[For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see Forum website. For further information on agricultural biotechnology, see the FAO biotechnology website.
      Note, participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise.]

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 14 January 2005 17:25
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: Opening of FAO e-mail conference on public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs

      Dear Colleagues,

      Welcome to the FAO e-mail conference entitled "Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people" !!!!

      You can send messages now (send them to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org). Messages will be posted from Monday 17 January onwards while the last day for receiving messages for posting will be Sunday 13 February.

      We hope that the conference will be interesting, constructive and beneficial and we encourage you to participate actively. We would like to briefly remind you of some of the main points about the running of the conference:

      i) Participants should introduce themselves briefly in their first posting to the conference

      ii) Messages should not exceed 600 words

      iii) People posting messages are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of their employers (unless they indicate otherwise)

      iv) The Background Document to the conference, sent by e-mail to the Forum members on 17 December, sets the scene for the conference and so we strongly encourage you to read it, especially Section 6 (reproduced below) which lists the questions to be addressed by participants in the conference. The document is available at http://www.fao.org/biotech/C12doc.htm and can also be retrieved by Forum members sending an e-mail to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org, leaving the subject blank and entering the one-line text message:
      send listlog/biotech-l.dec2004

      v) Messages posted in the conference will later (usually within a day or two) be placed on the Forum website - at http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c12logs.htm

      vi) In the posted messages, we will replace @ with (at) in the e-mail addresses of people sending messages (because of spamming).

      vii) No messages will be posted with attachments. If you receive a message during the conference with an e-mail attachment, just delete it without opening the attachment.

      vii) As for all other conferences hosted by this Forum, when it is finished a document will be prepared to provide a summary of the main arguments and concerns discussed during the e-mail conference, based on the messages posted by the participants. The summary document will be put on the Forum website and disseminated as widely as possible.

      Finally, we encourage you to tell any potentially interested colleagues or contacts about this conference. A short notice about the conference is included below for this purpose.

      With our sincere best wishes for a successful conference,

      John

      John Ruane, PhD
      Moderator, Conference 12
      e-mail: mailto:biotech-mod4@fao.org
      FAO website http://www.fao.org
      Forum website http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp
      FAO Biotechnology website http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp
      ***************** FAO e-mail conference - Public participation and GMOs

      The FAO Biotechnology Forum is devoting its next e-mail conference to the theme of public participation regarding GMOs for food and agriculture in developing countries and is entitled "Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people". This will be the 12th conference hosted by the Forum since it was launched in March 2000 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The conference, as usual, is open to everyone, is free and will be moderated. It begins on 17 January and runs for four weeks, finishing on 13 February 2005. All e-mail messages posted during the conference will also be placed on the Forum website (http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp). You are hereby invited to join the Forum and to participate in the conference!! To join the Forum (and also register for the conference), send an e-mail to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org leaving the subject blank and entering the following text on two lines:
      subscribe BIOTECH-L
      subscribe biotech-room4

      Those who are already Forum members should leave out the first line of the above message, to register for the conference. For more information, contact biotech-mod4@fao.org.

      **********************
      [FROM THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT]

      6. Questions to be addressed in this e-mail conference

      This conference is devoted to the subject of public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs for food and agriculture in developing countries, considering in particular how rural people can be effectively involved in the decision-making process. The questions that participants should address in the conference are:

      a) What priority should governments give to involving the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries?

      b) In which situations is it most important to include the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries?

      c) How can public participation opportunities be extended to groups in rural communities who are more difficult to reach or who have less access to communication channels (e.g., women, subsistence farmers)?

      d) Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so, how can this best be achieved?

      e) What is the best medium (e.g. newspaper, radio, Internet etc.) for rural people in developing countries to access quality information about GMOs, that will allow them to participate effectively in the decision-making process?

      f) Which mechanisms can be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media?

      g) What are the main information and communication needs of the rural people related to GMOs? How can local capacity be built to respond to these needs? What are the most appropriate approaches to respond to these needs?

      h) What is the best medium for rural people in developing countries to provide their inputs, if requested, to the decision-making processes regarding GMOs?

      i) How should local languages of the rural people be dealt with in a public participation exercise?

      j) Who can best represent the interests of the rural people in stakeholder discussions?

      k) Involving the public in decision-making processes can be costly. Who should pay?

      l) How important, implementable and relevant are the currently available international instruments relating to public participation and GMOs (see Section 4)?

      m) Concerning requests for approval of individual GM products, what kind of information should it be possible to withhold from public disclosure?

      n) Can certain public participation activities be organised on a regional basis in developing countries instead of at the national level?

      o) Is public participation regarding GMOs in developing countries more important for some food and agriculture sectors (crop, forestry, livestock, aquaculture and agro-industry) than others?

      p>-----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:46
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 1: Questions 6a - 6e in the Background Document

      [Welcome everybody to this FAO e-mail conference on public participation in decision-making on GMOs in developing countries !!! The four weeks available for this conference will go very fast, so we encourage you to participate actively right from the beginning to get the maximum benefit from it. Participants are also reminded to briefly introduce themselves in their first message to the conference...Moderator]

      I am Dr (Mrs) P S Janaki Krishna, working as ‘consultant’ in ‘Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme’ being implemented by the Biotechnology Unit of Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India.

      First of all, I would like to thank FAO for organizing this ‘e-conference’ on such an important topic - ‘Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people”. I also thank the organizers for providing such an exhaustive ‘Background Document’, which is very useful in proceeding towards the conference. I feel the sub-theme of the conference –‘how to effectively involve rural people’- is more critical and important. I always enjoy participating in these conferences, which are informative and well moderated. My main objective in participating in the present conference is to share some of my thoughts with regard to public participation as we in our Programme follow an ‘interactive bottom up’ approach which is based on the principles of participation for executing the projects in biotechnology and to also gain some knowledge through this conference on how to reach the unreached and involve them in the events of decision making.

      In many parts of rural India, as in many other countries, opportunities for people to learn about the world outside their village, or even to keep in touch with current events going in their own region, are often limited. They are not part of the formal communication networks that keep them up to date and in poor communities, newspapers, radios and television are scarce. In the same way, technologies and innovations like computers, television, video and cinema, which make city/town life seem attractive, are out of reach to the majority of people living in the remote countryside. In this regard, like ‘remote sensing’ ‘remote sourcing’ should also be given equal priority.

      Against this backdrop, and on behalf of some of these unheard voices, I would like to participate in this conference. How to make these voices heard in decision-making on the introduction of new varieties of crops like GMOs (whose inherent make up is changed) into their farms in which they live, work, walk, talk, eat and sleep is the main challenge. I hope by the end of the conference we will certainly get some clues/leads on how to involve them in decision making with regard to implementation of these programmes.

      Coming to the 15 questions that are provided as part of the ‘Background document’ to be addressed in this conference, I would like to comment on a set of five questions each time in order to be crisp and focused.

      6.a) "What priority should governments give to involving the rural people in decision making regarding GMOs in developing countries?"

      Governments should give top priority to involving rural people in decision-making. (This has been well acknowledged in the Rio Declaration – 1992). Once this decision is put into practice as a must the ‘ways and means’ by the respective nations and states would be worked out.

      6.b) "In which situations is it most important to include the rural people in decision-making regarding the GMOs in developing countries?"

      If the GMO that is to be introduced by any means affects the livelihoods of rural people, as a follower of participatory approaches in technology development, I feel it is advisable to involve rural people right from priority setting including selection of crops/varieties/traits/products for genetic modification. If not, they should at least be consulted during the decision making process at developing regulatory frameworks and approving for commercialization.

      6.c) "How can public participation opportunities be extended to groups in rural communities who are more difficult to reach or who have less access to communication channels (e.g. women, subsistence farmers)?"

      It is true that these groups are difficult to reach. However, door to door sample surveys, meetings with these groups, exposure visits by these groups to research farms, labs where these products are being developed, involving them as one of the stakeholders in public awareness camps on “Biotechnology and emerging issues”, public debates etc. would help and their opinions may be documented and shared during the decision making process. We in Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme involve rural people throughout project conceptualization and implementation stage and organize public awareness camps and public debates on these issues on a regular basis. Right and transparent communication with regard to GMOs should be given due importance in this exercise.

      6.d) "Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so how can this be best achieved?"

      It again depends on the GMO we are introducing. If it any way affects these communities they should be consulted during the decision making process. Also, one of the representatives from these communities should be nominated to the policy making body to take care of these issues.

      6.e) "What is best medium (e.g. newspaper, radio, internet etc.) for rural people in developing countries to access quality information about GMOs, that will allow them to participate effectively in the decision making process?"

      For rural people, radio and newspaper are best media to be reached. Television also to some extent can be used as one of the communication medium. I recently heard of ‘community radios’, which are serving as best medium to reach these people. Governments may give a serious thought for installation of the same in the villages. Besides we can think of involving them in answering questionnaires with regard to policy implementation, distribute pamphlets with regard to existing policies, brochures etc. show them the video films, skits depicting the ‘pros and cons’ of GMOs. However, any form of communication should be in the local language.

      These are some of my opinions, which I would to like to state at this juncture. Thank You!

      P S Janaki Krishna,
      Consultant,
      Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
      Hyderabad - 500 007,
      India
      Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
      Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:47
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 2: Rural people in developing world - Different profiles

      I am Vagner Augusto Benedito, a Brazilian researcher from CENA/USP (the Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture/University of Sao Paulo), with a Ph.D. in plant sciences from Wageningen University (the Netherlands).

      This conference is a great opportunity to debate how to include rural people from developing world in the current debate on issues where they are directly involved, trying to make them not only receptors of novel technologies or ready answers to their problems, but instead, integrating them in the decision-making process.

      I would like to start the discussion reminding that rural people in developing world can have different profiles regarding education, economic situation, and power to interfere in political decisions.

      Here in Brazil, we may situate rural people in several categories, including:

      1) big farmers (producing mostly export and internal commodities), which are technified businessmen, have access to financing and can be organized to interfere actively in politics even at national levels;

      2) big farmers who are less technified, but take advantage of large areas for production (even devastating forests for new agriculture frontiers) and can also interfere in political internal affairs;

      3) medium farmers of a wide range of education and technification, whose interference power in political matters will depend on their own organization (as cooperatives or associations), but usually have their political influence in more local standards;

      4) small/subsistence farmers, who are mostly lowly educated, poor, not organized people with no influence in the political scenario and their voices are only heard indirectly (when it is heard).

      Of course, we have a gradation in these categories and exceptions (for example, small highly technified farmers, such as flower producers in Sao Paulo State).

      One first big problem to involve rural people in the decision-making process is their capacity of organization. If they are organized at the national level (which in Brazil is largely difficult due to the country size), they can demand their needs or make their opinions listened to.

      Another problem to be faced in this regard is about education. Low education is usually the rule among rural people in Brazil (and of course in the whole undeveloped world). In order to insert rural people in any decision-making process, it is necessary to think of giving them tools for their own judgement, and this is only achieved with education.

      A third problem I see in this theme is leadership control. It is easier to lead a people without involving them, since it can generate long discussions and the process could run much more slowly. Real democracy is not easy to be implemented (even in the said democratic governments) and it is an exercise of achieving the most satisfying solution, which demands sometimes furious debates. Governments must give some room for listening to people's opinions, taking it seriously to try to achieve the best solution.

