| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Capacity Building|Portal|Archive|Strategic Approaches (2012)|Discussion   Printer-friendly version

Return to the list of threads...
Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3024]
The current Action lists 15 priority areas requiring urgent action. The include: (a) Institutional capacity-building;(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 the general public; (f) Information exchange and data management, including full participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House;(g) Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at sub regional, regional and international levels; (h) Technology transfer; (i) Identification of living modified organisms, including their detection; (j) Socio-economic considerations; (k) Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol; (l) Handling of confidential information; (m) Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of living modified organisms; (n) Scientific biosafety research relating to living modified organisms; (o) The taking into account risks to human health.

In the draft report of the independent evaluation of the Action Plan, some respondents recommended that in order to make the Action Plan more relevant, it would be useful to have a more focused set of priorities rather than a long ‘laundry list’ of things that could be done.

In your view, what should be the top priority areas to be included in the revised Action Plan?

Please follow this link:  http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art22/cbforum2012_survey.shtml to make your selection and, if necessary, provide comments to explain your choice of priorities.
(edited on 2012-02-29 21:02 UTC by Mr. Erie Tamale)
posted on 2012-02-28 19:01 UTC by Mr. Erie Tamale, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3026]
Dear All
Thanks to the Secretariat for providing this online forum.
I join my colleagues Piet and John Komen to recognise that these online debates are not yet flooded and therefore for much input , i suggest a real time regional online conference on this topic.
Thanks to the report author for this important document.As suggested by Piet, i think that the evaluation report must be shorter to facilitate the reading.
For the efficacity of the current Strategic Plan ,i suggest a maximum of 10 priority areas to be manageable during 2010-2020.This would include mainly capacities building activities ( training workshops, sharing experiences, financial and materials supports etc. )as top priorities in the revised Action Plan
Best regards
Dr Gado
posted on 2012-03-01 12:32 UTC by Mr. Mahaman Gado Zaki, Niger
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3050]
I agree with Dr Gado. This is very much required to share the knowledge among different labs, across different countries genuinely. Countries like India , who are beginners in this field, may get some lessons and ideas from the experience of other countries where it is not at beginning stage. They have been consuming GM crops since long.  For India, Bt Brinjal has started the era of GM foods recently. So far only GM cotton was there as GM crop with which we have very good experience.
posted on 2012-03-06 11:47 UTC by Ms Varsha -, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and diagnostics
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3033]
Why dont we just focus on 7 areas that has already been identified in the strategic plan. Afterall there has been a severe shortage of funds nowdays!
posted on 2012-03-02 06:53 UTC by Mr. Ramatha Letchumanan, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3089]
My name is Johansen Voker, CPB Focal Point in Liberia. I participated in the short survey on this issue and indicated priority capacity needs for my country. I think this is an objective way of determining at broader global level what capacity needs to be addressed.
posted on 2012-03-09 18:50 UTC by Mr. Johansen T. Voker, Liberia
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3056]
First of all, I feel this conference is very relevant, and I would like to thank our colleagues at the CBD Secretariat for organizing. My wishes to people involved in drafting the report as it is in very simple language, understandable to all. I am scientist and work for Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics and I was involved in detection of GM crops in India.
I agree with Dr Erie Tamale. In my view, bio safety and human health should be the topmost priority area to be discussed in the revised Action Plan. It is not cotton which will be used to make outfits. What can be the long term effects of these GM foods. Mere experiments on rat or other animal model will not suffice the matter.
posted on 2012-03-07 06:31 UTC by Ms Varsha -, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and diagnostics
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3062]
Dear All!
My name is Andreas Heissenberger. I work for the Environment Agency Austria and have been involved in several capacity building activities in the past years. I also participate to the coordination meetings and the Liaison Group.

I have some difficulties in identifying priority areas out of the list included in the action plan for two reasons:

1) I guess priorities are and should be country specific, depending on policies and needs of the different beneficiaries of capacity building activities. So in my opinion a prioritization should be country driven taking into account the needs and requirements and cannot be done in a top-down fashion.

2) I also think that the different points included in the list as such are not easy to prioritize, as they are a mix of approaches, technical issues and more general topics referred to in the protocol. These topics cannot be dealt with in the same priority list as they are not on the same level. As an example risk assessment (point c of the list) can be included in capacity building projects by carrying out human –resources development (point b) and/or doing institutional capacity building (point a), and include taking into account risks to human health (point o) or not. The project itself may include information exchange (point f), and/or collaboration on a regional level (point g).
I hope that this example makes clear that for a prioritization we first need to separate the scientific/technical/regulatory issues from the target audience of the activities (e.g. governmental institutions and scientists) and from means of carrying out the activities. A prioritization then can be done for each of the groups, but as mentioned above should be done individually by the countries.

I also think that the list included in the action plan is a list of key elements and cannot just be reduced to the issues reflected in the strategic plan. However I also think that a revision of the Action Plan is necessary in order to reflect the objectives and outcomes listed in the strategic plan.

Best regards

Dr. Andreas Heissenberger, MA
Environment Agency Austria
Deputy Unit Head Landuse & Biosafety
(edited on 2012-03-07 15:29 UTC by Dr. Andreas Heissenberger)
posted on 2012-03-07 15:28 UTC by Dr. Andreas Heissenberger, Austria
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3065]
Dear All,

In my view the list of the priority areas involved in the Action plan for urgent actions should not be limited to a few once. It might be reviewed and completed in future under the new requirements and circumstances. A country driven approach for selection of immediate priorities specifically for each country is more appropriate, taking into consideration that countries and regions have a different level and effectiveness of biosafety systems. Selection of priorities also may depend from cultural, historical, economic circumstances and the perception character of biosafety in the country and should be considered by Parties. I agree with Andreas proposals in this regard.

Angela Lozan
(edited on 2012-03-08 09:40 UTC by Ms. Angela Lozan)
posted on 2012-03-08 09:36 UTC by Ms. Angela Lozan, Republic of Moldova
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3067]
My name is Hartmut Meyer, I work as a biosafety consultant for the German Organisation for International Cooperation (GIZ). Some of us have been involved in the revision of the Action Plan, during that discussions we already debated about the "laundry list" approach and the need for country specific measures. I still belief that the Action Plan needs to be as inclusive as possible. Its purpose is not to be used 1:1 by all countries but as guidance for activities that are shaped through national consultations and are based on country needs.

The Action Plan itself does not come with funds or a mechanism for implementation, it is up to the CPB member states to use the Action Plan. For me this is the week point. Being aware of the decreasing funds for biosafety capacity building it is high time to integrate biosafety as topic into ongoing (bilateral/regional) development cooperation and to establish biosafety as issue in national plans and strategies. We already discussed this issue some time ago in the Coordination Meetings. Without this integration I see little chances and no systematic approach to implement the Action Plan through national or regional activities.

With my best regards,
posted on 2012-03-08 13:37 UTC by Dr. Hartmut Meyer, Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
RE: Capacity-building priorities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [#3084]
Milena Roudna, former National UNEP/GEF Project Coordinator, adviser to the Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic
Only short remarks to priorities issue.
Priorities as such need to be realy the most urgent issues and therefore limited in number.
Due to differences between countries and regions, they are country driven.
Due to commitments related to the new Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol, liability and redress need to be consider.

With thanks for all effort of the Secretariat, collaborators and participants in the discussion,
Milena Roudna.
posted on 2012-03-09 07:36 UTC by Ph.D. Milena Roudna, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic