The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,
Welcoming the preparatory work and the recommendations by the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) on the issue of capacity-building as well as the documents prepared by the Executive Secretary,
Recognizing the urgent need to address the critical capacity-building requirements of developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, including countries amongst these that are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity, for effective implementation of the Protocol,
Recognizing also the relationship between capacity-building and the ability of developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition to comply with the provisions of the Protocol,
Taking note of the capacity-building needs and priorities with regard to the Biosafety Clearing-House submitted by Parties and other Governments,
Emphasizing the importance of ensuring that capacity-building initiatives are demand-driven and responding to the needs and priorities identified by the recipient countries;
Welcoming the biosafety capacity-building initiatives already supported by Global Environment Facility and its Implementing Agencies and by bilateral development agencies and other organizations;
Taking note of decision VI/17 of the Conference of the Parties, requesting the Global Environment Facility to provide financial resources for national capacity-building in biosafety, in particular for enabling effective participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House and in the implementation of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;
Taking note also of the initial gap analysis by the Executive Secretary of the capacity-building initiatives and the capacity-building needs and priorities submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House by Parties and Governments as an important step in identifying areas where further efforts would be needed;
Emphasizing the importance for Parties and other Governments to develop and implement concrete and mutually supportive capacity-building activities;
Emphasizing also the need for a coordinated approach towards capacity-building at all levels in order to develop possible synergies and promote partnerships among different capacity-building efforts and funding initiatives for the effective implementation of the Protocol,
Welcoming the initial activities undertaken by the Executive Secretary to facilitate and promote coordination of existing capacity-building initiatives in biosafety,
Action Plan for Building Capacities for Effective Implementation of the Protocol
1. Adopts the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety endorsed by the ICCP, as contained in annex I to the present decision;
2. Invites Parties, other Governments, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, private sector and scientific organizations and other relevant bodies to support the effective implementation of the Action Plan, taking into account the potential roles as contained in annex II to the present decision, of different entities in facilitating capacity-building, and recognizing the need for synergies between the capacity-building activities of the private sector and civil society and national programmes and priorities;
3. Welcomes the progress made in implementing the Action Plan, summarized in the note by the Executive Secretary on capacity-building (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/1/6), and invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to take further measures towards its effective implementation;
4. Takes note of the gaps in the implementation of the Action Plan identified in the initial analysis in the note by the Executive Secretary (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/1/6), and invites
Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to take collaborative actions to address
5. Decides to undertake a comprehensive review and possible revision of the Action Plan and at its third meeting, on the basis of the progress report to be prepared by the Executive Secretary and also on the basis of the capacity needs and priorities submitted by Parties and other Governments and decides to, at the same time, review the guidance to the financial mechanism with a view to updating it, as appropriate;
6. Invites Parties and other Governments that have not yet submitted their capacity-building needs and priorities to the Biosafety Clearing-House to do so as soon as possible;
7. Urges Parties and other governments to review their needs and priorities periodically and update their records in the Biosafety Clearing-House accordingly;
8. Encourages Parties and other Governments to develop national strategic plans and programmes to address their identified needs and priorities;
9. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations in a position to provide assistance to developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition to, as an initial step, review the information on the needs and priorities submitted by those countries to the Biosafety Clearing-House when developing assistance programmes;
10. Urges Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to register in the Biosafety Clearing-House relevant information on their existing biosafety capacity-building initiatives, including reports on the achievements, lessons learned and opportunities for cooperation as well as suggestions on how to enhance capacity building for the effective implementation of the Protocol;
11. Invites Parties, other Governments and organizations to use, as appropriate, the implementation tool kit contained in annex III to the present decision;
12. Invites developed country Parties, Governments, the Global Environment Facility, other donor agencies and relevant organizations to provide financial support and other assistance to developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, including countries amongst these that are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity, to develop and implement capacity-building activities, including organization of national, regional and inter-regional capacity building workshops and preparatory meetings;
13. Welcomes the support already provided by the Global Environment Facility for demonstration projects on implementation of the national biosafety frameworks and invites the Global Environment Facility to extend such support to other eligible countries;
14. Urges the Global Environment Facility to ensure a rapid implementation of its initial strategy for assisting countries to prepare for the ratification and implementation of the Protocol, and to support capacity-building for the establishment of national components of the Biosafety Clearing-House in a flexible manner, and to provide additional support for the development and/or strengthening of existing national and regional centres for training; regulatory institutions; risk assessment and risk management; infrastructure for the detection, testing, identification and long-term monitoring of living modified organisms; legal advice; decision-making; handling of socio-economic considerations; awareness-raising and technology transfer for biosafety;
15. Requests the Executive Secretary to prepare a progress report on the implementation of the Action
Plan, on the basis of the submissions from Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations, for consideration at its third meeting;
16. Requests also the Executive Secretary to compile, on the basis of the information submitted by Parties and other Governments to the Biosafety Clearing-House, a summary report on the capacity needs and priorities for consideration by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol at its regular meetings, and make it available to donor Governments and relevant organizations, as appropriate;
17. Welcomes the Outreach Strategy for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety developed by the Executive Secretary and requests the Executive Secretary to advance its implementation with the view to promoting broader awareness of the Protocol and fostering the active participation and support of a broad range of stakeholders in the implementation of the Protocol;
18. Adopts the Coordination Mechanism for the implementation of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, contained in annex IV to the present decision;
19. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to provide financial contributions and other support to facilitate the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism;
20. Urges Parties, Governments and relevant organizations to register and update information on their biosafety capacity-building activities in the Biosafety Clearing-House, including capacity-building projects, opportunities, and other relevant information;
21. Welcomes the generous offer by the Government of Switzerland to sponsor a coordination meeting for representatives of academic and research institutions actively involved in education, training and research programmes in biotechnology and biosafety in the automn of 2004;
22. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to actively participate in and to support the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism and to share their expertise and resource materials through the Mechanism;
23. Urges Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to establish or strengthen, as appropriate, corresponding national or regional-level coordination mechanism in order to promote synergies between existing capacity-building initiatives;
24. Requests the Executive Secretary to discharge, in a phased manner and within existing resources, the functions specified in the annex IV to the present decision in collaboration with other relevant agencies, to implement the Coordination Mechanism;
25. Requests the Executive Secretary to prepare a report on the progress made, and lessons learned, in implementing the Coordination Mechanism for consideration by the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
Indicators for monitoring implementation of the Action Plan
26. Takes note of the preliminary set of criteria and indicators for monitoring implementation of the Action Plan, contained in the annex V to the present decision;
27. Invites Parties, other Governments, and relevant organizations to use, as appropriate, the indicators referred to in the paragraph 26 above to monitor their biosafety capacity-building initiatives being implemented in support of the Action Plan;
28. Invites Parties, other Governments, and relevant organizations to submit to the Executive Secretary, and to share through the Biosafety Clearing-House, their experience in using the preliminary set of indicators;
29. Requests the Executive Secretary to prepare, for consideration at the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, a report on the operational experience in using the above-mentioned indicators and proposals for their further development and refinement, on the basis of submissions by Parties, other Governments, and relevant organizations.
