SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL

Transcription

1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL L. A. GONZALES* SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc. * Founding President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc., Community Representative, DOST-Biosafety Committee, and Participant, First Meeting of AHTEG on Socio- Economic considerations, Seoul, Republic of Korea, February 17-21, 2014.

2 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION A. Report on the First Meeting of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Socio-Economic Considerations B. Elements for a Framework for Conceptual Clarity on Socio-Economic Considerations C. Socio-economic Benefits of GM Crops D. Philippine Experience in Estimating Ex Ante & Ex Post Impacts of GM Corn. E. Evolving a Country / Regional SECs

3 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP (AHTEG) ON SOCIO- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 3

4 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.1. Article 26: Socio-Economic Considerations under the Cartagena Protocol a. The Parties, in reaching a decision on import under this Protocol or under its domestic measures implementing the Protocol, may take into account, consistent with their international obligations, socioeconomic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities.

5 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.1. Article 26: Socio-Economic Considerations under the Cartagena Protocol b. The Parties are encouraged to cooperate on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of living modified organisms, especially on indigenous and local communities.

6 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.2. Recent Developments The sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties (COP-MOP) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety adopted decision BS-VI/13 on socio-economic considerations. The decision includes requests for the Executive Secretary to undertake a series of activities which were ultimately intended to contribute to the development of the conceptual clarity on socioeconomic considerations.

7 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.2. Recent Developments The Executive Secretary: i. Convened online discussion groups and regional online real time conferences to facilitate and synthesize the exchange of views, information and experiences on socio-economic considerations among Parties; and ii. Commissioned a consultant to compile, take stock of and review information on socio-economic considerations in order to develop a global view.

8 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.2. Recent Developments The COP-MOP also decided to establish an ad hoc technical expert group on socio-economic considerations (AHTEG on Socio-economic Considerations) to: i. Examine the outcome of the online discussion group, the regional online real-time conferences, and the global overview of information in order to develop, drawing upon the outcomes, conceptual clarity on socio economic considerations;

9 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.2. Recent Developments ii. Submit its report for consideration by the seventh meeting of the COP-MOP; iii. The report from the technical expert group is intended to enable COP-MOP to deliberate and decide upon appropriate further steps towards fulfilling operational objective 1.7 and associated outcomes of the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

10 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.3. Attendance 22 experts from the following parties: i. Austria, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Dominican Republic; ii. Egypt, European Union, France, Honduras, Hungary; iii. India, Liberia, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, South Africa, Spain and Thailand.

11 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.3. Attendance 5 expert observers per region from among the non-parties and other organizations: i. United States; ii. iii. iv. Third World Network; Global Industry Coalition; GENOK-Centre for Biosafety; and v. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento.

12 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.4. Developing Conceptual Clarity on Socio- Economic Considerations Requested Experts to submit elements of socio-economic considerations, reviewed and discussed them and formed small groups to focus on general principles, methodologies and points to consider in evolving conceptual reality.

13 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.4. Developing Conceptual Clarity on Socio- Economic Considerations Some of the issues raised were: i. Relationship between risk assessment and socio-economic considerations, e.g. can health related issues be addressed by the SECs.

14 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.4. Developing Conceptual Clarity on Socio- Economic Considerations ii. Congruence with international agreements e.g.: Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; International Convention Covering Indigenous Tribal Peoples; International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; and WTO.

15 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.5. Recommendations The AHTEG on SECs recommends that the seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP 7): a. Review the report of AHTEG s first meeting; b. Decide to extend the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Socio-Economic Considerations to work on the guidelines envisaged under operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan in light of paragraph 4 (c) of decision BS-VI/13;

16 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.5. Recommendations c. Request the Executive Secretary to convene online discussion groups to facilitate the exchange of views, information and experiences on socio-economic considerations, including concerning: (i) the interface between risk assessment and socio-economic considerations; (ii) human health-related aspects of socio-economic considerations; and (iii) international obligations that may be relevant to socio economic considerations;

