CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETYOutreach/Position Document on Public Awareness and Education

Engaging thE Public in biotEchnology: PERSPEctiVES, bESt PRacticES anD caSE StuDiES

fRom thE global inDuStRy coalition

Background: Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety (Protocol) requires Parties to promote and

facilitate public awareness and education about biosafety

and biotechnology (Appendix 1). During their fifth

meeting in 2010, the Parties to the Protocol adopted a

programme of work on Article 23 which outlines ways

to ‘promote broad public awareness and education of

issues concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of

living modified organisms (LMOs)’ and invites all to share

their experiences in this area.1 The Global Industry

Coalition (GIC)2 has surveyed its members to develop

the perspectives, best practices and case studies

contained in this document (Appendix 2).

GIC Perspectives on Public Awareness and Education • Whenevernewtechnologiesareintroduced,people

want to know more. How will this technology affect

mylife?Isitsafe?Whatimpactwillithaveonthe

environment? How does it work?

• Awarenessandeducationareimportantprerequisites

to all forms of consultation or evaluation by the public.

Parties to the Protocol/national governments have

a primary responsibility to ensure that the public

is appropriately informed about biosafety and

biotechnology matters in which they are asked

to participate in by their national governments,

in accordance with the country’s laws and practices.

• Providinginformationtothepublicaboutbiosafety

and biotechnology can be challenging, because they

are complex subjects involving many actors. Article 23

andtheProtocol’sProgrammeofWorkonPublic

Awareness, Education and Participation Concerning

the Safe Transfer, Handling and Use of LMOs (2011-2015)

recognises this, and calls on the Parties to cooperate

with civil society, industry, academia, communication

experts, educational institutions and others on activities

in these areas.

• Developersofnewtechnologieshaveaspecialroleto

play in providing biosafety information to the public

about their products. From the time that agricultural

biotechnology crops were first grown commercially

in 1996, members of the agricultural biotechnology

industry have reached out to the public through diverse

and innovative programmes to raise awareness,

educate and encourage participation.

• Representingthedevelopersofnewtechnologies,

the members of the GIC believe that:

– Public acceptance of governmental decisions

on LMOs is fostered when people have access to

information about biotechnology that is transparent,

understandable, timely and relevant to

their concerns. – Public education and awareness activities are best

when country-driven rather than imposed through regional or global organisations. Programmes should be designed with specific social and cultural considerations in mind, and targeted to the knowledge and concerns of different stakeholder groups in a particular country.

– Public sector expert engagement also is important to deliver information to the public about the impacts of new technologies. Technology developers routinely develop public-private partnerships to investigate the benefits and risks of new products and facilitate the dissemination of this important information to the professional and regulatory community through publications, presentations at conferences, meetings with the public and indirectly through the media.

– Awareness and education initiatives should be focused on increasing knowledge of the scientific aspects of biotechnology, including impacts on farming systems, food production and environmental benefits, and experiences in other world areas. This focus will support informed public participation in science-based biotechnology decisions, especially if focused on technical questions and risk assessments.

– Building awareness and education in biotechnology is a long-term and evolving process that should follow each country’s experience. Activities and programmes should continue, but evolve as a country moves from establishing biosafety policies through evaluating biotechnology products to approval and adoption.

Awareness and education are important prerequisites to all forms of evaluation or consultation by the public. While national governments have a primary responsibility to ensure that the public is appropriately informed about biosafety and biotechnology matters, developers of new technologies also have a special role to play in providing biosafety information to the public about their products. We do so through a wide range of global, regional and national activities.

1 http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/mop-05/mop-05-dec-13-annex-en.pdf 2 The Global Industry Coalition (GIC) for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety receives input and direction from trade associations representing thousands of companies from all over the world. Participants include associations representing and companies engaged in a variety of industrial sectors such as plant science, seeds, agricultural biotechnology, food production, animal agriculture, human and animal health care, and the environment.

3 http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/mop-05/mop-05-dec-13-annex-en.pdf

Industry Best Practices and Case Studies for Effective Public Awareness and EducationMembers of the GIC have worked in many of the objective and activity areas that are identified inElement2oftheProgrammeofWorkon Public Awareness, Education and Participation.3 The following best practices and examples come from those experiences.

1. open invitations: Public awareness and education opportunities should be transparent.

