Forum discussions

Dear colleagues,

Till this moment, I have been following a very interesting and proactive exchange of ideas related to socioeconomic issues involved with transgenic crops releasing and biotech industry and future interactions.

I think that for capacity building discussion, we need, a more important umbrella that put the focus in a more expand context.

This very interesting process have, in my view, put the focus on the direct effects of biotech sector, while in my considerations I will be more in the discussion side of the importance of an holistic point of view and diferent effects that have to be analized under a more integrated umbrella for a better understanding of the “side” effects.

These effects, must be analize with no only the “crematistic”, economic side possition instead social and other economic considerations have to analyzed in particular the trade-off that we are facing in developing countries.

Taking these considerations we can not miss the situations and studies that involved a very extensive expansion of biotech process and its effects in the social, ecological and cultural structure in developing countries.

We can not only consider here the issue of productivity or increasing in some way the production of a cash crop, because we need to face other important, relevant issues, that in this context are very important.

For this type of production, there are two main resources that are putting a very important limitation to the whole process:  LAND and WATER.

In both cases, more than the including the direct effects on biodiversity, the utilization of millions of hectares for cash crops production in the world, affecting food security, are a relevant issue that developing countries need to consider in a whole context.

Many negative externalities (also called "external costs" or "external diseconomies") are related to the environmental consequences of production and use of natural resources, overexploitation, destruction of habitats or accumulation of contaminants that affect the environment and society.

These are direct cost that are not recognised by the private sector, but that affect de whole society. Externalities must be incorporated to the private cost of the companies , but if it is, the cost of production could be against the incomes of these companies. The results, externalities are not being implemented in the current model of agriculture and the results of it is wellknown: the overexploitation of pristine nature, contamination and degradation of the agroecosystems of the world.

Social Cost = Private Cost + Externality


Environmental Economics has studied the way to try the incorporated the externalities in the balance of the companies as David Pearce and others economists has been promoting during decades. But all of this, has been done under the umbrella of a monocriterial way of analysis. A crematistic analysis. Ecological Economics  take into account this condition but expand the focus of the different ways of valuation that include the economic considerations but take into account another issues such as social metabolism and so, the situation of biophysical indicators (nutrients, virtual water, HANPP), trends in energy consume, natural degradation and contamination.

Under a common situation the producer creating the externality does not take the effects of externalities into their own calculations. The producer is interesting in the maximization of their own benefits. Then, they will only take into account their own private cost and their own private benefits, no taking into account the social costs.

But from the point of view of ecological economics externalities are not only considered in terms of money or costs. To understand the environmental depletion is more useful to study the situation of biophysical indicators, the natural and rural metabolism and its trends.


Food Security and Impacts in the Food Change – Dominance Effects
Energy Balance Alterations
Material Flow and Cycles Alterations (E.g. N Cascade)
Increasing of deforestation
Landscape loss
Biodiversity loss
Nutrients depletion
Increasing of environmental risks of contamination
Virtual water loss

Today, the discussion on the loss of food sovereignty and security and on the access to a balanced and sufficient diet, with a varied market basket is jeopardizing the rural economies of countries such as several countries in the word. 

Another issue relates to the price of food. If commodity prices keep rising (corn, soy and many others), industries will compete to produce them (as is already the case, namely between the food and energy agro-industries) ultimately leading to a lack of access to food for a large part of the population.

This is a relevant socioeconomic aspects that need to be consider as a whole. Cash crops for energy or feeding animals, are not the same that those crops that sustain food security in a global context, and demand for “this land” is a very important issue now and in the future.

In addition, intensive agricultural production models have crushed family farming models, which were the ones that yielded a higher variety of products aimed at rapid consumption by the local population. We must remember that over 50 % of food is produced in the latter way in Latin America.

In Latin America, two thirds of the population, that is, approximately 400 million human beings do not have regular access to food.

Of the twelve so-called 'mega-diversity' countries, five are in Central and South America: Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Brazil. Nevertheless, that wealth has not created the quality of life or environment for Latin America's peoples that it should. This is because governments have focused on a defective development model that has excluded the majority of people, especially over the last thirty years.
Argentina is a meso diversity countries with important endemics species such as very trees (Astronium balansae, Schinopsis balansae, Prosopis kuntzei, Tabebuia avellanedae, Caesalpinia paraguariensis, Patagonula americana), that are being in danger in the north east and west of the country.

