Third Real-time Online Conference for Africa, 17 April 2012 from 10:00 to 13:00 GMT
Download the conference documents here.
| good morn colleague, i am sorry for coming up late |
Dear Participants,
Good morning! Welcome to the Third Real-time Online Conferences on Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Africa. It is a great pleasure for us at the Secretariat to be gathered here once again with all of you.
Your input today is very important and will serve as a basis for the deliberations by the AHTEG at its fourth meeting which will take place in Montreal, Canada from 4 to 8 June 2012.
Moreover, the outcome and recommendations of the real-time conferences will be forwarded to the Parties of the Cartagena Protocol at their meeting in October 2012.
I have a couple of technical notes before we proceed with the conference:
1) I would kindly ask you to type or paste your intervention on the Text Box (centre-bottom of the screen) before requesting the floor because you will have only 60 seconds to send your intervention once the floor is given to you.
2) The Secretariat is available to answer questions through the HelpDesk. To access the online HelpDesk, please use the tab in the top-left corner of the screen. In case of emergency please call us at +1-514-287-6681. This number is also available at the top-right corner of the screen.
We have a full agenda and, without further delay, I would like to welcome all of you to this conference and invite the Chair, Ms. Hajara Yusuf from Nigeria, to preside over the conference.
The Secretariat wishes you a very fruitful discussion! |
Thank you, Secretariat.
Distinguished colleagues,
Good morning and welcome to the third real-time conference for Africa. It is an honour for me to chair this conference again.
Since the last meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in 2010, following the mandate in decision BS-V/12, the Open-ended Online Expert Group and the AHTEG have made considerable progress in revising the Guidance on Risk Assessment of LMOs. The Open-ended Group and the AHTEG also developed two new guidance documents: on “post-release monitoring of LMOs”, and on “risk assessment of LM trees”. |
Our work today will focus on providing comments to these guidance documents as well as on considerations about the need for further guidance on specific topics of risk assessment and risk management, and recommendations to the COP-MOP including considerations for future activities related to the Guidance on Risk Assessment.
The outcome of the third series of online conferences will serve as inputs for the deliberations by the AHTEG during its fourth meeting scheduled to take place from
4-8 June 2012 in Montreal, Canada.
This series of real-time conferences is, therefore, the last chance that experts in the Open-ended Online Forum will have to provide input to the work of the AHTEG before it submits its final outcome to the Conference of the Parties of the Protocol (COP-MOP) in October 2012.
The importance of active participating and sharing your views today cannot be stressed enough.
On this note, I declare our conference open and look forward to your active participation throughout the conference.
We will move now to Item 2. Organizational Matters; sub-item 2.1 Adoption of the agenda. |
The task before us is the adoption of our agenda. I invite you to turn to the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-RA&RM/3/1, which was prepared by the Secretariat and reflects the objective of our meeting.
Unless you have amendments or objections to any of the items, I propose that we adopt the agenda of the meeting as contained in document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-CB-RA&RM/3/1. |
I see no requests for the floor.
The provisional agenda as before us is adopted.
Let us now turn to agenda Item 2.2 Organization of work. |
I hope that our conference today will end at about 13:00 (GMT), plus or minus 30 minutes as needed to complete our task today.
Also, I propose that we have a break of 15 minutes half-way through the conference or as needed.
I trust that you have prepared your interventions on the basis of the annotations to the provisional agenda that was circulated by the Secretariat as document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-RA&RM/3/1/Add.1.
I would like to propose that we use the guiding questions, which were circulated by the Secretariat by email prior to the conference, to assist our deliberations today on each substantive item in our agenda.
Due to a full agenda, I will attempt to progress swiftly through its items and I kindly ask that you take part in the discussion in a prompt, direct and open manner.
Is there any objection to this organization of work? |
I see no objection. The proposed organization of work is adopted.
I will now invite you to turn to item 3 on the agenda.
ITEM 3. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES |
Under this item, our first substantive issue is:
ITEM 3.1. COMMENTS ON THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY THE OPEN-ENDED ONLINE EXPERT GROUP AND THE AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT
We will have three sub-items under 3.1 as follows:
(a) Guidance on Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms;
(b) Monitoring of living modified organisms released into the environment;
(c) Risk assessment of living modified trees.
The latest draft versions of the guidance documents, which have been circulated by the Secretariat on 2 April 2012, will be used as the basis for our discussions today.