ACTION PLAN FOR BUILDING CAPACITIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
1. Objective of the Action Plan
1. The objective of this Action Plan is to facilitate and support the development and strengthening of capacities for the ratification and effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety at the national, sub regional, regional and global levels in a timely manner. In this regard, the provision of financial, technical and technological support to developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing states among them, as well as countries with economies in transition, including countries amongst these that are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity, is essential.
2. To achieve the objective, this action plan aims at identifying country needs, priorities, and mechanisms of implementation and sources of funding.
2. Key elements requiring concrete action
3. The following key elements are meant to be considered in a flexible manner, based on a demand-driven approach, taking into account the different situations, capabilities and stages of development of each country.
(a) Institutional capacity-building:
(i) Legislative and regulatory framework;
(ii) Administrative framework;
(iii) Technical, scientific and telecommunications infrastructures;
and resource management;
(v) Mechanisms for follow-up, monitoring and assessment;
(b) Human-resources development and training;
(c) Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise;
(d) Risk management;
(e) Awareness, participation and education at all levels including for decision makers, stakeholders and general public;
(f) Information exchange and data management including full participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House;
(g) Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at sub regional, regional and international levels;
(h) Technology transfer;
(i) Identification of living modified organisms;
(j) Socio-economic considerations.
4. The following processes/steps should be undertaken within appropriate timeframes:
(a) Identification of capacity needs, including the needs that are not covered prior to the second meeting of ICCP;
(b) Prioritization of the key elements by each country prior to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
(c) Sequencing of actions, including timelines for the operation of capacity-building prior to first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
(d) Identification of the coverage and gaps in capacity-building initiatives and resources that could support the ratification and implementation, prior to first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, from the following:
(i) Global Environment Facility (GEF);
(ii) Multilateral agencies;
(iii) Other international sources;
(iv) Bilateral sources;
(v) Other stakeholders;
(vi) National sources;
(a) Enhancing the effectiveness and adequacy of financial resources to be provided by multilateral and bilateral donors and other donors to developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, as well as countries with economies in transition taking, including countries amongst these that
are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity;
(f) Enhancing synergies and coordination of capacity-building initiatives;
(g) Development of indicators for evaluating capacity-building measures.
5. The activities hereunder are not listed in any order of priority:
4.1 National level
(a) Development of national regulatory frameworks on biosafety;
(b) Development and/or strengthening of institutional, administrative, financial and technical capacities, including the designation of national focal points and competent national authorities;
(c) Establishment of a mechanism to inform all stakeholders;
(d) Appropriate participation of all relevant stakeholders;
(e) A mechanism for handling requests or notifications, including risk assessment and decision-making, as well as public information and participation;
(f) Mechanisms for monitoring and compliance;
(g) A short- and long-term assessment for internal and external funding;
4.2 Subregional and regional levels
(a) Regional and subregional collaborative arrangements
(b) Regional and subregional advisory mechanisms
(c) Regional and subregional centres of excellence and training
(d) Regional and subregional website and database
(e) Mechanisms for regional and subregional coordination and harmonization of regulatory frameworks, where appropriate.
4.3 International level
(a) Effective functioning of the Biosafety Clearing-House;
(b) Development/updating of international guidance (by UNEP, FAO, IUCN and others);
(c) Strengthening South-South cooperation;
(d) Development and effective use of the roster of experts
(e) Regular review and provision of further guidance by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
5. Monitoring and coordination
6. Because of the multitude of different actors undertaking different capacity building initiatives, mutual information, coordination and regular monitoring will be promoted in order to avoid duplications and to identify gaps. This exercise will lead to a focus of capacity building on biosafety, ratification, and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Secretariat and the Biosafety Clearing-House will be actively involved in the process.
7. The Secretariat will prepare, on the basis of Governments submissions, a report on the steps taken by countries, multilateral/bilateral and other international sources, towards implementation of the Action Plan and submit a report to the Conference of the Parties servicing as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol so that it identifies whether the actions listed under section 4 have been carried out successfully and effectively.
