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 discussion on public awareness regarding LMOs.

Please find below the guiding questions for Theme 1: Messages and communication channels for the celebration of the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and beyond.

The 11th of September 2018 marks the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The year 2018 also marks the entry into force of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. This is an excellent opportunity for public awareness purposes on biosafety.

Please provide 2-3 messages for public awareness purposes on biosafety. Please consider and indicate the target audience and the rationale of the message. Please also indicate further sub-messages for each message to provide more detail, for example actions needed and by whom these should be taken. You may use a matrix attached to provide your answers in the thread in the discussion. Could you provide messages that are simple, accurate and consistent with the objectives of the Cartagena Protocol?

The programme of work on public awareness, education and participation (PAEP), in particular its priority areas 2, 3 and 4, include activities for raising awareness on the Protocol and the Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. In view of limited resources, it is important to set priorities and find efficient and effective means for raising awareness. Parties may wish to share experiences and lessons learned in this regard. Parties agreed that the development of a media strategy could be useful to raise awareness and may wish to share experience on their strategies.
Please provide examples and share any details of previous experiences and lessons learned on public awareness activities that may be of relevance to other Parties.

1. Considering the experience and lessons learned that were shared, what could be the focus for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness-raising activities?

2. What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy (e.g. journalist training, articles, TV/radio debates, interviews, press conferences, press releases, invitations to meetings and advertisements)?

3. How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)?

4. How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness raising activities (e.g. by developing videos, posters, info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, question and answer sessions)? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?

Please note that the discussions for Theme 1 is from 15 March 2018 (9:00 a.m. EDT) to 22 March 2018 (5:00 p.m. EDT).

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 reading your suggestions and comments.

We would also like to encourage you to view a video by the former moderator for the online discussions on public participation regarding LMOs, Mr. Johansen Voker, who passed away, 20 May 2017. To honor him as he was an extremely active moderator and committed focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety from Liberia in implementing Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol, please view his video that was for the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol in 2013 regarding public awareness at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=5bIVLtl_ESk

Best regards,

Moderators

• Central and Eastern Europe:
Ms. Angela Lozan (angelalozan@yahoo.com)
• Western Europe and other States:
Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch (helmut.gaugitsch@umweltbundesamt.at)
• Africa:
Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada (EN) (NTshidada@environment.gov.za) and
Mr. Mahaman Gado Zaki (FR) (mahamane_gado@yahoo.fr)
• Latin America and the Caribbean:
Ms. Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera (megadiversidad@gmail.com)
• Asia and the Pacific:
Mr. Wei Wei (weiwei@ibcas.ac.cn)
• UN Environment:
Mr. Alex Owusu-Biney (alex.owusu-biney@un.org)

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Ms. Josephine O. Osagie
------------------------------------------------------
Hello moderators,
  In view of the persistent food security challenges, drought, global warming, increase rainfall and abrupt weather change that is affecting food and feed production, there is no doubt that biotechnology is the verritable tool to adress this summounting problems, we are at the stage were biotechnolgy is not as ambigious as it use to be even the common man has heard the word biotehnology or GMO, but adequated public awarnes is the bridging gap between the technology grassroot farmers and even the end user consumers. thus from my stand point effective communication strategy should be focused on the grassroot farmers as well as end user consumers because they are the most important in the utility of this tecnology
aS i 've earlier outlined, grassroot farmers and end user consumers are my focal points thus using non sophisticated means of public awareness should be employed such as village square town hall meetings with the farmers in larger communities with a view for them to reach out to other subsistient farmers as well as extention programs, end user consumers varies in terms of level of sensitization, but ensure that adequte labeling laws are being quoted extensively

Monitoring of this activies could include regular survey of on site farms in the grassroot, case studies and reports, even opening an office to dialouge with this grassroot farmers in thier languge to understand thier challenges
The Secretariat have put together a fine piece but i would appreciate a link to past  anivesary events to make for better understanding info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, question and answer sessions .

Ms. Josephine O. Osagie, Nigeria

Dear Ms. Josephine O. Osagie,
Thanks you so much for your questions, indeed biotechnology is regarded as the fastest agricultural technology adopted by farmers in the last two decades to address some of the challenges faced by the agricultural sector. However, there is a need to continue to communicate and educate the public on the safe use and handling of LMOs while realising their benefits. 2018 indeed marks 15 years of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and we appreciate efforts made towards the celebration of this important milestone.

With regard to your request pertaining a link to past anniversary events in order for you to  understanding what is infographs, a map of celebrations, presentations kindly follow the link to the Cartagena Protocol’s “Media and Outreach” webpage wherein you will find previous anniversaries http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art23/pa_resources.shtml and the link to the “Media and Outreach” is at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_media.shtml.

Furthermore the CBD secretariat also developed outreach materials for 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Protocol in 2013 (https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/10thAnniversary.shtml).
This example you may also use them to develop a case studies on your country’s history, experience, achievements and successes on the implementation of the Protocol.

Regards,
Ms Ntakadzeni Tshidada

Permit me to comment on the moderator’s comment, “biotechnology is regarded as the fastest agricultural technology adopted by farmers in the last two decades to address some of the challenges faced by the agricultural sector.“ The fact that it may be “the fastest agricultural technology adopted by farmers” does not necessarily mean that the world cannot find better means of tackling the problems. The present adoptions can be attributed to a number of factors that may not necessarily be the efficacy or inevitability of the technology. The 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD) report produced by 400 experts reached conclusions that point at alternative ways of tackling the complex global food problems.

By the way, we have seen a rise of violent conflicts in the world in the last two decades, but not many will say that warfare, or the use of certain weapons, is the best way to build democracy.

Estimados,
Buenos dias. Quisiéramos hacer una breve mención al importante papel que la comunicación tiene en materia de Biotecnología Agropecuaria para Argentina.

En la actualidad, Argentina es uno de los países líderes en la utilización, comercialización y exportación de productos elaborados a partir de biotecnología, y en particular de los cultivos Genéticamente Modificados. Desde hace veinte años la biotecnología es considerada en nuestro país una de las herramientas que permite incrementar la producción agregando valor, diversificando la producción y preservando los recursos naturales. 
La biotecnología tiene, asimismo, el potencial real de contribuir a solucionar determinados problemas de la actividad agropecuaria en el país que no han podido ser resueltos mediante métodos convencionales, y constituye uno de los elementos centrales en el proceso de industrialización que está transitando la producción agropecuaria del país. Por esa razón, la biotecnología agropecuaria ocupa un lugar considerable dentro del paradigma de la bioeconomía que el país busca para determinar su perfil productivo.
De hecho, en la Argentina, el papel de la biotecnología agropecuaria no se limita solo a cultivos genéticamente modificados, por el contrario, desde hace unos años se fomenta el uso y desarrollo de otras herramientas biotecnológicas, como los bioinsumos, los bioproductos y New Breeding Techniques, que acompañan el crecimiento del país y brindan respuestas a distintas demandas y necesidades.

A causa de los constante avances de la biotecnología agropecuaria que amplía y potencia las posibilidades tecnológicas y productivas, el marco normativo argentino se caracteriza por la efectividad en su capacidad de adaptación a los nuevos conocimientos científicos y a las necesidades del sector agropecuario buscando contar con una regulación transparente, sólida y a la vez, en constante evolución, permite impulsar la actividad biotecnología agropecuaria. En ese camino, la República Argentina ha sido pionera en América Latina, y tercer país en el mundo, en materia de regulación sobre Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGM).

Es importante destacar que Dirección de Biotecnología promueve activa y constantemente, la formación de profesionales, reguladores y funcionarios en la materia, así como también contribuye a la formación de profesionales y a la creación de normativa en otros países, lo que ha le ha valido el reconocimiento internacional. Es debido a ello, que la Dirección de Biotecnología participa activamente de los principales foros internacionales y grupos de trabajo en la materia.
Desde el año 2014 la Comisión Nacional Asesora de Biotecnología Agropecuaria (CONABIA) ha sido reconocida por la Organización para la alimentación y la agricultura de las Naciones Unidas (FAO) por sus más de dos décadas de experiencia y trabajo interdisciplinario como centro Internacional de referencia en organismos genéticamente modificados. Ha realizado múltiples capacitaciones nacionales e internacionales a profesionales, científicos y reguladores desde sus inicios.

Sin embargo, aún cuando la adopción y el desarrollo de la biotecnología como tecnología agropecuaria vienen expandiéndose en estos últimos años, existe desconfianza e incertidumbre de gran parte de la sociedad mundial asociada a dicha disciplina. Para empezar, implica modificación y uso de organismos vivos para alcanzar un determinado producto, razón por la cual los productos biotecnológicos suelen ser constantemente comparados con sus homólogos convencionales.
Por otra parte, la biotecnología presenta fuertes cuestionamientos asociados a la existencia de grandes empresas transnacionales que desarrollan actividades biotecnológicas. Así, cuestiones políticas o ideológicas respecto a la presencia o no de empresas multinacionales en la economía nacional se mezclan con el desarrollo de la biotecnología como tecnología en sí misma. 

Con la finalidad de informar a la ciudadanía y desmitificar creencias que no poseen basamento científico, en nuestro país se ha iniciado una serie de acciones vinculadas, por una parte, a facilitar el conocimiento de la biotecnología (qué es, cómo se desarrolla,…) a la población y mostrar los beneficios económicos de comerciar productos de alto valor agregado, enfatizando el rol del estado como regulador y controlador de dichas actividades; así como también, persigue el propósito de  romper la dicotomía campo vs. industria, acercando el campo como sector productivo a la población en general.
Entre las acciones desarrolladas en el marco de la difusión y promoción de la biotecnología agropecuaria, se pueden mencionar las siguientes:
• Participación en programas de formación de estudiantes, docentes y directivos de escuelas secundarias agrarias y rurales del país, a través del Programa Escuelagro del MINAGRO, y talleres de formación organizados por Federaciones y Asociaciones de docentes.
• Participación anual en exposiciones abiertas al público general tales como la Exposición Rural, Tecnópolis, Expoagro y Centro Cultural de la Ciencia, entre otros.
• Desarrollo de material didáctico, según grupos etarios definidos, con el objetivo de iniciar el contacto con el público, reducir la brecha de conocimiento y desconfianza a través contacto personal y desmitificar los impactos y usos de los productos agrobiotecnológicos, como ejemplo se pueden citar:
o Encuesta de Percepción Pública sobre Biotecnología Agropecuaria, con el objetivo de relevar cuál es el conocimiento previo y la opinión del encuestado sobre biotecnología en el país.
o Biotecnología es más que OGM: Folletería bioplástica con tubo de microcentrífuga con semillas OGM destinado a público general.
o Tincho el Carpincho: Folletería y animación destinado a público infantil en escuelas y actividades masivas.
o Biocubo: Cubo de bioplástico con bioinsumos y OGM para público infantil y general en actividades masivas.
o Trivia, tiene como propósito a través del juego -por medio de preguntas sobre la biotecnología agropecuaria y las profesiones que intervienen- comunicar e informar  sobre biotecnología.

Al momento, se han trabajado cinco lineamientos generales en todas las campañas:
1. La Biotecnología es más que trasngénicos.
2. Los OGM son seguros para el ambiente y el consumo.
3. El Estado controla y regula, como toda actividad productiva.
4. En su desarrollo y evaluación intervienen personas especializadas en al menos 12 profesiones diferentes.
5. El hombre modifica genéticamente sus alimentos desde la aparición de la agricultura.
Dichas acciones son realizadas por técnicos evaluadores de la Dirección de Biotecnología, quienes tienen la misión de reducir la brecha de conocimiento y desconfianza de la audiencia a través de trato personalizado.

Adicionalmente, y siguiendo los mismos objetivos, está planificada una investigación social a campo para identificar las hipótesis con las cuales producir un material de trabajo para abordar en profundidad problemáticas vinculadas a la percepción pública en relación a los OGM.

Estimada Cecilia
Muchas gracias por exponer el panorama actual de Argentina, en el contexto de conciencia pública sobre OVM´s, es fácil distinguir el esfuerzo invertido y creatividad de sus funcionarios, para fomentar  la información de calidad y llegar a una amplia variedad de público. Sin ser un país signatario del Protocolo de Cartagena, las acciones que llevan a cabo en este contexto son dignas de aplausos.

Los ejemplos planteados aquí son casos reales que otros países podemos tomar comoejemplo para emprender nuevas acciones, y así mismo, enriquecer la matriz de mensajes y submensajes.
Nos podría comentar, de que manera realizan el monitonero de cuantas personas han sido alcanzadas con estos mensajes y actividades, y cuanto ha impactado en los criterios y pensamientos de la población en general en Argentina?

Publicado en nombre de Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera, Guatemala

Estimados participantes del foro,

Es un gusto y un honor haber sido invitados para moderar la discusión del foro en línea de  conciencia pública sobre los OVM.

Por favor encuentren más adelante las preguntas para guiar la discusión en relación al Tema 1: Mensajes y canales de comunicación para la celebración del 15º aniversario y más allá, de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología.

El 11 de septiembre de 2018 marca el 15º aniversario de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Bioseguridad. El año 2018 también marca la entrada en vigor del Protocolo Suplementario de Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur sobre Responsabilidad y Reparación. Esta es una excelente oportunidad con el fin de crear conciencia pública sobre bioseguridad.

Por favor proporcione de 2 a 3 mensajes con el objetivo de crear  conciencia pública sobre bioseguridad. Considere e indique el público objetivo y la lógica del mensaje. Indique también sub-mensajes adicionales para cada mensaje para proporcionar más detalles; por ejemplo, las acciones necesarias y quién debe tomarlas. Puede usar una matriz para proporcionar sus respuestas. Los mensajes deben ser simples, precisos y consistentes con los objetivos del Protocolo de Cartagena. Por favor llene el cuadro con sus propuestas (encuentre adjunta la matriz para estas respuestas).

Tema 1: Mensajes y canales de comunicación para la celebración del 15º aniversario y más allá, de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología.


1. Considerando la experiencia y las lecciones aprendidas que se compartieron, ¿cuál podría ser el enfoque para las Partes y los actores interesados que desean emprender actividades de sensibilización?

2. ¿Qué ha incluido en sus estrategias de comunicación y qué eventos se presentan? ¿Cuál podría ser el enfoque de las Partes que desean desarrollar una estrategia comunicación (por ejemplo, capacitación de periodistas, artículos, debates de TV / radio, entrevistas, conferencias de prensa, comunicados de prensa, invitaciones a reuniones y anuncios)?

3. ¿Cómo supervisa y evalúa la efectividad de sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, informes, estudios de casos, encuestas regulares, medición del tráfico a sitios web, cobertura de los medios y difusión de materiales)?

4. ¿Cómo puede la Secretaría prestar mejor ayuda a las Partes en sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, mediante el desarrollo de videos, carteles, gráficos de información, un mapa de celebraciones, presentaciones, sesiones de preguntas y respuestas)? ¿Cuál es el público objetivo para cada una de estas actividades de apoyo?

Por favor tomar nota que las discusiones del Tema 1 estarán abiertas desde el jueves 15 de marzo 2018 (9:00 am EDT) al jueves 22  de Marzo 2018 (5:00 p.m. EDT).

Todos los participantes deberán tener una cuenta registrada (Registrarse para obtener una cuenta) e iniciado la sesión en el BCH (iniciar sesión) para poder ingresar los mensajes.

Quienes deseen participar vía correo electrónico, después de la publicación de los mensajes iniciales, pueden seleccionar « ver » las discusiones que se lleven a cabo bajo los diferentes temas. También recibirán copias  en su correo electrónico de los mensajes publicados en el foro.
Esperamos leer sus sugerencias y comentarios.

