Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why has the public sector not been more involved in previous negotiations?
2. Was the initiative set up so that the public sector has a unified - and perhaps stronger - voice?
3. What particular contributions could public sector representatives make to such discussions that the private sector or NGOs are not equipped to do?
4. What has been the response to the initiative so far from public sector scientists?
5. Would the Cartagena protocol have been constructed differently with more public sector input?
6. Where does the steering committee get its funding from?
7. What sorts of efforts are the initiative involved in to raise awareness of these issues with public sector researchers?
   

Why has the public sector not been more involved in previous negotiations?
The public research sector has not been involved actively in a number of relevant international agreements for a variety of reasons. These reasons can be summarised by
1) lack of awareness of the ongoing negotiations and of the implications for public research;
2) lack of resources and infrastructure to be actively informed about and effectively involved in such negotiations.

Was the initiative set up so that the public sector has a unified - and perhaps stronger - voice?
The Public Research and Regulation Initiative is set up for two main purposes:
1) informing the public research sector about ongoing discussions on regulations and international agreements that are relevant for modern biotechnology, and
2) involving the public research sector by offering a platform through which they can be more actively involved in negotiations.
For this purpose the Foundation Public Research and Regulation has been established. Reaching a unified voice is as such not the objective, because the interests of different public research groups may be different. However, one overarching aim is to bring public research and its science to the negotiations.

What particular contributions could public sector representatives make to such discussions that the private sector or NGOs are not equipped to do?
The contribution of the public research sector to the negotiations will be threefold.

1) First, to inform the negotiating parties of the reasons for and objectives of public research, such as contributing to sustainable food production by developing disease or drought tolerant crops. This is key to a meaningful progression of negotiations, because it helps the negotiators understanding the context of their negotiations.
2) Second, by informing the negotiating parties of the implications of proposed provisions in international agreements for public research, and by constructively seeking solutions for certain challenges.
3) Third, by assisting the negotiating parties and offering the available scientific advice before and during the negotiations.

What has been the response to the initiative so far from public sector scientists?
The response of public research scientists has been overwhelming, both in numbers as in the positive enthusiasm of their reactions.

1) Hundreds of scientists have informed us that they believe this is a very necessary and welcome initiative.
2) Already close to 200 scientists have signed up to be a PRRI member of our Forum, which is a group of people who wish to be informed about and actively involved in our activities, for example by reviewing discussion papers made available by the Steering Committee on our web site.
3) Over 50 scientists participated in the introductory seminar for the participation of public research scientists in MOP2, held at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Saint Louis on 3-4 March 2005. Over 30 PRRI members participatated  in MOP2 in Montreal from 30 May – 3 June 2005. And over 40 PRRI members from 25 countries in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Western Europe and North America and from several international organisations, participated in MOP3 in Curitiba from 13 – 17 March 2006.

Would the Cartagena protocol have been constructed differently with more public sector input?
Although it is difficult to say to whether the Protocol would have been constructed differently had the public sector been involved more actively, we cannot exclude that a number of provisions would have been phrased differently. For example, the current AIA procedure applies in cases of ‘introduction into the environment’ in the importing country, regardless whether this introduction into the environment is a small scale confined field trial or a large scale commercial application. Active participation of the public research sector could have resulted in a better appreciation of the need for - and appropriateness of - differentiation. Similarly, the information requirements for notifications might have been set up with more differentiation.

Where does the steering committee get its funding from? 
PRRI has requested and received financial support from governments, national and international organisations and the private sector, to carry out its activities and to cover the costs of participation in international meetings.
To ensure that PRRI maintains its independence, PRRI would not accept funding that comes with conditions as to the positions PRRI takes in international meetings or conditions regarding the selection of individual PRRI participants to international meetings. Conditions that earmark funds to only be used for participants from a certain region and conditions regarding proper accounting are of course acceptable. A complete overview of the finances is given under the section foundation on this website.

What sorts of efforts are the initiative involved in to raise awareness of these issues with public sector researchers?
We raise awareness about these issues in several ways:

• through our website
• through meetings organised by PRRI
• through our forum updates, requesting feedback from public researchers on papers, documents and statements 
• by addressing the issues in international meetings organised by other organisations