Real-time Conference on Socio-economic considerations / WEOG and CEE
Good afternoon or good morning, participants! Welcome to this Online Real-time Conference on Socio-economic Considerations for the Western Europe and Others Group and Central and Eastern Europe.
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.
The Secretariat is available to answer 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. Andreas Heissenberger from Austria. I invite Dr. Heissenberger to begin the proceedings.
The Secretariat wishes you a very fruitful discussion! |
Thank you, Secretariat.
Distinguished colleagues,
Good day and welcome to the real-time online conference for Western Europe and Others and Central and Eastern Europe. It is an honour for me to chair this conference.
This series of regional online conferences was requested by the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol in decision BS-VI/13 adopted at their sixth meeting.
This conference is intended to facilitate and synthesize 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 we just 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 convened sometime this year or early next 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 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. I also want to encourage you to keep your interventions as concise as possible in order to allow the other participants to read them and reflect on the content.
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) 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:
(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. |
Options 1 and 2 don’t seem contradictory and they should probably both be explored while working on defining conceptual clarity regarding socio economic considerations. The criteria of sustainability raised during the online discussions seems to be a good starting point to try and define those considerations. The notion of sustainability is clearly a part of the protocol and is used in Article 26. Decision makers need to have a clear idea of the impact or contribution of an LMO on sustainable development before reaching a decision.
Even if the diversity of political, societal and economical contexts among Parties have to be taken into account, it seems important to try and define a general framework that could be used by everyone and adapted to local circumstances. Defining socio economical considerations in relation to sustainability principle and sustainable development might be a good way to identify relevant aspects to be taken into account during the evaluation. The approach should be similar to the work realised on risk assessment, where a global roadmap and guidelines have been developed. Those documents are meant to be used as a general framework by Parties even if their geographical, environmental and agronomical contexts are different.
In this context it is important to consider the potential impact of LMOs on a long term scale. Short term analyses are of little use if they are not relevant after a few years. For example some cases around the world show that the benefits observed with the use of some HT crops decrease in time. That kind of elements has to be taken into account as it can change the result of the whole evaluation.
Option 2 appears like a second step that would have to be implemented to go forward towards the guidelines envisaged in operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan. Those guidelines would have to develop methodologies to guide Parties with the realisation of a socio economic evaluation.
Regarding the question on when the evaluation should be taken, it seems like the wording of Article 26, as well as common sense, would be in favor of an evaluation preceding the decision making in order to help decision makers take informed decisions. However it is true that as we are in a very early stage in the age of socio-economic evaluations, data may be missing or transposability of data gathered in a different context might be unsure. That’s why an ex post work of data collecting would also be necessary, as part of the PMEM for example. |
| Thank you very much for this valuable contribution, Martin!! Any other opinions on that?? |
| Hello to everyone,
I would like to support the first option of definition of SEC that considers sustainability principles. The SEC should be considered as multy disciplinary and multifactorial analisys. The4 short and long term impact also important to take into consideration. The macro and micro economicalindicators, etical, public perseption, religiouse are iportant for this assessment. |
| Hello everyone,
It seems to me the two options do not exclude each other.
Work done in the Netherlands so far suggests socio-economic considerations can to a large extent be translated into sustainability terms: people, planet profit.
However, this does not automatically lead to (or exclude) a decision on how and when to undertake socio-economic assessments. Such assessments often face challenges in terms of measuring socio-economic impacts. |
Good afternoon everybody!
It is good to see you here. I would like to introduce myself, if I may, however I know many of you. So, my name is Rita Andorkó, I work in the Ministry of Rural Development in Hungary.
I am so sorry about not having participated in the online forum this spring. But I read your interventions, your posts, and it seems to me that the views which were really diverging at the beginning of the discussions are now coming to get closer. So, congratulation for it!
Regarding the point 3.1. we all know that it is the most difficult thing to define something, and it is more difficult to find an enough broad definition for such a complicated issue. But for me, the first thing, on which I suppose there is an agreement among us, to follow a step-by step approach. I mean here, and staying in the agenda pont 3.1. (i) proposed by the Secretariat, in my opinion the option 2 is not a workable solution at this time. Why? It is agreed by most of us, that the use of the SEC is not mandatory, according to Article 26 of the text of the Protocol. If is an optional one, the “stress” needs to be on the definition in relation to sustainability or criteria and not on the time (when to undertake SEC into account) and not on the methodology (regarding how to undertake SEC). In my opinion it is more up to the Parties to decide on the time and on the (proposed) methodology, therefore it would be only the next step in this process. The first thing should be, I think, to agree what should be assessed, or to agree on the criteria, on the elements, that would lead us to really define what SEC are. |
| Given the first interventions, do we agree that sustainability as a general framework could serve as a basis for a socio economic assessment?
