Topic 3: Building a community of practice- Lessons learned and opportunities

Dear participants,

My Name is Thato Mogapi from South Africa and I am the Moderator for this Online Forum. I am the National Focal Point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, based at the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment.

Please be reminded to briefly introduce yourself when posting your first message, including your name, title, country, institutional affiliation and current responsibilities.

Please also keep your messages short, concise and focussed, for the discussion topic.

Kindly refer to the guidelines and modalities for the Forum to ensure that your messages are consistent and relevant for the discussion topic. These are available on the Forum page.

Looking forward to your contributions for this discussion topic.

Kind regards
Ms Thato Mogapi

Dear colleagues

We are about midway into the discussions. I see there are no responses to the questions under this topic yet. Please remember to contribute to this topic as well. We would like to hear your views on:
1. How you have used the Roster of Experts. As a reminder, the mandate of the Roster is to "provide advice and other support, as appropriate and upon request, to developing country Parties 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 living modified organisms".

If you have not used the Roster of Experts, please feel free to share any challenges, limitations, and suggestions for improvement.

2. The importance of networking opportunities for improving capacity-building. Please provide examples of how such networks have improved capacity-building in your country.

3. Types of cooperation efforts that could help build synergies and share expertise. Please share any examples or lessons learned from past experiences.

Looking forward to your contributions on this topic.

Kind regards
Ms Thato Mogapi

My name is Farah Aligour, NFP for BCH in Trinidad and Tobago working at Ministry of Agriculture, Research Division.

The expert listed for my country is someone I work closely with. This individual has been instrumental in the planning and execution of our national biosafety projects. Their technical support has been especially valuable in areas such as stakeholder training, project proposal development, and reviewing drafts of our national biosafety documents. However, I have not yet reached out to any experts outside of my country.

Networking will in fact enhance capacity-building. For example, participating in workshops and technical webinars has allowed us to learn directly from other countries’ experiences in planning for the development of administrative systems and risk assessment frameworks. Networking also presents the opportunity for peer support, which is often just as valuable as formal training.

Promoting regional partnerships can be very effective, especially among countries with similar regulatory gaps and development levels. Joint training programs, shared experts, and regional technical working groups could help pool limited resources and reduce duplication of efforts. For instance, participating in a regional initiative helped us advance our technical capacity and understanding, putting us in a better place for further action.

Dear Ms. Farah Aligour,

Thank you very much for sharing on your country's interaction with the expert listed on the Roster of Experts, and your views on the opportunities that exist through networking and regional partnerships.

kind regards
Thato

Esteemed colleagues, 

I am Gabriel Mutis from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development in Colombia. In contributing to the discussion, I do use the roster of experts, and I am in contact with various experts listed on the roster. I recognize that it is a resource I should engage with more consistently to strengthen collaboration and information exchange.

On the other hand, networking opportunities are a key factor in facilitating the exchange of technical knowledge, regulatory frameworks, and best practice guidelines among Parties, organizations, and experts. This is particularly valuable for Parties with limited resources or those developing their biosafety frameworks.

Examples of the above could be international workshops organized by the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) or meetings of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Groups (AHTEGs) under the Convention on Biological Diversity. These forums provide not only training and opportunities for technical dialogue and negotiation but also serve as platforms for establishing long-term collaborations. Through these interactions, parties can initiate technical exchanges, coordinate joint training activities, and identify potential partnerships for funding and implementation of biosafety capacity-building initiati

Bonjour Mme Farah
Je m'appelle M. KAKPO Comlan Marcel, Expert Biosécurité, Ancien Point Focal National du Protocole de Cartagena, République du Bénin,Afrique
Je vous félicite pour cette expérience que vous partagez sur l'utilisation des experts. Votre approche doit servir d'exemple de bonne pratique pour les autres points focaux. Les experts sont à la disposition des Points focaux nationaux d'aujourd'hui et de demain afin d'atteindre les objectifs de la mise en oeuvre du Protocole.
Bonne continuation
Cordialement

1. Utilisez-vous le Répertoire des experts ? Si oui, veuillez fournir des détails.

Je suis M. KAKPO Comlan Marcel, Expert Biosécurité, Ancien Point Focal National du Protocole de Cartagena.

Le poste de Point Focal National est un poste dont les ressources humaines sont changées par affectation ou le départ à la retraite. Il faut signaler que certains remplaçants des Points Focaux Nationaux ne savent même pas qu’il existe des Experts nationaux de Biosécurité auxquels ils peuvent faire appel pour les appuyer dans la réalisation des activités dans le cadre de mise en œuvre du Protocole.
L’exemple de Mme Farah Aligour, de Trinité-et-Tobago est à saluer et à encourager.
Il serait souhaitable que le Secrétariat du Protocole attire l’attention des Points Focaux Nationaux d'aujourd'hui et de demain sur cet aspect.

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for sharing your views and experiences.

It will be great to hear from other colleagues. Please feel free to share experiences from your country or organisation.

Kind Regards
Ms Thato Mogapi

You're most welcome Ms. Thato Mogapi.
The recently concluded regional biosafety project brought several benefits; however, some shortcomings were observed. One key issue was that countries were at varying levels of readiness to implement the project components. Additionally, national coordination presented unique challenges in each country, as could be expected. For instance, only one country was able to make significant progress in advancing its biosafety legislation, while others continued to face difficulties.
In light of these challenges, what strategies do you think could be adopted in the next phase to ensure better alignment and support across countries?

Je suis M. KAKPO Comlan Marcel, Expert en Biosécurité, Ancien Point Focal National du Protocole de Cartagena de la République du Bénin

2. Selon vous, les opportunités de réseautage sont-elles importantes pour améliorer le renforcement des capacités ? Si oui, donnez des exemples.