Behind-the-scenes information about how biotechnology research is conducted, developed, evaluated and monitored is of great interest to the public. The agricultural biotechnology industry literally opens its doors to the public through visitors’ centers. Community members have opportunities to participate in company decision-making in some places. Scientists from all kinds of institutions have access to published industry research and standards and good stewardship requirements for managing internal research and development activities.

2. the power of first-hand experiences: information given to the public should be direct and understandable.

Biosafety and agricultural biotechnology are highly technical topics. For members of the public who do not have science degrees or farm experience, interacting with researchers and listening to first-hand experiences with biotechnology provide powerful educational opportunities. In many places, the public can visit laboratories and talk with researchers about how the technology is developed. Elsewhere, members of the public can walk through fields to see what biotech crops look like and get answers to their questions from farmers who actually grow the crops.

3. awareness and education opportunities must be timely in order to have impact.

The information needed by the public when biosafety regulations are being discussed is different than the information needed at times when specific products are being considered for approval. Some awareness, education and participation programmes sponsored by industry provide information every day of the year through the internet and published materials. Other programmes may combine many activities into a single week for maximum exposure or operate seasonally when crops are in the ground.

4. Relevance: Specific stakeholders may need “customised” information.

Different people want and need different kinds of information.Whilesomeinformationaboutbiosafetyand biotechnology is of interest to the general public, certain stakeholder groups need access to more specialised resources. Industry programmes are customised to reach specific audiences – including journalists, teachers and other members of the agriculture and science communities – through events, training courses and dialogue sessions that are tailored for them.

• TheGICbelievesthattheseexperiencesinpublicawareness and education activities for biosafety and biotechnology should be shared and, with the help of its global network, has developed 14 case studies. These case studies describe past and ongoing initiatives, including major accomplishments, success stories, best practices and lessons learned as GIC members have reached out to general public, as well as specific stakeholder groups of journalists, farmers, industry, government and the public sector, and teachers.

• Thecasestudiesareavailableonlineat www.croplife.org/public_participation_case_studies (Appendix 2 for details).

Appendix 1: Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyArticle 23: Public Awareness and Participation

1. The Parties shall:

(a) Promote and facilitate public awareness, education

and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling

and use of living modified organisms in relation to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,

taking also into account risks to human health. In doing so,

the Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with other

States and international bodies;

(b) Endeavour to ensure that public awareness and

education encompass access to information on living

modified organisms identified in accordance with this

Protocol that may be imported.

2. The Parties shall, in accordance with their respective

laws and regulations, consult the public in the decision-

making process regarding living modified organisms

and shall make the results of such decisions available

to the public, while respecting confidential information

in accordance with Article 21.

3. Each Party shall endeavour to inform its public about the

means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House.

Appendix 2: Summary of GIC Case Studies4

To promote public awareness and education about

biosafety and biotechnology topics, the members of the

Global Industry Coalition (GIC) often complement or build

on programmes initiated by national government and

others involved in LMOs. Different kinds of programmes

are used to reach different stakeholder groups.

General public: Virtually all members of the GIC support

and engage in activities to educate and inform the general

public about biotechnology. This includes producing

printed material on relevant topics that may be distributed

at public events or regularly sent out by mail or email.

In many countries, GIC members sponsor websites that

provide information to the general public, and some

have specialised sites or pages for certain audiences.

Providing updated and accessible information available

in local languages is very important.

• CanadaandthePhilippineseachorganise“National

Biotechnology Week” events every year. Activities

include career fairs, tours of biotech companies, news

features, political speeches and outreach, and other

programs to simultaneously reach broad and diverse

sections of society on a national basis.

• Visitors’ programmes run by biotechnology

companies help educate those in their communities

and beyond. They offer opportunities for the public

to visit facilities where research on agricultural

biotechnology is being done, see the technology

first-hand and meet the people who are developing it.

• Tenyearsago,theintroductionofBtcottoninIndia

was met with many questions about its biosafety,

regulation, and benefits. At the time there was no

easy-to-understand overview of the key issues, data,

and literature to help resolve them. A prominent scientist

wrote Q&A on Bt-Cotton in India to fill this gap,

answering dozens of questions on all aspects of Bt

technology and the experience with Bt cotton in India.

• Incountriesorregionswherebiotechnologyisnot

widely adopted, opportunities to learn about

biotechnology, interact with experts and see crops

first-hand can be limited. Multi-stakeholder ‘platform’

events in Romania are dedicated to educating people

about agricultural biotechnology: how it’s researched

and regulated, the benefits of current products and

what’s in the pipeline for the future.

