Activities of the Open-Ended Online Forum (2014-2016)

Dear all,

First, I want to thank Stacy for moderating this discussion and especially to the Secretariat for organizing all the comments in categories, a huge and well done task. 

I believe the AHTEG SG has identified the main topics to be addressed but I don’t agree with the prioritization as pointed out by Monica [#7053]. Note that  some of topics were already identified as having merit during the AHTEG discussion [see AHTEG post 6504] but now appear as of low priority while I think they would make a significant improvement to the Guidance.

With respect to part (iii) additional risk assessment topics, let me start by saying that I agree with Luciana [#7120] and Ariel [#7116] that a well written Guidance document would be adequate for any type of risk assessment.  With that in mind, I find still confusing the text cited by Manoela [#7096]:

“2. While revising and improving the Guidance, an attempt should be made to take into account the topics prioritized by the AHTEG, on the basis of the needs indicated by the Parties with a view to moving towards operational objectives 1.3 and 1.4 of the Strategic Plan and its outcomes, for the development of further guidance.”

From the first part of the sentence (“an attempt should be made to take into account the topics prioritized by the AHTEG”) I understand that is saying that when modifying the Guidance language consideration should be given to a language that may include some of the “topics” identified, for example as illustrative examples. But then the sentence ends with “for the development of further guidance” which would point to new guidance. This is clearly not the mandate of the AHTEG at this point, as pointed out by some already in this forum.

Esmeralda