Discussion Group 1

Dear Forum Participant,

Welcome to Theme 2 on "Public right to information".

We welcome you to answer the guiding questions listed below.

1. Does your government recognize public access to environmental information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

2. Does your government recognize public access to biosafety information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

3. If your government does not recognize public access to biosafety information as a right, should such national laws/policies be developed. If yes, how should these be developed?

4. In your opinion, is public access to biosafety information a right or a privilege?

5. Is government promoting the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs? If so, how?

Best regards,

Ulrika Nilsson

The right of persons to receive information held by or intended for public or local self-government authorities shall be regulated by general as well as special (regulating the field of environment) laws and regulations.
The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Right to Receive Information from Public and Municipal Authorities and Institutions consolidates the general principle that public and local self-governing authorities and institutions must provide persons with information held by such authorities and institutions (Article 3(1) of the Law). The procedure of provision of environmental information, the rights and duties of persons are consolidated in regulatory enactments.
The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette, No. 5-75, 1992) guarantees the right to obtain information on the environment; to participate in the process of environmental impact assessment of the proposed economic activity; to submit reasoned proposals on the mandatory nature of environmental impact assessment; to conduct public environmental impact assessment. The Law provides that State government, administration and control institutions shall, within the scope of their competence, comply or dismiss, on a reasoned basis, proposals of citizens, public organisations and other legal and natural persons regarding environmental issues; inform the public about projects of economic activities likely to have an adverse effect on the environment; give due consideration to reasoned proposals of the public on the mandatory nature of environmental impact assessment of the proposed economic activity; assess reasoned proposals of the public on environmental impact assessment of the proposed economic activity and the likely effect of the proposed economic activity on the environment; encourage citizens, public organisations and other legal and natural persons to participate in the adoption and implementation of decisions in the field environmental protection.

The public is entitled to receive requested public information about the use of GMO and GMP. Such
information is not provided if it would violate its confidential nature and intellectual property rights.
According to the applicable national laws and regulations, public information about the use of GMO or
their products using mass media shall be organised by the notifier. Paragraph 4 of the Regulation for
Information of the Public and Public Participation in Issuing authorization for Use of GMOs or GMPs provides that “…the use and compilation of information about GMO or GMP and making such information available to the public through the registry and the internet database shall be organised by the Ministry of Environment, which shall not violate intellectual property rights and the confidential nature of such information.”
Lithuanian government promotes the public‘s right to access to biosafety information on GMOs by administrating the Database of GMO. The national Database of GMO (website: http://gmo.am.lt) is very important for ensuring the transparency of the activities of public authorities, and it ensures information and participation of public at large. It includes a section for the public, which can state its opinion directly. The following information is compiled in this database and provided in the section available to the public: EU legislation and international treaties; laws and regulation of the Republic of Lithuania; received applications and announcements regarding the release into the environment of GMO, placement of GMO in the market or contained use; issued permits regarding the release into the environment of GMO or contained use of GMO, and authorisation of the placement of GMO in the market; other related information.

Respectfully,
Gintare Blazauskiene (NFP)
GMO Division
Nature Protection Department
The Ministry of Environment of Lithuania

Posted on behalf of Mariam Mayet, African Center for Biosafety:

Access to information on the part of the public and the BCH provisions of the Protocol

Article 23 (1) of the Protocol provides that “Each Party shall endeavour to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing House.” Thus, it is clear that the information exchange mechanism envisaged by the Parties that the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) plays, is integral to the right of access to information by the public. In this regard, it becomes extremely important for the Parties to ensure that they discharge their disclosure requirements under the Protocol and pay closer attention to their obligations to ensuring that they comply with their BCH obligations under the Protocol. In our experience, coming from a country where our government is a Party to the Protocol and is both an importer and exporter of LMOs, we have found that it was unable to comply with the following BCH obligations:


1. Decisions regarding LMO’s are not being posted regularly and in a timely manner to the Biosafety BCH. Only a handful of decisions regarding LMOs have been posted while the South African government has granted thousands of LMO permits since the Cartagena Protocol became binding on it . This is non-compliance with the minimum disclosure requirements for information to the BCH as set out in the following articles:
a) Article 10.3 and 20.3(d): final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision).
b) Article 11.4, 11.6 and 20.3(d): final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks or in accordance with annex iii.
c) Article 11.1: final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing.
d) Article 6.1: decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific LMOs.

