Third assessment and review of the Protocol and mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan 2011-2020

In its decision BS-V/16, the COP-MOP adopted the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011-2020.

Section II of the Strategic Plan provides that the mid-term evaluation process will use the indicators in the Strategic Plan to assess the extent to which the strategic objectives are being achieved and that information will be drawn mainly from the national reports and from other sources that are relevant and available to generate the data necessary for the analysis. The evaluation is to capture the effectiveness of the Strategic Plan and allow Parties to adapt to emerging trends in the implementation of the Protocol.

In its decision BS-V/16, the COP-MOP decided to conduct the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan five years after its adoption in conjunction with the third assessment and review scheduled to be conducted at the eighth meeting of the Parties (see also decision BS-V/15 on assessment and review of the Protocol).

In its decision BS-VII/3, the COP-MOP decided that the third assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol and mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan should draw upon available information from the third national reports as a primary source, the Biosafety Clearing-House where appropriate and that additional data may be collected through dedicated surveys. The COP-MOP requested the Executive Secretary to collect, compile and analyze the information.

The COP-MOP also requested the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, with contributions from the Liaison Group on Capacity-Building, to review the information compiled and analysed by the Secretariat, with a view to contributing to the third assessment and review of the Protocol and the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan and requested the Compliance Committee to provide input to the process.

The Compliance Committee, at its thirteenth meeting, provided input to the third assessment and review of the Protocol and the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan (see the report of the meeting) and the Liaison Group on Capacity Building for the Cartagena Protocol provided a contribution to this process at its eleventh meeting (see the report of the meeting). The Subsidiary Body on Implementation, at its first meeting, took note of the analysis prepared by the Secretariat, welcomed the input by the Compliance Committee and the contribution of the Liaison Group and adopted recommendation 1/3.

To facilitate the compilation and analysis of the data contained in the third national reports, an online analyzer tool was used. The tool was designed to facilitate the comparison of data provided in the third national reports with baseline
data provided in the second national reports and the Survey.