Les opportunités de réseautage sont importantes. Car elles permettent de solliciter les Experts des autres pays qui sont en avance dans la biosécurité et la biotechnologie. Dans l’UEMOA par exemple, seul le Burkina Faso qui a introduit les OVM. Pour la formation des experts des autres pays membres, l’UEMOA faisaient prioritairement appel aux Experts du Burkina Faso. Les visites de terrain étaient faites en majorité au Burkina Faso.

3. Quels types d’efforts de coopération pourraient favoriser les synergies et le partage d’expertise (par exemple, promotion de partenariats) ? Veuillez fournir plus de détails.

Pouvez-vous partager des exemples ou des leçons tirées d’expériences passées ?

Les types de partenariats régionaux ou sous-régionaux pourraient favoriser les synergies et le partage d’expertises. L’exemple de l’UEMOA qui regroupe huit (8) pays qui a formé plusieurs Experts. Il faut également signaler l’exemple de la Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO)  qui a aujourd’hui un règlement unique sur la biosécurité dont la mise en œuvre sollicitera les experts des différents pays.

Je remercie le Secrétariat  et particulièrement Mme Ulrika Nilsson pour m'avoir permis de participer à ce forum. Mes remerciements vont également à Mme Thato Mogapi, la Modératrice.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF ANNAH TAKOMBWA, ZIMBABWE

I am Annah Takombwa and I work for the National Biotechnology Authority (NBA) in Zimbabwe. NBA is the National Competent Authority for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Networking opportunities are very important for improving capacity building. I had the privilege of participating in the African Union - African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA) Plant Breeding Innovation Policy Dialogue from 5 to 6 March 2025 in Kigali, Rwanda. The event provided a platform for regulators and industry to discuss issues to do with enhancing regulatory systems for seamless approvals of plant breeding innovations and production of products which meet regulatory requirements. The industry stressed the need for regulatory certainty, predictability and certainty to promote innovation. It was emphasised that strong and functional regulatory systems with frameworks for data transportability (e.g., mutual recognition agreements) to shorten regulatory approval periods should be put in place. The regulatory frameworks should be grounded on science and harmonized across the continent.

Please find here my comprehensive response to Topic 3:

Building a community of practice- Lessons learned and opportunities

Introduction

In an increasingly interconnected world, the regulation of biosafety particularly in the context of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) requires more than just national capacity. It calls for collaborative networks, shared expertise, and structured cooperation. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety recognized this need early on, establishing mechanisms like the Roster of Experts and promoting regional and international cooperation.

As countries work to strengthen their biosafety systems, building a community of practice has become a critical strategy. This community brings together regulators, scientists, legal experts, and communicators to exchange knowledge, review applications, and build trust across borders.

In this presentation, I will reflect on how tools like the Roster of Experts have been used, the role of networking in building capacity, and the types of cooperation that have helped foster regional synergies. Drawing on real-world examples and lessons learned, we’ll explore opportunities for making biosafety governance more effective, inclusive, and sustainable


A. Do you use the Roster of Experts? If so, please provide details

Yes, I do make use of the Roster of Experts, and so do many of the regulatory establishments I’ve worked with through my agency. However, it's important to note that not all parties actively use it, despite its significant potential.

For those who do, the Roster has proven to be an invaluable tool, offering:

• Access to independent and specialized technical expertise to support biosafety decision-making;
• A means to strengthen national and institutional capacity, particularly where in-house expertise is limited;
• Support for developing countries to make informed, science-based decisions under the Cartagena Protocol.

At the same time, some concerns have been raised about the Roster’s operational challenges. These include:

• The need for more frequent updates to ensure experts listed reflect current knowledge and active engagement;
• The fact that national scientific committee members are not always included, even when they are actively engaged in biosafety work;
• A lack of periodic training and capacity-building workshops for experts already listed, which affects the relevance of their contributions.

Further, while the Roster allows countries to nominate national experts, some governments do not make nominations often due to limited resources or weak institutional coordination.

To enhance its effectiveness, there are key operational principles that should be observed:

• Clear terms of engagement for experts, whether engaged individually or through institutions;
• Conflict of interest safeguards, ensuring that affiliations with applicants are disclosed and managed;
• Gender and regional equity, to promote inclusive and credible decision-making.

In conclusion, while the Roster of Experts is a valuable mechanism under the Protocol, it requires stronger political will, continuous updating, and investment in capacity-building to realize its full potential for all Parties.

B. In your opinion, are networking opportunities important for improving capacity-building? If so, please provide examples.

Networking is vital for capacity building, as it enables the achievement of several key outcomes, including:

• Facilitation of Knowledge and Experience Sharing:
Networking connects regulators, researchers, legal experts, and policymakers from different countries or institutions, enabling them to exchange experiences, lessons learned, and emerging insights in biosafety.
• Promotion of Cross-Border Collaboration:
Many biosafety challenges such as the transboundary movement of GMOs or efforts toward regional regulatory harmonization require coordinated and cooperative approaches. Networking provides a platform for such collaboration and mutual support.
• Enhanced Access to Expertise and Mentorship:
Through regional and global biosafety platforms, stakeholders can connect with rostered experts, peer reviewers, and mentors, thereby building internal capacity and strengthening decision-making processes.
• Stimulation of Innovation and Adoption of Best Practices:
The exchange of regulatory strategies, legal interpretations, and risk communication models encourages adaptive learning, fosters innovation, and promotes the application of context-relevant best practices.

