The Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
1. Takes note of the document on capacity building prepared by the Executive Secretary (UNEP/CBD/ICCP/2/10), including the report of the Open-Ended Meeting of Experts on Capacity-Building for the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which was held in Havana from 11 to 13 July 2001;
2. Welcomes the biosafety capacity-building initiatives currently being undertaken by UNEP/GEF and other donors;
3. Endorses the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety annexed to the present recommendation, including the possible sequence of actions in the appendix to the Action Plan;
4. Invites Parties, Governments, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, private sector and scientific organizations and other relevant bodies to start implementing the Action Plan, taking into account the roles of different entities in facilitating capacity-building;
5. Recommends to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol that the Conference of the Parties request the Global Environment Facility and other donors to take into account this Action Plan in providing assistance to developing countries, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, towards the ratification and effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;
6. Requests the Executive Secretary to develop a coordination mechanism for the implementation of the Action Plan with a view to promoting partnerships and to maximize complementarities and synergies between various capacity building initiatives;
7. Requests the Executive Secretary to prepare a report on the progress made in the implementation of the Action Plan, based on submissions from Parties and Governments and relevant organizations, for consideration by the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties.
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, taking into account also countries 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;
(iv) Funding 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;
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;
(e) 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 into account also countries 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 (IUCN, UNEP, FAO etc.);
(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
The Intergovermental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,
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,
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 sub-regional 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
1. Assessment of national, bilateral and multilateral funding.
2. Regional website and database.
3. Mechanisms for regional and sub regional coordination and harmonization of regulatory frameworks, where appropriate.
4. Regional and subregional collaborative arrangements.
5. Regional and subregional advisory mechanisms.
6. Regional and subregional centres of excellence and training.
C. International level
1. Effective functioning of the Biosafety Clearing-House.
2. 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, as well as countries with economies in transition.
3. Development and effective use of the roster of experts.
4. Enhancing synergies and coordination of capacity-building initiatives.
5. Strengthening South-South cooperation.
6. Development/updating of international guidance (IUCN, UNEP, FAO etc.).
7. 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.
B. Roster of experts
The Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
1. Recommends that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol adopt the interim guidelines for the roster of experts, contained in the annex to the present recommendation;
2. Invites Parties and Governments to use the interim guidelines for the roster of experts pending their adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol;
3. Urges Parties and Governments that have not yet done so to submit their nominations of experts to the Secretariat as soon as possible in accordance with the interim guidelines, using the nomination form provided by the Secretariat and reproduced in appendix 1 to the annex to the present recommendation;
4. Requests the Executive Secretary, as the administrator of the roster, to implement the functions specified in the interim guidelines for the roster;
5. Requests also the Executive Secretary to prepare a report on the status of implementation of the roster of experts for consideration by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties, at its first meeting;
6. Recommends the establishment of a voluntary fund, administered by the Secretariat, for the specific purpose of supporting developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, to pay for the use of experts selected from the roster;
7. Requests the Executive Secretary to develop a pilot phase of the voluntary fund and seek submissions from Governments on the operation of the voluntary fund, and report to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, at its first meeting, on the progress made;
8. Invites the financial mechanism for the Protocol to assess whether it can have a role to play in the roster of experts;
9. Requests the Executive Secretary to seek submissions on financial support for use of the roster of experts, and provide a compilation report to the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE ROSTER OF EXPERTS ON BIOSAFETY
A. Mandate of the roster
1. The mandate of the roster of experts shall be to provide advice and other support, as appropriate and upon request, to developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, to conduct risk assessment, make informed decisions, develop national human resources and promote institutional strengthening, associated with the transboundary movements of LMOs. Moreover, the roster of experts should perform all other functions assigned to it by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in the future, in particular in the fields of capacity-building.
2. The roster of experts is an instrument to build capacities and to aid developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition until adequate capacities have been built.
B. Administration of the roster
The Secretariat of the Convention/Protocol shall administer the roster. These functions will include:
(a) Establishing and reviewing, as necessary, the nomination form;
(b) Maintaining an appropriate electronic database to allow easy access to the roster;
(c) Maintaining a paper copy, updated at least once a year, of the roster;
(d) Advising the Parties on coverage of all areas of expertise available through the roster, and on regional and gender balances on the roster from time to time;
(e) Assisting Parties, on request, in identifying appropriate experts; and
(f) Performing such other administrative functions as are set out in these Guidelines or as directed by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in other decisions;
(g) Verifying the availability of experts as necessary.
C. Access to the roster
Access to the roster should be maintained through the Biosafety Clearing-House (via the Internet or non-electronic means). The Secretariat will publish once a year a written version of the roster for distribution to each Party, along with a description of how the different Internet search fields can be used to aid Parties to identify needed expertise. A Party may request any updated version in between these publications.