17 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.5. Recommendations d. Request the Executive Secretary to compile information on: (i) policies, laws, regulations and guidelines providing for definitions of socio-economic considerations; and (ii) practical applications of socio-economic considerations in decision-making on living modified organisms, including cases where socio-economic impacts have been considered;

18 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.5. Recommendations e. Request the Executive Secretary to commission a study on international agreements that may have relevance to socio-economic considerations as provided in Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; and

19 A. REPORT ON THE FIRST MEETING OF AHTEG ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS A.5. Recommendations f. Invite the Global Environment Facility and other donors to consider supporting capacity-building activities on socioeconomic considerations as specified in paragraph 2 (n) of decision BS-VI/5 (appendix II of decision XI/5 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity).

20 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 20

21 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY on SECs B.1. Mandate of the AHTEG: Operational Objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan of the Cartagena on Biosafety for the period : To, on the basis of research and information exchange, provide relevant guidance on socioeconomic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms.

22 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY on SECs AHTEG recognized the complexities in defining SECs and agreed that there is no single definition of SECs. The Group decided to adopt the descriptive approach to reach conceptual clarity.

23 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.2. General Principles a. Paragraph 1 of Article 26 provides that Parties may take socio-economic considerations into account in decision-making on living modified organisms. b. Taking socio-economic considerations into account in decision-making on living modified organisms should be consistent with relevant international obligations, which include trade agreements, environmental agreements and human rights agreements.

24 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.2. General Principles c. Taking socio-economic considerations into account in decision-making on living modified organisms should be consistent with existing national regulatory frameworks and policies. d. In taking socio-economic considerations into account, Parties should consider their local, national and regional circumstances, cultural practices, priorities and needs, in particular those related to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities.

25 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.2. General Principles e. Taking socio-economic considerations into account in decision-making on living modified organisms should be clear, transparent, and nondiscriminatory. f. Human health-related issues arising from impacts of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity should also form part of socio-economic considerations, provided that they are not already addressed in the risk assessment.

26 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.2. General Principles g. A situation of uncertainty or insufficient information on socio-economic impacts should not prevent socio-economic considerations from being taken into account in reaching a decision. h. Conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity relies on a wide range of elements, including socio-economic ones, which supports the application of sustainability principles.

27 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.2. General Principles i. Planning and conducting risk assessments and taking socio-economic considerations into account may be complementary in the decision-making process. j. Public participation and consultation form part of the process of taking socio-economic considerations into account.

28 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.3. Methodological Considerations a. Scope The scope of methodologies could include the following issues: Economic Social Ecological Cultural / traditional / religious / ethical Human health-related

29 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.3. Methodological Considerations b. Methodological approaches A wide array of methodological approaches is available to address the complexity of socioeconomic considerations, which could include the following: Situational analysis and baseline information Scenario planning Ex-ante and/or Ex-post studies Quantitative and/or qualitative studies

30 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.3. Methodological Considerations b. Methodological approaches Public consultation and participation modalities Multi-criteria analysis Socio-economic impact assessments Valuation of biological diversity Any methodology selected should be based on, inter alia, the information needs of decision makers.

31 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.3. Methodological Considerations c. Factors affecting methodological approaches Macro-, micro- or market structure levels of analysis, depending on the organism, trait and intended use Context and/or case specific at the level of the organism, trait and intended use The different stakeholders involved in the design of the socio-economic assessment The variation of socio-economic considerations among States and at the sub-national level.

32 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.4. Points to Consider a. Any list of elements of socio-economic considerations would be indicative and nonexhaustive. b. Listing elements of socio-economic considerations based on existing experiences and as contained in the document that summarized the online discussions (document UNEP/CBD/BS/REGCONF-SEC/2/INF/1) would contribute to the future development of guidelines on socio-economic considerations.

33 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.4. Points to Consider c. Elements of socio-economic considerations may be classified using the dimensions below. d. Elements of socio-economic considerations could fall into more than one dimension. e. Human health-related and ecological dimensions that are not addressed in risk assessment may be addressed when taking socio-economic considerations into account.

34 B. ELEMENTS FOR A FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUAL CLARITY ON SECs B.4. Points to Consider Dimensions: Economic: e.g. impact on income; Social: e.g. impact on food security; Ecological: e.g. impact on ecosystem functions; Cultural/traditional/religious/ethical: e.g. impact on seed saving and exchange practices; Human health-related: e.g. impact on nutritional status.

35 C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF GM CORN 35

36 SCOPE I. Global Trends in GM Crops Adoption II. Global Benefits of GM Corn Adoption III. Philippine Benefits of GM Corn Adoption

37 I. Global Trends in GM Crops Adoption Total Area Planted to GM Crops in 2013: mil has. Increased 100-fold from 1.7 mil ha in million farmers in 27 countries Fastest adopted crop technology in recent history

38 II. Global Benefits of GM Corn Adoption A. Insect Resistant (IR) Corn Based on the study of Brookes and Barfoot (2014), the main benefits of IR corn were: increased average yields due to lowering of pest damage, and insecticide cost savings; while the main cost was the actual cost of the seed technology. Based on these definitions of benefits and costs, the net benefits of planting IR corn are

39 II. Global Benefits of GM Corn Adoption Net benefits of planting insect resistant (IR) corn. COUNTRY NO OF YEARS OF ADOPTION INCLUSIVE YEARS NET BENEFIT US $ 17.3 billion Canada $ 849 million Argentina $ 495 million South Africa $ 1.1 billion Spain $ 176 million Brazil $ 2.76 billion Philippines $ 274 million Uruguay $ 17.6 million Honduras $ 6.9 million Colombia $ 47.4 million GLOBAL $ 23.1 billion Source: Brookes and Barfoot, 2014.

40 II. Global Benefits of GM Corn Adoption B. HT Corn The study of Brookes and Barfoot (2014) also provided the net benefits of HT corn: reduced expenditure on labor and chemical application which translated to reduced costs and improvement in corn profitability; while the main cost was the actual cost of the HT corn technology. Based on these definitions of benefits and costs, the net benefits of planting HT corn are

41 II. Global Benefits of GM Corn Adoption COUNTRY Net benefits of planting HT corn. NO OF YEARS OF ADOPTION INCLUSIVE YEARS NET BENEFIT US $ 3.75 billion Canada $ 86 million Argentina $ 767 million South Africa $ 4.1 million Philippines $ 105 million Brazil $ 703 million Colombia $ 1.7 million Uruguay $ 460,000 GLOBAL $ 5.4 billion Source: Brookes and Barfoot, 2014.

42 III. Philippine Benefits of GM Corn Adoption In 2011, SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc. has estimated the macroeconomic effects of GM corn (i.e. Bt, HT and Bt/HT) adoption The macroeconomic effects were estimated as the incremental difference between the production of GM corn and ordinary hybrid (OH) corn

43 III. Philippine Benefits of GM Corn Adoption These incremental indicators were: Net farm income, Preharvest labor savings for non-use of pesticide, Incomes from seed and fertilizer sales, and Postharvest labor income multiplier due to higher yields.

44 III. Philippine Benefits of GM Corn Adoption Macroeconomic Effects of GM Corn. Incremental Net Farm Income Preharvest Labor Savings Indicator Incremental Income from Seed Sales Incremental Income from Fertilizer Sales Postharvest Labor Income Multiplier TOTAL OF ALL FIVE INDICATORS Macroeconomic Effects in Million Peso GM Corn vs OH Corn Total of Three Bt HT Bt/HT GM Corn ,422 6, ,139 4, ,848 3, ,177 1, ,726 15,231 17,178

45 III. Philippine Benefits of GM Corn Adoption Macroeconomic Effects of GM Corn. Incremental Net Farm Income Preharvest Labor Savings Indicator Incremental Income from Seed Sales Incremental Income from Fertilizer Sales Postharvest Labor Income Multiplier TOTAL OF ALL FIVE INDICATORS Macroeconomic Effects in Million US$ GM Corn vs OH Corn Total of Three Bt HT Bt/HT GM Corn

46 D. PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE ON THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GM CORN

47 INTRODUCTION SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc. has consistently monitored & evaluated the ex-ante and expost commercialization of biotechnology corn seed technologies in the Philippines. This involved the socio-economic analysis of field trials (ex-ante) and eventual adoption (ex-post) of genetically modified (GM) corn products in a span of 12 years (2001 to 2012).