POSSIBLE SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS
Recognizing that the sequence of action necessary to ratify and implement the Protocol is to be decided by Parties according to their national needs,
Cognizant of the urgent need to build capacities in developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, as well as countries with economies in transition, including countries amongst these that are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity,
Building on the identified elements in the Action Plan and without prejudice to the timeframes indicated therein,
As an aid to assist countries to establish national priorities and to facilitate regional and subregional activities the following sequence of actions based on experience and past practice is proposed for consideration.
POSSIBLE SEQUENCING OF ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE ACTION PLAN
Each activity has associated with it specific objectives/tasks identified in the Indicative Framework and associated documents which will facilitate priority setting by countries and enable the establishment of a timetable for capacity development. This sequence does not establish priorities of action to be taken by countries.
A. National level
1. Assessment of effectiveness and adequacy of existing capacity.
2. Assessment of the short- and long-term requirements for internal and external funding.
3. Development of timelines.
4. Development of national regulatory frameworks on biosafety.
5. Development and/or strengthening of institutional, administrative, financial and technical capacities, including the designation of national focal points and competent authorities.
6. A mechanism for handling requests or notifications, including risk assessment and decision-making, as well as public information and participation.
7. Mechanisms for monitoring and compliance.
8. Establishment of a mechanism to inform all stakeholders.
9. Appropriate participation of all relevant stakeholders.
B. Regional and subregional levels
10. Assessment of national, bilateral and multilateral funding.
11. Regional website and database.
12. Mechanisms for regional and sub regional coordination and harmonization of regulatory frameworks, where appropriate.
13. Regional and subregional collaborative arrangements.
14. Regional and subregional advisory mechanisms.
15. Regional and subregional centres of excellence and training.
C. International level
16. Effective functioning of the Biosafety Clearing-House.
17. Enhancing the effectiveness and adequacy and coordination of financial resources to be provided by multilateral and bilateral donors and other donors to developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among
them and countries with economies in transition, including countries amongst these that are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity.
18. Development and effective use of the roster of experts.
19. Enhancing synergies and coordination of capacity-building initiatives.
20. Strengthening South-South cooperation.
21. Development/updating of international guidance (by UNEP, FAO, IUCN and others).
22. Regular review and provision of further guidance by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES IN SUPPORTING CAPACITY-BUILDING
23. The present annex summarizes, in a point-by-point list form, the views of Parties and governments regarding the roles which different entities could
play to facilitate capacity-building to assist countries in preparing for the entry into force of the Protocol and in its implementation.
2. The role of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol:
(a) Assuming the overall responsibility for decisions regarding the establishment of the work programme related to capacity-building and evaluation of its implementation, recognizing the role of other relevant organizations and instruments;
(b) Setting norms for harmonization, where appropriate;
(c) Developing appropriate formats to build capacity and encouraging consistency of standards in such matters as risk assessment and information exchange;
(d) Revising and updating the capacity-building framework in the light of responses to the questionnaire and the outcome of inter-sessional workshops and projects;
(e) Providing general guidelines from an international perspective;
(f) Gathering information necessary to determine what capacity-building measures would be the most effective in assisting countries to implement the provisions of the Protocol, including information on national priority capacity needs and how to meet them.
3. The role of the Secretariat:
(g) Providing an administrative framework for creation of technical and scientific capacity;
(h) Implementing the Biosafety Clearing-House, taking account of priority needs regarding the capacities of Parties and Governments for access to and use of the Biosafety Clearing-House and the views of Parties and Governments on monitoring its progress;
(i) Administering the Biosafety Clearing-House;
(j) Undertaking further synthesis and analysis of the identified needs of countries for implementation of the Protocol, and available means for assistance and information exchange;
(k) Providing technical assistance to Parties and other Governments to help them in conducting their needs assessments;
(l) Serving as a focal point for organizations to submit information to be made public as regards capacity-building initiatives for the implementation of the Protocol, as well as for identifying needs for capacity-building;
(m) Facilitating the flow of information;
(n) Promoting synergies and keeping countries abreast of important developments and opportunities with respect to capacity-building, including the roster of experts;
(o) Facilitating the functioning of the roster of experts;
(p) Implementing the relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
(q) Cooperating with the projects of the GEF implementing agencies on national biosafety frameworks;
(r) Facilitating and promoting collaboration and coordination among existing initiatives on capacity-building; and
(s) Providing coordination and leadership and suggesting ways and means to build capacity in countries, taking into account the decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
4. Subject to the decisions of the Conference of the Parties, and in accordance with its mandate, the role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) includes:
(b) Providing funding and other assistance to build necessary legislative and administrative frameworks, and for training in risk assessment and risk management;
(c) Deciding on further areas for financial support for capacity-building in accordance with the identified priority needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition, responses to the questionnaires, the outcomes of inter-sessional workshops, and its previous pilot project on biosafety;
(d) Implementing the GEF Strategy to assist countries to ratify and implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;
(e) Facilitating the provision of technical support; and
(f) Facilitating the use of existing and developing regional networks.
5. The role of other bilateral and multilateral donors, as mutually agreed with recipient Parties and Governments, as appropriate:
(a) Providing funding and other assistance to Parties, governments and to the Secretariat, for relevant activities;
(b) Co-financing or providing matching funds for building scientific capacity at the sub regional level, including sponsoring regional and subregional workshops;
(c) Providing short- or long-term experts to advise on identified needs and demands for assistance on specific issues, including those listed in Article 22 of the Protocol;
(d) Reinforcing collaboration among capacity-building projects on biotechnology and biosafety in order to avoid duplication and to efficiently use the limited resources available.