      GMOs are a reality in many places of the world and much has been already said by political and scientific experts and so little has been listened from the farmers (excluding, of course, large-scale producers, which made a huge difference in releasing transgenic soybean in Brazil). My personal concern is about small-scale producers, which so far are rarely inquired about themes that make huge differences in their lives.

      Dr. Vagner Augusto Benedito, Ph.D.
      Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology
      Plant Breeding Laboratory - LAMP
      Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture
      University of São Paulo
      benedito (at) cena.usp.br
      phone: +55-19-3429-4812
      fax: +55-19-3429-4610

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:48
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 3: Why involve the rural people on the issue of GMOs

      This is from Michel Ferry, an agronomist interested by the problematic of the poor farmers livelihood improvement and the consequences of liberalism for the poor and the environment. I am following the debate on biotechnology and development with very much attention.

      The question on how to involve the rural people on the issue of GMOs seems to me a bit strange. Before asking how, perhaps could it be interesting to ask why? Why give to this issue a special place in the issues regarding rural development? The question of how to involve the rural people on this issue is not specific. It belongs to the problematic of how to involve the rural people on any subject regarding their activities and their life. We know that it is a difficult task for many reasons. Because the rural people are difficult to reach, and if we are speaking of the poor local people, who should be the priority target of development actions it is still worse. Most of the rural people speak only their ethnic language. Most of them don´t know how to read or to write. We know that they are also not or badly represented. In these conditions, is it a priority and really serious and honest to pretend to look for the opinion of the rural people?

      Everybody knows that the debate on GMOs is very complex and even educated people are not always capable of understanding it. How could we avoid that such a question would not be biased by the persons asking it? Once again, what are the objectives of the persons who say that they would like to know the rural people's opinion? Is there not some hypocrisy or hidden objective behind that research? In fact what are the questions that the persons would like to ask? I would be interested to know them? The push of the USA and their multinationals to obtain the agreement of the African countries for the introduction of GMO is strong and often indecent. National authorities have difficulty in resisting. To facilitate this agreement, is not one of the solutions to pretend that the rural people have been consulted?

      Why the rural people? Are not the consumers as much or more concerned that them? Or is the idea just to inform the farmers that with the GMOs (I think that it is generally impossible to explain to them what they are) they will be able to eliminate easily the weeds or fight against pests without using pesticide. After that explanation it just remains to ask them if they agree with the GMOs. How to present them with the possibilities of risks: health, biodiversity, resistance, gene flow, patented seeds, GMO market, increasing competition of the wealthier farmers etc..? As some of these risks are complex, potential or on the medium and long term how to present them to give the farmers the information that will really allow them to make a choice?

      Michel Ferry
      Scientific Director
      Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
      Apartado 996
      03201 Elche
      Spain
      tel: 34.965421551
      fax: 34.965423706
      Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:49
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 4: Why should the public be involved in the decision making processes regarding GMOs?

      My name is Diogenes Infante. I am a researcher in plant biotechnology at the Institute for Advanced Studies (Instituto de Estudios Avanzados, IDEA) in Caracas, Venezuela. My fields of research include micropropagation, molecular markers and transgenics in tropical crops.

      Regarding the matter of this conference, I want to point out:
      Are the public involved in the decision making process of new drugs?
      Are the public involved in the decision process of frequencies assigned for cell phones or TV broadcast?
      Are the public involved in the decision making process for the approval of new chemicals for agriculture?
      So, why should the public, rural or not, be involved in the decision making processes regarding GMOs?

      In all the decision making process, specialists in the field should be involved. It is the people with the right knowledge, and tools, who take the decision about the benefits and side effects of new medicaments, or old ones. Example, this week Nimelsulide has been retired from pharmacies in Venezuela, an analgesic that is used in kids for fever and pains. I used it a lot with my younger son. But it has a side effect. If as a member of the public I was consulted about this drug, my opinion would be very favorable. I did not know about the side effect: increased levels of hepatitis.

      On the other hand, GMOs are the safest technology developed by the mankind; I did not know any case of something wrong with GMOs. But GMOs has been the target of pseudo-ecologist organizations that make their living creating panic about GMOs. There is a demagogical campaign again GMOs, especially in Venezuela. In order to be effective, a demagogue needs uneducated public. So the only reason I found to involve the public in the decision making process for GMOs, is that they are the target of the demagogues anti GMOs.

      Consequently, instead of promoting the public participation in the decision making process of GMOs, organizations like FAO should promote decision panels conformed by experts at the highest level. So, the conference desirable is : What kind of expertise is needed in a panel of expert for approval/refusal of GMOs?

      Dr. Diógenes Infante H.
      Centro de Biotecnología
      Instituto de Estudios Avanzados
      http://www.idea.org.ve
      e-mail: dinfante (at) idea.org.ve
      Tel: 58-0212-903-5104
      Fax:58-0212-903-5092
      Cel:58-0416-632-9805

      Apdo. 17606 Parque Central
      Caracas 1015-A, Venezuela
      Carretera Hoyo de la Puerta
      Sartenejas, Caracas 1080
      Venezuela

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:50
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 5: Farmers perspective

      I am an Australian farmer that has dedicated years to researching how GM crops will impact on farmer economics and have lobbied hard to be effectively involved in the decision making process. Although I am already actively involved in agripolitics at state and national level, I have never experienced a debate that is so controversial, so reliant on misleading information and so complex.

      The key question for this forum is "how rural people can be effectively involved in the decision-making process" but it needs to be acknowledged that farmers are heavily targetted by those with vested interests and the unbiased information farmers and policy makers need in order to make decisions is not freely available.

      A priority for any government to introduce any legislation in the application of biotechnology in the agricultural industry in any country should be to ensure these new novel crops do not jeopardise market opportunities or impose unreasonable costs or market risk on existing producers.

      Farmers should be surveyed to gain an understanding of how they react to the specific details of how GM introduction will affect them. If decisions are going to negatively impact on farmers income or livelihood, governments must involve farmers in order to negotiate issues such as adequate compensation if imposing economic liabilities.

      Unbiased information regarding actual yields and costs must be obtained to accurately calculate if growing GM crops will be financially beneficial or detrimental in both the short and long term. It has been reported that incentives have been used to promote the establishment of GM crops in underdeveloped countries but these expensive incentives are not sustainable. Crop management issues need to be resolved. For example, if considering the future option of GM pharmaceutical or industrial crops, there is clear evidence that consumers do not wish to be accidentally and unknowingly consuming a range of pharmaceuticals or industrial plastics in their cereals and yet it will be impossible for farmers to avoid contamination. If wreckless decisions are made, farmers could not only lose the ability to market non-GM food crops consumers prefer, but could lose the ability to market food crops at all.

      Risk management needs to be carefully assessed and addressed. For example, as coexistence is promised to Australian farmers, the questions tailored to Australian farmers and policy makers would be:

      1. Do you think the principle of responsibility for coexistence for GM crops with non-GM crops should be based on ; the GM grower to keep GM crops contained ; or for the non-GM grower to keep GM contamination out (as proposed under current protocols)?

      2. Should trade definitions in the coexistence plans comply with law? (The ACCC and lawyers have confirmed that under the Trade Practices Act, in order to make a positive label claim of either "non-GM" or "GM-free" there must be NO trace of contamination present. However the committee that have prepared coexistence plans claim that contamination is impossible to control so will be accepted.)

      3. Prior to accepting coexistence plans, should there be proof of widespread education and acceptance, that no sector of industry is faced with unmanageable problems and that no sector of industry is faced with additional costs and liabilities without approval from that sector of industry?

      4. Do you expect non-GM farmers to sell crops mixed with GM canola if crops and stock return a lower price or meets market resistance (as proposed under current protocols)?

      5. If non-GM farmers must guarantee no contamination on delivery (as per receival point delivery dockets), should they accept any GM contamination in the Non-GM canola seed they plant (The seed industry currently allows a tolerance of 0.5% GM contamination in non-GM seed)?

      6. Do you support the retention of the right for non-GM farmers to replant their own seeds (this right is denied in the proposed coexistence plans)?

      7. Should there be risk management to ensure detection of an unwanted trace of GM contamination does not trigger a deduction of a patent user fee from the non-GM growers income through end-point royalties?

      8. If GM canola is introduced and contamination or loss of GM-free status causes economic loss to others, do you think farmers should be compensated?

      9. Who do you think should be liable for any economic loss caused by GM contamination or loss of GM-free status: the non-GM grower (as proposed under current protocols); the GM grower; the owner of the patent (ie. Monsanto / Bayer Cropscience); and/or the government who approved GM release?

      10. Would you support a strict GM liability regime in legislation to ensure farmers are protected from unfair liability under law?

      Julie Newman
      National Spokesperson
      Network of Concerned Farmers www.non-gm-farmers.com
      Newdegate, West Australia
      Phone 08 98711562,
      email: julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:51
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 6: What the rural people need to know

      My name is Rafael Gómez Kosky from Cuba. I am working in plant biotechnology. I am a researcher and I work in genetic transformation in banana, plantain and papaya.

      In my opinion, I think that the rural people need to know which are the advantages that the GMOs have that they will sow that has gone by different studies and that these doesn't represent any problem for the and her family and that GMOs will allow him to increase the yields without having to apply pesticides. Nevertheless it is necessary to create culture in people of the field on the GMOs so that they are in favor of the same ones. But it needs time and to teach to them.

      Dr. Rafael Gomez Kosky
      Director of Research
      Instituto de Biotecnologia de las Plantas,
      Universidad Central de Las Villas Carretera a Camajuani km 5.
      Santa Clara.
      Villa Clara.
      Cuba
      CP 54830.telef:53-42-281693/281257/281374
      fax:53-42-281329
      email:koskyrg (at) yahoo.es ; rgkosky (at) ibp.uclv.edu.cu

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:51
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 7: Hopes from the conference

      [A message from a colleague in Ecuador. A rough English translation is provided, plus the original Spanish-language message...Moderator].

      My name is Galo F. Jarrín T. and I am the national co-ordinator of the project for the Development of the national biosafery framework for Ecuador, a project which is carried out under UNEP-GEF (United Nations Environment Programme-Global Environment Facility) and the Ministry for the Environment of Ecuador.

      I am very interested in participating in this e-mail conference on behalf of the project, presenting institutional, more than personal, opinions.

      I hope, through this conference to get to know the experiences of individual and institutional parties related to biotechnology and biosafety at the international level to find inspiration for our activities, particularly on a subject as important as public participation in the area of GMOs.

      *********

      (Mi nombre es Galo F. Jarrín T., soy el Coordinador Nacional del Proyecto: Desarrollo del Marco Nacional de Seguridad de la Biotecnología(Bioseguridad) para Ecuador, Proyecto que se ejecuta con el auspicio del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Ambiente(PNUMA), el Fondo Ambiental Mundial(FMAM) y el Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador(MAE).

      Tengo mucho interés de participar en la conferencia representando a dicho Proyecto, por ende las opiniones que emita serán mas de tipo institucional (Proyecto de Bioseguridad) antes que personal.

      Espero, a través de esta Conferencia conocer las experiencias de otros actores personales e institucionales relacionados a la Biotecnología y Bioseguridad a nivel internacional, para así nutrir con nuevos insumos nuestros esfuerzos particularmente en un tema tan importante como la Participación Pública en el tema de los OGMs.)

      Galo F. Jarrin
      National Project Coordinator
      Development of the National Biosafety Framework Project
      UNEP-GEF-Ministry of Environment of Ecuador
      Quito
      Ecuador
      Tel: (593-2)2563423
      Fax: (593-2) 2563422
      Email: gjarrin (at) ambiente.gov.ec

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:52
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 8: Public participation - African societies

      I am Dr Mamadou Khouma, head of National Research Laboratory on Crop Production/ISRA, Senegal. I am a member of the National Committee on Biosafety who drafted proposal for a Biosafety law.

      The question of public participation in GMOs debate is very important because democracy and good governance require participation of all stakeholders. The difficulty in African societies where literacy is weak is to make this participation effective. Apart from that, one needs to translate or adapt new scientific concepts in understandable words for common people. In Senegal we tried to make some booklet in local languages explaining GMOs and their applications and effects that can result from their extended use.

      A big issue is how to make public participation representative of a diversity of opinion. I think that public participation must be organized if we want it to be representative. If not, we will have as many opinions as individuals. The trap is taking individual's opinion for people's one.

      Dr Mamadou Khouma,
      Head of National Research Laboratory on Crop Production
      Institut sénégalais de recherches agricoles (ISRA)
      BP 3120, Dakar,
      Sénégal
      mkhouma (at) isra.sn

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:52
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 9: Prioritising rural people - Education - Radio

      My name is Gwinyai Emmanuel Chibisa. I am a student, studying agriculture (animal science) in Zimbabwe.

      I think the rural people should be given even first priority in decision making regarding GMOs. The main problem now is the ignorance in terms of knowing what GMOs are, their benefits and everything about them. Its sad that in countries like ours, the rural people only "know" or were (are) made to believe that GMOs are bad. There is so much ignorance. So, the first step is educating people. I believe the radio is the best medium availabe for quality information dissemination. The local languages have to be used. This will obviously enable greater public participation given the high illiteracy levels in the rural areas.

      Gwinyai Emmanuel Chibisa,
      Department of Animal Science
      University of Zimbabwe
      Box MP167
      Mt. Pleasant
      Harare
      Zimbabwe
      gcecko (at) yahoo.co.uk

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 17 January 2005 17:53
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 10: Development of a national policy for biotechnology

      My name is Edo Lin. I am an independent consultant and have worked extensively in the seed and biotech area.

      The background document to this conference focuses the question of public participation in decision making on GMOs mainly in the narrow context of the development of regulatory frameworks and risk assessments. Developing (and developed) countries are under pressure of international agreements to adopt regulatory systems to facilitate trade in GMOs and Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol requires public awareness, education and participation. At the same time, many developing countries have not yet developed a coherent national policy on the use of biotechnology for national food security and poverty alleviation. By signing up to international agreements, national autonomy has become limited and may compromise the outcomes of public debates and participation in decision making, leading to disillusionement in the consultative process.

      In spite of the pressures to develop regulatory frameworks and product approval it seems to me that the development of a national policy for biotechnology based on public consensus and decision making is the priority.

      Several case studies on a participatory priority setting approach toward national biotechnology programmes such as the citizen jury (developed in India) and the Interactive Bottom-Up approach (developed in several countries in cooperation with the Netherlands) involved key stakeholders and potential beneficiaries of biotechnology and provide examples of public decision making.

      Edo Lin
      309, rue de Bombon
      77720 Breau
      France
      lin.edo (at) free.fr

      p>-----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 18 January 2005 12:07
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 11: Democracy

      My name is Patricia L Farnese and I teach Agricultural Law at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

      I have been reading the comments of the fellow participants with interest. I have some comments I wish to share concerning what I have read so far.

      First, we must be very careful not to assume that those who do not share our opinions are "uneducated" or that once "educated" they will change their views on the issue. For instance, there are many reasons, besides safety, that I am leery about the continued introduction of GMOs. Of particular concern is the movement of genetic resources out of the public domain and into private hands. In addition, the private control of GMO plant-genetic material is bordering a state of monopoly. No amount of information about the safety of GMOs will convince me that the monopolization of this sector is in the best interests of society.

      I turn now to the bigger question of rural participation in decision-making regarding GMOs. Are they not citizens? True democracy requires that all citizens be engaged in the democratic process. Therefore, elected representatives have a duty to ensure that their actions are, in fact, representative of ALL voices. Citizens may not be involved in all government decisions, but that is because they CHOOSE not to be involved in issues of no concern to them. Democracy means, no matter what the reason, when citizens choose to become involved, they are entitled to participate in government and put any issue on the agenda. Democracy also means that citizens can regulate however they want, even if the motivations and results are irrational to the outsider. (Note: citizens often limit this right by signing treaties, constitutions, etc.) To date, only fundamental human rights and the sovereign rights of states exist in international law (outside of treaties) to limit the rights of citizens within a country to govern themselves. Corporations and GMOs do not have those rights, so in a true democracy, their interests in regulating GMOs would never replace the interests of the people.

      So, my answer to the question of rural participation in decision-making regarding GMOs is that, without their voice, government regulation in the area is illegitimate.

      I look forward to your comments.

      Patricia L. Farnese, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
      Assistant Professor, College of Law
      Senior Law Fellow, Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment
      University of Saskatchewan
      Canada
      e-mail: plf472 (at) duke.usask.ca

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 18 January 2005 12:07
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 12: Malawi

      My name is Charles Mkula. I am the executive secretary of the Agri-Ecology Media, an all media practitioners organisation on agriculture and the environment.

      I think this conference will help shape our organisations’ direction on the GMO issue which up to now is not well understood by the general public including our legislators.

      I strongly believe it is important to give the public, especially the people in the village, quality information that will help them make informed choices as to the pros and cons of GMOs.

      In my country there has not been adequate debate involving the rural masses on GMOs. The issue has largely been taken care of by technocrats without input from farmers. If anything it is more of the urban population consumers that got involved, however, in household level discussion of GMO foodstuffs found in superstores that are not even found in the rural areas.

      On the other hand, the farmer was denied appropriate information on GM seeds.

      Charles Mkula
      Agri-Ecology Media
      P/Bag 92
      Blantyre
      Lilongwe
      MALAWI
      Phone +265 8 339 200 / +265 9 202 409
      E-mail hyphenmedia (at) earthdome.com / c_mkula (at) yahoo.co.uk

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 18 January 2005 16:36
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 13: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      This is Edo Lin, independent consultant.

      Both Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17) and Michel Ferry (Message 3, January 17) ask the question why the public (rural or not) should be involved in the decision making process regarding GMOs. I would like to indicate three different levels where decisions on GMOs are made and each of which have an impact on the livelihood of rural (and urban) people. These three levels are the international level (World Trade Organization, Convention on Biological Diversity, Codex etc), the national level (development of a national biotechnology strategy) and the local level (acceptance of GMOs for planting or consumption).

      1. At the international level, many developing countries have signed up to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the related Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Having signed up to these international conventions, countries have rights and obligations when it comes to GMOs (or LMOs (living modified organisms)) both within the context of their own development of GMOs as within the context of trade in GMOs or food and feedstuffs containing or derived of GMOs.

      As I mentioned in my earlier message (nr. 10, January 17) the obligations under these conventions may limit the scope of what national governments can do with the outcomes of national debates and public decision making. For instance, risk assessments based on sound and transparent science versus ethical and social concerns or the precautionary principle.

      Apart from a number of very vocal demonstrations against globalisation, I don't think that many poor people have been consulted in the decision making process on whether to join or not.

      2. At the national level, countries will need to design a national policy for the development of biotechnology (not only for green but also for industrial and medical applications) which should include, inter alia, the role of biotechnology and GMOs within the framework of poverty alleviation and food security, appropriate biosafety regulations and risk assessments, intellectual property rights and money to be spent on biotech research in the long term.

      At this stage very few developing countries have developed national biotechnology strategies although many are working with the help of UNEP/GEF (United Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Facility) on the establishment of biosafety regulations.

      At the national level, there is a need for all stakeholders and especially rural people to get involved in the discussion and decision making as the outcomes of a national biotechnology strategy will directly affect their livelihoods. For example, in Egypt several GM crops are reaching commercialisation. These include some of the main export earners such as rice, bananas, potatoes and cotton. In Egypt, 60% or more of these products are produced by small-scale farmers. The introduction of GM crops may have considerable impact on export of these commodities to, for instance, the European Community (EU) where none of these GM crops have yet been approved for food or feed. Another example is the increasing likelihood that food aid will at least partially consist of GMOs. In 2002 several Southern African countries refused shipments of GM maize sent as emergency food aid because of environmental and human health concerns. Although the GM maize was eventually allowed in (after milling) this was not the result of a reasoned debate or public decision making.

      3. At the local level, biotechnology including GM crops still hold promise for increased food security and poverty alleviation. Informed choices (including the choice for alternatives to GMOs!) will have to be made and priorities set at the local level. In many developing countries there is no predominant production system, like for instance in the United States Mid West, but fields are mixed or intercropped, are close to neighbouring fields, seed saving and exchange between farmers is frequent etc. The introduction of GMOs will therefore not only affect individual farmers but whole communities. Individual and collective prioritizing and decision making is therefore a must.

      Janaki Krishna (Message 1, January 17) gave the example of Andra Pradesh where an interactive bottom-up approach has been pioneered and has shown that also at village and community level, rural people understand complex issues and are able to prioritize. I hope that she will be so kind as to expand more on the actual process and outcomes during this conference.

      Edo Lin
      309, rue de Bombon
      77720 Breau
      France
      lin.edo (at) free.fr

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 18 January 2005 16:43
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 14: Contribution from West Bengal

      This is from Prof. S.K.T. Nasar, retired Director of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal, and former Chairman, Department of Genetics, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, and Miss Reshma Nasar, Fishery Extension Officer, Government of West Bengal, India. We are attached with awareness and programme implementation on agriculture including GMOs among rural communities for several years.

      Firstly, public comprehension on GM crops/organisms is either superficial or missing. As a result, public participation in decisions on GMOs is largely the echo of the information ‘conveyed’ by lobbyists. These pressure groups take opposite and, at times, fundamentally extreme views. The casualties are the real issues and facts about GMOs. Public participation, unless based on informed decision-making, will only complicate the process.

      Secondly, we agree with Janaki Krishna (Message 1, January 17) that in many parts of rural India, opportunities for people to be taught about current events outside their village around the world are limited due to inadequate communication system. Deprived communities have little time for, or access to, library, television, radio and print media. Likewise, computer, internet, video and cinema are yet to be used by the majority in the remote countryside.

      Thirdly, in a democratic system, political and community leaders organise the masses in favour or against issues of public importance. Fortunately, in India the legislatures and the governments at the center and the states have taken well-informed stance. GMOs have been legislated upon through r-DNA Guidelines (operative), the Biological Diversity Act, the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act (in process) and the modified Patent Act (under active and immediate consideration).