Examples of Effective Networking

1. African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE)

The African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE), hosted by AUDA-NEPAD, serves as a critical platform for African biosafety regulators to network, receive training, and learn from one another. Its mission is to support the development and strengthening of functional, science-based biosafety systems across the continent.
One of ABNE’s core roles is to support the development of national biosafety frameworks. This includes assisting countries in drafting or revising biosafety laws, regulatory guidelines, and institutional arrangements. ABNE also provides technical assistance in reviewing biosafety applications and conducting robust risk assessments, helping countries make informed and confident regulatory decisions.

ABNE offers technical training and workshops that build the capacity of regulators, policymakers, and legal professionals. These sessions are complemented by the provision of technical resources, including access to regulatory templates, decision-making tools, and databases. In addition, ABNE publishes policy briefs, case studies, and analytical reports to guide and inform national regulatory actions.

Recognizing the fast-evolving nature of biotechnology, ABNE also plays a vital role in building regulatory capacity for emerging technologies. These include genome editing, synthetic biology, and other modern biotechnologies. The network equips regulators with the knowledge and tools to understand and manage these innovations responsibly and in alignment with international standards.

Furthermore, ABNE is instrumental in facilitating peer learning and professional networking among regulators across Africa. It regularly organizes retreats, exchange visits, and regional workshops, creating opportunities for cross-country collaboration and experience sharing. This has significantly contributed to regional harmonization of biosafety approaches and the growth of communities of practice that reinforce regulatory confidence and consistency across borders.

ABNE has actively supported numerous countries across Sub-Saharan Africa in strengthening their biosafety regulatory systems. For example, it has engaged with Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, providing tailored support based on national needs. These countries have benefited in various ways including the development or revision of national biosafety frameworks, technical assistance in conducting risk assessments, and participation in peer-learning exchanges and regional workshops. Through these diverse efforts, ABNE continues to foster a harmonized and collaborative biosafety landscape across the continent.

2. BCH (Biosafety Clearing-House) Online Forums & Regional Workshops.

The CBD Secretariat often organizes BCH capacity-building workshops, bringing together focal points and experts. These forums allow sharing national case studies, regulatory updates, and implementation challenges.

3. COMESA, SADC, ECOWAS, UEMOU & EAC Regional Biosafety Frameworks.
Regional economic blocs such as ECOWAS and UEMOU, COMESA and EAC have facilitated joint trainings and biosafety regulatory harmonization initiatives.
4. UNEP-GEF Biosafety Projects
These UNEP-GEF projects fund national and regional workshops that serve as networking hubs. One such activity was the training on Risk Assessment organised in partnership with AUDA-NEPAD in the year 2022 for West Africa Francophone Speaking countries.

5. Academic and Resource Networks,

Universities, think tanks, provide intellectual platforms for joint publications, student exchange, technology transfer and regulatory innovation. ABNE over there years has collaborated closely with select Universities in sub-Saharan Africa to role out Biosafety short programs for regulators and Policy makers. The University of East Lagon-Ghana, University of Boubou Dilassou-Burkina Fasso, and Makerere University-Uganda provided that platform and the results of this training were astonishing across the region in shaping the biosafety regulatory landscape.
In biosafety regulation, networking is indispensable for capacity building. Today we witness in Sub-Saharan Africa that countries that have developed genome editing guidelines have often done so by interacting with or benchmarking against countries in the region that have successfully developed similar frameworks. These peer engagements have provided valuable insights, fostered technical confidence, and accelerated the development of context-appropriate regulatory tools.

C. What types of cooperation efforts could help build synergies and share expertise (e.g., promoting partnerships)? Please provide more details.
        Can you share any examples or lessons learned from past experiences?

Cooperation efforts are central to building synergies and sharing expertise in biosafety and biotechnology regulation, especially in resource-constrained settings. Countries that lack sufficient infrastructure or expertise benefit greatly from structured partnerships, regional collaboration, and knowledge exchange platforms.

1. South–South and Regional Cooperation

Countries with similar regulatory challenges especially in Africa, Asia, Latin America have collaborated closely to share practical knowledge. These include joint field trials, mutual reviews, or regional training workshops.
Example: Physical and Virtual Study tours to India, Bangladesh, Argentina and Brazil organised for Regulators from Africa by AUDA-NEPAD in partnership Michigan State University(MSU) under its flagship International program the WorldTAP. This has trained and build capacity, and transferred technology that supports agricultural and biosafety competency development around the globe. This initiative has conducted tailored training in biotechnology, biosafety, food safety, and technology transfer, benefiting thousands of professionals from Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

2. Bilateral Institutional Partnerships

• National Competent Authorities (NCAs) can partner with more established biosafety authorities or research institutions to:
o Share regulatory templates,
o Provide peer review,
o Conduct joint risk assessments.
Example: Regulatory Agencies in Africa learning visits to among themselves. A case in point here was the partnership between Nigeria and Burkina Faso, Ghana and Burkina Faso. These happened since Burkina Faso in the region with they had already environmentally released Bt. Cotton and they too were in the process of harnessing the technology. There was bilateral partnership between Malawi and Nigeria with specific in Bt. Cowpea. Malawi needed to learn and tap from Nigeria knowledge on risk assessment on Bt. Cowpea resistant to the Pod borer.
Example: Regulators have benefited from cross-border learning. Kenya research scientists and with their Ugandan counterparts have collaborated closely on environmental risk assessments of GM maize or Cassava (VIRCA). This collaboration provided a new impetus minimizing costs and sharing the limited resources available.

3. Technical Cooperation via International Organizations and Learning Institutions
• Organizations like:
o UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme),
o AUDA-NEPAD,
o FAO and WHO,
o CBD Secretariat through its Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH),
o Michigan State University (MSU)
The technical cooperation from these Organisations have facilitated structured capacity-building projects and knowledge transfer to parties to the Convention and its Protocols.
Example: AUDA-NEPAD partnered with UNITAR (United Nations Institute for Training and Research) in training of African Group of Negotiators developing their skills in the art of international negotiations. This capacity development today has proved a success for the African Group of Negotiators at subsequent meetings of the CBD COP-MOPs.