También quisiéramos alentarlos a que vean un video del ex moderador para las discusiones en línea de participación pública sobre OVM, el Sr. Johansen Voker, fallecido el 20 de mayo de 2017. Un video publicado en su honor, ya que fue un moderador extremadamente activo y comprometido como punto focal para el Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad y en la aplicación del artículo 23 del Protocolo de Cartagena en Liberia ; por favor vea el vídeo que fue realizado para el décimo aniversario de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena en 2013 sobre conciencia pública.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=5bIVLtl_ESk

Saludos cordiales

Moderadores
• Europa Central y oriental
Ms. Angela Lozan (angelalozan@yahoo.com)
• Europa Occidental y otros estados:
Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch (helmut.gaugitsch@umweltbundesamt.at )
• África:
Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada (EN) (NTshidada@environment.gov.za ) y
Mr. Mahaman Gado Zaki (FR) (mahamane_gado@yahoo.fr )
• América Latina y el Caribe:
Ms. Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera (megadiversidad@gmail.com )
• Asia y el Pacífico
Mr. Wei Wei (weiwei@ibcas.ac.cn )
• Medio Ambiente de la ONU
Mr. Alex Owusu-Biney (alex.owusu-biney@un.org )

POSTED ON BEHALF OF MR. JUAN PAZ
-------------------------------------------
The targets of this awareness campaign should be the public in general, who is in direct contact with the LMOs, like consumers, being therefore one of the most efficient support of the institutions of each government in providing monitoring information, on the other public officials and institutional authorities, and other non-governmental entities, since these require constant training that must be updated, in relation to the new tools that allow the monitoring and evaluation of the LMOs and also the updating of the regulations of Biosecurity to make more safe, the handling, transit and any activity where LMOs are handled, for the mega-diverse countries it is very important to safeguard the national biological diversity, since by not applying the biosafety measures that make the manipulation of the LMOs safe can put national biological resources at risk

Mr. Juan Paz, Venezuela

General public is the main target, I agree with Mr. Juan Paz. But because we have to choose the strategies to use, we have to see the specific groups of the public to reach. In Guatemala we have a high rate of illiterate people who requieres different treatment than people with medium/high education. Can be devided the public into three different groups: Adults with no education, (through agriculture they might have contact with LMOs), Adults with education and young people who are the future.
The message and the channels to use to reach these groups are different.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF MR. JUAN PAZ
------------------------------------------
Saludos, Dra. Rios, en nuestro caso la tasa de alfabetizacion es alta, pero se requiere mayor instruccion relacionada con el tema de los OVM, ya que se debe enlazar las necesidades nacionales relacionadas con la agroproduccion y la naturaleza megadiversa y por tanto suceptible a ser afectado por los OVM de nuestros recursos geneticos, esto en vista de ser un pais con alta diversidad biologica, antes se aplicada la figura de comando y control con áreas no tocadas, hoy día se plantea la necesidad de generar el aprovechamiento sustentable de los recursos, tratando de impactar en la menor medida pero dando a la población el incentivo de aprovechar nuestros recursos para generar bienestar a las comunidades, y por agregado la apropiacion de estas de sus recursos, pasando a ser de ineter comunal cuidar dichos recursos

Juan Paz, Venezuela

Buenas Tardes, que yo quería sugerir es formar grupos en base de las herramientas que vamos a utilizar para transferir el mensaje sobre el manejo, transporte y uso seguro de los OVM. Podemos organizar foros, tener publicaciones, pero esto por ejemplo no funciona para los jóvenes ni para la gente que le cuesta leer. Como la matriz que nos entregaron requería 3 grupos, pensé, en experiencias anteriores de mis colegas en diferentes proyectos, que puede ser útil dividir el público de esta forma. Si, por supuesto, el mensaje es el tema central que tenemos sobre OVMs para todo el público. No se ¿alguien mas utilizo diferente división del público?

Estimada Dra. Krisztina
Gracias por sus oportunas intervenciones y aportes. Sin duda, es importante tocar el tema de la importancia de hacer una especie de subdivisión en los públicos objetivos, basados en el nivel de escolaridad y también el sector en el que se desempeñan (consumidores, agricultores, estudiantes, comerciantes). En Guatemala hay un ejemplo muy interesante de tratar de llegar a grupos de estudiantes de sexto grado de primaria, mediante la elaboración de material didáctico, conteniendo los principios de biotecnología, bioseguridad y biodiversidad. Este libro de texto apenas está implementándose en unas pocas escuelas, iniciando con la capacitación a casi 200 maestros. El libro ha sido muy bien recibido, por ser su contenido novedoso e integrador, y contener el contexto nacional, sin duda el esfuerzo mayor es que sea adoptado por las autoridades del Ministerio de educación para ser incorporado en el curriculum de los estudiantes, es solo un proyecto piloto, pero podrían medirse los resultados más adelante.  Le comparto el documento (http://www.bchguatemala.gob.gt/1biotecnologia-bioseguridad-y-biodiversidad-6to-low.pdf), para contar con un ejemplo de actividades de educación y concienciación en un publico de menor escolaridad.
Le invito también, a plasmar en la matriz, los públicos objetivos y justificación que ha identificado, e ir avanzando en el planteamiento de mensajes y submensajes, acordes a cada público. Se esperan buenos resultados de este ejercicio, y sus aportes son muy valiosos.

Estimado Juan Paz
Gracias por sus valiosos aportes, definitivamente con su intervención se han ido mostrando varias respuestas a las preguntas guía de esta discución. Hemos observado ya varios puntos en común, entre ellos la calidad de Países Megadiversos, con la altas responsabilidad de valorar y conservar los recursos biológicos y genéticos de la región. No todos los países cuentan con una normativa homologada sobre la regulación de OVM´s, lo cual hace aun más complejo el control sobre movimientos transfroterisos involuntarios o ilegales, entre países colindantes; y las fronteras entre regiones cada vez son más abiertas en el comercio de productos, esto podría identificarse como una oportunidad para homologar dichas regulaciones, en el contexto de cada país.

Por otra parte leyendo sus comentarios y los de la Dra. Ríos-González, encontramos otro punto en común, los diferentes públicos y sectores para enfocar los esfuerzos de estrategias de comunicación y campañas de concieciación.  Identificando algunos podrían ser: Consumidores, Agricultores, Academia (a los diferentes niveles), Sector ambiental (ONG´s ambientalistas, por ejemplo), Pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales.
Le invito a dejar plasmado en la matriz los grupos o públicos objetivos y justificación, que usted ha podido identificar,  y luego ir centrándonos en propuestas de mensajes y submensajes más adecuados para cada público.  En definitiva esta etapa es como una lluvia de ideas, según las experiencias y necesidades de cada país.

Estimado Juan Paz
Muchas gracias por las respuestas a las preguntas guías, es un gran aporte para la discusión.
Gracias por su oportuna participación.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF JUAN PAZ, VENEZUELA
-----------------------------------------------------
Siempre es un tema interesante. porque se trata del proceso de adaptación de la especie humana, a los cambios, algunos no muy buenos generado por el incremento poblacional a veces indiscriminado, a mi entender, es muy pertinente hablar de riesgos generados por los OVM, porque hay historias de las que debemos aprender, y sobre todo como partes activas en el marco del CBD, no debemos olvidar que no debemos solapar la diversidad biológica (que esta sufriendo perdidas importantes, todas debidas a actividades humanas), con las necesidades humanas actuales, debe haber un punto medio, porque la diversidad biológica, representa medicinas y comida para las generaciones futuras.

Publié au nom de Mahaman Gado Zaki, Niger:

Chers participants au forum,

Nous avons l'honneur et le plaisir d'avoir été invités à modérer ces discussions en ligne sur la sensibilisation concernant les organismes vivants modifiés.

Veuillez trouver ci-dessous quelques questions sur Thème 1: Messages et canaux de communication pour la célébration du 15e anniversaire de l’entrée en vigueur du Protocole de Cartagena sur la prévention des risques biotechnologiques.

Le 11 septembre 2018 marque le 15e anniversaire de l'entrée en vigueur du Protocole de Cartagena sur la prévention des risques biotechnologiques. L'année 2018 marque également l'entrée en vigueur du Protocole additionnel de Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur sur la responsabilité et la réparation. C'est une excellente opportunité pour sensibiliser le public à la prévention des risques biotechnologiques.

S'il vous plaît, veuillez fournir 2-3 messages à des fins de sensibilisation du public sur la prévention des risques biotechnologiques. Veuillez considérer et indiquer le public cible et la raison d'être du message. Veuillez également indiquer d'autres sous-messages pour chaque message afin de fournir plus de détails, par exemple les actions nécessaires et par qui elles doivent être prises. Vous pouvez utiliser une matrice pour fournir vos réponses (voir ici-bas en attache). Pourriez-vous fournir des messages simples, précis et conformes aux objectifs du Protocole de Cartagena?

Le programme de travail sur la sensibilisation, l'éducation et la participation du public (PAEP), en particulier ses domaines prioritaires 2, 3 et 4, comprend des activités de sensibilisation au Protocole et au Protocole additionnel sur la responsabilité et la réparation. Compte tenu des ressources limitées, il est important d'établir des priorités et de trouver des moyens efficaces et efficients de sensibilisation. Les Parties souhaiteront peut-être partager leurs expériences et les enseignements tirés à cet égard. Les parties ont convenu que le développement d'une stratégie médiatique pourrait être utile pour sensibiliser et souhaiter partager l'expérience sur leurs stratégies.

Veuillez fournir des exemples et partager des expériences précédentes et des leçons apprises sur les activités de sensibilisation du public susceptibles d'intéresser d'autres Parties.

1. Considérant l'expérience et les leçons apprises qui ont été partagées, quel pourrait être l'objectif des Parties et des parties prenantes qui souhaitent entreprendre des activités de sensibilisation?

2. Qu'avez-vous inclus dans vos stratégies médiatiques et quels événements sont présentés? Quel pourrait être l'objectif des Parties qui souhaitent développer une stratégie médiatique (formation des journalistes, articles, débats télévisés / radiophoniques, interviews, conférences de presse, communiqués de presse, invitations à des réunions et annonces)?

3. Comment surveillez-vous et évaluez-vous l'efficacité de vos activités de sensibilisation (par exemple, rapports, études de cas, enquêtes régulières, mesure du trafic vers des sites Web, couverture médiatique et diffusion de documents)?

4. Comment le Secrétariat peut-il le mieux aider les Parties dans leurs activités de sensibilisation (par exemple en développant des vidéos, des affiches, des graphiques d'information, une carte des célébrations, des présentations, des séances de questions et réponses)? Quel est le public cible pour chacune de ces activités de soutien?

Veuillez noter que les discussions pour le Thème 1 auront lieu du 15 mars 2018 (9h00 EDT) au 22 mars 2018 (17h00 EDT).

Veuillez noter que les participants doivent s'inscrire et se connecter au BCH afin de poster des messages.

Les personnes souhaitant être alertées par e-mail chaque fois qu’un message est posté sur le forum peuvent choisir de «suivre» les discussions qui se déroulent sous les différents thèmes.

Il vous fera plaisir de lire vos suggestions et commentaires.

Nous aimerions également vous encourager à visionner une vidéo de l'ancien modérateur des discussions en ligne sur la participation du public concernant les OVM. M. Johansen Voker est décédé le 20 mai 2017. Point focal du Protocole de Cartagena sur la prévention des risques biotechnologiques pour le Libéria, M. Voker était un modérateur extrêmement actif et engagé au sujet de l'application de l'article 23 du Protocole de Cartagena. Veuillez visionner sa vidéo sur le 10e anniversaire de l'entrée en vigueur du Protocole de Cartagena en 2013 et la sensibilisation du public au: http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=5bIVLtl_ESk. 

Meilleures salutations,

Modérateurs

• Europe centrale et orientale:
Mme. Angela Lozan (angelalozan@yahoo.com)
• Europe occidentale et autres États
M. Helmut Gaugitsch (helmut.gaugitsch@umweltbundesamt.at)
• Afrique:
Mme. Ntakadzeni Tshidada (EN) (NTshidada@environment.gov.za) and
M. Mahaman Gado Zaki (FR) (mahamane_gado@yahoo.fr)
• Amérique latine et Caraïbes:
Mme. Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera (megadiversidad@gmail.com)
• Asie et Pacifique:
M. Wei Wei (weiwei@ibcas.ac.cn)
• L’ONU Environnement:
M. Alex Owusu-Biney (alex.owusu-biney@un.org)

Posted on behalf of Dasho Namgay Wangchuk by Jambay Dorji/Biosafety focal

Bhutan ratified the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety in 2002 and fortunate to secure National Biosafety Framework Project which was implemented from 2010 to 2014. The project was of immense help in starting up the activities related to Biosafety.

Biosafety Act of Bhutan was passed by the parliament in 2015 and its Rules and Regulations in 2018. Biosafety Rules and Regulations 2018 which is the implementing tool for the Act, further emphasizes the importance of public awareness and access to information.  

Till date we have printed and widely distributed awareness materials such as brochures, awareness calendar-2014 and question and answer booklet. We have also created simple animated programmes and aired on televisions and we are in the process of creating another animation on the handling of applications for GMOS/LMOs and their products. Our target audiences are farmers, seeds importers, school children, relevant stakeholders and the general public.  

In 2017, we have carried out one-day mass awareness workshop on Biosecurity, Biosafety and Food Safety in 20 districts of Bhutan. The programme was conducted by the respective BAFRA District offices from May to June 2017 and was attended by 5,621 participants comprising of local leaders, farmers, cooperative groups, nursery growers, importers, exporters, wholesale retailers, extension agents, hoteliers and food business operators.

On top of such awareness programmes, we also conduct regular monitoring, inspection and testing by using test kits and laboratory analysis. Bhutan prohibits any activity that involves LMOs that can reproduce. As enshrined in the Biosafety Rules and Regulations we intend to carry out such awareness programs every financial year.

Dear moderators, Is communication strategy documents of other countries available on CBD website?  thanks

POSTED ON BEHALF OF JUAN PAZ
--------------------------------------
I personally believe, that, added to the sensibilization campaign directed to the general public, the updating of knowledge of the technical personnel that works directly with the LMO's should be constant and is a critical point, first it was only about genomic studies, as it was expanding the knowledge in cell and molecular biology , they began to work with transcriptomics, proteomics and even metabolomics, and the products resulting from these processes, are at least components of LMOs, for which they must be taken into account to make the norms of regulation and biosafety, for On the other side is the case of mega-diversity, all mega-diverse countries (including mine), tend to be particularly sensitive to the inappropriate or indiscriminate LMO´S introduction, transit and manipulation, in this case the mega-diverse countries must "shield themselves" (if you can say so) regarding the LMOs, but there is another edge problem for which I personally insist on the topic of the scientific-technical update, the outbreak (and does not so little time) of high-risk zoonotic diseases, not associated with genomic entities, such as the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow syndrome and another syndromes of prion origin, should call for reflection, since, there may be (and in fact exist) limitations related to the scientific-technological capabilities aimed at monitoring, in an integrated net, to the tracking of LMOs even when they may be of "global" interest

Mr. Juan Paz, Venezuela

Dear Mr. Namgay Wangchuk,

Thanks for sharing experiences of Bhutan. With your experience in public awareness activities in biosafety, please suggest messages, sub-messages and activities for public awareness according to the guiding questions. In addition could you please provide information for the guiding questions.

Regarding of your question on the communication strategy documents of other countries please refer to the resources link (http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art23/pa_resources.shtml) for case studies, plans and proposals.