D. Membership on the roster of experts
1. Nomination of members
1. Roster members shall be nominated by Governments. Governments are responsible for ensuring that nominees possess the highest professional qualities and expertise in the fields for which they are nominated. Parties should consult with relevant stakeholders and seek interested individuals including from national and sub-national governments, research and academic institutions, industry and non-governmental organizations for the purpose of providing balanced, high-quality nominations.
2. The Parties are encouraged to consider retired experts with accumulated knowledge and experience, and with no current institutional affiliations, as potential nominees.
2. Mechanism for nomination
1. The nomination form attached to these guidelines as appendix I shall be used for all nominations. Electronic submissions of the form are encouraged. Nominating Governments should ensure the accuracy of the information submitted on all nomination forms. The Executive Secretary will undertake a review of the roster of experts nomination form with input from Governments and, in particular, to review the categories of expertise.
2. Governments shall endeavour to keep their nominations to the roster of experts up-to-date. Parties shall use their national reports to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to confirm their nominations and, if necessary, update information of individual experts. Non-Parties are invited to confirm and update information with the same periodicity.
3. Maximum number of nominations
Each Government is recommended not to nominate more than 50 experts, and not more than five experts per area of specialization (as this term is used in the nomination form) may be nominated.
4. Balanced representation
1. All Governments are encouraged to nominate experts and to encourage regional balance in the roster. Governments should utilize regional centres of excellence in developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, and countries with economies in transitions, as sources for the nomination of experts. The Secretariat will ensure that the roster database allows for a regional breakdown of roster members as a primary "filter" in searching the list of members.
2. Governments are encouraged to promote gender balance in their nominations, as well as ensure appropriate expertise for the assessments referred to in Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol.
3. The Executive Secretary shall report annually to the Parties on the sectoral, regional and gender balances in the roster.
5. Required information on experts
Information required for each nominee is set out in the nomination form. The Secretariat shall ensure each form is complete prior to listing a nominee on the roster.
Involving experts from existing and independent institutions with relevant expertise in biosafety would allow access to a wide base of multidisciplinary knowledge. Therefore, experts are invited to indicate in the nomination form whether they are members of any institution.
E. Scope of expertise required
1. The areas of expertise required for members of the roster are identified on the nomination form in appendix 1.
2. The areas of expert advice and support that may be provided through the roster are set out in the indicative list contained in appendix 2 to these guidelines.
F. Choice of experts for assignments
1. Choice by requesting Party
The choice of experts for any given assignment is to be made by the requesting Party.
2. Assistance by Secretariat
When requested by a Party seeking an expert, the Secretariat shall provide assistance to the Party to identify experts listed in the specific area(s) of expertise in the roster. Where feasible, the Secretariat should include a list of potential experts that reflects regional and gender participation.
3. Secretariat facilitating initial contact
The Secretariat may facilitate the initial contact of a Party seeking assistance with any expert on the roster. When direct contact is made by a Party to an expert, the Party should report the contact and its result to the Secretariat in order to ensure that full records on the operations of the roster can be maintained.
G. Obligations of individuals on the roster
1. Ensuring complete and accurate information on nomination forms
Experts are responsible to ensure that the information on their nomination form is complete and accurate.
2. Agreement to release nomination form information to the public
All information on the nomination form should normally be made available to the public, including on the Biosafety Clearing-House, after a nomination is completed. However, a roster member may request the non-disclosure of direct contact information (telephone, address, fax and e-mail) if she or he chooses.
3. Acceptance or refusal of a request for assistance/advice
Members of the roster may accept or reject any proposed assignment.
4. Declining to act if there is a real or perceived conflict of interest
1. Experts should decline any assignment where an assignment may raise a real or perceived conflict of interest. Prior to undertaking any assignment through the roster, or to being put forward on a secretariat shortlist, each roster member will complete a conflict of interest declaration, indicating if they have any personal, institutional or other professional interests or arrangements that would create a conflict of interest or that a reasonable person might perceive creates a conflict.
2. If the declaration raises concerns, the Secretariat or Party concerned may seek further information from the expert. If legitimate concerns remain, it is recommended that any judgments as to whether a conflict exists should err on the side of caution, consistent with maintaining the highest level of credibility of the roster process.
5. Acting in a personal capacity
Each expert shall act solely in their personal capacity, regardless of any other governmental, industry, organizational or academic affiliation.