4 www.croplife.org/public_participation_case_studies

Journalists: Many GIC-supported awareness and

education activities include the news media, because

they are a primary source of information for the general

public. GIC members create opportunities for journalists

to talk to experts about specific stories, and host seminars

or conferences where they can become better educated

on broader topics. The common practice of rotating

journalists from one subject area ‘beat’ to another means

that this is an ongoing task.

• Thenewsmediaplaysaspecialroleinbuildingpublic

awareness about many issues because it reaches the

public every day with information about events around

the world. In Brazil and Japan, Council for Biotechnology

Information organisations connect members of the

news media with interesting stories and independent

sources to help them raise public awareness about

agricultural biotechnology.

• TheinterestoftheChinese media in agricultural

biotechnology follows the wide-ranging and growing

interests of the public in this topic. Journalists who

seek to access experts, locations where biotechnology

crops are developed and grown, and up-to-date

information now find new support from the science

and agriculture community.

Farmers: The GIC believes that farmers are one of the

most important segments of the public to educate about

biotechnology because of the choices and responsibilities

they have, and benefits that come directly to them.

They can play a strong role in educating others about

the real impacts that biotechnology has on the economy

and the environmental health of their farms.

• ThroughthePan-Asia Farmers Exchange Program,

people from across the region learn about the

practicalities of regulating and growing biotech crops.

Whatbeganasawaytoshareinformationamong

farmers is now informing a much broader group of

stakeholders on the impacts and benefits of

biotechnology in the Philippines, where these crops

have been grown for over six years.

• EveryMarch,ruralcommunitiesacrossSouth Africa

gather around local small-scale farms to learn about

biotechnology. There are no multi-media presentations

or complex internet sites here. Instead, people come

simply to see a field of insect-protected maize next

to a conventional field, listen to what the farmer has

learned from growing the crop, and judge for themselves

how effective biotechnology can be in their own

environment.

Industry/private sector: The food, feed and fibre

industries include vast networks of input providers,

growers, machinery manufacturers, processors, millers,

traders and retailers. Their acceptance of biotechnology

is critically important to the continued adoption of the

technology. Members of the GIC follow up carefully to

make sure industry colleagues are well-informed about

the trade and commercial implications of biosafety and

biotechnology issues.

• Inthefaceofconcernsaboutthemarketimpactsof

growing biotech canola in Australia, industry stake-

holders engaged in a unique participatory process to

systematically review and work through all of the issues

being raised. Together they identified practical measures

that would ensure the Australian industry could

continue to meet the needs of customers and consumers.

They then shared this information with other supply

chain participants, governments and the public to

provide confidence that the industry could manage

biotech canola in the supply chain and therefore provide

choice to customers across that chain.

Government: The government agencies and authorities

that regulate biotechnology are complex organisations

inthemselves.Regulators,administrators,legislators,

the judiciary, and administrative offices at national,

regional and local levels may all have to deal with issues

related to biotechnology in one way or another. A number

of GIC-supported efforts are helping officials in govern-

ment agencies to stay informed and up-to-date about

biosafety and biotechnology issues.

• Asadoptionofbiotechnologycropsgrowsinacountry,

so do the economic, agriculture, trade, research, science

and legal opportunities and implications. Government

officials must keep pace, and in Brazil, an innovative

programme has been created to enhance understanding

of biotechnology at all levels of the government.

• Biotechnologycompaniesworkdiligentlytoprovide

up-to-date technical information about their new

products to regulatory agencies and the scientists who

advise them. In Asia, the CropLife Korea industry

organisation hosts in-depth workshops with international

experts on important regulatory topics, while its

extensive website houses scientific publications, news

and other resources.

• Themanualon“ComplianceManagementofConfined

Field Trials of Biotech-derived Plants” contains best

practices and guidelines developed by industry to

organise, manage and complete field trials – a critically

important stage of biotechnology research and

development – in compliance with regulations.

Educational workshops based on the manual have

been given around the world to share this information

with regulators, researchers and members of the

biotech industry who are conducting trials,

monitoring research or even drafting new

regulations. The training has been especially useful

in Africa where agricultural biotech research is

blossoming, but is applicable anywhere that better

understanding of compliance management is needed.

• Manycompaniesandresearchinstituteshave

Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) that help

them manage complex decisions about research and

development activities involving biotechnology, or

genetic engineering. The membership of IBCs usually

includes people from outside of the organisation

conducting the research in order to provide independent

review and assessment of their plans. In Australia,

IBCs play a particularly active and participatory role

in biotechnology research and development.

