Fourth assessment and review of the Protocol and final evaluation of the Strategic Plan 2011-2020
The COP-MOP, in its decision CP-9/6, decided that the fourth assessment and review of the Cartagena Protocol will be combined with the final evaluation of the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011-2020. It requested the Executive Secretary to analyse and synthesize information on the implementation of the Protocol using, inter alia, the fourth national reports as a primary source, the Biosafety Clearing-House and experience from capacity-building projects and the Compliance Committee, where appropriate.
The COP-MOP requested the Liaison Group on the Cartagena Protocol and the Compliance Committee, working in a complementary and non-duplicative manner, to contribute to the fourth assessment and review of the Protocol and final evaluation of the Strategic Plan and to submit their conclusions to the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. It requested the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, at its third meeting, to consider the information provided and conclusions reached by the Liaison Group and the Compliance Committee and to submit its findings and recommendations to the COP-MOP, at its tenth meeting.
Pursuant to decision CP-9/6, the Executive Secretary compiled, analysed and synthesised information on the implementation of the Protocol obtained from the fourth national reports and other sources, as compared to baseline data obtained during the second reporting cycle. The analysis was made available to the Liaison Group on the Cartagena Protocol at its 14th meeting, the Compliance Committee at its 17th meeting and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its third meeting. The Subsidiary Body on Implementation considered the matter at its third meeting on the basis of the summary of progress under the different thematic areas in the Strategic Plan provided in document CBD/SBI/3/3 and the analysis of information from several sources provided in document CBD/SBI/3/3/ADD1, and adopted Recommendation SBI-3/2. An update to the analysis, based on the additional fourth national reports received, was made available for COP-MOP 10.
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, at its tenth meeting, adopted decision CP-10/7.
Analysis
To facilitate the compilation and analysis of the data contained in the fourth national reports the online analyzer tool was used to compare the data with baseline data provided in the second reporting cycle.
The assessment of progress on each of the operational objectives of the Strategic Plan was based on information on the related indicators that was obtained from the fourth national reports and other sources, as compared with baseline data.
The matrix below provides the source of information related to each of the indicators of the Strategic Plan used in the assessment. The source of information is provided for the baseline and for the fourth national reporting cycle.
| Operational Objective 1.1 National Biosafety Frameworks: To enable all Parties to have operational national biosafety frameworks in place for the implementation of the Protocol | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.1.1 Number of Parties, in particular centers of origin, that have in place national biosafety legislation and implementing guidelines not more than 6 years after accession to/ratification of the Protocol | Baseline: Q15 and 16 of the second national report and Q3 from the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q14 and 15 of the fourth national report |
| 1.1.2 Percentage of the Parties that have in place administrative rules and procedures for handling notifications and requests for approval of imports of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing; contained use and for introduction into the environment | Baseline: Q26, 29 and 54 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q24, 27, and 42 of the fourth national report |
| 1.1.3 Percentage of Parties that have designated national focal points and competent national authorities | Baseline: BCH on 1 January 2012 Fourth reporting cycle: BCH on 31 December 2019 |
| 1.1.4 Percentage of Parties that have received notifications in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol or appropriate domestic legislation. | Baseline: Q37 and 41 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q29 of the fourth national report |
| 1.1.5 Percentage of Parties that have taken import decisions in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol or appropriate domestic legislation. | Baseline: Q38 and 42 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q33 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 1.2 Coordination and support: To put in place effective mechanisms for developing biosafety systems with the necessary coordination, financing and monitoring support | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.2.1 Number of Parties that have assessed their capacity-building needs, including training and institutional needs, and submitted the information to the BCH not more than 3 years after accession to/ratification of the Protocol | Baseline: Q 145 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q133 of the fourth national report |
| 1.2.2 Percentage of the Parties that have developed national biosafety capacity-building action plans for implementing the Protocol | Baseline: Q148 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q136 of the fourth national report |
| 1.2.3 Percentage of the Parties that have in place training programmes for personnel dealing with biosafety issues and for long-term training of biosafety professionals | Baseline: Q4 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Not available* * No specific question was included in the fourth national report |