In addition, in the future, the secretariat hopes that countries can share more of these in the Biosafety Information Resource Center (BIRC) athttp://bch.cbd.int/database/resources/.

With my best wishes

Wei Wei

POSTED ON BEHALF OF MRS UGO AGWU-NNACHI, NIGERIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Thanks so much for your messages. Please find attached, my submission for Theme 1.

Thank you.
Ugo Agwu-Nnachi

Bonjour Gado
De mon point de vu, je pense que le Secrétariat devrait dans la disposition des fonds pour les pays tenir compte de sa dimension, ses diversités culturelles et ses structures. Pour la RDCOngo, mon pays on a bénéficié les ressources avec les projets BCH, les fonds alloués ne nous ont pas permis d'avoir les membres de l'intérieur du pays, on s'est contenté que ceux de la capitale, comment un cultivateur qui est au fond du pays aura des informations fiable sur les OVM si ce n'est que celles tronquées qu'il peut avoir d'un autre de fois mal informé lui aussi. Si déjà certaine élite a du mal pour bien cerné ces notions à plus forte raison ce cultivateur du fond fin.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF J.S. Datuama Cammue, Liberia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Moderator: Please see attached my contribution in this debate...
Kind regards
J.S. Datuama Cammue
Liberia

Dear J.S. Datuama Cammue,

Thank you so much for sharing such an important and valuable contribution. In trying to summarize some of the unique points:
• For the purpose of not just communicating, the message should be based on the tone, should be positive and clear. In addition it should be accurate, credible and address needs;
• Awareness also contributing towards building of relations with stakeholders;
• On a local level, there could be community forum and theatre performances (however I would like to see the monitoring and evaluation of such?).

The idea of biosafety clubs at universities is good and Secretariat should take note for it to incorporate to future modules on public education regarding LMOs instead.

Regards,
Ntakadzeni Tshidada
South Africa

Dear Participants
I want to back point drown by my fellow from DRC. Generally most of African countries don’t know or have missed the concept of LMO, GMO and Biotechnology. For them to understand the meaning of those just for simple concepts it should start with educating Policy makers who have great and major influence to local society, following by decisions makers who have greater influence to technical experts- those who makes policy, planning and various development strategies. For the time being you may see a number of experts from those country may  have such knowledge but it is very difficult to transfer to other group of society since it need resources which for such country GMO/LMO Biotechnology is not priority. But if those priorities resources were knowledgeable about GMO/LMO/Biotechnology they could place resources on LMO/GMO and biotechnology. For instance Tanzania have started giving awareness Decision makers, therefore we have gone far on LMO/GMO especially Biosafety. For example the Government have appointed Biosafety inspectors and have several training relating to Biosafety.
My request to CBD secretariat is to facilitate awareness programs for Big figures to those countries which are far behind on LMO/GMO issues. Let GMO be the agent of economic development for the whole world.

Dear All,

My thanks to the Secretariat for preparing this online discussion and to the moderators for structuring it with some concise questions.

In response to those questions and following up on the previous posts:

Guiding question 1. Considering the experience and lessons learned that were shared, what could be the focus for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness-raising activities?
>> I believe that Ms. Josephine O. Osagie has nicely summarized the core of the message in her post #8989 where she stated that biotechnology is a veritable tool in addressing the challenges of food security, drought, global warming, increased rainfall, abrupt weather changes etc. This important notion is also reflected in the CBD, which recognises in article 16 that biotechnology is essential to achieving the objectives of the Convention, and in the CPB which recognizes in its Preamble that modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being.
As Ms Ntakadzeni Tshidada (post #8992) stated: while biotechnology is the fastest agricultural technology adopted by farmers in the last two decades to address some of the challenges faced by the agricultural sector, it is important to continue to communicate and educate the public on the safe use of LMOs, among others to bridge the gap between the technology grassroot farmers and end user consumers as Ms. Osagie pointed out. 
With this as a starting point, the next key questions are: what are the audiences and what are the specific messages. About audiences, we have the general public and – not to forget – policymakers. As regards the general public, I like the distinction made by Krisztina Rios-Gonzalez: adults with no education, adults with education and young people.
As regards specific messages, some suggestions:
- what are the challenges in agricultural production and environmental protection for which biotechnology offers solutions?
- how does modern biotechnology work?;
- how is safety addressed?;
- what are the experiences with the use of LMOs to date?

The good news is that there are very many national and international organisations who have produced masses of good materials that can be used for communication activities:
- about challenges in agricultural production: on the national level organisations such as extension bodies and farmers organisations and on the international level organisations such as FAO and the CGIAR institutes.
- about environmental challenges: on the national level organisations such as environmental protection agencies and on the international level organisations such as UNEP
- about how modern biotechnology works: on the national level organisations such as universities and science organisations and on the international level organisations such PRRI, Sense About Science, the Cornell Alliance for Science.
- about how safety is addressed: on the national level the regulatory authorities and on the international level organisations such as the CBD Sec, OECD and IPPC.
- what the experiences are with the development and use of LMOs to date:  : on the national level organisations such as universities and research organisations, and on the international level organisations such as ISAAA, which produces annual overviews, which do in fact what the CPB refers to in article 23: providing information about the safe use of LMOs. It will also be helpful to reiterate that after 20 years of field research and of commercial planting of GM crops on very large areas in developed and developing countries, there are multiple verifiable reports on socio-economic and/or environmental benefits of the use of LMOS, and that there are no verifiable reports of adverse effects of LMOs on the environment and human health.

Guiding question 2. What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy
>> In the communication strategies that I have been involved in we focused on all four questions, i.e.: challenges in agricultural production and environmental protection for which biotechnology offers solutions; how modern biotechnology works; how safety is addressed; what the experiences are with the use of LMOs to date.

Guiding question 3. How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness raising activities?
>> I wish I knew how exactly to measure effectiveness. I look forward to the input of experts in this field.

Guiding question 4. How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness raising activities? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?
>> The Secretariat could contribute greatly to public awareness, and in particular to awareness of policymakers, by producing clear messages and materials that explain background, context and purpose of the CPB, including that:
a) The CBD emphasises that biotechnology is essential to achieving the objectives of the Convention, and that Parties to the CBD agree to engage in biotechnology transfer, especially to developing countries.
b) That, in the context of such technology transfer, the Parties to the CBD also agreed to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which offers a mechanism for informed decision making to countries that do not (or not yet) have a regulatory framework for biosafety in place.
c) That after after 20 years of field research and of commercial planting of GM crops on very large areas in developed and developing countries, there are multiple verifiable reports on socio-economic and/or environmental benefits of the use of LMOS, and that there are no verifiable reports of adverse effects of LMOs on the environment and human health.

Looking forward to the remainder of the debate and wishing everyone a good weekend!

Piet

POSTED ON BEHALF OF MR. ZAHER MAHER, AFGHANISTAN
------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Madam/Sir,
Many thanks for nice online awarness , this online communications is very fruitful and useful for all countries that members of Nagoya and Cartagena Prtocol such as Afghanistan.
Our country provided the  Nagoya and Cartagena National Reports and Submited to Secretait of CBD.I would like to offer my sugestions :
1_ GMO and LMOs food information is  a new knowledge and new technology to my country , I have shared  GMO and LMOs with
Foodsafety  and Nutrition Technical  Committee in MoPH and MAIL meeting .
2_ Best way for in force of  Nagoya and Cartagena protocol  should support the the training , workshops, meeting ,awarness and transfer new technology and share exchange experience .
3_ Sustainable Communication between members countries regarding BCH.

Best Regards

Zaher Maher
Rio Conventions Expert and Member of Food Committee.

Dear Piet, dear colleagues,

thank you very much Piet for your recent posting and for sharing your views in the context of this important online discussion Forum on public awareness.

As moderator of the WEOG Region I would kindly invite other participants of this region to share your important views and contribute to our discussion. Theme 1 on how to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Prootocol is still open a few days (up to March, 22) and your contributions are highly welcome.

Thank you and kind regards

Helmut Gaugitsch
Environment Agency Austria
Moderator WEOG Region

Dear all,
I’ve been involved with biosafety communication & engagement (C&E) for just over 10 years. Primarily in South Africa, but also in collaboration with many other African countries - my personal perspectives are born from this continent and its people.

Three viewpoints stand central to our C&E approach –
1. The great majority of people (or “general public”) are not really concerned or interested in this subject, we must therefore set ourselves realistic biosafety C&E goals.
2. C&E is extremely context specific. I’m therefore of the opinion that we can only meaningfully discuss broad, principled issues on a forum like this, which then have to be adapted to each country’s particular context and needs. [Sorry, this is also the reason for mangling the moderators’ specific questions somewhat, but they are all addressed below.]
3. The great challenge is TRUST and not knowledge.

Within this framework I submit that a successful biosafety C&E strategy can be developed around the following six (6) key questions:
(each presented as a question, supporting notes & personal opinion)
1. Why?
Define reasons for communication – may vary dramatically, depending on the answers to the below questions.
In my opinion – to raise awareness of international (CPB) & national efforts to ensure sustainability of GM technology and to build confidence in these regulatory systems.

2. By who?
Allocate responsibility. Appreciate interconnected nature & wide range of stakeholders.
In my opinion – a specific entity must take ownership of the challenge, but it will only be effective and sustainable if a broad, representative network participates actively.

3. To who?
Define various audiences. Remember why & what you want to communicate to the specific group. Prioritise audiences – especially in light of my 1st viewpoint above.
In my opinion – the “general public” must be able to access information to be able to participate if they so whish (see proposed key message 1 - attached), but rather prioritise/focus on people directly involved (key message 2). This may include policy developers, regulators, technology developers, researchers, primary users (e.g. farmers).

4. What?
Distinguish between “communication & awareness” and “education & training”. Depends heavily on audience and reason for engagement.
In my opinion – people directly involve has to understand framework and science-basis of technology, also have to be aware of compliance requirements.

5. How?
Context is critical. TRUST > knowledge – the average person needs to trust the source of information before she/he will accept the information. Communicators therefore have to work on their trustworthiness more than their messages. Values vs. science & risk analysis vs. risk perceptions – similar, but complex issue, please refer to literature on cultural cognition. Language, means of delivery, etc. – depends completely on audience and message.
In my opinion – no fixed protocols or approaches – adapt to needs. In principle I prefer resources that have broad applicability and are easily accessible – I’m in general very sceptical about workshops & meetings, but of course they have their place. Social media is a necessary evil… ;-)

6. To what effect?
Establish a formal monitoring & evaluation program, able to feed back into above questions. Although it is fairly easy to determine the immediate, local impact of individual interventions, measuring population-wide impacts and trends are complex and expensive.
In my opinion – partner with able organisations and individuals to assist. Do not allow C&E program to run without this feedback and based on real data (perceptions and intentions are not good enough!).

Respectfully yours,
Hennie Groenewald (PhD)
South Africa

Dear all,
Many thanks to Secretariate and moderators for preparing this discussion.
I was thinking on the questions and consider that target audience for public awareness include all groups involved in LMO biosafety relationship - starting from LMO developers, experts who provide risk assessment and LMO regulators, students or PHD – potential future risk assessors or potential LMO regulators, staff of the laboratories on LMO detection, custom control officers, farmers who will use new technology as well as NGOs and public concerned/interested (people who live near trial fields or fields on which LMO grows). To have an unambiguous relations between all this target groups and proper fulfil national, regional and international obligations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety all target groups have to be proper trained or aware about LMOs, biosafety, Cartagena Protocol, it`s main provisions and tools supporting realization of different articles. Of course amount and complexity of information will depend on the target group.
From experience of our National Coordination Biosafety Centre we consider two strategies as effective for public awareness, because they can provide effective interaction between stakeholders, immediate follow up and correction of misundersatndings:
1.Training or public awareness events including workshops (small-scailed directly in biosafety centres on a constant base or other places, regional and global which are helpful tool for sharing experience) and on-line webinars for each target group with NGOs and public concerned invitation.
2. Media activity. For our country press conferences have shown efficacy.
For this purposes the best tool is to develop training program for all target groups and based on the program develop modules that cover main important questions. Depending on target group or issue that need to be concecrated or clarified you can take proper chapter of your module.
Another kind of awareness as publications of articles, distribution of biosafety literature, leaflets also important, but at the same time we consider that events that have follow-up the most efficient tool. During Trainings, workshops, work in-field when you talk with public concerned, press conferences you always have follow-up and if someone doesn`t understand something you can immedeately explain and disscuss rising issue that removes incomprehensible or not completely understandable questions that may arise in the audience, especially among people who are far from understanding modern bio-technologies and biosafety. We had such experience before field trials whith people who lives near trial fields. When people didn`t accept experimental release because they thought that all LMOs posess allergenic potential and after clarification about what LMO is, what variety will be released, how risk assessment was done what kind of monitoring would be applied etc., proper understanding and acceptance were achieved.  Another examles on efficiency of follow-up approach were shown by our NGOs during CEI regional workshop on biosafety public awareness in Belarus in 2013.
In 2013 Secretariat developed very good video on celebration of 10 years of the Cartagena Protocol where representatives of different countries shared their understanding and experience. It will be very good to have this kind of video as well as presentations on national, regional and global level, question and answer sessions on the main CPB issues in all UN languages to share on the national web-page for rising awareness.
On BCH web-page it could be found very good on-line modules for different target groups and targeting different issues that can be used as an excellent capasity-building tools to provide national trainings. At the same time it is very helpful to have regional and national training courses on different topics and helpful role of the Secretariate to provide such kind of courses is very important. On-line training webinars on a constant base for different target grups that I listed above and on the main UN languages also coul be extremly helpful awareness rising activity that Secretariate could assist, also the same activities could be done on the regional level.

Kind regards,
Galina

Dear Galina,

thank you very much for your contribution to the forum and very useful suggestions regarding the training activity and successful examples of previous media resources in dissemination of good practices.

I would like to encourage the participants from the CEE and Central Asia region to share your views and experience as well as bring your suggestion and wishes of how to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Cartagena Protocol.

Wish you a successful continuation of discussion in the forum.
Angela

In addition to what my colleague Hennie has shared with you herewith are some of the suggestion to celebrate the 15 years of entry into force of the CPB.

Reflecting on the theme for this year on the celebration the international biodiversity day “Celebrating 25 Years of Action for Biodiversity”. According to the CBD secretariat this the theme was chosen to mark the 25th anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity and to highlight progress made in the achievement of its objectives at the national and global levels. I see this theme as broad enough to cater for all process of the protocol. You may choose to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol alongside with the 25th Years celebration. In my own view I think the International Day for Biodiversity (IDB) provide unique opportunities to promote awareness about the Protocol. During such event you may wish to set up exhibition booths to display promotional material (such as posters, banners and brochures) and disseminate publications to increase the visibility of the Protocol and raise awareness of the inter-linkages between biosafety and biodiversity.

The IDB national event is preceded by school awareness programme which a long week wherein we visit schools and do school competition giving away school bags, pens and pencil and lunch boxes branded with a message. This competition is completed with three nominated schools that get to compete during the national even wherein prizes are given away. The awareness is done in partnership with the Department of Education.

In addition in our department during the month of celebration all departmental email goes out with message of communication on the date and theme of the international day. Such email communicate the message widely.

Regards,
Ntakadzeni, South Africa

1.     Considering the experience and lessons learned that were shared, what could be the focus for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness raising activities?

I believe that the focus for Parties should be as follows: 1. To provide opportunities for an interested citizen to understand and learn about Modern Biotechnology topics discussed in a Government, that could go from websites to seminars and conferences. 2. In case of a democracy, to link that information with a method to receive and analyze science-based or technically-driven inputs from society. This last is not public awareness but public participation that results from an aware citizen willing to interact with the Government in an unbiased responsible way. Next is the context for this proposal.