      Fourthly and finally, there is a resolute suspicion not so much about the beauty, science, relevance and potential of GMOs as for its factual or perceived ‘politics of exploitation’. Unscrupulous GMO-developers surreptitiously thrust Bt-cotton in India leading to damning rhetoric followed by government disapproval, and then approval. Few influential, but inclined researchers undertook trials without due endorsement. The message penetrated public mind as persistent suspicion about GMOs. Deep-seated suspicion makes it difficult to organise an unbiased and a rational view of the matter for a meaningful participation of the public in decision-making.

      It is crucial for the public to be well informed about GMOs. Most groups in rural communities, including women, subsistence farmers and village leaders have low capacity to undertake risks and are not easy to reach. Our awareness programmes in a participatory mode with Local Self Governments, Farmers’ Co-Operatives, and Farmers’ Groups that are well organised and active in the state of West Bengal were successful.

      Empowering rural communities for decision making on GMOs is possible with two strategies in tandem: to make them aware about full and unbiased facts in terms of their own socio-economy and language followed by their tiered participation in the decision making process. It must be borne in mind that only an honest approach can succeed and that GMOs shall be blocked if seen as a means of exploitation.

      The theme of this conference looks at the issue on a ‘global problem, local solution’ basis. This mind set has to be modified in the present context. GMO is a global public good. New Biology has an enormous future with fascinating and mind-boggling future. Its denial at the local level has negative global implication that must be addressed.

      We propose that an independent international mechanism, preferably coordinated by FAO, should be organised to monitor without bias and to scientifically assess the impact of GMOs on local socio-economy and environment, and to make over the information to national systems. The national governments should take up massive-scale educational and awareness programmes in participation with local self governments, schools, other educational institutions, NGOs and farmers’ organisations. Each national government should publicise white papers especially for the political, scientific and community leaders. Rural communities should be encouraged to take informed decisions on GMOs communicated to national law makers for policy choice and implementation. This simply worded action plan will obviously entail huge cost and skilled manpower. National governments of developing countries should be drawn in to participate. Unless concerted efforts are made now, the entire idea of ‘'Public participation in decision-making regarding GMO’s in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people” will remain yet another rhetoric.

      S.K.T. Nasar & Reshma Nasar
      Kolkata,
      West bengal,
      India
      sktnasar (at) hotmail.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 13:21
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 15: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      I am Shanthu Shantharam, an international consultant on biotech affairs and management.

      There is no question and there is no doubt that public participation must be facilitated to implement agricultural biotechnology in all countries. Public includes rural people. Now what does it mean by public participation? How to go about it? Does the public really care? Or is that some self-appointed interlocutors make loud noises on behalf of the "public" and therefore, we all need to worry about it? What is the credibility of these interlocutors for articulating the "public" views? I bet most of the public don't even understand or know what is it that all this squabbling about in biotechnology!

      As far as I can see, biotechnology involves three distinct but contiguous phases. Laboratory R&D, field testing for efficacy and safety and commercialization. I am a votary of assessing social and economic impacts of any technology that will be made available to the public, but wonder how useful it will be for untrained and uninformed (science and technology wise) public to provide for public participation in research and technology development. They will not be able to make any useful contribution. It makes no difference whether they are rural or urban public or they are educated or not. They have to have expert knowledge in the subject to make useful contributions. Safety analysis and decision making can only be done by the experts but one can ask for public comments. My experience in the United States by allowing public input on regulatory decision making has been that they have not be very useful. In fact, public is not really interested unless there has been a media expose on the topic momentarily.

      Public input may be critical at the commercialization stage to gauge their perception. Social and economic assessments must also be made available to the public. Public must be informed and must be allowed to provide input.

      Even now, public opinion is not sought for developing pharmaceuticals and drugs, introducing new varieties of plants and animals and new chemical insecticides and pesticides and many other endeavors. The same rural farmers have not objected to them and what is so special about GMOs that they would do so now unless some interlocutor might provoke them as it is going on now. My experience with developing country farmers is that if you show clear economic benefit with the use of technology and it is easy to use or adopt, they will give it a try. If it proves to be what it said it will do, they will adopt it, otherwise, they won't. Stealth Bt-cotton in India is the best example of this instance. Then, you cannot keep it away from them.

      Seeking general public input is really not going to serve any purpose as there would not be any. But, by stratifying the public into focus groups and surveying them for their perceptions and opinions on a continuous basis will be valuable in developing both public policy on biotechnology and to the industries to direct their inventions to meet the felt needs of the public (rural included).

      Shanthu Shantharam,
      Biologistics International,
      Ellicott City,
      Maryland,
      USA
      e-mail: sshantharam (at) biologistics.us

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 13:25
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 16: Re: Why involve the rural people on the issue of GMOs

      I am Sylvia Kosalko. I develop educational workshops on nutritional issues in the USA.

      I believe education should be the first step in any new proposed change. However, I believe Michel Ferry (Message 3, January 17) to have hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. Before we begin to educate the rural people on GMOs, we must first ask ourselves why. Why are we involved in this issue of entire cultures food dependency? Do any of us have the right to make a decision as important as this for another culture, or for that matter, even one human being? Perhaps, before this question of how to introduce the GMOs into their world is considered, they should be consulted to see if they even want the interference in their countries. Who benefits the most from the introduction of these organisms. Is it not the multi-national corporations who have a vested interest in assuring a new market for their product? Perhaps the world of academia has an interest also as millions of dollars of research monies are being funneled to their biotech projects from these corporations, in addition to the intellectual standing in their communities. In order for these under developed countries to fully understand the complexities of this issue, it would take an enormous mass educational undertaking that would encompass all individuals involved, from those of an understanding age to older adults. It would necessitate a multi-media approach such as the well-developed countries have, in addition to a more intimate approach such as a basic door-to-door, one individual at a time, education project. It would or should involve reaching the masses at their elementary levels. You can realize the magnitude and the expense of such an undertaking. This would take many years in order to allow the rural class to fairly decide such an important cultural change. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that there is not more at stake here. Once you change a society's basic food culture, you change the rest of their society. As Patricia Farnese (Message 11, January 18) so succinctly stated, they have the right to be democratically involved in this process, in their language, and in their time frame. To do anything less is not morally, ethically or legally, correct.

      Sylvia Kosalko,
      Good 4 You Nutrition
      P.O. Box 372
      Black Lick,
      Pennsylvania 15716
      United States
      skosalko (at) verizon.net

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 13:28
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 17: Extension system

      My name is Hastings Zidana, I am a fisheries researcher in Fish Breeding and Genetics section at Malawi National Aquaculture Centre, Zomba, Malawi.

      In the case of my country Malawi, if you want to involve the rural people in decision making regarding GMOs, the best way will be to use the structures which have already been laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture. These are community sections called extension planning area (EPA'S), which are used as a platform to give information of new technologies in agriculture for my country. Each extension area has got staff of field-specific expertise e.g. veterinary, fisheries, health, crops and animal health. The staff houses are strategically located right away in the villages and they are part of the rural community.

      How is Malawi affected by GMO products? This is through aid like the GMO maize and through imports which have GMO ingredients in it.

      As we can see from the webpage on "Biotechnology Policy Documents of FAO Members", as of April 2004 only 12 country documents have been finalised. It means many countries, Malawi included, need to have some regulations on GMO e.g. National Policy on GMO. It is during such times that the rural people need to be involved. However, for the rural people to have a full participation in a specialised field like GMO, they need to be well informed on what is involved. [The reference here is to a webpage (http://www.fao.org/biotech/country.asp) of the FAO Biotechnology website which aims to bring together on-line biotechnology policy documents from FAO members. The majority of documents there are national policy documents, but regional (within country) documents are also included. When last updated in April 2004, it had links to biotechnology policy documents from Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, India, Ireland, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, as well as the European Community. If there are any missing or new documents, please contact biotech-website@fao.org with the details...Moderator].

      Firstly the extension staff, who are going to coordinate the involvement of the rural people should understand what subject they are dealing with. The government and private sector should make an effort so that these extension staff are well informed on GMO issues before they are going to coordinate. They should be able to understand both the scientific and ethical issues involved. These extension staff acts like guiders to the rural people and the rural people have got more trust in the information given by the extension staff in their area than any other stranger e.g. a government staff member from a research institution coming to give a lecture on GMOs, the same lecture given by the local extension staff. The rural people will listen more to their extension staff than the government researcher. This is why there is a need to invest more in these extension workers. Another advantage is that these extension workers are staying in the villages with the rural people and they work on a day to day basis with these rural people, so its easy for these extension workers to give information regarding GMOs to rural people than other government officials, who can only come once to the village to give this information.

      After the extension workers are well informed on GMOs, then they can hold meetings with the rural people to disseminate the information on GMOs. The extension workers will be able to identify those who are able to synthesis the information based on their meetings and these type of rural people should be the ones to represent their areas in the National forums which are discussing issues on GMOs like formulation of National policy.

      Many countries have got different extension system set ups and it may be difficult to generalise how to effectively involve the rural people through a structure like the extension system. Hence this scenario is based on the Malawi extension system.

      It is high time for the GMO information to start to reach the rural people. This is because a scenario I have explained above is based on planned circumstances, like you want to formulate a National Policy. What about in a situation like, the other one whereby Malawi would like to recieve aid of GM maize. You do not have enough time to consult the rural people whether the country should receive this aid or not.

      With the dwindling resources towards extension activities and new policies like privatisation of extension services, the system is suffering heavy loss of staff nad capital resources, but important issues like GMOs are coming up and the debates are increasing day by day. There is need for a combined effort to reach the rural people on this issue. Donor countries should invest more as well, to enable these extension messages reach the rural people.

      The response is based on my experience working with the rural Malawian communities for some years.

      Hastings Zidana
      National Taiwan Ocean University,
      Department of Aquaculture,
      202, Pei-Ning Road,
      Keelung City,
      Taiwan.
      MP: + 886 0925956484
      hzidana2004 (at) yahoo.co.uk
      http://buncoalumni.tripod.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 13:32
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 18: Questions 6f - 6j in the Background Document

      I am Janaki Krishna from India, again.

      The conference is turning out to be interesting. I feel that we have crossed the stage of ‘why to involve rural people in decision making with regard to GMOs’. Now the question is on ‘how to effectively involve them’, otherwise we would be making rounds in the conference on 'WHY'.

      From the messages I came to know that some participants are curious to know about Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme. It is an innovative Dutch-funded Programme working towards improvement of quality of life of resource poor through development of agricultural biotechnologies. The Programme is being implemented by the Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India. The process at every stage involves various stakeholders in the technology development i.e. right from priority setting to technology development, refinement, adaptation and evaluation. For details, I request interested participants to kindly visit the website http://www.apnlbp.org wherein the details on the objectives, approach, organizational structure and projects funded are provided. As of now, the website is quite functional.

      I agree with the views of Edo Lin (Message 10 (January 17) and 13 (January 18)), Mamadou Khouma (Message 8, January 17), S K T Nasar and Reshma Nasar (Message 14, January 18) and Patricia Farnese (Message 11, January 18) wherein lot of insights were provided. Especially the message from Julie Newman (nr. 5, January 17), wherein she suggested that fundamentally market interests of farmers are important with regard to introduction of GMOs is very much appropriate.

