Online Forum March-April 2013

Dear colleagues and distinguished participants,

The discussions in the context of the four sets of guiding questions (SEC 1 – SEC 4) are now closed with the last message # 4880.

We would like to thank all of you for giving your valuable time to this conference sharing your views, information and experiences.

In our humble opinion, the conference has been very interesting and successful. The views and all the materials you shared with the conference have been greatly informative and of value to facilitate understanding on the subject. We will, in due course, attempt to provide a summary as an input for subsequent discussions.

Meanwhile you are invited to share, in the next two days, your views on issues which you  think might need to be further addressed in the subsequent discussions: (i) real-time on line conferences (June-July 2013) and, (ii) ad hoc technical expert group meeting (October-November 2013), so that the desired outcome i.e. conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations, could be attained.

Thanks and best wishes

Worku Damena Yifru
Programme Officer, Biosafety Policy and Legal Affairs
Secretariat, Convention on Biological Diversity

Dear All

I share the secretariat's view of the success of the online forum. 

Based on the discussion we have had, I would like to suggest that future discussion try to separate contributions at least into two categories of inputs related to SEC considerations:

1) Those which regulators will use (where there countries so require) to inform a decision on import.  These could include recommendations as to the questions to be posed before approval, and those post-hoc queries related to monitoring, and possible methodologies for each.

2) Those that should be considered by countries (where so required) as national policy inputs that would assist in guiding regulators seeking to incorporate SEC's.  These could include how SEC's can best be incorporated into GMO regulatory processes (eg. whether ante and/or post hoc); considerations on international agreements; definitions / explanations of socio-economic harm & benefit, particularly related to indigenous and local communities (etc).

Countries will then have the option, if they so choose, not only to incorporate SECs into their regulatory processes, but will also receive recommendations as to what should be considered in the policy arena if they are to incorporate SECs.

Regards,

Ben Durham

Some in-depth case studies of the application of regulations ans SEC could be very helpful too. They could be discussed during the on-line sessions you are planning to make.

I would like to thank the Secretariat for this discussions forum and  i join Jose Falck Zepeda to support Durham process suggestions for further discussions . I want to suggest the following issue, capacities building to carry out risk assessment of SEC and public participation , SEC in education and research activities .
Best regards
Gado

Let first thank the Secretariat and those countries supporting this online forum. This has been a quite illuminating exercise, which frankly reveals –in my case at least- that we have much work to do as capacity building/strengthening service providers. I would like to support Ben Durham post (#4888) as it starts drafting the process by which future discussions can serve better different stakeholders. 

I would suggest a step-up approach where one can discuss issues starting from concepts and definitions, up to practical implementation issues such as deciding SEC methods and consistency with risk assessment approaches (Articles 15 and 16, Annex III), quality and decision making standards, quality control mechanisms, regulatory triggers, timelines, implementing actor, standard of proof, lines of causality, public participation, innovative alternatives to meet regulatory requirements, and subsequent monitoring/evaluation/impact assessment of regulatory efforts themselves to ensure that the regulatory process is time and cost efficient. Obviously, these concepts would apply to the overall biosafety regulatory process.

I would also suggest further discussions on the specific issue of compliance and relationship to other international treaties such as the WTO. In spite, of some comments in the forum, I believe that much more discussion will be needed to showcase all the issues and approaches related especially related to trade, use of plant genetic resources for agriculture, amongst others. I don't believe the issue of the relationship between Article 26 and the Cartagena Protocol on Bioafety with other international treaties -especially with WTO- is settled 

I believe the need exists to bring in to this discussion more experts with recognized expertise and with long established publication records on these matters, which have not necessarily been represented here. Persons like William Kerr, Kym Anderson, Derek Byerlee, Paul Heisey, Melinda Smale, Mauricio Bellon, Salvatore Di Falco and many others; would be needed to provide their experience and research with these issues.

I would also propose tapping on to the set of experts agglutinated in the International Consortium of Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR) -to which I am a member - including Carl Pray, Peter W. Phillips, David Castle, David Zilberman, Nicholas Kalatzaidonakes, Stuart Smyth, Justus Wesseler, Sara Scatasta, Hans Binswanger, Pascuale Scandizzo, Robert Paarlberg, and many others who would be examining the issue of not only biosafety, biotechnology, bioinnovation, biodiversity with a quite pragmatical lens to support moving forwards in developed and developing countries.  

I would also like to take the opportunity to present some general observations about this process:

General observations on Article 26
- Article is of voluntary application and is a reaffirmation of national sovereignty.
- Countries can decide to include socioeconomic considerations in their decision making. Equally valid options are not to include socioeconomic considerations or anything in between.
- If countries decide to include socioeconomics in their decision making there are some issues to define:

o Focus is on socioeconomic impacts derived from impacts on the value of biodiversity to local and indigenous communities – implies a line of causality starting from adoption of an LMO causing an impact on biodiversity which in turn causes an impact on the value of such biodiversity to local and indigenous communities, but is not limited to those communities and value impacts.
o Need more discussion on pending international obligations and internal consistency in domestic measures that will allow meeting all such international obligations. One cannot focus at the national level on just maximizing the effectiveness or implementation of one protocol isolated from others.

Concepts, definitions and lines of causality

Countries will need to decide on concepts and definitions

a) Socioeconomic considerations
b) Biodiversity (agricultural versus broad)
c) Biodiversity impacts
d) Local communities
e) Indigenous communities
f) Domestic measures
g) Decisions on imports

Country typology

For further activities I propose that these distinguish between two different sets of countries: those who will not include formally socioeconomics in their decision making and those who have taken such decision. In the latter case, it is important to differentiate between those who have no clue about how to such inclusion and thus will need extensive capacity building efforts to improve their capacity to make such decisions.

