Biosafety

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 3 will be held from 4 October 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 6: Opportunities for information-sharing measures

1. What should be the main biosafety impactful message or value be to communicate and engage non-state actors?  What are some dissemination channels or entry points that non-state actors or governments can make use of (e.g. media outlets, regional platforms, associations, coalitions, local governments, including town hall meetings)?

2. What are some innovations that can be used to enhance the marketing and guidance on how to make measurable pledges for the Action Agenda (e.g. AI through automated Q and A system, directing non-state actors to key guidance materials)?
3. How can we raise the profile and partnerships of Parties and non-state actors' work (e.g. certification as incentives, ongoing dialogues, networking, sharing guidance materials between Action Agenda and the BCH)?

4. What do you consider as relevant support needed to be provided to non-state actors to facilitate progress of commitments and sharing their work?

5. How do you see the Action Agenda supporting the sharing of information and commitments on biosafety and your work in 3 years? Would we need a major campaign or profile biosafety commitments in high-level meetings with ministries (e.g. environment, agriculture, transportation) or high-profile organizations and if so what would be some impactful tools to make use of?

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

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 3 se tiendront du 4 octobre 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 6 : Opportunités de mesures de partage de l'information

1. Quel devrait être le principal message ou valeur ayant un impact sur la biosécurité pour communiquer et impliquer les acteurs non étatiques ? Quels sont les canaux de diffusion ou les points d'entrée que les acteurs non étatiques ou les gouvernements peuvent utiliser (par exemple, les médias, les plateformes régionales, les associations, les coalitions, les gouvernements locaux, y compris les assemblées publiques) ?

2. Quelles innovations peuvent être utilisées pour améliorer le marketing et les conseils sur la manière de prendre des engagements mesurables pour le programme d'action (par exemple, l'Intelligence Artificielle (IA) via un système automatisé de questions-réponses, orientant les acteurs non étatiques vers des documents d'orientation clés) ?

3. Comment pouvons-nous rehausser le profil et les partenariats de travail des Parties et des acteurs non étatiques (par exemple, certification en tant qu'incitation, dialogues permanents, mise en réseau, partage de documents d'orientation entre le Programme d'Action et le CEPRB) ?

4. Selon vous, quel soutien pertinent doit être apporté aux acteurs non étatiques pour faciliter la progression des engagements et le partage de leur travail ?

5. Comment voyez-vous le Programme d'Action soutenant le partage d'informations et les engagements sur la biosécurité et votre travail dans 3 ans ? Aurions-nous besoin d'une campagne majeure ou de profiler l'engagements en matière de biosécurité lors de réunions de haut niveau avec des ministères (par exemple, environnement, agriculture, transports) ou des organisations de premier plan et, dans l'affirmative, quels seraient les outils efficaces à utiliser ?

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

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 3 se celebrarán del 4 de octubre 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 6: Oportunidades para las medidas de intercambio de información

1. ¿Cuál debería ser el principal mensaje o valor de impacto de la bioseguridad para comunicar y comprometer a los actores no estatales?  ¿Cuáles son algunos canales de difusión o puntos de entrada que los actores no estatales o los gobiernos pueden utilizar (por ejemplo, medios de comunicación, plataformas regionales, asociaciones, coaliciones, gobiernos locales, incluidas las reuniones de los ayuntamientos)?

2. ¿Cuáles son algunas de las innovaciones que pueden utilizarse para mejorar el marketing y la orientación sobre cómo hacer promesas mensurables para la Agenda de Acción (por ejemplo, IA a través de un sistema automatizado de preguntas y respuestas, dirigiendo a los actores no estatales a materiales de orientación clave)?

3. ¿Cómo podemos elevar el perfil y las asociaciones del trabajo de las Partes y de los actores no estatales (por ejemplo, la certificación como incentivo, los diálogos continuos, la creación de redes, el intercambio de materiales de orientación entre la Agenda de Acción y el CIISB)?

4. ¿Qué considera que es necesario para apoyar a los agentes no estatales para facilitar el progreso de los compromisos y compartir su trabajo?

5. ¿Cómo cree que la Agenda de Acción apoyará el intercambio de información y compromisos sobre bioseguridad y su trabajo en 3 años? ¿Necesitaríamos una campaña importante o perfilar los compromisos sobre bioseguridad en reuniones de alto nivel con los ministerios (por ejemplo, medio ambiente, agricultura, transporte) u organizaciones de alto perfil y, en caso afirmativo, cuáles serían algunas herramientas impactantes para utilizar?

