Real-time Conference on Socio-economic considerations / Asia-Pacific
Good day distinguished participants! Welcome to this Online Real-time Conference on Socio-economic Considerations for the Asia and Pacific 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. Ranjini Warrier from Ministry of Environment & Forests of the Government of India. I invite Dr. Warrier 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 Asia and the Pacific 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. |
As with a regular face-to-face meeting, it is necessary for the participants to agree to the agenda and the organization of work for the conference. I therefore 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. |
Thank you thailand and Malayasis and Korea. . I see no reuest for the 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 |
Option 1:
Define socio-economic considerations in relation to sustainability principles/criteria
Comments:
It seems to be an objective approach to assess the impact of LMOs to sustainable development on a long term basis – i.e both the positive and negative impact with equivalent depth. However we then have to also define what is exactly meant by “long term”? in addition to identifying the positive and negative elements.
Option 2:
Define socio-economic considerations in terms of methodologies regarding how and when to undertake socio-economic assessments
Comments:
There is no need to take into account socio-economic considerations for research and development works on LMOs – either it is imported or developed locally
However for release of LMO, socio-economic consideration may be taken into account on a case by case basis. Stake holders - relevant government agencies, NGOs, public etc may be consulted to submit comments on socio-economic considerations on applications for release. Based on these comments, just like scientific risk analysis is done, a similar analysis may be carried on socio-economic issues by a special committee equivalent to the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC). Where there are serious issues analysis has to be carried out to a practical level of depth.
Considerations of Socio-economic issues may not be directly linked to risk analysis. There may cases where an LMO has a very low risk but big socio-economic impact. Also there might be cases where there is a risk but such risk can be reduced through risk management measures. In such cases – we may have to also consider the socio-economic impact of the LMO.
Experiences in other areas show that analysis of socio-economic issues can be cumbersome and time consuming. However if there are serious socio-economic issues the need for a longer time can be clearly justified. |
| Option 2 is better suited as a prgamatc measure |
| Thank you for giving me the floor and apologies for joining a little late as I had some problems with getting onto this webpage.
I am in agreement with Option 1. It would be important to define SEC in relation to sutainability principles or criteria, including over the long term. Sustainability is the basis of the Protocol and the CBD, whose roots are in the Earth Summit process, which is about sustainable development. Sustainability is also fully in line with the Protocol and CBD objectives. This will provide the overarching framework needed by Parties for the implementation of Article 26.
I do not see the two options as mutually exclusive however, but stress that Option 1 should be the immediate priority. Option 2 is necessary and possibly the sequential next step after Option 1. But I think that to only focus on Option 2 would be too restrictive and would not provide the overarching framework needed. |
| Thank you for the interventions. We look forward to interventions from ohers . |
| if we are to set our priority I will choose option 2 to start with |
| Option 1 has the problem of lack of consensus on sustainability criteria |
| I also see the options as not mutually exclusive. |
| I think Option2 is more practicable while option 1 is very broad. |
| I agree with Mr Letchu that there may be socio-economic impacts which are not necessarily related to the risk assessment. However, I do think that we may need to also take into account socio-economic considerations for research and development. So R&D should not necessarily be a criteria that automatically discounts consideration.d |
| I agree with including 'time scale' issue in defining the concept of SEC. But I am wondering whether there is any scientific study that might shed lights on this issue. |
| Just to respond to the distinguished participant from Korea regarding scientific study, the Secretariat has prepared and made available the online discussions of March and April. In that document we have also included a compilation of various reference materials on socio-economic considerations that participants shared with the forum |
I see no further request for the floor. Thank you for your interventions. Let us now please turn to the second 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. |
| Good morning. Sorry I'm late due to class session. |
| Thailand. Good morning. You are welcome to make interventions |
my view on process for the development socio economic considerations.
“Any decisions to import should subject to domestic regulations that is consistent with the Protocol , hence it depends on policy of each country whether requires to include socio-economic considerations in reaching a decision concerning LMOs or not. If so, a decision needs to be based on both risk assessment and socio economic considerations. Then those countries should have to establish urgently a process for the development set of socio economic considerations criteria and submit it to BCH.” |
Option 3:
A spectrum of socio-economic parameters may be prepared. They may then be categorized into broad categories. This could serve as the minimum elements. The specifics in these minimum elements should then be decided at the domestic level.
Alternatively if some specific minimum elements can be identified. Then those elements may be deliberated to refine it. But the broader categories mentioned above may still be useful for countries.
Some basic elements may include:
- basic cost- benefit analysis
- extended cost-benefit analysis (to include selected socio-economic parameters)
- Intellectual property right
- Seed ownership for small scale farmers
- Capacity building for sustainability
- Religious, cultural, ethical values
- GMO solutions to serious disease outbreak
Option 4:
Yes this is possible. They can look at experiences of countries that have implemented SEC. But many developing countries need capacity building and guide to do even such an exercise and such a request is reflected in the operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan.
I prefer option 3 |
| Sorry, I Chairperson, I am having a lot of problem with the system and was not able to request the floor in time. If I may go back to Item 3.1 - In my view the prinicples of sustainabilty are fairly well agreed internationally already. There is a lot of work on this issue and intergovernmental processes to draw from, ranging from the Earth Summit to Agenda 21, Rio Principles on Environment and Development and the outcomes of the Rio+20 summit. They provide a good basis for our work and set a good framework. |
| On the process for the development/use of a definition - I agree with Option 3 – this is necessary to provide a general minimum framework for Parties and to ensure consistency across different countries, while maintaining the flexibilities that Parties need according to their different contexts. This can then be taken up and refined at national level according to the national and local circumstances.
In my opinion, such a framework would not be prescriptive but would provide guidance to Parties and contribute to the operational objective 1.7 of the Startegic Plan and its outcomes.
So in a sense, Option 4 comes after Option 3, in my opinion. Option 4 is actually already happening as Parties put in place their domestic policies and laws. So Option 3 provides the value added in terms of what is being developed under the Protocol on SEC.
On minimum criteria, I find the report produced by the Austrian Environment Agency very useful – Socio-economic Aspects in the Assessment of GMOs – Options for Action (listed on page 23 of UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONG-SEC/2/INF/1). Several criteria are listed for economic, social and ecological aspects. Elements are also included in pages 11-18 of the document. So there are many ideas and suggestions already and perhaps this is the task for the AHTEG – to refine the elements/criteria into an applicable framework for Parties |
| Mr Chairman, I think we can still sort of combine the 2 options. If we agree that sustainability principles are centtral to SEC, then we can use this as an initial framework, in viewing the Rn D to commercialization process as a process of continuum.. In this process we can then focus on option 2, on how and when to undertake the methodologies for socio economic assessment during the process of the continuum. Surely thi has time dimension. |
| Minimum criteria - while sounds minimum should not end up with a long list. We have to be practical. If some work has been done - I agree with Lim - we should review it with the view to minimise it. |
| I agree with Mr. Tongsom, and certain risks/socio-economic assessments are essential, particularly for a country that has not adopt GM such as Thailand. However, as suggested by Mr. Letchumana, basic elements should be specific instead of too many and too broad. For developing countries that the regulations are not rigid, intagible evaluation can slow down the development and adoption process. |
| Thank you for your active participation. Are there any more request for the floor |
| I think that the 4 options listed are actually not mutually exclusive but there may be sequencing issues. To me, Options 1 and 3 provide the framework to start with, and then this is supplemented by Options 2 and 4. If we look at Option 3 and minimum elements - these are set within Option 1 which is a sustainability framework, so they do have definitional parameters that keep the goals within the objectives and scope of the Protocol. |
| Well said Kuhn Orachos. SEC may unnecessarily delay the commercialization |
| Thank you Leonardo. can you give some specific suggestion on how SEC would delay commercialization |
| I prefer using smaller number of parameter-most important ones to start with, and increase the number if the need arise based on experiences on the ground. |
| Thank you Letchu. Are there any suggestions on what the moinimum parameters could be? |
| Letchu you had listed out some parameters at the begining. It would be good to knowtheir applicability at the national and international level |
| This question is not specific to Lethcu but others may also respond |
Some basic elements may include:
- basic cost- benefit analysis
- Intellectual property right
- Seed ownership for small scale farmers
- Capacity building for sustainability
- Religious, cultural, ethical values |
| On the issue of SEC and commercialization - I would take a different view - taking into account socio-economic considerations, within a sustainability framework, can lead to better decision making in a more sustainable, comprehensive and holistic manner, particularly in the long term. For example, for many developing countries which have a majority of small farmers, it would be important to assess the implications of a particular GM crop on e.g. farmers' rights or seed saving practices, or changes in agriculture practice which may impact agricultural biodiversity. These are socioeconomic considerations that should be taken into account. (And should also be included in the minimum criteria) |
| One option is to define the core criteria and test it. Expand it and contextualize it in different cases |
| One could also start from the sustainability perspective and the three dimensions of sustainable development - economic, social, environmental - and elaborate subsets of criteria that are important. This is a matter of framing, but I beleive that many of the parameters that are particularly important have been listed here and in the document prepared by the Secretariat. |
| Is there a agreement that minimum criteras should be laid down for EC |
| Scientists, economists, environmentalist and social scientists do not necessarily agree on several matters. There should be concrete assessment procedures and criteria (of course in the context of individual country); otherwise, it can still create a discpute among general public and stakeholders. I have seen good economic impacts studies done by good economists in high impact journals and still the results are debatable. |
| We can also include possible impact of the LMO on
Food security and poverty alleviation. We should be able to define these set of socio economic criteria in qualitative and quantitative terms |
| If some work is done in listing these parameters and clustering it - we can move forward in our endeavour. yes minimum criteria should be there. |
| Any further request for the floor |
| Yes, I agree that there is a need for a minimum criteria. These, set within a sustainability frameowrk, can provide the guidance Parties need to implement Article 26 and move towards Objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan too. |
| Food security and poverty alleviation are crutial issues in many developing countries. To make a strons argument of how LMO can contribute to it is still difficult. I mean many times, it has to be compared with other alternative technologies. |
| can we take it as a task to be done - ie to prepare the list of criteria from already existing references - and start working further from there |
I see no further request. 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 4:20 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. |
| In respond to Mr Orachos from Thailand. On the contrary. It can be done. We have monitored the impact of Bt corn on food security and poverty thresholds for the past 10 years now. The methodology is to agree on what are the acceptable food security thresholds and poverty thresholds in country. Also the difficulty i see in the case of Thailand and other countries with no commercialized LMO yet, is the softness of the data,, which are ex ante, that is data before commercial adoption of the LMO. This dissagreement in terms of the ex ante impact of the proposed LMO will unnecessarily delay the process of commercial approval dispite compliance with all biosafety protocols. Furthermore, if SEC become a major element as a policy criterion in the risk assessment, then the procees of commercialization will take a longer period.. |
| Thank you Philippines. Can we focus on SEC? |
| I agree with option 2 for several reasons. Firstly, the Protocol sets minimum standards and Parties have the sovereign right to take stricter action as defined by their national needs. Guidance provided to Parties should take into account the needs of Parties. Article 26.2 encourages Parties to cooperate on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs, so the evidence base that is being collected is wide and can serve Parties’ needs.
Secondly, biodiversity is a broad concept, and its conservation and sustainable use have intrinsically socio-economic components as people play a part in managing and sustainably using biodiversity. It is also embedded in the three dimensions of sustainable development which interact and affect each other.
If scope is limited solely to the impacts that arise from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, then important socio-economic considerations may be inadvertently ignored, which could undermine the objective and scope of the Protocol. |
| Thanks. Mr. Gonzales. (Btw, I'm Ms. not Mr. :)
I agree with Option 2. |
Option 1: No
Option 2:
For national interest it should not be limited as such
Impact of LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is just a minimum
In the case of Dengue fever outbreak where so many die every year because there is no medicine – any solutions through GMO – say introduction of GM mosquito- If such an option can reduce the number of human death – it should be seen as a positive socioeconomic consideration. If people life is at danger then we should be prepared to go beyond the impact on conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity as appropriately based on analysis and available information. |
| I also agree with Option 2 |
On Scope of socio-economic considerations,if determine the wording in paragraph 1, Article 26 of the Protocol ,there must be an impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity resulting from the living modified organism in question before any socio-economic considerations may be taken into account.
However ,in my opinion, conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity especially ecosystem have internally socio-economic dimensions. Impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity will mean to have impact on socio-economic in the same time and same level. Therefore, socio-economic aspects should be considered in parallel with impact assessment on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. |
| Looking forward to comments from others. |
| I agree with Praopan Tongsom's assesssment |
| In my understanding, we should have option-1 |
| I agree too that the processes for socio economic imapct assessment should move in parallel with risk assessment. |
| Sorry Madame Orachos, for the gender mixed up..It is surely the fault of this online technology.. It has deprived us of a "face to Face"interactions!.. Technology blip! |
| Very interesting interventions. Any further request for the floor? |
| those in favour of option-2 can throw somelight what more can be included other than LMOs |
| Soam we are also interesed to know why the choice of option 1. |
| I guess most of us agree on option 2, but what aspects of socioeconomic to be included are the questions? |
| Any further observations on the two options? |
| I have no problem with the parallelism and importance of SEC and biosafety risk assessment, we just have to be aware that the set of data for SEC are softer the biolological and environmental protocols.. |
| For example, if there is a direct impact of IPR rules on seed saving - this is not necessarily mediated by an impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It could be, but this is not necessarily the case. So it would be important to be able to consider wider aspects of SEC. |
| While defining the scope, boundary is most important. In option-1, there is a defined boundary with respect to most important aspect. therefore it would be more practical, foccused and effective |
| I fear that if we are limited to option 1 we may miss out important socioeconomic considerations. |
| I am not sure if i am making things more complicated. But it all depends on the definition of 'Impacts'. From the text, I read the impact, in more physical aspect rather than social. |
| The question is whether the scope should be limited to impacts arising from impact on biodiversity? |
| Following Hong's comment I belive that from physical impact - it can lead to social impact |
| Of course physical aspect is important but the impact of LMOs worldwide has left the mark on social aspects. Bt coton in India is live example, the social status of farmers gas increased due to adoption of LMO technologies |
| I think impacts are not necessarily physical only. There are other social, cultural, ethical and religous impacts that could be considered. This is one reason why I think minimum criteria are important, to give a framework, and yet also to maintain flexibiltiy for application at the national and local levels. |
| I agree that minimum criteria can help us scope consideration |
| Option 1 emphasizes conservation and sustainable biological diversity. To my opinion, "sustainability" in fact, rquires a long-term assemssment, and conclusive definition may not be easiliy defined. Socioeconomic, on the other hand, is influenced by both biological diversity and other social and economic environments. To my opinion, socioeconomic impacts are very important, not only in reality, but also for policy implementation. |
| Any further interventions before we take up the next agenda? |
| Thats why it would be most desirable to describe these perceived impacts qulitatively and quntitatively. I think we can start with earlier sugesstion of Ramatha on the basic elements, define these as poroposed including my suggestion of food security and poverty alleviation impacts |
I see no further request for the floor. I thank all of you for the lively discussion we had on the definition and scope of socio-economic considerations. 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. |
| Would someone like to give any suggestion on how to take this initiative forward |
| I think we should for the next round of meeting - have in front of us a draft minimum criteria in front of us. Perhaps the secretraite can work on it based on infro from references. |
| Yes, agreed. I would also like to take the opportunity to reitierate an earlier suggestion I made in the online discussion forum on useful future topics for discussion/work:
(i) Analysis of the following CBD documents so as to identify the key elements and criteria relevant for socioeconomic impact assessment
- “Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or processes and in strategic environmental assessment” contained in the annex to decision COP-VI/7
- “Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessment” contained in the annex to decision VIII/28. The guidelines focus on how to promote and facilitate a biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessment process
- “Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities” (Item F, decision VII/16 of the seventh meeting of the COP)
A synthesis document of these and other suggestions put forward by participants of the online forum and regional online conferences for minimum criteria of SEC would be useful.
(ii) Analysis of relevant international obligations that include socio-economic considerations e.g. human rights treaties, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, CBD, and recommendations for how Parties may take these into account when implementing Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol.
(iii) Analysis of relevant WTO provisions and case law with respect to the application of socioeconomic considerations that impact on trade, and recommendations for how Parties may take these into account when implementing Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol. |
| Yes, These suggested documents will be very useful |
| Lim, are all the analysis envisaged or suggested necessary to develop conceptial clarity especialyy ii and iii? |
| Thanks Dr. Lim. Immediate connection to online interface will be useful here too. |
| I think that (i) is clearly a priority and part of the building blocks towards our goal. I think that (ii) and (iii) could be helpful in helping Parties to deal with the persistent issue of international obligations. |
| Quite amount of work to catch up with! (thanks for inforrmnation from Moderator, Worku Yifru).
By the way, could anyone light me regarding the relationship between Capacity-building and minimum criteria of SEC? |
| For conceptual clarity, in addition to ITPGRFA, the published documents from IPGRI and GFRA of FAO would also help |
| korea do you have any question for the Secretariat? |
| On Hong's requst - I guess with capacity we can achieve higher socioeconomic output |
| Any observations on relationship between Capacity-building and minimum criteria of SEC? |
| Yes, could anyone show any examples? |
| I would like to reword my question. Any observations on relationship between Capacity-building for developing minimum criteria of SEC? |
| Any further interventions. |
| Certainly, the Secretariat will try to do what it can. The suggested analysis entails a huge amount of work. At this stage the only work we can confirm that we are preparing to make available to the next discussion is a global overview of existing laws, policies, institutions, and expertise on socio-economic considerations |
| Thank you Worku for the clarification |
| Any request for the floor before we go to the next agenda? |
I see no request. 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. |
| The inclusion of SEC in assessing the impact of new technologies like LMOs is a new development. Therfore there has to be some minimum efforts in making competent authorities in charge of biosafety risk assessment and socio economics in country to come to a consensus on thse new issues and capacitate their personnel in understanding the interface, including their implementation |
| This a final call. Any further request? |
| May I take this oppotunity to thank Secretariate for preparing the useful documents. Anyway I’ll appreciate it if Secretariate can provide some additional info on para.2 of the document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/INF/1 that is a list of countries which were registered for the online discussions from 11 March to 16 April 2013. And how many developed and developing countries were posted messages. I suppose it will be useful for further consideration as well as for ad hoc technical expert group/COP-MOP7. Thank you. |
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. |
Thank you Thailand for the kind words. We can provide the statistics you mentioned in the coming days. we will make it available through the SEC portal and we will send you an e-mail alert as well.
Having said that:
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 their desired target.
We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Warrier for chairing this conference.
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 follow up the remaining real-time conferences of the other regions according to the following schedule: Africa on 20 June 2013 at 10h00-14h00 GMT; and Latin America and the Caribbean (in Spanish) on 27 June 2013 at 14h00-18h00 GMT.
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 Asia and Pacific Region Real-time Online Conference on Socio-Economic Considerations, closed.
Thank you! |
List of Participants
| Chair Person |
# |
|
Ranjini Warrier
Ministry of Environment and Forests
|
45 |
| Party |
# |
|
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
India
|
3 |
|
S.K. Soam
India
|
5 |
|
Nobuyuki Fujita
Japan
|
- |
|
Ramatha Letchumanan
Malaysia
|
13 |
|
Leonardo Gonzales
Philippines
|
10 |
|
Hong-Tak Lim
Republic of Korea
|
6 |
|
Chomphoonut Chuangchote
Thailand
|
1 |
|
Orachos Napasintuwong Artachinda
Thailand
|
8 |
|
Praopan Tongsom
Thailand
|
7 |
| Observers |
# |
|
Li Ching Lim
Third World Network
|
15 |
| Guests |
# |
|
Johnny Anak Andrew
Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment
|
- |
|
Kittibodee Chinnacotpong
-
|
- |
|
Michelle Chauvet
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana
|
- |
| Secretariat |
# |
|
Giovanni Ferraiolo
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Paola Scarone
SCBD Biosafety
|
- |
|
Stéphane Bilodeau
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Worku Yifru
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
4 |
|