1) Countries who have decided not to formally take socioeconomic considerations in their risk assessments and/or decision making. These may consider some socioeconomic considerations when they are relevant to the risk assessment process.

2) Countries who have decided to take socioeconomic considerations in their decision making. These can be further disaggregated into:

2.1) Countries who know how to do about inclusion and are in the process of implementation
2.2) Countries who have some idea about inclusion
2.3) Countries who have no idea about socioeconomic inclusion

We may further expand this typology to show whether countries have included socioeconomics into any part of their national biosafety frameworks (i.e. laws, regulations and/or policies) as a requirement for implementation. This will have implications in terms of the strength this requirement may be relative to other parts to the biosafety process.

One more aspect to consider is whether countries have indicated they will include broader socioeconomic considerations in their risk assessments and/or decision making or they will follow a strict interpretation of Article 26 and thus follow a “narrower” line of causality. Just to be clear, even if one pursues a literal/strict reading of Article 26, there may multiple avenues for research.  Such countries will require ensuring that a broader approach will continue to be consistent internally and with its international obligations.

Please let me suggest to continue some discussions inviting an expert to write a position paper on each subject (José has named some of them) and then the group has a reference to deal with

For the next organizational work to make clear socio-economic considerations I would propose for further discussions the following topics:

a. development of outline for a guide on socio-economic, involving the multitude of specific questions and points to consider. The guide should be addressed to advise  decision makers and evaluators during  decision making and help parties to build capacities in SEC;
b. policy development based on socio-economic considerations;
c. a concept and views of socio-economic post-release monitoring and management measures;
d. needs and new questions related SEC in Biosafety to be investigated and proposed for  research  activities (research and development);
e. conceptual approach addressed to needs for capacity building at national, regional and sub-regional levels;
f. public information and participation in SEC.

As my remark to the general observations on Article 26 made by Dr. Jose Falck-Zepeda [#4904]:
“- Article is of voluntary application and is a reaffirmation of national sovereignty.
- Countries can decide to include socioeconomic considerations in their decision making. Equally valid options are not to include socioeconomic considerations or anything in between” (Dr. Jose Falck-Zepeda),  I would be wonder to know a country which do not willing to include the socio-economic considerations in their decision making when “socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity” (Art 26).




Angela Lozan, Ministry of Environment, MD

Dear all

I believe the following issues need to be further addressed in the subsequent discussions:
• Possible elements of socioeconomic considerations (in the context of Article 26 of the Protocol) and criteria that could assist in determining which socio-economic considerations countries would wish to include in their decision-making frameworks
• ways to properly integrate socioeconomic considerations including human health in the process of risk assessment
• ways in which socio-economic issues could be considered in the decision making process on LMOs with a view to enable the development of training for socio-economic considerations
• Possible elements of socioeconomic considerations that need to be monitored after the introduction of GMOs
-  Capacity-building to carry out assessments of the socioeconomic effects of the use of GMOs
- Capacity-building to promote public awareness, education and participation concerning socioeconomic considerations in the context of GMO applications and decision making
- Capacity-building to establish regional and international cooperation for sharing experience with regards to socioeconomic considerations including best practices and lessons learnt.

Regards,
O.A.ElKawy

With thanks to the SCBD for making this interaction possible, which has been
illuminating. And thanks to all for their posts, some of which have been a
real learning experience for me.

Having paid a great deal of attention  to the posts under Q4, which is of
real importance and this is certainly true for  India, and I suspect other
developing countries which face similar issues,  I would like to make some
concluding remarks to draw attention to this hugely important issue of SECs.
Do forgive the extra length of this closing post.

We are at great risk from the WTO and trade agreements like FTAs, which pit
us against  countries of significantly greater economic status and power and
where there are enormous social/cultural/historical differences. There are
many examples of  socio-economic impacts detrimental to India from the WTO
and FTA's.  These agreements have a legal grounding in trade issues. For
this reason, they, in practical terms,  carry more weight in implementation
than the Protocol of the CBD. The guidance of the CBD 'goes for a six',
notwithstanding that it is/may not be considered an 'inferior' legal
Protocol to other Agreements.  This is because these  legal agreements
around trading issues can be enforced.

Furthermore, these FTA are usually not in the public domain, but government
to government agreements negotiated in secrecy. This is the status of the
current  EU-India FTA being negotiated where there has been  "no official
public disclosure on the contents of the FTA till date".  I'd like to
reiterate that the WTO in its historical process emerging from the GATT did
not create special provisions in dealing with the treatment of LMOs/ novel
foods and feeds of the GE process. We  are suffering today because of this
huge omission. Thus, in my opinion, many problems arise directly from the
fact that it is the second half of Q4 that becomes disproportionately
relevant and should be given special scrutiny because it does not address
many core issues relating to SECs. ie

That there are criteria NOT  consistent with "international obligations,
which exclude socio-economic considerations or limit the scope of such
considerations" 

These are excerpts from a  recent letter from the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,
the largest trade union in India, to the PM of India on the recent FTA being
negotiated with the EU.

" (The) FTA is supposed to cover 95 per cent of trade in goods between these
countries. --- The Government has not done any comprehensive cost-benefit
assessment or studies on comparative advantages. In comparison, SIAs
(Sustainability Impact Assessments) are undertaken by the EU for every trade
negotiation. Further, EU needs the ratification of EU's Parliament for the
approval of an FTA, unlike in India where FTAs can go through without any
Parliamentary scrutiny. --- Since the EU continues (with) farm subsidies,
they do not agree to include agri-subsidies on the negotiation agenda. This
would amount to legitimising EU subsidies at WTO and ruining the farmers of
developing countries like India. Reduction of tariff in EU does not offer
market access to Indian products because there are many other barriers for
accessing EU markets".