6. The role of intergovernmental organizations as mutually agreed with recipient Parties and Governments, as appropriate:
(g) Assisting national authorities of Parties to take decisions;
(h) Sharing "best practices", models and information pertinent to relations between obligations under trade agreements and obligations under the Protocol;
(i) Developing advice or standards on particular technical or regulatory issues: e.g., the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on a unique identifier for LMOs and on Consensus Documents on common elements of risk assessment for particular species;
to the activities of the GEF initial strategy on biosafety, in line with the terms agreed by the GEF Council and relevant decisions taken by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
(k) Providing access to databases
containing information relevant to implementation of the Protocol: e.g. OECDs Biotrack, the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), the UNIDO Biosafety Information Network and Advisory Service (BINAS);
(l) Developing common principles for public participation and access to information: e.g. the work of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe under the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;
(m) Promoting synergy and mutual supportiveness among the various organizations and instruments concerned with risk analysis in relation to living modified organisms, including the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission;
(n) Reinforcing collaboration among capacity-building projects on biotechnology and biosafety in order to avoid duplication
and to efficiently use the limited resources available; and
(o) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities.
7. The role of regional networks as mutually agreed with relevant Parties and Governments, as appropriate:
(a) Promoting harmonization of technical, legal and scientific mechanisms in the countries;
(b) Identifying and disseminating information related to best practices in the development of national biosafety frameworks, procedures for risk assessment and risk management, decision-taking, information exchange, and the use of human resources;
(c) Developing regional centres that enable/ensure sharing of expertise and information as well as experiences and concerns;
(d) Participating in the development of the Biosafety Clearing-House; and
(e) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities.
8. The role of non-governmental organizations as mutually agreed with relevant Parties and Governments, as appropriate:
(f) Cooperating in consensus-building and assisting in raising public education and awareness;
(g) Participating in and assisting in national and regional efforts to implement the Protocol, including helping to implement the Biosafety Clearing-House;
(h) Contributing to guidance on Protocol implementation issues;
(i) Integrating the views and interests of wider stakeholders, including indigenous and local communities, through increased public awareness, education and participation in decision-making and the development of policy and procedures;
(j) Representing specialist or sectoral interests in relation to risk assessment
and risk management issues;
(k) Reinforcing collaboration among capacity-building projects on biotechnology and biosafety in order to avoid duplication and to efficiently use the limited resources available;
(l) Associating with capacity-building initiatives, ensuring public participation and promoting public awareness on biosafety issues; and
(m) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities.
9. The role of private sector/industry as mutually agreed with relevant Parties and Governments, as appropriate:
(a) Participating in and assisting in national and regional efforts to implement the Protocol;
(b) Providing technical advice concerning identification, detection and analytical assessment and for monitoring;
(c) Improving capabilities of accessing and handling electronic information;
(d) Undertaking risk assessment, and addressing information needs and concerns of industry;
(e) Associating with initiatives on capacity-building and sharing experience with risk assessment and management of LMOs;
(f) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities;
(g) Participating in and assisting in national and regional efforts helping to implement the Biosafety Clearing-House;
(h) Reinforcing collaboration among capacity-building projects on biotechnology and biosafety in order to avoid duplication and to efficiently use the limited resources available; and
10. The role of scientific/academic institutions:
(a) Promoting public awareness and implementing training and education activities;
(b) Developing of centres of expertise and excellence for particular risk assessment and risk management issues;
(c) Providing participants for the roster of experts;
(d) Implementing exchange and scholarship programmes aimed at enhancing the teaching and research capacities of higher education and other private and public institutions in developing countries and countries with economies in transition as regards biosafety related issues;
(e) Cooperating on research and information exchange on socio-economic impacts, especially on indigenous and local communities;
(f) Assisting in training and conducting risk assessment, research in LMOs for improved crop production;
(g) Participating in capacity-building initiatives as well as in other activities in relation with the implementation of the Protocol; and
(h) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities;
(i) Supporting the above activities undertaken in developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, including countries amongst these that are centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity, ensuring that in undertaking such activities the expertise available in those countries is utilised first.
This implementation tool kit provides a compilation, as a checklist, of obligations found in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. These obligations are organized in the following categories:
· Administrative tasks (initial and future)
· Legal requirements and/or undertakings
· Procedural requirements (AIA and Article 11)
I. ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS
Designate one national authority responsible for liaison with the Secretariat and provide name/address to Secretariat.
Designate one or more competent authorities responsible for performing administrative functions under the Protocol and provide name(s)/address(es) to the Secretariat. If more than one, indicate the types of LMOs for which each competent authority is responsible.
Provide to the Biosafety Clearing-House:
- any relevant existing laws, regulations or guidelines, including those applicable to the approval of LMOs-FFP; and
- any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements.
20(3)(a)-(b), 11(5), 14(2)
Specify to the Biosafety Clearing-House cases in which import may take place at the same time as the movement is notified.
Specify to the Biosafety Clearing-House imports of LMOs exempted from the AIA procedures.
Notify the Biosafety Clearing-House if domestic regulations shall apply with respect to specific imports.
Provide the Biosafety Clearing-House with a point of contact for receiving information from other States on unintentional transboundary movements in accordance with Article 17.
Notify the Secretariat if there is a lack of access to the Biosafety Clearing-House and hard copies of notifications to the Clearing House should be provided.
- Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and conducted in accordance with Art. 15;
- Final decisions concerning the import or release of LMOs; and
- Article 33 reports.
Make available to the Biosafety Clearing-House information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements.
Monitor the implementation of obligations under the Protocol and submit to the Secretariat periodic reports at intervals to be determined.
Notify the Biosafety Clearing-House of any relevant changes to the information provided under part I above.
II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR UNDERTAKINGS
Ensure that the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and release of LMOs are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health.
Ensure that there is a legal requirement for the accuracy of information provided by domestic exporters for purposes of notifications for export to another country and by domestic applicants for domestic approvals for LMOs that may be exported as LMOs-FFP.