2. Risk assessments as required, are not posted. This constitutes non-compliance with article 20.3 of the Protocol, which requires that summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof should be disclosed through the BCH.

3. Maize seed exported to Kenya from South Africa was found to be contaminated with MON810 in early 2008. This variety is not approved in Kenya. The contamination was not posted to the BCH as required by article 25.3, which states that illegal transboundary movements of LMOs should be reported to the BCH.

It is our recommendation that Parties who either import LMOs, export LMOs or both, each conduct a review of the extent to which they are in compliance with their obligations under the Protocol. Remedies must be found to assist Parties who are genuinely having capacity and technological constraints to comply with these obligations. The Compliance Committee should also be much more active/proactive in providing guidance in this regard.

I believe that public access to biosafety information is one of the public right and in fact there is an increasing trend for multilateral environmental agreements to contain provisions on public participation, which place the responsibility on governments to engage in awareness raising and participation activities. The rationale is that public involvement is critical to the effectiveness of any regulatory framework.  Relevant examples from the multilateral arena include:

1. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development:
The Rio Declaration comprises a series of principles that define the rights and responsibilities of States in the area of environment and development.

Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration (UNCED 1992) states:
“Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”
Principle 10 thus clearly links environmental issues with public participation. The key elements are appropriate access to information, facilitating awareness and participation in decision-making processes, and access to judicial and administrative proceedings.

2 Aarhus Convention (The UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters):
The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights, and imposes obligations on Parties and public authorities regarding access to information and public participation. There are three pillars to the Convention: access to information, public participation and access to justice (UNECE 1998). Public participation relies upon the other two pillars – the information pillar to ensure that the public can participate in an informed fashion, and the access to justice pillar to ensure that participation happens in reality.

Activities involving GMOs were not initially subjected to the Convention’s participation requirements, but were referred to national legislation. However, in May 2005, agreement was reached on an Amendment that provides a legal obligation for Parties to provide the public with early and effective information, and public participation prior to making decisions on whether or not to authorize a GMO release for experimental and for commercial purposes. When decisions are made, due account has to be taken of the public participation outcomes.

3 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety:
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2000) places a clear obligation in Article 23 on Parties to promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation, including access to information, and also requires mandatory public consultation and disclosure of results of decisions to the public in the decision-making process

I have to add that there are common elements in the aforementioned three multilateral instruments. Important among these is that they refer to the active provision of information, that is, the right of the public to receive information and the obligation of authorities to proactively collect and disseminate information of public interest, without the need for a specific request. They also refer to public participation across different stages (in policy making, specific decisions, etc.). Obligations are placed on governments to ensure transparency and accountability of response.
O.A.El-Kawy

Public access to environmental information is recognized in Environmental Act 1992 that persons have right to know information from government to promote corperating of public in environmental conservation which it can imply to public access to biosafety information as well.So in my opinion public access to biosafety information is right. Involved government agencies has established websites as Biosafety Clearing House to disseminate knowledge and information on biosafety to public.

1. The Government of the Czech Republic recognizes the right to environmental information through the Act 123/1998 on the Right to Environmental Information (amended in 2000 and 2005). Information can be asked by phone, mail or classical post.
2. Public access to biosafety information is based on the Act 78/2004 on the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetic Products. Biosafety information is available and regularly updated on the website of the Ministry of the Environment and on national BCH, where the text of the Act can be found as well (http://www.mzp.cz - in Czech and http://www.mzp.cz/biosafety - in English).
4. Public access to information is considered as human/citizen right.
5. Government is promoting public right to biosafety information through legislation and corresponding administrative measures. Once a year the meetion of the Czech Commission for the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetic Products (consisting of experts) is open to public and thus the opportunity is given for all interested people to ask even more specialized question. Special actions, such workshops on selected themes, are organized occasionally.

