POSTED ON BEHALF OF THE MODERATORS OF THE FORUM

Dear Forum Participants,

We would like to thank everyone for the active participation of the discussion under Theme 1.

From 23 March to 30 March, we will discuss Theme 2 on Collaboration for the Future: Mobilizing partnerships and funding for awareness and Theme 3 on Follow-up to the programme of work on public awareness, education and participation. Please find below the guiding questions for Theme 3.

Theme 3: Follow-up to the programme of work on PAEP

The Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol and the Programme of Work on on public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs (PAEP) are coming to an end in 2020. The Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), at its second meeting, will consider a participatory preparatory process and timetable for the follow-up to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, taking into consideration the work of the Convention and its Protocols. This may eventually entail the development of a tool, for example a programme of work, to guide the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and its Supplementary Protocol. 

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

Please note that the discussion for Theme 2 and 3 is from 23 March 2018 (9:00 a.m. EDT) to 30 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 initial messages can choose to “watch forum” in the online discussion platform at http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art23/pa_forum.shtml.   These individuals will then receive copies of the posted messages by e-mail.

If you have any questions or if you encounter difficulties in accessing the discussion sessions or posting your messages, please send an e-mail to: ulrika.nilsson@cbd.int or melissa.willey@cbd.int

We look forward to reading your suggestions and comments.

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)

Estimados Participantes del Foro

Les agrademos a cada uno de ustedes por su activa participación y valiosos aportes a de la discusión del Tema 1.

Desde el 23 al 30 de Marzo, deseamos discutir  el Tema 3 sobre Seguimiento al programa de trabajo sobre conciencia, educación y participación pública. Encuentren a continuación las preguntas guía para el Tema 3 de esta discusión.

Tema 3: Seguimiento al programa de trabajo sobre PAEP

El plan estratégico para el Protocolo de Cartagena y el Programa de Trabajo sobre PAEP estarán llegando a su final en el 2020.

El Órgano Subsidiario sobre Aplicación (OSA), en su segunda reunión, considerará un proceso preparatorio participativo y un cronograma para el seguimiento al Plan Estratégico para la Diversidad Biológica 2011-2020, tomando en consideración el trabajo de la Convención y sus Protocolos. Esto podría eventualmente implicar el desarrollo de una herramienta, por ejemplo un programa de trabajo, para guiar la implementación del Protocolo de Cartagena y su Protocolo Suplementario.

1. ¿Considera que es necesario incluir la concienciación, la educación y la participación pública con respecto a los OVM en cualquier posible herramienta a futuro,  para guiar la implementación del Protocolo de Cartagena después del 2020?

2. De ser así, ¿qué elementos o aspectos específicos de PAEP podrían priorizarse en dicha herramienta?

Tenga en cuenta que la discusión para los temas 2 y 3 es del 23 de marzo del 2018 (9:00 a.m. EDT) al 30 de marzo del 2018 (5:00 p.m. EDT).

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

Las personas que deseen participar por correo electrónico después de la publicación de  los mensajes iniciales, pueden elegir "ver el foro" en la plataforma de discusión en línea en http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art23/pa_forum.shtml.  Estas personas recibirán copias de los mensajes publicados por correo electrónico.
Si tiene alguna pregunta o si encuentra dificultades para acceder a las sesiones de debate o publicar sus mensajes, envíe un correo electrónico a: ulrika.nilsson@cbd.int o melissa.willey@cbd.int

Esperamos leer sus sugerencias y comentarios.

Atentamente,

Moderadores

• 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)

Publié au nom de Mr. Mahaman Gado Zaki, Niger:

Chers Participants au Forum,

En tant que modérateur du groupe francophone nous tenons à vous remercier pour votre active participation  aux discussions du  Thème 1.

Du 23 Mars au 30 Mars, nous discuterons des thèmes suivants:

Thème 3: Suivi du programme de travail sur la sensibilisation, l'éducation et la participation

Le plan  Strategique  pour le Protocole de Cartagena  et le programme de travail sur la sensibilisation, l'éducation et la participation (PAEP) prennent fin en  2020 ceci implique  l’utilisation d’outils  comme par exemple le programme de travail pour la mise en œuvre du Protocole de Cartagena et le Protocole Additionnel

1. Considerer vous qu’il  ya un besoin d’inclure la sensibilisation l’education et la participation du public sur les ovm dans des outils futurs pour orienter la  mise en  œuvre du Protocole  de Cartagena en 2020 ? 

2. Si c’est le cas  quel aspect specifique du PAEP peut etre prioritiser dans de tels outils ?

Nous vous encourageons à participer activement.

Veuillez noter que les discussions pour le Thème 2 et 3 auront lieu du 23 mars 2018 (9h00 EDT) au 30 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.

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)

Bonjour à toutes et à tous
Mon point de vue sur le Thème 3 intitulé : Suivi du programme de travail sur la sensibilisation, l’éducation et la participation

1. Considérez-vous qu’il y a un besoin d’inclure la sensibilisation, l’éducation et la participation du public sur les OVM dans les outils futurs pour orienter la mise en œuvre du protocole de Cartagena en 2020 ?
Oui, je crois qu’il est nécessaire d’inclure la sensibilisation, l’éducation et la participation du public sur les OVM dans les outils futurs pour orienter la mise en œuvre du Protocole de Cartagena en 2020.  Cela pourra aider à orienter les structures de régulation en la matière, même si en fonction des réalités de chaque Etats parties, il est difficile d’harmoniser ces activités.