If so, should we follow a stepwise approach (taking the discussion on the methodology up at a later time) as suggested by Martin form France and Rita from Hungary? Or are there concepts you want to table at this point? |
| Conceptual clarity on general commun understanding of the meaning of SEC under Art. 26.1 ( that could apply accross countries or LMOs ) , is a prerequisite, as an initial basis, taking inito acciount the various SEC that were mentioned during preceding online fora.
Relevant considerations will maybe necessitate development or adaptations of methodologies.
To work only with existing methodologies could restrain the field of considerations.
But, obviously, not all considerations to analyse will be able to be analyzed at the same time and through the same kind of methodologies.
This should be clearly explained to responsable persons making decisions . |
Greetings everyone
One of the things that became apparent during the online discussions and the COPMOP discussions in Hyderabad is that this is difficult to define. Composing a concise, meaningful and useful definition that captures the range of local, regional, national and international concerns and which everyone can agree to is very difficult indeed.
Arguably, the definition of a socio-economic consideration is that it could be any consideration that isn’t related to an environmental or safety consideration. Which might rule out using a sustainability framework as the basis here. One option, therefore, might be to not get to hung up on trying to define this ex ante and to recognise that Parties will have their own definitions which reflect their own circumstances. Helping Parties work out what this means for them in terms of reaching decisions on import, should they wish to – and in accordance with their international obligations, is perhaps of greater importance.
Mike |
| Thank you Andreas. I would propose to discuss now the criteria for sustainability of SEC, and in next step to go for methodological aspects. |
Yes, I would like to table some concepts:
The implementation of this article of the Protocol should take into account the following principles:
The recognized mutual supportiveness of economic, social and environmental concerns to allow a sustainable long-term development of human society in all parts of the planet.
The necessity to evolve to a lower carbon - consuming and more resource efficient world society, facing the limits of material and energy that can be provided by our planet.
The necessity for strategies aimed at reducing wastes at all levels of the life-cycles of products .
The analysis of the real need for new products for the wealth of society and of the need for new technologies to solve specific problems .
The importance of the common goods that are biodiversity-related free and sustainable ecosystems services ( in comparison to man-made costly and unsustainable services ) and the intrinsic relationship between the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the social and economic wealth and development, i.e. to underline the importance of the preservation of ecosystems services to reach the MDGs
The various values recognized to biodiversity and its related ecosystems ( a.o: economic, but also social, cultural, spiritual and intrinsic values )
The intrinsic relationships between all elements of biodiversity ( thus to be all preserved ) to insure sustainable ecosystems functions and services, thus also to support sustainable agricultures and new economical and technical developments.
Social equity in the repartition of the benefits issued from the use of biological diversity.
Attention given to minority groups needs and claims, especially if their local habits are aimed at preserving biodiversity and its sustainable use
The preservation and promotion of traditions and cultures that are locally adapted to help sustainably preserving of biodiversity and related ecosystems functions and services.
The avoidance of more favorable treatment, for pure economic reasons, to products developed inside countries in comparison to similar importable products.
Social and economic benefits should not weigh over environmental and health concerns
The basis of these principles is supported by international and multilateral agreements and strategies that should be respected and implemented by the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol that have adopted these agreements, their principles, concerned articles, decisions and guidelines. These are a.o.:
CBD ( Convention of Biological Diversity ), MDGs ( Millenium Development Goals ), WTO agreements ( TBT and SPS agreements ) , ITPGRFA ( International Treaty for Protection of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture ) under the FAO, ABS ( Access & Benefit Sharing ) Protocol under the CBD, Universal Declaration for Human Rights, UDRIP ( Universal Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People ), ILO 169 ( Principle 169 of the International Labor Organization ), Aarhus Convent |
| Dear Mike!
Thank you for your intervention. I have just one question for clarification: Am I right that you propose not to start with a general definition of SEC (or its assessment) but to start with a needs analysis to investigate if Parties have found their own definitions already? |
| Are there any other points you want to make regarding these points on the agenda? I'll wait another few minutes and if there are no requests for the floor we will move to the next point on the agenda. |
Andreas
It might make it easier to clarify a definition once the exercise to compile, take stock of and review information on socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity has concluded, as that exercise was specifically mandated to look at
(a) Existing institutional frameworks, legislation and policies with provisions on socio-economic considerations;
(b) Capacity-building activities related to biosafety and socio-economic considerations;
(c) Existing expertise and experience;
(d) Other policy initiatives concerning social and economic impact assessments;
Can the Secretariat give us an update on that?
Mike |
Thank you Chair, and a good afternoon to everybody.
I basically agree with Martin’s initial comment. To me there is no contradiction between the two options. In _this_ context, as Rita pointed out, it does seem to be important to focus efforts in developing the definition of SEC in the CPB. |
| Yes, the copilation and, stock taking and review work is on-going. It will be complted in the next couple of weeks. The output is supposed to be submitted to the AHTEG.
For your information: The work as it stands now did not come up with information where a Party has defined socio-economic considerations although a number of them require SECs to be taken into account in decision-taking. |
| Mr. Chair, I have one question in relation with your own last question: can we here summarize what we have understood of the general meaning of the different portions of Art. 26.1 from the online discussions in last March and April ? |
| Good afternoon to everyone.
Certainly sustainability provides a general framework for SEC and is fully in line the Protocol (objective and scope).
The effective completion of the COPMOP 6 mandate in relation to Art. 26 will provide basic elements for the overall implementation of the CPB by the Parties.
In other words, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity would be possible with out approapriate SECs. Additionally, our task seems not to define the specificies at local and national levels, but provide a useful overall framework for the guidance of Parties to implement SECs in their national biosafety frameworks.
Lastly, the concepts and elements listed by Lucette Flandroy is a good start. |
| Dear Lucette!
I guess a summary of the discussion has been provided in the backgroud document by the secretariate and we will also come later to the issue if SEC should be defined more broad or rather narrow. However, if you would like to provide us with your thoughts we will be happy to read them. |
| Andreas,
It seems to me some of the interventions move towards the options 3 and 4 in the documents. Are you inviting comments on those options too? |
As there do not seem to be any interventions directly related the 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. |
| Good afternoon. As you know, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission has been entrusted to manage and provide scientific support to a group of EU member states experts on socio-economic assessment of GM crops. Although not directly related to the goals of this conference, I just wanted to announce you the starting of the works. This group (ESEB) will start by discussing between EU countries a general framework for performing socio-economic assessment of GM crops. The group has barely started to work therefore I am not in a position to summarise any conclusion represnting their views. However, I would like draw your attention towards the fact that our objective will be to find a realistic framwework that allows public authorities to actually perform assessments in due time and taking into account the scarcity of resources in may times. In other words, our work will be guided by the desire to produce a orientations for SE assessment that can actually be fulfilled by governments. |
From the online discussions in March-April 2013, I understand the possibility to implement Art. 26.1 as such ( these are not criteria, but still general principles, that some participants still want to discuss ):
- concerned SEC ( socio-economic considerations ) are not mandatory
- they can be taken exclusively under the Protocol. In this case, they could not involve LMOs in contained use and pharmaceuticals;
- they can be taken under domestic measures implementing the Protocol and under complementary ad hoc domestic measures; in the last case, they could involve LMOs in contained use and pharmaceuticals( cf. Art. 5 and 6 of the Cartagena Protocol )
- they can be taken under the Protocol or under domestic measures implementing the Protocol and imply measures more protective of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity than called for in the Protocol and its articles and annexes related to risk assessment and risk management ( cf. Art. 2.4 of the Protocol )
- in both cases, they can apply to decision on imports but also to decisions for safe handling, transport and use of LMOs developed inside the countries; actually, if taken into account for imports, they should similarly be taken into account for similar LMOs developed internally.
- taking concerned socio-economic considerations can take into account and apply in implementation of Art. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27
- concerned SEC can be proved impacts but can also be potential impacts and implications;
- if not proved, they should be relevant, evidence –based , :
- they can be direct but also be considerations on indirect and/or cumulated effects.
- talking about sustainability, they should be considerations on long-term rather than short-term impacts.
- talking about sustainability, they should also take into account the reversibility/irreversibility of concerns.
- they can concern social benefits or risks, economic benefits or risks, environmental benefits (and environmental risks broader than those taken into account in the biosafety risk assessment ) , all of which should be argued by as rigorous evidence-base
- they may be peculiar concerns regarding specific SEC related to indigenous local communities and the particular values they attribute to biodiversity and its elements; but SEC to take into account here may tackle impacts on preservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use in a broad sense and for general benefit.
- they can be related to local economic, social and environmental contexts; but some SEC could have larger scale and even world concerns.
- |
LMOs impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity are wide ranging and requested equally ecological and socioeconomic perspectives.
Conservation and sustainable use are concepts characterized by the interactions of people and biodiversity in a given ecological, social and economic system.
The wording in paragraph 1, Article 26 does not restrict impact to those effects on the physical environment only.
Generally, the critera assessing LMOs from the perspective of its contribution to sustainable development and in the long-term. Assessing the contribution and impacts of LMOs to sustainable development over the long-term perspective allows accounting the latent or indirect impacts. The approach to evaluate the environmental, social and economic sustainability of the import of a living modified organism provides a good framework for identifying elements of socio-economic considerations to specific local circumstances. |
Thank you Lucette and Angela, and also Emilio for the information on the ESEB.
However, I would really like to bring the discussion back to the two points raised in the Annotated Agenda:
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.
Are there any views on that? |
| Hello everybody
As regards this move to the section ii) Process for the development/use of a definition, I have a quick question of clarification: Why are the 2 options numbered 3 and 4? Shall we consider them as alternatives to the options 1 and 2? I would rather consider them as as ubsequent step. It puzzled me when reading the paper. Thanks in advance for the clarification! |
| I agree with Mike's earlier intervention that it will be hard to agree on a definition, given the diverging views.
That would suggest option 4 is the best approach: leaving it to the Parties that want to use SEC.
However, there could still be guidance from COPMOP to help parties in this, by suggesting which aspects could be included. So that draws on option 3, although I think a list of minimum elements would be hard to acchieve. |
| Thanks for keeping a focused discussion, Chair. However, reviewing the provisional agenda, it is not clear to me where these two options were formulated. By my reading they are not exclusive of one another. Could you clarify the origin of these options? |
| Dear Thomas!
I guess that's also a matter on how to tackle the issue: We can discuss the definition itself (Option 1+2) and the process for definition (Options 3+4) simultaneously or subsequently.
The numbering is just a suggestion and of course how to take the steps is also up for discussion. |
In order to be brief, in my opinion option 3 and option 4 do not exclude each other. Minimum elements should be identified in order to get a closed view what SEC really are. The absence of identifying minimum criteria/or elements would lead to very diverging considerations, and also outcomes. It is true that these considerations have very strong national and local circumstances, but to set out the minimum criteria in a broader way and then to use them/and to apply them in the local situations would be the appropriate way forward. Option 4 is now already can be applicable, if someone wishes. Our task is to identify a little bit more comprehensive approach, a broad conceptualization of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Minimum elements should be defined based on the already existing approaches/studies. We should set up groups of elements which can also overlap with each other. Parties may therefore make the assessment themselves taking into account the local circumstances. And of course a case-by-case approach should be used. |
| Hello everyone (sorry i pasted my previous intervention over my greetings !)
As already mentioned it seems more appropriate to reach for the definition of a common framework that could be refined at national level taking into consideration local specificities. Even if it’s true that each Parties have a different context, it doesn’t seem impossible to draw a global framework as it has been done for the RA. Against this background option 3 seems more appropriate. |
| The option 3 and 4 are clear formulated. I am of opinion to support the option 3 that porpose to develop a minimum criteria and guidelines that could be used bu countries to develop their domestic regulations and methods for SEC. The minimum criteria shoul consider the case by case approach. |
| The two options 3 and 4 were derived from the online discussions you had in March-April.
Some people were suggesting that identifying the elements of SEC should be left to nationbal authorities. |
| Thanks for that clarification. In line with my earlier intervention, I think Option 4 is likely to be the most workable (which is why I didn’t favour either option 1 or 2 during the earlier rounds). The risk of defining minimum elements (as suggested by Option 3) is that those elements are then seen as being prescriptive and exhaustive, rather than indicative, which might make it harder to secure consensual agreement to them. In line with Ruben’s idea – Option 4 coupled with some questions to Parties to help them think about what considerations are important/relevant to them might provide a workable approach. |
| Id like to support Rita Andorko’s and Martin Remondet’s intervention, that options 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive. But I would further would add that conceptualization is based not only existing approaches, but alsom may include elements from still unexplored methodologies that go beyond purely economic assessment, including those that explore uncertainties and gaps of knowledge around SECs. |
| I think our views are getting closer to each other. "Option 4 coupled with some questions to Parties" seem to be a kind of "framework for any details that may be developed at the domestic level"-says Option 3. |
| The minimum criteria and a coomon methodological approach on SEC does not mean the mandatory obligation for Parties, in my understanding. It will give opportunity to guide Parties, especial with limited experience in SEC to take SEC into account durin decision making. |
| I would support option 3, as this would assist Parties in being able to use SEC in their national assessments. I fear that Option 4 might leave those Parties who have the greatest need to perform SEC-assessments too far away from the goal. |
Hello everybody,
I think minimum elements can be general approach, and these minimum elements firstly can separate social and economical fields with separate criteria. |
| Thank you everybody for your contributions, and Andreas for chairing! I would support option 3, aiming at developing a useful overall framework for the guidance of Parties to implement SECs in their national biosafety frameworks. |
| I confess I am a little bit confused ( like other participants, I think ) by the fact that Option 1 and 2 should be mutually exclusive, as well as Option 3 and 4 ( I initally thought it was the case at a 1st reading of the document, but then understood it another way).
So, I did not repare my interventions in this "mutually exclusive" reflexion.
Having said that, I of course agree with preceding participants that these options are not mutullay exclusive; but that broadly defined commun criteria should be interprated, adapted to regional, national, local politics and contexts. |
| I think our views are close together. The trouble may lie in the use of the term 'minimum' in option 3, as this seems to imply something mandatory. And as we all know, art. 26 does not state taking SECs into account is mandatory for Parties. |
| Thank you very much.
I think there is an agreement somehow that a solution along the lines of option 3 can be workable, as long as the "minimum criteria" are not seen as exhaustive but more like a framework (or pick-list) which , needs to be adapted to the local, regional, national circumstances by the Parties.
It also seems that many of you do see options 3 and 4 mutually exclusive.
Any other views? |
| Sorry it should read NOT mutually exclusive. |
| I also tend to appreciate a middle way option 3-4 (guiding principles, but final definition/fine-tuning left to the party according to its national and local circumstances. |
| I agree with different participants that the existence of common elements of definition of SEC does not signify they are mandatory neither that they can't be completed / amended by Parties on the basis of national considerations |
| Andreas thank you very much for a good sythnesis. It is important take into account minimum criteria is not mandatory, or exhaustive. |
| The "minimum criteria" should be view as methodological isse, not regulatorial one. This might be helpful to guide the countries with the common elements wich will be consideren while assessing the local circumstances. |
| Related to this I want to ask another question:
If we agree on a genera framework, what could or should be the basis for that? Do you have any ideas of the common elements of such a framework (as Angela has just posted)? |
| I think Lucette made a good intervention earlier and pointed main elements of SEC on a sustainable perspective. |
| The framework should be a series of guiding principles and/or questions that parties work through to help them identify the criteria relevant to them and their local, regional and national priorities. It should not be a list of pre-determined criteria that they pick from as such a list would likely end up being so long as to be counter-productive. |
| Actually this question seems to be important but very broad.
As I see it, elements of a general framework could include:
1. Basic conceputal clarity
2. Minimum parameters for appraising SECs
3. Complementary parameters (beyond those 2)
4. Suggested methodologies for appraising those parameters
5. Suggested approaches for inclusion of SEC in biosafety decision making processes |
| Thank you for these ideas. Any other suggestions?
Again I will wait for another few minutes before we have a short break. |
| Sorry I am late I got mixed up with the different time scale. This is Petra from Germany I hope I still can join? |
| Of course. Happy to have you with us! |
| Greetings to all! I wanted to ask Emilio a question on the ESEB process being let by the JRC if the chair will allow me. |
| Of course Kathryn (happy that you joined us :-)). Go ahead please. |
| Can Emilio provide more information on the ESEB process being let by the JRC? What is the timeline for the work? Which EU Member States are involved? Is there a page on the JRC website where we can go for more information?
Thank you! |
| Kathryn, I appreciate your thirst for information and its certainly interesting, but maybe we could instead move forward on the conference agenda since this is not directly related to the agenda of the conference. ☺( (due to time constraints, and lack of immediate response). |
Dear Emilio!
May I ask you to provide the information at a later stage of the discussion?
Dear All!
I thank you very much for all your comments and your active participation.
I now suggest that we break for 20 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 20 minutes as we will recommence on time.
The meeting is adjourned until 14:50 GMT. |
| Thanks for the compliment, Angela.
But my preceding posting suggested principles rather than criteria as I said. They ~ correspond maybe to what David calls "basic conceptual clarity".
I think it is possible to define more precise criteria, that can be relevant all over the world even if their concrete interpretation and implementation would be different in different contexts.
I find for ex. that the listing of elements recapped from 2011 online forum that is mentioned on p. 11 of the document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/INF/1 is approaching what could be commun criteria. |
| Welcome back to our conference. I trust you are refreshed and ready to continue.
Before we move on I give the floor to Emilio. |
| Thanks Andreas. Thanks for the question Kathryn. The ESEB has developed a 3-years work programme. It will produce first a guideline document with a set of questions, each one followed by criteria (indicators), priority of each criteria for each MS, and suggested methodology and data colection needs. This is to frame the crop-specific analyses. It will then produce crop-specific documents with guidelines for conducting SEA in crops already cultivated in the EU (Bt mazie) and crops on the latest stages of the regulatory process (HT maize, HT soy, HT sugarbeet). It will focus on the ex post or ex ante impacts of cultivation (not importing) these crops in the EU. For each crop- specific guideline ESEB will try to first agree on the conclusions of already published evidence, to set clearly the "prior art" Some 17 members states have nominated representatives and participated in the kick off meeting. A web page is under construction since the green light from EU competent authorities to the ESEB work programme was given formally just last month. |
Thank you for the information Emilio!
I invite you now 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. |
Scope :
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. |
| That is the first time that I am in this Conference on socio-economic considerations. So I might not be well informed and I am not so much in the legal aspects as I am an ag economist. I am confused as I seemed to be unable to identify the SEC elements defined so far. Under normal conditions I would try to derive possible affects from principle considerartions and then would select elements and criteria to look at. To my mind SEC needs to concentrate on agents involved. |
Article 26 (1) focuses on socio economic consideration arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The question asked is to know if we should limit to such socio economic considerations. As already raised, the conservation of biological diversity can only work in the context of sustainable development. In this context, any impact on one pillar of sustainable development will affect the others. Direct impacts on the socio-economic situation can have indirect impacts on the sustainable use of biological diversity (for example the massive adoption of a GM crop because it provides income increases for farmers, might result in a huge change of farming practices and impact the environment). It thus seems that the approach shouldn’t be limited to socio economic considerations that arise from the direct impacts of LMOs in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
Furthermore, article 26 (2) stays open mentioning any socio-economic impacts of living modified organisms. That also comes in favor of a broader consideration of socio-economic consequences. Against this background Option 2 is the most relevant option. |
| Just one point complementing Emilio's post on the ESEB, which may be of interest for the secretariat and parties: the first general guideline document is planned to be adopted in the middle of 2014, so it could still be a timely contribution to the reflection in the CPB |
| Hello! I am sorry for the delay! I have been Redding previous posting while break to joint to the conference! Regards |
| I agree here with Martin Remondet and would advocate for option 2, which provides the greatest the flexibility for implementation of the core objective of the CPB on the precauationary approach.
If SEC is to be limited only to the impacts that arise from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainble use of biological diversity, then we may inadvertantly discount important SECs that may be indirect, long term, or cumulative/combinatorial.
Therefore it seems to me that this option 2 is more comprehensive without contradicting Articles 1 and 4 of the Protocol. |
| Hello Omar!
Glad that you joined us! |
| I am for Option 2 as Option 1 does not capture SECs in my understanding |
| Sorry, I am a bit late but have read carefully all participations.
One can indeed measure those socioeconomic considerations arising from a biodiversity impacts or one can broaden the scope to other socioeconomic issues unrelated to biodiversity. This is a policy choice as there is no specific technical reason to choose one or the other.
Seems to me that option 2 would go beyond the scope of what is contained in Article 26.1 as it will be likely have to be implemented in domestic measures, which opens the question of who will make the policy decision in the latter case.
As a socioeconomic impact assessment practitioner with ample experience doing this assessments, I find this process a bit cryptic. If the likelihood of defining a common set of issues and definitions that most parties will agree, how can we talk then about defining methodologies, decision making standards and other issues derived from the definition and set of issues?
Since countries are the ones that are likely to define what issues they will consider in their decision making, doesn’t it make more sense and perhaps the recommendation of this forum to be develop for the parties to develop a very general conceptual framework - even better a roadmap/guideline – that will help parties develop their own? |
| For me the wording of the Protocol is clear and the wording of the decision from COPMOP6 is clear. SEC needs to be limited only to those arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity – as summarised in Option 1. I don’t think we should depart from this. |
| One question for clarification: What considerations may be made under Option 1 that are not considered in the ERA? |
| I join those who consider the option 2. The SEC should be vew along with the general risk assessment as the two integrative parts of the decision making. The SEc can be larger done not limiting with impart to biodiversity. it maight be direct, indirect, short and long term, cumulative and accosiated etc |
| I fully agree with Martin and David and with the others. Option 2 is more relevant. SEC has several other elements which should be also taken into account, and which are not strictly connected to sustainability. Turning back to Mike's first intervention: You said Mike:“Arguably, the definition of a socio-economic consideration is that it could be any consideration that isn’t related to an environmental or safety consideration.” I am a little bit confused now. And one more thing: the text of the Protocol does not say: SEC arising "only" from etc. It says: SEC arising from etc... |
| In my opinion (and sort of responding to the question Bjarte raises), the range of SECs that arise from the impact of LMO's on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity could still be quite wide. Also, they could be both negative and positive, which is not a part of the ERA.
In any case, it is important to avoid overlap in what's done in the ERA and what's part of SECs. |
| Dear Bjarte!
I just wonder if you deal with impacts of LMO's on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the ERA in Norway?
could you please specify that a little bit?
Thank you |
| Another question:
Would anybody like to share his/her ideas on what socio economic effects can arise from the impact of LMO's on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity? i.e. how do you interpret the wording of Art 26.1? |
| From my poin of view, SEC are a wide issue, so we have to keep in mind that under Cartagena Protocol we should "limited only to those that arise from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity" so I prefer option 1, as Mike said, because in option 2 we are out of the Protocol. |
| I do not think we are supposed here to come back to a list of potentail criteria.
But to partly answer Bjarte question, I could answer for ex. that the effect of accumulation of LMOs in the environment is one of the environmental concern, not taken into account in case by case ERA, that has already been raised as a valuable SEC |
| Jose proposed to develop a guideline/roadmap on SEC that will help parties to develop their one. A such document might be non prescriptive but very helpful to provide with a common approach and minimum elements to be considered. It will help to develop or increase national capacities in SEC, assisting the decisional process. |
| I think we have a similar situation as in the online fora regarding the different interpretation of SECs and the support for Option 1 or 2.
As Lucette said in her comment: Under national legislation it is allowed to go beyond the Cartagena Protocol provisions.
To me it seems that there a number of Parties wishing to do so 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? |
| Sorry to answer a preceding remark, Andreas, and not to go on with your last question
I find the idea of a roadmap appealing. I am not sure what Jose Zepeda is meaning here by a roadmap. I am not sure it is praticable in the case of the SEC that could be concerned here, if it is supposed to be a straightfoward process, since they can be very different kinds of SEC; and hevaing different importance for different stakeholders. |
| Andreas:
Two examples for your first question We have conducted studies of the impact from the introduction of small grains in West Africa. One potential question is whether these introductions have increased/decreased agricultural biodiversity in these countries. Question could be interpreted as reducing intra versus inter specific agricultural biodiveristy. Other example are changes in agricultural intensification which may slow down the agricultural frontier growth and thus reduce pressure on protected areas.
Second question: Wouldn't the answer identify those countries that want to include socioeconomics and/or broaden the scope beyond the impact on biodiveristy and then focus capacity building/strengthening on these target countries. |
| Thank you Ruben and Lucette for your comments in response to my question - I can see the distinction a bit clearer now. |
| Dear Jose!
Just a brief remark to your answer to my second question: I guess it is too early to do so for the following reasons: This will lead to a seggregation of the Parties, and therfore exclude some which do not want to deal with SECs now, but may wish to do so at a later stage. Another point is that all Parties agreed to develop guidance on SEC when they adopted the Strategic Plan.
In order to follow a stepwise approach we might first deal with the decision of COP/MOP7 (conceptual clarity) and take up the capacity building efforts in line with this at a later stage. |
| Are there any other points of view related to the two options or to my questions?
Again I'll wait for another few minutes and then will move on on the agenda. |
| I suppose that a guidance/roadmap should be addressed to decision makers and sec evaluators of the Party and all kinds of SEC should be taken into consideration. It can reflect the diversity of questions to be considered in diferrent circumstances and have an multiapproach methodology. |
| Just a quick comment on your second question to recommend that we keep the wording of the decision from the last COPMOP in mind and restrict our activities to that. |
| I also want to ask the Non-Party participants, if they have any comments. |
| I could imagine that in the discussions on SECs, it could be acknowledged that Parties can go beyond the provisions of the Protocol when implementing it (in line with other international obligations). However, to keep the work being done under the Protocol focussed, it is probably better to stick to the wording of the Protocol. I think it will already be quite a daunting task to get conceptual clarity on what SECs arise from the impact of LMO's on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, let alone if it is taken wider than that. |
| Dear Andrea, thanks for the clarification.
To answer Lucette, a roadmap is a set of steps that can help achieve a goal and objectives for specific policies. In a sense this is more or less what the CBD Secretariat guidance documents have been doing so far, but would have more content in terms of the different policy options and resources that may be useful to help develop an SEC policy within a country.
Please tote that to allow inclusion of all countries, such a document should –in my opinion- start from asking the most basic question of why does the country want to include socioeconomic considerations in their decision making? It is prudent for the answer to include the pros and the cons of such policy decision. This introspective exercise can be quite useful even for those countries that have already taken a decision, as it helps with the communicating the credibility of the policy itself.
Then the next step would be a discussion on all the options and resources available regarding definitions, issues, scope, methods and approaches, decision making standards, quality control, etc. |
As there are are no more requests for the floor I would like to 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:
ITEM 4. OTHER MATTERS |
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. |
| The ongoing work on conceptual clarity could among other help to clarify the interlinkages that can exist between impacts on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and various SEC, and maybe show that there is no real discrepancy between both options discussed before. |
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. |
| I would ask the Secretariat to provide us with a list of references and the existing guidlense on SEC of the countries, if available |
| The work underway on stock-taking and review of information on socio-economic considerations might provide some of the answers to the question that Angela has raised. |
| One thing we should not forget is that, in this discussion under the Protocol, in contrast to the present discussion on SEC in the UE, all kinds of LMOs are supposed to be concerned (and not only SEC related to the cultivation of GM plants ). |
Participation #3
Dear Andreas, my apologies for misspelling your name, seems like I have a bit of problem with my computer doing the cut/paste.
In my opinion there would be two closely related documents. First, a roadmap that would be targeted to decision makers and regulators as indicated by Angela. And a second one more focused on the practitioners.
A set of issues that I and I believe other practitioner would think need more discussion are:
- Definition of short term versus long term
At IFPRI we conduct projections for climate change impact on agriculture and the food system to the year 2050. Would this approach be considered long-term? Issue is that longer term projections tend to be based on models where there are lot of assumptions that may be problematic especially when combining biophysical and socioeconomic models.
- Measuring long term impacts
What does this statement mean? Does it mean that one want to know what is the impact of the potential introduction of a fungal resistant banana in let’s say Uganda? Or does it mean that one needs to measure the impacts of such introduction for a long period of time?
- Would the SEC assessment need to be consistent with the environmental and food/feed risk assessment contemplated in the Cartagena Protocol? How about the N-KL L&R supplementary protocol?
I would like to thank the CBD Secretariat for the opportunity to participate in this forum. Thanks to Andreas and Worku for hosting this forum |
| Thank you for your interventions.
As we are going to close this conference soon I will leave the floor open for another 5 minutes before we move on. |
| Thank you Andreas for chairing this conference !
Could you please remind us the next planned events of this working group ? |
| Dear Martin!
The next step is already the face-to face meeting of the AHTEG, wich will take place sometime later this year or in 2014. |
| I extend my words of gratitude to the rest of the CBD Secretariat including Kathryn, Giovanni, Paola, and Stephane who have graciously facilitated this proces. |
As we have no requests for the floor I will try again to 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. |
We would like to thank all of you for taking your time and participating in this online real-time conference. We understand the inconvenience of the schedule for some of you. The Secretariat appreciates the commitment you all have demonstrated to advancing these important discussions forward and assisting the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol in their efforts to develop a conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations.
We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Andreas Heissenberger for chairing this conference, one more time, regardless of having a personal situation that demands his undivided attention.
This conference came shortly after the very successful online conference we had a couple of months ago. We hope that the current conference has built on the previous discussions, increased understanding and paved a steady and promising ground for the next phase of the process, which is a face-to-face meeting in an ad hoc technical expert group setting.
We are confident that the outcomes from today’s conference and those that are to follow in other regions will similarly set the stage for the ad hoc technical expert meeting 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 real-time conferences of the other regions according to the following schedule: Asia and the Pacific on 17 June 2013 at 3h00-7h00 GMT; 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
On behalf of the team:
Giovanni Ferraiolo – Head of the BCH
Paola Scarone – Programme Assistant
Stéphane Bilodeau – IT/Computer assistant |
| Thank you for excellent chairing work, Andreas!
and of course, many thanks also to the Secretariat for the great work in facilitating all of us. |
| Only to say thanks to the CBD Secretariat and Andreas for your efforts in a successful moderation of this conference!
Best regards to all participants from the sunny Arctic. |
Thank you, Secretariat, and especially Worku, 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 have made some progress and have reached at least on some points a common understanding.
Therefore I believe that 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 Western Europe and Others and Central and Eastern Europe Real-time Online Conference on Socio-Economic Considerations, closed.
Thank you! |
| Many thanks also to Andreas for this never easy chairing on this complex issue.
And thanks to the Secretariat also for the good summary on this long online discussion |
List of Participants
| Chair Person |
# |
|
Andreas Heissenberger
Umweltbundesamt - Federal Environment Agency, Austria
|
41 |
| Party |
# |
|
Lucette Flandroy
Belgium
|
12 |
|
Emilio Rodriguez Cerezo
European Union
|
2 |
|
Koen Dillen
European Union
|
- |
|
Thomas Brégeon
European Union
|
3 |
|
Martin Rémondet
France
|
5 |
|
Sophio Devdariani
Georgia
|
- |
|
Petra Salamon
Germany
|
3 |
|
Rita Andorkó
Hungary
|
4 |
|
Daiva Skuciene
Lithuania
|
1 |
|
Ruben Dekker
Netherlands
|
7 |
|
Audrun Utskarpen
Norway
|
- |
|
Bjarte Heide
Norway
|
4 |
|
Rosa Binimelis
Norway
|
1 |
|
Angela Lozan
Republic of Moldova
|
11 |
|
Omar del Río Fernández
Spain
|
2 |
|
Mike Rowe
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
|
6 |
| Non-Party |
# |
|
Luis Barnola
Canada
|
- |
|
Marcella Szymanski
United States of America
|
- |
| Observers |
# |
|
David Quist
GenØk - Centre for Biosafety
|
8 |
|
Jose Falck-Zepeda
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
|
5 |
| Guests |
# |
|
Bjarte Rambjør Heide
Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management
|
- |
|
Esther Esteban Rodrigo
Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente
|
- |
|
Gintaras Jodinskas
Ministry of Environment, Lithuania
|
- |
|
Ileana Catalina Lopez
United Nations Environment Programme
|
- |
|
Odeta Pivorienė
Ministry of Environment
|
- |
|
Regimantas Kicas
The Ministry of Environment
|
- |
| Secretariat |
# |
|
Giovanni Ferraiolo
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Kathryn Garforth
UNEP/SCBD/ABS
|
2 |
|
Paola Scarone
SCBD Biosafety
|
- |
|
Stéphane Bilodeau
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Ulrika Nilsson
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Worku Yifru
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
5 |
|