4. In your opinion, is public access to biosafety information a right or a privilege?

5. Is government promoting the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs? If so, how?

Saint Lucia is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol. Article 2.1 of the Cartagena Protocol states that “each party shall take the necessary and appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement its obligations under this protocol”. In addition, Article 23, which focused on Public Awareness and Participation, highlights the following:

The Parties shall:
1.
Promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. In doing so, the Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with other States and international bodies;
2.
Endeavour to ensure that public awareness and education encompass access to information on living modified organisms identified in accordance with this Protocol that may be imported.
3.
The Parties shall, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations, consult the public in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms and shall make the results of such decisions available to the public, while respecting confidential information in accordance with Article 21.
4.
Each Party shall endeavour to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House.

Based on these expectations and obligations, it is clear that public access to biosafety information is viewed as a fundamental human right. Thus the Government of Saint Lucia has the responsibility of educating, involving and consulting the public in decisions that involve GMOs and LMOs.

The Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) is one such forum which allows for the dissemination of scientific information on GMOs and LMOs. Recognizing this, the Government of Saint Lucia has undertaken various initiatives in training persons, at different levels, in the BCH. On April 17th-19th, 2012, a number of Government Officers, from a diversity of fields; Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Sustainable Development, Biodiversity and Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards, attended a 3-day training workshop on the BCH. The idea was to train those officers, who would in-turn train their colleagues, thus meeting part of the country’s mandate to promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Mexico recognizes the society right on biosafety`s knowledge and information at national and international context in Genetically Modified Organisms Biosafety Law (LBOGM, spanish acronym). According to the article 30 of LBOGM referes to the goverment responsability on information exchange and the association with the development of dissemination mechanisms. Specifically, the art. 30 establish the program for the development of biosafety and biotechnology, particularly its reference to dissemination of scientific and technological knowledge, and strengthening of a culture in biosafety. In the same way, LBOGM articles 108 and 109 indicate that Inter-secretarial Commission for the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM), through its Executive Secretary, will develop the National System of Information on Biosafety with the aim of organizing, actualizing and disseminating the updated information on biosafety. In this System, CIBIOGEM must integrate, among other aspects, the corresponding information to the National Registry of Genetically Modified Organisms Biosafety. These information systems are available in the CIBIOGEM website and have relevant information toward to the different target groups; in communication terms, such as researchers, children, etc.. The public access information is also provided in the Regulations to the Genetically Modified Organisms Biosafety Law (RLBOGM) and the CIBIOGEM Rules of operation. Finally, Mexico has a wide range of legal instruments on biosafety with the purpose to coordinate the LBOGM implementation.

The society participation is promoted, for instance through public consultation on the applications to environmental release of GMOs (LBOGM, art. 33). As well as the inquiry and participation of indigenous people and communities settled in the zones where the GMOs will be planned to release into the environment (RLBOGM, art. 54).

The Inter-secretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM) is made up of the heads of the Secretaries of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), Health, Agriculture, Livestock, Rural development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA), Finance and Public Credit (SHCP), Economy (SE) and Public Education (SEP), and the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). CIBIOGEM coordinates the policies and federal regulation of activities related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as: production, import, export, mobilization, transportation, release into the environment, consumption, and general use of GMOs and their products.

Cordially

Rosa Inés González-Torres
Deputy Director on Communications of Biotech and GMOs Biosafety
Executive Secretariat-CIBIOGEM


links:
-Inter-secretarial Commission for the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM)
http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx

-Genetically Modified Organisms Biosafety Law: http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx/eng/Documents/Ing_LBOGM_P.pdf

-Regulations to the Genetically Modified Organisms Biosafety Law (RLBOGM)
http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx/eng/Documents/Ing_RLBOGMs_P.pdf

-National System of Information on Biosafety
http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx/Sistema-Nacional/Paginas/default.aspx

-National Registry of Genetically Modified Organisms Biosafety
http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx/OGMs/Paginas/default.aspx

Does your government recognize public access to environmental information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

The 1987 Philippine Constitution proclaimed, as one of the policies of the State, the protection of the environment. Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution provides that "the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature."
This provision, however, is deemed as non self-executing. A non self-executing provision refers to one that cannot be invoked before the courts as it is. There must first be an enabling legislation or some other legal means by which the same can be effectuated and be a basis of a legal cause of action. (See: Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997). The Philippine Supreme Court then took the initiative in giving flesh to this constitutional mandate. It provided for the writ of kalikasan as the legal means.
The Writ of Kalikasan means a legal remedy available to any natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7, Sec. 1)
"Kalikasan" is a Filipino word which in English, means "Nature".
This writ is an innovation of the Philippine Supreme Court as one of the legal means to combat the destruction of the environment. This writ is one of a kind, available only within Philippine jurisdiction. It is extraordinary in nature, meaning to say, that it can be resorted to only when other ordinary legal remedies such as injunction or damage suit are unavailing.
Features of the Writ of Kalikasan: Take note that the underlying condition for the writ to be issued is that, the magnitude requirement with regards to the destruction or imminent destruction of the environment which is sought to be prevented, must be present. As to the entities to whom the writ can be directed against, the Rules provides that it could be anybody. They could be public officials, employees or even private persons, for as so long as it could be proven that they violated or threatened with violation the constitutional right to a healthy environment of other people.
The Rules likewise provides for various reliefs that could be granted by the courts under the writ which includes, among others, the issuance of order against the respondent to cease or refrain from committing acts violative of the rights of the petitioners asking for the writ. It can also be an order commanding the respondent to perform positive acts to preserve or protect the environment as well as to make reports of their compliance with these responsibilities. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7, Sec. 15)
Source: http://suite101.com/article/what-is-writ-of-kalikasan-a310623

In your opinion, is public access to biosafety information a right or a privilege?
Our government is promoting the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs by establishing the Biosafety Clearing House as provided for in Article 20 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The country’s BCH, which was established in 2008, contains contact details of regulatory agencies involved in biosafety regulations, decisions made by our government on applications for food feed and processing (http://bch.dost.gov.ph). It likewise includes, among others,biosafety policies, pertinent laws and regulations and issuances on the regulation of agricultural crops. Other websites can be accessed for information on GMOs for contained use (http://dost-bc.dost.gov.ph), and the websites of the Department of Agriculture (http://www.da.gov.ph) and the Bureau of Plant Industry (http://www.bpi.da.gov.ph; http://biotech.da.gov.ph)was established in support of the government policy on transparency in its decision making process. It contains information on the approved applications for field testing, propagation and use of GMOs for food, feed and processing.

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is a non-legally binding declaration of principles that obtained the highest political endorsement at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the Earth Summit) in 1992.

Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development addresses public participation, access to information and environmental justice. This principle was a watershed and acknowledged that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens. At the national level, each individual should have access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making. States should facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

Therefore, public access to biosafety information is a right that is recognized at the international level. It is enshrined in specific laws such as the Aarhus Convention (The UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters), mandated in Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and implemented via national laws in some countries.

Lim Li Ching
Third World Network

We agree that public access to biosafety information should follow the Aarhus Convention which prepares countries procedures of how information be accessed as well as how to determine groups of public to be involved stakeholders.

1. The right of access of the public to information is ensured by the Constitution of the Benin articles 27, 28, 29, 74 and 98 the environment law  articles 15, 19-21, 28, 38-39, 49-53 and the Acte  on the Environmental impact assessment  (EIA). 
This right is explicit in these above mentioned legal documents but the law on the biosafety will be more explicit and of the articles will be devoted.

2.  The access of the public to information on the biosafety is recognized by the government and that is explicit in the legal documents quoted above and the provisions of the Moratoriums are very explicit for this purpose.  The particular law will be also more explicit. 
3. Nothing; 
4. The access of the public to information on the biosafety is a right devoted by the constitution of the Benin one.  
5. The government of Benign ensures the promotion of the right of the public information on the OGM by the formation and information. 
It is organized with the support of projects BCHI and BCHII/FEM/PNUE, the training of the actors on the use of the BCH (central portail, regional portail UEMOA and Benin national portail).
With the support of the regional program of biosafety of UEMOA (PRB-UEMOA) of the national workshops of training and information of the actors on the OGM and the legal framework of the biosafety in Benin and  in West  Africa region.  The recent workshop was organized in direction of the organizations of peasants on May, 30-31, 2012.  It was followed of an emission on the national television of the Office of Radio and Television of Benin (ORTB) with the participation of a representative of the organizations of peasant, environmental jurist, a specialist in biosafety and National Focal Point of Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. 
All the workshops are also covered by the public and private medias (radios, televisions, and newspaper ). 
The broadcast emissions are also organized on the radios national and local.

Dear All,

I express my interest in sharing my country information with you.

No. 1&2 My government recognizes the right to have public access to information in general and henceforth includes topics both concerning the environment and biosafety.  That is explicit but not specific in the Law on Access to Public Information (Decree 57-2008), which entered into force on April 2009 and can only consider exceptions when a specific law defines a particular set of information as confidential or reserved or is included in reserve clauses in an International Treaty ratified by Guatemala.  Additionally, there are some specific rules such as the regulation of environmental assessment, control and follow-up, regarding the environmental impact assessments.  Regarding biosafety, the National Policy currently in its final stages of preparation and consensus includes a line of operative active on transparency and citizen participation so that the public has the right to be informed of every decision concerning activities that attain products of modern biotechnology, aiming for a stronger confidence in regulatory decisions and to improve the associated public perception.

4. In my opinion, public access to biosafety information is a right but it poses a series of challenges that have to deal with disclosure channels, comprehension level of specific/vulnerable target audiences, effectiveness on the language used in documents, among others.  In that sense, different groups have a limited insight of the topic which is a consequence of their limited academic preparation in sciences in general, for example.

5.As I mentioned on the first paragraph, my government is achieving the preparation of a draft consent national policy that states that the public will have the right to access to biosafety information on LMOs and participate in the decision-making processes.  In the near future, other legal instruments will determine specific measures or mechanisms to implement the general framework established by the above-cited national policy.

Best Regards,

Estuardo Solórzano (BCH-NFP)
Technical Bureau of Biodiversity
National Council of Protected Areas
GUATEMALA, Central America

1. Does your government recognize public access to environmental information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?
        Yes, our government recognizes public access to environmental information as a right. The public’s rights to access to environmental information are defined in several legal documents.
        The main legal document is the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus. The Article 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus says that “The right of the citizens of the Republic of Belarus to receiving, storing and providing full, reliable and updated information about activities of government bodies, public associations, and political, cultural and international policy, the environmental state are guaranteed”.
        The public’s right to access to environmental information and responsibility in the field of the environment protection, as I mentioned already in my responses to the questions of the Theme 1, is defined in the Part 3 of the Law “On the Environment Protection” of November 26, 1992, No.1982-XII (as amended in July 17, 202) and in two Articles of the Law “On Safety in Genetic Engineering Activities” of January 9, 2006, No.96-3: in the Article 23, Part 5 “The Right of Citizens and Public Association to Access to Information in the Safety Field of Genetic Engineering Activities” and the Article 27, Part 6 “Departmental, Industrial and Public Control in the Safety Field of Genetic Engineering Activities”.
        Besides documents, mentioned above, I should name the following ones:
        - The Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus of December 14, 1999, No.726 “On Approval of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”. The Aarhus Convention entered into force in Belarus on October 30, 2001.
        - The Law of the Republic of Belarus “On Approval of the Basic Priorities in Internal and Foreign Policy of the Republic of Belarus” of November 14, 2005, No.60-З. Article 3 of the Part 1 says that the main objectives of the internal policy of the Republic of Belarus are provision of the citizens’ rights to auspicious environment for life and health and receiving, storage and dissemination of information in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Belarus. 
        - The Law of the Republic of Belarus of November 9, 2009, No.54-З «On the State Ecological Expertise” regulates relations in the area of the state ecological expertise and aims at ensuring the ecological safety of the project realization,  provided by the documentation of the project or planned economic and other activities.  The Article 10 defines credentials of the local administration in the area of the state ecological expertise, namely: to inform citizens about possible adverse environmental effect of the planned economic activity. 
        - The Law “On Quality and Safety of the Food Raw Material and Foodstuffs for Human Life and Health” of 29 June 2003, No.217-З requires to indicate if the food raw materials and foodstuffs are genetically modified or include the genetically modified ingredients (components).
        - The Resolution of the Council of Ministries of the Republic of Belarus of April 7, 2004, No.384 has approved “The Rules of the Retail Trade of Some Kinds of Goods and Catering”. This regulation indicates in the sub-article 15 that the retailer shall provide the necessary and reliable information about goods and manufactures, and that information shall include description of goods and quality certificate information. The retailer shall also place the label “Genetically Modified” or “GMO Product” if the foodstuffs include genetically modified ingredients (components).
        - The Resolution of the Council of Ministries of the Republic of Belarus of April 28, 2005, No.343 “On Some Issues of Providing Information for Consumers About Food Raw Materials and Foodstuffs” includes requirements to retailers on labeling and providing full information in regard to the genetically modified food raw materials and foodstuffs placed on the market.
        4. In your opinion, is public access to biosafety information a right or a privilege?
        Public access to biosafety information is a right, not a privilege. Every individual residing in Belarus (a citizen or not a citizen) has a right to get biosafety information from any information resources excluding information resources where access to them does not restricted by the national security requirements.
5. Is government promoting the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs? If so, how?
        The government supports any activities focused on promoting the public’s right to access to information on LMOs. The Biosafety Expert Committee was established, for example, at the Ministry of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection for analysis of the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and for development of the strategic plan of activities in the area of public awareness on biosafety issues.