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

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3组将于2021年10月4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，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，我们也鼓励您观看“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6：信息共享措施的机会

1.  与非国家行为者沟通和参与的主要生物安全影响信息或价值应该是什么？ 非国家行为者或政府可以利用哪些传播渠道或切入点（例如媒体机构、区域平台、协会、联盟、地方政府，包括市政厅会议）？
2. 有哪些创新可以用来加强对如何为行动议程做出可衡量承诺的营销和指导（例如，人工智能自动化问答系统，引导非国家行动者查阅关键指导材料）？
3. 我们如何提高缔约方和非国家行动者的工作形象和伙伴关系（例如，作为激励措施的认证、持续对话、联网、在《行动议程》和《生物多样性公约》之间共享指导材料）？
4. 您认为需要向非国家行为者提供哪些相关支持，以促进承诺的进展和分享他们的工作？
5. 您如何看待《行动议程》支持生物安全信息和承诺的共享以及您未来 3 年的工作？我们是否需要开展一场大型活动，或在与各部委（如环境、农业、交通）或知名组织举行的高级别会议上突出生物安全承诺，如果需要，可以利用哪些有影响力的工具？

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

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 3 пройдут с 4 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

Posted on behalf of Mr. Rami Abdel Malik, Project Manager of the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH III) project,

With regards to question 4 that can also support non-state actors.

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

Upcoming activities:

• 6 online workshops are in the pipeline, 1 physical in-person workshop is also planned (the 1st one since March 2020) until 31 December 2021, and 1 other country already requested for a 4th workshop. All country projects shall be completed by end of 31 December 2022.

• 1 global training of Regional Advisors shall be organized, with UNEP certification of the Regional Advisors.

For the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, I want to suggest that the best way to engage, communicate or pass across impactful messages to them is through charade consultation. By this I mean, going to visit and meet them where they are in their communities or farm locations and allowing them to freely discuss and tell you their pain points while you write and take note of them. As you are interacting with them in their familiar environment, you will be able to draw out the problems and proffer the right kind of solutions that is peculiar to the people, environment and community. If you ask them to come for a townhall meeting, majority will not be present and even if they come, won't be able to express themselves as they wish unlike when you come to a farmer or fisher at work and ask questions or introduce to him or her the message you want to preach.
Networking will also be made easier this way, they will feel at home with you to share their contact details in whatever manner they can afford for continuous information sharing.

Asikaralu Okafor

Dear Ms. Asikaralu Okafor

It is a very good suggestion. However, it is also crucial to provide the infrastructure for this important mission. For example, the people who go to visit local people should be well educated experts from governmental organizations that could transfer their concerns to policy makers and regulators which in some developing countries with big population is very difficult and costly. 

Nasrin Esmaeilzadeh

Honestly, the action program is such a good idea for sharing knowledge. Its also important to organize campaign to raise awareness for local communities, so they can easily engaged and act .

Decade of hope.

Dear Nasirin,

It doesn't necessarily have to be experts from the government that should carry out such functions.
After all, the government is supposed to be an enabler, with public private partnership in place in those developing countries with huge population, the SMEs who deal directly with those Indigenous Peoples and smallholder farmers in our rural communities and are closer to them will do a better job.
And i think such approach will not be as expensive or costly as going to the government since they already have an existing relationship with the smallholder farmers and local communities, introducing any new innovation to them won't be that difficult.

Asikaralu Okafor

Dear All,

My thanks to Ulrika for so tirelessly pursuing the agreed Sharm El Sheikh – Kunming Action agenda, and for extending the deadline.
My apologies for this belated post – I have been submerged in preparing a large size research proposal on behalf of 25 universities and other organisations.
Returning to the guiding questions of Theme 6:
Q: What should be the main biosafety impactful message or value? 
A: For me, the first main message would be to remind ourselves why we are dealing with biosafety to begin with. Biosafety is a tool for informed decision making to maximise the benefits and minimizing potential risks of biotechnology, as for example Agenda 21 and the introduction to the Cartagena Protocol state. The Preamble to the CPB phrases this in a very nice and concise way “…modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures…”.
Q: What are some dissemination channels or entry points?
A: There are many potential channels, each with their own specific advantages. My favourite channel is in person meetings, e.g., hearings, workshops, classroom lectures, etc.
Q: What do you consider as relevant support needed to be provided to non-state actors:
A: A simple guide that explains how non- state actors can participate in the various intersessional events, such as submissions, on-line fora, AHTEGs, SBSTTAs, SBIs, OEWG and COPMOP.
Q: How do you see the Action Agenda supporting the sharing of information and commitments on biosafety and your work in 3 years?
A:  Support the sharing of information by making the commitments on the current Action Agenda webpage interactive.
Q: Would we need a major campaign or profile biosafety commitments in high-level meetings?
A: Yes, an important group would be international research organisations such as the CGIAR institutes.
Looking forward to the remainder of the debate