2. Si c’est le cas, quel aspect spécifique du PAEP peut être prioriser dans de tels outils ?  
Pour moi, l’aspect spécifique du PAEP sur lequel il faudrait mettre l’accent est l’évaluation des risques. Il est important que le public ait l’information que l’évaluation des risques se fait de manière scientifique tout en comparant l’OGM au conventionnel.

Dear Colleagues,

I give my answers below.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

AW: Yes, very necessarily.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

AW: It is important to deliver correct, fair and science-sounded messages in public communication. The public not only need to know what is biotech, how the product is produced and processed, and what is the benefit, but also need to know why we need risk assessment and management, how to evaluate and cope with the risks and uncertainties bearing in the biotech products.

将科学、公正的生物安全理念传递给公众非常重要。公众不仅需要知道转基因技术及其产品的由来、生产加工的过程以及经济效益，同样需要了解为什么要开展风险评价，如何评价以及如何应对。

Thank you

Wei

Totally agree!

Theme 3: Follow-up to the programme of work on PAEP

dear moderator  

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020
Yes.There are new and emerging technologies in life sciences leading to new LMOs and then r application. The public need to be aware and to be protected from potential risks

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?
Mainstream Biosafety and some elements of biosecurity in curriculum and key public sector programs of agriculture, health and environment
Than you
Jonathan Mufandaedza, Zimbabwe

Mr. Moderator please allow me throw my point in here……
Yes, I do agree given that one of the fundamental problems associated with biosafety is uncertainty which result to lack of trust.. You will also agree that while everyone agrees the technology is a realistic solution to addressing global food deficit, there continue to be concerns which divide even the scientific community neither to speak about policy-makers…
To eliminate such situation there is urgent need for the long arm of the mass-media to be used to provide sound science-based information, education and awareness about the technology and its need to humanity and how concerns already raised can be addressed… 
I believe that biosafety should and must be mainstreamed in the education system from secondary to university level to become part of the orientation incoming generation will acquire even before assuming  leadership role…
By mainstreaming the science of biosafety in the education system, every stakeholder whether individuals, groups or organizations will have first- hand information on the subject thus giving the ability for an informed conversation on the subject matter.. As normally said in communication, only an informed media can communicate in an informed and educated manner………
J.S. Datuama Cammue-Liberia

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?
Public awareness, education and participation are always recommended to be included in these programs, however these areas should also consider the 20 something years the world is been using and feeding from GMO and the lack of real risks from the technology per se. Even producers have learned that they need to apply good agricultural practices in order to improve their production and the use of any crop variety.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

We have found that people is unaware of the risks that arise from other crop modifications techniques that never had/have to pass the RA that is applied to GMO. Most are unaware that even some of their organic produce, has been obtained by induced mutation, a technique that generates more risks as it’s hard to foretell what the outcome of unintended mutations will be. And today we have a new tool, that could even have greater benefits for third world countries that need more solutions to the challenges we are facing due climate change and pests. These differences should be taught.

The biosafety part is a part that not all society is aware, we found that most participants in seminars ignore that a GMO has to go through an intensive RA process before being released. Many do wonder why other crops, obtained with mutation, traditional breeding or other techniques like crafting don’t require the same. This helps them to become aware of the grade of safety this technology offers.

At central government, biosafety should be a key point, and some countries still don’t give the value to this area, so little effort is developed. An online short training program, such as some that FAO offers, could be helpful.

Best regards,

Cecilia González
AgroAvances.com
Bolivia

Estimada Cecilia
Muchas gracias por compartir sus opiniones y poner en manifiesto la importancia de los gobiernos centrales para crear conciencia en la población, especialmente en los consumidores y agricultores.
La falta de comunicación eficaz e información objetiva  para el público, deja el espacio para que otros actores, desprestigien el sentido de la bioseguridad de la tecnología moderna y sus herramientas.

Sus comentarios serán de mucha utilidad para hacer más amplia la discusión del tema 3 y los diferentes aspectos a considerar.
Saludos

Dear participants
I am taking this opportunity to answer this questions.
1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?
Public awareness is very important for the implementation of Cartagena Protocol.
2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?
Important aspects are: Meaning of LMO, GMO, and what is Cartagena protocol and what are issues in the protocol? National Legal instruments related to Cartagena protocol should be known by the local people as well as Policy makers.  Public awareness programs should be considered to all society strengthened should be focussed to the Policy makers and local society people who are the user of LMO. Teachers should be facilitated to learn and know the advantage of LMO and importance of Biosafety. The knowledge will be easily transferred to the school children and students.
Best Regards,
Martha

Dear all

Thanks for the opportunity to provide views on this theme.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Yes. Public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs are essential to the effective implementation of the Protocol. This is not only in terms of the obligations contained in Article 23, but also to enable effective implementation of other provisions of the Protocol.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

Some (non-exhaustive) suggestions are listed below:

- Ensuring access to information, including via relevant policies, laws and regulations such as Freedom of Information laws
- Targeted biosafety awareness and education programmes that aim to empower participants, particularly indigenous peoples and local communities, youth, women and small farmers
- Inclusion of independent scientists in the development of awareness and communication material
- Establishment and implementation of effective mechanisms at national level for ensuring meaningful public participation in decision making, and the provision of guidance for these purposes
- Training of relevant government officials in best practices for facilitating meaningful public participation
- Providing for access to judicial and administrative proceedings

Kind regards
Lim Li Ching
Third World Network

Dear colleagues

Regarding question 1:

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

I can add nothing more to posts such as #9106 by Lim Li Ching.