This being an extensive agenda item, we will likely spend approximately half of our time today or roughly one and a half hour discussing these sub-items. |
I will now open the floor for your reactions to the first guiding questions under:
(a) GUIDANCE ON RISK ASSESSMENT OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS
(i) Does the Guidance provide a useful tool to assist you in performing or reviewing an LMO risk assessment? What amendments would you propose to increase its usefulness?
The floor is open for your comments. |
| I think that the Guidance documents provide a useful tool in the evaluation and review of LMOs (this has been already confirmed by several conducted activities; Roadmap testing, scientific review, the secretariat Open-ended Forum and participants to training courses on risk assessment..). The structure of the roadmap and other documents is logic and follows the basic theoretical structure of risk assessment in addition they show the way to the reader to where he can find relevant background documents. |
Thank you very much. The second question related to the Guidance is:
(ii) Is there any issue or concept that is missing from the revised Guidance that should be included? If so, please propose a draft text to address the missing issue(s).
The floor is now open for your reactions. |
| The guidance document provides a useful starting point for countires to conduct their own risk asseeements consistent with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. South Africa undertook an extensive process to test the roadmap with a variety of stakeholders who currently do actual risk assessments and concluded that the guidance was useful. |
| the guidance provide a useful tool to assist countries particularly less developing countries where capacities are not availabble
make a large diffusion of the doc |
| Gado thank you, you are welcome |
| Two issues are still missing from the relevant issues in the roadmap namely the in-situ conservation and the identity preservation. Others concepts that have arisen with the development new specific guidance documents that are in advanced stages of completion, and are not properly addressed in the Roadmap for example the concept that ‘risk assessment may be conducted ‘in a step-wise manner” and the concept that ‘any LMO should undergo an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life-cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use (article 16.4 of the CPB)’. Also the issue of socio-economics needs to be strengthened and incorporated as integral part of the document not just as a relevant issue. |
| translate the doc on 6 UN languages |
| Gado, we will try to do that as soon as we have the funds |
| stil waiting for more comment |
| do will still have more comment pls |
| Thank you Ossama, I would like you to clarify the sociio-economic aspects. In our view, the current reference to socio-economic considerations suffices. |
| Ossama pls could you respond |
| i agree with you Wadzanayi |
| The issue of in situ conservation is indeed a concern and an area where further guidance could be incorporated into the guideline. This is a key concern when one consider "indigenous" LMOs, where the risk assessment parameters are more stringent. |
| thanks for your comment Wadzanayi |
| I think the concept of socioeconomics needs further elaboration of what need to be considered under ERA. protection goals belong to socioeconomics but we might need to consider them in the problem formulation to ensure that they are not affected by the introduced LMO |
| thank you all, if no more comment we move on pls |
| In our view view, environmental risk assessments are critical tools for decision making and it as such, it is possible to define common principles and endpoints. Socio economic considerations are a little more complex and will be determined by a number of national parameters and imperatives which may not be common.
I would agree that where socio economic considerations result in an environmental impact, then these would need to be considered |
I thank all of you for your discussion on the Guidance. I propose that we move now to the next sub-item:
(b) MONITORING OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS RELEASED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT
and I invite your reactions to its first guiding question:
(i) Are all relevant scientific issues properly addressed in this guidance document? If not, please specify what amendments you would advise.
The floor is now open for your reactions. |
| We are pleased with the document as a whole. The document stresses the importance of choosing meaningful statistical analyses and sound scientific methods, when preparing the monitoring plan. It highlights the importance of establishing baselines and choosing relevant indicators and parameters. However the terms indicators and parameters seem too generic and perhaps must be descripted in a more exhaustive way with with the right concept of case-by- case and potential future considerations, may be adding some examples could be very useful. Also, we find the mentioning of the term ‘general surveillance’ is essential and provide more clarity than the term used ‘general monitoring’ in addition it is the term that is widely used. |
| The long term monitoring guidelines are particulalry useful. South Africa has been engaged in the commercial release of LMOs for a number of years, and the issues associated with long term monitoring have been at the fore. In attempting to address these issues, SA has tested a number of concepts. The outstanding issue remains that of obtaining and detecting the unintended consequences that were not factored into the risk assessment process. The concept of general survellance in practice is very difficult to address |
| i think that ossama comments are good but we can add some cases studies in thes doc |
| Dear all,
Please type or paste (Ctrl+V) your text in the text box prior to requesting the floor because you will have only 60 seconds to send your message once the floor is given to you. |
| We have a case study of MON810 conducted together with our Norwegian colleagues which we would be happy to share with other parties. |
| Wadzi, if you wish to propose a document to be added, please send it to me by email |
| that will be good, wazdzanayi |
| like for example the opportunities offered by BT cotton for some farmers in WEST AFRICA |
| I think the issues are well capture but there is still room for future improvement. |
| do we still have more comment pls |
Thank you. Let us please move to the second question regarding the guidance document on “Monitoring”:
(ii) Do you have any bibliographic reference relevant to this guidance document which you would like to suggest?