Piet

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 Asikaralu Okafor,

I heartily thank you so much for your statement, it is highly appreciated. it carry on in future, thanks a lot for your contribution, inclusion and taking account are very important,

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

Dear Landry Ngaimeni Ngogpa,

Many thanks for your interest to participate in the ongoing online discussion and your kind input.

I wish to remind you that your input or contribution should be a response to the online discussion guiding questions, relevant to the topic/theme(s) being discussed.

Please note that participants are expected to observe the rules and general guidelines for participation in the discussion, such as a brief introduction of themselves when posting their first message. This includes; their name, title, country, institutional affiliation, current responsibilities, main area of expertise and where applicable, the recent relevant initiatives related to the programme of work/or Article 23 the have been involved in.

Your message should also be focused, concise and should not exceed 300 words (or no more than a full screen long).

You are encouraged to post more messages for greater information and knowledge sharing.

Thank you once again for your interest.

Best regards,


Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu
ED/EWHC
Nigeria

Dear Asikaralu Okafor,

You made a distinct and remarkable contribution. However, I think town hall meetings and other related platforms are very relevant for adequate sharing of experience, knowledge and information through peer-learning.

Thank you for your effective participation in this discussion.


Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu

I very much support the contribution from Piet Van Der Meer about reinforcing the message that Biosafety is a tool for informed decision making to maximise the benefits and minimising potential risks of biotechnology. It is very important to link biosafety to the three objectives of the convention but also to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal, so stakeholders can consider potential risks and benefits of LMOs, in comparison to the non-LMO alternatives, and in the perspective of these common objectives that nations and people have set for themselves.
It would be very helpful to have practical guidelines on how different nonstate actors can get involved in different CBD activities and share their knowledge and experience in those. It can be very complex for actors, such as the young enthusiastic academics or researchers who are new to the policy for them to navigate how the CBD works and where and how they can make the most meaningful contribution. It could be helpful to establish some focal points within the nonstate actor groups of the CBD (major groups incl. research/education) who could be contacted by newcomers to the process to get advice on how to engage with this policy forum.

Dear Friends,

Continue media communication, networking, campaign, lobby, capacity building, guidance, workshops in person or training program and leadership development in cultural appropriate for Indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth seems important.

Local, National, regional and global Action network Platform may lead effective role to future continuation the objective of the Protocol. The no-state actors play a vital roles and need to continue and also initiate or incorporate the theme of Biosafety in own program plan could sustain and communities, journalists, academicians, policy makers will listen.

I have been initiated already and sharing in difference means of communication

Kamal
Nepal

Dear colleagues,

Article 3(7) of 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) requires its Parties to 'promote the application of the principles of this Convention in international environmental decision-making processes and within the framework of international organizations in matters relating to the environment'.

Similar provision is to be found in Article 4 (10) of the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (known as 'Escazú Agreement' see: https://www.cepal.org/en/escazuagreement).

To facilitate the above a set of guidelines on promoting the principles of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in international forums dealing with matters relating to the environment (known as the "Almaty Guidelines") were adopted (available at https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.5.e.pdf).

Additional information on the work in this area, including the Compendium of case studies of good practice on promoting public participation in international forums, is available at https://unece.org/public-participation-international-forums

Dear colleagues,

I would like to point out two major elements in this debate that I find very critical to the engagement of non-state stakeholders in information-sharing activities. This also follows the first question of this discussion topic on the main biosafety impactful message.

‘Biosafety protects biodiversity’ should be one of the key messages. My perspective, coming from the academia, is that biosafety-related discussions have much focused on biotechnology issues, biotechnology applications and use. Not surprisingly, biosafety is a way to promote the safe use of biotechnology. However, the key objective of operationalizing the biosafety protocol is to ensure biodiversity protection. And it is the  ‘conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity’ major objective that should guide us to the future on how to move forward towards an effective implementation plan. I think it is always relevant to recall that.

The other element I would like to point out is the lack of funding for this topic within non-state stakeholder’s environment. From the academic perspective, there is very little research funding that is dedicated to biosafety. This also limits the engagement of academics stakeholders.