Regarding question 2:

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

In addition to the many great suggestions that I will not repeat, I'd like to add some thoughts on the use of the science (and more broadly the 'research') community. I am part of this community. The technical expertise of the research community is critical for the safe use of biotechnology. But sometimes the technical expertise, which also has a cultural perspective attached to it, is seen as being informed while 'the public' is seen as being in need of information.

As technical experts we are often constrained to the part of the process where a socio-economic decision has been made to solve problems in a certain way. E.g., that way might be one that allows for private companies to make money, or it might be that the public, through its government, has decided to fund solutions and not require them to conform to the needs of a private market. After these decisions are made, then come we technical experts to discuss their safety and efficacy etc. Sometimes the clash among technical experts comes from rejecting various a priori constraints.

There is a need to engage with the public in deciding what the actual problem is, before a biotechnology is discussed as a solution to it. A thorough engagement at this level can question whether the best overall solution has been identified, or instead the most practical under prevailing constraints has been identified. That I believe to be important information to both empower communities and to empower the research community.

I suggest that in addition to 'training' and 'awareness' of government and the public, there is more need to integrate the disciplinary expertise of the research community. A genetic engineer such as myself could be working with economists and political scientists with expertise in agroecosystems, especially those in developing countries. There should be more provision for this, funded publicly and independently of those that provide technological solutions.

Moreover, while there is a need for 'independent scientists', we also need to pay particular attention to how we get such creatures. They don't arise by accident! Indeed, in most countries a public scientist or public educator is expected to work in a complex mix of conflict of interest generating environments, from reliance from time to time on co-funding by industry (or civil society) to pleasing the government. It is difficult if not impossible to have a cohort of independent scientists when their career structures are such that independence will likely result in less successful careers, if not outright loss of employment.

Thus, I would add to the list the suggestion that training for government and technical experts alike include the insights of research on how to preserve satisfactory distance between the products of research and the activity of doing research.

With best regards
Jack

Dear Colleagues,

Highly appreciate your creative inputs and suggestion on the PAEP tool.

As sometimes it is difficult to find or to use an independent expert for public awareness-raising activities who has a fair view and neutral tone, it is important to have correct messages to send to public. Therefore may I propose that the secretariat assist to establish a series materials including documents and video for public awareness activities that deliver correct information.  This will be really helpful even no independent expert available.

Thank you!

Wei

Dear Colleagues,
I completely agree with Dr. Wei`s suggestion about PAEP, especially for LMOs biosafety in China. By now, it is very difficult in the popularization of science for the PAEP of LMOs biosafety. China is a biggest population country and it is very important in food production and safety, not only to China but to the world as well. Thus, transgenic technology development and utilization is one of necessary alternatives, because there  is a great limitation for food production in farmland area and environmental disturbance. On the other hand, biosafety risks or potential doubts of LMOs is still rooted in many Chinese people hearts including some biological scientists.  However, miscellaneous sayings and explanations together with a few of the popularization of science about LMOs are always taken on kinds of media, and more, it is not easy to say that those views about LMOs are fair and correct. Therefore, I think it is very necessary a kind of fair or the populariation of science about LMOs taken from the third side observation and research results (such as CBD, international, standarded, and correct research results and fair views)will be a vital step to the Chinese public. It will not only give the advantage but also unveil the potential risk of LMOs. Then, it will be convenient in development or utilization of LMOs, but will be easy and strict to control the potetial risk of LMOs in China.

Kiaora we are grateful for the fora and their excellent suggestions.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Yes.  Public awareness and participation is often high regarding LMOs.  However, the public concerns voiced in submissions, when they participate in the regulatory process, are often dismissed or overlooked.

As the food LMOs end point is consumption, it is highly concerning that the public do not have any data on how the LMO foods might impact their health. However the Food Standards Australia New Zealand and Canada are not provided with nor do they ask for or require any scientifically, clinically informative studies to confirm the safety of consumption.

The public also includes, professionals and experts who in the case of Health Professionals might see a patient who is unwell.  If they suspect that a LMO food could be cause for concern there are no diagnostic tools to verify their concerns.  Unless this data has undergone proper testing through ingestion studies then any unforeseen problems are not addressed and misdiagnosis could occur.  E.g - Allergy from LMO ingestion, public awareness of food reactions, so treatment is targeted to the reaction.  

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritised in such a tool?
We totally support the points made by Lim Li Ching (#9106) & Mr. Jack Heinemann (#9107)

1. All LMO applications must have information on the safety to consume for the public to know about.

2. All developers of LMO's should provide in their initial applications when submitting to the designated Regulatory bodies, long term toxicology, reproductive and pesticide studies conducted on mammals with the whole food for no less than 90 days.  These should be made available to the public for transparency, awareness, education and for the engagement and participation in the Regulatory approval process.