4. Public–Private Partnerships (PPP)

Governments can partner with biotech companies, seed associations, or research institutions provided such engagements are transparent and governed by conflict-of-interest safeguards to:
o Improve detection laboratories,
o Pilot regulatory tools,
o Access advanced biotechnology training.

5. Academic and Research Networks

Collaborations with universities or biosciences hubs such as have been effective in not oly developing capacities for a wide range of key stakeholder but also held attracted investment to the development of infrastructure in research which provided an enabling environment for R&D and subsequent technology development.
• International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),
• African Biosciences Hubs (e.g., BecA-ILRI in Nairobi)
allow countries to train regulators, researchers, in modern biosafety topics like genome editing and some of the new emerging technologies in biosciences.

6. Knowledge Platforms and Digital Communities

Knowledge platforms have kept regulators resource experts updated and allows peer learning in real time. Participation in forums like:
o Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH),
o African Biosafety Communication Network,
o LinkedIn professional groups, or
o Regional biosafety listservs,
o African Biosafety Lawyers Network

Examples and Lessons Learned from Past Cooperation

Example 1: COMESA Regional Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy (COMBIP)
• Aimed to harmonize GMO policy framework across the 21 member states in the East and Southern Africa.
• Brought together regulators from Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, and others.
• Lesson: A common Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy for the economic bloc was developed approved to boost consistency, amidst differences in legal systems.

Example 2: Ghana–Nigeria–Malawi Joint Learning on Bt. Cowpea and Cassava
• Countries shared experience on stakeholder engagement and approval processes.
• Ghana approved Bt. cowpea and Bt. Cotton after consultations with counterparts.
• Nigeria approved Bt. Cotton after consultation with counterparts
• Malawi approved Bt. Cowpea after consultation with counterparts in Nigeria
• Lesson: Peer learning accelerated decision-making and reduced public fear when backed by science and regional support.

Example 3: ECOWAS Region on Regional Biosafety Regulation and other instruments incidental thereto for implementing the Regulation.
• The fifteen (15) member states aimed at developing and harmonised regulations binding to all the member States.
• This was achieved and subsequent to that, implementing instruments to the Regulation were also developed.
• Lessons learnt: Instead of duplicating efforts, countries can pool scientific, legal, and technical expertise. This approach reduces individual country costs and builds a stronger cadre of regional experts.
o Regional Collaboration Enhances Policy Coherence
o Collective Negotiation Increases Bargaining Power
o Resource Optimization through Shared Expertise

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the regulation of biosafety in Africa and globally can no longer be seen as the sole responsibility of individual nations. As we have seen, tools such as the Roster of Experts, regional frameworks, and targeted capacity-building efforts have played a vital role in supporting sound, science-based biosafety decisions.
Networking and structured cooperation have proven indispensable, enabling countries to share expertise, bridge capacity gaps, and respond collectively to evolving biotechnological challenges. Regional efforts such as those by ECOWAS, and support platforms like AUDA-NEPAD’s ABNE and MSU’s WorldTAP, demonstrate how shared vision and mutual support can lead to real regulatory progress.
To move forward, we must deepen these collaborations, ensure regular updating and engagement of expert rosters, promote inclusive participation including gender and regional balance and remain open to innovation. In doing so, we can ensure that biosafety governance remains robust, transparent, and adaptive to the realities of our interconnected world.

Mr. Akile Sunday Igu Rocks
Senior Program Officer- Legal/Policy on Biosafety Issues
African Union Development Agency-NEPAD

Hi Ms. Thato,

Kindly confirm receipt of my post (Akile Sunday Igu Rocks) on Topic 3. Ref. #12753. Just in case,....so that i can repost before the close of business today.
Regards,
Akile

Please find here my comprehensive response to Topic 3:

Building a community of practice- Lessons learned and opportunities

Introduction

In an increasingly interconnected world, the regulation of biosafety particularly in the context of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) requires more than just national capacity. It calls for collaborative networks, shared expertise, and structured cooperation. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety recognized this need early on, establishing mechanisms like the Roster of Experts and promoting regional and international cooperation.

As countries work to strengthen their biosafety systems, building a community of practice has become a critical strategy. This community brings together regulators, scientists, legal experts, and communicators to exchange knowledge, review applications, and build trust across borders.

In this presentation, I will reflect on how tools like the Roster of Experts have been used, the role of networking in building capacity, and the types of cooperation that have helped foster regional synergies. Drawing on real-world examples and lessons learned, we’ll explore opportunities for making biosafety governance more effective, inclusive, and sustainable


A. Do you use the Roster of Experts? If so, please provide details

Yes, I do make use of the Roster of Experts, and so do many of the regulatory establishments I’ve worked with through my agency. However, it's important to note that not all parties actively use it, despite its significant potential.

For those who do, the Roster has proven to be an invaluable tool, offering:

• Access to independent and specialized technical expertise to support biosafety decision-making;
• A means to strengthen national and institutional capacity, particularly where in-house expertise is limited;
• Support for developing countries to make informed, science-based decisions under the Cartagena Protocol.

At the same time, some concerns have been raised about the Roster’s operational challenges. These include:

• The need for more frequent updates to ensure experts listed reflect current knowledge and active engagement;
• The fact that national scientific committee members are not always included, even when they are actively engaged in biosafety work;
• A lack of periodic training and capacity-building workshops for experts already listed, which affects the relevance of their contributions.