Thank you once again for this opportunity to share information.

Best regards,

Sarah

Dear All,

I start with recognizing that in my previous post I had forgotten to do what Ms Edel-Quinn requested, i.e., introducing myself. 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.
Following up on some of the other messages in this interesting exchange:
I very much agree with Asikaralu Okafor and Kamal Kumar Rai that town hall meetings and media communication are very relevant for sharing of experience and knowledge, and Serhiy Vykhryst’s reference to the Almaty Guidelines is pertinent in this respect.
Following up on Sarah Agapito-Tenfen’s message in post 11250: Sarah’s observation that “Not surprisingly, biosafety is a way to promote the safe use of biotechnology” hits the nail on the head, i.e. the objective of the CPB is “to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs”, bearing in mind – as the CPD Preamble says – “modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures”
Finally, I warmly echo Ms Edel-Quinn’s plea that our messages should be short, concise and focused.
Best regards to all!
Piet

I'd like to support the comments from Charles suggesting that the Secretariat establish some focal points within the nonstate actor groups who have been engaged in the negotiation and implementation process of the Biosafety Protocol for many years.  In fact, I frequently receive questions from the business community regarding the way in which they could or should get engaged, and requests to support them in understanding the means of engagement.  As CropLife International has been involved in this process for over 20 years - stemming from a time when there was no business community link to the process at all - I offer up CropLife International as a focal point for the business and private sector communities.

Dear All,

for Bhutan we have revamped Bhutan Biosafety Clearing House (BBCH) for sharing information to relevant stakeholders and those wanted to know about LMOs/GMOs through FAO support after National Focalship was transferred to us. one of the feature is that we have linked all the credible biosafety platforms to our BBCH so that information is at hand in one click. Of course this is not the best but you have have a look;

http://bt.biosafetyclearinghouse.net/

thank you
Jambay Dorji
Biosafety Section

Dear Jambay Dorji

Thanks for your information about Bhutan Biosafety Clearing House and your effort to create the website.  I also think that BCH is the most reliable tools for information sharing and decision making.

Good luck

Nasrin Esmaeilzadeh
Iran BCH Focal Point

The word "Biosafety" always have a negative connotation in relation to "genetic engineering". Since thirty years ago when the Philippines established an oversight to handle experiments on genetic engineering, the main focus of the research guidelines is on "biosafety", a combination of facilities, trained human resources aimed at  minimizing the potential adverse effects of GE experiments at the same time benefitting from the use of modern biotechnology.  The guidelines from Australia, the US, Canada and other countries, among others served as guide in developing our own set of guidelines on modern biotechnology. It is apparent that as early as 30 years ago, information sharing has been happening and demonstrated to be crucial in improving our policies and processes. 30 years later with the advancement of modern communication tools, information sharing and disseminating accurate and timely information, thru various means,  continue to benefit peoples of the world most especially those from the developing countries. 

The National Biosafety Framework of 2006 provides for Public Participation in all stages of  decision-making process on modern biotechnology. Information sharing is likewise provided to increase public awareness regarding the government measures to ensure that "biosafety" concerns are addressed in all GM applications from contained up to GM use for food, feed and processing but on the GM products that the country has approved.

In 2018, the Philippines, set up the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH Pilipinas) bch.dost.gov.ph in compliance with Article 20 of the Protocol. It has since become one of the sources of information not only by the regulators but of "non-actors" as well. The BCH is regularly updated and containes laws and regulations, risk assessment and country decisions on GMOs. The Competent National Authorities likewise partner with other organizations for capacity building and information dissemination specifically, on the proposed national policies relating to biosafety where inputs from the public are encourage. Public briefings/hearings proved to be an important component in disseminating information and provide both parties the opportunity to discuss and clarify issues and concerns that the public may have on government policies and processes facilitating greater understanding and informed decision on GMOs. 

Information sharing and capacity building is likewise happening at the regional level thru the "Asia Biosafety Clearing House Family" (ABF). The ABF was established in 2016, thru the efforts of Dr. Ho Min Jang, Director of the Korea Biosafety Clearing  and is composed of 23 countries in Asia implementing the four focal areas of the roadmap, one of those is information dissemination. The ABF serves as model for other regions in implementing their awareness programs. A regional hub of the BCH was established by the KBCH where biosafety-related information of the Asian countrie's are mirrorred and made accessible to the public at https://asiabchfamily.org/?menuno=85.