Teachers: Academics and those in the teaching

professions have multiple levels of impact. They are often

among the most well-educated members of their commun-

ities, making them good partners for educating the

public about biotechnology, with support from the GIC.

• In2003-04,whentheMinistryofEducationinArgentina

instituted a requirement that biotechnology be taught

in schools, most teachers had not been trained in this

new area of science and had few resources for planning

lessons. A panel of independent experts came together

to design a training course and educational materials,

which is offered free-of-charge around the country

throughthePorQuéBiotecnología(WhyBiotechnology)

program (http://www.porquebiotecnologia.com.ar/).

Today, more than 10,000 school

teachers have been trained.

Engaging thE Public in biotEchnology: casE studiEs from thE global industry coalition

Enhancing Government Understanding of Biotechnology: the Case of Brazilsummary: As adoption of biotechnology crops grows in a country, so do the economic, agriculture, trade, research, science and legal opportunities and implications. Government officials must keep pace, and in Brazil, an innovative programme has been created to educate all levels of the government about biotechnology.

In every country there are some government employees, particularly regulators, who deal with agricultural biotechnology in their jobs every day and are familiar with the science, the products and the policy trends. It can be more difficult for staff in other agencies, especially those that might only occasionally work on biotechnology-related issues, to learn about and keep current with this complex subject. In Brazil, an educational programme designed especially for government officials helps them understand agricultural biotechnology and how it impacts the development of the entire country.

Biotechnology in BrazilIn 2009 Brazil became the second largest grower of biotechnology crops in the world, with over 21 million hectares planted, and is also a major exporter of agricultural products. Agricultural biotechnology impacts farming, the environment, rural development, economics and other sectors in Brazil.

Recognising the importance of biotechnology to the country, an ambitious government-wide programme was created in 2007 to increase Brazil’s competitiveness in this area. The federal government encourages Brazilian companies to develop new proprietary biotechnology products and processes that could generate income and exports in all sectors of the economy.

From the beginning, the government believed their success would be dependent on the ability of officials in all biotech-related ministries and institutions – not just regulators – to understand and work strategically with the technology. This includes the Ministries of Livestock and Agriculture, Industry and Foreign Trade, and Science and Technology, as well as Embrapa (the national agricultural institute), the Brazilian Agency of Industrial Development and the Association of Brazilian Federal Judges.

Teaching Teachers about Biotechnology in ArgentinaSummary: In 2003-04, when the Ministry of Education in Argentina instituted a requirement that biotechnology be taught in schools, most teachers had not been trained in this new area of science and had few resources for planning lessons. A panel of experts came together to design a training course and educational materials, which is offered free-of-charge around the country through the Por Qué Biotecnología (Why Biotechnology) programme. Today more than 10,000 school teachers have been trained.

Biotechnology crops have been grown in Argentina since 1996, and the country was the world’s second largest producer of biotech crops for more than 10 years. An important factor in public education and awareness-building is the national mandate to teach biotech to schoolchildren. The Por Qué Biotecnología

(Why Biotechnology) programme supports teachers by providing resources, strategies and educational tools on all aspects of biotechnology.

colleagues, families, friends and other

contacts. ArgenBio saw teachers as important partners for sharing infor- mation about biotechnology to

different audiences.

ArgenBio’s work with teachers quickly

became formalised as the Por Qué Biotecnología

programme, dedicated to providing resources, strategies and educational tools on all aspects of biotechnology to schools, museums and other educational institutions. A panel of four experts in biology and biotechnology from prestigious public research institutions, plus one highly- experienced secondary school teacher with a degree in biotechnology was commissioned to develop a training course for teachers and the initial content for science-based education materials that could be adopted and used in any school, working closely with ArgenBio.

The programme was offered to the education authorities and those in charge of training teachers, first in the capital city of Buenos Aires. Word quickly spread, and there was a great response from teachers around the country. Prior to the offering of this programme, the internet and media reports were the only other resources most educators had to prepare their lessons.

Engaging thE Public in biotEchnology: caSE StudiES from thE global induStry coalition

Why teachersAs in many other countries, teachers are held in special regard in Argentina. Education is very important and teachers are well respected for their role in educating children. Thanks to the national public education system, the literacy rate is 97 percent, and many public school teachers in Argentina teach at more than one school in order to reach children in the 23 provinces of the second- largest country in South America. However, educational resources can be scarce, especially on emerging topics such as biotechnology which have only recently been added to the curriculum in teachers’ colleges.