Ensure that any domestic regulatory framework used in place of the AIA procedures is consistent with the Protocol.
Ensure that AIA decisions are taken in accordance with Article 15.
Ensure that risk assessments are carried out for decisions taken under Article 10 and that they are carried out in a scientifically sound manner.
Establish and maintain appropriate mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified in risk assessments associated with the use, handling and transboundary movement of LMOs under the Protocol.
Take appropriate measures to prevent the unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs, including measures such as requiring a risk assessment prior to the first release of an LMO.
Endeavour to ensure that LMOs, whether imported or locally developed, have undergone an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use.
Take appropriate measures to notify affected or potentially affected States, the Biosafety Clearing-House, and, where appropriate, relevant international organizations, when there is an occurrence within its jurisdiction that leads or may lead to an unintentional transboundary movement of and LMO that is likely to have significant adverse effects on the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity, taking also into account risks to human health in such States.
Take necessary measures to require that LMOs that are subject to transboundary movement under the Protocol are handled, packaged and transported under conditions of safety, taking into account relevant international rules and standards.
Take measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP
- clearly identifies that they "may contain" LMOs and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment; and
- provides a contact point for further information.
Take measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs destined for contained use:
- Clearly identifies them as LMOs;
- Specifies any requirements for their safe handling, storage, transport and use;
- Provides a contact point for further information; and
- Provides the name and address of individuals or institutions to which they are consigned.
Take measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction in the environment and any other LMOs within the scope of the Protocol:
- Clearly identifies them as LMOs
- Specifies the identify and relevant traits and/or characteristics;
- Provides any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use;
- Provides a contact point for further information;
- Provides, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and
- Contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of the Protocol.
Provide for the designation of confidential information by notifiers, subject to the exclusions set forth in Article 21(6).
Ensure consultation with notifiers and review of decisions in the event of disagreement regarding claims of confidentiality.
Ensure the protection of agreed-upon confidential information and information claimed as confidential where a notification is withdrawn.
Ensure that confidential information is not used for commercial purposes without the written consent of the notifier.
Promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs, taking also into account risks to human health.
Endeavour to ensure that public awareness and education encompass access to information on LMOs identified in accordance with the Protocol that may be imported.
In accordance with relevant domestic laws, consult with the public in decision making under the Protocol, while respecting confidential information.
Endeavour to inform the public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House.
Adopt appropriate measures aimed a preventing and, if appropriate, penalizing transboundary movements in contravention of domestic measures to implement the Protocol.
Dispose, at its expense, LMOs that have been the subject of an illegal transboundary movement through repatriation or destruction, as appropriate, upon request by an affected Party.
III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: ADVANCED INFORMED AGREEMENT
Notify, or require the exporter to ensure notification to, in writing, the competent national authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of a living modified organism that falls within the scope of Article 7, paragraph 1
Provide written acknowledgement of receipt of notification to notifier within 90 days, including:
- Date of receipt of notification;
o) - Whether notification meets requirements of annex I;
- That the import may proceed only with written consent and whether to proceed in accordance with the domestic regulatory framework or in accordance with Article 10; OR
- Whether the import may proceed after 90 days without further written consent.
Communicate in writing to the notifier, within 270 days of receipt of notification:
- Approval of the import, with or without conditions;
- Prohibition of the import;
- A request for additional relevant information in accordance with domestic regulatory framework or Annex I; or
- Extension of the 270 day period by a defined period of time; AND
Except where approval is unconditional, the reasons for the decision, including the reasons for the request for additional information or for an extension of time.
Provide in writing to the Biosafety Clearing-House the decision communicated to the notifier.
Respond in writing within 90 days to a request by an Exporting Party for a review of a decision under Article 10 where there has been a change in circumstances or additional relevant scientific or technical information has been made available, providing the reasons for the decision upon review.
IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD, FEED OR FOR
Upon making a final decision regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing, inform the Biosafety Clearing-House within 15 days of making that decision, including the information listed in Annex II.
Except in the case of field trials, provide hard copies of the final decision to the National Focal Point of Parties that have notified the Secretariat in advance that they do not have access to the Biosafety Clearing-House.
Provide additional information contained in paragraph (b) of annex II about the decision to any Party that requests it.
In response to the posting of a decision by another Party, a Party that decides to import may take a decision on the import of LMOs-FFP:
- either as approved under the domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol; OR
- in the absence of a regulatory framework, on the basis of a risk assessment in accordance with Annex III within no more than 270 days. In this case, a declaration must be made to the Biosafety Clearing-House.
COORDINATION MECHANISM FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN ON BUILDING CAPACITIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
1. The overall goal of Coordination Mechanism is to facilitate exchange of information with a view to promoting partnerships and maximizing complementarities and synergies between various capacity-building initiatives being undertaken in support of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
B. Guiding Principles
2. The implementation of the Coordination Mechanism is guided by the following basic principles:
(a) It serves to facilitate the sharing of information regarding capacity-building activities implemented in support of the Action Plan. It is not as mechanism for controlling, supervising or evaluating different initiatives;
(b) Participation in, and exchange of information through the Coordination Mechanism is voluntary and open to all interested stakeholders involved in the implementation of the action plan;
(c) It is a simple, easily accessible and flexible system whose operation involves minimal additional resource requirements;
(d) It is implemented in a flexible, gradual, phased and incremental manner. Improvements made as experience is gained over time;
(e) It complements and adds value to existing relevant coordination and networking initiatives, avoiding duplication as much as possible.
C. Elements of the Coordination Mechanism
3. The Coordination Mechanism consists of the following five elements:
(a) Liaison group;
(b) Biosafety capacity-building databases;
(c) Information-sharing and networking mechanism;
(d) Coordination meetings and workshops;
(e) Reporting mechanisms.