The chicanery of the WTO process is well known to us in India and  I am sure
in other countries as well. TRIPs is a good example. "In order to shoehorn
it (TRIPs) into the trade agreement, the negotiators added the two words,
"trade related."  Intellectual  Properties have nothing to do with trade.
TRIPs is designed to keep the Majority world in a permanent state of
dependency on the Minority world, and especially on Minority world
corporations. Through TRIPs these corporations want to get control of many
crucial aspects of people's lives, especially in the area of food, medicine
and water" (J Stiglitz). It is true that in its present form TRIPs 27.3 (b)
allows members to exclude from patentability, plants and animals other than
micro-organisms, and biological processes essential for the production of
plants and animals. The trouble is that States that are members of the WTO
must enact legislation in the above areas which is tantamount to patenting.
UPOV guidelines treat the Majority World's biodiversity as the 'heritage of
mankind' and therefore, freely available to exploit for scientific and
commercial use. Once a Minority World corporation has acquired the
biological material and 'transformed' it through genetic engineering
techniques, they can claim property rights on the basis that they have made
an 'invention'. The 'free heritage of mankind' now mostly in the  "fields
and forests of local communities of the  majority world is then sold back to
then as a commodity" (Julian Oram).  These are issues at the heart of FOOD
SECURITY.  The CBD also affirms that the 'conservation of biological
diversity is the common concern of humankind.' TRIPS 27.3 (b) effectively
negates all these provisions which is why it should be scrapped because it
favours rich corporations and penalises poor people.

Finally, given the criticality of SECs and their determination, and
absolutely vital place in RA, I propose that it  is  the AHTEG that should
initiate the process of nominating (independent) experts to their evaluation
methodology, definitions etc.

And something radical is needed for these issues to be correctly realised
and assessed, which ought to involve CSOs: that would take us beyond the
current process of the CBD, which I had alluded to earlier. I do not believe
that we will achieve much without some readjustment in this area. Yet we
must achieve much.

Best regards

Aruna Rodrigues

Sunray Harvesters,

Bungalow 69

Mhow - 453441

M.P. India

Dear all

Thanks for the very interesting discussions over the past few weeks, and to the Secretariat for facilitation. I think the online forum has helped clarify several things, including:

- that Parties have a right, established in international law, to take socioeconomic considerations into account
- should they choose to exercise this right, they can do so in a manner that is more protective of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity than that called for in the Protocol (provided that such action is consistent with the objective and the provisions of the Protocol and in accordance with that Party’s other obligations under international law)
- that socioeconomic considerations arising from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are broad, but the forum has already come some way in identifying what some of these are
- that the value of biodiversity to indigenous and local communities should be particularly taken into account and the CBD has already some guidelines on these
- that some international agreements expressly include socioeconomic considerations while others do not a priori exclude socioeconomic considerations, and with respect to the WTO there needs to be consistency of application, transparency, non-discrimination etc.

I am in agreement with the proposals of topics for further discussion as made by Ben Durham [#4888], Ossama Abdelkawy [#4920] and Angela Lozan [#4923].

The following might be also useful for future topics of discussion/work:

(i) Analysis of the following CBD documents so as to identify the key elements and criteria relevant for socioeconomic impact assessment of GMOs
- “Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or processes and in strategic environmental assessment” contained in the annex to decision COP-VI/7
-  “Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessment” contained in the annex to decision VIII/28. The guidelines focus on how to promote and facilitate a biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessment process
- “Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities” (Item F, decision VII/16 of the seventh meeting of the COP)

(ii) Analysis of relevant international obligations that include socio-economic considerations e.g. human rights treaties, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, CBD, and recommendations for how Parties may take these into account when implementing Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol.

(iii) Analysis of relevant WTO provisions and case law with respect to the application of socioeconomic considerations that impact on trade, and recommendations for how Parties may take these into account when implementing Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol.

The above analyses may be requested of the Secretariat or may be part of the tasks of the AHTEG on socioeconomic considerations. The real time online conferences to be held in June/July 2013 may be able to get the ball rolling by helping to clarify some of the issues further.

Kind regards
Lim Li Ching
Third World Network

Dear Colleagues,

I'd like to make many more observations, relating to such a richly informative and intense set of exchanges.  Just two here however:

First, with the future in mind, Aruna Rodrigues (#4931) makes some very important points from a developing country exoerience, about the larger context in which SEC relating to LMOs actually sit. These may be from a developing country perspective (at least, in agricultural-food terms), but they are a sharp challenge to developed world countries, citizens, scientists and others too. When I participated in 2003 as a speaker on public attitudes to GMOs in Europe (from a 1998-2001 European research project which I led, PABE) at an Asia-Europe Minsiterial meeting and conference in Kuala Lumpur, the then-Director of the Vietnamese Government Agricultural R&D  Centre said to me that he could spend all of his annual government R&D budget, meant to be devoted to research for improving the conditions of Vietnamese farmers and a sustainable food supply for the Vietnamese public, on legal fees and consultancies for finding a way through the jungle of patent-restrictions which his Centre's intended research had to navigate before any research was done. This is a similar kind of large-scale SE Impact (not only of LMOs of course, but an intellectual property system which encourages this agricultural innovation trajectory against other available options) to which Ms Rodrigues was also referring. It does I think, point to the need which she suggests, to address this problematic tension between CBD and WTO (and TRIPS) principles, bearing in mind long-term sustainability needs.

Another such large-scale SEC for LMOs which finds no current place in decision-making, is the assumption that it is an automatic social benefit to continue to develop agricultural innovation trajectories which further divorce and distance food-consumers from food-producers (farmers, mainly), globally, by aiming for large industrial high-input, global market-oriented production units, while the farmers and their families currently producing on the land so envisaged for such 'development', and envisaged to have futures 'elsewhere' (unspecified, and unaccounted in prevailing informal SE or cost-benefit impact assessments - one can examine the McKinsey report produced for the World Economic Forum's Davos meeting of 2012, and funded by many global corporate food and chemicals giants, to see that by 2030, small farms are envisaged to produce no global food, while in 2010 data show they produced approximately 40%. The report makes no comment on these figures. I feel obliged to ask: is this a Socioeconomic Impact, or a Socioeconomic Intention? Such ambiguities and crucially important normative and the attendant scientific-technical agendas and questions, need to be addressed, and I hope that this can be taken up by the Secretariat and The Parties, in forthcoming steps.

Finally and briefly, since it has come up at several place since I first raised the issue under Question 1, on the relations between SEC and RA, ERA in particular. There are distinct issues involved here which require distinct treament too. There are SEC in countries making decisions and doing risk assessments which are salient elements of the scientific risk assessment itself, and knowledge of those conditions is needed as a factor in the RA, not only for Risk Management. In addition to these, there are socioeconomic assumptions which take on normative influence within the RA, for example what is counted as normal in that country ('comparators'), as a baseline for defining harm from observed or predicted changes arising from the LMOs in question. These invite inclusive and accountable deliberation as a framing precursor to and continual iteration with RA, as the FAO Codex has itself recognised (see my post in Week 1 on this). Robust and reliable scientific (environmental) ERA needs both of these kinds of SE input. then there are separate SEC from LMOs both case-by-case and at more aggregated including international levels. We have plenty of further work!

Thank you to all for a demanding but rewarding exercise, and best wishes,

Brian Wynne

________________________________
From: bch@cbd.int [bch@cbd.int]
Sent: 16 April 2013 13:39
To: Wynne, Brian
Subject: SEC - Open forum - A new message has been posted to the forum


Dear Dr. Brian Edward Wynne,

The following message has been posted by M/s Aruna Rodrigues, Sunray Harvesters on 2013-04-16 12:35.

Wrapping up<http://bch.cbd.int:80/onlineconferences/portal_art26/se_forum_discussiongroups.shtml?forumid=17315&threadid=4881#4931> [#4931]

With thanks to the SCBD for making this interaction possible, which has been
illuminating. And thanks to all for their posts, some of which have been a
real learning experience for me.

Having paid a great deal of attention  to the posts under Q4, which is of
real importance and this is certainly true for  India, and I suspect other
developing countries which face similar issues,  I would like to make some
concluding remarks to draw attention to this hugely important issue of SECs.
Do forgive the extra length of this closing post.

We are at great risk from the WTO and trade agreements like FTAs, which pit
us against  countries of significantly greater economic status and power and
where there are enormous social/cultural/historical differences. There are
many examples of  socio-economic impacts detrimental to India from the WTO
and FTA's.  These agreements have a legal grounding in trade issues. For
this reason, they, in practical terms,  carry more weight in implementation
than the Protocol of the CBD. The guidance of the CBD 'goes for a six',
notwithstanding that it is/may not be considered an 'inferior' legal
Protocol to other Agreements.  This is because these  legal agreements
around trading issues can be enforced.

Furthermore, these FTA are usually not in the public domain, but government
to government agreements negotiated in secrecy. This is the status of the
current  EU-India FTA being negotiated where there has been  "no official
public disclosure on the contents of the FTA till date".  I'd like to
reiterate that the WTO in its historical process emerging from the GATT did
not create special provisions in dealing with the treatment of LMOs/ novel
foods and feeds of the GE process. We  are suffering today because of this
huge omission. Thus, in my opinion, many problems arise directly from the
fact that it is the second half of Q4 that becomes disproportionately
relevant and should be given special scrutiny because it does not address
many core issues relating to SECs. ie

That there are criteria NOT  consistent with "international obligations,
which exclude socio-economic considerations or limit the scope of such
considerations"

These are excerpts from a  recent letter from the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,
the largest trade union in India, to the PM of India on the recent FTA being
negotiated with the EU.

" (The) FTA is supposed to cover 95 per cent of trade in goods between these
countries. --- The Government has not done any comprehensive cost-benefit
assessment or studies on comparative advantages. In comparison, SIAs
(Sustainability Impact Assessments) are undertaken by the EU for every trade
negotiation. Further, EU needs the ratification of EU's Parliament for the
approval of an FTA, unlike in India where FTAs can go through without any
Parliamentary scrutiny. --- Since the EU continues (with) farm subsidies,
they do not agree to include agri-subsidies on the negotiation agenda. This
would amount to legitimising EU subsidies at WTO and ruining the farmers of
developing countries like India. Reduction of tariff in EU does not offer
market access to Indian products because there are many other barriers for
accessing EU markets".

The chicanery of the WTO process is well known to us in India and  I am sure
in other countries as well. TRIPs is a good example. "In order to shoehorn
it (TRIPs) into the trade agreement, the negotiators added the two words,
"trade related."  Intellectual  Properties have nothing to do with trade.
TRIPs is designed to keep the Majority world in a permanent state of
dependency on the Minority world, and especially on Minority world
corporations. Through TRIPs these corporations want to get control of many
crucial aspects of people's lives, especially in the area of food, medicine
and water" (J Stiglitz). It is true that in its present form TRIPs 27.3 (b)
allows members to exclude from patentability, plants and animals other than
micro-organisms, and biological processes essential for the production of
plants and animals. The trouble is that States that are members of the WTO
must enact legislation in the above areas which is tantamount to patenting.
UPOV guidelines treat the Majority World's biodiversity as the 'heritage of
mankind' and therefore, freely available to exploit for scientific and
commercial use. Once a Minority World corporation has acquired the
biological material and 'transformed' it through genetic engineering
techniques, they can claim property rights on the basis that they have made
an 'invention'. The 'free heritage of mankind' now mostly in the  "fields
and forests of local communities of the  majority world is then sold back to
then as a commodity" (Julian Oram).  These are issues at the heart of FOOD
SECURITY.  The CBD also affirms that the 'conservation of biological
diversity is the common concern of humankind.' TRIPS 27.3 (b) effectively
negates all these provisions which is why it should be scrapped because it
favours rich corporations and penalises poor people.

Finally, given the criticality of SECs and their determination, and
absolutely vital place in RA, I propose that it  is  the AHTEG that should
initiate the process of nominating (independent) experts to their evaluation
methodology, definitions etc.

And something radical is needed for these issues to be correctly realised
and assessed, which ought to involve CSOs: that would take us beyond the
current process of the CBD, which I had alluded to earlier. I do not believe
that we will achieve much without some readjustment in this area. Yet we
must achieve much.

Best regards

Aruna Rodrigues

Sunray Harvesters,

Bungalow 69

Mhow - 453441

M.P. India

See this post in the online forum <http://bch.cbd.int:80/onlineconferences/portal_art26/se_forum_discussiongroups.shtml?forumid=17315&threadid=4881#4931> | Reply <http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art26/se_forum_discussiongroups.shtml?forumid=17315&threadid=4881&replyto=4931#4931> | Unsubscribe <http://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/unsubscribe.aspx?forumid=17315&threadid=&email=b.wynne%40lancaster.ac.uk&validation=5cfa37b5afb30e92f71945b412b457f2&returnurl=%2fonlineconferences%2fportal_art26%2fse_forum_discussiongroups.shtml%3fforumid%3d17315%26threadid%3d4881>

To reply to this post by email, please send your message to P4931EHEP14412@ocs.cbd.int<mailto:P4931EHEP14412@ocs.cbd.int>.

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<mailto:bch@cbd.int>


[2011-2020 United Nations Decade on Biodiversity] <http://www.cbd.int/>   ­­

The ex-ante studies help us to foresee where exactly are the productive problems. In Sinaloa, north of Mexico, where big landowners are cultivating extensive areas of maize hybrids (from 100 up to 1000 hectares), the seed cost represents up to 35%, and in contrast the application of insecticides represent only 3 to 7% of their total costs. So then, we see that they are not applying big quantities of insecticides to control the plagues. And if we see the application of herbicides, these are representing around 3 to 4%. So even, big landowners do not need Bt maize to control the plagues and if the incorporate Bt seeds, they will increase the seed costs considerably. They are very productive, their yields can raise up to 17 tonnes per hectare, but the media is 12 tonnes per hectare.

This is to mean that even in developping countries where there is a mix of big landowners and small peasant households, we have to consider the socioeconomic ex ante studies in order to be very clear, where a technology can be useful or disastrous. I totally agree with the arguments of Aruna Rodriguez regarding WTO.


Elena Lazos Chavero
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM
Mexico

Dear All!
First I want to join the other participants in thanking the Secretariat to give us the opportunity to exchange views in the online fora. I also think that it have been very interesting weeks and this exchange of views was a very successful exercise.

I agree with other experts in this forum (Lim Li Ching, Osama A. ElKawy, Angela Lozan, and others) that there are many issues which still need to be addressed to reach our final goal set in the strategic plan of the Protocol, i.e. develop guidance documents on socio economic considerations for the Parties. I also agree that all of these issues are important and should not be dismissed in the further process.

It has been shown during our discussions that there are not only diverging views on the interpretation of the text of Art 26 but also on the scope of a possible socio-economic assessment. This is nothing new, as it was also the outcome of the India workshop in 2011 and the previous online discussion groups. However, I believe that this time the discussions were more on the substance which was already a big step forward.

To answer the question asked by the Secretariat i.e. which issues might be addressed in preparation of the online conferences and the AHTEG, in my opinion we need to stay rather focused. The mandate of the AHTEG is pretty clear:
“Examine the outcomes of the activities requested in paragraphs 2 and 3 of decision BS-V/… in order to develop conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities.”

During the discussions at the last COPMOP in Hyderabad it was also made clear that the Parties prefer to have a stepwise approach and most of them agreed that it was too early to start developing guidance.

So the main outcome should be a report of the AHTEG on the so called “conceptual clarity”. In my interpretation this basically means to define the scope and set the general framework for a socio economic assessment.

I believe that is already a big challenge as we could see from the discussions that some experts prefer a broad scope while others have a very strict interpretation of the Art 26. However, I think that this general scope and framework are a prerequisite to all further work on the issue. Only if we have a basic agreement what should be assessed we could discuss other issues like methodologies, guidance, and compatibility with other international obligations.

Some of the points of discussion during the online conferences and the AHTEG could be (that’s not an exhaustive list!):
- Are there existing frameworks available, which can be used adapted for the implementation of Art 26?
- Do we need to limit the scope or is it up to the Party to decide on how broad an assessment should be? i.e. should the framework rather be narrow or a broad “pick list”
- Does sustainability play a role?
- How to handle the issue of local/indigenous communities?
- How to include the risk/benefit assessment?

I am aware that there are many more, which have been popped up during the discussions over the last weeks.

So one possible way forward would be to develop such a list further (maybe using the online conferences), which than can be discussed by the AHTEG.