In democratic regimes, public awareness provides transparency, and ultimately it traduces in a responsible public participation in a Government decision. Awareness requires not only the information sharing but a well-educated public that has some common understanding of modern biotechnology and how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety- local norms are implemented to use LMOs. In the best-case scenario, a citizen is well informed and may be willing to provide inputs into the decision-making process regarding LMOs by having a technical or scientific based input.

In the case of Costa Rica there are two methods for awareness directly linked to public participation in a responsible way. The first method is the formal inclusion of members to the National Academy of Science (2 members) and members of civil society (2 members) to the Biosafety Committee (CTNBio) based on Law 7664 Article 40 and Decree 26921 Article 112, that have access to the dossier under revision and have voice and vote. The second method is to announce in a newspaper and Gazette about the process of approval in order to receive public comments as stated in Article 133, Decree 26921-MAG.

Regarding the first method, in legal terms all CTNBio members are required to participate with science-based arguments since the resolution of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica 2014015017 states that the CTNBio members are called to counteract any biased position, and instead, analyze the data based on science evidence, which means using the words of the court, that any personal opinion or personal criteria should be avoided, as the Law of Public Administration article 16.1 enforce that the Government cannot act against the science. In addition, and as a reference, the National Academy of Science is an entity created by Law 7169, article 66 and established in Decree 21358-MICIT, integrated by the science community and with the objective to contribute to the progress of the country.

Regarding the second method, there is an announcement about the process of revision and approval of an LMO in a newspaper and Gazette; the publication is the legal and formal way to provides another opportunity for awareness and public participation. In this case, any participant can address the authority to obtain the documentation either in a printed or a digital version at http://www.ovm.go.cr. The website is the official system to promote access to information as formally published in Gazette 113, 2013, and is only for the Costa Rican citizens with a digital signature. In terms of Government procedures, both the CTNBio and newspaper publications can be found at the official site of the Ministry of Agriculture, Phytosanitary Service https://www.sfe.go.cr/, specifically numbered DB-OGM-PO-06. In any of the options, all the comments and inputs can be analyzed both by the authority and the CTNBio which means that any comment or inputs must be well documented and supported.

In addition, and as a reference, a claim against this Government public participation system was put forward to the Supreme Court by members of the civil society in expedient 16-018126-0007-CO and alleged a lack of procedures to participate. However, the court rejected this demand in Resolution 201700110 and set a Legal precedent that the procedure is correct and the public participation in this specific issue is guarantee when declaring to following: The public participation in environmental issues, and as an element of a democratic State, is stated in the articles 9 and 50 of the Political Constitution. The effective and direct participation of the public in the management of the public agenda must follow information-based procedures. In this specific case, the court notes that the right of public participation is guaranteed. The form that is being under consultation is published in the Gazette and in a newspaper, to share the objective of the application, the activity or cultivation, the gen o genes that traduces into proteins and the place where it will be released. The possibility to share inputs at the Phytosanitary Service, Ministry of Agriculture also exists. It is at the Ministry of Agriculture Department that any citizen or interested person can request more specific information or present inputs after the publication. Given the reasons explained, the court rejected the demand.
With that context in mind, I believe that the focus for Parties should be as follows: 1. To provide opportunities for an interested citizen to understand and learn about Modern Biotechnology topics discussed in a Government, that could go from a simple communication strategy to a more deeply training strategy depending on  2. In case of a democracy, to link that information with a method to receive and analyze science-based or technically-driven inputs from society. This last is not public awareness but public participation that results from an aware citizen willing to interact with the Government in an unbiased responsible way.


2.     What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy (e.g. journalist training, articles, TV/radio debates, interviews, press conferences, press releases, invitations to meetings and advertisements)?

It seems that today, there is a loss of credibility in the media because of the great abundance of fake news. I believe that the best way to have a well-balanced communication is to have and share accurate information, as well as informed journalists and other communication-related stakeholders that deeply understand biosafety topics and can present the news in a trustworthy way. In that regard, Parties should focus on having both, accurate information and well-informed journalists and related stakeholders, in order to provide information to citizens about Government’s decisions.

3.     How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness-raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)?

There are several monitoring tools in the case of digital advertisement. However, for a Government with a democratic regime, the best scenario that proves effective awareness would be, in case of having public participation, that those inputs are science-based comments resulting from an aware citizen.

However, the first step of creating awareness may require educational institutes to provide Science-based material to create a common understanding in the society. In the case of Costa Rica, public universities of Costa Rica (e.g. the University of Costa Rica, the Technologic Institute of Costa Rica and the National University) have joined efforts in a common project named “Biotecnología para todos” (Biotechnology for all of us), aimed to provide information to society by developing technical materials for high schools in coordination with the Ministry of Education. The materials are freely available at http://biotecnologia.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/.

Other efforts to create awareness could come from international, private or public institutions having online campuses such as
IICA http://campus.iica.int,
CropLife https://cursos.croplifela.org/index.php/es/,
Coursera, https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=biotechnology,
EDX https://www.edx.org/course/subject/biology-life-sciences

4.     How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness-raising activities (e.g. by developing videos, posters, info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, question and answer sessions)? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?

The best way to provide awareness would be by training. The training goes from understanding legislations to technical aspects of modern technology. However, and since training is expensive and difficult, perhaps the first step should be to promote the systematic publication of already existing programs and training modules that the Secretary usually have under the capacity building at the BCH.

Estimado Alejandro
Muchas gracias por compartir sus  respuestas, su punto de vista y la información relacionada a las acciones llevadas a cabo por Costa Rica son muy educativas y abren un panorama sobre la situación de los OVM´s en un país centroamericano, su normativa y la forma de hacer participación pública.
Para completar su intervención, sería tan amable de proporcionar algunos Mensajes y canales de comunicación para la celebración del 15 ° aniversario de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena, en la matriz anexa.

Le invitamos a seguir participando en este foro, con los temas 2 y 3 que serán abiertos mas tarde.

Saludos cordiales

First, I would like to thank Ulrika and moderators to organize this forum.

As a person who had the responsibility of BCH focal point for 14 years I would like to emphasis the important role of BCH and national BCH in public awareness and participation on LMOs. BCH information are registered by BCH National focal points who are designated by governments So that they are up to date, reliable and accurate information.

Islamic Republic of Iran Signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on April 23, 2001 and ratified the protocol in November 2003. As an active member of the CPB, Iran has taken important steps for the implementation of the protocol and the safe use of modern biotechnology over the past 15 years. Some of the most important of those activities are: (i) Development of National Biosafety Framework, (ii) Participation in BCH project (Phase I) and Establishing national BCH, (iii) Ratification of Natioanl Biosafety Law in July 2009. (iv) Approval of the required guidelines by National Competent Authorities; (v) Holding several Biosafety congresses, workshops and seminars at national and international levels; (vi) Publishing Bulletins and Brochures including "Seasonal Biosafety Bulletin" by the secretariat of Ministry of Science, Research and Technology biosafety committee since 2004 and so on.

15 years of entry into force of CPB is a good opportunity for parties to organize different seminars, Radio and TV programs and interviews to explain about the protocol, government activities and public perception in this regard. To get better result we should divide public in to: (1) Ordinary people, (2) Scientists and educated people, (3) journalists, (4) importers and exporters, custom officers (4) Policymakers and regulators; and so on. Then arrange required activities and provide specific educating materials for each group.

Best Regards
Nasrin Esmaeilzadeh

Dear Ms. Nasrin Sadat Esmailzadeh,

Thanks for sharing the good point on the role of BCH and national BCH in raising public awareness. If you go to the protocol website (http://bch.cbd.int/protocol), there are also links to social media on BCH and the protocol.

I appreciate the categories you defined for the target audience. Could you please provide concrete messages and sub-messages in the matrix document to enhance the discussion and to contribute to the awareness raising.

Thank you and Best wishes

Wei

Thank you to the Secretariat for this wonderful platform and Moderators for guiding this discussion.
Namibia recognizes modern biotechnology as an important tool in fighting hunger and malnutrition and as a solution for alternative food sources in the face of climate change.
Namibia has developed a National public awareness strategy as a mechanism to ensure that public is aware and can access information on living modified organisms in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol. The strategy includes awareness mechanisms such as national Biosafety clearing house http://bch.ncrst.na/, incorporation of biosafety into University curriculums, country wide biosafety workshops, printing medias, TVs and Radio programmes including animations.
Although much effort has been done to conduct awareness using different platforms lately, Namibia has conducted survey to establish the level of awareness in the country. The results supplemented by data from workshops feedbacks demonstrated that there was still a high need to increase public awareness.
Namibia strives to support its citizens to be aware and access information as this is a continuous process and to enable inclusive public participation in decision making regarding LMOs. The national challenge is the intervals of channeling the information due to limited resources (i.e. targeted number trained of Journalist per specified period is not reached; number of brochures distributed per region will not be attained). Namibia propose development of standard animations that can be used as resources by parties by adopting them or tailoring them for country specific including converting them into different local languages. The secretarial should assist parties financially and technically in enhancing their national needs for different awareness mechanisms.

Dear Paulus,

Thank you so much for sharing Namibian experience on the implementation of Article 23 of the protocol. May you kindly elaborate and provide some more examples on how the Secretariat could provide the technical and financial assistance as you mentioned noting that Secretariat has a limited budget and cannot provide the scale of funding as GEF.

Coming back to Theme 1 discussion in relation to celebration of the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and beyond, may you share your views on what are some messages and sub-messages can be used.

Regards,
Ntakadzeni
South Africa

Many thanks moderator,

In light of the above request, the Secretariat could consider the following;
1. The secretariat should consider availing small scale funding for parties to conduct Journalist training.
2. Make provision for training worshops of trainer to assist parties conducting training in their regions/countries.
In relation to celebration of the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, much emphasis should be in topics related to raising Public Awareness and Accessing of Biosafety information.

Dear All,
Reading all these valuable comments it is easy to see the complexity of this kind of work. Every region, each country represents a unique challenge. To form a unified guideline seems difficult but not impossible. Getting close to the end of week one I would like to attach the matrix with some possible messages.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Mr. Gebremedhine Birega Dagaga, ETHIOPIA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all
And Specially, Ulrike
Thank you for giving such special attention to public participation in issues concerning LMOs/GMOs. As you all could know and raise, it is the consumers who deserve to be aware of what is going on regarding LMOs/GMOs in every country and any time. Yet, in some countries like my Ethiopia, the issue of public participation has not been given due attention. Am saying so, mainly because the number of representatives from national focal points is not up to expectation; and in some countries like Ethiopia no such meaningful activities are being undertaken on the ground on the subject matter. Therefore, I think CBD secretariat should think of addressing such problems in a systematic and organized way, involving accountability as well. Online training will be helpful if the results of training are used for practical work in all and every country.
Best regards
Gebre

Estimados todos:
Me parece que hasta el momento todos han contribuido con excelentes ideas para la celebración del 15 aniversario  de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena.
Efectivamente es importante dar a conocer más sobre lo que un Organismos Vivo Modificado significa, ya que muchas personas escuchan la palabra "transgénico"  y rapidamente piensan en algún producto químico dañino para el ser humano y por su puesto para el ambiente en general.
Me parecen excelentes las ideas de realizar talleres, seminarios, videos, folletos, revistas, etc.  Sin embargo, esperaría a que esto no se quede solamente en el ambito de un público en específico, debeería de ser un lazamiento informativo a nivel mundial, que llegue a todas partes del mundo, ya que he notado que regularmente cuando se trata de este tema el público suele ser el mismo.
No hay que olvidar que aún existen muchas partes del mundo  en las que no se sabe el significado de un sitio WEB o no llega la electricidad, creanlo estos sitios existen, y son aquellos lugares donde los pobladores solamente cuentan con los conocimientos tradicionales de la agricultura.
Enseñar a todos que un Organismo Vivo Modificado es un bien que puede mejorar la economía de un país volviendolo más productivo y por ende competitivo.  Pero mejor aún erradicar el hambre y la pobrez como parte del los objetivos del desarrollo sostenible también es un gran reto que puede superarse con la concienciación sobre los beneficios de un OVM.

Me parece excelente lo expuesto por Ntakadzeni de Sudáfrica, lo mejor es empezar desde el pincipio, con los niños que son la semilla para los frutos del mañana, realizar actividades de concienciación escolar, ellos han desarrollado una muy  buena herramienta con ompetencias escolares, regalos útiles para los chicos que llevan un mensaje claro sobre el tema, hacen competencias entre escuelas y se otorga un premio, esto es una idea excelente que puede tomarse como ejemplo para realizar un taller que vaya enfocado a las instituciones que regulan la educación en los distintos Estados Miembros para que posteriormente puedan desarrollar programas a nivel nacional que permitan el conocimiento de los OVM.

Saludos cordiales,
Rosario Aragón, Guatemala

Estimada Rosario
Me da mucho gusto leer sus mensajes en este contexto, es muy importante que también pueda sumarse, a proporcionar sus puntos de vista sobre las preguntas siguientes, tomando en cuenta el contexto en que usted se desempeña,  su visión desde gobierno y Ministerio de Economía, pueden dar a todos los participantes un panorama mas amplio, de como el sector económico de un país juega un papel interesante también en la creación de conciencia pública de los consumidores y comerciantes.

1. Considerando la experiencia y las lecciones aprendidas que se compartieron, ¿cuál podría ser el enfoque para las Partes y los actores interesados que desean emprender actividades de sensibilización?

2. ¿Qué ha incluido en sus estrategias de comunicación y qué eventos se presentan? ¿Cuál podría ser el enfoque de las Partes que desean desarrollar una estrategia comunicación (por ejemplo, capacitación de periodistas, artículos, debates de TV / radio, entrevistas, conferencias de prensa, comunicados de prensa, invitaciones a reuniones y anuncios)?

3. ¿Cómo supervisa y evalúa la efectividad de sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, informes, estudios de casos, encuestas regulares, medición del tráfico a sitios web, cobertura de los medios y difusión de materiales)?

4. ¿Cómo puede la Secretaría prestar mejor ayuda a las Partes en sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, mediante el desarrollo de vídeos, carteles, gráficos de información, un mapa de celebraciones, presentaciones, sesiones de preguntas y respuestas)? ¿Cuál es el público objetivo para cada una de estas actividades de apoyo?

Por favor tomar nota que las discusiones del Tema 1 estarán abiertas hasta el jueves 22  de Marzo 2018 (5:00 p.m. EDT).
Saludos

Dear Gebre,

Thank you so much for your contribution.

Indeed Public participation is a fundamental element for the effective implementation of the Protocol. It is within the human rights for the consumer to know and understand the issues and processes related to LMOs/GMOs and have access to relevant information in order to make informed choices and actions, and to be able to participate effectively in the decision-making processes.

The joint Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety/ Aarhus Convention Co-operation on Public Awareness to information and public participation do outline some of the experiences and best practices on public participation. Otherwise Alejandro from Costa Rica also on his post yesterday he mentioned the idea on how to promote public awareness for public participation, which you may wish to consider. In addition efforts were also made by secretariat to develop an online module on public awareness, education and participation, please follow the link bellow for registration, it is very informative:
https://scbd.unssc.org/course/index.php?categoryid=3

My other proposal for you, is that for the effective implementation of public participation you may wish to develop public participation framework or action plan which is supported by standard operating procedures to guide the public participation process regarding LMOs/GMOs of some sort.

Regards,
Ntakadzeni Tshidada
South Africa

Dear Colleagues,

I would propose the following messages for your comments for the biosafety awareness rising activities. Those are my personal opinions only.