3. The emerging "New Breeding Techniques" are regulated as LMO, therefore subject to regulatory assessment protocols.

4. A requirement for all LMOs to have a commercially available clinical test, before entering the food chain and placed on the market, for Health Professionals to access for diagnostic purposes.

Dear moderator, dear all,
For theme 3, below is my comments:

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Certainly public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs are needed for the effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol. on LMOs biosafety. As more and more advanced, modern biotechnology techniques are available to create LMOs, this even made public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs more compelling, this will ensure a fair view on LMOs.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?
In addition to many good suggestions that have been given in this forum, it is imperative is the information regarding the LMOs biosafety is easily accessible, transparent, and more importantly, presented in an unbiased manner. The scientific aspect of this information should always be upheld.

Thank you.

best wishes to all,

Kok Gan

I really enjoy the whole forum discussion. Thank you so much for all of your excellent participate.
I would like to add some views from my perspective.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

I think we all agree that public awareness , education and participation should be include to guiding the pmplementation of the Protocol. But what I'd like to add is the institutional problem should be discuss in different social context which could help the result of the public opinions play its role. Such as in Denmark, there is DBT under the congress which will hold the concensus conference around different emerging technologies. In China, we have tried to make some effort to involve experts and lay people under the same roof to listen to each others. But it is hard to make this kind of activities sustaining if there is not a clear output. Early this year, we have proposed to the  State Council to establish a national board of the ethics of science and technology.  Maybe it will be a chance for this board to consider these issues institionally. 

2.2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?
We do need training and modules to be use in different countires. More importantly, the training module should fit different cultures and social context. When I am talking about the Responsible Research and Innovation ideas to some of the Chinese scientists, they would always reply that these ideas are brought from a highly developed western countries instead of China. Although this is partly the truth , we should do more research in advance to use more Chinese case studies in the value framework of the whole human. Our goal is to see how global biosafety issue can be aligned with extant developments in Chinese society, to help better evaluate and clarify problems and opportunities that exist in current practices in a coordinated way.

Dear Moderator,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. Please receive my responses below

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Definitely. Public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs should be key. There is still very limited awareness among key stakeholders especially those outside the main institutions that house and follow up issues of Biosafety. Furthermore, in light of the current developments and changes in the biotechnology to more advanced new GMO technologies, PAEP is crucial now more than ever and should be an ongoing activity.


2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

In support of comments #9106,


- I would recommend that access to information for the public be seen as a moral and legal obligation for the service providers i.e. government institutions and also the stakeholders (in particular researchers) involved in the developing, processing, importing e.t.c of LMOs. In addition, there should be mechanisms or measures to hold them accountable where requested information is not provided. Effective mechanisms for access to information will facilitate meaningful public participation and further ensure proper decision making regarding LMOs.
- Non-biased information on LMOs. Both claimed benefits/advantages and risks and uncertainties should be included in public awareness and education messages.
- Non-biased target audience. All members of the public should be targeted and not just those in the formal sector. Indigenous peoples and communities, consumers, smallholder farmers, students, people living with disability, women and youth e.t.c. Translation into local languages would also help promote an effective public awareness, education and participation programme.

Adequate and effective public participation in all matters concerning LMOs and in particular the revisions of Biosafety Laws and regulations, in order to facilitate robust discussion on these issues at the national level and to ensure consistency with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Milena Roudna, Czech Republic
-------------------------------------------------------------
See attached file.

Hello colleagues,

New Zealand supports a participatory preparatory process for the follow up to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity post 2020.

4. As part of the post 2020 considerations, we see value in continuing to include a programme of work to guide the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post 2020. Public awareness, engagement and participation is key.

5. We consider that the principles used in New Zealand’s regulatory framework for the use of LMOs (the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act), and that guide our approach to public engagement, to be a useful means to ensure public awareness and participation as regards the tenets of Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol. This includes:
- public notification of applications (depending on the use/risk profile of the application)
- public input into the decision-making process, including views on uncertainty, risks, and benefits
- clear descriptions of the risk assessment process
- decisions are part of  the public record.

Our regulator, the Environmental Protection Authority, also has a dedicated operational unit (Kaupapa Kura Taiao) that provides advice to ensure Māori perspectives are taken into account.

We regard education as a critically important part of the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol. Forum participants may be interested in an initiative undertaken by the New Zealand Royal Society Te Apārangi called Gene Editing in Aotearoa as an example of how public education might be achieved (the New Zealand Royal Society Te Apārangi is an independent statutory not-for-profit organisation for the promotion of science). This is a public process that generates and uses expert advice, and explores social, cultural, legal and economic implications of gene editing in New Zealand, through public engagement and workshops. See https://royalsociety.org.nz/major-issues-and-projects/gene-editing-in-aotearoa/.