      With regard to my views on the set of other five questions in Section 6 of the Background Document:

      6f) "Which mechanisms can be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media".

      While providing information on new technologies like recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, the source of information has to be well scrutinized and validated by the concerned persons and editors responsible for publishing or telecasting. In this regard, media can also be sensitized on the ‘pros and cons of GMOs’ by involving them in debates, scientific conferences relating to GMOs, not just for the purpose of publicity but involving them as one of the stakeholders.

      6g) "What are the main information and communication needs of the rural people related to GMOs? How can local capacity building be built to respond to these needs? What are the most appropriate approaches to respond to these needs?"

      Through interesting public awareness campaigns on GMOs in the villages organized by neutral agencies who have credibility in dealing with the issues of rural people. All the stakeholders in this new technology may be involved in providing information with regard to GMOs in these campaigns. There should be a common communication centre in each village to inform and also to have feedback on these issues as part of other common issues. The local governments and civil society organizations are more responsible in providing right information about the potential benefits/risks of GMOs. As part of capacity building, some of the peoples representatives who can act as service providers/spokespersons may be sensitized through orientation programmes on GMOs. Establishing community radios, distributing pamphlets in local languages on GMOs informing about the myths and realities of GMOs are important in making the rural people knowledgeable about these technologies.

      6h) "What is the best medium for rural people in developing countries to provide their inputs, if requested, to the decision making processes regarding GMOs?"

      First, they should be sensitized about the merits and demerits about the GMOs. After awareness creation, they might be engaged in decision making either by involving them in answering questionnaires, voting, or inviting them to the formal communication channels like radio, television etc. to provide their views in order to facilitate decision making.

      6i) "How should local languages of the rural people be dealt with in a public participation exercise?"

      Either by organizing the meetings in local language or by engaging true translators. Preferably, the background information should be provided in local language.

      6j) "Who can best represent the interests of the rural people in stakeholder discussions?"

      The local representatives who have credibility in the villages and nominated by the people in the village for this purpose can best represent in stakeholder discussions. Also, credible large civil society organizations who have network at the village, state and national level and do not have one-sided pre-conceived notions about the GMOs are best suited. However, these representatives should really do some home work with regard to sensitizing the rural people on these issues and obtaining their views and flout consensus opinion while they represent on behalf of these people.

      P S Janaki Krishna,
      Consultant,
      Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
      Hyderabad - 500 007,
      India
      Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
      Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 17:41
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 19: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      I am Alice Muchugi from the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kenyatta University, Kenya. I am fortunate to come from an African country where the issue of biotechnology has been received quite soberly and have produced a transgenic sweet potato in collaboration with international organizations.

      I have been going through the various contributions being posted to this conference with a lot of interest and it looks like this 'great monster called GMOs --as the lobbyists would say' will always generate a lot of heat in any given forum. In my opinion, I agree with Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17) that what the developing countries need is strong institutional framework of experts (all inclusive - biotechnologists, legal, policy makers etc.) to ensure proper checks and balances of the introductions of the GMOs. It is indeed difficult to say that the rural (read as common man!) will have much say on the GMOs. In developing countries like ours it is the people's representatives (the members of parliament) who are involved with the decision making and, though representing people, we do know that their decisions are not always for the people.

      I also feel that signing up to the various treaties and conventions may limit the scope of what national governments can do with the outcomes of national debates and public decision making as other authors have suggested. [See Edo Lin's messages 10 (January 17) and 13 (January 18)...Moderator]. It would therefore make sense if these governments have strong bodies of experts that can argue out issues on GMOs.

      For the rural people what really matters are the final products. As for crops, they would like to farm them as easily and productively as possible and therefore, given a choice, they would opt for the GMOs, until the anti-GMOs lobbyists strike with their alarmist remarks. As a lecturer in biotechnology I have a chance of sharing information on GMOs with lay persons and what I find interesting is how easy it is to accept GMO once you tell them of the positives (in the context of poverty and food security). The concern should therefore be on how the technology is taken up by the rural folks considering there setback such as issues on seed availability and species diversity which the GMO promoters may not reveal to them. So it is my hope from this conference that FAO, the World Bank and others will see the need for strong institutions comprising experts to conceptualize the issue of GMOs within the framework of poverty alleviation and food security, biosafety regulations and risk assessments, intellectual property rights and foster biotech research as well. In this way a good decision will be made which will benefit the rural people.

      Alice Muchugi
      Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology,
      Kenyatta University,
      Kenya
      a.muchugi (at) cgiar.org

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 17:41
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 20: Aarhus Convention

      My name is Maria Julia Oliva and I work for the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in Geneva. My comments refer to the relevance and importance of international instruments relating to public participation and GMOs, particularly the Aarhus Convention.

      As explained by the background document to the conference, decisions on GMOs are expressly excluded from the binding requirements on public participation set out in the Aarhus Convention, which provides they will only apply to decisions on whether to permit the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment "to the extent feasible and appropriate". This weak provision resulted from a lack of agreement on the issue between the Parties during the negotiation of the Convention. Nevertheless, as also mentioned, there are guidelines on access to information with respect to GMOs and a working group on GMOs.

      The non-binding Guidelines are to be monitored and a report made to the Second Meeting of the Parties, which will be held in May 2005, on their usefulness. The Secretariat has recently been mandated to develop and circulate a questionnaire to delegations for their comments. Comments were to be provided prior to 15 January 2005.

      The Working Group on GMOs has met several times to develop and discuss various options for a legally binding approach in the field of GMOs. The last meeting, held on 18-20 October 2004, featured significant debate, with clear divisions apparent between EECCA countries (the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) and environmental NGOs on one hand, and the European Union (EU) and industry and biotechnology associations on the other. EECCA countries and environmental NGOs supported options that would make public participation on decisions regarding GMOs mandatory and which set out precise requirements on the nature of the public's participation. Netherlands, on behalf of the EU, appeared to favor a non-binding, broad option that would allow countries considerable latitude domestically when choosing how public participation should be provided for (industry and biotechnology associations present also supported a non-binding, broad approach). Indeed, of real concern was that a new proposal put forth by the EU would be even weaker than the current non-binding approach of Article 6(11), limiting coverage to decisions on GMOs regarding deliberate release and placing on the market and including a broad exception for "confidential information". Although several amendments were proposed during the working group, the EU requested that its two options be referred to the Parties in their original form. The EU also requested that a "zero option", i.e. the option of making no amendment to the Convention, be maintained.

      Many participants considered the EU was thus attempting to lessen the Aarhus Convention's role in ensuring public participation in the field of GMOs. In addition, although Parties had agreed that the Aarhus Convention provides "the most appropriate international framework for further developing access to information, public participation and access to justice in the field of GMOs," the EU requested that the wording "an appropriate framework", rather than "the most appropriate framework", be used. Furthermore, the first of the EU's new proposals was stated to be without prejudice to requirements developed under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Biosafety Protocol does contain important public participation provisions. However, as the Cartagena Protocol focuses specifically on the transboundary movement of GMOs, it is of a more limited application than the Aarhus Convention. The Protocol is also yet to be implemented. It is thus considered important for the public participation requirements under the Aarhus Convention to be developed as fully as possible.

      Maria Julia Oliva
      Director - Project on Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development
      Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
      15 rue des Savoises
      1205 - Geneva, Switzerland
      (41-22) 789-0738
      joliva (at) ciel.org

      [The full text of the Aarhus Convention (i.e. the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) is available in Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, English, French, Georgian, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Slovak and Ukrainian at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.htm...Moderator].

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 19 January 2005 17:41
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 21: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      I'm DJOULDE DARMAN Roger, Food Scientist, Researcher at the Institute of Agricultural Developement (IRAD), Maroua, Cameroon.

      I want to focus my reflection on the same area as Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17) and Michel Ferry (Message 3, January 17) who asked the question why the public (rural or not) should be involved in the decision making process regarding GMOs. Instead of coming back to all pertinent arguments which were given previously to illustrate their opinion, I would like to share with you a practical situation we face regarding this!

      I’m from a Sudano-Sahelian zone where drought is mostly caused by pests and insects which destroy every year hectares of crops especially cereals (like sorghum) and leading to long standing “food insecurity”. We faced this situation in 1970 and the local authorities asked researchers to do something. After a lot of studies the researchers managed to introduce a new variety of Sorghum which was resistant to these pests and insects. They just modified the genome responsible for production of cyanogenetic glycoside (dihurin) one of the natural defence system of sorghum against pests and insects. However, the new variety of sorghum became toxic for humans as the amount of cyanide release seems too high to be metabolised by the human body. This lead to the emergence of some new diseases related to cyanide toxicity (cretinism, neuropathies…etc).

      The local authorities suspected a link between this variety and the appearance of the diseases. They decided that it was ethical to inform the population. This lead to a panic and the population destroyed all of their stocks and they don’t want any more new technologies and new variety!!!. But today we have a solution for this because in a recent study we showed that fermentation of this sorghum decreases significantly the amount of cyanogens. This means the population can consume the new variety of sorghum after processing (fermentation). But, because they were informed prematurely that the variety caused their diseases, they lost confidence in the new technologies. Because of this, we are in a situation where we have spent a lot of money and energy, and the solution is available but there is no means to introduce the technology anymore and help them.

      I think, if they were not informed, this would not have been the case and the problem of food insecurity in this area, at least partially, would have been solved.

      So the question remains, "do we need to inform populations about those complex subjects that the majority of our rural population do not understand?". Even our government (in developing countries) signed a lot of conventions related to GMOs, sometimes it seems it’s just to do like the neighbour or to conserve their friendship with developed countries. I think these decisions do not address the real needs of the livelihood of rural populations.

      Lastly, I don’t quite agree with Edo Lin (Message 13, January 18) who indicated that "at the national level, there is a need for all stakeholders and especially rural people to get involved in the discussion and decision making" as they don’t even know what GMOs are. If it’s possible to introduce GMOs which have been authorized by scientists and international or national authorities, this seems enough and there is no need to inform the population.

      DJOULDE DARMAN Roger
      Krijkslaan 250/441
      B-9000 Gent Belgium
      Tel:003293312796(Fix) 0032477236041(Mobile)
      djouldedarman (at) yahoo.fr

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 14:30
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 22: Extension service // Plain language movement

      This is Patricia Farnese from Canada again.

      I have read all your comments with great interest and I am enjoying the dialogue. I agree with the comment made by Hastings Zidana (Message 17, January 19) that extension agents have a critical role to play in providing balanced, unbiased information about GMOs to the rural people. In Canada, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of government extension agents. Most farmers rely on representatives of their seed and chemical dealers who have a big presence in rural areas. In fact, this kind of "extension" work provides summer employment to a significant number of University students studying Agriculture. Are other countries seeing the same dramatic shift of extension services from the public to private sphere like Canada? The implications of that shift warrant some attention, but may be a topic better left to another discussion. [This topic can obviously be given further attention in this e-mail conference, provided it is discussed in the context of its implications etc. for the involvement of rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries...Moderator].