Message 1: Compare to food safety, the environmental safety of LMOs is much important.
Target audience: public, biotech experts and policy maker
Sub-message 1: Compare to environmental risk, food safety has a limited impact scope, e.g. in a local area or in a country.
Sub-message 2: The damage to environment is often invisible but non-reversible and broad.
Sub-message 3: It is dangerous to put food safety superior to environmental safety.

Message 2: Both living modified (LM) food and LM non-food crops should be assessed for their potential ecological risks.
Target audience: public people (including farmers, producers and consumers), especially in China
Sub-message 1: Release of non-food crops will also pose potential risks to environment.
Sub-message 2: Release of non-food crops may also affect adversely on biodiversity.
Sub-message 3: Biosafety management and regulation of both LM food and non-food crops shall follow the same process of risk assessment.

Message 3: Genetic modification is not the only approach; biodiversity and its abundant genetic resources are the bases for sustainable development.
Target audience: scientists and policy makers, especially those who develop and use the technology.
Sub-message 1: We need diverse techniques and theories and practices to promote agriculture.
Sub-message 2: Genetic diversity can be used to improve the quality of crop and livestock etc.
Sub-message 3: We need to conserve the biodiversity and take effort to protect genetic diversity from being adversely affected by the increased release of biotech products.

Thank you!

Wei

Hello moderators,
Communicating biosafety is very essential in the need to ensure proper deployment of biotechnology.  The media, that is journalists need to be enlightened and trained on how best to report biosafety.  In the light of the forth coming celebration i strongly feel there is need for journalist training.
Another strategy is a strong media awareness creation.  That is reaching the public and of course the farmers through the media.  I suggest a media campaign be lunched. This will help create the much needed awareness.
Every one knows how powerful the media is in shaping public opinion and reaching to the minds of the people. Again a town hall meeting with the farmers who of course are the ones to plant and grow these seeds is very important as this meeting should see a one on one engagement and hear directly from the farmers and in turn the farmers can equally get first hand information.
The public is the main target hence it is important to choose strategies that will directly reach and speak to them.

I couldn’t agree more with Gloria, yes journalist training is the core component of public awareness and intervention is required to ensure that trainings are conducted for different media houses.

Hi Paulus and Gloria,

I agree with you on the need for journalist training, this in line  with decision BS VIII/18 annexure on priority activities programme of work on public awareness, education and participation. Priority 3 on advance tools, resources and processes to broaden training activities outlines a sub-activities that talks to the development of a media strategy (e.g. facilitating journalist training on biosafety issues) within 3 years. In the meantime there is a biosafety media network, follow the link bellow: http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art23/media_network.shtml 

Ntakadzeni

Merci au secrétariat du protocole d’avoir initié ce cadre d’échange pour les acteurs œuvrant dans le domaine de la biosécurité.Vous trouverez ci-dessous les messages, les sous-messages et les publics cibles auxquels ils peuvent être adressés :

I. Public cible et justification

Les Parlementaires et les décideurs politiques : vu leur caractère électif et du fait qu’ils changent, il est nécessaire de les informer sur les questions de biosécurité. Aussi, il est important qu'ils connaissent l’importance de la structure de biosécurité car c’est eux qui votent le budget

Message 1
Le respect des obligations du Burkina Faso vis-à-vis du protocole de Cartagena et du Protocole Additionnel

Sous-message 1.1
Les objectifs du Protocole de Cartagena  sur la Prévention des Risques Biotechnologiques et du Protocole Additionnel

Sous-message 1.2
Les Mesures prises par le Burkina Faso pour s’acquitter de ces Protocoles

Sous-message 1.3
Comment les parlementaires ou les décideurs politiques doivent accompagner la structure de Biosécurité pour le respect de ses engagements au niveau du Protocole ?

II. Public cible et justification

Les consommateurs : car ils doivent avoir toutes les informations relatives aux OGM et participer à la prise de décision lors de la mise dans l’environnement

Message 2
Biotechnologie moderne et sa règlementation

Sous-message 2.1
Différents aspects de la biotechnologie réglementés au Burkina Faso

Sous-message 2.2
Rôle et place des consommateurs dans la prise de décision
  
Sous-message 2.3
Processus national de prise de décision

je suis d'accord avec le collègue du Burkina, il me parait important, la sensibilisation, car pour mon pays la RDCongo, jusqu'à présent les OVM sont mal perçus et beaucoup des personnes surtout dans les villages ne savent même ce que c'est un OVM. En effet, avec la superficie continentale du pays, la sensibilisation demande des ressources consistantes pour atteindre cet objectif. Nous avons essayé avec le projet BCH I et II pour former quelques représentants des institutions et ONG qui sont impliqués dans le domaine de l'environnement, mais cela constitue une goutte d'eau dans la mer.
A ce jour, les participants formés une fois rentrés dans leurs institutions, silence radio et jusqu'à présent, la sensibilisation du public constitue un goulot d’étranglement dans la mise en oeuvre du Protocole de Cartagena. dans un atelier tenu ici à Kinshasa, même les intellectuels présents dans cet atelier ont une mauvaise perception des OVMs. Ils nous faut des ressources consistantes pou mener à bien cette activité de sensibilisation du public.

Dear forum participants
We appreciate the excellents contributions came from all of you. With the experiences shared in this forum, is easier to see a panoramic of needs and strengths of each party.  The mesages that all you posted will be useful to generate a new criteria for public awarenes, and innovators materials to spreed. 

Please, find atached the matrix to fill with the mesages of Theme: 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol & the entry into force of the Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. This matrix have to be fill in order to systematize all your answers, we beg you to share this document.

Have a great week.

Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera
Moderador
-------------------------------------------
Estimados participantes del foro

Agradecemos las excelentes contribuciones recibidas de todos ustedes. Con las experiencias compartidas en este foro, es más fácil ver una panorámica de las necesidades y fortalezas de cada una de las partes. Los mensajes que han compartido serán útiles para generar un nuevo criterio para conciencia pública y materiales innovadores para difundir.

Por favor, utilice la matriz para llenar los mensajes del Tema: 15 ° aniversario de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena y la entrada en vigor del Protocolo Complementario sobre Responsabilidad y Compensación. Esta matriz debe ser completada para sistematizar todas sus respuestas, le pedimos que compartan este documento con los mensajes.

Que tengan una excelente  semana.

Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera
Moderadora

Adjunto la matriz con los mensajes que considero oportunos.

Saludos

Estimado Luis
Muchas gracias por compartir sus valiosos mensajes. Es interesante ver desde la perspectiva de un Instituto de Investigación con fondos privados en Guatemala, como ha ido avanzando en la investigación sobre OVM´s a nivel nacional.  Le gustaría compartir también algunas de su puntos de vista, en el contexto del sector agro industrial, relacionado a las siguientes preguntas:

1. Considerando la experiencia y las lecciones aprendidas que se compartieron, ¿cuál podría ser el enfoque para las Partes y los actores interesados que desean emprender actividades de sensibilización?

2. ¿Qué ha incluido en sus estrategias de comunicación y qué eventos se presentan? ¿Cuál podría ser el enfoque de las Partes que desean desarrollar una estrategia comunicación (por ejemplo, capacitación de periodistas, artículos, debates de TV / radio, entrevistas, conferencias de prensa, comunicados de prensa, invitaciones a reuniones y anuncios)?

3. ¿Cómo supervisa y evalúa la efectividad de sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, informes, estudios de casos, encuestas regulares, medición del tráfico a sitios web, cobertura de los medios y difusión de materiales)?

4. ¿Cómo puede la Secretaría prestar mejor ayuda a las Partes en sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, mediante el desarrollo de videos, carteles, gráficos de información, un mapa de celebraciones, presentaciones, sesiones de preguntas y respuestas)? ¿Cuál es el público objetivo para cada una de estas actividades de apoyo?

Por favor tomar nota que las discusiones del Tema 1 estarán abiertas hasta hoy jueves 22  de Marzo 2018 (5:00 p.m. EDT). Inmediatamente se continuará con la discusión del Tema 2 y 3, al cual está cordialmente invitado a seguir participando.

Saludos

1. Considerando la experiencia y las lecciones aprendidas que se compartieron, ¿cuál podría ser el enfoque para las Partes y los actores interesados que desean emprender actividades de sensibilización?
El enfoque debe ser, a mi criterio, la divulgación de los resultados que hasta ahora se han obtenido en diferentes países con la implementación del Protocolo de Cartagena. Enfoque de casos.

2. ¿Qué ha incluido en sus estrategias de comunicación y qué eventos se presentan? ¿Cuál podría ser el enfoque de las Partes que desean desarrollar una estrategia comunicación (por ejemplo, capacitación de periodistas, artículos, debates de TV / radio, entrevistas, conferencias de prensa, comunicados de prensa, invitaciones a reuniones y anuncios)?
La capacitación a periodistas es necesaria por ser ellos los multiplicadores de la información. La divulgación mediante redes sociales tendría impacto en el público en general, pero debe ser de una fuente oficial, como puede ser la Secretaría.

3. ¿Cómo supervisa y evalúa la efectividad de sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, informes, estudios de casos, encuestas regulares, medición del tráfico a sitios web, cobertura de los medios y difusión de materiales)?
En mi caso particular, he hecho divulgación mediante redes sociales y la medición es a través del número de seguidores.

4. ¿Cómo puede la Secretaría prestar mejor ayuda a las Partes en sus actividades de sensibilización (por ejemplo, mediante el desarrollo de videos, carteles, gráficos de información, un mapa de celebraciones, presentaciones, sesiones de preguntas y respuestas)? ¿Cuál es el público objetivo para cada una de estas actividades de apoyo?
La Secretaría podría ayudar mediante la elaboración de materiales de divulgación como videos documentales cortos e infografías que resuman los logros. Me parece que se debe dar un mensaje que elimine el miedo que a la población le causa el tema de Bioseguridad, porque inmediatamente se asocia con aspectos negativos. Se debe mostrar lo positivo de la implementación del Protocolo de Cartagena y de los beneficios de la Biotecnología.

Hola a todos.

Mas abajo los mensajes que creo adecuados.

Mensaje 1 Apostando por una Biotecnología segura y responsable.

Público meta: Centros de investigación, gran industria productora de OVMs, autoridades reguladoras, tomadores de decisiones y políticos.

Sub-mensaje 1. 1 la creación de capacidad en materia de evaluación y gestión de riesgos de OVMs es vital para alcanzar un proceso de toma de decisiones con bases científicas.
Sub-mensaje 1.2  la identificación, detección y monitoreo de posibles efectos adversos de OVMs, constituyen áreas centrales para mantener la seguridad de este tipo de productos.
Sub-mensaje 1.3 las investigaciones biotecnológicas deben dirigirse a la solución de problemas prioritarios identificados en las agendas nacionales. 

Mensaje 2.  Hacia una comprensión más efectiva de los beneficios y riesgos de la biotecnología moderna.

Público meta: medios de comunicación.

Sub-mensaje 1.1  La información que se brinde a los diferentes sectores no técnicos, debe ser imparcial en cuanto a los riesgos y beneficios de la biotecnología utilizando un lenguaje sencillo y directo.
Sub-mensaje 1.2 la información debe ser balanceada incluyendo la bioseguridad como contrapartida y teniendo ésta el mismo peso que la biotecnología.
Sub-mensaje 1.3 la capacitación diferenciada por sectores poblacionales es esencial para la participación efectiva del público en temas tan técnicos.

saludos,

Lenia Arce.
Centro Nacional de Seguridad Biológica.
Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente.
Cuba.

Estimada Lenia
Muchas gracias por estos valiosos mensajes.
Tiene alguna idea o propuesta de cómo poder divulgar y monitorear el alcance de estos mensajes?
Le invito también a responder las otras preguntas de esta discusión, que seguramente aportarán recursos importantes.
Saludos

Dear all colleagues from the Asia and Pacific area, as a moderator I would encourage and appreciate your active participation in the discussion. Please note that the discussions for Theme 1 will be ended soon on 22 March 2018 (5:00 p.m. EDT).

I also would like to take this opportunity to provide some comments on the role of media on the awareness raising activities in China. I believe that my Chinese colleagues will make correction if I am not right. There do have plenty information on the biotechnology of genetic modification in the media (including newspaper, website, TV and radio etc.) in China, however most either concern on the benefit or focus on the debating, few on biosafety, risk assessment and environmental consequences. One famous video in China concerning on safety issues was produced by a former popular host for a CCTV television program, Mr. Yongyuan Cui, by his own private fund. This film is criticized by a few biotech experts due to Mr. Cui’s shortage in biology major but very popular and welcome to public in China. The government fund has not yet produces such comprehensive film in China. I think that the CBD secretariat may be able to assist in this aspect, for example to make training or even produce a film sample for the parties to use after translating into local languages in public awareness raising activities.

Another suggestion is that in the near future the secretariat can coordinate a world widely public awareness event held on a certain day at the same/similar time in individual countries using standard documents for public awareness rising produced by the secretariat. In this way, it will be easy to compare the outputs and check the effectiveness.

In addition, both food safety and environmental safety shall be the focus of public awareness raising activities.

Thank you!

Wei

Dear colleagues, dear fellow participants,

Further to the many interesting and thoughtful inputs made in this Forum, I would like to add a few thoughts.

As has been pointed out, awareness raising regarding biosafety of LMOs needs to be a multidirectional and multidisciplinary effort and task, also including socioeconomic and cultural aspects.

A crucial point to be addressed in awareness raising is the importance of and adherence to the precautionary principle. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is important to recall that the precautionary principle was not born out of risk aversion, but out of a history of "late lessons from early warnings." In the report of the same name   there are many cases where early indications of harm were neglected with serious consequences. One of the most graphic is that of asbestos, where the first warnings were given in 1898, with serious illness and deaths reported soon after. As asbestos was a highly successful and commercially valuable product, action was only finally taken a century later, with the United Kingdom banning its use in 1999, and Canada only doing so in 2018. Its legacy though will live on long after this. A most recent example the need for enactment of the precautionary principle would be the agricultural use of neonicotinoids and its impacts.

Awareness raising will thus also have to cover the topic of uncertainty which is at the heart of science. Consequently, uncertainty assessment will need to be central in risk assessment. It is important for regulators and risk assessors to understand this and take it on board.

Going hand in hand with the above points is the importance of recognitising  and accounting for the limits of knowledge and understanding. This is not just about knowing and understanding DNA and how to alter it, or about knowing and understanding genetic regulatory feedback mechanisms or the intricacy of metabolic pathways or stress responses, it is also very much about knowledge and understanding of ecosystems, sustainability, socio-economic factors, etc. - and this in relation to the risk assessment of an LMO.

Awareness raising on biosafety is not and cannot be about promoting modern biotechnology or potential benefits of LMOs. There are other forums, events and avenues which do that.

As far as scientists are or should be part of biosafety and CPB awareness raising outreach, there is a clear need for a wide spectrum of disciplines and knowledge.

The participation of indepentend sientists is crucial in these activities There are gaps and uncertainties and different points of view that need to be heard.  The portrayal of certainty and simpilstic claims of safety are not conducive to the achievement of biosafety.


With kind regards,
Ricarda Steinbrecher,
Federation of German Scientist


Document referred to above: EEA, Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000, Environmental Issues Report No 22, European Environmental Agency (Copenhagen 2001) http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22.

Tanzania  has enter into force on bio safety protocol  in 2010, since then we had done some activities on bio safety, and for the time being we are preparing to enter to the Nagoya Kuala Lumpa supplementary protocol.
Please find the attached document to see what have been done so far and what are our suggestions on promoting bio safety issues in the country as well as to the world.
Best regards.
Martha Ngalowera
Public Awareness Officer
Vice President's Office
Division of Environment
Tanzania.