Dear moderator, dear all,

For Theme 3: Follow-up to the programme of work on public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs (PAEP), in attached file you can view comments.
Best Regards,
Elizabeth Castillo

Estimada Dra. Elizabeth
Muchas gracias por compartir la experiencia de México, y sus aportes sobre el programa de trabajo sobre PAEP. Muchos países de la región hemos pasado por la misma situación de público sometido a información poco objetiva y que al final ha llevado a crear un  criterio equívoco sobre bioseguridad y biotecnología moderna.
Las actividades y liderazgo de México es conspicuo en la región, y se agradece mucho su apoyo para otros países que estamos luchando con mejorar la conciencia de la población a todos los niveles.
Gracias por participar en este foro, con seguridad sus conclusiones y comentarios emitidos serán de utilidad para mejorar los programas y herramientas a futuro, enfocado a los contextos regionales.

Buen día

Dear participants,

Please note that the online discussion on public awareness regarding LMOs for Theme 3 will be extended to 5 April to facilitate further messages.

Best regards,

Ulrika Nilsson
Associate Information Officer
Biosafety Unit
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
United Nations Environment Programme
413 St Jacques Street, Suite 800,
Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9
Tel: +1-514-287-8720
Email: ulrika.nilsson@cbd.int
Internet: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/

Dear All,

Thanks to the Secretariat for the preparatory work and for extending  the time for this online forum and thanks to the moderators.

Keeping my input brief and close to the guiding questions:
1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

>> Yes

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

>>

a) Starting with the broader context in relation to the mother treaty of the CPB, i.e. that 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. This would best be complemented with clear examples as to how biotechnology has contributed or can contribute to achieving the objectives of the Convention.

b) As Ranjini Warrier and others have suggested: the basic aspects of the various biotechnology processes, complemented with clear examples.

c) Explanation that in the context of biotechnology transfer as agreed in the CBD, 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. This to be complemented with the key elements of biosafety systems and of the CPB.

d)  Summarising the actual experience with LMOs, including 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.


As more cross cutting topics:

I agree with J.S. Datuama Cammue, where he said that only an informed media can communicate in an informed and educated manner.

I also very much agree with Mohana Anita Anthonysamy about the form of the education materials, e.g. produced in smaller components, so that countries can use them to tailor to the needs of the audience, in easy to understand English language so that it may be translated and adapted to local languages, materials for training of education trainers.

Best regards to all!

Piet

4. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?
Yes, I think it is essential to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool. Continuous awareness about biosafety and its relevance to LMOs should be emphasized so that the public is kept aware and a more significant public participation can be achieved.

5. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

a) Produce PAEP materials that can be used by other countries for training and public awareness activities in the form of videos, slide presentations with explanatory notes, activities that can be used to explain the training materials.  There are some materials already available, but some additions of latest development would be good.
b) PAEP materials that are made in smaller components, so that countries can use them to tailor to the needs of the audience and the time that is available. Each component should independent and can be cohesively combined with other components.
c) PAEP materials that is done in easy to understand English language so that it may be translated and adapted to local languages as needed
d) Materials for training of trainers, so that more people can be taught to help other people train and expand the trainers resource available.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Certainly yes. In the responsible Ministries, Coordination Centers (Biosafety Centers, Aarhus Centers, etc.), Expert`s committees, responsible for the Risk assessment and LMO`s release, NGOs, Customs authorities, Laboratories for GMO detection and other organizations which are responsible for implementation of the Cartagena protocol, people can go to another job, move to another field of activity, or new people can come who need to be trained. As well as for other target groups (developers, producers, farmers) lager community can be involved and/or affected. That is why continuous public awareness, education of new people involved in biosafety is very important, as well as participation. To ensure this, it is necessary to include these elements in the Plans for the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol as well as in any possible future tool.
2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?
- Training of trainers (support previous posts) for all target groups: developers, risk assessment experts, Institutions responsible for decision-making, farmers, producers, NGOs and public concerned, State Customs Committee and Custom authorities, Laboratory stuff, others.
- There are now good training modules on the BCH for PAEP. At the same time it will be very good to make modules adopted for each target group.
- Important to have this modules interpret to all UN-languages.
-Regional component in the implementation of PAEP is important and consider development of modules, guidances applicable to the region could be also important.

Kind regards,
Galina

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Mr. Sayed M. Zaher Maher, AFGHANISTAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for good experience and knowledge of  honorable  Dr. Galina Mozgova, I  really appreciate for excellent description regarding   public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol .  These points are very  important  and effective  the implementation of PAEP :  - Training of trainers (support previous posts) for all target groups: developers, risk assessment experts, Institutions responsible for decision-making, farmers, producers, NGOs and public concerned, State Customs Committee and Custom authorities, Laboratory stuff, others.
- There are now good training modules on the BCH for PAEP. At the same time it will be very good to make modules adopted for each target group.
- Important to have this modules interpret to all UN-languages.
-Regional component in the implementation of PAEP is important and consider development of modules, guidances applicable to the region could be also important.

Best Regards

Zaher Maher Rio Conventions Expert and Member of Food Committee

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Aw: Yes.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

Aw: Aw: Besides the content of GMO biosafety for PAEP, as other colleagues pointed out, the platform for PAEP is very important. For example, we could construct website like this BCH, but it should be easy to access. APP in cell phone is a effective tool, particularly for young people.

Regards,

Yongbo Liu

Dear colleagues,

Austria supports the process leading to a post 2020 strategy. In this context we think that it is crucial that the implementation of the Protocol, including PAEP, is well reflected in such a strategy. We strongly believe that it is of utmost importance that, first there is a tool dedicated to the implementation of the Protocol and second, that this also includes PAEP. Such a tool could be similar to the existing strategic plan of the Protocol, i.e. similar to a programme of work, including the elements which will help in the implementation.

Such elements with regard to PAEP could be the further development of information/training material for awareness raising, workshops for media/schools/universities, or the development of  electronic tools for public participation.

I am aware that the details of such a work program need to be worked out over the next two years, but that can only be done if such a program does include PAEP.

May I use this opportunity - as moderator of the WEOG Group - to invite my other colleagues from this Group, who have not posted yet, to provide their contributions to themes 2 and 3 of this discussion in the short remaining time until the 5th April.

I am looking forward to the further contributions and interesting discussion.

Kind regards
Helmut Gaugitsch

Some additional remarks to the Theme 2 and Theme 3
and reaction to the Angela Lozan questions

In my contribution to the Forum the main principles were highlighted on the basis of our national experience.

The access to the documents of the European institutions are open to all interested countries and entities, through the European databases or the Institutions websites - it is not purely bilateral cooperation. The regional workshops or conferences are good opportunities for  such contact (e.g. Conference on Risk Assessment and New Breeding Techniques organized by the Federal Ministry of Health and Women´s Affaires in cooperation with the Environment Agency Austria,Vienna, October 17, 2017, or the FAO Regional Training Workshop, Prague, December 12 – 15, 2017, etc.).
As to Czech Republic experience, this has been offered on the bilateral basis to other countries and realized e.g. with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – we are still open to all who needs such assistance.
High-level dialogue: As example can serve the meeting with the members of the Parliament, especially prior to adoption of some legislation related to biosafety/GMOs.
As to inter-sectoral cooperation, it was described already. Existing forms are e.g. through the representatives in the Czech Commission on the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products. Bilateral cooperation exists mainly between the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, in certain aspects between the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Health, as to education and public awareness between the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Education and Youth.
Members of the Czech Commission on the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products also contribute to the public awareness through presentations in different workshops, meetings or radio broadcasting.
Regional grants have different forms. Sometimes it is useful to combine proposal with those oriented to education/environmental education, to cultural sphere etc. Communication and cooperation are always prerequisite for the success (nevertheless generally not easy to be reached).
For regional cooperation it is important to use all existing possibilities and forms (regional workshops, conferences, meetings …).

Theme 3
Public Awareness and information sharing are very important (as it has been underlined by many participants of the Forum), especially due to recent development of biotechnology and new techniques. Generally, information in general public is not on sufficient level. Information should be tailored to different groups of public with different level of education etc., and in easy to understand language. Therefore, reflection in the programme of work on public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs is very important and highly desirable.
Milena Roudna, CR

Dear participants,

I would like to thank Galina Mozgova from Belarus and Milena Rounda from Czech republic for their valuable contributions to the topic 2 and 3. The mentioned countries experience can be very much helpful and serve as a good practices to be replicated as at the country level as well as implement  by other countries. The regional trainings would be very much welcomed as giving the opportunity to improved communication and networking, sharing experience and good practices, use the educational and training materials and modules in a regional language.

The programme of work on public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs is very important and highly desirable. I

I invite other colleagues from my region to share their views and ideas as the forum is going to the end by 5th April. Wish you an interesting discussion.

best,
Angela

Dear Participants,

Thank you to Secretariat and the moderators for providing this online forum. I would like to share my view below.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

I totally agree that public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs are crucial important to implement the Protocol.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

We think it's necessary to communicate to public in order to implement the Protocol. The topics of PAEP should cover LMOs, modern biotechnology, risk assessment, risk management and biosafety regulation included CPB.

Total detail of LMOs topics should base on scientific information and social context. Also, should consider communicate risk effectively which mean communication program will give information in any aspects such as benefits of it and uncertain things about the technology. 

However, public is various groups of people who are policy maker, regulator, farmer and consumer. Considering that different groups interested in different contexts of LMOs, so PAEP materials, tools and access channels should be various and suitable for each target group.

Moreover, many countries and organization/institutes have developed the educational materials and tools on LMOs and biosafety that could be share among the countries.  As a result, the sharing through BCH would play important role in supporting effective of PAEP.

Best regards,
Chalinee

je suis d'accord avec la collègue de Thailande la sensibilisation du public, l'éducation et la participation concernant les OVM sont importants cruciales pour la mise en œuvre du Protocole.
quant à la manière de communication et sensibilisation, elle doit tenir compte des réalités de chaque Etat et des données scientifiques et le contexte social.