48 INTRODUCTION Six studies on the socio-economic impact of GM corn were done from 2002 to 2012: YEAR TYPE OF ANALYSIS GM PRODUCT 2002 Ex-ante Bt corn 2004 Ex-post Bt corn 2007 Ex-post Bt corn 2007 Ex-ante HT corn, Bt/HT (Stacked) corn 2009 Ex-post Bt corn, HT corn, Bt/HT (Stacked) corn 2012 Ex-post Bt corn, HT corn, Bt/HT (Stacked) corn

49 METHOD OF ANALYSIS Counterfactual analysis of with and without scenarios With presence of GM corn technology Bt or Bacillus thuringiensis corn (corn borer resistant) HT or herbicide tolerant corn Bt/HT or Stacked corn Without absence of GM corn technology OH or ordinary hybrid corn Samples were taken in the same production areas

50 RESEARCH COVERAGE GM CORN TECHNOLOGY COMPARISON WS 2001 DS 2002 WS 2003 DS 2004 WS 2004 DS 2005 WS 2007 DS 2008 WS 2011 DS 2012 Bt VS OH Ex-ante Ex-ante Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post HT VS OH Ex-ante Ex-ante Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Bt/HT VS OH Ex-ante Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Ex-post Summary: Bt VS OH 2 seasons of Ex-ante and 8 seasons of Ex-post HT VS OH 2 seasons of Ex-ante and 4 seasons of Ex-post Bt/HT VS OH 1 season of Ex-ante and 4 seasons of Ex-post

51 Number of Household Corn Respondents CROP YEAR WET SEASON OH Bt HT Bt/HT All CROP YEAR DRY SEASON OH Bt HT Bt/HT All Total Wet and Dry , ,009 GRAND TOTAL 3,505 Source: SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc. Corn Surveys, 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2012.

52 6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS 1. Grain yield 2. Farm cost 3. Net farm income 4. Return on investment 5. Subsistence carrying capacity 6. Global cost competitiveness

53 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

54 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (Bt corn) Bt corn outperformed OH corn in 2 seasons of ex-ante evaluation, and 8 seasons of ex-post evaluation, using 6 socio-economic indicators

55 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (Bt corn) The advantage of Bt corn over OH corn was in the range of: For yield 92 to 115% ex-ante & 4 to 34% ex-post; For cost 31 to 34% ex-ante & 3 to 19% ex-post; For farm income 45 to 47% ex-ante & 5 to 48% ex-post; For ROI 77 to 99% ex-ante & 7 to 82% ex-post; For carrying capacity 160 to 172% ex-ante & 10 to 84% ex-post; For global cost competitiveness 27 to 28% ex-ante & 3 to 14% ex-post;

56 Yield Comparisons (Bt VS OH) Cost Comparisons (Bt VS OH) Income Comparisons (Bt VS OH) ROI Comparisons (Bt VS OH) Ex-ante & ex-post impacts of Bt corn

57 Carrying Capacity Comparisons (Bt VS OH) Global Cost Competitiveness Comparisons (Bt VS OH) Ex-ante & ex-post impacts of Bt corn

58 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (HT corn) HT corn performed better than OH corn in 2 seasons of ex-ante assessment, and 4 seasons of expost assessment, under 6 socioeconomic indicators

59 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (HT corn) HT corn outperformed OH corn in the range of: For yield 57 to 148% ex-ante & 4 to 16% expost; For cost 19 to 43% ex-ante & 5 to 7% ex-post; For farm income 18 to 100% ex-ante & 4 to 6% ex-post; For ROI 47 to 249% ex-ante & 9 to 14% ex-post; For carrying capacity 85 to 398% ex-ante & 10 to 22% ex-post; For global cost competitiveness 21 to 56% exante & 3 to 6% ex-post;