      In addition, I just want to say something about the comments that lay people do not have the capacity to understand the scientific information surrounding GMOs. If that is in fact the case, I really believe it is the scientist's duty to make her research findings accessible to the general public. This is particularly true if her research occurs in public universities or is at all funded by public sources. I am a lawyer, and for the last number of years, there has been a "plain language" movement in my field. There has been a concerted effort to make our discourse accessible to lay people, so they are not excluded from fully participating in the legal system because of an inability to understand the language. I believe scientists will need to be asked to do the same, if public participation in science-based decision making is ever going to be achieved.

      Patricia L. Farnese, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
      Assistant Professor, College of Law
      Senior Law Fellow, Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment
      University of Saskatchewan
      Canada
      e-mail: plf472 (at) duke.usask.ca

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 14:31
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 23: Enjoying the discussion

      I am a peasant farmer in Bangladesh. I have 2 acres of land for homestead full of biodiversity. The land is the main source of housing, fuel wood, fruits. I grow vegetables within the homestead and the piece of land adjacent to the homestead. Normally, I try to grow mixed and year round vegetables. So that I have a continuous support of vegetables for family and friends. Sometime I sell the products of course. Also a large part of family's nutrient comes from uncultivated vegetables those still are abundant. I have a multipurpose pond. It provides local fish for 8 months. Rest four months, I grow rice there. I have two cows and few chickens. During the boro season (November-February), I grow rice on other’s field on share cropping basis. Of course I have some off-farm income. So that I can send children to school.

      I don’t know too much about GMO or LMO. But in the meantime I have started to enjoy the lively discussion. Hope to enrich my wisdom on agriculture and the latest technological commodities.

      Zakir Hossain
      Krisok
      Krisoker Saar (Farmers' Voice)
      East Sujankathi
      Goila
      Agailjhara
      Barisal
      Bangladesh
      Cell: 0189004503
      Email: krisokersaar1 (at) fastmail.fm
      Website: www.farmersvoice.nav.to

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 14:31
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 24: Factual information essential

      From Julie Newman, an Australian farmer:

      This conference has been excellent in exposing what the real issues are in the involvement of farmers and the public in decision making processes. There is a common thread by participants involved in research that there is a need for quality information but the intention appears to only give the quality information that is needed in order to support the introduction of GM crops rather than quality unbiased information that gives farmers and decision makers the information they need.

      Governments should stand firm and gain the quality unbiased factual information needed, then assist in distribution of this quality information prior to calling for public input. For example, we have a situation where, globally, farmers are informed that the main benefit for GM crops is yield improvement (even up to 300%) but there is no scientific reason why these current GM crops would produce higher yields or feed the hungry better than non-GM crops. These GM crops are produced by adding specific gene constructs to existing non-GM varieties to either give herbicide tolerance (which can also be achieved through non-GM methods) or pesticide tolerance (the plant produces its own pesticide rather than requiring chemical application). Any yield benefit can and is being achieved with non-GM plant breeding or by alternative weed management, but GM crops will encourage corporate investment into plant breeding which could have the potential of producing higher yielding varieties.

      It is essential that any information that is used to influence decision makers in the preparation of an information document must be accurate, if not, there must be serious penalties incorporated within legislation to enforce this. When accurate information is distributed, then is the time to call for consultation from the now well informed industry representatives who have received feedback from the people they represent on the specific issues relevant to their sector that will be affected by any government decision. If accurate information is distributed, there would be far less polarisation in the GM debate and the information gained from public consultation could then be of genuine use to the governments concerned.

      Julie Newman
      National Spokesperson
      Network of Concerned Farmers
      www.non-gm-farmers.com
      Newdegate, West Australia
      Australia
      08 98711562
      julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 14:32
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 25: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      This is from John Hodges, an author and consultant in Austria, retired. Formerly at FAO Rome, responsible for Animal Breeding and Genetic Resources. Earlier Professor of Animal Genetics at University of British Columbia, Canada.

      I respond to the questions posed by our colleague Diogenes Infante from Venezuela (Message 4, January 17) who says that decisions on GMOs should be made only by specialists. He says that the public are not involved in decisions over the use of new Drugs etc. Why should they decide about GMOs?

      The answer is that the medical patient can choose not to use a medical drug after hearing from the doctor or reading about the possible side-effects. Each person can make a choice after evaluating the benefit and risk.

      Food is different. No-one can opt out of eating. If GM food is everywhere in the food chain - the choice has gone. Thus approval by specialists takes away the democratic right for an individual to choose not to eat GM food. Removing the right to choose is contrary to Market Economy Capitalism which is based upon the principle that the market decides. By contrast, specialists involved in deciding on the use of GM food are often employed by a seller of GM food and seeds. Market Economy Capitalism is also based upon the principle that the person who takes the decisions bears the risk - and does not pass it to others.

      John Hodges,
      Lofererfeld 16,
      A-5730 Mittersill,
      Austria.
      e-mail: hodgesjohn (at) compuserve.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 14:33
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 26: Contribution from New Zealand

      This is from Zelka Vallings, of Northland, New Zealand. My husband and I are horticulturists, farming in the northern part of New Zealand (NZ).

      Since a problematic and inappropriately contained GE field trial (involving GE tamarillos) occured in our region, and other botched GE field trials like King Salmon (GE salmon) have had to be shut down in NZ, we have become involved with other farmers, foresters and orchardists in attempting to ensure that the needs of rural communities/primary producers are respected, that proper notification and consultation takes place, that good science (with input from independent scientists not indentured to the industry) not flawed science by those with a vested interest primarily interested in short term profit)/best practice is followed and that those who wish to be involved with GE field trials and releases in NZ are fully accountable and finacially liable in the event of any unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts (on our unique biodiversity, biosecurity, existing primary producers- conventional, integrated pest management (IPM) and organic, and key markets).

      Unfortunately, there is a lack of consultation with rural people/primary producers/farmers (despite the fact that their livelihoods may be adversely affected) and central government has failed to adequately address important issues like liability, compensation, risk management and so forth.

      One of the key questions in this conference is "how rural people can be effectively involved in the decision-making process" but in our view (as rural people who are in the business of sustainably producing safe, clean food of the highest quality and who are very conversant with the issues) farmers are targeted by those with vested interests and the unbiased information farmers and policy makers need in order to make decisions is not freely available.

      We agree with Julie Newman (Message 5, January 17) that "A priority for any government to introduce any legislation in the application of biotechnology in the agricultural industry in any country should be to ensure these new novel crops do not jeopardise market opportunities or impose unreasonable costs or market risk on existing producers. Farmers should be surveyed to gain an understanding of how they react to the specific details of how GM introduction will affect them. If decisions are going to negatively impact on farmers income or livelihood, governments must involve farmers in order to negotiate issues such as adequate compensation if imposing economic liabilities."

      Multinationals should not be allowed to prevent farmers from saving their own seeds. We share the concerns of others regarding the movement of genetic resources out of the public domain and into private hands.

      It is important that farmers/rural communities are not only surveyed and that proper consultation takes place, but that action is taken to ensure farming families and primary producers are protected and that a strong committment is made to truly sustainable primary production (both in forestry and food production).

      It is important that scientists and decision makers (in government and elsewhere):
      - Respect the values of rural communities
      - Respect "consumer right to know"
      - Respect the decisions of local government (having consulted with local communities and indigenous peoples)
      - Consider the impact on future generations
      - Protect the environment
      - Protect primary producers/farmers
      - Protect key markets
      - Respect treaties with indigenous peoples
      - Focus on sustainability (finite resources when lost or destroyed cannot be replaced)
      - Protection of biodiversity
      - Adhere to international protocols like the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol (strong focus on the rights of sovereign nations to say no to GMOS and the Precautionary principle)

      Who should make the decisions:
      - The public (democratic process) after they are given full and accurate information (no hiding behind “commercial sensitivity”). If it really is for the public good, not just corporate gain, the process should be open and factually accurate
      - Local government (after consultation with local communities and iwi) [an iwi is a unit of Mäori society...Moderator].
      - Tangata whenua and Pakeha together (in NZ, referring to Maori and those of European descent)
      - Independent scientists (non-indentured to industry) should advise government ministers and regulatory authorities and guide sensible decisions based on good science

      It is critical that we have: Protection of basic human rights/control of our own genetic material

      Considering some of the questions in Section 6 of the background document to the conference:

      6d) "Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so, how can this best be achieved?"

      YES. Consulatation is best achieved with (in NZ) representatives of the Maori people chosen by the Maori. Consultation also must take place with TE WAKA KAI ORA-national Maori farming organisation, with a strong focus on sustainable primary production/organics.

      6i) "How should local languages of the rural people be dealt with in a public participation exercise?"

      In New Zealand, that means bilingual materials (in English and Maori)

      6j) "Who can best represent the interests of the rural people in stakeholder discussions?

      Democratically elected representatives of farming groups (like RURAL WOMEN NZ), foresters etc and local communities - i.e. ratepayers associations, community groups.

      Zelka Vallings,
      Northland,
      New Zealand
      arboreus (at) ihug.co.nz

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 17:08
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 27: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      Regarding Message 13 (January 18) of Edo Lin: Unfortunately, I think that the obligation to accept the import of GMOs if no "scientific" arguments are presented against it is not a question of international regulation but of political issue and scientists honesty and ethic. According to me, the need to involve the public (when we know how irrealistic it is to imagine that the public could understand all the issues involved - issues on which control the scientists themself, except the biotechnologists of course, disagree) is based on the fear to avoid what has occured in Europe. To maintain that there really is a way of involving the farmers in this complex question is not a neutral position.

      There is a very strong push from the United States and their biotech corporation to introduce GMO in Africa offcially for the help of the poor farmers in Africa. This is a huge hypocrisy when in the same time because of the USA cotton dumping policy they are "killing" the small farmers in the same countries. Clearly, USA do not want anything more that imposing the GMO in as many countries as possible to be able to sell their GMOs without difficulty abroad.

      Regarding scientists honesty, we know that the debate on GMOs is complex and that in fact the assessment at least on the short term of the validity of the GMOs need a complex and long study. In most cases, the results of these studies are not known or even the studies have not started yet. When the scientists are sufficiently honest to recognize that situation (and their ignorance), they request a moratorium.

      That is why I consider it not sound and a bit hypocritical to ask the question about how to inform the farmers when unbiased and rigorous information (on the ecological, health and economical possible consequences of an GMO introduction and on the evidence that this GMO has really more advantage that other solution) is not yet available. One big concern for me is the huge risk that GMOs, because they will generally be much more beneficial (in the short term at least: the ecological consequences of Roundup Ready soya monocrop grown in Argentina start to be discovered. Too late?) to the big farms, will participate to the degradation of the small farmers.

      Regarding Message 15 (January 19) of Shanthu Shantharam: this is a very nice point of view if the scientific debate regarding the risk concerning the GMOs was closed. In the present situation, is it a scientific and responsible approach to leave to the farmers and the consumers the role of guinea-pig in addition without informing them? Furthermore, they will not be able to evaluate all the consequences of the introduction of a new technique but the consequences that interest them and also in a short term approach. For example, the farmers are not able and it is not their role to evaluate on the medium term the environmental and health consequences of the use of the GMOs.