Time is quite limited so in my opinion it is important to stay focused in order to enable the AHTEG to reach a conclusion and to submit a report back to the COPMOP, which will finally pave the way to developing guidance on the assessment of SEC and to reach the goal of the strategic plan.

Best regards
Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria

Dear Andreas,

Let me support your statement especially the one reminding us the Parties' preference for a stepwise/graduated approach to the process.

I would like to comment on your observation that there is quite a bit of divergence amongst the Parties on the issue of socioeconomics. It has been my experience that there are indeed different opinions, positions, approaches and even in some cases implementation options and capacities as related to the issues of socioeconomics and decision making. Because of this fact and the fact that implementation of Article 26 is up to each one of the Parties that I am frankly a bit skeptical about the current approach that seems to be seeking a protocol level response and conceptual structure responding to all Parties issues and needs.

Let me explain the latter statement a bit more. As you have -in a way written in your comment- either we go for such a broad discussion trying to cover every single possible option and approach, thus risking becoming too general and vague - thus risking the exercise becoming a "nice to know but not very useful"; or we go for such level of specificity and detail thus risking becoming an unmanageable exercise applying only to those Parties' who needs relate to the specific details discussed.

I am afraid we cannot fine tune the discussion much more until we know more about what the Parties demand from this exercise beyond the COP-MOP decisions already listed in your statement. We do have a survey listing perceptions about socioeconomics from stakeholders in different countries, but not -for example- a systematic review of what is the situation in each country. There have been some attempts to do such review.

This is why, it is my personal opinion, that we suggest to the SCBD to take this opportunity to use the online regional forums, for each one of the Parties to define the issues, questions, and needs so that the AHTEG group (it it becomes a reality) and/or existing expert communities out there have a good idea what the Parties really demand from such exercise. This would also help address avoiding creating one more general structure that may not be able to respond to specific needs from the Parties.

If the AHTEG does not become a reality due to whatever reasons or if Parties decide that further development and/or implementation may be lead by national/regional groups, then at least existing socioeconomic and policy expert communities such as the ICABR, African Biotechnology Network of Experts (ABNE), ASARECA/PAAP, LAC Biosafety, PBS, RAEIN Africa, and other outstanding regional and national teams can actually take the a much closer role of supporting Parties in whatever decision they may take as they would be closer to their constituents. We can also add that there are countries with existing experience in socioeconomic assessments from which much can be learned.

The existence of these expert communities and countries with experience in performing such assessments become a quite strong argument for tapping unto those resources, rather than trying to create new organizational structures which may in the end tap unto existing resources anyhow. This is in line with Jose Luis Solleiro suggestion of commissioning specific position papers to well recognized experts in specific areas related to socioeconomics and decision making.

Dear José Falck-Zepeda,

Sorry to post until now one comment that made me think about your intervention last week...

I cannot see how do you speak of smallholders incorporating Bt maize when they do not have enough money to buy the seed? Smallholders exchange seeds, keep seed from their harvest, they cannot afford to buy Bt seeds. At least in Mexico, peasants and indigenous communities have systems of keeping and exchanging their seeds. The maize prices are so low that peasants cannot afford buying their seeds. That is why it is so important that they can keep their native maize seeds. They have hundreds of varieties to cope with different soils, different microclimatic niches (erratic precipitation, lack of humidity, winds, hot or low temperatures). and also they have different varieties to keep their traditional foods. That is food souvereignity, when they can still decide what to cultivate, even though the national and international economic conditions do not favoured their production.

Elena Lazos Chavero
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM,
Mexico

Dear All,
I also would like to thank the Secretariat and everyone that has been so engaged in this topic over the last month.  Much information has been shared covering a wide range of topics and reflecting broad although sometimes disparate perspectives.

I support as well the recommendation of Andreas to move forward step by step and follow closely the consensus mandate from MOP-6 in Hyderabad.  That decision was reached after much discussion and sharing of views by many Parties.  While some Parties advocated for development of guidelines on taking SEC into account, in the end that was not the recommendation adopted by the Parties. 

With this decision in mind, the directive to the ad hoc technical expert group, “to develop conceptual clarity in the context of paragraph I of Article 26” should not be interpreted as ”to define the scope and set the general framework for a socio-economic assessment” as suggested by Andreas.

Instead, the AHTEG when constituted is required to report to MOP-7 “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…in a manner that provides flexibility to take into account the situations in different countries.”

This text is important both for what it says and does not say.  Parties at MOP-6 pushed back on language that would have required the AHTEG to develop guidelines on SEC and as a result, it was not included in the AHTEG’s scope or in the proposed work of the Parties at MOP-7.

In short, based on the actual discussion and decisions taken at MOP-6, in my humble opinion, the suggestion by Andreas that the outcome of the AHTEG is a general framework for a socio-economic assessment does not reflect the agreement of Parties or the directive reached at MOP-6. 

Eric

Dear participants,

I was away for fieldwork. But I will like to thank all your comments. During my reading, I had some remarks to make that I will do now. Hope they are still on time to be read.

Farmers put all always in a balance and evaluate the positive and negative costs and effects of technology. We have been realizing a research project about the needs of GMO maize in Mexico. We chose four contrasting states, because of the type of farmers and because of climatic and soil conditions. So far, we have been at the north of Mexico, the first maize producer, Sinaloa with big landowners that have high yields (the mean oscillates between 11 to 12 tonnes/ha); but also at the center of Mexico, where they are smallholders with difficult climatic and soil conditions, and with poor yields (2 to 4 tonnes/ha). Their problems are not plagues nor weeds. their problems are very poor soils depleted of organic material. So, being a center of origin, we have to put very clear in a balance which are the problems in different regions and not to forget that still more than 65% of the seeds are exchanged and kept from the prior harvest. This is an extremely important point to consider. Still, small and medium farmers can decide upon their genetic material in their maize cultivation.