Many thanks to Secretariat and moderators for preparing this discussion.
Many colleagues have already stated some good ideas for awareness-raising activities, for example, training for journalists and the public. I agree. But, who do the training work? What should be told to audiences? Trainers should have enough scientific knowledge, not only understand one aspect of any technology but the truth. Scientists, honest scientists, are best trainers. Therefore, I, as a scientist on biosafety assessment of GMOs, want to say don’t forget the role of scientists in the awareness-raising activities. Because scientists are best-positioned to collect data to inform on both risks and benefits of GMOs: the whole truth. It will facilitate the development of awareness-raising activities to attract more scientists of studying GMOs.
Best regards,

Yongbo Liu

First of all, I am so honored to involve into this global discussion!  I am trained as an sociologist of science and technology, and I do research on the governance of biotechnology in China for years which gives me a intersting perspective.

I have to say, according to the research in China, I totally agree with Liu Yongbo, who believe that scientists are the best person to build up public's awareness of biosafety. Although we have been through some trust bankrupt of expertise in China, the public still trust science and technology.

So, the next question will be how to help scientists better communicate with public with a  more reflexive attitude and context based. I think this will be a system building process, which include not only as we talked this afternoon, train jounalist to be more scientific, but also train the scientists to be more journalistic. So the best way is , to invite some of them who have common interest to do the same thing togather. Also, I believe, to give the public a more comprehensive view of the science and technology in the society, we need a facilicator such as a social scientist. This is what I could imagine for now. Acturally, we have already done some of the picture. My group, we started talking with scientists and try to help them better understand the public and the skills of public engagement since last year.

There are several important changes happened in China. We could see the new Ministry of Ecology and environment which may better practice some policy promise of XI. Also, Science communication is seen as important as innovation itsself. (two wings of a body), which could better enroll the scientists in doing so. Also, the fast develop of Chinese science and technology put us in the position to lead the future science governance such as the Human Gene Editing. These changes all call for more wisdom and more considerations of the capacity-building for the promotion of public awareness, education and participation!
As an STS researcher, I am really looking forward to it!

Dear Dr. Lu GAO and Dr. Yongbo Liu,

Thanks for sharing your excellent opinions. Could you please provide concrete messages and sub-messages for the public awareness raising activities following the guiding questions and the message matrix table.

In addition, one important question has not yet received enough attention: How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness-raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)? Could I ask all participants take time to think about and answer this question? A questionnaire before and after an event would be an option to check the effectiveness, but we need to have an idea/dicussion in a long term perspective.

Thank you!

Wei

Dear participants,
May you kindly peruse the question bellow and provide answers:

How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness-raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)?

Regards
Ntakadzeni
South Africa

Posted on behalf of Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada, South Africa:

Dear Participants,

Thank you for the effective contribution and discussion going on so far, and i would like to encourage you to continue

Kindly note that the Secretariat will turn off the automated e-mail. Participants who wish to continue to participate via e-mail after these initial messages can choose the“watch forum” button under the different themes. These individuals will then receive copies of the posted messages by e-mail. This is done to ensure that we do not clog your emails.

Regards,
Ntakadzeni
South Africa

Thanks to the moderators and organizers of this forum.
The discussions have indeed been very enlightening.  Seeing that the public especially farmers and consumers are the most affected by GMOs. A majority of farmers (in Nigeria) get their seeds from Agricultural Research Institutes in collaboration with Agricultural extension workers and seed companies. If these seed sources are trained on the biosafety of GMOs,  it's easier for the knowledge to be passed down to farmers. Farmers tend to believe them more. Moreover, majority of staff in these Agriculture Research Institutes serve as faculty members in Universities. These members could be made to pass training to students (a part of consumers).
More and more consumers have access to the internet, and so, short video clips on YouTube and other internet outlets should suffice  along with the wonderful suggestions made by Gloria.

In order to get feedback on the effectiveness of awareness campaign strategies employed,  mock exams could be set for students of such universities,  a measure of activity o biosafety agencies/authorities social media channels (number of likes, comments /replies to a post,  reposts) could be determined as well as using YouTube analytics to determine demographics, geography and sources of views.  For farmers,  the administration of questionnaires before and after training should be effective.

Josephine Amedu
National Biosafety Management Agency
Nigeria

Dear Josephine Amedu,

Thank you so much, you have raised a valid point particularly around the need to provide training to institutions. However, the issue regarding education on LMOs was discussed already during the past online forum which was held last year.

You made some good points on monitoring and evaluation the challenge still remains on monitoring the impact of awareness raising in remote areas or rural areas where there is limited access to the Internet and/or where the illiteracy. The question is how one would evaluate awareness-raising (and of course hold activities) in such areas.
Regards,

Ntakadzeni Tshidada
South Africa

Many thanks to the secretariat and the moderators for putting together this very important discussion.

I agree that the media is key on increasing awareness. I also agree that scientists should be more involved in giving information on the subject and that farmers should be specially targeted.

However, it is my suggestion that public awareness on LMOs/GMOs should not be one-sided. On the occasion of marking the 15th anniversary of entering into force of the Cartagena Protocol a total exposure of the facts about the subject should be the goal. Mention should be made of:
. The environmental impact of LMOs/GMOs. For example, the herbicide resistant varieties which encourage the use of toxic chemicals on large scale farms.
. The health impact (For example the several allerginegic reactions and immune disorders that are linked to the pesticidal crop varieties)
. The economic impact for example some GMOs requiring more water and expensive herbicide inputs and dependency on corporate bodies for seeds. These will reduce the chances for small holder farmers to compete in agricultural markets.
. The ecological impact: considering the loss of biodiversity due to concentration of the technology on cash crops, and contamination of natural varieties. Also an issue is the mindless destruction of beneficial soil components through the use of toxic chemicals.

Giving balanced information on the subject will help the public to give proper feedback which should be carefully considered by responsible authorities. Channels for feedback should be created and popularized.

I also suggest that there should be more emphasis on the Precautionary Principle which advises governments to withdraw from use of LMOs/GMOs in the case of incomplete assurance of their safety. Regrettably, often only lip service is paid to this critical principle.

Worthy of consideration is that not all countries have the capacity in terms of resources to produce LMOs/GMOs or to carry out sufficient risks assessments and for managing complications that may arise from use of LMOs/GMOs.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF BOB PHELPS
------------------------------------------

Hello All Consultation Participants:

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on Theme 1: Messages and communication channels for the celebration of the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and beyond. My apologies for contributing late in the process and at much length.

Gene Ethics is an Australian, civil society, non-profit, educational network, formed in 1988, which now has 6,000 members, donors and supporters. http://www.geneethics.org/ Gene Ethics generates and distributes information and analysis on the ethical, environmental, social and economic impacts of all proposed uses of genetic manipulation (GM) techniques and their products, to students, the public, policy-makers and other interest groups. We advocate for GM research and development, as well as commercial uses of GM techniques and their products to be communicated publicly. GM techniques and LMOs must have social licences as well as safety licences if they are to be used.

We value the many contributions made in this discussion but are disappointed that the roles of interested citizens and civil society groups feature so little in comments on proposed strategies. We note Costa Rica has two civil society members on its Biosafety Committee but a civil society court case there charged the Government with a lack of public participation procedures. Guatemala divides its public into educated and uneducated adults, and young people with whom the future lies. And Belarus invited NGOs, concerned/interested people, and farmers who use new technology, to on-line webinars and regional workshops on biosafety and public awareness. These are useful initiatives but we favour more concerted partnerships with civil society.

As the Australian Government is not party to the Biosafety Protocols, we will contribute our perspectives on its performance. It is often only possible for civil society groups to know the real detail of what goes on in the regulatory system through documents secured under Freedom of Information. A schema of the national Gene Technology Regulatory Scheme is attached.

The Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultation Committee (GTECCC) advises our national regulator (OGTR) on GMO communication but several of its members are uncritical advocates for GM techniques and products. Such bias is unacceptable. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/content/gteccc-2 The regulators of GMOs (OGTR), GM foods (FSANZ), farm chemicals associated with GM crops and animals (APVMA), GM pharmaceuticals (TGA), etc. issue email notices of applications and reviews of their laws and regulations for public comment.

From 1990 till 1996, the Australian federal government funded Gene Ethics to develop and distribute education materials. We produced schools kits based around a broad spectrum of published opinion from the general media, to pose questions and promote informed student debates on the various issues raised. This work was defunded in 1996 after a change of government. We rely now on public donations so our capacity is more limited. Issues Magazine uses the same approach to providing materials to schools, with all sides represented, and at least two of their publications were on LMOs. http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/back-issues

Our information and opinion is on safer, more equitable and sustainable GM-free societies, to permanently serve human and environmental needs far into the future. It is now mostly delivered on the internet. We focus on the precautionary principle as defined in the CBD, independent scientific evidence, untainted by commercial interests, and the need for regulators to apply the regulations and law rigorously and even-handedly to the diverse uses of LMOs. Beyond GM's 'GMO Wheel of Chance' is one novel and engaging example of clear and basic educational material delivered to everyone online. http://beyond-gm.org/gmo-wheel/

As the new GM techniques (CRISPR, etc.) can be used to manipulate the genomes and traits of any living organism - human, animal, plant or microorganism - the Biosafety Protocols on LMOs should apply to their potential impacts of all applications on Biodiversity. In Australia, there is much focus on the biocontrol of invasive plants, animals, insects, pathogens, etc. as these organisms wreak environmental havoc on this continent's ecosystems and also affect agricultural production. Current research and development includes so-called 'daughterless carp' and the carp herpes virus to eliminate invasive carp from our waterways; US DARPA-funded work on rodent control would use new gene drive (extinction) techniques to drive deleterious genes through whole species; and Mediterranean fruit fly contro is also being trialed. We are concerned that such biocontrol agents may spread globally and harm Biodiversity as Australia is not party to the Cartagena Protocol.

We work with other civil society groups to educate about regenerative agricultural and environmental systems that offer assured long-term food and fibre security and sovereignty. Corporate controlled, high input industrial methods, augmented with synthetic chemicals and LMOs, will not remain viable as oil and phosphates are fast depleting, access to good soil and clean water is more constrained, and climates are fast changing. Adaptation, Biodiversity protection and ecosystem maintenance are crucial.

We will negotiate with the makers of suitable films and YouTubes, available online to sue their materials for education purposes. One example. https://www.seedthemovie.com/ To facilitate their optimal use, we ask qualified curriculum developers to author print materials to go with the movies, then available free online. We hope to get widespread use by enabling school and university teachers and students to freely access the audiovisual and curriculum materials for class debates and discussions. For example. http://www.metromagazine.com.au/studyguides/index.html

Although the Australian Government is a full member of the CBD, it has not signed or ratified the Cartagena Protocol or its Supplementary Protocol. Indeed, Australia opposed negotiation of the Protocols from the start as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade still claims the Protocols could be used to raise non-tariff barriers to trade.

Gene Ethics wants the Government to join, ratify and implement the Biosafety Protocols and has lobbied for two decades for the government to do so. While we know the delicacy of other nations intervening, we think Cartagena Protocol members have a role to educate the Australian and other governments that are not Protocol Members on their responsibility to become full members and participants, and the desirability of doing so.

Since 1990, some Australian government departments (federal and state), industry front groups, and establishment science entities have been part-taxpayer-funded to produce promotional materials (claiming to be educational) that uncritically extol the virtues and benefits of LMOs without disclosing the potential impacts on Biodiversity, the environment generally and society. They promote LMO acceptance on farms and in the food supply among farmers, rural communities and shoppers who are encouraged to buy and use GM seeds and chemicals, and to buy GM foods. However, GM-free labelled organic and conventional foods are widespread and strong local and export demand is growing, especially in Australia, Europe, USA, Japan and China where they sell for premium prices.

Governments that actively fund the promotion of LMOs they should also fund the civil society groups which raise issues crucial to their safe and successful deployment, minimising risks and impacts on Biodiversity.

Recommendations:

That parties to the Cartagena and Nagoya Kuala-Lumpur Protocols:

1. Fund civil society groups to engage independently in joint educational programs on LMOs and related issues;
2. Educate and inform their communities of all the costs and hazards, as well as the potential benefits, of LMOs;
3. Contextualise the education about LMOs within long term goals for Biodiversity conservation and social development;
4. Develop and promote regenerative, biodiversity-friendly systems as alternatives to LMO and chemical dependence;
5. Educate non-Parties to the CBD or the Protocols on the desirability of joining in the interests of global Biodiversity.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Phelps
Executive Director
Gene Ethics

Dear all

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.

Thrid World Network manages a website called the Biosafety Information Centre (http://www.biosafety-info.net). The goals of the website are to:

• Increase knowledge on, and deepen understanding of, (w)holistic approaches for a comprehensive assessment of technologies and techniques that involve genetic engineering
• Contribute to a wider public discussion and critical understanding of the scientific, ecological, social, economic and ethical dimensions of genetic engineering under the rubric of biosafety
• Contribute to the enhancement of the biosafety capacity of policy makers and regulators in developing countries
• Promote research (including the identification of gaps in knowledge) on biosafety
• Promote research on, and implementation of, sustainable systems for agriculture, health and ecological integrity
• Promote understanding of, and respect for, the rights, knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities

We believe that the above goals are also relevant for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake biosafety awareness-raising activities. Such activities should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date data and analysis, in order to contribute to informed decisions about LMOs.

Awareness-raising activities are not about fostering public acceptance of genetic engineering, but should promote open and transparent debate, with due acknowledgment of scientific uncertainty, and the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date which prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of LMOs (see ‘No scientific consensus on GMO safety’, Environmental Sciences Europe, December 2015, 27:4,  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1).

It is therefore critical to have independent scientists participate in awareness-raising activities. In addition there is also a need to to hear from all available expertise from various fields, outside of the commonly used pool of expertise, and including socio-economic and ethical considerations.

Kind regards
Lim Li Ching
Third World Network

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Mr Idris Abubakar Imam, Nigeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
 
I use this medium to thank the Secretariat and participants for the wonderful jobs.
It is clear to understand that journalists are very,  very important when it comes to awareness campaigns. They take from the source, an information, spread, broadcast and pass to the general public. As much as passing the right message is important, the right messenger too is important. Secondly, and in my opinion, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are as important a category as the journalists. This is because, CSOs sometimes are stronger than religious bodies. If they have the right information, they pass it to the general public. And if, in anyway, they want to bring confusion to the public they can do so within a blink of an eye( Note: No offence meant).The public trust them since they are non-profit organizations and therefore accept what they(CSOs) bring to the general public.
I stand to be corrected.
Thank you all.
Imam Idris Abubakar
NBMA, Nigeria.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Ms. Clementina Johnson, Nigeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues, please find attached my submissions for the online forum on the theme: 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol $ the entry into force of the Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress.

Clementina J.,
NBMA, Nigeria.

Dear Ms. Lim Li Ching,

Thanks for sharing the Biosafety Information Centre website of TWN [#9041]. The website is very useful for both research work and public awareness raising. Could you please provide messages and sub-messages for public awareness raising activities according to your excellent expertise.

I totally agree to your opinion that the involvement of INDEPENDENT scientists is very important. As you might have seen, some current public awareness-raising activities aimed to  foster public acceptance of genetic engineering unfortunately and conducted by biotech developers/experts only who are in favor of LMO products and their profits. That is not right. It is also highlighted by Alejandro Hernández Soto  [#9005] that public participation and the interaction with the Government/policy makers/biotech developers in an unbiased responsible way are very critical. I think that the public awareness raising will benefit public participation while broad public participation including people/experts from various background in the public awareness-raising activities is very necessary to ensure broad interests and comprehensive views.

Thank you!

Wei

It's a good idea to have independent scientists speak up and produce evidence for their concerns about LMOs and their impacts. But the scientific establishment, the GM industry, pro-GM front groups, etc. often vilify and hound those scientists who warn of potential harm from LMOs, chemicals, etc., even based on peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence. Many have lost jobs, grants and their reputations. For instance, Arpad Pusztai, Gilles-Eric Seralini and colleagues, Judy Carman, Ignacio Chapela, Shiv Chopra, Martin Stapper, to name just a few among many. It's no wonder that scientists with well-founded questions and counter-evidence are usually silenced and their messages are muted.

Dear colleagues,

As moderator of the WEOG group I would like to thank in particular participants from this group for the postings but it is of course very rich and inspiring to follow all the other contributions from the various regions as well. It shows that on the topic of public awareness the issues are very similar globally although of course particular elements are different. Now that the discussion on theme 1 is slowly but surely coming to an end I would kindly invite the many other colleagues from the WEOG region to use the last day (22 March) to add their voices, before we move to themes 2 and 3 from tomorrow (23 March) onwards.

Reflecting on the very interesting comments by Bob Phelps from Australia I think that perhaps one focus of awareness-raising could be to assist countries that are non-Parties to join the Protocol and the Supplementary Protocol. Maybe Bob and others could recommend some messages, sub-messages, activities and how this could be achieved and monitored. Concrete ideas how other Parties and the SCBD could assist in the outreach efforts are very welcome as well.

Concerning the issue of different scientific opinions to be appreciated and heard during the debates, also with a view to public awareness, I think that there should be an inclusive approach. Transparent, neutral and independent contributions on the basis of different scientific disciplines are most welcome in this respect. Again I kindly invite colleagues to provide further reflections on those points.

I am looking forward to the further debate today and then on the other topics further on.
Best wishes

Helmut Gaugitsch

Thanks Helmut for acknowledging the desirability of Australia and other non-members joining the Protocols. I think maintaining Biosecurity may be the most effective message on the new GM techniques, especially gene drives. Our government is 'free' trade-obsessed but views it mainly from an exporters point of view, assuming that we are safe from incursions of LMOs from abroad as Gene Tech is regulated. But, meanwhile, they propose to deregulate some CRISPR, RNAi, and null segregants. In contrast, Biosecurity is a hot topic here as we have many incursions of invasive organisms including, most recently, red fire ants, yellow crazy ants and myrtle rust. Last year a review of Australia's national biosecurity system called for reforms to stop dangerous new invasive pests arriving here and harming our biodiversity. Federal and state agricultural ministers meet at the end of April to consider the changes. We say joining the Biosafety Protocols would be a useful addition to the suite of biosecurity measures proposed but so far we have not convinced our governments.

I completely agree with Dr. Wei`s points, especially in public communication in China as a scientist . LMO biosafety is often involved in a  topic in many public food safety communication TV program or commercial advertisments in China. It is easy to invoke a new debate ambiguously. We should recognize that a general scientist is different from a science scientist. In particularly, it is impossible to express a scientifical or fair point for a biotechonlogist, who sit at the side of herself benefit from a biotechnological company or publications, fundings. Although a scientist is a pure scientist, her points are only limited in her research results based on her experiments. However, bioversity is complicate and biosafety is more beyond understandable than the nuclear powered risk. So I think it is important that a public forum inviting a science sicentist and focusing on LMO will be held in China, On the other hand, to distinguish several concerning with biosafety concept is also imperative, such as LMO, GMO, transgenic plants, biotechnolgy, synthetic biological products，biosafety, food containg toxic material content excessive government criteria, food contaminated by environemtal pollution, unhealthy food is unequal to toxic food, potential risk is not to fatal in recently.

PUBLIÉ AU NOM DE Doumi Mohamed ZAN KARAMBIRI, BURKINA FASO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Je voudrais d’emblée remercier le secrétariat du protocole et les modérateurs pour avoir organisé ce forum en ligne. En effet, les médias sociaux, notamment les réseaux sociaux, les blogs, sont des canaux de communication pour faire passer des messages sur les enjeux dudit protocole. Ils permettent de mettre en relation les différentes composantes de la société.
Quant aux médias traditionnels comme la radio, la télévision, la presse écrite, ils pourraient organiser des débats télévisés et radiophoniques, des interviews, des success stories, ainsi que le plaidoyer médiatique sur les enjeux du protocole.
I. Public-cible et justification
Le grand-public : Il doit être informé sur les instruments juridiques qui régissent la biotechnologie en vue de participer de façon efficace au processus de décision.
Message 1 : Implémentation ou mise en œuvre du protocole de Cartagena et du protocole additionnel de Nagoya Kuala-Lumpur au Burkina Faso Sous-message 1 : Les exigences du protocole de Cartagena et du protocole additionnel de Nagoya Kuala-Lumpur Sous-message 2 : Respect des obligations du protocole de Cartagena par le Burkina Faso
II. Public-cible et justification
Les Journalistes et communicateurs : Ils doivent être suffisamment outillés sur les textes règlementaires qui régissent la biotechnologie en vue d’un meilleur traitement de l’information. Ils peuvent aussi relayer les informations justes auprès du public.
Message 2 : Textes réglementaires relatifs à la sécurité en matière de biotechnologie Sous-message 1 : Existence au niveau international du Protocole de Cartagena et de son protocole additionnel et au niveau national, de la loi portant régime de sécurité en matière de biotechnologie au Burkina Faso Sous-message 2 : Existence du Centre d’Echange sur la Prévention des Risques Biotechnologiques (CEPRB)  où sont disponibles des informations des Parties sur la biosécurité Sous-message 3 : Existence d’un cadre national de biosécurité au Burkina Faso qui regroupe l’Agence nationale de biosécurité, le Comité scientifique national de biosécurité et l’observatoire national de biosécurité.

I am really looking forward to the public forum you describe here, and if possible I would love to join it. and I really agree with you and Dr Wei, who should the governent and the public listen to will be a long lasting problem for the controversirial technologies. From our perspective of research, it will be a problem of how to manage different expertise and its relation to public. Science policy and enviroment policy shouldnt just listen to one side of the reseachers, but a comprehensive views from science scientists.

Dear Ms Joyce Ebebeinwe,

Thank you so much for reminding us of the precautionary approach particularly when conveying our message to the public. However, you will note that there are potential benefits that also need to be communicated in order to balance the two.
Regards,

Ntakadzeni Tshidada
South Africa

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Miss Adanna Mgbojikwe, Nigeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Biosafety Authourity in Nigeria (National Biosafety Management Agency) which was set up in 2015 has been carrying out intensive public awareness by constantly releasing press releases, granting TV and radio interviews and having awareness workshops.

In my attached document, I've given a few key messages that focus on the policies around Biosafety and the researchers of biotechnology.

Kind Regards,
Adanna Mgbojikwe

We ask for fairness and equity in messaging and resourcing for civil society groups which counsel precaution on LMOs. The scientific establishment, GM and chemical industries, universities, governments and other institutions are all very well-resourced to promote the potential benefits of new GM techniques and LMOs. In contrast, content analyses show that the risks, hazards and costs of LMOs and the new GM techniques are trivialised, censored or ignored in most mediums of communication.

Dear all,

Thank you to the Secretariat for the opportunity to participate in this forum. I would like to share my personal view with regard to identification of target audiences and key messages for the purpose of biosafety awareness activities. 

Knowing who the target audience will help determine what and how the key messages are to be delivered. The target audiences can include but not limited to the followings:
1) The general public – Comprises everyone in the society, regardless of age, gender, occupation or educational levels. The people within this group may or may not have the understanding of or interest in modern biotechnology and biosafety.
2) Consumers – A sub-group of the public who is likely interested or concerned about GM food and its risk to human health.
3) Students – Students from all levels, from primary to tertiary, who have little or some understanding of biotechnology and might be interested to know more about modern biotechnology and its potential benefits and risks to human health and the environment.
4) Researchers – Researchers involved in the research and development of LMOs.
5) Industry players including freight forwarders – Producers, importers and exporters of products of LMOs as well as those involved in the supply chain such as the freight forwarders.
6) Government officials – Policymakers in related disciplines such as agriculture, environment, health and biotechnology, as well as enforcement officers involved in the inspection and monitoring of LMOs.

The key messages to be delivered to the target audiences should be based on the information needs of the respective audience. It can be based on what the audiences might want or need to know, for example:
1) The general public – What is modern biotechnology and biosafety? What are examples of GM products? What are the potential benefits to the environment and health? What are the potential impacts on the environment and health?
2) Consumers – What is GM food? Are GM foods safe? Do they cause allergic reactions? Could they have unknown toxic substances? Do some GM foods have health benefits? Are GM food labeled? What are the regulations on GM foods and products?
3) Students - What is genetic modification and how it is done? What can scientists do using modern biotechnology? What are the potential benefits and risks of modern biotechnology?
4) Researchers – What are the guidelines for handling LMOs in a contained environment? What are the procedures for the application of LMO release? What are the regulations on transporting LMOs?
5) Industry players including freight forwarders – What is the law that regulates LMOs? Where to obtain information about the regulations? What are the new regulations?
6) Government officials – How does biosafety relate to my field of work? How to identify and document LMOs? What are the LMO detection techniques?

I believe an effective awareness programme requires an understanding of the target audiences and key messages to be delivered. The communicator must deliver the right information to the right audience in order to achieve the desired objective.

Regards,
Johnny

I really like this summary. I think this list gives a very clear view including the different stakeholders and their characterastics. .
Maybe, next we could talk about how to inform different audiences? From what type of communication or education styles? Who should be the best person to practice the commnication with different audience?

I thank all contributors for comments shared so far. They show a wide spectrum of ideas and nuances that can guide efforts at awareness creation.

One thing that should be mentioned is that efforts made on awareness creation should be inclusive of those that are saddled with decision making responsibilities.

Officials in-charge of biosafety matters in our countries should be open to listen to voices of citizens. It is dangerous for officials that may be imminently qualified in the field of modern biotechnology to dismiss public opinion simply because they think that those who raise contrary thoughts are either emotional or plain stupid. With regard to food issues, many will agree that when people decide what to eat their first consideration is not what may have been the outcome of a laboratory experiment or a confined field trial of some GMO/LMO. Many more factors are considered. Some of these are rightly socio-cultural, because food is a central part of many cultural experiences.

Awareness must be built through communication pathways in which participants listen to one another. Fast approval processes may short circuit efforts at true risk assessments. Approval of GMOs/LMOs is one where errors made may not easily (or even ever) be corrected. The public need assurances that risks are thoroughly assessed and that the Precautionary Principle is not treated lightly. Experts should not be public adversaries.

Some of us are concerned that the opportunities of having risk assessments with regard to applications for introduction or even importation of GMOs/LMOs in some countries may be lost by the penchant to fast track approval processes.

Awareness creation is a two-way traffic. And science must be in the public interest - even if promoted by corporations. Biodiversity is the basis of food sovereignty and food security. Risk assessment should ensure that biodiversity loss is not promoted by commercial concentration on a few varieties.

Dear all,
My concluding remarks on this topic –

1. In general, we need a clearer understanding of what exactly we mean with (and expect of) terms such as “awareness” & “public participation”. How will these be measured, what will the acceptable levels for these be, etc.? I do not suggest we can define a single set of definitions and goals that will be acceptable for all countries, but everyone should define these for themselves. Not having clear definitions or goals leave these politically loaded concepts open to abuse and also makes it impossible to develop a useful monitoring & evaluation plan (see 5).

2. I also share the generally held view that the (traditional) media could be an important “communication channel” regarding the goals and impact of the CPB. I’m however not of the opinion that journalists should be “trained” – let’s rather focus on continuously engaging them on CPB related topics that may be newsworthy. Of course they may also learn something in the process, but we should be very careful as to not create an image of wanting to “train the media to be useful to us”. It’s more about building relationships that will also benefit their readership/listenership than transferring knowledge to the journos.

3. Fairly little has been said about the national biosafety clearing houses (BCHs) and it’s my perception that only relatively few parties have these up and running and up to date. We should remember why they are part of the system and use them more effectively.

4. 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 living modified organisms…” within the scope of transboundary movement, the conservation & sustainable use of biological diversity & taking possible risks to human health into account, NOT to make value judgements, insinuate generalised risk analysis outcomes or unduly influence parties on their choice to (or not to) use GM technology. CPB sanctioned messages should therefore accurately reflect this mandate and not entertain inaccurate, value-based and/or self-serving propositions thinly veiled under popular notions such as “fairness”, “representativeness”, “independence”, etc.

5. I attach a brief overview of our approach to establishing an M&E plan.

Avant tout propos, je tiens à remercier le CBD pour cette initiative de discussion en ligne sur la participation du public au processus de prise de décision en matière de biotechnologie. L’information et la sensibilisation du public sur les risques potentiels liés à l’utilisation de la biotechnologie moderne une partie importante de la biosécurité. Une bonne information de la population permettrait de faire tomber un certain nombre de préjugés sur les OGM, qui souvent ne sont pas fondés. Aussi cela permettrait à tout consommateur de faire son choix de refus ou d’acceptation de façon responsable. Pour atteindre cet objectif, il convient que l’information/sensibilisation du public soit organisée. L’élaboration d’une stratégie de communication en matière de biosécurité est nécessaire, dans laquelle les grands axes de communications ainsi que les groupes cibles seront déclinés. Le regroupement de la population en groupe cible permet de s’spécifier les messages à communiquer et atteindre l’objectif visé. Toutefois cela demande plus de temps et de moyens.
¨Par rapport au public cible et les messages à communiquer je fais les propositions suivantes:
I Public cible et justification :
Les élèves et étudiants : ils constituent l’avenir et la relève. Ainsi, ils doivent être informés de l’évolution des sciences
Message 1:
Qu’est-ce que la biotechnologie ?
Qu’est-ce que la biosécurité ?
Sous-message 1.1:
Réglementation de la biotechnologie :
Protocole de Cartagena, l’instrument juridique international en matière de biosécurité
Loi portant régime de sécurité en matière de biotechnologie au Burkina Faso
Sous-message 1.2:
Comment rechercher l’information  sur la biosécurité les sites web comme le BCH ?
II. Public cible et justification
Les enseignants des lycées et collèges : ils sont des acteurs qui transmettent des connaissances. Il est donc impératif d’avoir des notions sur ce sujet afin de mieux expliquer aux élèves et de leur inculquer la culture scientifique
Message 2:
La manipulation génétique, l’introgression de gènes et les risques potentiels liés à cette méthode
Sous-message 2.1:
La biotechnologie moderne et son application dans le domaine de l’agriculture et la santé
Les risques potentiels et les textes juridiques qui encadrent la mise en œuvre de la biotechnologie moderne
Sous-message 2.2:
Comment rechercher l’information  sur la biosécurité les sites web comme le BCH ?
Protocole de Cartagena, protocole additionnel et loi portant régime de sécurité en matière de biotechnologie au Burkina Faso.
Encore merci pour initiative.

