| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Sampling, Detection and Identification|Portal|Documentation|Art 18.3 Forum|Discussion groups|Theme 4   Printer-friendly version

Theme 4: Conclusions and recommendations

Guiding questions

  • If there are identified gaps, what modalities are available to fill those gaps? Which organizations may be appropriate to address these gaps?
  • Should the consideration of standard-setting in the context of the Protocol be limited to the requirement of identification of LMOs? If so, do the requirements in paragraph 2 of Article 18 and the relevant decisions of the governing body of the Protocol not already constitute such standards?
  • Is the development of new standards a justifiable administrative and technical expense?
  • How can the Parties leverage the work ongoing in other international fora to take advantage of the expertise present in these fora and to avoid duplication of resources and efforts?
  • A number of standard-setting organizations (e.g. IPPC, WCO, OIE) have expressed a need or a willingness to cooperate with the Protocol on issues of mutual relevance. Similarly, the Parties to the Protocol have requested the Executive Secretary to cooperate with these organizations. How might this be translated into practice?
  • How can the Executive Secretary further establish cooperative relationships with the relevant international bodies working in the areas of developing standards with regard to identification, handling, packaging and transport practices in order to ensure that any relevant concerns and/or gaps identified by the Parties are appropriately addressed?

Discussion threads - Theme 4: Conclusions and recommendations

To post a message, you must be registered to participate in the Forum and must be signed in.

This Forum is closed.

   
   
Update on 2009-06-06
United Nations Environment Programme United Nations