Dra. Elena Lazos Chavero
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales
UNAM

Dear international collaborators,

I also want to join preceding participants to thank the Secretariat and all the participants to this forum for these interesting exchanges of views of these last weeks.
They opened ways in the direction of the mandate of the concerned AHTEG thanks to the transparency and precise information brought by participants while showing some difficulty to reach common views on some important aspects.

I thus agree with other participants that several of the issues that we tackled still need further discussion to approach some common view or at least to be recognized as valuable SEC to be taken into account. The synthesis of this forum made by the Secretariat will be useful to pinpoint these issues with remaining discrepancies. I take this opportunity to ask the Secretariat to take into account, in his synthesis, all views that were expressed and are linked to the concerned issue of the questions raised and to the mandate of the AHTEG, even if they did not lead to great further discussion.

I support last Andreas posting insisting on the fact that, even if it is appealing to go further, we should respect the step by step approach foreseen at COP-MOP6 and stick to the mandate proposed there for the AHTEG, leaving for later on the development of methodologies and guidance.

As such, I agree in particular with last posting of Li Ching Lim reminding already existing guidelines under the CBD to include biodiversity-related issues and international agreements and that allow the inclusion of SECs; they should be further analyzed in order to extract SEC that should be commonly agreed.

With the same view, works/implementation of decisions  under the CBD related to concerned issues, i.e to valuation ( a.o. but not only economic valuation ) of biodiversity and ecosystem services, to sustainable use of biodiversity, to indigenous and local communities knowledge and practices preserving biodiversity, ....,  should be analyzed and the concerned issues should be taken into account here. More experts following these issues under the CBD should be included in the present discussion.

The information and experience of other processes where SECs are taken into account should be further analyzed and conclusions used to include and to go further in our actual discussion.

Cases analyses of trade-restriction measures having some linked issues should be analyzed to take lessons.

While following this forum, I noticed that the notion of "sustainability" itself should be rediscussed, but it this the place to do this ?????...............

With grateful greatings to all of you.

Lucette Flandroy



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

Dear  Lucette Flandroy,


Thank you for all the international agreements (Articles of ILO and of the UN Declaration on Indigenous People's Rights) that you brought into the discussion. It enriches very much to make the big difference between indigenous communities and local communities.

It has also very important to have in consideration what Elizabeth Bravo mentioned about Art 32.3 of the UNDRIP that "States shall consult indigenous people...in order to obtain their free and informed consent..."  We have been conducting a research to understand the need or not of GMO maize among indigenous communities (mainly a southern state of Mexico, Oaxaca). Even though there was driven the study of Quist and Chapela and there was a lot of discussion at the general assemblies, from 48 communities visited, only 6% of the population interviewed knew about GMO maize. They haven't heard what is all about, and if they have heard, less people could explain exactly what a GMO maize would be.

So the federal government cannot introduce GMO maize, when the majority of the indigenous population (at least of Oaxaca, Tlaxcala, Puebla, Jalisco, Yucatán) has no idea of what a GMO maize is and which would be the biological, economical, and cultural impacts.


Elena Lazos Chavero
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM
Mexico

Dear All,

I, and members of our group at GenØk – Centre from Biosafety who assisted, wish to join others in conveying our appreciation for the discussion over the last weeks.

We wish to support the interventions in the open forum by Aruna Rodrigues, Lim Li Ching, Osama A. ElKawy, Angela Lozan and Andreas Heissenberger.

Our view is that acheiving “conceptual clarity” could very much involve an exercise to ”to define the scope and set the general framework for a socio-economic assessment” as mentioned by Andreas Heissenberger in post [#4937], and an essential component for “enabling [the MOP7] meeting to deliberate and decide upon appropriate further steps towards fulfilling operational objective 1.7” where the operational objective is “to, on the basis of research and informationexchange, provide relevant guidance on socioeconomic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms”.

In response to Dr. Falck-Zapata [#4938] and his discussion on the broad/narrow framing, we have some reservations in assigning a priori “nice to know” issues or concerns for any given context or country, particularly with madate that the AHTEG enables MOP7 “ in a manner that provides flexibility to take into account the situations in different countries.”

That is, many SECs are inherently multi-dimensional, and their relative importance is often shaped by a Party’s social perspectives (which may vary from Party to Party and even with a Party). Therefore, accomodating sometimes diverging value judgements and assumptions, as evidenced in the discussion in this forum -  will necessitate a comprehensive approach to SECs (and might even reduce ignorance and “blindspots” in the assessment) under Article 26.

Thus, as a future activity,  accouting for the legitimate yet divergent perspectives and priorties held by Parties, could be an stocktaking exercise for the regional online conferences or the AHTEG, in order to make a more explicit accounting for political and social priorities of different Parties in assessing SECs.

So perhaps the greatest challenge before the group is not resolving the scope question this seems rather implicit given the collective (and stimulating!) discussion these last weeks. Rather, the big challenge for “conceptual clarity” might be how decision-making utilizing SECs can be based on the most robust methodologies and at the same time account for equally legitimate yet conflicting value judgements, divergent interests and priorties that may be held by different Parties. We look forward to the challenging but important work ahead.