Moving, forward and to sustain the gains of the ABF, the region is preparing a multi-year, multi-country project on Biosafety focusing on the five thematic areas as decided upon during the 2018 COPMOP.  Non-actors will play a crucial role in its implementation.

Based on our experience, government commitment, resources and participation/ engagement of non-actors  are crucial not only to ensure transparency in the government's regulatory system/processes but also to help the government disseminate crucial  information  to all sectors of society about biosafety. Addressing challenges and building trust and confidence among all players  should be a continuous  effort to implement the action Agenda and sustain the objectives of the CBD and its Protocols. Lastly, the involvement of the public and other relevant groups/sectors, academe and building the capacity of the "next generation" biodiversity "leaders" should start now to ensure maximum representation/participation of the public in policy development and implementation.   

Regards and keep safe, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on the subject.

Julieta Fe L. Estacio
Former NFP-BCH and Head Secretariat, NCBP

Good All,

My name is Ntakadzeni Tshidada, from South Africa,

I wish to weigh in my thoughts on this exciting discussion.

I think all channels mentioned above are all useful to disseminate information. Given the current dynamics imposed by the current pandemic media outlets and holding of online seminars maybe useful channel.

One other innovative way to enhance partnership with non-state actors in to ensure that the Post-2020 implementation plan of the Biosafety protocols must include action by non-state actors. Such inclusive approach will facilitate voluntary commitments by non-state actors when they recognize their roles in the implementation plan.

I wish to share a practical example that SA has been practicing in the past year on keeping the Biosafety work active. Every year we develop an annual report to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment updating her of all Biosafety activities undertaken by the department, this has been a useful way to engage our principal. in addition, all our national reports for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are approved by Cabinet, and that is our way of building momentum and awareness among our political head. Every time we submit the biosafety work to Cabinet we strike a debate. Therefore, with that practical experience I support the need for a major campaign or profile biosafety commitments in high-level meetings with ministries (e.g. environment, agriculture, transportation) or high-profile organizations including hosting a side event in the margins of UNGA to spike a discussion.

Thank you

Question 1 - What should be the main biosafety impactful message or value be to communicate and engage non-state actors?  What are some dissemination channels or entry points that non-state actors or governments can make use of (e.g. media outlets, regional platforms, associations, coalitions, local governments, including town hall meetings)?

Taking these individual questions in order:
-What should be the main biosafety impactful message or value be to communicate and engage non-state actors?
--Non-state actors can communicate the importance of effective, transparent, and evidence-based risk assessments in reviewing LMOs intended for transboundary movement. These measures can ensure that countries are able to meet their biosafety commitments while also enabling developers, producers, and consumers to access the tools needed to ensure that they meet their goals for agricultural productivity and biodiversity conservation.
-What are some dissemination channels or entry points that non-state actors or governments can make use of (e.g. media outlets, regional platforms, associations, coalitions, local governments, including town hall meetings)?
--Non-state actors have a broad range of tools available to them. Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) are excellent methods by which they can share simple, yet powerful messages related to LMOs and biosafety measures. Multilateral fora (e.g., APEC, FAO, OECD) represent other entry points where non-state actors may share their unique perspectives and experience. Non-state actors can also directly meet biosafety authorities to request that science-based measures be the basis for biosafety considerations of LMOs.

Question 5 - How do you see the Action Agenda supporting the sharing of information and commitments on biosafety and your work in 3 years? Would we need a major campaign or profile biosafety commitments in high-level meetings with ministries (e.g. environment, agriculture, transportation) or high-profile organizations and if so what would be some impactful tools to make use of?

I see commitments by non-state actors under the Action Agenda supporting efforts to raise awareness on the role biosafety plays in enabling the use of LMOs and products derived from LMOs to be safely used to meet goals and objectives that contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.  As non-state actors make commitments that enhance their capacity to engage on these topics, they are then able to foster and engage in partnerships with state actors to most effectively share accurate information with the public.

Thank you,
Adam Cornish

Dear Jambay Dorji,

I’m one of U.N. Environment’s regional Cartagena Protocol specialists for the Caribbean region. Your post caught my eye just now, as I’ve participated on many workshops in my region training users in, among other things, setting up a national biosafety Website. It looks like you’ve applied the HERMES content management system, which saves a lot of effort - there’s no need to update the national Website separately, since it’s linked on the Secretariat’s servers to the B.C.H. in real time. Your platform’s clear and well laid out - nice work!

Kind regards,

Fred E.A. Phillips