Online Forum March-April 2013

The comments from various participants are quite enlightening. I thank you all.

It is of utmost importance that any decision to import is weighed carefully under relevant provisions of the protocol. We live in a world facing serious biodiversity erosion and related dislocation of livelihoods of a huge proportion of the world’s population who directly depend on these natural resources. What may be an object of mere curiosity or entertainment for some is a matter of life and death for others.

Among the critical considerations when weighing considering our subject must be the precautionary principle. This should always be the first checkpoint to ensure that harm is not inflicted through imports that may aim at the intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment, and those for food/feed or even for contained use. In line with this is the need for strict risk analysis and management. It also requires a clear enforcement of regimes of liability and redress.

Let us keep the provisions of this Article 26 in view:
Article 26.1 says: “The Parties, in reaching a decision on import under this Protocol or under its domestic measures implementing the Protocol, may take into account, consistent with their international obligations, 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.”

The decision to import must respect the sovereign rights of nations and territories. We believe that this is the right interpretation of the wordings of Article 26.1, which says that parties in reaching a decision to import under the protocol “may take into account.” That word “may” does confirm the right of nations to take socio-economic considerations in their biosafety decision-making processes.  This “may” does not denote a voluntary measure. It keeps the door open for critical socio-economic considerations as well as assurance of robust public consultation, information sharing and capacity building.

I would like to stress that in this matter, the precautionary principle is crucial - as is public participation, liability and redress and deep socio-economic considerations.

Greetings to all!!
I agree with the thanks to the Secretariat and in particular to Paola Scarone for moderate the discussion that is really interesting.
I understand the various points of view that have been mentioned and I want to present a case which I believe evidences the importance of having a general agreement on the SEC

For the approval of genetically modified planting soybeans in Mexico there have not been done any studies to take into account socio-economic considerations. Mexico is the 4th largest producer of honey in the world and the 6th exporter. Honey in the region known as the Peninsula of Yucatan is highly demanded due the variety of flowers that gives honey taste and special features.

The European Union modified the rules for imports of honey such that does not accept Mexican honey for transgenic soybeans growing in that region. The production of honey for small farmers is a supporting activity for their staple crops; the absence of this income turns their productive system even more vulnerable. The expansion of GM soy monoculture affects the biodiversity that today use bees and threatens an export market for thousands of producers. This case is a clear example of the importance of taking into account the SEC and ex ante studies for decision making. It has been mentioned that the SEC would be a trade barrier; however, if the risk assessment includes information on the consequences of SEC, decision makers can make decisions that anticipate the negative consequences of the environmental release of LMOs.