Bonjour à tous.
Il est très difficile sinon hasardeux de vouloir standardiser les messages de sensibilisation du public concernant les OVM/OGM. Cela dépend de la situation du pays par rapport à la mise en place du cadre national de biosécurité et surtout de la position du pays par rapport à ces questions.
En effet pour le cas de Madagascar, le cadre national de biosécurité a été officialisé mais la loi sur la biosécurité n'est pas encore adoptée. Nous avons effectué des sensibilisations au niveau des régions de Madagascar en vue de consulter les populations concernant la loi relative à la biosécurité. Mais, la difficulté vient du fait que les gens interprètent notre campagne soit comme une demande d'autorisation pour introduire les OGM/OVM soit comme une campagne contre. Il a donc été difficile de faire passer un message clair de pure information non tendancielle.
J'appuie les propositions comme quoi les journalistes sont des cibles clés. Par contre, il s'agit de les convaincre plutôt que de les sensibiliser. Ils ont souvent des a priori acquis à travers les médias internationaux qui ne sont pas toujours neutres et véhiculent des messages pas forcément cohérents avec l'orientation générale du pays.
La notion de Consentement libre et en connaissance de cause pose également des problèmes d'application car le cadre légal qui le reconnait n'existe pas encore et surtout cela suppose que l'on ait suffisamment éclairé le public concerné. Cette notion ne pourra donc être introduite sans avoir suffisamment donner toutes les informations pertinentes et sans que le grand public ait les capacités nécessaires pour comprendre et avoir des opinions sur le sujet.
Les parlementaires sont aussi des cibles privilégiés dans le contexte de Madagascar, ce sont eux qui vont normaliser ou non les OGM/OVM et sachant que la décision ultime pour cette normalisation sera d’ordre légal par le bais du Parlement. Mais est-ce que la sensibilisation des parlementaires peut-elle être neutre ?

Je suis d'avis avec Mr. Jean Roger Rakotoarijaona du Madagascar. Nos populations ont reçu des informations tendancielles. On a l'impression que les  fausses informations circulent plus vites, surtout avec le développement des réseaux sociaux. Cela met en mal les efforts de communication des pays. Il faut alors s'inscrire dans la durée dans le processus d'éducation du public, chose qui n'est pas facile pour plusieurs pays au regard du goût l'information/sensibilisation du public.
Aussi, au regard de l’hétérogénéité de la population, il est important de diversifier les canaux de communication, et pour avoir les jeunes, il va valoir trouver le moyen de communiquer avec eux sur les réseaux sociaux tout en restant maître de l'information diffusée.

Undeniably, genetically modified technology is an important tool in the fight against global poverty and food insecurity. Based on a growing body of evidence, biotechnology is not more risky than alternative technologies.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, while recognising that modern biotechnology has great potentials to increase yields and productivity in a sustainable way, addresses its possible impact to human health and the environment. As a balancing act that seeks to protect human and conserve biodiversity from potential risks posed by the Living Modified Organisms (LMOs), the protocol provides a degree of certainty for biosafety regulations and integrate general principles for risk assessment.
It is remarkable that after 25 years of field trials without evidence of harm, fears continue to trigger major fusses and controversies. Therefore, there is need to support scientific studies on Biotechnologies and the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to ensure available evidence for a constructive debate in our societies.
The 15th anniversary celebration is significant, to provide a framework to improve understanding and address the limited awareness and knowledge through increased outreach and strategic communications to promote public participation in decision making regarding LMOs, and advance priority access to the results and benefits arising from biotechnology.
Considering past experience, the focus for parties involved in awareness-raising activities is increased demand for biotechnological products to ensure food security and improve livelihood. Special focus on print and online activities is vital while developing a media strategy to facilitates education and exchange of information among stakeholders. In my own case, I included articles and press briefings while improving national competence on related issues and evaluate effectiveness through reactions from media coverage.
The Secretariat can assist stake holder in their advocacy for increased access to biotechnology through capacity building and adequate provision for resources such as; biosafety information resource centre, international events and fact sheets for communication experts, relevant institutions and organizations and government respectively.

Posted on behalf of Ms. Elizabeth Castillo Villanueva, Mexico:

Good afternoon to all, fist, I would like to thank Ulrika and moderators to organize this discussion.

In my attached document, I've given a few key messages that focus on modern Biotechnology and Biosafety and also explain strategies contained in our working plan in order to strengthen participation, public awareness and education at different levels in the safe use of biotechnology in all sectors of Mexican society.

Cordially,
Elizabeth Castillo Villanueva
Deputy Director on Communications of Biotech and GMOs Biosafety
Executive Secretariat-CIBIOGEM, Mexico.

links:
http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Pablo Orozco, Alliance for Science, Legal Fellow
---------------------------------------
Dear Participants

1. Considering the experience and lessons learned that were shared, what could be the focus for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness raising activities?

For the general public in Latin American Countries, it is necessary to start from the basic concepts and work towards a more nuanced description of a biosafety framework. The focus for parties and stakeholders should be to educate the general public on: (a) the definition of a GMO and the goals and characteristics of a biosafety regulatory framework; (b) the reason and existence of Biosafety regulation for different activities with GMOs; (c) how the Cartagena Protocol addresses possible impacts to biological diversity, while at the same time allowing for access and transfer of biotechnology since it has great potential for human wellbeing, the environment, and human health; d) applying the Cartagena Protocol at the country level; and e) the importance of public participation and the exchange of information regarding GMOs in order to build trust and demonstrate the competence and integrity of measures taken within a biosafety framework.

The overall objective should be to effectively communicate science-based messages that clearly and accurately inform on the technology and how biosafety regulatory processes address concerns in order to allow countries to have access to the many benefits of biotech.

2. What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy (e.g. journalist training, articles, TV/radio debates, interviews, press conferences, press releases, invitations to meetings and advertisements)?

In Latin America, the best strategies for raising awareness will meet people where they are, with activities conducted in different areas of each country, such as: forums and panel events; workshops; community education events; cine-forums; online video seminars and webinars. These events should include science-based messages that can be shared by the participants within their networks.

3. How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)?

Taking the aforementioned strategies into account, the metrics could be: a) the number of events and turn-ups; b) continued attendance; c) surveys to measure the understanding of the material and the dissemination of the information; and d) the number of online views and shares of materials.

4. How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness raising activities (e.g. by developing videos, posters, info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, question and answer sessions)? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?

The Secretariat could use its focal points to partner with educational organizations and like-minded entities to promote, organize, and implement activities that bring awareness to the technology and the way it is regulated. The target audience would be farmers, journalists, students, and the general public.

Pablo Orozco
Alliance for Science
Legal Fellow

Good Evening,

I would like to extend a thank you to the Secretariat for the opportunity to participate in this online forum, and to the participants for the robust conversation over the past several days.  Below please enclosed the U.S. government's response to the guiding questions for Theme 1. 

1.  Considering the experience and lessons learnt that were shared, what could be the focus  for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness raising activities?

Considering the experience and lessons learned from a diverse international landscape of biosafety approaches, Parties and stakeholders could undertake awareness raising activities regarding the relationships between the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and domestic biosafety frameworks. 

2. What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy (e.g. journalist training, articles, TV/radio debates, interviews, press conferences, press releases, invitations to meetings and advertisements)?

The U.S. government engages domestically and internationally to connect consumers, producers, regulators, technical experts, and practitioners with each other, in order to cultivate a robust educational environment for biosafety.  The U.S. public is free to exchange information and materials on biosafety on any medium they choose.  This includes, but is not limited to, online forums, social media, intergroup dialogues, conferences, and workshops conducted by the federal and state government, civil society, educational organizations, academia, farmer groups, and industry organizations.

The U.S. government has multiple mechanisms for engaging the public on biosafety related to products of biotechnology, a subset of which include living modified organisms (LMOs) as defined by the Cartagena Protocol.  Through the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinate and share information with U.S. stakeholders regarding biosafety approaches for products.  Up-to-date information from these agencies is located at the following websites and is available in multiple languages:    

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/home/
https://www.epa.gov/
http://www.fda.gov/

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) also jointly administer FederalRegister.gov. The Office of the Federal Register informs the public of their rights and obligations, documents the actions of Federal agencies, and provides a forum for public participation in the democratic process.  Through this mechanism, the public is free to comment and share questions prior to Federal decisions related to individual biosafety decisions. 

Finally, the EPA, FDA, and USDA also maintain active forums with diverse stakeholders, in order to build public understanding around products of biotechnology.  For more information, we encourage stakeholders to consult:

EPA’s public participation guide (https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide-introduction-public-participation)

FDA’s Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative (https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm579348.htm)

USDA’s Advisory Committee on Biotechnology & 21st Century Agriculture (AC21):  https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/advisory-committee-biotechnology-21st-century-agriculture-ac21

3. How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)?

Monitoring, evaluation, and updating of public engagement activities are conducted at the discretion of the individual U.S. government agency (or agencies) responsible for the activity in question.  Civil society, educational organizations, academia, farmer groups, and industry organizations also independently monitor activities and maintain up-to-date resources.

4. How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness raising activities (e.g. by developing videos, posters, info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, question and answer sessions)? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?

Parties and stakeholders may benefit from awareness raising activities regarding the relationships between the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and domestic biosafety frameworks.

In general Dr. Piet van der Meer, Ghent University, Free University of Brussels, Belgium, PRRI on 2018-03-16 02:47, Ms. Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera, Guatemala on 2018-03-22 17:22 on behalf of Pablo Orozco Alliance for Science Legal Fellow, and Lic. Cecilia Julia Llabres, Argentina on 2018-03-20 09:25 have posted nicely summarized ideas that I agree with them on the Theme 1.

I have additional comments: 
1. Considering the experience and lessons learned that were shared, what could be the focus for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness raising activities?

We need local leaderships and in Peru we have PeruBiotec Members (http://www.perubiotec.org/) that could dedicate to this. However we need time and funds to allow more collaboration to take advantage of the great amount of information already available and undertake awareness raising activities. No other organization in Peru Public  (lack of budget) or Private organization is undertaking this on the lines expressed by Piet or Cecilia on the importance of Modern Biotechnology products, in our case, for our food subsistence production because of limiting factors in basic food crops not solved on more than 40 years of conventional breeding, and for international competitivity based on our natural resources as a mega biodiverse country. The Secretariat should consider to help promoting the availability of the necessary funds.

Also the Secretariat should look for funds for Panels to synthesize and discuss the information: 1. provided for organizations against modern biotechnology products on food safety, and 2. On the experience on Biosafety of megabiodiversity countries growing transgenic crops or other products of modern biotechnology.

2. What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy (e.g. journalist training, articles, TV/radio debates, interviews, press conferences, press releases, invitations to meetings and advertisements)?

Based on experience, funds  and priorities: Focus on Press Releases, invitations to meetings

3. How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your awareness raising activities (e.g. reports, case studies, regular surveys, measuring traffic to websites, media coverage and dissemination of materials)?

By Media Coverage. We have been able to get from zero, increasing articles in the news papers favourable to modern Bioetchnology products

4. How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness raising activities (e.g. by developing videos, posters, info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, question and answer sessions)? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?

Developing videos, info graphs, to be distributed by WhatsApp to all stakeholders. We have main concern on High Level Authorities and  Policy Makers.

Enrique N. Fernández-Northcote

Posted on behalf of Ms. Julieta Fe L. Estacio, the Philippines:

Dear all,
We would like to congratulate the secretariat on the 15th anniversary of entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. We also thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate and contribute in the discussions. In response to the questions above:

1. Considering the experience and lessons learnt that were shared, what could be the focus for Parties and stakeholders that want to undertake awareness raising activities?

Given the country’s twenty seven (27) years of experience in regulating biotechnology research and products of modern biotechnology, I believe that continuing education is still required focusing on the various stakeholders, i.e. , consumers, students, regulatory staff and officials, legislators, members of the judiciary, farmers, officials of local government units, etc. Since the creation of a  body managing the activities involving GMOs and despite the number of years of experience and approvals, it seems that awareness raising is a never-ending endeavor not only on the part of the technology providers but more so on the part of the government department engaged in the biosafety decision-making process.  The focus for providing accurate and timely   information on the measures that the government has put in place to address the safety issues of the products of modern biotechnology is basically for the populace to build THRUST  and confidence in the government’s ability to ensure that genetic engineering experiments are conducted in as safe as manner as possible and all agricultural commodities that are products of modern biotechnology are reviewed in accordance with the internationally accepted safety standards prior to their placing in the market.  Awareness raising and public participation in the decision making process of GMOs has since become an important feature in our regulatory process for it enabled the public to make an informed decision on the utility and benefits of such products.

Other communication tools that are being used in our awareness raising programme on the biosafety management of GMOs are the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) which the government has set up in 2008 in compliance with Article 20 of the Protocol. Other government websites that contain  biosafety-related information and country decisions are:

http://ncbp.dost.gov.ph
dost-bc.dost.gov.ph
http://bch.dost.gov.ph
biotech.da.gov.ph

Initiatives on public awareness at the regional level proved to have a positive outcome as in the case of the Asia BCH Family which was created in 2015 and formally launched during the 2016 COPMOP meeting in Cancun., Mexico. The ABF is implementing the four focal areas of the BCH roadmap (2016-2020) to realize its vision of “one successful and self-sustaining BCH family effectively implementing the Protocol by 2020 and beyond”. The ABF not only allows the 21 Asian countries to exchange experiences and build our capability in some aspects of biosafety regulation but assist each other in meeting our respective obligations as Party to the protocol. 

2. What have you included in your media strategies and which events are featured? What could be the focus of Parties that want to develop a media strategy (e.g. journalist training, articles, TV/radio debates, interviews, press conferences, press releases, invitations to meetings and advertisements)?

Since the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) and Department of Science and Technology are government regulatory bodies, information that are disseminated  to the public  thru tri-media are those that pertains only  to regulatory processes in dealing with applications on modern biotechnology on contained use, confined tests, field testing, commercial propagation and importation of GM agricultural crops for direct use as well as other applicable laws and biosafety-related information, i.e. the Protocol and its provisions, COP-MOP and CBP matters  relating to biosafety.
The communication approach is intended to inform, educate, and motivate the public.  Included in our strategies are online news about the regulatory activities uploaded in our websites,  info graphics for dissemination during fora and briefings, interviews of personalities engaged in biosafety,  uploading in the websites of country presentations about biosafety management. We also partner with other entities and organizations in their public briefing activities and discussions with focused groups, i.e. media covering the justice and agriculture departments,  to present the protocol and the National Biosafety Framework.  National Biotechnology week is another forum where the public and media practitioners are briefed about modern biotechnology and its regulations.  All of these strategies are continuously being pursued to increase the level of awareness and understanding of all concerned.

3. How can the Secretariat best assist Parties in their awareness raising activities (e.g. by developing videos, posters, info graphs, a map of celebrations, presentations, questions and answer sessions)? What is the target audience for each of these support activities?
The Secretariat can contribute greatly in the awareness-raising activities by making available to the public, on-line modules on the provisions of the protocol, Q and A’s for students, consumers, policy makers, legal persons and lawmakers.


Julieta Fe L. Estacio
Project Development Officer IV, DOST
Head Secretariat, NCBP/DOST Biosafety Committee
and National Focal Point, BCH

POSTED ON BEHALF OF MODERATORS:

Dear participants,

Thank you all for an interesting discussion under Theme 1.

Please find attached a draft moderator's summary and recommendations of Theme 1.

Best regards,

• Central and Eastern Europe:
Ms. Angela Lozan (angelalozan@yahoo.com)
• Western Europe and other States:
Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch (helmut.gaugitsch@umweltbundesamt.at)
• Africa:
Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada (EN) (NTshidada@environment.gov.za) and
Mr. Mahaman Gado Zaki (FR) (mahamane_gado@yahoo.fr)
• Latin America and the Caribbean:
Ms. Leslie Melisa Ojeda Cabrera (megadiversidad@gmail.com)
• Asia and the Pacific:
Mr. Wei Wei (weiwei@ibcas.ac.cn)
• UN Environment:
Mr. Alex Owusu-Biney (alex.owusu-biney@un.org)