العربية  |  English  |  Español  |  Français  |  Русский

MOP 4 Decision BS-IV/3

BS-IV/3. Capacity-building

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,

Recalling its decisions BS-I/5, BS-II/3 and BS-III/3 on capacity-building under the Protocol,

Reiterating the importance of capacity-building for the implementation of the Protocol,

Noting the challenges and needs expressed by developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and countries with economies in transition, in their first national reports,

1. Welcomes the report on the status of implementation of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Protocol, prepared by the Executive Secretary (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/4);

2. Urges Parties, other Governments, donors and relevant organizations to provide new and additional financial and technical support to developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and countries with economies in transition to address their capacity-building needs;

3. Urges the Global Environment Facility to provide additional financial support from sources other than the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) for capacity-building activities in developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and countries with economies in transition;

4. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to provide information on their capacity-building activities to the Secretariat and the Biosafety Clearing House at least six months before the regular meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, in order to facilitate more comprehensive reporting on the implementation of the capacity-building Action Plan and the sharing of experiences in capacity-building activities;

5. Requests the Executive Secretary to develop a web-based reporting format to be used by Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to submit the information referred to in paragraph 4 above;

6. Welcomes the offer of UNEP to undertake an expert review of capacity-building activities under GEF funding, in collaboration with GEF, its agencies and the Executive Secretary, with a view to assessing the effectiveness of various approaches to capacity-building and developing lessons learned and invites Parties, other Governments, donors and relevant organization to provide additional support to extend the review to non-GEF activities and submit the review to the BCH.

Biosafety education and training

Recognizing the need for long-tem biosafety education and training programmes to develop core expertise for the effective implementation of the Protocol,

Noting the limited number of existing biosafety academic programmes,

Welcoming the report of the second international meeting of academic institutions and organizations involved in biosafety education and training which was held in April 2007 in Kuala Lumpur (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/INF/6),

Expressing its appreciation to the Governments of Switzerland and Denmark and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) for funding the above meeting and the Government of Malaysia for hosting it,

7. Invites Parties and other Governments to complete and return to the Secretariat the biosafety training needs assessment matrix developed by the second international meeting of academic institutions and organizations involved in biosafety education and training and disseminated by the Executive Secretary;

8. Invites relevant national authorities, in particular national focal points to the Protocol to collaborate with academic institutions and other relevant organizations in the development and/or expansion of biosafety academic programmes;

9. Invites developed country Parties, other Governments, GEF, bilateral and multi-lateral agencies to provide financial and other support to enable universities and relevant institutions to develop and/or expand existing biosafety academic programmes and provide scholarships to students from developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and countries with economies in transition;

10. Invites Parties other Governments and relevant organizations to share through BCH the existing academic and training materials;

11. Welcomes the offer by the Government of Japan to organize and host the third international meeting of academic institutions and other organizations involved in biosafety education and training;

12. Requests the Executive Secretary to prepare a synthesis of the information provided by Parties and other Governments in the training needs assessment matrix referred to in paragraph 7 above and make the synthesis report available through the Biosafety Clearing House;

13. Also requests the Executive Secretary to initiate collaboration with relevant academic institutions involved in biosafety education and training;

Coordination mechanism

Taking note of the progress made in the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism and the measures undertaken to further improve its implementation,

Welcoming the reports of the third and fourth coordination meetings for Governments and organizations implementing or funding biosafety capacity-building activities,

Expressing its appreciation to the Governments of Zambia and India for hosting the third and fourth coordination meetings, respectively, and to the Governments of Germany, Norway and India, as well as to the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), for providing financial support that enabled the participation of developing countries and countries with economies in transition,

14. Requests the Executive Secretary to continue encouraging relevant organizations and bilateral and multilateral donor agencies to support and participate actively in the Coordination Mechanism;

15. Also requests the Executive Secretary to continue undertaking measures to improve the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism and provide a report to the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;

Indicators

Recalling its decision BS-I/5, paragraphs 26-29,

Recognizing the importance of monitoring and evaluating capacity-building efforts,

Noting the lack of submissions of information by Parties, other Governments, and relevant organizations regarding their experiences in using the preliminary set of indicators as requested for in paragraph 28 of decision BS-I/5,

Recognizing that more experience is needed before undertaking further work in developing new indicators for monitoring and evaluating implementation of the capacity-building Action Plan,

16. Approves the revised set of indicators for monitoring the updated Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Protocol annexed to this decision;

17. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to submit to the Executive Secretary, at least six months before the sixth meeting of the Parties, information on their experiences with, and lessons learned from, the use of the revised set of indicators;

18. Invites also Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to take into account, when selecting or using indicators for monitoring their capacity-building initiatives, the experiences and lessons learned from relevant processes, including those described in the note by the Executive Secretary (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/4/Add.1);

19. Invites Parties and other Governments to undertake stocktaking assessments or compile information collected under relevant assessment processes to establish their capacity building baselines and benchmarks and communicate this information to the Executive Secretary;

20. Requests the Executive Secretary to prepare a synthesis report on the experiences with and lessons learned from the use of the revised set of indicators on the basis of the submissions by Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations for consideration at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.

Annex

REVISED 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 could be adapted as appropriate to evaluate individual capacity-building projects.

2. The indicators fall under four main categories namely: "indicators of existence", "indicators of status", "indicators of change" and "indicators of progress towards an endpoint". The first category indicate whether capacity exists or not (i.e. yes/no). 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.

3. The table below contains indicators that could be used for monitoring capacity at the global and national or project levels (outlined in columns 1 and 2). The last columns could be used to indicate the status or level of capacity-building for the corresponding indicator. It could be rated at five levels namely: zero or non-existent (0); low or somewhat in place (1); medium or partially in place (2); high or mostly in place (3); very high or fully in place (4). The column marked "NA" would be used in cases where there are no data or where the information is insufficient to characterize the level of existing capacity. In summary, the following rating criteria could be used:

NA Not applicable or insufficient information to assess
0 Zero or non-existent (0%)
1 Low or somewhat in place (<50%)
2 Medium or partially in place (51-75%)
3 High or mostly in place (76-100%)
4 Fully in place (100%)

Global level indicators (based on Action Plan elements)

National or project level indicators

Capacity Level or Status

NA  0  1  2  3  4

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

a) Existence of national mechanisms for monitoring and reporting of implementation of the Protocol

 

B. Improved human resources capacity development and training

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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

10.

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 subregional, regional and international levels

11.

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/ subregional advisory mechanisms and centers of excellence

e) Existence of regional and subregional 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

12.

a) Existence of enabling frameworks for technology transfer

b) b) Change in number of relevant technologies transferred

 

I. Improved identification of LMO shipments as required by the Protocol

13.

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

 

J. Socio-economic considerations effectively addressed in decision making regarding LMOs

14.

a) Extent to which consideration of socio-economic impacts are enforced by domestic law or regulations

b) Extent to which socio-economic issues are taken into consideration in decision-making regarding LMOs

c) Existence of methodology and frameworks for defining and evaluating socio-economic considerations

d) Level of local expertise on socio-economic issues

 

K. Documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol fulfilled

15.

a) Change in level of development of national LMO documentation systems

b) Level of adherence to the identification requirements in the documentation accompanying LMO shipments

c) Level of ability of Customs officials to enforce LMO documentation requirements

 

L. Confidential information effectively and appropriately handled

16.

a) Existence of mechanisms to handle confidential information

b) Level of training of competent national authorities to handle confidential information

 

M. Unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs effectively addressed

17.

a) Existence of national data management system for easy and timely access lists of approved LMOs

b) Level of vigilance of the national border control systems

 

N. Increased scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs

18.

a) Change in number of national biosafety research initiatives

b) Number of national scientists involved in biosafety research

c) Number of biosafety research articles published in peer-reviewed journals

d) Change in the level of funding for scientific biosafety research

e) Percentage of biosafety research funded from national budgetary allocation

 

O. Risks to human health effectively taken into account in decision making regarding LMOs

19.

a) Extent to which assessment of impacts of LMOs on human heath is enforced by domestic law or regulations

b) Extent to which impacts on human health are taken into consideration in decision-making regarding LMOs

 

  • United Nations
  • United Nations Environment Programme