6. Exhibiting highest professional standards
Any expert carrying out an assignment is expected to comply with all applicable professional standards in an objective and neutral way, and to exhibit a high degree of professional conduct in undertaking an assignment. These standards should extend to any discussions that assist a Party in choosing an expert. Experts are expected to perform their duties in a timely manner.
7. Contributing to training of local personnel when possible
Experts may be asked, when appropriate, to contribute to on-the-ground-training and capacity-building of local personnel as part of their assignment.
8. Confidentiality and transparency
1. Unless otherwise authorized by the requesting Party concerned, experts on the roster undertaking assignments shall not divulge confidential information obtained through or as a result of performing their duties. Confidentiality should be as stipulated in the agreement between the Party and the expert.
2. The final written advice of the expert shall be made available through the Biosafety Clearing-House, respecting confidential information.
9. Setting clear expectations
It is the responsibility of the Party and the expert to ensure that the expectations and terms of reference of the Party are clear, and that these have been understood by the expert.
10. Submitting a report
Brief reports should be prepared by the expert following completion of the assignment, including overall assessment of the process, the results achieved and constraints encountered, as well as suggestions that might be considered for future assignments.
H. Payment of roster members
1. Pro bono assignments
Any expert may choose to undertake an assignment on a pro bono basis. The same principles relating to conflict of interest, acting in a personal capacity, and other obligations under section G would apply to such pro bono assignments.
Any organization may permit experts affiliated with it to undertake an assignment as a secondment from their usual duties. Transparent and full disclosure of any such arrangements should be made. No government or institution is obligated to cover any or all of the cost of a nominated expert.
3. Payments fixed by contract with requesting Party
Legal arrangements for fees and/or expenses associated with an assignment should be addressed in contractual agreements between the Party and the expert in question.
Decisions taken by the requesting Party on the basis of advice provided will be the sole responsibility of the Party.
1. Liability of nominating Party
Nominating Governments shall not be liable for the personal conduct, inputs or results arising from or connected with the work of an expert it has nominated.
2. Liability of the Secretariat
The Secretariat shall not be liable for, or subject to any legal process arising from or connected with, the use or advice of an expert from the roster.
3. Liability of experts
Liability of the expert and the applicable law should be addressed in the contract between the Party seeking assistance and the expert.
1. Parties are encouraged to provide the Secretariat with an evaluation of the advice or other support provided by experts and the results achieved. Such evaluations should be made available through the Biosafety Clearing-House.
2. Once a year, the Quarterly Report prepared by the Secretariat will include a section on the operation of the roster, which should include factual information on the number of experts on the roster, regional, gender, discipline breakdowns of the roster, direct contacts initiated by Parties and their results or contacts facilitated by the Secretariat and their results, including the individual experts contracted by each requesting Party, a note on the topic and description of the assignment, results of the work undertaken and the availability of written products. These reports should be made available through the Biosafety Clearing-House.
K. Periodic review
The operation of the roster should be subject to independent periodic review. The first review should take place in two years. Periodic reviews should then take place in accordance with Article 35 of the Protocol. These periodic reviews should be broad-based, looking at appropriate balances in the roster membership, its uses, successes, failures, quality control of roster assignments, the need for additional advisory services in administering the roster, and other possible recommendations for revisions to the mandate or these rules of procedure to respond to the findings.
NOMINATION FORM FOR THE BIOSAFETY ROSTER OF EXPERTS
A. To be completed by the expert
1. Family or last name:
2. Other name(s):
6. Year of birth:
7. Current employer / organization
Duration of time
8. Organization type:
Relevant Internet Site: _______________________
9. Position / Job title:
Main areas of responsibility:
10. Mailing address:
11. Telephone number:
Country code: _____ Area code: _____ Number: ________________
12. Facsimile number:
13. Email address:
14. Education and other qualifications:
15. Main area(s) of expertise for contribution to the Roster:
Data Management and Information-Sharing
Legislation and Regulation
Public Awareness and Participation
Education and Training
Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Social and Economic Sciences
Research and Development
16. Area(s) of specialization:
Database Management and Information-Sharing
16. Area(s) of specialization (continued):
Legislation and Regulation
Intellectual property law
International environmental law
International trade law
National environmental law
National trade regulations
Public Awareness and Participation
Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Alien invasive species
Analytical detection methods
Environmental impact assessment
Genetics of natural populations
Risk assessment process design and application
Organisms and traits: _________
16. Area(s) of specialization (continued):
Social and Economic Sciences
Life cycle assessment
Research and Development
Biotechnology product development
Education and Training:
Subject areas: ______________
17. Professional experience (Please attach separate sheets if necessary)
Information for the last three employers:
Main areas of responsibility:
Duration of time employed:
18. Other relevant work experience (e.g. regional experience, further specialization, volunteer work experience, etc.):
Note: Attach continuation on separate sheet if needed.
