The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Capacity-building (Article 22 and Article 28, paragraph 3)

The Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,

Recalling its recommendation 2/9 A adopted at its second meeting,

Recognizing the critical need to build the capacity of developing countries, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, to enable them access the Biosafety Clearing-House and to ratify and implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,

Welcoming the initial gap analysis by the Executive Secretary of the capacity-building initiatives as an important step in identifying areas where further efforts would be needed,

Recognizing the roles played by different entities in supporting capacity-building for biosafety;

Stressing the need for coordination between various capacity-building efforts and funding initiatives at all levels to maximize complementarities and synergies, and promote partnerships,

Noting the varying requirements of countries and the need for capacity-building initiatives to be demand-driven,

1. Welcomes the decision of the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting, 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;

2. Recommends that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol 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 I to the present recommendation;

3. Invites developed country Parties and other donors to make voluntary financial contributions to the Secretariat to facilitate implementation of the Coordination Mechanism;

4. Urges Parties, Governments and relevant organizations to register information on their biosafety capacity-building initiatives in the Biosafety Clearing-House, including reports on the achievements, lessons learned and opportunities for cooperation;

5. Invites Parties, Governments and relevant organizations to address the gaps in implementation of the priority elements of the Action Plan and the geographic coverage of the capacity-building initiatives identified by the Executive Secretary, taking into account the indicative list of the roles of different entities in supporting capacity-building contained in annex II to the present recommendation;

6 Requests developed country Parties, donors and relevant organisations to provide assistance to developing countries, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with economies in transition, to organize workshops on capacity-building;

7. Encourages Parties, Governments and organizations to use, as appropriate, the relevant implementation tool kit contained in annex III to the present recommendation;

8. 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;

9. Takes note of the preliminary set of indicators for monitoring implementation of the Action Plan, contained in annex IV to this recommendation; invites Parties, Governments, and relevant organizations to submit their views and comments to the Executive Secretary no later than three months prior to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol; and requests the Executive Secretary to prepare, on the basis of these submissions, a revised set of indicators for consideration by that meeting;

10. Requests the Executive Secretary to discharge the functions, within existing resources, specified in annex I to the present recommendation, in collaboration with other relevant agencies, with a view to operationalizing the Coordination Mechanism.

Annex I

COORDINATION MECHANISM FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN ON BUILDING CAPACITIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY

A. Objective

The overall goal of Coordination Mechanism is to facilitate exchange of information with a view to promoting partnerships and to maximize complementarities and synergies between various capacity building initiatives being undertaken in support of the Action Plan for Capacity Building for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

B. Elements

The coordination mechanism for the implementation of the Action Plan consists of the following elements:

1. A regionally-balanced liaison group on capacity building for biosafety:

This shall be established by the Executive Secretary to provide expert advice to the Secretariat and the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety/Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties on ways and means to enhance the coordination and effective implementation of the Action Plan.

2. The biosafety capacity-building projects database:

The projects database currently maintained by the Secretariat on the Biosafety Clearing-House shall be strengthened and kept up-to-date to facilitate coordination and exchange of information, and also to serve as a tool for identifying the coverage, overlaps and gaps in the capacity-building activities and funding by different organizations.

3. An information sharing and networking mechanism:

An information sharing mechanism (including, an e-mail list-server) shall be established to facilitate regular and timely exchange of information and lessons learned between individuals in different countries, relevant organizations and donor agencies involved in promoting biosafety capacity-building. In addition, the Secretariat shall collaborate with the ad-hoc Inter-Agency Network for Safety in Biotechnology (IANB), coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in promoting regular interaction and networking.

4. Coordination meetings and workshops:

Periodic coordination meetings, workshops or roundtables for government representatives, relevant organizations and donors agencies shall be organized on a regular basis, to promote dialogue, identify and promote synergies, encourage partnerships, address emerging common issues, promote greater understanding of evolving capacity needs of countries and encourage mutually supportive strategies across organizations involved in capacity-building for biosafety.

5. Reporting mechanism:

A central reporting mechanism, using existing databases, for major capacity-building projects and other initiatives using a uniform format, for example, a central portal or database linked to relevant national, regional or institutional nodes/ databases, shall be established to facilitate the identification of the coverage, progress and impact made, and major gaps, on the basis of the information received. The projects database maintained under the Biosafety Clearing-House shall be expanded and resourced to play this role.

C. Administration of the Coordination Mechanism

The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Protocol shall administer the Coordination Mechanism. These functions of the Secretariat, as the administrator of the Mechanism shall, in pursuit of the above goal, include the following:

1. Maintain the capacity-building project database, including its regular updating based on submissions received from the participating Parties, Governments, relevant organizations and donors;

2. Develop and maintain in the Biosafety Clearing-House a page where countries can access information readily on available capacity-building support and those requiring support could indicate their specific capacity-building needs.

3. Facilitate 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;

4. Prepare and disseminate synthesis of 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;

5. Convene and service meetings of the liaison group on capacity building on biosafety, as necessary;

6. Organize, subject to availability of funding, periodic coordination meetings and workshops for government representatives, relevant organizations and donors, in collaboration with GEF, UNEP and other relevant organizations;

7. Promote broad and common understanding of the capacity-building needs for the effective implementation of the Protocol.

Annex II

THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES IN SUPPORTING CAPACITY-BUILDING 3/

1. 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 received by the Secretariat in response to a questionnaire that was sent to all national focal points together with the notification of 12 January 2001. The countries and regional economic integration organizations that specifically addressed this issue in their responses to the questionnaire were: Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, the European Union, India, Jamaica, Japan, Switzerland, Turkey, United States of America and Uruguay.

2. The role of the ICCP:

(a) Assuming the overall responsibility for decisions regarding the establishment of the work programme related to capacity-building and evaluation of its implementation (as illustrated in document UNEP/CBD/ICCP/1/9);

(b) Setting norms for harmonization;

(c) Developing common 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 required for the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to decide what capacity-building projects will 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:

(a) Providing an administrative framework for creation of technical and scientific capacity;

(b) Implementing the pilot phase of the Biosafety Clearing-House, taking account of priority needs regarding the capacities of Governments for access to the Biosafety Clearing-House and the views of Governments on monitoring progress;

(c) Administering the Biosafety Clearing-House;

(d) Undertaking further synthesis and analysis of the identified needs of countries for implementation of the Protocol, and available means for assistance and information exchange;

(e) 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;

(f) Facilitating the flow of information;

(g) Promoting synergies and keeping countries abreast of important developments and opportunities with respect to capacity-building - e.g., roster of experts;

(h) Facilitating the functioning of the roster of experts;

(i) Implementing the relevant recommendation of ICCP and later the decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties;

(j) Cooperating with the UNEP/GEF enabling project on national biosafety frameworks;

(k) Facilitating and promoting collaboration and coordination among existing initiatives on capacity-building; and

(l) Providing coordination and leadership and suggesting ways and means to build capacity in countries, taking into account the recommendations of the ICCP.

4. Subject to the decisions of the Conference of the Parties, the role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) includes:

(a) Providing funds necessary to build legislative and administrative frameworks, and for training in risk assessment and risk management;

(b) Deciding on further areas for financial support for capacity-building in accordance with the identified priority needs of developing countries, including results of the first meeting of the ICCP, responses to the questionnaire, the outcomes of inter-sessional workshops, and its previous pilot project on biosafety;

(c) Implementing the GEF Initial Strategy adopted by the GEF Council in November 2000 to assist countries prepare for the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol;

(d) Facilitating the provision of technical support; and

(e) Facilitating the use of existing and developing regional networks.

5. The role of other bilateral and multilateral donors:

(a) Providing funding 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 sub-regional 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:

(a) Assisting national authorities of Parties to take decisions;

(b) Sharing "best practices", models and information pertinent to relations between obligations under trade agreements and obligations under the Protocol;

(c) 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;

(d) Contributing to implementation of the project on Development of National Biosafety Frameworks, in line with the terms agreed by the GEF Council and relevant decisions taken at the first meeting of the ICCP;

(e) Providing access to databases containing information relevant to implementation of the Protocol: e.g. OECD's Biotrack, the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), the UNIDO Biosafety Information Network and Advisory Service (BINAS);

(f) 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;

(g) Ensuring coordination and mutual supportiveness with other bodies and conventions concerned with LMO issues: e.g., 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;

(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

(i) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities.

7. The role of regional networks:

(a) Promoting harmonization of technical, legal and scientific mechanisms in the countries;

(b) Identifying and disseminating information related to best practice 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:

(a) Cooperating in consensus-building and assisting in raising public education and awareness;

(b) Participating in and assisting in national and regional efforts to implement the Protocol, including helping to implement the Biosafety Clearing-House;

(c) Contributing to guidance on Protocol implementation issues;

(d) 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;

(e) Representing specialist or sectoral interests in relation to risk assessment and risk management issues;

(f) Reinforcing collaboration among capacity-building projects on biotechnology and biosafety in order to avoid duplication and to efficiently use the limited resources available;

(g) Associating with capacity-building initiatives, ensuring public participation and promoting public awareness on biosafety issues; and

(h) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities.

9. The role of private sector/industry:

(a) Participating in the effective implementation of the Protocol, including creation of awareness and provision of technical advice;

(b) Creating confidence with consumers;

(c) Developing techniques for identification, detection and analytical assessment and for monitoring;

(d) Developing systems for labeling, traceability and unique identifier;

(e) Improving capabilities of accessing and handling electronic information;

(f) Providing scholarships in the areas mentioned above;

(g) Undertaking risk assessment, and addressing information needs and concerns of industry;

(h) Associating with initiatives on capacity-building and sharing experience with risk assessment and management of LMOs; and

(i) Providing co-financing for capacity-building activities.

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 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 GMOs 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.

Annex III

IMPLEMENTATION TOOL KIT 4/

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:

B7 Administrative tasks (initial and future)

B7 Legal requirements and/or undertakings

B7 Procedural requirements (AIA and Article 11)

I. ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS

II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR UNDERTAKINGS

III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: ADVANCED INFORMED AGREEMENT

IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD, FEED OR FOR PROCESSING

Annex IV

A PRELIMINARY SET OF INDICATORS FOR THE ACTION PLAN TO BUILD CAPACITIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY

3  / UNEP/CBD/ICCP/3/6, annex II.