The floor is open for your suggestions. |
| I AGREE WITH YOU RUFUS YOU ARE WELCOME
SOME EREFERENCE DOC WTO |
Breckling B, Reuter H. General surveillance of genetically modified organisms — the importance of expected and unexpected environmental effects. J Verbr Lebensm 333 2006;1(Supplement 1):72–4.
EFSA. Guidance on the post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 2011a;9:2316.
Zughart W. “Networks” and environmental observation programs as a tool for general surveillance — first experiences and future requirements. In: Breckling B, Verheoven R, editors. Theorie in der Okologie. Frankfurt: Peter Lang; 2010.
Züghart W, Benzler A, Berhorn F, Sukopp U, Graef F. Determining indicators, methods and sites for monitoring potential adverse effects of genetically modified plants to the environment: the legal and conceptional framework for implementation. Euphytica 2008;164:845–52.
Zughart W, Raps A, Wust-Saucy A-G, Dolezel M, Eckerstorfer M. Monitoring of Genetically Modified Organisms. A policy paper representing the view of the National Environment Agencies in Austria and Switzerland and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation in Germany. Vienna: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; 2011. |
| Gado, please send me the exact reference if you can |
| Ossama, if you have the PDF files please send them to me |
| I would also like to comment on the actual framework presented. It would be useful to use a similar approach as in the roadmap and provide parties with specific guidance for each stage to compliment the "points to consider". In addition, the communication aspects are a critical component. There is need for the various monitoring components to be identified and articulated as such. |
| Also, Prof Jack Heinamann has recently coauthored with me a relevant paper. It was accepted by Science International, Elsevier and we will try to make it available to the BIRC once published |
| waiting for more comment pls |
| Wadzi, thanks for the suggestion. It is intended indeed that the monitoring doc will follow the same structure of the Roadmap |
| So, if any of you have documents that are relevant to the monitoring document, please send them to me so I can link them to the doc |
| if no more comment, we move on |
Thank you very much for your interventions. Let us please proceed to the third sub-item under 3.1.:
(c) RISK ASSESSMENT OF LM TREES
and I would like to invite you to comment on the first guiding question:
(i) Are all relevant scientific issues properly addressed in this guidance document? If not, please specify what amendments you would advise.
The floor is open for your reactions. |
| We have a number of papers published from the monitoring study undertaken. I will send these through via email. i am not able to cut and paste |
| Excellent, Wadzi. Please do so. |
| We agree with the document as a whole. However we think that the document should reflect more ‘what is so specific about GM trees and why they deserve special attention from both social and ecological prospectives?’ |
| I will requset the issue of bacoding of LM trees to be well rflected in the process of risk aaaessment for management purpose |
Thank you. I invite you to turn to the last question regarding the guidance on “LM trees”:
(ii) Do you have any bibliographic reference relevant to this guidance document which you would like to suggest?
The floor is open for your suggestions. |
| Genetically Engineered Trees & Risk Assessment An overview of risk assessment and risk management issues. Contents Ricarda A. Steinbrecher with Antje Lorch, May 2008
I think I have some others useful references, not handy at the moment, but will try to make them available through the BIRC |
| STRAUSS GROUP PUBLICATIONS ON TREE BT |
| thank you all, any more comment |
| Gado, please send exact references for the articles you would like included. We can not include references that are generic and not specific |
| the floor is still open for your comment |
| OK let me chech the correct references |
Thank you very much for all the interventions.
ITEM 3.2. FORMAT OF THE GUIDANCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE OF PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF PARTIES TO THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY AT ITS SIXTH MEETING.
As you are aware, the three background documents that form the basis for our discussions today will be brought for consideration by the COP-MOP at its sixth meeting.