Main countries/regions worked and responsibilities:
19. List of publications:
Conference papers; etc.)
Please attach separate sheet if necessary.
20. Three most relevant publications:
21. Knowledge of languages:
Arabic: Speak well Read well Write well
Chinese: Speak well Read well Write well
English: Speak well Read well Write well
French: Speak well Read well Write well
Russian: Speak well Read well Write well
Spanish: Speak well Read well Write well
_______ Speak well Read well Write well
22. Scientific awards, professional societies, honorary memberships, and membership in advisory committees/panels:
23. References (name and contact information):
I hereby confirm that the above information is correct and agree for its inclusion in the Roster of Experts on Biosafety under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Convention on Biological Diversity. I have no objection to this information being made publicly available.
Signature: __________________________________________ Date:
B. To be completed by the National Focal Points of the Government making the nomination
Focal Point Type:
ICCP National Focal Point
CBD National Focal Point
INDICATIVE LIST OF AREAS OF ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR THE ROSTER OF EXPERTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL
Needs assessment and biosafety framework planning
(a) Inventory of existing and anticipated biotechnology programmes and practices
(b) Capacity to develop present and future import/export data
(c) Accurate understanding of industry biotechnology practices in relevant sectors
(d) Capacity to compile and analyse existing legal and administrative biosafety regimes
(e) Multi-disciplinary strategic planning capacity
(f) Capacity to relate biosafety regime to other international obligations
Biosafety regime development
(a) Develop/strengthen legal and regulatory structures
(b) Develop/strengthen administrative processes to manage risk assessment and risk management
(c) Develop domestic/regional risk assessment capacity
(d) Capacity to administer notification, acknowledgement and decision response process
(e) Capacity to make and report decision on LMO import in required time frames
(f) Emergency notification and planning and response capacity
(g) Enforcement capacity at borders
General risk assessment capacities
(a) Ability to coordinate multi-disciplinary analyses
(b) Enhancement of technological and institutional capacities for risk assessment
(c) Capacity to identify and access appropriate outside expertise
(d) Understanding of relevant bio-technology processes and applications
Science and socio-economic capacities
(a) Analyse risks to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
(b) Undertake life-cycle analysis
(c) Analyze risks to human health of effects on biodiversity
(d) Analyze ecosystem effects of living modified organism introduction
(e) Assess food security issues arising from risks to biodiversity
(f) Value and roles of biodiversity to local and indigenous communities
(g) Other socio-economic considerations related to biodiversity
(h) Enhancement of related scientific, technical capacities
Note: Specific types of scientific expertise required will vary from case to case, but broadly involve two areas:
- evaluation of genetic modifications
- evaluation of interactions with the receiving environment
General risk management capacities
Understanding of application of risk management tools to different biotechnology sectors
(a) Identification and quantification of risks, including through sound application of the precautionary approach
(b) Capacity to assess relative effectiveness of management options for import, handling and use, where appropriate
(c) Capacity to assess relative trade impacts of management options, where appropriate
(d) Impartial review of proposed management regime prior to decision-making
Implementation of decisions
(a) Identification and handling of living modified organisms at point of import and export
(b) Monitoring of environmental impacts against expected impacts
(c) Capacity to monitor, enforce and report on compliance
(a) Capacity to monitor, review and report on the effectiveness of risk management programme, including legal, regulatory and administrative mechanisms
(b) Capacity to monitor longer-term environmental impacts, if any (based on current baselines)
(c) Establishment of environmental reporting systems
Data management and information-sharing
(a) Exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information
(b) Collection, storage and analysis of scientific, regulatory and administrative data
(c) Communication to the Biosafety Clearing-House
Human resources strengthening and development
(a) All aspects of regime development, evaluation and maintenance for risk assessment and risk management
(b) Raising awareness of modern biotechnology and biosafety among scientists, government officials
(c) Training and longer-term education
(d) Procedures for safe handling, use and transfer of living modified organisms
Public awareness and participation
(a) Administer and disseminate information on legal and administrative framework
(b) Public awareness of/participation in scientific assessment process
(c) Risks associated with handling and use
Involvement of stakeholders e.g. non-governmental organizations, local communities, private sector
(a) Capacity to negotiate with and provide opportunity for private sector involvement
(b) Processes for community, NGO consultation in development of risk assessment and management regimes
(c) Processes for community, NGO consultation prior to decisions
Regional capacity development
(a) Scientific assessment of risk
(b) Harmonization of legal regimes
(c) Training of human resources
(d) Information sharing
Source: Indicative Framework for Capacity-Building under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, (UNEP/CBD/ICCP/1/4).