1. Liaison group on capacity-building for biosafety
Nature and structure
4. The liaison group is a small ad hoc group, rather
than a standing body, established by the Executive Secretary to address specific capacity-building issues/topics, as need arises. Participants serve in their individual capacity and not as representatives of their Governments or organizations. They are selected on the basis of their demonstrated expertise and experience with regard to the issue(s) to be addressed, a balanced geographical distribution between regions, and a fair representation of relevant stakeholders. Every effort is made to ensure any one meeting of the group includes some of the participants that attended the previous meetings in order to maintain some degree of consistency and institutional memory.
5. The overall mandate of the liaison group is to provide expert advice to the Executive Secretary on ways and means to enhance the coordination and effective implementation of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Among other tasks, it exchanges ideas and provides advice on overall strategic approaches as well as conceptual and possible practical operational measures for enhancing coordination of the capacity-building initiatives.
6. The liaison group is established in accordance with the existing practice under the Convention on Biological Diversity, including guidance under decision IV/16, annex I and SBSTTA recommendation V/14. To the extent possible the liaison group undertakes its work using electronic communication means, including e-mail and teleconferences moderated by the elected chairperson with the technical support of the Secretariat. Face-to-face meetings of the Group are usually organized, subject to availability of resources, back-to-back with other meetings where most members of the Group are to be present. The Secretariat endeavours to obtain funding to facilitate the participation of representatives of developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the meetings of the Group.
2. Biosafety capacity-building
7. This element comprises databases on capacity-building activities, such as projects and capacity-building opportunities, as well as country capacity-needs, which are maintained and accessed through the Biosafety Clearing-House. The projects database includes initiatives that have a series of inter-linked activities implemented as integral components over a long period of time (at least over six months). Each record includes information on: the project location, funding details, objectives and activities, main outcomes, lessons learned and a brief background. On the other hand, the capacity-building opportunities database includes punctual/standalone activities (e.g. funding grants, training courses, scholarships or internships) that are not part of a larger project included in the projects database. Each record includes: the type of opportunity, its scope, timeframe, eligibility criteria, application process and contacts. Finally, the capacity-needs database includes submissions by countries of their prioritized needs, the desired means to address needs identified and an outline of measures being taken. Records in all the databases contain summary information about the project, opportunity or country needs and provide contacts or web links where further information can be obtained.
8. The overall function of the databases is to provide a central point where up-to-date information, or sources of information, about biosafety capacity-building projects, opportunities and country needs are registered and accessed easily and in a timely manner. The databases play a "clearing-house" role where countries requiring assistance and those providing assistance interact, thus facilitating systematic tailoring of available assistance towards specific country-defined priority needs and promoting partnerships between seekers and providers of support. The databases also facilitate identification of opportunities for promoting synergies, collaboration and partnerships. The projects database in particular facilitates sharing of information about the coverage, achievements, experiences, best-practices and lessons learned under different projects. It also facilitates the identification gaps and minimization of unnecessary overlaps or duplication of efforts and resources.
9. The capacity-building databases are managed and accessed through the Biosafety Clearing-House. Common formats are used to assist all countries and organizations to submit information in a consistent manner and facilitate customized searching of the databases. Relevant information can be registered in the databases either online or by hardcopy. Under the first option, persons designated by Government or relevant organizations can register information directly into the database through the management centre using a password system. Those without Internet access can fill and return to the Secretariat hard copies of the common formats for incorporation in the databases. The databases are maintained by the Secretariat, which periodically reminds owners of the records in the database to update them as appropriate.
3. Information-sharing and networking mechanism
10. This element consists of two components namely: (a) biosafety information resource centre; and (b) biosafety capacity-building network.
(a) Biosafety information resource centre
11. The biosafety information resource centre is a "virtual library" consisting of catalogues of information, scientific data and resource materials relevant to biosafety capacity-building produced by various organizations and Governments. These may include: training materials, course catalogues, operational toolkits or guidelines, workshop reports, paper and presentations, case-studies, technical publications, newsletters and journals, legal documents, project profiles, project proposal preparation materials and others in form of publications, CD-ROMs or other media. Records are based on common format with the following key fields: title of the record, type of information (e.g. manual, case-study, or workshop report), thematic areas (based on the Action Plan elements), author, date of publication, name of publisher or organization, key words as well as an abstract or a book review. Each record includes contact details and/or
links to the relevant websites or databases where detailed information could be obtained are provided.
12. The biosafety information resource centre provides a central gateway to relevant biosafety information, scientific data and resource materials available at different sources with the view to ensuring their broader dissemination, easy and timely access, and their maximum use. In addition, it helps those planning to produce new materials to avoid duplicating what is already available and focus on areas not yet addressed or "adding-value" to existing materials.
13. The biosafety information resource centre is maintained in the Biosafety Clearing-House and linked to the document search facility of
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Governments and organizations are invited to register their relevant information and resource materials using a common format or provide copies to the Secretariat for entry in the information resource centre. Records are searchable, through an electronic catalogue, by type of information, thematic area, author, and date of publication or by the publisher or owner of the information. In addition, a full text search using keywords is possible. Where possible hard copies or CD-ROMs of uncopyrighted materials are made available to countries without Internet access, upon request. Users of materials from the resource centre are encouraged to indicate their specific information needs and provide feedback on their experiences in using the resource centre in order to facilitate ongoing improvement of the system.
(b) Biosafety capacity-building network
14. The biosafety capacity-building network is a platform that links key different individuals from Government agencies, research institutions and other relevant organizations who are interested in or involved in designing, implementing or funding biosafety capacity-building and research activities, to interact and exchange views, knowledge and experiences, informally. It complements other existing relevant networks such as the Inter-Agency Network for Safety in Biotechnology (IANB) coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
15. The primary role of the biosafety capacity-building network is to facilitate active interaction and sharing of knowledge, views, experiences and lessons learned among individuals, organizations and donor agencies interested in promoting biosafety capacity-building and sharing scientific knowledge, in a timely, organized and effective manner. It seeks to foster contacts and strengthen existing linkages between different organizations in order to leverage expertise and promote synergies, partnerships and mutual support as well as dialogue and consensus around key issues, including adoption common concepts and approaches. It also enables scientific experts to share biosafety research results and to exchange professional viewpoints on specific issues. It also provides a forum for interested scientists to discuss and build consensus around specific technical and scientific issues related to biosafety.
16. The biosafety capacity-building network is administered through the Biosafety Clearing-House, which serves as the "network hub". It operates primarily using Internet-based tools, including e-mail listservs, bulletin boards, electronic discussion forums and electronic conferences. Prospective members of the network can register with the Secretariat through the Biosafety Clearing-House and be issued with a password to enable them access and participate in the relevant e-discussions, in accordance with the established rules and procedures. Network members are encouraged to volunteer information and to take lead in organizing and moderating specific thematic discussions, in collaboration with the Secretariat. The discussions may result in specific outputs (e.g. proceedings) that could be published and made available to all countries, as appropriate or lead to consensus around particular issues (e.g. agreed terminologies or approaches).
4. Coordination meetings and workshops
17. Coordination meetings provide a forum where individuals from relevant organizations, Government agencies and donors involved in designing, implementing or funding biosafety capacity-building activities meet face-to-face, in an informal setting, to exchange information, knowledge and lessons regarding their capacity-building efforts. They may be in the form of roundtables, workshops or
informal consultations. The meetings are informal, flexible and not too structured in order to allow free exchange of information and ideas.
18. The primary goal of the coordination meetings is to facilitate the sharing of knowledge, views and operational experience between different organizations regarding their biosafety capacity-building activities, with the view to fostering synergies, partnerships and harmonization of efforts. In particular, the meetings help relevant organizations to develop a common understanding of the major biosafety capacity-building issues, challenges and priority needs of countries. They also provide a means to review the coverage, gaps and overlap in ongoing activities and to identify possible solutions to address the gaps, minimize overlaps and avoid over-coverage of certain issues or geographic areas at the expense of others. Finally, the meetings facilitate exchange of innovative ideas to improve the delivery of capacity-building assistance to countries and to promote strategic and systematic efforts, tailored to specific country-defined needs and priorities in order to realize maximum impact.
19. Coordination meetings are organized by the Secretariat, in collaboration with interested organizations, subject to availability of funding. Wherever possible, they are organized on the margins of other major events where most of the relevant organizations are present, in order to optimize participation. The agenda and duration of the meetings is determined by the co-organizer(s). The meetings do not necessarily follow a regular schedule but are adaptive and take advantage of strategic events. Prior to each meeting, participants are encouraged to submit to the organizers relevant information including updates on their on-going activities, to be shared with other participants.
5. Reporting mechanism
20. The reporting mechanism is a central system comprising a database of reports and/or web links to reports related to capacity-building in biosafety which are produced by Governments and relevant organizations. These include progress reports on implementation of the Action Plan as requested by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol as well as voluntary reports from relevant organizations, such as project progress reports or end-of-cycle evaluation reports, project appraisal reports or mission reports as well as case-studies on success stories covering experiences, accomplishments and lessons learned.
21. The reporting mechanism provides a central point where relevant reports or case-studies of success stories of initiatives relevant to capacity-building in biosafety can be deposited, accessed and shared. The primary purpose is to make such information easily and widely accessible in order to enable Parties and relevant organizations to draw upon each others experiences and accomplishments to enhance the implementation of the capacity-building Action Plan. Sharing of such reports is a key ingredient in promoting synergies, collaborative partnerships and mutual learning. In particular, the mechanism has the following functions: assist in developing an overall picture of the progress made in capacity-building; showcase success stories and factors and facilitate their replication, facilitate identification and promotion of positive best-practices and avoidance of pitfalls or "re-invention of the wheel".
22. A database of biosafety capacity-building reports is maintained
in the Biosafety Clearing-House where Parties, Governments and relevant organizations submit and access the available reports using a common format. Wherever possible, links are made to existing national, regional or organizational databases, websites and other contacts where such reports can be accessed in order to minimize the need for countries and organizations to provide the same information to more than one place. The reports are organized in a searchable format with a number of fields including: type of report, timeframe, organization, thematic areas and key words (for example to facilitate search for best-practices and lessons learned).
C. Administration of the Coordination Mechanism
23. The Coordination Mechanism is administered by the Executive
Secretary, whose primary functions include the following:
(a) Maintaining the capacity-building databases (on projects, opportunities and country needs), including their regular updating based on submissions received from the participating Parties, Governments, relevant organizations and donors;
(b) Facilitating the dissemination of relevant information and lessons learned on biosafety capacity-building initiatives through the Biosafety Clearing-House and information documents to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
(c) Preparing and disseminating synthesis reports based on the submissions by Parties, Governments and relevant organizations on their progress in implementing various elements of the Action Plan, using a common format;
(d) Convening and servicing meetings of the liaison group on capacity-building on biosafety, as necessary;
(e) Organizing, subject to availability of funding, periodic coordination meetings and workshops for Government representatives, relevant organizations and donors, in collaboration with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and its Implementing Agencies and other relevant organizations;
(f) Promoting broad and common understanding of the capacity-building needs for the effective implementation of the Protocol.
SET OF INDICATORS FOR MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN FOR BUILDING CAPACITIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTOCOL
1. The set of indicators presented below is intended for use in tracking the overall progress in implementing the Action Plan, encompassing the overall cumulative contribution of different capacity-building projects and other activities. The indicators are not intended for use in measuring the results of specific individual capacity-building projects. Such indicators would need to be developed on a case-specific basis.
2. In the set of indicators outlined below, four main types can be identified, namely: "indicators of existence", "indicators of status", "indicators of change" and
"indicators of progress towards an endpoint". The first type includes indicators that show whether something exists or not (i.e. yes/no), e.g. existence of laws and regulations. Status indicators include actual values/ levels of a given parameter, either quantitatively (e.g. number of people, percentage of people) or qualitatively (e.g., low/medium/high). The "indicators of change" show variation in the level of a given parameter, either increase/decrease or positive/negative. Indicators of change are measured in comparison to a starting point in time or in terms of progress towards and endpoint. In some cases, the measurement may be quantitative (e.g. change in number of staff), and in other cases it may be qualitative (e.g. change in level of satisfaction). They may also show overall trends or pattern of change.
Desired outcome (based on Action Plan elements)
Criteria and indicators
A. Improved institutional capacity
(i)Effective legislative and policy frameworks in place
1. a) Existence of biosafety frameworks (e.g. policies, laws and regulations)
b) Level of harmonization of national biosafety frameworks with other national policy frameworks and programmes
c) Level of consistency of national biosafety frameworks with the Protocol
d) Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the national biosafety frameworks
(ii) Appropriate administrative frameworks in place
1. a) Existence of clearly defined institutional mechanisms for administering biosafety, including designation of competent national authorities and responsibilities among agencies
b) Change in the quantity and quality of staffing in national institutions dealing with biosafety
c) Percentage of notifications handled and decisions taken within the timeframes specified in the Protocol
d) Existence of systems for managing biosafety records and for maintaining institutional memory
e) Existence of mechanisms for inter-institutional coordination (e.g. steering committees or intranets), and change in the level of activity of such mechanisms
(iii) Improved technical, scientific, and telecommunications infrastructures
1. a) Change in the quantity and reliability of office equipment and facilities in institutions dealing with biosafety
b) Number and variety of facilities (e.g. laboratories) available for biosafety research work
c) Change in the level of reliability of telecommunication infrastructure
(iv) Enhanced funding and resource management
1. a) Amount of funding for biosafety activities received or provided
b) Percentage of funding for biosafety coming from national budgetary allocation
c) Rate at which resources earmarked for biosafety are used for the intended activities and in a cost-effective manner
(v) Enhanced mechanisms for follow-up, monitoring and assessment
1. a) Existence of national mechanisms for monitoring and reporting of implementation of the Protocol
B. Improved human resources capacity development and training
1. a) Number of national experts trained in diverse specialized biosafety-related fields
b) Frequency at which local experts are used in undertaking or reviewing risk assessments and other activities relating to the implementation of the Protocol
c) Frequency at which expertise from the roster of experts is accessible whenever required by countries
C. Improved capacity for risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
1. a) Amount of biosafety research and proportion of risk assessments carried out locally
b) Frequency at which local expertise is used in undertaking or reviewing risk assessments
D. Improved capacity in risk management
1. a) Existence of risk management strategies for LMOs with identified risks
b) Rate at which risk management strategies and measures developed to prevent or mitigate identified risks are actually implemented
E. Improved public awareness, participation and education in biosafety at all levels
1. a) Change in level of public awareness of the Protocol
b) Change in the number, scope and variety of measures taken to promote awareness of the biosafety and the Protocol
c) Rate of involvement of relevant stakeholders in decision-making and in the development and implementation of national biodiversity frameworks
d) Change in frequency of public access to relevant biosafety information, including through the Biosafety Clearing-House
F. Improved information exchange and data management including full participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
1. a) Change in level of exchange of relevant biosafety data and information
b) Extent to which information required under the Protocol is provided to the Biosafety Clearing-House
c) Existence of national systems for data management and information exchange
d) Existence of appropriate national infrastructure and capability to access the Biosafety Clearing-House
e) Degree to which the Biosafety Clearing-House responds to the information needs of different stakeholders
f) Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the Biosafety Clearing-House (including its accessibility, user-friendliness and content)
g) Change in number, frequency and regional distribution of Governments and organizations accessing and retrieving information from the Biosafety Clearing-House
h) Change in number and regional distribution of Governments and organizations contributing information to the Biosafety Clearing-House
G. Increased scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at sub regional, regional and international levels
1. a) Existence of various mechanisms for regional and international collaboration in biosafety
b) Change in number of bilateral and multilateral collaborative initiatives in biosafety underway
c) Change in level of participation in regional and international collaborative mechanisms and initiatives
d) Existence of, and level of participation in, regional/ sub-regional advisory mechanisms and centers of excellence
e) Existence of regional and sub-regional websites and databases
f) Existence of mechanisms for regional and sub-regional coordination and harmonization of biosafety regulatory frameworks
g) Existence of, and level of participation in, mechanisms for promoting south-south cooperation in biosafety issues
h) Change in amount and availability of international technical guidance for implementation of the Protocol
i) Existence of mechanisms for promoting common approaches
H. Improved access to and transfer of technology and know-how
1. a) Existence of enabling frameworks for technology transfer
b) Change in number of relevant technologies transferred
I. Improved identification of LMO shipments as required by the Protocol
1. a) Existence of national measures for identification of LMO shipments
b) Change in level of use of modern LMO identification techniques
c) Change in level of effectiveness of identification systems and measures in ensuring safe handling, transport and packaging of LMOs