| 1.2.4 Percentage of Parties that have in place national coordination mechanisms for biosafety capacity-building initiatives | Baseline: Q5 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q137 of the fourth national report |
| 1.2.5 Amount of new and additional financial resources mobilized for the implementation of the Protocol | Baseline: Q6 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q167 of the fourth national report |
| 1.2.6 Number of Parties that have predictable and reliable funding for strengthening their capacity in implementing the Protocol | Baseline: Q7 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q124 of the fourth national report |
| 1.2.7 Number of Parties reporting that their capacity-building needs have been met | Baseline: Q146 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q134 of the fourth national report |
| 1.2.8 Number of cooperative arrangements reported involving LMO exporting and importing Parties | Baseline: Q8 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q 58 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 1.3 Risk assessment and risk management: To further develop and support implementation of scientific tools on common approaches to risk assessment and risk management for Parties | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.3.1 Percentage of Parties adopting and using guidance documents on risk assessment and risk management for the purpose of:Performing their own risk assessment and risk management;Evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers. | Baseline: Q9(a)and 9(b) of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q71(a), 71(b), and 72 of the fourth national report |
| 1.3.2 Percentage of Parties adopting common approaches to risk assessment and risk management | Baseline: Q11 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q73 of the fourth national report |
| 1.3.3 Percentage of Parties that undertake actual risk assessment pursuant to the Protocol | Baseline: Q12 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q75 and 76 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 1.4 LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects: To develop modalities for cooperation and guidance in identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.4.1 Guidance on living modified organisms or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, developed by Parties and available | Not available |
| 1.4.2 Number of Parties that have the capacity to identify, assess and monitor living modified organisms or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health. | Baseline: Q13(a) and 13(b) of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q70(a), 70(b), 70(c) and 70(d) of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 1.5 Liability and Redress: To adopt and implement the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.5.1 Entry into force of the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol | Baseline: status on 31 December 2011 Fourth reporting cycle: status on 15 January 2020 |
| 1.5.2 Percentage of Parties to the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety having in place national administrative and legal frameworks incorporating rules and procedures on liability and redress for damage caused by living modified organisms | Baseline: Q29 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q171 (Parties to the NKLSP only); Q173(a) and (b); and Q178 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 1.6 Handling, transport, packaging and identification: To enable Parties to implement the requirements of the Protocol and COP-MOP decisions on identification and documentation requirements for living modified organisms | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.6.1 Percentage of Parties that put in place documentation requirements for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing | Baseline: Q109 and 110 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q92 and Q93 of the fourth national report |
| 1.6.2 Percentage of Parties that put in place documentation requirements for living modified organisms for contained use and for intentional introduction into the environment | Baseline: Q111 and Q112 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q95 and Q97 of the fourth national report |
| 1.6.3 Number of Parties with access to tools that are capable of detecting unauthorized LMOs. | Baseline: Q114 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q102 of the fourth national report |
| 1.6.4 Number of Parties using guidance developed for the handling, transport and packaging of LMOs | Baseline: Q14 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q99 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 1.7 Socio-economic considerations: To, on the basis of research and information exchange, provide relevant guidance on socio-economic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.7.1 Number of peer reviewed research papers published, made available and used by Parties in considering socio-economic impacts of LMOs | Baseline: Q16 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q164 of the fourth national report |
| 1.7.2 Number of Parties reporting on their approaches to taking socioeconomic considerations into account | Baseline: Q15 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q 162 of the fourth national report Analysis based on the number of Parties responding "Yes". |
| 1.7.3 Number of Parties reporting on their experiences in taking socio-economic considerations into account in reaching decisions on import of living modified organisms | Baseline: Q176 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q163 of the fourth national report |
| 1.7.4 Number of Parties using guidelines on socio-economic considerations | The reporting format does not contain a question related to the use of guidelines. In the absence of specific information at the national level, information is based on the development of global guidance, as per operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan. |
| Operational Objective 1.8 Transit, contained use, unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures: To develop tools and guidance that facilitate the implementation of the Protocol's provisions on transit, contained use, unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 1.8.1 Percentage of Parties having in place measures to manage LMOs in transit | Baseline: Q25 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q23 of the fourth national report |
| 1.8.2 Percentage of Parties having in place measures for contained use | Baseline: Q26 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q24 of the fourth national report |
| 1.8.3 Percentage of Parties using the guidance to detect occurrence of unintentional releases of living modified organisms and being able to take appropriate response measures | Baseline: Q18 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q88 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 2.1 National Biosafety Frameworks: To further support the development and implementation of national regulatory and administrative systems. | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.1.1 Number of Parties with operational regulatory frameworks | Baseline: Q15 and 16 of the second national report and Q3 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q14 and 15 of the fourth national report |
| 2.1.2 Number of Parties with functional administrative arrangements | Baseline: Q17, 18 and 122 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q17, 18 and 109 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 2.2 Risk assessment and risk management: To enable Parties to evaluate, apply, share and carry out risk assessments and establish local science-based capacities to regulate, manage, monitor and control risks of LMOs | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.2.1 Ratio of risk assessment summary reports as against number of decisions on LMOs on the BCH | Baseline: January 2012 Fourth reporting cycle: January 2020 |
| 2.2.2 Number of risk assessment summary reports in the BCH that are in compliance with the Protocol | Not available |
| 2.2.3 Number of people trained on risk assessment, as well as in monitoring, management and control of LMOs | Baseline: Q19(a), 19(b) and 19(c) of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q65(a), 65(b) and 65(c) of the fourth national report |
| 2.2.4 Number of Parties that have infrastructure, including laboratories for monitoring, management and control | Baseline: Q20 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q83 of the fourth national report |
| 2.2.5 Number of Parties that are using the developed training materials and technical guidance | Baseline: Q21 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q66, 67 and 68 of the fourth national report |
| 2.2.6 Number of Parties that are of the opinion that the training materials and technical guidance are sufficient and effective | Baseline: Not available* Fourth reporting cycle: Q69 of the fourth national report * No question was included in the 2nd national report or in the Survey on this issue |
| Operational Objective 2.3 Handling, transport, packaging and identification: To develop capacity for handling, transport, packaging and identification of living modified organisms | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.3.1 Number of customs officers and laboratory personnel trained | Baseline: Q23 and 24 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q101 and 103 of the fourth national report |
| 2.3.2 Percentage of Parties that have established or have reliable access to detection laboratories | Baseline: Q25 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q104 of the fourth national report |
| 2.3.3 National and regional laboratories certified with the capacity to detect LMOs | Baseline: Q26 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q105 of the tfourth national report |
| 2.3.4 Number of certified laboratories in operation | Baseline: Q27 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q106 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 2.4 Liability and Redress: To assist Parties to the Protocol in their efforts to establish and apply the rules and procedures on liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of living modified organisms | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.4.1 Number of eligible Parties that received capacity building support in the area of liability and redress involving living modified organisms | Baseline: Q28 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q132 of the fourth national report |
| 2.4.2 Number of domestic administrative or legal instruments identified, amended or newly enacted that fulfill the objective of the international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress | Baseline: Q29 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q173(a) of the fourth national report; Q171 of the fourth national report (Parties to the NKLSP only) |
| Operational Objective 2.5 Public awareness, education and participation: To enhance capacity at the national, regional and international levels that would facilitate efforts to raise public awareness, and promote education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.5.1 Percentage of Parties having in place mechanisms for ensuring public participation in decision-making concerning LMOs not later than 6 years after accession to/ratification of the Protocol | Baseline: Q154 of the second national report Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q147 of the fourth national report |
| 2.5.2 Percentage of Parties that inform their public about existing modalities for participation | Baseline: Q30, 31 and 32 of the survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q148 and 149 of the fourth national report |
| 2.5.3 Number of Parties having in place national websites and searchable archives, national resource centres or sections in existing national libraries dedicated to biosafety educational materials | Baseline: Q152 of the second national report Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q144 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 2.6 Information sharing: To ensure that the BCH is easily accessed by all established stakeholders, in particular in developing countries and countries with economies in transition | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.6.1 Number of submissions to the BCH from developing countries and countries with economies in transition | Source: number of BCH records, submitted by non-(WEOG & Japan) countries Baseline: 1 January 2012 Fourth reporting Cycle: 1 January 2020 |
| 2.6.2 Amount of traffic from users to the BCH from developing countries and countries with economies in transition | Source: Google Analytics number of visits and unique visitors per year over the reporting period from non-(WEOG & Japan) countries Baseline: Annual average 2008-2011 Fourth reporting Cycle: Annual average 2016-2019 |
| Operational Objective 2.7 Biosafety education and training: To promote education and training of biosafety professionals through greater coordination and collaboration among academic institutions and relevant organizations | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 2.7.1 Number of academic institutions by region offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes | Baseline: Q33 of the survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q145 of the fourth national report |
| 2.7.2 Number of biosafety training materials and online modules available | Baseline: Q34 of the survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q146 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 3.1 Compliance with the Protocol: To strengthen the mechanisms for achieving compliance | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 3.1.1 Number of Parties that have identified and addressed their non-compliance issues | Source: number of submissions made by Parties to the Compliance Committee Baseline: Submissions made during the second reporting cycle Fourth reporting Cycle: Submissions made during the fourth reporting cycle |
| 3.1.2 Number of Parties having approved and functional national legal, administrative and other measures to implement the Protocol | Baseline: Q15, 17, 18 and 122 of the second national report and Q3 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 109 of the fourth national report |
| 3.1.3 Percentage of Parties that designated all National Focal Points | Baseline: BCH on 1 January 2012 Fourth reporting cycle: BCH on 31 December 2019 |
| 3.1.4 Number of Parties having in place a system for handling requests including for Advance Informed Agreement | Baseline: Q29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 51, 54, 57, 59 and 60 of the second national report Fourth reporting cycle: Q27, 29, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the fourth national report |
| 3.1.5 Percentage of Parties that published all mandatory information via the BCH | Baseline: Q20, 46, 61, 62, 78, 89 and 124(h) of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q112(a), 112(b), 112(c), 112(h), 112(i), 112(k), 112(l) and 112(q) of the fourth national report |
| 3.1.6 Number of Parties having in place a monitoring and enforcement system | Baseline: Q35 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q168* of the fourth national report * Compared to question 35(a) of the Survey only |
| 3.1.7 Number of national reports received under each reporting cycle | Source: number of national reports submitted by the ‘cut off date’ for the preparation of the analysis Baseline: 31 December 2011 Fourth reporting Cycle: 15 January 2020 |
| 3.1.8 Number of Parties able to access financial resources to fulfill their obligations under the Protocol | Baseline: Q135 of the second national report and Q7 of the Survey Fourth reporting cycle: Q124 and 167 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 3.2 Assessment and review: To improve the effectiveness of the Protocol, including through regular assessment and review processes | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 3.2.1 Number of assessment reports submitted and reviews published | Source: number of national reports submitted by the ‘cut off date’ for preparation of the analysis Baseline: 31 December 2011 Fourth reporting Cycle: 15 January 2020 |
| 3.2.2 Number of Parties modifying their national biosafety frameworks to correspond with amendments to the Protocol adopted to address new challenges | Not applicable |
| Operational Objective 4.1 BCH effectiveness: To increase the amount and quality of information submitted to and retrieved from the BCH | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 4.1.1 Ratio of risk assessment summary reports as against number of decisions on LMOs | Source: BCH; Baseline: January 2012 Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020 |
| 4.1.2 Number of publications contained in the Biosafety Information Resource Centre | Source: BCH; number of records available in the BCH-BIRC Baseline: January 2016 Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020 |
| 4.1.3 Amount of traffic from users to the BCH | Source: Google Analytics; total visits and unique visitors per year Baseline: Annual average 2008-2011 Fourth reporting Cycle: Annual average 2016-2019 |
| 4.1.4 Number of references to the BCH | Sources: Google and Google Webmaster Tools; links count equals net of cbd.int, chm cbd.net and biodiv.org Baseline: 2008-2011 Fourth reporting Cycle: 2016-2019 |
| 4.1.5 Number of countries with focal points registered on the BCH | Source: BCH Baseline: January 2012 Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020 |
| 4.1.6 Number of countries/regions having published biosafety laws and or regulations on the BCH | Source: BCH; Number of countries having submitted information under “Laws and Regulations” Baseline: January 2012 Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020 |
| 4.1.7 Number of AIA/domestic decisions available through BCH | Source: BCH Baseline: January 2012 Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020 |
| 4.1.8 Number of users of the BCH requesting improvement on accuracy, completeness or timeliness of information | Not available |
| Operational Objective 4.2 BCH as a tool for online discussions and conferences: To establish the BCH as a fully functional and effective platform for assisting countries in the implementation of the Protocol | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 4.2.1 Percentage of Parties participating in online discussions and real-time conferences on the BCH | Source: BCH; average and breakdown of participating Parties in BCH forums and real-time conferences Baseline: 2010-2012 Fourth reporting cycle: 2016-2019 |
| 4.2.2 Number of participants in online discussions and conferences, their diversity and background | Source: BCH; total number and breakdown of participants in BCH forums and real-time conferences Baseline: 2010-2012 Fourth reporting cycle: 2016-2019 |
| 4.2.3 Number of capacity building activities aimed to increase the transparency, inclusiveness and equity of participation in the BCH | Source: BCH; forums and real-time conferences Baseline: 2010-2012 Fourth reporting cycle: 2016-2019 |
| Operational Objective 4.3 Information sharing other than through the BCH: To enhance understanding through other information exchange mechanisms | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 4.3.1 Number of events organized in relation to biosafety | Baseline: Q36 of the survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q118 of the fourth national report |
| 4.3.2 Number of biosafety related publications shared | Baseline: Q 37 and 38 of the survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q119 of the fourth national report |
| Operational Objective 5.1 Ratification of the Protocol: To achieve global recognition of the Protocol | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 5.1.1 Percentage of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity that become Parties to the Protocol | Source: BCH and the United Nation Treaty Collection web site. Baseline: 31 December 2011 Fourth reporting Cycle: 31 December 2019 |
| Operational Objective 5.2 Cooperation: To enhance international cooperation and collaboration in biosafety | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 5.2.1 Number of established relationships with other conventions as reflected in joint activities | Source: Description of formal relationships established by the Secretariat with other conventions and organizations in relation to biosafety activities Baseline: 31 December 2011 Fourth Reporting Cycle: 31 December 2019 |
| Operational Objective 5.3 Communication and outreach: To raise the profile of the Protocol | |
| Indicator | Source of information |
| 5.3.1 Number of national awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety | Baseline: Q40 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q143 of the fourth national report |
| 5.3.2 Percentage of Parties that have in place national communication strategies on biosafety not later than 3 year after having adopted national biosafety laws | Baseline: Q42 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q142 of the fourth national report |
| 5.3.3 Percentage of Parties that have in place national biosafety websites, including national BCH nodes that are accessible to and searchable by the public | Baseline: Q152 of the second national report Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q144 of the fourth national report |
| 5.3.4 Number of Parties with awareness and educational materials on biosafety and the Protocol available and accessible to the public, including the diversity of these materials | Baseline: Q43 of the Survey Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q146 of the fourth national report |
Baseline
In its decision BS-VI/15, the COP-MOP took note of the information provided in the second national reports and the analysis undertaken on the status of implementation of core elements of the Protocol and decided that the data and information contained in the analysis form the baseline for measuring progress in implementing the Protocol, in particular the subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Protocol and the mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Strategic Plan.
Furthermore, in its decision BS-VI/15, the COP-MOP requested the Executive Secretary to undertake a dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan that could not be obtained from the second national reports or through other existing mechanisms.
The data from the second national reports and the survey together form the baseline for measuring progress in implementing the Protocol.