      Michel Ferry
      Scientific Director
      Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
      Apartado 996
      03201 Elche
      Spain
      tel: 34.965421551
      fax: 34.965423706
      Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 17:08
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 28: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

      This is Shanthu Shantharam, again.

      So far, so good! It is becoming clear that everyone wants to be properly informed about GMOs and biotechnology and be allowed to participate in decision making. Who can argue against a reasonable democratic practice? There are so many words and phrases being used and that needs to be clarified. Public participation, public input, public comment, public right to know, and public decision making. I guess except for public decision making, everything else can be reasonably accommodated. But, still decision making must be left to a small group of decision makers (they could be specialist or regulators or administrators). Otherwise, only chaos will reign. In any democratic set up, it is only fair to provide for a mechanism that will facilitate information flow.

      Just look at all other fields of endeavor in all democratic societies, one does not go for public referendum for every issue. What lies at the root of all this controversy is lack of proper and responsible governance in many countries. By building trustworthy, reliable and responsible institutions, can the citizenry expect proper decisions for the welfare of the people.

      In my opinion, this controversy about GMOs is not biosafety, but mostly about political ideology and value systems. It so happens that GMOs manufactured by capitalistic multinationals have come in handy for those who oppose globalization and privatization. If one looks at the safety issues dispassionately and objectively, there is sufficient scientific evidence to show that GMOs are safe as any other variety of crops that have been introduced in the last one hundred years. If one chooses to ignore that evidence and bring in all sorts of political, metaphysical and ideological reasons to bear, we can all be arguing and debating until we are blue in our faces and the problem will not be resolved. But, let this E-forum churn on and let us all see how the issues get ferreted out.

      Dr. Shanthu Shantharam
      Biologistics International, LLC
      9800 Old Willow Way
      Ellicott City, MD 21042
      United States
      sshantharam (at) biologistics.us

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 20 January 2005 17:09
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 29: From Zambia

      My name is Tamala Tonga Kambikambi and I am an agronomist with the University of Zambia - hence from Zambia, a country that needs no introductions in the GMO debate.

      I am glad to join this discussion and gratified that so far there are a number of people who are expressing some of my favoured opinions. I particularly strongly agree with Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17). Indeed, there are lot of things where public participation is not sought but rather expert panels are organized to deal with them and then a refined product is passed on to the intended recipients [with appropriate oversight mechanisms]. I do believe that is the way to go.

      Besides, a number of other discussants have said the rural folk would need to be educated for them to effectively participate! That will considerably increase the final cost of the product to be put on the market (if at all the product would get to the market since most debates in this part of the world do tend to go on and on!). In which case, who benefits apart from those who are in the business of carrying on debates?

      Further, it has been said that the rural people are not a homogenous group, so how is the selection going to be done and who is to set up the criterion? All these are complications that I believe will just deter progress while the needy are further confused instead of being helped.

      A good illustration is what happened in Zambia in 2002 when a 'national consultation' on whether the country should accept GM maize food aid was organized by government and adverts were placed in the national daily newspaper inviting all concerned citizens to come and give their say. Firstly, the government organized a background paper which was in line with the presidential pronouncement - that GMOs were bad. The misinformation that was in that gathering was unbelievable! Scientists who had knowledge of the subject were booed and threatened while politicians with no knowledge of the topic whatsoever were given prominence.

      With such an experience, I would be very sad to see a repeat of such a scene - which is probably what most of these meetings on public participation would end up being like. In fact, since that meeting, some prominent scientists in the nation are being given a wide berth when there are any discussions on GMOs because they have contrary views to what should be the national view.

      Tamala Tonga Kambikambi
      Crop Science Department
      School of Agricultural Sciences
      University of Zambia
      Great East Road campus
      P. O. Box 32379
      Lusaka, ZAMBIA
      Telefax: 260-1-295655
      Mobile: 260-96-437532
      tkambikambi (at) agric.unza.zm

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 21 January 2005 14:40
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 30: Farmer participation - Cuba/Guatemala/Mexico

      We have collaborated on a field study interviewing small-scale farmers in Mexico, Cuba and Guatemala about their practices, knowledge and values concerning transgenes and genetically engineered (GE) maize. We are:
      Dr. D Soleri, Research Scientist in the Environmental Studies Program and the Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA;
      Dr. DA Cleveland, Associate Professor in the Environmental Studies Program, U of California, Santa Barbara, USA;
      Ing. M.Sc. F Aragón C, Senior Research Scientist, Genetic Resources, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Oaxaca, Mexico;
      Ing. M.Sc. MR Fuentes L, Principal Research Scientist, Maize Program, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas (ICTA), Guatemala City, Guatemala;
      Dr. H Ríos L, National Coordinator of Participatory Plant Breeding, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas (INCA), La Habana, Cuba.

      Discussion of GE crops is polarized and while GE crop proponents and opponents often speak for farmers, farmers’ own voices are seldom heard. We wanted to investigate and document farmer practices, knowledge and opinions relevant to GE maize, and develop an example of a tool that could be used to quickly and inexpensively include farming communities directly in discussions and policies regarding GE that would affect them. Specific factors motivating our research and relevant to the topic of this conference are:

      1. The effect of all biological novelty, including transgenes, depends upon the specific biophysical and socioeconomic context in which it occurs.
      2. To realize potential benefits and avoid potential harm of GE crop varieties, the risk management process (including hazard identification, risk analysis, evaluation and treatment) in traditionally based agricultural systems (TBAS) must take number 1 above into account. Yet, it is frequently implied by GE proponents that GE crop varieties approved in the United States are therefore without significant risk for the rest of the world.
      3. Public participation in the risk management process is acknowledged as being critical for optimizing management and for gaining and keeping public trust.
      4. As with other major technological changes in agriculture in recent years (e.g., the green revolution), GE crop varieties have not involved farmers or rural communities in decision-making until technology delivery, and existing information about farmers’ practices and needs has not been considered.
      5. Many countries whose agriculture is dominated by TBAS are currently discussing and drafting policies for GE crops.

      We completed interviews with over 300 households in TBAS in Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico in October 2004. We are now analyzing the data, but want to share some preliminary findings with this conference:

      1. Some conditions and practices (e.g., limited availability of agricultural resources, small size of farms and fields, open seed systems, cultural importance of food crops) documented in our study contrast sharply with industrial agricultural systems. We found possibilities for transgene flow and for harmful consequences of this flow to be unique to some TBAS. This means that risk management processes developed for the industrial world may be irrelevant or ineffective in TBAS.
      2. There are methods for including farmers and communities in the discussion about transgenic varieties. We developed scenarios about GE crops based on existing scientific data and farmers’ own experiences, and found them a valuable tool for eliciting farmers’ knowledge and values.
      3. It is imperative to distinguish between values concerning GE per se and evaluation of potential consequences of GE. For example, some but not all farmers we interviewed find the act of moving genes from another species into maize culturally acceptable. However, we also presented farmers with a scenario depicting the possibility of evolution of resistance to Bt in a local maize pest population when exposed to a maize variety containing a Bt gene, leading to dependency on the formal seed system for their planting seed. A substantial majority of farmers found this outcome unacceptable. Thus, risk management must recognize the possibility that farmers find GE to be culturally harmful, but even if they do not, farmers may find GE crops unacceptable for agronomic, economic or other reasons.
      4. Based on past experience, some farmers are concerned about who is controlling and benefiting from new technologies like GE crops, how this affects the relevance of those technologies for farmers’ needs, and how trustworthy information about the technology is.
      5. There is variation within and between communities, regions and countries in practices, knowledge and values, and therefore, ways must be developed to include this variation in discussions and policy about GE crops

      It seems to us that clarity in distinguishing empirically testable assertions and values statements (that cannot be tested) by farmers, scientists, economists, consumers and others is essential for balanced and representative decision-making that includes both empirical data and values. Ignoring farmers’ (or consumers’) knowledge and values is not only undemocratic, as mentioned by an earlier posting to this conference [e.g. Message 11...Moderator], it is also inefficient in terms of time and resources, as we have learned from past plant breeding efforts for TBAS. This seems an unwise approach to take for GE, particularly when the needs are so great and the investments being made in that technology so large.

      Ultimately, farmers’ knowledge and values brought into the discussion through research like ours, or in other ways, will need to be evaluated as part of a larger analysis that includes benefits as well as costs of currently available GE crop varieties, compared with the benefits and costs of conventional modern varieties, farmers’ traditional local varieties, as well as with alternatives (transgenic local varieties, ‘organic’ varieties, etc). This means that if the goal is improving the welfare of farmers in traditionally-based agricultural systems, often among the poorest people in the population, the question of how the money spent on GE crops could otherwise be used is also very relevant. Such an inclusive and balanced analysis is the only way to ensure that the needs of TBAS farmers and communities will be met effectively, and that farmers will have access to potential benefits and be able to protect themselves from potential harm of GE crop varieties.

      Daniela Soleri
      Environmental Studies Program and Department of Geography
      University of California, Santa Barbara
      2309 Girvetz Hall
      Santa Barbara, CA 93106
      USA
      tel: 805/893.7502
      fax:805/893.8686
      soleri (at) es.ucsb.edu

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 21 January 2005 17:54
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 31: The main information needs of the rural people related to GMOs

      Thank you for hosting the conference. Open discussion is valuable. My husband and I now farm over 10,000ha in Australia and run a large seed cleaning factory (and previously a contract crop spraying business) and I would like to comment on 2 more questions in Section 6 of the background document as GM crops and farmer rights is an area I have given priority to for many years.

      Regarding question 6g), "What are the main information and communication needs of the rural people related to GMOs? How can local capacity be built to respond to these needs? What are the most appropriate approaches to respond to these needs?":

      The main information needs of the rural people related to GMOs is liability as sustainability is dependent on fair allocation of liability. Governments need legal advice in order to consider a strict liability legislation to balance between farmers rights and corporate obligations as there is certainly a tradeoff for accepting corporate investment to plant breeding. While it is essential that farmers maintain long term sustainability, it is a legislated priority for corporate companies to maximise returns to their shareholders which has led to little consideration for the adverse impact caused by global exploitation of resources. Governments must investigate the liability issue thoroughly to determine who is legally liable for adverse impacts (economic, health or environmental) caused by the introduction of GM crops.

      For example, it is not difficult to understand the rapid adoption of a soybean monoculture in Argentina when the corporate gift incentives of large machinery, seed, chemical and technical advise are used. However, if a third world country followed in the footsteps of Argentina by adopting a glyphosate resistant patented monoculture, who will be liable for supporting the displaced farmers and farm workers? Who will be liable if aerial spraying of glyphosate affects the ability for farmers such as Zakir Hossain from Bangladesh (Message 23, January 20) to grow their own food and remain sustainable? Who will be liable if there is a total monoculture crop failure (lack of diversity in potato crop varieties caused the Irish famine)? Will farmers be able to return to status quo if patented crops become economically unviable due to increased costs and a build up of resistances? Will farmers have access to free legal advice if seeking compensation?