Bonjour tout le monde.
La sensibilisation, l'éducation et la participation du public sont essentielles pour la mise en oeuvre du Protocole de Cartagena sans quoi les mesures prises ne seront ni appropriées ni comprises et n'auront pas l'adhésion de la population.
Ce que je voudrais souligner encore une fois c'est qu'il faut tenir compte de la situation du pays et de sa position par rapport aux OVM. Des outils et des méthodes solides doivent être mis à disposition des pays pour disséminer des informations objectives, claires et neutres.
En outre, il faut distinguer la sensibilisation et l'éducation de la participation. Cette dernière nécessite des procédures et des règles plus strictes car elle implique nécessairement un retour d'informations de la part du public et la manière dont ces informations seront prises en compte par les décideurs doit être bien clarifiée. Une des questions fondamentales porte sur la nécessité ou non du "consentement". Cette notion est largement portée par la communauté internationale mais souvent très difficile à appliquer au niveau national surtout quand la législation ne s'y prête pas.
A Madagascar, nous avons une législation sur la participation du public dans l'évaluation environnementale des projets d'investissement mais il reste à l'adapter au cas des OVM.

Greetings to all and appreciate the untiring efforts of the moderators and the Secretariat.

Some inputs to the guiding questions on Theme 3:

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Yes. It is an extremely important element to improve the effectiveness of the Biosafety Protocol and therefore continued support in this area is essential. 


2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

The specific elements would vary depending on whether a country is involved in biotechnology research and type of research, a developer of LMOs, an importer (for FFP or intentional release) or an exporter.  However, in all cases, elements for PAEP should focus on the basic aspects of biotechnology processes, biosafety aspects related to LMOs, risk assessment, management and communication and sharing of international experiences in the development and use of LMOs for the last 20 years.  Inclusion of biotechnology and biosafety in the school curricula is very important and an essential strategy.

During the last 15 years, the awareness programs on biosafety have focussed substantially on regulations which included provisions of CPB and its obligation, NBF and risk assessment of LMOs which often is considered very technical for several stakeholders.   Therefore, the focus of awareness should be on more basic issues.    For the purpose of regulation, the focus should be on providing hands-on-training specially for risk assessors and enforcement agencies in the detection and handling of LMOs.

Posted on behalf of Mrs. Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu, Every Woman Hope Centre:

Theme 3: Follow-up to the programme of work on Public Awareness Education and Participation (PAEP): in my opinion, should entail the development of a tool, for a programme of work, to guide the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and its Supplementary Protocol. From the ongoing forum discussions, it could be derived that there is every need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020. This will help to put in place enabling frameworks and mechanisms to facilitate improved understanding and national competence on related issues. The specific element/aspect of PAEP that could be prioritized in such a tool is advancing sensitization through survey on the need for safe application of modern biotechnology.

Dear all,

Below some insights to answer the guiding questions on Them 3:

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

The Bolivian National Environment Competent Authority considers very important PAEP for public informed participation on biosafety decision-making processes. In light of this, it fully supports the development of guidance and tools for PAEP effective implementation in during the Cartagena Protocol post-2020 process.

2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

- Processes and methodologies for rising awareness on national policies.

- Development of communication tools adapted to different actors, mainly indigenous peoples, youth, and women.

- Methodologies and tools for effective informed public participation in biosafety decision-making.

- Public multi-actor and transdisciplinar  dialogues on national and international biosafety, including regulatory frameworks and scientific research.

Best wishes,

Georgina Catacora-Vargas

Thank you to the Secretariat for extending the deadline and allowing us to participate in the discussion after Easter. My apologies for lurking in the background for so long and joining the discussion so late in the game. I have followed the discussion with interest and thank all who have written such interesting comments.

1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020?

Yes, there is a clear and definite need for public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in a strategy/work program for the Cartagena Protocol post-2020. Public awareness, education and participation are fundamental concepts in the protocol and ensure that the biosafety process is trusted and accepted by stakeholders and the general public. The current priority activities for the programme of work on public awareness have been very helpful in working with these issues and should be the foundation of a post 2020 strategy/work plan for the protocol. And yes, a post 2020 strategy is very much need for the Cartagena Protocoll!


2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?

Excellent, carefully considered answers to this question have been given by a large number of the forum participants. Lim Li Ching in #9106 proposed some particularly interesting and important elements to prioritize, which I fully support. Particularly Lim Li Ching’s proposal ”Training of government officials in best practices for facilitating meaningful public participation in decision-making and the provision of guidance for this” is an important need that I see in my work in government, not only with the Cartagena Protocol, but also in other areas like invasive alien species. It is very difficult to bring in public participation at the right stage of a process that allows for a meaningful contribution to the decision. I think this is due more to the government officials’ lack of knowledge and uncertainty as to how to consider public input in a decision process, rather than an unwillingness to consider the opinions of our citizens.

Public access to information is crucial for public participation and public trust in the Cartagena protocol and process of granting permission to allow field trials of LMOs. In Sweden the public has the legal right of access to all official documents, decisions and applications by law. This applies to all areas, not only LMOs and biotechnology. As government employees we have very stringent rules about allowing and facilitating access to information and are encouraged to be very open towards citizens. This right to access of information should be encouraged in all parties to the Cartagena Protocol.

Developing tools, resources and processes to support training activities regarding LMOs and biotechnology, and providing an unbiased approach and nuanced information on biotechnology for training is a priority. Too often materials used in information and training are polarized  - either very much for or against the use of biotechnology. Putting both sides of the argument on the table in a constructive manner and encouraging open discussion on the topic is very much needed.