Under this agenda item, you are invited to share your views on how the three documents should be formatted and presented to the COP-MOP. |
| I would suggest having one single final document made of three parts: part one (the roadmap), part two (guidance on stacked events, abiotic stress, mosquitos and trees and part three (the monitoring document) |
| The documents are important tools for the implementation of the protocol. I agree with Ossama that they should be packaged as a single comprehensive document on risk assessment of LMOs. The monitoring document, could perhaps be packaged separately |
| i think it is possible to have a single doc as suggested by ossama with 2 parts part I ROADMAP and part 2 the other doc |
| I agree with Osama on having a single document |
| I would however like some clarity from the secretariat on the nature of the documents. Are they simply guidance documents for parties to consider with no legal standing? |
| Yes, Wadzi, the request of the Parties was to develop GUIDANCE |
| The documents are not legally binding |
Thank you all,
I invite you to turn to the third substantive item in our agenda:
ITEM 3.3. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FURTHER GUIDANCE ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF RISK ASSESSMENT AND/OR RISK MANAGEMENT OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS
As you may be aware, a number of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol have indicated a need for guidance on various specific topics of risk assessment and risk management. For the last four years, following a mandate by the COP-MOP, the Open-ended Group and the AHTEG have developed guidance on general risk assessment of LMOs (i.e. the Roadmap) and on 5 specific topics of risk assessment and risk management (i.e. LMOs with stacked genes or traits, LM crops tolerant to abiotic stress, LM mosquitoes, LM trees, and monitoring of LMOs released into the environment).
Under this agenda item, you are invited to express your views as to whether and how the CBD Secretariat should continue to facilitate a process for developing further guidance on risk assessment and risk management. |
Yes there are, topics include;
• Risk assessment of living modified microorganisms and viruses;
• Risk assessment of living modified pharmaplants;
• Risk assessment of living modified fish;
• Risk assessment of living modified algae;
• Risk assessment living modified organisms for production of pharmaceutical and industrial products;
• Risk assessment of living modified plants for biofuels;
• Risk assessment of living modified organisms produced through synthetic biology.
• Risk assessment and management of LMOs intended for introduction into unmanaged environments
• Interface between risk assessment and risk management;
• “Co-existence” between LMOs and non-LMOs in the context of small scale farming;
• Socio-economic considerations in the context of ERA. |
| the floor is open for comment |
| The COP/MOP decision should also consider a mechanism for the implementation and regular updating of guidance documents. The global discussions on the green economy and sustainable development create a whole new challenge for the Cartagena PRotocol beyond the usual commodities that the sector has dealt with to date. To this end I support the list proposed by Ossama and would include a specific reference on emerging LMOs being developed as part of the Bioeconomy |
| there is a need for developing further guidance doc on risk assessment and RM for transgenic fishes , fisheries are vital elements for most countries for food security |
| still waiting for more comment |
I will now open the floor for your reactions to the first guiding questions under Item 3.3.:
(i) Is there a need for the development of further guidance on risk assessment and risk management? If so, on which specific topics should further guidance be developed?
The floor is open for your comments. |
Thank you very much. Let us please move to the final question under Item 3.3.:
(ii) If a need for further development of guidance exists, what kind of process(es), facilitated by the CBD Secretariat, could be considered for addressing this need?
The floor is now open for your reactions. |
| I think there is a need to recommend to COPMOP to extend the AHTEG for the period between COPMOP6-COPMOP7. The AHTEG has not covered all the issues that needed guidance documents and spelled in decision of COP-MOP IV. Issues like GM fish, pharmaplants, GM algae, GM microorganisms are still open. We do not think that any other online approach or forum will be able to provide useful guidance documents bearing in mind the level of participation and the technical barriers that face many underdeveloped parties. |
| the floor is still open for your comment |
| AHTEC should be given more time to develop more guidance on suggested topics |
| The biotechnology sector is constantly evolving. There are a number of related technologies being developed that require overall guidance on. these include: use of antibiotic selectable markers; pharmaplants, cis- and intragenics; root stock use, gene silencing |
| i support the propositions of Ossama and the AHTED task will allow less developping countries to dispose of tool for RA and RM |
Thank you very much for your comments. Let us please move to the last substantive item of our agenda:
ITEM 3.4. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONFERENCE OF PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF PARTIES TO THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY, INCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE GUIDANCE ON RISK ASSESSMENT
The sixth meeting of the COP-MOP will take place in October 2012 in Hyderabad, India. At that meeting, the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol will deliberate on a number of issues including risk assessment and risk management.
Similar to the practice at the face-to-face AHTEG meetings organized by the Secretariat, you are invited to provide recommendations to the Parties with regard to risk assessment and risk management, including considerations for future activities related to the “Guidance on Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms”. |
I will now open the floor for your reactions to the first guiding question under Item 3.4.:
(i) What recommendations with regard to risk assessment and risk management would you like to propose for consideration by the COP-MOP at its sixth meeting?
The floor is open for your comments. |
1. To adopt the results of the AHTEG and facilitate any work stemming from it.
2. To Extend the AHTEG for one additional period till the seventh meeting to finalize the remaining issues that were deemed important and were not covered . |
| Extend the mandate of AHTEG and make a large diffusion of documents to all parties of the Protocol |
| To adopt the out come of AHTEG and Extend AHTEG
Support the participation of AHTEG members to attend COP-MOP |
| COP-MOP 6 should consider a mechanism for the broader the development of the guidance documents. This would entail extending the mandate and participation in the AHTEG. Parties should have an opportunity to nomiate more experts with specific expereince onto the AHTEG. REgional sessions to roll out the roadmap should also be considered |
Thank you for the interventions.
I would like to proceed to the second and last guiding question under Item 3.4.:
(b) Would you like to make a recommendation to the COP-MOP regarding any consideration for future activities related to the Guidance on Risk Assessment?
I will now open the floor for your reactions. |
| i agree with your propositions Rufus |
| Request development Partners to fund further AHTEG activities |
| Provision of guidance on risk assessment is an ongoing activity as articulated in the Protocol strategic plan adopted by COP/MOP5. The key consideration is for COP/MOP6 to agree on the best possible mechansim for countries that are actively engaged in risk assessment and risk management to share their knoweldge and expertise and reduce the associated techncial and financial constraints |
In the interest of time and keeping the work programme that we agreed at the beginning of the conference, I will now close the discussion on item 3.
Thank you all for your interventions. |
We will now move to
ITEM 4. OTHER MATTERS
I will open the floor for approximately 5 minutes or more if needed for any suggestions, comments etc that you may wish to make that are relevant to the mandate of this conference.
The floor is now open. |
We are approaching the end of our conference, but before I move on to the next agenda item, I would like to invite the Secretariat to make some final remarks.
Secretariat, you have the floor. |
Dear all,
We are approaching the end of the Real-time Online Conference for Africa.
It was a great pleasure for us at the CBD Secretariat to be gathered here today with the purpose of discussing important issues on risk assessment of LMOs. The result of our conference is a set of recommendations that will not only assist the AHTEG in their deliberations but help the Parties in deciding a way forward.
I would like to thank all of you for participating in this conference and for the fruitful discussions. I would like to give special thanks to Ms. Hajara Yusuf for chairing this conference in such a skilful manner.
The full transcript of this conference will be available at this same address for future reference.
We will keep you informed of upcoming activities under the Open-ended Online Forum.
Thank you all, have a good afternoon! |
Thank you, Secretariat.
I would like also to thank all the participants and guests who have joined today for making this groundbreaking initiative a success. I would also like to thank the colleagues in the Secretariat for their tireless efforts and extremely valuable assistance in making this Conference possible.
With that, I now declare the Third Regional Real-time Online Conference on Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Africa, closed.
Thank you! |
| the floor is open for your comment about the conference |
| Thanks to all, I wish you all the best and hope to interact again either in person or through the internet. |
| It should be realised that AHTEG work is to assisst less developed countries/Parties to have a better approach to risk assessment and risk assessment as such the document are detailed for comprehensioinl |
| very nice merci beaucoup à tous |
| Merci beaucoup, Gado, et a la prochaine |
| if there is no more comment, thank you all for your great participation. Good bye to all |
List of Participants
| Chair Person |
# |
|
Hajara Oyiza Yusuf
National Biotechnology Development Agency
|
85 |
| Party |
# |
|
Ossama Abdel-kawy
Egypt
|
12 |
|
Rufus Ebegba
Nigeria
|
7 |
|
Mahaman Gado Zaki
Niger
|
16 |
|
Wadzanayi Goredema-Mandivenyi
South Africa
|
14 |
| Observers |
# |
|
Remi Akanbi
AfricaBio
|
- |
| Guests |
# |
|
Beatrix Tappeser
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
|
- |
|
Karabo Malakalaka
Department of Environmental Affairs (National)
|
- |
| Secretariat |
# |
|
Charles Gbedemah
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Giovanni Ferraiolo
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
Manoela Miranda
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
19 |
|
Stéphane Bilodeau
UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
|
- |
|
