Online discussion 2015 - Discussion Groups

Dear All

Thanks, Paola! As the invited moderator for the third theme of the online discussion, I’d like to welcome you all, and encourage you to provide your perspective.  As indicated, the 3rd theme is:

“What are possible environment-related aspects of socio economic considerations that could arise from the use of LMOs, and which would be relevant in the context Article 26 of the Protocol? How can they be distinguished from those covered in other processes under the Protocol, e.g. risk assessment and risk management??
Note:
The use of LMOs may have environment-related aspects with a direct link to social or economic issues. The aim of this session is to identify such aspects and to discuss the possibility to include them in an assessment framework under Art 26 of the Protocol"


We need varying perspectives in order – ultimately - to develop further conceptual clarity (as requested in BS-VII/13 by MOP7), so please do contribute!  (I would like to contribute to this discussion too, but will clearly mark my interventions as either SA representative or as necessary, Moderator.)

Fruitful discussions!

Ben Durham

Greetings to all and thanks for the interesting discussion and view points.
I am sorry my response to question 2  went to BCH inbox, instead of the discussion group.
I would like to emphasize on the following regarding question 3.
1. SE considerations are vital to understand the impact on the direct users of the technology and  on the wider society  that also tends to get impacted due to LMO release.  It should be remembered that scientifically proved risk assessments are carried out when the required protocols are strictly adhered to. But large scale release of LMOs particularly when diffused among the small holdings, there could be practical challenges in sticking to the environment safety protocols. This however does not mean that the technology should be discarded because there is a concern for environmental safety.   Here where, systematic ex ante studies would be useful to assess the needs of the technology adopters  and  providing the same at appropriate time ( diffusion of information, training, frequent monitoring, collecting information systematically from the adopters and get it assessed by the  technology regulators  and return to the adopters with solutions).
2. In my view, in the context of the Bt cotton in India where LMOs were not treated differently by the adopters   much more could have been achieved in terms of reduction in agri toxins, had the technology been diffused with the IPM inputs as well.

With regards
lalitha

Dear Prof Narayanan
If I understand you correctly, the direct SE impacts you are suggesting do not fall under Article 26 ("SEC arising from the impact of LMO's [...] on biological diversity...). 

Countries can of course choose to consider direct SE impacts - and South Africa, for example, does exactly this - but the focus of the discussion here (and under Article 26) is the environmental/biodiversity impacts of LMO's, the connection/link to SE impacts, and how they can be considered within the regulatory process.

Hope this is clear/

Ben

Dear Participants,

Excellent examples provided by Dr. Gutenberg Souza and Dr. Luciana Ambrozevicius, both from Brazil, in response to Question 2, demonstrate the perfect coexistence between GM and conventional crops, which leads us to consider the case, in essence, a matter of CHOICE.
This is because, as only declared LMO SCIENTIFICALLY INSURANCE by developers countries are available for export, the decision of certain indigenous or local community by introducing this variety in its production system will therefore depend only of any interest in the benefits that may accrue from CHOICE, as pointed out by Dr. Gutenberg.
Whilst in Brazil is legally prohibited the planting of LMOs on indigenous lands, certain local Brazilian communities, for their part, as was the case of the small town of Catuti, Minas Gerais (which adopted the BT cotton), already GM crops have experienced, before SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS that have obtained this CHOICE, namely, LOW COST AND INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY, Hot aspects precisely by the developers of this technology scientists, after prove, scientifically, the absence of any adverse health effects animal and human, but also and mainly the environment.
The lack of a single concrete example of damage to the introduction of LMOs in the production chain of producer countries and the consumer market of the importing countries, irrespective of the community who make use of it, is the cause of the difficulties experienced for years by participants in these forums online on SEC, to reach a common denominator, on the absence of any causal link between DAMAGE and LMOs.
WISE were therefore the negotiators of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety when, aware of the differences between the two scenarios (scientific x socioeconomic), housed in its Article 26 OPTIONAL a clause concerning this theme, to stipulate that "the Parties MAY lead ... account socio-economic considerations resulting from the effects of LMOs for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, "contrary to what is usually boast.
And just because it is not a SCIENTIFIC issue was that, likewise, in perfect harmony with the PCB, the text of the definition of Brazil's Biosafety Law, national legislators stood under a Council of Ministers, and not in CTNBio, also in character OPTIONAL, the task of examining requests release for commercial use of LMOs "in the matters of convenience, socioeconomic opportunity" (art. 8, § 1, II), when, in this sense, will CTNBio understand relevant request such manifestation.
Thus responding promptly, Question 3, only one answer is possible to propose: the possible SEC issues related to the environment that may arise from the use of LMOs and that would be relevant in the context of Article 26 of the Protocol are related exclusively to the interests of certain indigenous or local community (where legally allowable) permits, through the adoption of appropriate agronomic management, the coexistence of their traditional crops with certain GM variety, having in view the preference "traditional" audience of its products, is the community itself or another consumer.