The Republic of Moldova: good practices on Public Participation in LMOs decision-making

By Angela Lozan

The Joint Aarhus Convention/CBD Round table

16-17 December 2019

BACKGROUND Aarhus Convention on public access to information and decision making, ratification (1999) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of the CBD, ratified (2002) Amendment to the Aarhus Convention (Almaty, 2005) on public access to decision making in the field of

Biosafety, ratified (2007) Nagoya Kuala-Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress, ratified (2018) Moldova-EU Association Agreement (2014)

National Strategy on Biological Diversity NBSAP 2015-2020 (2015)

National Law on Biosafety (2001)

Draft new law on deliberative release of GMOs and placing to the market, in accordance with the Association Agreement Moldova-EU and the EU Directive 18/2001 and the Aaarhus Convention – public consultation

Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment – National Competent Authority

National Biosafety Commission (2003)

Regulation on GMO (2003)

Public information and participation legal framework

LAW on access to information , 2000 LAW on transparency in the decision-making process, 2008 Law on Biosafety, 2001, Art.39.

GD Regulation on public involvement in elaboration and adoption of environmental decisions, 2000

National Action Plan on Implementation of Aarhus Convention of the Republic of Moldova (2012-2017), GD 2011

GD Regulation on public access to environmental information, 2016 GD on the mechanism of public consultation with civil society in decision-making

process, 2016 Min.Order 2009 Regulation on public Information and participation regarding GMOs

How can public participation enhance trust and better quality of decisions? Art.39 of the Law on Biosafety require application pf principle of transparency during

the procedures of notification and authorization of deliberative release of LMOs to the environment and placing to the market. 30 days for Public information and public Opinion

Art. 24. - provision on labelling for LMOs products and seeds (1%, 0,3%) National Biosafety Commission is represented by governmental bodies, academia,

education and a representative of NGOs A special Guidance is developed to ensure Mechanism for Public information and

Public Participation, 2009 Provisions on Confidential information Public opinion is considered during decision making and authorization Monitoring and laboratory detection National BCH website www.biosafety.md. Integrated CHM is under development National Register for interested public listing NGOs and academia Public hearings during decision making

Good practices

• Information for public – free of charge.• Timeframe reasonable – 30 days.• Early available.• Regular and active information on webpage,

info notes, dissemination via emails, tel.calls, personal meetings, public hearings etc.

• Information for public is complete and accessible in national language.

• National Register for interested public via BCH webpage, contacts, emails, addresses etc.

• Risk assessment report is available and part of notification package via webpage, on paper etc.

• Public comments, opinion, information, analysis in writing or at public hearings considered for decision making by the National Biosafety Commission and the Competent authority.

• Meetings of the National Biosafety Commission, meetings with NGOs and general public held in governmental building.

• Public hearings to exchange views and finding solutions are incorporated in the final decision.

•

Public participation and improved legitimacy of decision

Lab for LMO detection• 2015 - Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) of the Central Phytosanitary

Laboratory, National Agency for Food Security (ANSA). • Specific testing equipment for PCR method Uniplex, Classic Multiplex and Real-

Time.• 2016 - LMB accredited in accordance with ISO 17025 to provide GMO testing. • 2018 - the laboratory performed 42 tests for the detection of GMOs (37 for soy

and products containing soy and 5 for maize). • 2019 so far 21 tests were performed at GMOs (10 for soybeans and 11 for maize),

the samples in particular coming from the State Monitoring Plans.• The laboratory is able currently to carry out tests for GMO detection for

soybean, corn and rapes.

The public is more trusty for the government when the capacity for laboratory detection is build.

Architecture of the BCH system in Moldova General scheme

Nivel acces utilizator din Internet

Administrator1

Nivel d

e acce

sCen

tru Naţ

ional

Administrator N

ServerInternet

Baza de Datewww.biosafety.md

Utilizator KUtilizator 3Utilizator 2Utilizator 1

Reţea

locală E

therne

t 100 m

bps

...

BCH Portal

Baza de Datebch.biodiv.org

Nivel acces punct focal naţional

Punct focal KPunct focal 3Punct focal 2Punct focal 1

...

Local authorities

Stakeholders’ partnership

Agricultural University

Agency “Moldsilva”

AcademiaAcademy of SciencesState University

Government

Ecological InspectorateNational Agency for Food Security

(ANSA)

Min. Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment

NBF

NGOs & mass-mediaBiotica, ECO-TIRAS, NOI

Botanical Garden/Institute 4 Ministries 2 Departments

Institute of Ecology and Geography

Institute of Genetics and Plant Protection

Agricultural Branch Research

Public opinion pool survey:What is your opinion regarding

the GMOs use?:

66%

6%

43%

26%

9%

34%

20%

21%

15%

39%

24%

24%

10%

21%

13%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

.Ştiinţă

. Agricultură

Medicină

Industrie

Sunt pentru Sunt împotrivă Sunt categoric împotrivă Nu ştiu

What is your attitude regarding perspectives of

GMOs use in Moldova?

7%

53%

40%

Pozitivă Nici pozitivă, nici negativă Negativă

Biosafety education and training with main stakeholders

CEE Regional course on Risk Assessment Chisinau 2007

Capacity building Meeting on the Cartagena Protocol , Chisinau 2011

Regional CEE meeting on Risk assessment of LMOs, Chisinau, 2014

Global Workshop on Mainstreaming Biosafety, Chisinau, 2016

Biosafety curricula developed, State University of Moldova, Faculty of Biology and Soil Sciences

Training courses on LMOs risk assessment, BCH, Public information and participation etc.

Caravan BIO

Publications in support for implementation of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention in Moldova

CEE BCH Network STRUCTURE

The CEE BCH NETWORK is composed by present of 10 countries (of 23 + Turkey): Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine

• Albania • Armenia • Azerbaijan • Belarus • Bosnia and

Herzegovina • Bulgaria • Croatia • Czech Republic

• Estonia • Georgia • Hungary • Latvia • Lithuania • Macedonia[1] • Moldova • Montenegro

• Poland • Romania • Russian Federation • Serbia • Slovakia • Slovenia • Ukraine

CEE Regional Training Workshop for BCH National Focal Points21-24 November 2017 Belgrade, Serbia

PP Challenges to be addressed

Not sufficient cross-sectorial cooperation and limited public participationLimited financial, technical and human capacityGovernmental changes/personalThe new Agency for Environmental Protection has limited

personal and capacity for monitoring and PPMonitoring and laboratory detection capacity not sufficientNeeds for training of media, NGOs, academia and business

Lessons learned A trusty, sustainable and transparent decision making in relation of LMOs can be achieved in

collaboration with civil society and large public. A variety of means from legal to procedural, including active forms of information

dissemination, use of innovative technics as BCH, webpages, social Internet platforms (Facebook, Twitter, emails etc), large public hearings and communication, media involvement, training for trainers may ensure a good collaboration between governmental and non-governmental sectors, academia, business, local public, civil society.

Involvement of various groups of population, from urban to rural, with different level of education, age, sex, professional occupation in open discussion and considering their perception and arising their understanding of the problem is critically important.

Legal provisions and practical mechanisms to ensure access to information and participation to decision making related to LMOs is a basic platform to achieve good communication and transparent informed decision making agreement.

Good practices for public information and participation have to be replicated in a larger scale of the country involving public from agriculture, rural, local communities etc.

Regional and Sub-regional cooperation and capacity building would be an efficient instrument to improve public information and participation.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!