Years before a national mandate to teach biotechnology came into effect, ArgenBio, the national non-profit biotechnology association, was working to develop educational materials for teachers. Teachers are educated people who are also citizens, parents and consumers, and they are excellent replicators of information, spreading their knowledge not only to their students but also to

Engaging thE Public in biotEchnology: casE studiEs from thE global industry coalition

Delivering Market Choice through Industry Participation in Australiasummary: In the face of concerns about the market impacts of growing biotech canola in Australia, industry stakeholders engaged in a unique participatory process to systematically review and work through all of the issues being raised. Together they identified practical measures that would ensure the Australian canola industry could continue to meet the needs of customers and consumers. They then shared this information with other supply chain participants, governments and the public to provide confidence that the industry could manage biotech canola in the supply chain and deliver choice.

When the federal regulator in Australia approved the commercial cultivation of herbicide-tolerant canola in 2003, biotech cotton varieties had already been grown in the country for six years. Yet concern from stakeholders, especially those in the grains industry, prompted several state governments to institute moratoria which effectively banned biotech canola for the next five years. During that period of time, industry stakeholders came together in a transparent process to address each area of concern and document all of the tools available to manage market and trade requirements. All of this was communicated to decision makers and the public and reinforced with coordinated issues management once biotech canola came onto the market in 2008.

Facing market fearsMany canola farmers in Australia were looking forward to being able to grow herbicide-tolerant canola when it received approval from the federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). Field trials had been conducted across the country for a number of years, and results indicated that technology could provide benefits similar to those enjoyed by growers in Canada, where bio- tech varieties produce over 85 percent of the canola crop.

However, stakeholders in the grains industry were more uncertain about the impact that growing biotech varieties of one crop – canola – would have on their ability to market non-biotech grains, primarily wheat and barley. Canola is one of the most globally traded commodity crops and any mixing of biotech with non-biotech grain

could potentially impact trade and customers. Marketers of wheat and barley were concerned that they would lose sales from important customers if even small amounts of biotech canola were to be detected in any Australian shipments.

These concerns were voiced loudly across all of Australia’s canola-growing states: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Although the crop had federal approval for cultivation, the states had the ability to restrict individual biotech crops based on market concerns, and that’s what they did with biotech canola. Multi-year moratoria went into effect across the country, and some thought that biotech canola might never be planted.

These case studies are available online at www.croplife.org/public_participation_case_studies

Africa• BiotechAwarenessfromtheGroundUp:Outreach

toSmall-ScaleFarmersandRuralCommunitiesin

South Africa

• SharingBestPracticesinBiotechStewardship:

Field Trial Compliance Training in Africa

Americas• TeachingTeachersaboutBiotechnologyinArgentina

• EnhancingGovernmentUnderstandingofBiotechnology:

the Case of Brazil

• WorkingwithNewsMediatoBuildAwarenessof

Biotechnology: Councils for Biotechnology Information

in Brazil and Japan

• MapleLeaves,MoringaTreesandMore:National

BiotechnologyWeeksinCanadaandthePhilippines

Asia-Pacific• DeliveringMarketChoicethroughIndustry

Participation in Australia

• WorkingwithNewsMediatoBuildAwarenessof

Biotechnology: Councils for Biotechnology Information

in Brazil and Japan

• MapleLeaves,MoringaTreesandMore:National

BiotechnologyWeeksinCanadaandthePhilippines

• ThePan-AsiaFarmers(andScientistsandJournalists)

Exchange:RegionalEducationonFertileGround

• PublicParticipationinBiotechnologyDecisions:The

RoleofInstitutionalBiosafetyCommittees(Australia)

• MeetingDiverseandDynamicNeedsofNewsMedia

in China

• BuildingBiosafetyKnowledgeinKorea–In-person

WorkshopsandOnlinePlatforms

• AnsweringQuestionsonBtCottoninIndia

Europe• ASharedPlatformforBiotechnologyAwareness:

Multi-stakeholderEventsinRomania

Global• UsingVisitors’ProgrammestoEducateandRaise

Awareness about Biotechnology

07/1

2-18

659

The Global Industry Coalition (GIC) for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety receives input and direction from trade associations representing thousands of companies from all over the world. Participants include associations representing, and companies engaged in, a variety of industrial sectors such as plant science, seeds, agricultural biotechnology, food production, animal agriculture, human and animal health care, and the environment.