Thanks everybody for very interest and useful information,
Prof. Elena Makeyeva, Belarus

Posted on behalf of Mr. Ho-Min Jang, Republic of Korea:

1. Does your government recognize public access to environmental information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

According to the "TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT, ETC. OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS ACT", Korean government has to open to the public the result of Environmental Risk Assessment for GMO/LMO, and the public can submit comments about the result of Environmental Risk Assessment. In addition, Korean government prepared the legal basis for environmental information disclosure system through "Environmental Technology and Environmental Industry Support Act(amended in 2011)."

2. Does your government recognize public access to biosafety information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

Public access to biosafety information in Korea is based on "TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT, ETC. OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS ACT“. Biosafety information is available and regularly updated on the websites of the Korea BCH and related administrative agencies.

5. Is government promoting the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs? If so, how?

Government of the Republic of Korea respects the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs the way the six related ministries make it sure to let open for the public consultation the information about the LMOs in the final stage of their decision. Further, Korean government manage to deliver such decision information to Korea BCH(KBCH) so that it can make it a rule to release the aggregated information to the press and other media. In addition, KBCH executes activities to increase the public’s access to the information, including holding public events, publishing papers, journals, and through its own portal site.

Posted on behalf of Mr. Efrem Okbaghiorghis, National Biodiversity/Biosafety Coordinator, Eritrea:

1. Does your government recognize public access to environmental information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

In our environmental draft law it is stated that any person has the right to access environmental information 

2. Does your government recognize public access to biosafety information as a right? If yes, is this explicit in the national laws/ policies?

In the National Biosafety Framework draft document it is steted that public access to biosafety information.

3. If your, government does not recognize public access to biosafety information as a right, should such national laws/policies be developed. If yes, how should these be developed?

4. In your opinion, is public access to biosafety information a right or a privilege?

It is the right of the people.

5. Is government promoting the public’s right to access to biosafety information on LMOs? If so, how?

Yes

4. It is a human right to have access to biosafety information and not a priviledge. The public has the right to know about GMOs and LMOs, and among others, the effects of their introduction in the environment, the potential health risks (especially to pregnant women) and the measures taken by the Protocol to protect the environment and humans. Article 23 "Public Awareness and Participation" is very clear in the right to public information; while addressing the responsibilities of the parties on keeping  the public always informed, the Protocol uses such phrases as: "promote and facilitate...", "endeavor to ensure...", "make the results available..." "endeavor to inform..."