As mentioned before, the intention was to gather expectations and perception of gaps and needs. In such case, some comments as well as suggestions presented in the open questions of the questionnaire are presented in the following part in order to give an idea of the thoughts contained in such documents (the highlight is from the rapporteurs and the order is not fixed):

The inclusion of a forum where successful applicants of GMO technology in countries should detail how they successfully overcame the fears around the technology that seemed universal previously.
It would be good to find innovative ways by which this trust can be built. This could be the way of transmitting useful information (in simple layman's language) to national champions of biotechnology, then in turn we can transmit it to our public space through the various means, (local media, seminars, and sensitization meeting with farmers, etc.) . This knowledge and information should ideally be based on lessons learned;
Training from trainers (scientists and agriculturists) for sensitization of general public on GM products and biosafety issues.
Training for scientific journalists.
Exchange of educative materials, because information and learning is required.
Opportunities for visiting sites and practioners.
To turn the workshop as a kind of meeting (participating, doing, sharing, on-farm visits, hands on work).
Socio-Economics of GMO crops in developing countries.
Experience of other countries in terms of legal and institutional framework on biotechnology and biosafety.
Development of functional Biosafety regulatory framework in light precautionary approach recommended in the Cartagena Protocol.
Impact of adopting GM technology on country's export trade especially to Europe.
Negotiations for GM seed price between technology developers and governmental decision makers on behalf of farmers.
Use of regional data for risk assessments in order to speed up commercialization of GM crops.