60 Yield Comparisons (HT VS OH) Cost Comparisons (HT VS OH) Income Comparisons (HT VS OH) ROI Comparisons (HT VS OH) Ex-ante & ex-post impacts of HT corn

61 Carrying Capacity Comparisons (HT VS OH) Global Cost Competitiveness Comparisons (HT VS OH) Ex-ante & ex-post impacts of HT corn

62 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (Bt/HT corn) Bt/HT corn was superior than OH corn in 1 season of ex-ante evaluation, and 4 seasons of expost evaluation, using 6 socioeconomic indicators

63 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (Bt/HT corn) The superiority of Bt/HT corn relative to OH corn was: For yield 70% ex-ante & 17 to 27% ex-post; For cost 27% ex-ante & 5 to 13% ex-post; For farm income 28% ex-ante & 4 to 13% expost; For ROI 76% ex-ante & 10 to 30% ex-post; For carrying capacity 67% ex-ante & 21 to 44% ex-post; For global cost competitiveness 27% ex-ante & 6% ex-post;

64 Yield Comparisons (Bt/HT VS OH) Cost Comparisons (Bt/HT VS OH) Income Comparisons (Bt/HT VS OH) ROI Comparisons (Bt/HT VS OH) Ex-ante & ex-post impacts of Bt/HT corn

65 Carrying Capacity Comparisons (Bt/HT VS OH) Global Cost Competitiveness Comparisons (Bt/HT VS OH) Ex-ante & ex-post impacts of Bt/HT corn

66 CONCLUSIONS Using six socio-economic indicators of grain yield, cost of production, net farm income, return on investment, subsistence carrying capacity, and global cost competitiveness, three GM corn (Bt, HT, and Bt/HT) technologies outperformed OH corn both at trial sites (ex-ante evaluation) and at farmers fields (ex-post evaluation)

67 CONCLUSIONS After twelve years of Philippine experience in field testing and eventual adoption and commercialization of several GM corn events, one of the lessons learned is that, it is possible to systematically evaluate the socio-economic impacts of GM corn adoption before (ex-ante) and after (ex-post) commercialization

68 E. EVOLVING A COUNTRY / REGIONAL POSITION ON SOCIO- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (SECs) 68

69 E. EVOLVING A COUNTRY / REGIONAL POSITION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (SECs) I. COUNTRY POSITION 1. The first meeting of AHTEG on SECs understood the complexity of SECs and did not adopt a single definition. Instead, it took the descriptive approach in providing conceptual clarity on SECs. 2. Variances exist among countries who are signatories to the CPB. Among others, these include, socio-economic, cultural, religious, political, priority needs, and valuation of the importance of biodiversity relative to indigenous people. 69

70 E. EVOLVING A COUNTRY / REGIONAL POSITION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (SECs) I. COUNTRY POSITION 3. Countries also differ in state of their regulatory frameworks and domestic policies relative to SECs and Biodiversity. 4. By induction, therefore, it is easy to develop an individual country position The Protocol on SECs is not mandatory, and member countries have the option to follow a decision making process closest to their country s national interest. 70

71 E. EVOLVING A COUNTRY / REGIONAL POSITION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (SECs) II. REGIONAL POSITION Are there perceived advantages in evolving a regional position on SECs? Can we evolve a regional position? Country members are indeed diverse but there are also similarities in terms of their science-based approaches in risk assessment, biodiversity valuation, participatory process in decision making, among others. 71

72 E. EVOLVING A COUNTRY / REGIONAL POSITION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (SECs) II. REGIONAL POSITION SECs can be used as an entry point of convergence among member countries, aspiring for the attainment of same development goals such as food security, poverty alleviation to learn from each other, in terms of decision making process related to SECs biological diversity, and national development goals. Methodologies on socio-economic impact assessment both ex ante and ex post are readily available in some countries that have already commercialized GM products. Member countries who want to benefit from these methodologies can avail of Article 22: Capacity-Building under CPB. 72

73 THANK YOU and HAVE A NICE DAY! SIKAP/STRIVE Inc. lag@strivefoundation.com contactus@strivefoundation.com 73