Another consequence of industrial agriculture expansion has relation with the increasing costs of herbicides, which effects produces that little and mid farmers can not get a chemical control (herbicides) of the weed.

In some cases, the situation put so presure on theses peasants that they leave theirs lands with no control (becauses they have not the money to apply herbicides or use machinery for mechanical control).
Sorghum halepense is a conspicuous weed that invade rapidly the land with an economic and social consequence for little farmer: migration or displacement to other land.
Stimations of weed scientists in Argentina  show that if 25 % of rural surface where invaded by SARG (Sorghum halepense resistant to gliphosate) the cost to control only this new weed will increase in u$s 50,27 millons and if the complete surface were involved the cost will rise u$s 201 millons.
In conclusion, only one weed will collaborate with the duplication in the herbicide cost in soybean.

In terms of ecological economics point of view, those costs that are not included in the balance of the companies are called “externalities”. In the case of the implementation of an intensive transgenic and energetic model the externalities are being discussed putting the focus in the necessity of a recognition on the ecological depletion of the environment in the agroecosystems and ecoregions involved.

These are socioeconomic interactions, among others, that we need to tackle and generate solutions, before only the promotion of a discussion of benefits taking only in consideration the incomes of some farmers, and no the whole.



Dr. Walter A. Pengue
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
Argentina

Dear participants,

Here, a reaction to Professor Walter Pengue' s message, whereas I do not
know to which session of the discussions it is supposed to pertain.

- All externalities are indeed absolutely important to take into
account, which has been poorly the case till now in most concerned
socio-economic studies ; but I think this was already mentionned earlier
in the discussions.

- It seems to me that a big part of the comments of Prof. Walter Pengue
are linked to what was summarized in the earlier survey of the
Secretariat ( in 2009 ) under the title " Macroeconomic impacts, e.g. on
sustainable development" .
It is true that there should be room to precise and discuss in more
details on the list of concerns linked to socio-economic considerations
on LMOs that was presented in the survey of the Secretariat.

I foresee that critics could come on this message of Prof. Walter
Pengue, saying that he is commenting on impacts of industrial
agriculture and on world trade in general and not on impacts of LMOs per
se, which is true.
But one could counterargue to such remarks that new proposed developing
agricultural technologies would have to be more sustainable rather than
less or just as poorly sustainable as preceding/other models of
agriculture, at the local level, and should rather offer solutions to
escape from the non-sustainable aspects of the preceding model.
Also, one cannot ask to GM technology to solve all environmental and
social negative impacts resulting from the present macro-economic model
at the planet level, but one is allowed to ask that GM products and
technology adoption does not enroll in and reinforce such negative
impacts of that model, and rather engage in ways of sustainable
development at the planet scale.
Taking this into account, it is indeed not unjustified to consider not
only the various micro- but also macro- socio-economic and environmental
impacts ( including externalities, and indeed the question of water and
energy consumption is extremely important ) of GM products and
technology adoption, in various contexts.

With best regards.


Lucette Flandroy



Disclaimer : http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/disclaimer/index.htm

Dear Dr. Lucette Flandroy

Thank you very much for yours very interesting comments and taking 
time for this provocative response.

Of course, we could see previously that some colleagues have been 
taking an aproach to this issue of trying to take in consideration and 
involve issues related with "externalities".

In some way, externalities means issues that involve economic costs 
but in particular aspects, help us to identificate in particular those 
issues that are being consider in the agricultural system.

In the particular case of transgenic crops and putting a real focus on 
environmental and socioeconomic issues, such externalities have not 
been taking in a previous process of considering the aspects that 
involve an extensive release to the environment of a new transgenic 
crop. And this was the case of industrial agriculture that in several 
parts is expanding on the world with no a complete consideration of 
this issues.
(I suggest people to access to the documentation that in the context 
of transgenic soybean release in Argentina, have been consider. Under 
this documents, produced in the ninities, the argument related with 
resistance crops, tolerance, deforestation, social impacts, economic 
impacts in rural people and others, have had very weak arguments, and 
very less documentation, instead, some researchers have tryied that 
this ones, must to be tackle too. We need to avoid, now, that we have 
the opportunity to study with complete socioeconomic effects these 
issues and no replicate the same mistakes...)

Just only an example: The first steps of releasing transgenic soybean 
in South America.

The increasing of concentration in the process of only one crop, 
transgenic soybean, engaged directly with a conspicous utlization of 
only one herbiced, glyphosate, help the environment system for the 
appearance of tolerance weeds (farmers need more money and technology 
from other sides, to control it), or resistance in very complicate 
weeds such as Sorghum halepense.

Other relevant aspect that has relation with capacity building with 
the people involved with control weeds: Several scientists that in the 
"new transgenic model" have no find a new relevance to study (at first 
glyphosate means a miracle) have abandoned theirs researchs affecting 
years of relevant research to understand so complex issues.

Deforestation: The argument as we know is that this have no relation 
with GMOs. The real situation is that with the improvement of this new 
technologies you can "open" new spaces that were not allowed to the 
previous one. The result: with transgenic soybean, No tillage system 
and glyphosate, milliones of hectares can be open to a new process of 
transformations of land. The process of land use, new technologies in 
agriculture, global demand are direct socioeconomic effects that have 
to be accounted under this holistic umbrella of studies that I suggest 
that we, as scientists, need to know and produce so questions and 
answers in the process.

Biodiversity: Of course related with the previous process I have commented.

Indigenous people: A real and relevant socioeconomic issue related 
directly with this new demand of land for production under the new 
model.

Of course is relevant the promotion of local agriculture in particular 
under the new circunstances that the world is facing related with 
rising food prices and dependance of the global market. As FAO and 
others Institutions have been commenting, local agriculture production 
of food for local consume, are a very important alternative for people 
in danger.

Modern and traditional technologies could play a relevant role in this 
process and we need to produce new knowledge to help inmediatly in 
this way.

My best regards,

Walter Pengue
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
Argentina



Quoting "bch@cbd.int" <bch@cbd.int>:



Dear Prof Walter Pengue,

The following message has been posted by MS. LUCETTE FLANDROY,
GENERAL DIRECTORATE (DG5)  ENVIRONMENT on 2011-04-21 16:05.

DISCUSSION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS[1]/ [#2331]/

Dear participants,

Here, a reaction to Professor Walter Pengue' s message, whereas I do
not
know to which session of the discussions it is supposed to pertain.

- All externalities are indeed absolutely important to take into
account, which has been poorly the case till now in most concerned
socio-economic studies ; but I think this was already mentionned
earlier
in the discussions.

- It seems to me that a big part of the comments of Prof. Walter
Pengue
are linked to what was summarized in the earlier survey of the
Secretariat ( in 2009 ) under the title " Macroeconomic impacts, e.g.
on
sustainable development" .
It is true that there should be room to precise and discuss in more
details on the list of concerns linked to socio-economic
considerations
on LMOs that was presented in the survey of the Secretariat.

I foresee that critics could come on this message of Prof. Walter
Pengue, saying that he is commenting on impacts of industrial
agriculture and on world trade in general and not on impacts of LMOs
per
se, which is true.
But one could counterargue to such remarks that new proposed
developing
agricultural technologies would have to be more sustainable rather
than
less or just as poorly sustainable as preceding/other models of
agriculture, at the local level, and should rather offer solutions to
escape from the non-sustainable aspects of the preceding model.
Also, one cannot ask to GM technology to solve all environmental and
social negative impacts resulting from the present macro-economic
model
at the planet level, but one is allowed to ask that GM products and
technology adoption does not enroll in and reinforce such negative
impacts of that model, and rather engage in ways of sustainable
development at the planet scale.
Taking this into account, it is indeed not unjustified to consider
not
only the various micro- but also macro- socio-economic and
environmental
impacts ( including externalities, and indeed the question of water
and
energy consumption is extremely important ) of GM products and
technology adoption, in various contexts.

With best regards.

Lucette Flandroy

Disclaimer :
http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/disclaimer/index.htm

See this post in the online forum [2] |  Reply [3] |  Unsubscribe [4]

To reply to this post by email, please send your message to
P2331KBDF11626@ocs.cbd.int[5].

FURTHER ASSISTANCE
If you have any questions, suggestions or problems with the use of
this service, please contact the Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity at: bch@cbd.int

       ­­

Links:
------
[1] 
http://bch.cbd.int:80/protocol/cpb_art26/discussiongroups_se.shtml?forumid=17134&amp;threadid=2330#2331
[2] 
http://bch.cbd.int:80/protocol/cpb_art26/discussiongroups_se.shtml?forumid=17134&amp;threadid=2330#2331
[3] 
http://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/post.aspx?parentid=2331&amp;returnurl=%2fprotocol%2fcpb_art26%2fdiscussiongroups_se.shtml%3fforumid%3d17134%26threadid%3d2330
[4] 
http://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/unsubscribe.aspx?forumid=17134&amp;threadid=&amp;email=wapengue%40ungs.edu.ar&amp;validation=a466fe219937057263d0401fd585bc51&amp;returnurl=%2fprotocol%2fcpb_art26%2fdiscussiongroups_se.shtml%3fforumid%3d17134%26threadid%3d2330
[5] &#xD;&#xA;                        mailto:P2331KBDF11626@ocs.cbd.int



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Dear Dr. Lucette Flandroy

Thank you very much for yours very interesting comments and taking 
time for this provocative response.

Of course, we could see previously that some colleagues have been 
taking an aproach to this issue of trying to take in consideration and 
involve issues related with "externalities".

In some way, externalities means issues that involve economic costs 
but in particular aspects, help us to identificate in particular those 
issues that are being consider in the agricultural system.

In the particular case of transgenic crops and putting a real focus on 
environmental and socioeconomic issues, such externalities have not 
been taking in a previous process of considering the aspects that 
involve an extensive release to the environment of a new transgenic 
crop. And this was the case of industrial agriculture that in several 
parts is expanding on the world with no a complete consideration of 
this issues.
(I suggest people to access to the documentation that in the context 
of transgenic soybean release in Argentina, have been consider. Under 
this documents, produced in the ninities, the argument related with 
resistance crops, tolerance, deforestation, social impacts, economic 
impacts in rural people and others, have had very weak arguments, and 
very less documentation, instead, some researchers have tryied that 
this ones, must to be tackle too. We need to avoid, now, that we have 
the opportunity to study with complete socioeconomic effects these 
issues and no replicate the same mistakes...)

Just only an example: The first steps of releasing transgenic soybean 
in South America.

The increasing of concentration in the process of only one crop, 
transgenic soybean, engaged directly with a conspicous utlization of 
only one herbiced, glyphosate, help the environment system for the 
appearance of tolerance weeds (farmers need more money and technology 
from other sides, to control it), or resistance in very complicate 
weeds such as Sorghum halepense.

Other relevant aspect that has relation with capacity building with 
the people involved with control weeds: Several scientists that in the 
"new transgenic model" have no find a new relevance to study (at first 
glyphosate means a miracle) have abandoned theirs researchs affecting 
years of relevant research to understand so complex issues.

Deforestation: The argument as we know is that this have no relation 
with GMOs. The real situation is that with the improvement of this new 
technologies you can "open" new spaces that were not allowed to the 
previous one. The result: with transgenic soybean, No tillage system 
and glyphosate, milliones of hectares can be open to a new process of 
transformations of land. The process of land use, new technologies in 
agriculture, global demand are direct socioeconomic effects that have 
to be accounted under this holistic umbrella of studies that I suggest 
that we, as scientists, need to know and produce so questions and 
answers in the process.

Biodiversity: Of course related with the previous process I have commented.

Indigenous people: A real and relevant socioeconomic issue related 
directly with this new demand of land for production under the new 
model.

Of course is relevant the promotion of local agriculture in particular 
under the new circunstances that the world is facing related with 
rising food prices and dependance of the global market. As FAO and 
others Institutions have been commenting, local agriculture production 
of food for local consume, are a very important alternative for people 
in danger.

Modern and traditional technologies could play a relevant role in this 
process and we need to produce new knowledge to help inmediatly in 
this way.

My best regards,

Walter Pengue
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
Argentina





Quoting "bch@cbd.int" <bch@cbd.int>:



Dear Prof Walter Pengue,

The following message has been posted by MS. LUCETTE FLANDROY,
GENERAL DIRECTORATE (DG5)  ENVIRONMENT on 2011-04-21 16:05.

DISCUSSION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS[1]/ [#2331]/

Dear participants,

Here, a reaction to Professor Walter Pengue' s message, whereas I do
not
know to which session of the discussions it is supposed to pertain.

- All externalities are indeed absolutely important to take into
account, which has been poorly the case till now in most concerned
socio-economic studies ; but I think this was already mentionned
earlier
in the discussions.

- It seems to me that a big part of the comments of Prof. Walter
Pengue
are linked to what was summarized in the earlier survey of the
Secretariat ( in 2009 ) under the title " Macroeconomic impacts, e.g.
on
sustainable development" .
It is true that there should be room to precise and discuss in more
details on the list of concerns linked to socio-economic
considerations
on LMOs that was presented in the survey of the Secretariat.

I foresee that critics could come on this message of Prof. Walter
Pengue, saying that he is commenting on impacts of industrial
agriculture and on world trade in general and not on impacts of LMOs
per
se, which is true.
But one could counterargue to such remarks that new proposed
developing
agricultural technologies would have to be more sustainable rather
than
less or just as poorly sustainable as preceding/other models of
agriculture, at the local level, and should rather offer solutions to
escape from the non-sustainable aspects of the preceding model.
Also, one cannot ask to GM technology to solve all environmental and
social negative impacts resulting from the present macro-economic
model
at the planet level, but one is allowed to ask that GM products and
technology adoption does not enroll in and reinforce such negative
impacts of that model, and rather engage in ways of sustainable
development at the planet scale.
Taking this into account, it is indeed not unjustified to consider
not
only the various micro- but also macro- socio-economic and
environmental
impacts ( including externalities, and indeed the question of water
and
energy consumption is extremely important ) of GM products and
technology adoption, in various contexts.

With best regards.

Lucette Flandroy

Disclaimer :
http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/disclaimer/index.htm

See this post in the online forum [2] |  Reply [3] |  Unsubscribe [4]

To reply to this post by email, please send your message to
P2331KBDF11626@ocs.cbd.int[5].

FURTHER ASSISTANCE
If you have any questions, suggestions or problems with the use of
this service, please contact the Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity at: bch@cbd.int

       ­­

Links:
------
[1] 
http://bch.cbd.int:80/protocol/cpb_art26/discussiongroups_se.shtml?forumid=17134&amp;threadid=2330#2331
[2] 
http://bch.cbd.int:80/protocol/cpb_art26/discussiongroups_se.shtml?forumid=17134&amp;threadid=2330#2331
[3] 
http://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/post.aspx?parentid=2331&amp;returnurl=%2fprotocol%2fcpb_art26%2fdiscussiongroups_se.shtml%3fforumid%3d17134%26threadid%3d2330
[4] 
http://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/unsubscribe.aspx?forumid=17134&amp;threadid=&amp;email=wapengue%40ungs.edu.ar&amp;validation=a466fe219937057263d0401fd585bc51&amp;returnurl=%2fprotocol%2fcpb_art26%2fdiscussiongroups_se.shtml%3fforumid%3d17134%26threadid%3d2330
[5] &#xD;&#xA;                        mailto:P2331KBDF11626@ocs.cbd.int



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

I have a set of simple questions.

Are we discussing here a socio-economic assessment supporting a biosafety/risk assessment process that will lead to the approval of a regulated technology (LMOs) or are we talking about doing an exhaustive evaluation of the consequences of technology adoption, diffusion and use?

I cannot emphasize enough that requesting broad and most of times exhaustive assessments will likely imply a regulatory lag in terms of a decision. This lag or delay will depend upon the level of complexity demanded for the analysis. If an assessment is delayed, are regulators, decision makers and other stakeholders conscious of all the trade-offs involved in terms of additional costs, opportunities lost, better information and knowledge?

What is necessary and/or sufficient knowledge to make a biosafety regulatory decision with regard to technology approvals? How much assessment effort is enough to make a decisions?

In other words, are we going to require broad and exhaustive assessments leading to the approval of a technology? Why require this type of assessments for approval whereas we do not require socio-economic assessment for almost other technologies such as hybrids, marker assisted plant breeding, mutagenesis or others?

Who is better prepared for making a decision on technology, is it farmers, consumers, regulators, assessors or all of the above?

Dear Dr. Lucette Flandroy

Thank you very much for yours very interesting comments and taking 
time for a proactive response.

Of course, we could see previously that some colleagues have been 
taking an aproach to this issue of trying to take in consideration and 
involve issues related with "externalities".

In some way, externalities means issues that involve economic costs 
but in particular aspects, help us to identificate in particular those 
issues that are being consider in the agricultural system.

In the particular case of transgenic crops and putting a real focus on 
environmental and socioeconomic issues, such externalities have not 
been taking in a previous process of considering the aspects that 
involve an extensive release to the environment of a new transgenic 
crop. And this was the case of industrial agriculture that in several 
parts is expanding on the world with no a complete consideration of 
this issues.
(I suggest people to access to the documentation that in the context 
of transgenic soybean release in Argentina, have been consider. Under 
this documents, produced in the ninities, the argument related with 
resistance crops, tolerance, deforestation, social impacts, economic 
impacts in rural people and others, have had very weak arguments, and 
very less documentation, instead, some researchers have tryied that 
this ones, must to be tackle too. We need to avoid, now, that we have 
the opportunity to study with complete socioeconomic effects these 
issues and no replicate the same mistakes...)

Just only an example: The first steps of releasing transgenic soybean 
in South America.

The increasing of concentration in the process of only one crop, 
transgenic soybean, engaged directly with a conspicous utlization of 
only one herbiced, glyphosate, help the environment system for the 
appearance of tolerance weeds (farmers need more money and technology 
from other sides, to control it), or resistance in very complicate 
weeds such as Sorghum halepense.

Other relevant aspect that has relation with capacity building with 
the people involved with control weeds: Several scientists that in the 
"new transgenic model" have no find a new relevance to study (at first 
glyphosate means a miracle) have abandoned theirs researchs affecting 
years of relevant research to understand so complex issues.

Deforestation: The argument as we know is that this have no relation 
with GMOs. The real situation is that with the improvement of this new 
technologies you can "open" new spaces that were not allowed to the 
previous one. The result: with transgenic soybean, No tillage system 
and glyphosate, milliones of hectares can be open to a new process of 
transformations of land. The process of land use, new technologies in 
agriculture, global demand are direct socioeconomic effects that have 
to be accounted under this holistic umbrella of studies that I suggest 
that we, as scientists, need to know and produce so questions and 
answers in the process.

Biodiversity: Of course related with the previous process I have commented.

Indigenous people: A real and relevant socioeconomic issue related 
directly with this new demand of land for production under the new 
model.

Of course is relevant the promotion of local agriculture in particular 
under the new circunstances that the world is facing related with 
rising food prices and dependance of the global market. As FAO and 
others Institutions have been commenting, local agriculture production 
of food for local consume, are a very important alternative for people 
in danger.

Modern and traditional technologies could play a relevant role in this 
process and we need to produce new knowledge to help inmediatly in 
this way.

My best regards,

Walter Pengue
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
Argentina

Dear Colleagues,

Yes, an integrated and holistic approach is important but what is most
urgently needed is a participatory approach that involves local
communities and their traditional knowledge, taking into account their
traditional cultures, livelihoods and life styles rather than the
thrust towards modern technologies.

In India, I know that indigenous and low-technology is used for
improving agricultural economy such as the Birsa Vikas Dhan 111 (PY
84) rice developed by backcrossing and augmented with marker-assisted
selection (or MAS) to selection for multiple traits for improved root
growth and better yields under drought conditions (see
http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2010/scientists_opine_on_genetic_mo.html).

An integrated participatory approach that actively involves local
communities can help transdisciplinary information exchanges for
addressing our public health challenges of today and tomorrow. This is
the most important "new" transdisciplinary knowledge that we urgently
need to properly address the environmental problems created by LMOs,
also taking into account the risks created to human health.

For this reason, we need "new" methods to properly systematize and
incorporate local and traditional knowledge into research approaches.
This is why local communities and their traditional knowledge and
action involvement are important so that such participatory research
can act as an early warning system and trigger change in biosafety
(and biodiversity) policies and practices at all levels. And we need
new partnerships, also among local communities and indigenous peoples.

Here in Afghanistan and much of the Himalayan and Asia communities, I
know that subsistence farming and animal husbandry are predominant and
pastoral lifestyle is most common among our tribal communities.

This is one expansion plan of our organization: beyond the basic
services which we already provide, we would like to provide legal and
social services to local farming communities of our country and
develop partnerships, as appropriate,  with governments and
organizations to help us raise public awareness and initiate public
participation about international laws and national obligations as
well as opportunities.

We would also like to help our government become a Party to Cartagena
Protocol and ITPGRFA (of FAO).

Best Regards,
Khalid Khan Hassan
(khalid.has10@gmail.com)
Agronomist
(Programme Manager, ALSSO)