Real-time Conference on Socio-economic considerations / Africa
Good day distinguished participants! Welcome to this Online Real-time Conference on Socio-economic Considerations for the Africa region.
First, we would like to draw your attention to some technical matters. We would kindly ask you to type or paste your intervention in the Text Box (bottom-center of the screen) before requesting the floor because you will have only 60 seconds to send your intervention once the floor is given to you.
Second, there is a help desk to forward your technical difficulties. The Secretariat is available to respond to your questions through the HelpDesk. To access the online HelpDesk, please use the tab in the top-left corner of the screen. In case of emergency please call us at +1-514-287-6681. This number is also available at the top-right corner of the screen.
Today’s conference will be chaired by Dr. Ossama Abdel-Kawy from Egypt’s Environmental Affairs Agency. I invite Dr. Abdel-Kawy to begin the conference.
The Secretariat wishes you a very fruitful discussion! |
Thank you, Secretariat.
Distinguished colleagues,
Good day and welcome to the real-time online conference for Africa region. It is an honour for me to chair this conference.
The convening of regional online conferences such as this one responds to the request by the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol in decision BS-VI/13 adopted at their sixth meeting.
This conference is intended to facilitate the exchange of views, information and experiences on socio-economic considerations among Parties, other Governments, relevant organizations and indigenous and local communities in the context of paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Protocol, and taking into account the substantive agenda items suggested by the Secretariat on the basis of the online discussions that we had in March – April this year.
Our discussions today will focus on the following three areas:
- Defining socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making;
- The scope of socio-economic considerations; and
- Other issues for further consideration. |
The outcomes of this online conference and those from the other regions will serve as one of the inputs for the work of the ad hoc technical expert group (AHTEG) when it is convened later this year. The AHTEG is expected to submit its report for consideration by the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety with a view to enabling the meeting to deliberate and decide upon appropriate further steps towards fulfilling operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the Period 2011-2020 and its outcomes, in a manner that provides flexibility to take into account the situations in different countries.
The real-time conferences are, therefore, an opportunity to provide information and views from your perspective, learn from the views of others and consider possible ways forward.
The importance of active participation and open sharing of information to make this conference a success cannot be stressed enough.
As most of you recall we had a very successful online discussions in March – April. Those intense discussions and the summary before us will undoubtedly help us to further proceed in our efforts to developing more understanding and clarity on the subject of socio-economic considerations.
On this note, I declare the conference open!
We will now move to Item 2. Organizational Matters; sub-item 2.1 Adoption of the agenda. |
I invite you to turn to the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/1, which was prepared by the Secretariat. The provisional agenda suggests what the focus of this meeting should be in light of the desired goal of this process as set by the Parties and the recent online discussions.
Unless you have amendments or objections to any of the items, I propose that we adopt the agenda of the meeting as contained in document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/1. |
I see no request for the floor.
The provisional agenda as before us is adopted.
Let us now turn to agenda Item 2.2, Organization of work. |
Our conference is scheduled to last for approximately four hours. I hope I can count on your understanding and cooperation if we need to stay a little longer than planned.
I also propose that we have a break of 20 minutes half-way through the conference or as needed.
I trust that you have prepared your interventions on the basis of the items suggested for discussion in the annotations to the provisional agenda that was made available by the Secretariat as document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/1/Add.1.
The Secretariat has also made available the Summary of the Online Discussions held in March – April as document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/INF.1.
I propose that we take up the items on the agenda sequentially and, as Chair, I will endeavour to keep the discussions moving through the different agenda items in a timely manner. I encourage you to participate in the discussions in a prompt, direct and open manner.
Is there any objection to this organization of work? |
| I see no objection. The proposed organization of work is adopted. |
Before we start with the substantive issues on our agenda I have two remarks:
1) Given the time limit, I would kindly ask all of you to stick to the items identified and the options suggested by the Secretariat and not to repeat the discussion we had in the online forum more than it is necessary to address the item before us.
2) I also would like to remind you that we need to follow the rules of procedure for meetings of subsidiary bodies. This means that the order of speakers is as follows: Parties, non-Parties, other observers.
Having said this, I now invite you to turn to item 3 on the agenda.
ITEM 3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ARISING FROM THE IMPACT OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS ON THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY |
The first sub-item for us to consider is:
ITEM 3.1. DEFINITION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
I propose that we spend approximately one hour and a half on this item.
We will use the options from the annotated agenda (document UNEP/CBD/BS/ REGCONF-SEC/2/1/Add.1) to structure the discussions. |
I will now open the floor on the first issue for discussion. While I urge you to limit yourself to the first two options at this stage, you may, however, bring in options 3 and 4 to the extent it is necessary in your current discussions. As you might have noticed, the options are numbered consecutively (from 1 to 4) implying that these options may not necessarily be mutually exclusive depending on one’s preferred approach:
(i) Definition or elements of a definition
Option 1:
Define socio-economic considerations in relation to sustainability principles or criteria.
Option 2:
Define socio-economic considerations in terms of methodologies regarding how and when to undertake socio-economic assessments.
The floor is open for your comments. |
| How can I find the documents you are refering to? |
| I suggest to define socio-economic considerations in terms of methodologies regarding how and when to undertake socio-economic assessments |
| Dear Noredine. you can download the document using the following url :http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/bsregconf-sec-afr-02/official/bsregconf-sec-afr-02-01-add1-en.pdf |
| Morocco, all the documents are available here:
http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=BSREGCONF-SEC-AFR-02 |
| I suggest to combine both options:
"Define socio-economic considerations in terms of methodolofgies regrding how and when to undertake socio-economic assessments taking into account sustainability principals or croiteria" |
| I would define socio-economic consideration in terms of option 1 |
| given the first set of interventions I would like to pose the question for our particpants if you would define the socioeconomics in terms of sustainabilty what would the criteria be? |
| A focus shuld be put on:
Safety (envirnment, health)
Efficacy (certainty that the dissemination of the LMO) would work in the country/region where it is introduced)
These are tow key element to implement socio-economic consideration when performing risk assessment |
| The criteriia could be for example the impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity |
| Dear Nouredine!! many thanks for your intervention. Do u mean that socioeconomic considerations should be an intergral part of the process of Risk assessment? |
| Yes, I definity do. Although there is still a lot to do to build capacity as regards this matter in developing countries; essentially importers |
| I agree with Dr. Zaki. The two key elements may include impact on sustainable use, i.e how the application affects people in terms of their livelihood from the use of biodiversity. |
| Thanks Johansen, Mahaman and Noreddin. So do we agree that sustainabillity as a general framework could serve as a basis for socioeconomic assessment?... Are there any other points you want to make regarding these points on the agenda? |
| Efficacy also includes the impact of LMo dessilination on sociatl needs as well as on the sustainable use and on biodiversity (safety criteria) |
| I estimate for my part that it could retain like criteria: impact on health and the environment, food safety, the cultural fabric socio. |
| I propose that Each Party that requires the inclusion of socio-economic considerations in reaching a decision concerning LMOs may define these considerations in the basis of its national and local context |
| as there do not seem to be any interventions directly related to options 1 and 2 I would like to move on to the next issue. |
(ii) Process for the development/use of a definition
Option 3:
Minimum elements or criteria of socio-economic considerations may be identified as part of the guidelines envisaged in operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan to provide a framework for any details that may be developed at the domestic level.
Option 4:
Each Party that requires the inclusion of socio-economic considerations in reaching a decision concerning living modified organisms may define these considerations on the basis of its national and local circumstances.
The floor is now open. |
| I beleive that: The broad criteria "safety" and "Efficacy" have been defined earlier to include the main croiteria related to Socio-economic considerations (SEC) to be introduced in risk assessment |
| I already take the option 4 |
| I agree with option 4, but this should not be left too open! Some borders should be set for coherence and harmonisation |
| Mahaman many thanks for your intervention!! Can you share with us which criteria you use in Niger? |
| ... For example the option 4 should also take into account the TBT |
| In my country we have included socio-economic considerations in our biosafety law particularly when conducting risk assessment in an precautionary approach |
| I agrre with Mahaman but the limits to the precautionary appraoch should apply to this option, and it should be clearly mentioned to avoid mis use or abuse |
| I think the views are getting closer to each others.. do you agree that a midway option 3-4 (guiding pricinciples but finally fine-tuning/ definition left to the party according to its national and local circumstances). |
| While national sovereinty must be respected, basing socio-economic consideration purely on individual national system may not be too helpful in the context of international regime. |
| Any more reflections on that? |
| Dear Ossama, I would also say regional and internantional circumstances (global harmonisation) bearing inmind the WTO |
| I strongly think that a minimun standard be set guide parties. |
| Many thanks for this exchange of ideas.. So do we agree that a general framework should be established for socioeconomics assessment with a series of guiding principles and or questions that parties work through to help them identify the criteria relevant to them and their national circumstances and well as their international obligations. |
| Thanks Ossama your suggestion is excellent |
I thank you very much for all your comments and your active participation.
I now suggest that we break for 15 minutes.
We shall continue our discussion on the next agenda item (Item 4) as soon as we return from the break.
I kindly ask you to be back at your computers in exactly 15 minutes as we will recommence on time.
The meeting is adjourned until 11:20 GMT |
| Welcome back to our conference. I trust you are refreshed and ready to continue. I invite you to turn to the next sub-item (3.2) on our agenda. |
3.2. SCOPE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
In discussions on socio-economic considerations in the context of paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Biosafety Protocol, we always witness that one of the dividing issues is the scope of socio-economic considerations. What is our understanding of the wording “socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
In trying to answer this question one more time, I suggest that we again follow the options suggested in the annotated agenda:
Option 1:
Socio-economic considerations need to be limited only to those that arise from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
Option 2:
Socio-economic considerations need not be limited only to those that arise from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
The floor is now open for your comments. |
| Impact has ecological and socio-economic dimensions . So, direct impact on the socio-economic situation that may result from an LMO should be taken into account for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. |
| I go for option 2; yet "not be limited only" seems too broad for me, as if "not limilted to", what else sould it include? |
| Dear Noreddine many thanks for your question.. This would include direct socioeconomic impacts with the absence of impacts on biodiversity. |
| Are there any other points of view related to the 2 options? |
| I think the objective of the Protocol needs to be considered. That is , the impact must relate to the conservationand sustsainable use of biological diversity. In this connection, I think option 1 cannot be avoided. |
| I suggest again to add at least the two broad criteria to option 2: (i) safety (environement/biodiversity concervation, health impact when used as food/feed, etc.) and (ii) efficacy (positive economic impact on users, added-value and relevant use without jeapardizing societal values or endangering e.g., the revenue and subsistance of small farners when the LMO is agricultural products, etc.) |
| Sorry for the typographical mistakes, but i hope that the ideas are clear enough! |
| I think we had a similar situation as in the online fora regarding the different interpretation of SECs and the support for Option 1 or 2. To me it seems that there is a number of Parties wishing to extent the scope of socioeconomic considerations but which are in need of some guidance. Do you think that this request from the Parties would justify to take up a broader definition of SEC in a roadmap/framework/guidance to be developed to reach the goals of the strategic plan? |
| Yes I do, but this should be done in a flexible manner: not too restrictive but shoudl not be let too open. In fine, this may lead to misinterpretations/disagreements by different Parties. |
| SECs provisions must be consistent with the CPB. I think we should not stray from it. |
| Any more interventions on that? |
| This tells us the need for a guideline to ensure adherence to the CPB. |
Dear Mahaman and Johansen I see your point of view that if SEC are taken under the Protocol or under domestic measures implementing the Protocol, logically, following the wording of the Protocol, they should be limited to those that arise from the impacts of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as mentioned in Art. 26.1. They could anyway be more protective of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity than called for in the Protocol in its articles and annexes related to risk assessment and risk management ( cf. Art. 2.4 of the Protocol )
As the concerned SEC may be indirect and cumulated, many SECs could come under this category.
Anyway, under their sovereignty, Parties could take into account SEC not limited to those that arise from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity .
They should in this case take care that these SEC respect their various international obligations ( and engagements. ) , a.o. Art. 5.3 of SPS Agreement, Art. XX and Art. III.4 of the GATT. |
| Any more reflections on that ? |
| Artile 26 (1 and 2) remaims non-specific. It may be wothwhile to make specific suggestions in this forum |
| By "non-specific" I mean, it uses general terms such as socio-economic considerations, conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Yet it is very specific when it come to target potential "victims" (local and indigenous communities) |
| Thanks Noreddine. it seems that there is no more requests for the floor on this issue.. Would anyone like to share his ideas on what socioeconomic effect can arise from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity? |
| I agree Mr. Chair that in the exercise of the sovereign right, Parties may do so. But they may avoid going beyond the scope as you said. |
| I will wait for a few minutes and then will move on in the agenda. I would also ask the Non- parties participants if they have any comments? |
| I propose that we now move to the next item on the agenda: |
Distinguished delegates,
I will open the floor for a few minutes for any suggestions and comments that you may wish to make that are relevant to the mandate of this conference. I encourage you, in particular, to make suggestions of issues or approaches that may contribute to the development of conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations during subsequent discussions.
The floor is now open. |
| We discussed recently in our stakeholders meeting some key SECs issues that may arise from impact of GMOs on conservation and sustainable use. These include land use/ land right and displacement of local communities |
| Thanks Johansen!! these sound like very good examples of non biodiversity related socioeconomic impacts. would you like to share with us more information about your stakeholders meeting? |
| To organize a webinar conference on this topic through the BCH like the UNEP BCH phase II project webinar for conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations.
Forum discussions through the BCH on this topic for sharing experience and capacities building |
| The meeting was helld with decision makers to identify priority national SECs. Our attempt is to look at national circumstances especially taking into conisweration multinational agro projects. |
I would like to benefit from this occasion to say that in Ivory Coast we envisaged to set up a network of evaluation and research of LMO which will constitute an adequate scientific device to lead:
- evaluations of risks;
- environmental evaluations;
- socio-economic and medical evaluations of the biotechnological products.
This network will help with better directing research. |
| Following suggestion of Ossama: The change of agricultural practices in local communities according the strict prescriptions by LMO producers that indigenoous small farmers would not use adequately (the case of Argentina an the exxcessive use of herbicide to treat a herbiced tolerant LMO) failure of small farmers to follow the prescriptions and security measures of a specific GMO, unbalanced competitiveness that would lead to profound social changes in mocal communities, etc. |
| Thanks Noreddin! any more requests for the floor |
| There is a need to bring on board experton SECs involved with a broad range of projects including agriculture. This way we will look at SECs in the context of sector, so as to remove any bias in relation to gmos. |
I thank all of you for the lively discussion.
We may now move to the final item on our agenda for today:
ITEM 5. CLOSURE OF THE CONFERENCE
As we approach the end of our conference, I would like to invite the Secretariat to make some final remarks.
Secretariat, you have the floor. |
| Capacity building and cooperation between developed and developing countries under the guidance of internantional organisations (UNEP, CDB, FAO, WHO, etc.) seems to me essential so that the contribution of the letter countries be effective and could efficiently defend their interets and make the right choice
. This aspect should be stressed especially in risk assessment. |
We would like to thank all of you for participating in this online real-time conference. The Secretariat appreciates the commitment you all have demonstrated to advance the deliberations on socio-economic considerations in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety towards the desired target. We, in particular appreciate our francophone colleagues for being with us and making such valuable contributions. Initially, we had more pre-registered participants from Anglophone Africa and less from Francophone. That was why we merged the two into one. But the actual situation became different. Sorry about that.
We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Abdel-Kawy for kindly accepting the responsibility of chairing this conference and for ably doing so.
Looking back and reading through the records of the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Africa was the strongest proponent of the inclusion of a provision on socio-economic considerations in the Protocol. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect more contribution from Africa in the efforts to develop conceptual clarity regarding socio-economic considerations in the context of Article 26 of the Protocol.
We believe that this conference has built on the successful online discussions that were held in March-April this year; helped to increase understanding; and laid a good basis for the next phase of the process, which is a face-to-face meeting in an ad hoc technical expert group setting which is tentatively scheduled to be held later this year..
The full transcript of this conference will be available on this web page a few minutes after the closure of the conference. We would also like to encourage you to look at the transcripts of the other regional conferences.
Thank you all!
Worku Damena Yifru
and the team:
Giovanni Ferraiolo – Head of the BCH
Paola Scarone – Programme Assistant
Stéphane Bilodeau – IT/Computer assistant |
Thank you, Secretariat both for your remarks and for your assistance in organizing this conference.
I would like also to thank all the participants and guests who have taken part in making today’s conference a success. I think we can all look forward to following the next steps on this challenging issue under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
With that, I declare the Africa Real-time Online Conference on Socio-Economic Considerations, closed.
Thank you! |
List of Participants
| Chair Person |
# |
|
Ossama Abdelkawy
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
|
39 |
| Party |
# |
|
Johansen T. Voker
Liberia
|
13 |
|
Noreddine Benkerroum
Morocco
|
21 |
|
Mahaman Gado Zaki
Niger
|
9 |
| Non-Party |
# |
|
Gninancrêban Augustin Kone
Côte d'Ivoire
|
6 |
| Observers |
# |
|
Marnus Gouse
University of Pretoria
|
- |
| Guests |
# |
|
Gintaras Jodinskas
Ministry of Environment, Lithuania
|
- |
|
Hiroki SASAKI
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
|
- |
| Secretariat |
# |
|
Giovanni Ferraiolo
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Paola Scarone
SCBD Biosafety
|
- |
|
Stéphane Bilodeau
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Ulrika Nilsson
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Worku Yifru
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
3 |
|