Training materials also need to deal with social and ethical questions in biotechnology to enable trainers to take these questions seriously and be able to constructively deal with these questions when they arise.  Tools developed for trainers should include tools for developing their ability to facilitate serious, open and bias-free discussions in which they can objectively meet the concerns of citizens and give reasonable answers based on knowledge.

The entire priority area ”Communicate biosafety and empower a wider audience” should also be a continued priority. Integration of biosafety issues into biodiversity, environment, sustainable development and other related agendas should continue to be a priority. Biosafety issues would be considerably strengthened if people understood that biosafety is an integral part of conserving biodiversity and not an isolated issue.

Continued facilitation of exchange of information on biosafety regulations, cases of best practice and tools that other countries have developed should also be prioritized. This would enable those who work with biosafety to work more cost-effectively and allow us to “do much more with less” and to avoid making the same expensive mistakes as others before us.

I agree with others in the forum that the training modules on the BCH are very good. I have quite enjoyed them and have learned a lot. They should continue to be developed so that they can be adapted/tailored more to individual countries needs, as Dr Anthonysamy and Zaher Maher proposed in #9126 and #9138.

With best regards
Dr Melanie Josefsson, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

RE: Theme 3: Follow-up to the programme of work on public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs (PAEP)
1. Do you consider that there is a need to include public awareness, education and participation regarding LMOs in any possible future tool for guiding the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020
Yes, it is still necessary due to previous wide and strong misinformation to general public and policy-makers given by certain non-governmental organizations opposed to LMOs.
At present we have the experience of more than 20 years of biotechnological crops commercialization and scientific evidence on the safety and beneficial contribution to food security, human health, biological diversity and environment. We have more than 18 years of application of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributing to the appropriate transference, manipulation and safe use of LMOs. All of this needs to be documented and be the basis for future PAEP.
2. If so, what specific elements/aspects of PAEP could be prioritized in such a tool?
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, 2. On the experience on Biosafety of Megabiodiversity countries growing transgenic crops or other products of modern biotechnology. 3. On the importance of biotechnological crops and products for food security and social development.
The secretariat should work toward developing videos, info graphs, to be distributed by WhatsApp to all stakeholders, supporting what is has been indicated in points 1 and 2 above.

Estimados Participantes

Agradecemos a todos por sus valiosas contribuciones en los tres temas discutidos.
Ha llegado el día de finalizar este foro de discusión sobre la conciencia pública con respecto a los OVM, ahora  tendremos que escribir los resúmenes con el fin de difundir una notificación general para que las Partes celebren el 15º aniversario de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena y comiencen a preparar los materiales para la celebración.

Sin embargo, como mencionaron los moderadores  en el resumen del Tema, se sugiere que la Secretaría establezca una red permanente en línea, en la que los participantes puedan continuar expresando sus inquietudes y brindar sus comentarios sobre temas de concienciación pública sobre OVM. Es importante saber que todos los participantes pueden expresar su interés en ser moderadores de la red para representar a su región. A continuación el  párrafo relacionado con la red propuesta en PAEP del resumen de la discusión del Tema 1 para su referencia:

"Los moderadores recomiendan una red sobre conciencia pública, educación y participación (PAEP), incluido el acceso a la información sobre organismos vivos modificados (OVM) .El objetivo es mejorar la capacidad de las Partes, otros gobiernos y organizaciones pertinentes para implementar efectivamente el programa y sus áreas prioritarias hasta 2020. La red tendría un grupo de discusión en línea que está en curso con una cantidad de temas y cronogramas a lo largo de un año. El primer tema será el 15º aniversario de la entrada en vigor del Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Bioseguridad. El primer tema planificará y discutirá actividades para garantizar la concientización sobre seguridad de la biotecnología. Dentro del tema, se discutirán tres temas: Desarrollo de capacidades (por ejemplo, desarrollo de esfuerzos de capacitación de capacitadores a través del CIISB, seminarios web, sesiones de preguntas y respuestas y otros medios) , las iniciativas nacionales (p. ej., implementar un plan de medios para una campaña mediática y construir una red de comunicadores para facilitar las sesiones de preguntas y respuestas para días internacionales y las ferias de CEPA en COP-MOP) y las iniciativas locales (p. facilitar el establecimiento de programas de radio y anuncios de teléfonos móviles mediante el desarrollo y la difusión de vídeos y grabaciones de voz sobre temas de seguridad de la biotecnología, así como la creación de capacidades para debates abiertos en los idiomas locales a través de presentaciones de seguridad de la biotecnología). Basada en los recursos limitados, la Secretaría facilitaría la discusión en la red permanente en línea con la asistencia de los moderadores regionales. Según los recursos limitados, se alentaría a las Partes y otras partes interesadas a celebrar debates nacionales en línea sobre sensibilización, educación y participación pública con respecto a los OVM para debatir temas similares con las partes interesadas nacionales”.

Posteriormente se  proporcionará un resumen al finalizar la  discusión del Tema 2 y 3.

Muchas gracias a todos por su participación.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF Dr. Philip L. Bereano, USA (Please note that this message reached the Secretariat before the closing of the forum):

See enclosed file.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF MODERATORS:

Dear participants,

Thank you all for an interesting discussion on Theme 2 and 3.

Please find attached a draft moderator's summary and recommendations for Theme 2 and 3.

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)