Further, while the Roster allows countries to nominate national experts, some governments do not make nominations often due to limited resources or weak institutional coordination.

To enhance its effectiveness, there are key operational principles that should be observed:

• Clear terms of engagement for experts, whether engaged individually or through institutions;
• Conflict of interest safeguards, ensuring that affiliations with applicants are disclosed and managed;
• Gender and regional equity, to promote inclusive and credible decision-making.

In conclusion, while the Roster of Experts is a valuable mechanism under the Protocol, it requires stronger political will, continuous updating, and investment in capacity-building to realize its full potential for all Parties.

B. In your opinion, are networking opportunities important for improving capacity-building? If so, please provide examples.

Networking is vital for capacity building, as it enables the achievement of several key outcomes, including:

• Facilitation of Knowledge and Experience Sharing:
Networking connects regulators, researchers, legal experts, and policymakers from different countries or institutions, enabling them to exchange experiences, lessons learned, and emerging insights in biosafety.
• Promotion of Cross-Border Collaboration:
Many biosafety challenges such as the transboundary movement of GMOs or efforts toward regional regulatory harmonization require coordinated and cooperative approaches. Networking provides a platform for such collaboration and mutual support.
• Enhanced Access to Expertise and Mentorship:
Through regional and global biosafety platforms, stakeholders can connect with rostered experts, peer reviewers, and mentors, thereby building internal capacity and strengthening decision-making processes.
• Stimulation of Innovation and Adoption of Best Practices:
The exchange of regulatory strategies, legal interpretations, and risk communication models encourages adaptive learning, fosters innovation, and promotes the application of context-relevant best practices.

Examples of Effective Networking

1. African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE)

The African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE), hosted by AUDA-NEPAD, serves as a critical platform for African biosafety regulators to network, receive training, and learn from one another. Its mission is to support the development and strengthening of functional, science-based biosafety systems across the continent.
One of ABNE’s core roles is to support the development of national biosafety frameworks. This includes assisting countries in drafting or revising biosafety laws, regulatory guidelines, and institutional arrangements. ABNE also provides technical assistance in reviewing biosafety applications and conducting robust risk assessments, helping countries make informed and confident regulatory decisions.

ABNE offers technical training and workshops that build the capacity of regulators, policymakers, and legal professionals. These sessions are complemented by the provision of technical resources, including access to regulatory templates, decision-making tools, and databases. In addition, ABNE publishes policy briefs, case studies, and analytical reports to guide and inform national regulatory actions.

Recognizing the fast-evolving nature of biotechnology, ABNE also plays a vital role in building regulatory capacity for emerging technologies. These include genome editing, synthetic biology, and other modern biotechnologies. The network equips regulators with the knowledge and tools to understand and manage these innovations responsibly and in alignment with international standards.

Furthermore, ABNE is instrumental in facilitating peer learning and professional networking among regulators across Africa. It regularly organizes retreats, exchange visits, and regional workshops, creating opportunities for cross-country collaboration and experience sharing. This has significantly contributed to regional harmonization of biosafety approaches and the growth of communities of practice that reinforce regulatory confidence and consistency across borders.

ABNE has actively supported numerous countries across Sub-Saharan Africa in strengthening their biosafety regulatory systems. For example, it has engaged with Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, providing tailored support based on national needs. These countries have benefited in various ways including the development or revision of national biosafety frameworks, technical assistance in conducting risk assessments, and participation in peer-learning exchanges and regional workshops. Through these diverse efforts, ABNE continues to foster a harmonized and collaborative biosafety landscape across the continent.

2. BCH (Biosafety Clearing-House) Online Forums & Regional Workshops.

The CBD Secretariat often organizes BCH capacity-building workshops, bringing together focal points and experts. These forums allow sharing national case studies, regulatory updates, and implementation challenges.

3. COMESA, SADC, ECOWAS, UEMOU & EAC Regional Biosafety Frameworks.
Regional economic blocs such as ECOWAS and UEMOU, COMESA and EAC have facilitated joint trainings and biosafety regulatory harmonization initiatives.
4. UNEP-GEF Biosafety Projects
These UNEP-GEF projects fund national and regional workshops that serve as networking hubs. One such activity was the training on Risk Assessment organised in partnership with AUDA-NEPAD in the year 2022 for West Africa Francophone Speaking countries.

5. Academic and Resource Networks,

Universities, think tanks, provide intellectual platforms for joint publications, student exchange, technology transfer and regulatory innovation. ABNE over there years has collaborated closely with select Universities in sub-Saharan Africa to role out Biosafety short programs for regulators and Policy makers. The University of East Lagon-Ghana, University of Boubou Dilassou-Burkina Fasso, and Makerere University-Uganda provided that platform and the results of this training were astonishing across the region in shaping the biosafety regulatory landscape.
In biosafety regulation, networking is indispensable for capacity building. Today we witness in Sub-Saharan Africa that countries that have developed genome editing guidelines have often done so by interacting with or benchmarking against countries in the region that have successfully developed similar frameworks. These peer engagements have provided valuable insights, fostered technical confidence, and accelerated the development of context-appropriate regulatory tools.

C. What types of cooperation efforts could help build synergies and share expertise (e.g., promoting partnerships)? Please provide more details.
   Can you share any examples or lessons learned from past experiences?

Cooperation efforts are central to building synergies and sharing expertise in biosafety and biotechnology regulation, especially in resource-constrained settings. Countries that lack sufficient infrastructure or expertise benefit greatly from structured partnerships, regional collaboration, and knowledge exchange platforms.