      As health testing is reliant on the companies concerned (e.g. Monsanto) and testing appears to be short term tests designed to assess any decline in market value for stock fed GM rather than assessing for human health, who would be liable if the health concerns from reputable scientists such as Puztai are realised? Will liability rest with the company concerned or will they deflect that liability claiming the government did not adopt a sufficiently stringent assessment regulatory process? Is it possible to recall a GM product from the food chain and who will be liable for recall of the GM product if required? For farmers, who will be liable if there is undisputable confirmation of serious health problems and there is instant global rejection for any trace of GM in food crops?

      Public education and consultation is essential to establish if those expected to be liable for the implications understand the consequences and agree or disagree with that obligation.

      Regarding question 6m), "Concerning requests for approval of individual GM products, what kind of information should it be possible to withhold from public disclosure?":

      No information should be witheld from public disclosure as it is essential that all details are revealed in order to have transparent and reliable decision making based on facts, not promises.

      Julie Newman
      National Spokesperson
      Network of Concerned Farmers
      www.non-gm-farmers.com
      Newdegate, West Australia
      Australia
      08 98711562
      julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 21 January 2005 18:01
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 32: Weakness of local people to influence

      This is from Galo F. Jarrin, Ecuador, again.

      I want to stress something about the involvement of the rural people on the issue of GMOs. In our country and probably in others of Latin America, the local people are very weak (or receptive) to the influence of many people or organizations with any specific criteria about some themes, in this case the GMOs. Despite the lack of a proper and objective information, the rural people use to support sometimes radical positions like a whole moratorium for GMOs, without the possibility to participate and expose their arguments in public forums, just only the instructions to say NO.

      Probably, here we can identify a lack of the goverments, academic sector etc. to reach the rural sector with correct information about GMOs. Frequently, this attitude turn into an obstacle in the process of considering the opinions of civil society.

      We would like to hear something about how to solve and work with this kind of radical positions, that usually involve the rural sector, in my country one of them, the indian people.

      Galo F. Jarrin
      National Project Coordinator
      Development of the National Biosafety Framework Project
      UNEP-GEF-Ministry of Environment of Ecuador
      Quito
      Ecuador
      Tel: (593-2)2563423
      Fax: (593-2) 2563422
      Email: gjarrin (at) ambiente.gov.ec

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 24 January 2005 14:03
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 33: Information flow and impediments to skilling

      Several statements on involving rural people in GMO policy refer to getting the "correct" or "objective" information to them. But what is correct or objective information is actually a complex problem that requires a lot more study. Here is one example from my own work (me being Glenn Stone of Anthropology and Environmental Studies, Washington Univ., St. Louis, United States).

      I study cotton farmers in India, with an ethnographic focus in Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh. This was the scene of a rash of suicides by cotton farmers in 1998: several hundred farmers drank pesticides. This was just as India's first GM crop trials were starting -- Bt cotton -- and both the biotech industry (Monsanto) and their opponents (like Vandana Shiva) claimed the suicides supported their case. [Bt crops, e.g. Bt cotton, are GM crops producing Crystal (Cry) proteins of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These proteins from Bt are toxins that kill insects feeding on the plant by binding to and creating pores in their midgut membranes...Moderator].

      The first Bt cotton was released in 2002: Monsanto's construct in Mahyco's hybrids. In 2004 another company's Bt hybrid was released, and more are forthcoming (all the same event).

      My aim is to look at the agricultural system synthetically, as much as a social system as an ecological and economic one. The economists’ studies of effects of Bt cottons in developing countries are important, but are also very restricted in scope. So, for instance, I am focusing on the partly social process of "skilling" -- farmers learning how a technology works and integrating it into farm management strategy. Such skill can't be measured like the "indigenous knowledge" that has been measured in many studies (e.g., analyzing cultural consensus on species names). It’s not so much static knowledge as it is an ability to execute an agricultural performance (a point from Paul Richards). [Referring to Paul Richards, 1989. Agriculture as Performance. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds. Pp. 39-51. London: Intermediate Technology Public. More details in the weblink further down this message...Moderator].

      These cotton cultivators had some serious problems in skilling before Bt. There is a long and incessantly changing list of hybrids, weak regulation allowing the sale of deficient seeds, a wide range of pests that fluctuate chaotically (and, of course, develop resistance to insecticides), an ever-changing list of insecticides, and ulterior motives in the advice given by input vendors. Farmers have had widespread problems in "skilling" for years, and many have developed the treacherous habit of trying a new cotton seed every year.

      But Bt cotton has brought, along with limited agronomic benefits for some farmers, new problems in information flow and new impediments to skilling. For instance, farmers have received conflicting information on spraying (no spraying, spray only for sucking insects, spray only for Spodoptera, spray normally after 90 days) and on refuges (refuges are a barrier to bollworms, refuges are meant to concentrate bollworms for easy spraying, refuges are meant to show the effects of Bt, refuges are a government requirement that can't be questioned, refuges are unnecessary). They have been told they shouldn't plant Bt because it would make the bollworms stronger (this being a slightly garbled take on developing Bt resistance), and also that they should plant Bt quickly before the bollworms develop resistance. Company officials have given assurances that new Cry genes can be introduced if resistance appears -- which would just start the whole skilling process over again. Thus, in exchange for limited protection against 2 of the dozen cotton pests, Bt cotton has exacerbated breakdown of the social process of skilling (for details see http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Eanthro/research/StoneHumanOrg2004.pdf).

      Such considerations are important, I think my assessment is "correct" and "objective" (I am certainly not generally opposed to GMOs for developing countries -- e.g., I am optimistic about virus-resistant cassava being trialed in Kenya). This is one of many larger issues that should be put on the table if we want to discuss involvement of rural people, and an issue that rural folks are unlikely to raise on their own.

      Glenn Davis Stone
      Prof. of Anthropology and Environmental Studies
      Washington Univsity
      St. Louis, MO 63130
      U.S.A.
      stone (at) wustl.edu

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 24 January 2005 14:04
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 34: Kenyan contribution

      My name is Carol Keter and I am a development writer from Kenya.

      It may be a good idea that FAO and other development agencies are thinking about ways to involve the farmers in developing countries in decision-making concerning GMOs but this does not mean it will be easy. Some developing countries have rejected GMOs altogether while the rest are not really sure what to make of it.

      Some of the suspicions and mistrust concerning GMO has to do with the fact that the general population feels that the scientific world has failed to explain fully the disadvantages of GMOs both to our health and the environment, which are inarguably normal concerns. Others the scientists have been too enthusiastic of the breakthroughs and do not care to look for the dark side; and of course there are the huge profits that seed developers will reap.

      Before we can consider how to involve this rural population, have we considered if they need GMOs? How will GMOs change their lives; eliminate hunger, poverty? We need to think twice. Using the example of African farmers who were impoverished when cash-crop (read western consumed crops with the prices set in the west) farming was given priority over farming indigenous crops that fed them. At the same time, local diets changed and research and development into the indigenous crops stopped and even in some cases there are no seed banks anymore of some of these crops.

      It is a fact that many development initiatives in the developing world fail because the local population fail to "own" them and as soon as the donor moves they collapse. It is also true that if rural populations are to be involved in decision making then they have to have some control over the project (own it) otherwise why should they contribute. Question: How do we make them own the project and be part of it? Remember that in most countries the rural populations are not as emancipated as those who live in the cities and depend a lot on what the government says to them.

      And then we have to avoid of course making them poorer like in the case outlined above. Question: Who owns the technology and how can it be made more affordable to countries? So that the 2-hectare farmer in Koriema, Kenya can afford the seeds! True technology is expensive but ….

      Another aspect to consider: Many argue that GMOs will be the solution to Africa’s hunger but no, hunger in Africa has not only been caused by pests, low producing species, but in part by corruption and mismanagement. Will GMOs wipe these out? I doubt. The same could still happen with GMOs. And interesting, one of the GMOs players has already proved itself notorious in its business; bribery allegations in Indonesia and in Canada suing a farmer over cross contamination.

      As to how rural people can contribute to the decision-making, I will use the example of Kenya where we use local authorities that organize meetings (barazas) where usually government information is passed and local issues are discussed. The other most important group is the women’s groups (and women make up 80% of rural farmer population and more involved in feeding the family: very important!).

      The radio and television are important tools and ownership of radios is (in case of Kenya) at a good level. And do not forget the teachers. Most teach in the rural areas and are more receptive to new information, are opinion shapers in their communities and are farmers too themselves (very important).

      Carol Keter
      P.O Box 1901-0200
      City Square
      Nairobi
      Kenya
      e-mail: cketer (at) yahoo.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 24 January 2005 14:06
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 35: Challenge of goverments in involving rural citizens

      This is from Siaya district, Western Kenya. My name is Mallowa Sally Obura, an MSc. student at Egerton University in Kenya, currently in the field carrying out my research work.

      I agree with Michel Ferry [Messages 3 and 27...Moderator] that it is important to address the issue of why the rural people need to be involved, achieving this is certainly going to be very difficult and expensive. We need to be convinced that they are actually involved to justify the expense. Most goverments consider it a priority to involve their citizens in decision making and the citizens always include the rural people. However, it is rarely directly but through representatives.

      In Kenya, we are currently in the process of reviewing our constitution. To do this we used a local woman's name "Wanjiku" to imply that the common mwananchi (citizen) needed to be involved in this important process. Delegates were picked from all over the country to represent their people in this process. It turned out that the delegates were probably the most educated/exposed members of the communities that they represented. When they went for the review process did they really represent the view of Wanjiku ?

      When the goverment will begin to address the issue of GMOs and involve the indigenous communities it will again face the challenge of who to train and whether this person will really be in a position to reach the rural people and whether, when he has been used, it will be possible to say that the rural people have been reached and can now be involved in this process?

      Initially, it is the specialists who understand the situation, who should really be involved in making the decision on behalf of their fellow citizens. The rural people should only be brought in at the local level where they need to accept the GMOs for planting as they do for any other crop.

      I am really enjoying the discussion and the different views being expressed which are quite challenging and relevant. Thank you.

      Mallowa Sally Obura
      P.O. Box 276,
      Sidindi,
      40605.
      Kenya
      email: mallowa (at) yahoo.com
      Mobile 254722221582

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Biotech-Mod4
      Sent: 24 January 2005 14:06
      To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
      Subject: 36: Costs // International legal instruments

      I am Janaki Krishna from India again.

      It is heartening to note the farmers’ participation in this conference. Also, it is interesting to go through the discussion when people come out with frank opinions in open forums like this. The conference reiterates the importance of public participation and extension systems in dealing with issues of GMOs.

      Here are some of my views with regard to following questions in Section 6 of the background document. [For those who have recently joined the conference, the background document is available at http://www.fao.org/biotech/C12doc.htm. It can also be retrieved by e-mail by Forum members sending an e-mail to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org with the following one-line message:
      send listlog/biotech-l.dec2004 ...Moderator]      .

      6.k). "Involving the public in decision-making processes can be costly. Who should pay?"

      It involves some money, if not very expensive when compared to the cost involved in developing these products. National and international funding agencies dealing with biotechnologies and emerging issues may bear these expenses as ultimately these facilitate decision making at policy level. Towards this, the funding agencies may engage appropriate organizations.

      6.l). "How important, implementable and relevant are the currently available international instruments relating to public participation and GMOs (see section 4)."

      The three international legal instruments mentioned in the background document are very important while dealing with public participation and they are relevant in th