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 third 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, which was used to assess the progress in achieving the operational objectives of the Strategic Plan. The source of information is provided for the baseline and for the third 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 from the second national report and Q3 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q14, 15 and 16 from the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties reporting that a regulatory framework is fully in place and the number of Parties indicating that a regulatory framework is partially in place.
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, 51 and 54 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q26, 29, 47 and 50 from the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties that answered “Yes” to the relevant questions.
1.1.3 Percentage of Parties that have designated national focal points and competent national authorities	Baseline: Q100, Q116, Q117 and Q118 of the second national report Third reporting cycle: BCH on 31 December 2015 Analysis based on Parties answering “Yes” to the relevant question in the second national report, and on information in the BCH.
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 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q34 and 38 from the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties that answered “Yes” to the relevant question.
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 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q35 and 39 from the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties that answered “Yes” to the relevant question.
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 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q149 from the third national report
1.2.2 Percentage of the Parties that have developed national biosafety capacity-building action plans for implementing the Protocol	Baseline: Q148 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q153 from the third 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 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q155 from the third national report
1.2.4 Percentage of Parties that have in place national coordination mechanisms for biosafety capacity-building initiatives	Baseline: Q5 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q154 from the third national report
1.2.5 Amount of new and additional financial resources mobilized for the implementation of the Protocol	Baseline: Q6 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q203 from the third national report
1.2.6 Number of Parties that have predictable and reliable funding for strengthening their capacity in implementing the Protocol	Baseline: Q7 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q139 from the third national report
1.2.7 Number of Parties reporting that their capacity-building needs have been met	Baseline: Q146 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q151 from the third national report
1.2.8 Number of cooperative arrangements reported involving LMO exporting and importing Parties	Baseline: Q8 of the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q 72 and Q 73 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties reporting on the number of collaborative arrangements reported. Parties were required to respond in range of numbers, rather than exact numbers of such arrangements.
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) from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q85(a), 85(b), 82 and 86 from the third national report
1.3.2 Percentage of Parties adopting common approaches to risk assessment and risk management	Baseline: Q11 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q87 from the third national report
1.3.3 Percentage of Parties that undertake actual risk assessment pursuant to the Protocol	Baseline: Q12 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q89 from the third 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	N/A
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) from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q84(b) and 84(c) from the third 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 December 2011 Third reporting cycle: status on 17 February 2016
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 Third reporting cycle: Q201 of the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties indicating to have administrative or legal instruments that provide for response mechanisms for damage to biodiversity. More specific information was not provided.
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 Third reporting cycle: Q107 and Q108 of the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties responding “yes”.
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 Third reporting cycle: Q110 and Q112 of the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties responding “yes”.
1.6.3 Number of Parties with access to tools that are capable of detecting unauthorized LMOs.	Baseline: Q114 from the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q117 from the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes".
1.6.4 Number of Parties using guidance developed for the handling, transport and packaging of LMOs	Baseline: Q14 of the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q 114 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties reporting that such guidance is available. More specific information was not available.
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 Third reporting cycle: Q194 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties reporting on the number of research papers used.
1.7.2 Number of Parties reporting on their approaches to taking socioeconomic considerations into account	Baseline: Q15 of the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q 192 of the third 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 Third reporting cycle: Q193 and Q195 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties responding “Yes” and those responding “Only in some cases”.
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 Third reporting cycle: Q25 of the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties answering “Yes” and those answering “Yes, to some extent”.
1.8.2 Percentage of Parties having in place measures for contained use	Baseline: Q26 of the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q26 of the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties answering “Yes”.
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 Third reporting cycle: Q100 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties reporting that such guidance is available. More specific information was not available. The reporting format does not contain a question related to the use of guidelines. The Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms is curently working on the development of Guidance as requested in the Strategic Plan.
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 from the second national report and Q3 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q14, 15 and 16 from the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties indicating that a regulatory framework is fully in place and the number of Parties reporting that the framework has become operational.
2.1.2 Number of Parties with functional administrative arrangements	Baseline: Q17, Q18 and Q122 of the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q17, Q18 and Q124 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties answering “Yes” to the relevant questions.
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: BCH Third reporting cycle: BCH
2.2.2 Number of risk assessment summary reports in the BCH that are in compliance with the Protocol	Baseline: BCH Third reporting cycle: BCH
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) from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q79(a), 79(b) and 79(c) from the third national report
2.2.4 Number of Parties that have infrastructure, including laboratories for monitoring, management and control	Baseline: Q20 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q96 from the third national report
2.2.5 Number of Parties that are using the developed training materials and technical guidance	Baseline: Q21 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q80 and 81 from the third 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: Q22(a) from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q83 from the third national report
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 Q24 of the Survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q116 and Q118 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties reporting they have 1/10/50/100 or more customs officers and laboratory personnel trained
2.3.2 Percentage of Parties that have established or have reliable access to detection laboratories	Baseline: Q25 of the Survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q119 of the third national report Analysis based on the percentage of Parties that replied "Yes" to the relevant questions
2.3.3 National and regional laboratories certified with the capacity to detect LMOs	Baseline: Q26 of the Survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q120 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties reporting they have 1/10/50/100 or more laboratories in their country that are certified for LMO detection
2.3.4 Number of certified laboratories in operation	Baseline: Q27 of the Survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q121 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties of those reporting that they have certified laboratories also reporting they have 1/10/50/100 or more of those laboratories currently operating in the detection of LMOs
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 Third reporting cycle: Q200 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties responding “Yes”.
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 Third reporting cycle: Q201 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties responding “Yes”.
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 and Q155 of the second national report Third Reporting Cycle: Q165 and Q166 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes" and "Yes to some extent" to the relevant questions
2.5.2 Percentage of Parties that inform their public about existing modalities for participation	Baseline: Q30, Q31 and Q32 of the survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q167, Q168 and Q169 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes" and "Yes to some extent" to question Q30 of the survey and Q167 of the third national report. Analysis also based on the percentage of Parties reporting they use the following modalities: a national website, newspaper, forums, mailing lists and public hearings.
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 Third Reporting Cycle: Q162 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes" to the relevant questions
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: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
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 from non-(WEOG & Japan) countries Baseline: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
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 Third Reporting Cycle: Q171 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties of those reporting that they have biosafety education and training courses and programmes also reporting they have 1/3/5/10 or more of the courses and programmes.
2.7.2 Number of biosafety training materials and online modules available	Baseline: Q34 of the survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q172 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties of those reporting that they have biosafety training materials and online modules also reporting they have 1/5/10/25/100 or more of the materials and online modules.
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 Third reporting Cycle: Submissions made during the third 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 from the second national report and Q3 from the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 124 from the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties indicating that a regulatory framework is fully in place and the number of Parties reporting that the framework has become operational.
3.1.3 Percentage of Parties that designated all National Focal Points	Baseline: Q100, Q116 and Q117 of the second national report Third reporting cycle: BCH entries on 31 December 2015 Analysis of baseline based on percentage reporting “Yes” and of the third reporting cycle, of entries in the BCH at 31 December 2015
3.1.4 Number of Parties having in place a system for handling requests including for Advance Informed Agreement	Baseline: Q29, Q30, Q31, Q34, Q38, Q51, Q54, Q57, Q59 and Q60 of the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q29, Q30, Q34, Q35, Q47, Q50, Q52, Q54 and Q55 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties answering “Yes” or “Yes, to some extent” to the relevant questions.
3.1.5 Percentage of Parties that published all mandatory information via the BCH	Baseline: Q20, Q46, Q61, Q62, Q78, Q89 and Q124(h) Third reporting cycle: Q20, Q43, Q56, Q57, Q74, Q91 and Q126(h) of the third national report Analysis based on percentage of Parties answering positively to the relevant questions, as described in the text.
3.1.6 Number of Parties having in place a monitoring and enforcement system	Baseline: Q35 of the Survey Third reporting cycle: Q204 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties responding “Yes”.
3.1.7 Number of national reports received under each reporting cycle	Source: number of national reports submitted by the ‘cut off date’ for analysis Baseline: 31 December 2011 Third reporting Cycle: 31 December 2015
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 Third reporting cycle: Q139 and Q203 of the third national report Analysis based on the number of Parties responding “Yes” and on the number of Parties reporting to have received funding.
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 analysis Baseline: 31 December 2011 Third reporting Cycle: 31 December 2015
3.2.2 Number of Parties modifying their national biosafety frameworks to correspond with amendments to the Protocol adopted to address new challenges	Baseline: Q109 and 110 of the second national report Third reporting cycle: Q107 and 108 of the third national report In the absence of more specific information, analysis is based on Parties answering “yes”.
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; number of records submitted by Parties under “Country's Decision or any other Communication” with “Subject” including “Decision on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment (according Article 10 or domestic regulatory framework)” and/or “Decision on LMOs for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, LMOs-FFPs)” with at least one LMO and a risk assessment summary attached. Baseline: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
4.1.2 Number of publications contained in the Biosafety Information Resource Centre	Source: BCH; number of records available in the BCH-BIRC Baseline: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
4.1.3 Amount of traffic from users to the BCH	Source: Google Analytics; total visits and unique visitors per year Baseline: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
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: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
4.1.5 Number of countries with focal points registered on the BCH	Source: BCH Baseline: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
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: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
4.1.7 Number of AIA/domestic decisions available through BCH	Source: BCH; number of records submitted by Parties under “Country's Decision or any other Communication” with “Subject” including “Decision on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment (according Article 10 or domestic regulatory framework)” and/or “Decision on LMOs for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, LMOs-FFPs)” Baseline: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
4.1.8 Number of users of the BCH requesting improvement on accuracy, completeness or timeliness of information	Data 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 Third reporting cycle: 2013-2015
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 Third reporting cycle: 2013-2015
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 Third reporting cycle: 2013-2015
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 Third Reporting Cycle: Q132 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties of those reporting that they have events also reporting they have 5/10/25 or more of these events.
4.3.2 Number of biosafety related publications shared	Baseline: Q 37 and Q38 of the survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q133 and Q134 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties of those reporting that they have publications also reporting they have 1/10/50/100 or more of these publications.
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: Year 2011 Third reporting Cycle: Year 2015
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	Baseline: Q39 of the survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q163 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties of those reporting that they have publications also reporting they have 1/5/10/25 or more of these publications.
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 and Q41 of the survey Third Reporting Cycle: Q160 and Q161 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes" to the relevant questions. Analysis also based on free text.
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 Third Reporting Cycle: Q159 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes" to the relevant questions. Analysis also based on free text.
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 Third Reporting Cycle: Q162 of the third national report Analysis based on number of Parties that answered "Yes" to the relevant questions. Analysis also based on free text.
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 Third Reporting Cycle: Q172 of the third national report Analysis based on the aggregate number of Parties reporting that they have educational material also reporting that they have 1/5/10/25/100 or more of those materials

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.

Return to 3rd assessment and review