1. South–South and Regional Cooperation

Countries with similar regulatory challenges especially in Africa, Asia, Latin America have collaborated closely to share practical knowledge. These include joint field trials, mutual reviews, or regional training workshops.
Example: Physical and Virtual Study tours to India, Bangladesh, Argentina and Brazil organised for Regulators from Africa by AUDA-NEPAD in partnership Michigan State University(MSU) under its flagship International program the WorldTAP. This has trained and build capacity, and transferred technology that supports agricultural and biosafety competency development around the globe. This initiative has conducted tailored training in biotechnology, biosafety, food safety, and technology transfer, benefiting thousands of professionals from Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

2. Bilateral Institutional Partnerships

• National Competent Authorities (NCAs) can partner with more established biosafety authorities or research institutions to:
o Share regulatory templates,
o Provide peer review,
o Conduct joint risk assessments.
Example: Regulatory Agencies in Africa learning visits to among themselves. A case in point here was the partnership between Nigeria and Burkina Faso, Ghana and Burkina Faso. These happened since Burkina Faso in the region with they had already environmentally released Bt. Cotton and they too were in the process of harnessing the technology. There was bilateral partnership between Malawi and Nigeria with specific in Bt. Cowpea. Malawi needed to learn and tap from Nigeria knowledge on risk assessment on Bt. Cowpea resistant to the Pod borer.
Example: Regulators have benefited from cross-border learning. Kenya research scientists and with their Ugandan counterparts have collaborated closely on environmental risk assessments of GM maize or Cassava (VIRCA). This collaboration provided a new impetus minimizing costs and sharing the limited resources available.

3. Technical Cooperation via International Organizations and Learning Institutions
• Organizations like:
o UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme),
o AUDA-NEPAD,
o FAO and WHO,
o CBD Secretariat through its Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH),
o Michigan State University (MSU)
The technical cooperation from these Organisations have facilitated structured capacity-building projects and knowledge transfer to parties to the Convention and its Protocols.
Example: AUDA-NEPAD partnered with UNITAR (United Nations Institute for Training and Research) in training of African Group of Negotiators developing their skills in the art of international negotiations. This capacity development today has proved a success for the African Group of Negotiators at subsequent meetings of the CBD COP-MOPs.

4. Public–Private Partnerships (PPP)

Governments can partner with biotech companies, seed associations, or research institutions provided such engagements are transparent and governed by conflict-of-interest safeguards to:
o Improve detection laboratories,
o Pilot regulatory tools,
o Access advanced biotechnology training.

5. Academic and Research Networks

Collaborations with universities or biosciences hubs such as have been effective in not oly developing capacities for a wide range of key stakeholder but also held attracted investment to the development of infrastructure in research which provided an enabling environment for R&D and subsequent technology development.
• International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),
• African Biosciences Hubs (e.g., BecA-ILRI in Nairobi)
allow countries to train regulators, researchers, in modern biosafety topics like genome editing and some of the new emerging technologies in biosciences.

6. Knowledge Platforms and Digital Communities

Knowledge platforms have kept regulators resource experts updated and allows peer learning in real time. Participation in forums like:
o Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH),
o African Biosafety Communication Network,
o LinkedIn professional groups, or
o Regional biosafety listservs,
o African Biosafety Lawyers Network

Examples and Lessons Learned from Past Cooperation

Example 1: COMESA Regional Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy (COMBIP)
• Aimed to harmonize GMO policy framework across the 21 member states in the East and Southern Africa.
• Brought together regulators from Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, and others.
• Lesson: A common Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy for the economic bloc was developed approved to boost consistency, amidst differences in legal systems.

Example 2: Ghana–Nigeria–Malawi Joint Learning on Bt. Cowpea and Cassava
• Countries shared experience on stakeholder engagement and approval processes.
• Ghana approved Bt. cowpea and Bt. Cotton after consultations with counterparts.
• Nigeria approved Bt. Cotton after consultation with counterparts
• Malawi approved Bt. Cowpea after consultation with counterparts in Nigeria
• Lesson: Peer learning accelerated decision-making and reduced public fear when backed by science and regional support.

Example 3: ECOWAS Region on Regional Biosafety Regulation and other instruments incidental thereto for implementing the Regulation.
• The fifteen (15) member states aimed at developing and harmonised regulations binding to all the member States.
• This was achieved and subsequent to that, implementing instruments to the Regulation were also developed.
• Lessons learnt: Instead of duplicating efforts, countries can pool scientific, legal, and technical expertise. This approach reduces individual country costs and builds a stronger cadre of regional experts.
o Regional Collaboration Enhances Policy Coherence
o Collective Negotiation Increases Bargaining Power
o Resource Optimization through Shared Expertise

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the regulation of biosafety in Africa and globally can no longer be seen as the sole responsibility of individual nations. As we have seen, tools such as the Roster of Experts, regional frameworks, and targeted capacity-building efforts have played a vital role in supporting sound, science-based biosafety decisions.
Networking and structured cooperation have proven indispensable, enabling countries to share expertise, bridge capacity gaps, and respond collectively to evolving biotechnological challenges. Regional efforts such as those by ECOWAS, and support platforms like AUDA-NEPAD’s ABNE and MSU’s WorldTAP, demonstrate how shared vision and mutual support can lead to real regulatory progress.
To move forward, we must deepen these collaborations, ensure regular updating and engagement of expert rosters, promote inclusive participation including gender and regional balance and remain open to innovation. In doing so, we can ensure that biosafety governance remains robust, transparent, and adaptive to the realities of our interconnected world.

Mr. Akile Sunday Igu Rocks
Senior Program Officer- Legal/Policy on Biosafety Issues
African Union Development Agency-NEPAD

1- No.

2- For Argentina networking opportunities are important in order to share information, background and knowledge. However, It´s important that the experts involve in the networking have proven experience and the information shared is verified and validated by the countries and their regulations.

3- Training courses,, partnerships and common activities could be useful.

Dear colleagues,

I’m Consuelo López López,  I am a Director of Information and Research Promotion of the Executive Secretariat of Cibiogem in Mexico, and NFP of Biosafety Clearing House. First, I'd like to thank the people who coordinate this online forum.

Regarding the first question, Mexico has not made use of the Roster of Experts, considering that it is not in force. To date, in response to Goal A.2 of the Action Plan, efforts are being made to update it, considering experts on LMO biosafety, biotechnology and socio-economic considerations relating to LMO. This information will be available on the Cibiogem website, as well as in the Mexico BCH profile.

1. Le Burkina Faso, n'utilise pas la liste des experts. Pendant longtemps, nous étions le seul pays Francophone à participer aux activités organisées sur la biotechnologie et la biosécurité en Afrique. La barrière linguistiques limite notre pleine participation. Le réseautage est très important dans le contexte de la réglementation des OGM. Le pays est dans OFAB (Forum ouvert sur les biotechnologies Agricoles en Afrique) et sur African Biosafety com Net.  Par ailleurs, le Burkina Faso est le premier pays en Afrique de l'Ouest à abriter AUDA-NEPAD. Cela nous a permis d'avoir des connexions avec certains pays, mais dans l'ensemble notre réseau est encore faible. Nous seront ravis de pourvoir profiter de l'expérience de l'Argentine en matière de régulation des biotechnologies et aussi à notre tour nous allons partager avec nos pays voisins surtout francophone qui sont moins avancés sur les biotechnologies. Dans un réseautage bien coordonnée, Le Burkina Faso pourrait partager son expérience avec les autres pays, permettant ainsi de les tirer vers le haut cette thématique. Car nous sommes convaincu qu'il faut un mouvement d'ensemble pour réussir le développement des biotechnologie en Afrique de l'Ouest.

Dear Ms Farah Aligour

Thank you very much for highlighting some of the shortcomings from the regional biosafety project. Indeed, overcoming these shortcomings is critical for the success of these projects.

Perhaps these can be flagged as challenges along with those already highlighted under discussion topic 1, and you can suggest priority capacity-building needs for developing such projects, to ensure that they factor in the points raised at conceptualisation stage, for "smooth" implementation, taking into consideration the national circumstances of each participating country.

Other colleagues can weigh in on this point.

Kind regards
Ms Thato Mogapi

Dear Sunday Akile

Your post #12753 was well received.

Thank you
Ms Thato Mogapi

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for your contributions to this discussion topic, including the extent to which the Roster of Experts is being utilised and the suggestions to ensure it serves its intended purpose; as well as the various networking opportunities.

Looking forward to more contributions on this discussion topic in the remaining time we have on this Forum.

Kind regards
Ms Thato Mogapi

Bonjour M. Akile Sunday. Merci pour les informations pertinentes sur le Réseau africain d'expertise en biosécurité (ABNE) hébergé par l'AUDA-NEPAD. je voudrais savoir si vous intégrer les Experts de Biosécurité du BCH du Protocole ou existe-t-il une autre prcédure pour faire partie de ce réseau?
Cordialement
M. KAKPO Comlan Marcel

Dear colleagues,
I´m Laura Hernández Padilla, Ph.D. in Biological Sciences with a specialization in Experimental Biology. Researcher for Mexico at the UMSNH assigned to the Interministerial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM), NFP for the Cartagena Protocol. Actively participates in national projects, including the National Laboratory for Agri-food Biosafety, which address critical challenges such as agri-food biosafety and the detection of genetically modified organisms in Mexico.

In relation to topic 3 networking opportunities play a critical role in strengthening capacity-building efforts. They enable the exchange of knowledge, best practices, and innovative solutions among professionals from diverse sectors and regions. Through international forums, collaborative workshops, and training programs, participants can learn from successful case studies, establish research partnerships, and gain access to funding and development opportunities. These connections not only enhance individual competencies but also reinforce institutional capacities by promoting cross-sectoral cooperation and shared goals at both national and international levels. 

In this context, I would like to share my experience with the National Laboratory for Agri-food Biosafety (LNC-BIOSAA) in Mexico. This laboratory operates under a pentahélix model, bringing together national institutions from government, academia, civil society, the private sector, and the scientific community. This collaborative structure has proven highly effective in strengthening regulatory frameworks and national capacities for the risk assessment and analysis of GMO. To further advance these goals, we encourage international collaboration through technical exchange, joint research initiatives, and shared training platforms focused on biosafety, risk analysis, and sustainable agricultural practices.

Dear colleagues,
I am Cinthia Soberanes Gutiérrez, Ph.D. in Chemical and Biological Sciences. I currently work as a Researcher for Mexico under the Secretariat of Science, Humanities, Technology, and Innovation (Secihti), and I am based at the Executive Secretariat of the Intersecretarial Commission on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM), the institution designated as Mexico’s National Focal Point for the Cartagena Protocol. I sincerely thank the forum moderators and all participants for the opportunity to engage and for sharing their valuable insights.

Regarding question 3, one of the most valuable initiatives to generate synergies and share knowledge in the field of biosafety is the creation of collaborative networks among key stakeholders: small-scale farmers, producers, community educators, civil society organizations, academic and research institutions, as well as governmental authorities. This type of multi-actor cooperation enables not only the exchange of technical and traditional knowledge but also the articulation of local and national strategies for the monitoring and management of risks associated with LMO. 

A concrete example is the collaborative work among rural communities, civil society organizations, academic institutions, ethnobiological gardens, researchers, and the Government of Mexico for the participatory monitoring of LMO in key territories. These actors are currently working to establish stronger ties with the National Laboratory for Agri-food Biosafety to strengthen the core stakeholders within this network. This collaboration has been particularly important in the central and southern states of the country, where genetic contamination by GMO has been documented in cotton and maize (two species of high relevance as centers of origin and diversification).

These experiences show that joint efforts not only enable the detection of GMO in the territory but also support the design and implementation of containment measures, rapid response protocols, and culturally appropriate communication strategies. Moreover, they contribute to building a more robust, participatory, and context-sensitive public biosafety policy that recognizes the biocultural sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and aligns with the objectives of the Cartagena Protocol. In summary, promoting territorial and transdisciplinary cooperation initiatives strengthens the technical and social capacities needed to address biosafety challenges in an inclusive, sustainable, and sovereign manner.

Dear colleagues, 

My name is Nancy Serrano Silva. I hold a Ph.D. in Biotechnology and I am part of the “Investigadoras e Investigadores por México” program of “Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación - SECIHTI”. I am currently assigned to the Executive Secretariat of CIBIOGEM, where I am researching Integral Biosafety for the Food Sovereignty of Mexico. Thank you for the opportunity to join this Online Forum. 

A key strategy for generating synergies and sharing knowledge in biosafety is to recognize traditional knowledge as a valid foundation for public policy design, as well as to prioritize community education and popular outreach on the risks associated with LMO. 

Territorial alliances between peasant and Indigenous communities, public universities, and governmental entities enable capacity-building from the local level, linking participatory monitoring, technical training, and rights advocacy. An example in Mexico, is the community-based monitoring of transgenes in maize in states like Oaxaca and Chiapas, where collaborative efforts have strengthened biocultural sovereignty.

It is also essential to consolidate international cooperation platforms focused on the defense of centers of origin and agroecological networks, as well as to promote connections between academic projects and existing grassroots initiatives — such as farmers’ markets, field schools, and ethnobiological gardens — to integrate biosafety as a cross-cutting theme in territorial training and action processes.

#12698

Dear Fellow Participants,

I am Mrs. Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu, Founder and Executive Director of Every Woman Hope Centre, (EWHC), from Nigeria. I’m glad to be here, and would like to approach the questions diligently, in observance of the general guidelines and modalities.

I don’t use the Roster of Experts, but shall be grateful if introduced.

Regarding the importance of networking opportunities for improving capacity-building, I am of the opinion that they are vital tools in building capacity, in relation to; human, institutional, technical and financial capacities. Networking is relevant in the development and implementation of the biosafety regulatory frameworks, for effective implementation of the Cartegena Protocol. An example is my experience, as one of the experts in the review of the Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), through the Voluntary Peer Review (VPR) in 2019. It revealed the strength in knowledge and information sharing through networking, in decision making and building capacities. Our desk-study and in-country-visit highlights the potentials of networking in peer-learning, and unlocking access to valuable resources to address challenges and technical gaps, from interaction amongst members from different Parties.

Cooperation efforts, such as; promoting partnerships, webinars, workshops, online forum such as this, and VPR, could help significantly in building synergies and share expertise. For example, in 2018, the Conference of the Parties, in decision 14/29, welcomed the progress made in the development of a VPR mechanism and the positive result from the pilot phases, and decided to include the VPR as an element of the multidimensional review approach under the Convention. Also, lessons learnt from the “Outcome of every woman hope centre's webinar for commitments to the Sharm El-Sheik to Kunming action agenda for nature and people”, a Biosafety Virtual Library Resources (Unique identifier: 255727), show that cooperation efforts share expertise and facilitate synergy.

A.A.I. Mandakini Amarasinghe, Sri Lanka
Greetings to all, and thank you to our moderator and all participants for the interesting interventions.

My name is Mandakini Amarasinghe, and I am an Environmental Officer working at the National Competent Authority of Sri Lanka. The following responses are provided by the participants of the forum from the Central Environmental Authority, which serves as the National Competent Authority. The Ministry of Environment, Sri Lanka, functions as the National Focal Point for the Convention.


To enhance biosafety capacity and collaboration, Sri Lanka aims to engage with the Roster of Experts to access global expertise and nominate local professionals. In parallel, efforts are underway to develop a national platform to bring together policymakers, decision-makers, regulators, researchers, and civil society, ensuring an inclusive approach to biosafety governance. Recognizing the value of regional collaboration, Sri Lanka also seeks to establish regional partnerships to conduct capacity-building programmes and experience sharing. At the community level, it is essential to promote community and youth awareness programs to build a public support base for biosafety governance. Additionally, the country will use platforms like the BCH Virtual Library and online discussion forums to contribute and learn from global best practices, thereby aligning national efforts with international standards and innovations.

Dear Forum participants,

Thank you all very much for your contributions to the Online Forum on Capacity-building for Biosafety. The Forum is now closed. Please note that all the postings will remain under each topic.

There will be a complete moderator’s summary of information and recommendations of the three topics made available in the coming weeks. The information will also be used to develop an information document for the twelfth Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP 12) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2026.

We look forward to your continued contribution to the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Capacity-building Action Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. We also encourage the continuation of governments and organizations to, on a regular basis, submit information on implementing or funding biosafety capacity-building activities in the Capacity Development Initiative in the BCH at https://bch.cbd.int/en/register/CDI/new and any resources at https://bch.cbd.int/en/register/VLR/new.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Ms Thato Mogapi

POSTED ON BEHALF OF THE MODERATOR OF THE FORUM

Dear Forum participants,

Thank you all again for your participation in the Online Forum on Capacity-building for Biosafety.

Please find a link of the moderators' summary of the Online Forum at https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/fb84/f0bc/60f3fb9bed089cc280a2b49d/cp-cb-om-2025-01-02-en.pdf

Best regards,

Ms. Thato Mogapi