Kind regards,

David Quist

Some conclusions from the debate about the SEC and Article 26 of Protocol
Some factors to be taken as when we discussed the issue of environmental considerations are:
1. is very important to note that social, economic and cultural impact of GE seeds and the production model to which these seed are tied.
In the case seeds, which are tolerant to herbicide, they are designed for use with herbicides, which involve the increasing in the use of this agrochemicals, with consequent impacts on the health of rural workers, population living in surrounding areas to plantations and in the consumers.
2. This same model produces concentration of land (or land grabbing). Rodriguez (2010) show that the minimum size of an area that is economically profitable in the case of transgenic soybean is much bigger than its conventional counterpart. This is because they demand very expensive use of machinery like aero-fumigation, direct sowing machinery and the increase in the value of the seed
3. He also points out that the advantage they have is that GM soy saves labor, ie, displacing the rural worker in places as the Pampas in southern Latin America, the concept of   agriculture without farmers has being introduced, this as result of technological innovation (in this case GM seeds).
4. It is important in this debate to take into account other sources that can give us insights into the GE seed SEC impacts in situ. For example rural doctors which deals with patients affected by the technology package: glyphosate- RR say every day. In Argentina's medical network fumigated peoples who have raised a lot of evidence on this subject. They are also victims of the model, which have much to say and whose voice should be heard
5. Another source is the criterion of Special Rapporteurs United Nations working, already ruled on the impacts of GMOs on health, food and culture populations (all these, social and environmental aspects).

6. I just want to conclude by saying that the international comenrcio obligacioens rights and countries can not be above the economic, social and cultural rights of the people as well as the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Elizabeth Bravo

Following Michelle Chauvet's intervention, I would say also that the problem of the introduction of GM crops in a center of origin of at least 25 important plants is very important to take in consideration. In this case it is not the same the Genetic modification techniques introduced in agriculture compared with other agricultural techniques (Sachs # 4657). The risks of pollution to so many varieties of tomatoes, squashes, peppers, beans, maize, avocado, papaya are very high. The risks for the wild relatives are also very high.

Indigenous populations have been cultivating more than 20 different crops at the milpa system (agricultural system where maize, beans, squashes are the axis). So, which will be the impacts if we introduce GM beans, maize, squashes, on the agricultural and food system? The decision makers have to deal very carefully with this question. We have to apply the precautionary principle until we have enough research to test which would be the impacts for the native cultivars that are the basis of the food regime of a large rural and urban population in Mexico.

thank you and greetings,


Dra. Elena Lazos Chavero
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM
Mexico

Dear Colleagues,

Regarding Socio-economic considerations, I think the case of South Africa as described by Ben Durham (4397) is paradigmatic and we would wish that many countries with a high rural population as India (as stated by Aruna Rodrigues, 4400), and with a large indigenous population as Mexico would follow a legislation that would include SEC open to each specific case. Furthermore, if comments of the stakeholders involved would be considered in the decision-making process, this would really be a more transparent process. Here in Mexico, since three months ago, the civil society has been asking an audience with the secretaries involved in the decision of the introduction of commercial Bt maize, and they have been completely ignored.
I completely agree that there is a difference between SEC and cost-benefit analysis, but it would be very helpful to have ex ante analysis taking in consideration actual cost-benefit analysis to predict how it would affect the introduction of a LMO in the agricultural system. For example, a group of social scientists has been calculating the cost-benefit analysis for big landowners cultivating between 150 and 1000 hectares of maize in the state of Sinaloa. They cultivate hybrids with very high yields (between 14 and 17 tonnes/hectare). They spend more than 30% of their costs in seeds, and only between 3 and 7% of costs in pesticides. So the Bt maize, clearly wouldn’t help them to reduce costs. They have excellent yields and they do not have problems with plagues. So why do they need the Bt maize in their plots? In any case, the LMO seeds would be much more expensive than the actual hybrid seeds. That wouldn’t compensate the costs in plaguicides. With these simple considerations of cost-benefit analysis, we can predict some important aspects that have been argued for the utility or not of LMOs.
Kind regards,
Elena Lazos

Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM, Mexico

dear colleagues,

during the first week discussion, I couldn't participate and I want to add something that is happening in Mexico, but that could be happening in other countries.
I totally agree with several comments (Aruna Rodríguez, 4393; Ferraiolo, 4503) in regard of the decision on import as an issue that must be left to domestic measures, this is, any decision on imports needs to be taken under national law of the importing country (as stated by  Andres Heissenberger, 4398). But what if the national law is so diffused or left to so ample interpretations that it is not really protecting native biodiversity? I would like to state, as Andreas Heissenberger, 4398, that his country, as for the European Union, has a quite strict system of authorizing imports of LMOs. But unfortunately, I cannot state that.

In Mexico, the law of biosecurity is subject to so many interpretations, on one part, and, on the other part, it has even been violated. We should have had a special regime to protect maize (in spanish, Régimen de Protección Especial para el Maíz) as Mexico is center of origin and diversification. But this regime was suddenly eliminated by a reform to the regulations of the law in 2009. This has provoked big controversies that have not been solved, and has opened the doors for authorizing experiments of transgenic maize in Mexico (experimentation in open fields following a protocol of biosecurity measures). Furthermore, we still cannot establish the map of centers of origin and diversity of maize, as there are several maps depending on the institution. But it is a shame that the map where more of 200 scientists worked under the leadership and financing programs of CONABIO (National Commission of Biodiversity, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad) has not been recognized by the government institutions in charge of dealing with the establishment of centers of origin.

This raises other questions, I know, but we have to be aware that this can happen in many countries. So, in that sense, it would really matter if the decision on import is taken under the Protocol (Article 10) or under domestic measures implementing the protocol. In many countries, we would need that the decision would be taken under the Protocol by Article 10.

Many greetings and I thank so much so fruitful discussion, I have learnt a lot,
Elena

-----

Dr. Elena Lazos Chavero
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM