The draft report of the “Independent Evaluation of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective implementation of the Protocol” has  recommended the development of two separate documents to replace the current Action Plan, i.e. (i) a Strategic Framework for Capacity-Building under the Protocol, which would be a more of a reference tool; and (ii) a results-based Capacity-Building Action Plan for the Effective Implementation of the Protocol, which would be an implementable plan with concrete prioritised actions, specific targets and a few measurable indicators. Do you support this recommendation?  Is a new capacity-building action plan necessary in light of the Strategic Plan for the Protocol (2011-2020) which includes a specific component on capacity-building with 7 operational objectives?

I agree with Erie. There is no need for 2 plans. As things have evolved into a Strategic Plan in which Capacity Building is a subset we should just focus on Strategic Plan and need be just review the subset on Capacity Building.

Reasons:
The so called Capacity Building Action Plan is actually not a plan but to my mind a 'wholesome wish list' where all the necessary things to be done to implement the Protocol has been compiled. There is no time frame - thus it cannot be considered as an Action Plan though it is called as such. It will continue to be relevant. Thus even the sustainability issue does not arise here. Out of these list the Strategic Plan has selected a number of components that were considered as strategic need according to the time. Let us now move forward by enabling the implementation of our strategic plan.

Dear All!
My name is Andreas Heissenberger. I work for the Environment Agency Austria and have been involved in several capacity building activities in the past years. I also participate to the coordination meetings and the Liaison Group.

The recommendation to develop two completely new documents will not be easy to implement and I doubt that this is the most efficient way to deal with the issue of revising the action plan.

I agree with Mr. Ramatha Letchumanan in saying that the Action Plan is a quite comprehensive “wish list” of elements which can/should be taken into account when planning capacity building activities. As such, following the report, it has obviously been useful to at least some institutions. Anyway, as things are developing it is a necessary exercise to examine if the Action Plan is still useful.

In my opinion it is. However I also think that it needs some revision in light of the decision of COP/MOP 5 on the Strategic Plan, in which capacity building is a high ranking issue. This revision needs to align the wording of the Action Plan with that of the Strategic Plan, as this will make it easier for the reader to establish the links between both documents.

The general principles included in the Action Plan, e.g. the guiding principles, might stay unchanged, but it might be a good idea to look more closely at point “5) Implementation” as this might need, at least partially, some better alignment in order to reflect the objectives and outcomes of the Strategic Plan. This will most likely require some restructuring and rewording according to the 7 priorities as described in the Strategic Plan, but can be done without losing the content.

So in summary: I don’t think that we need two new documents, but we need to think about a revision of the Action Plan in order to reflect the COP/MOP decision on the content and priorities of the Strategic Plan.

Best Regards

Dr. Andreas Heissenberger, MA
Environment Agency Austria
Deputy Unit Head Landuse & Biosafety
andreas.heissenberger@umweltbundesamt.at

My name is Hartmut Meyer, I work as a biosafety consultant for the German Organisation for International Cooperation (GIZ).

I agree with Andreas. The development of the Action Plan as implementable plan with concrete targets and indicators would more or less imply that there is a dedicated budget to support this implementation - otherwise the Plan will fail right from the beginning. A new Action Plan could be constructed in such a way that will enable countries to build there own action plans based on this template. It could also serve as reference document for the evaluation of certain national and regional biosafety capacity building approaches.

The new Action Plan certainly needs to be adapted to the form and content given by the Strategic Plan, I suggest that a Strategic Framework would be the best option to do so.

With many regards,
Hartmut

WIth many regards,
Hartmut

Milena Roudna, former National UNEP/GEF Project Coordinator, adviser to the Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic
The Action Plan needs to be in line with the Strategic PLan, which objectives and priorities need to be reflected in the Action Plan. It also needs to be flexible and reflect COP/MOP decisions.

I am KONE Gninancrêban Augustin, BCH National Focal Point of Côte d'Ivoire.

Initially I thank all the initiators for this reflection open to the actors of the implementation of the Protocol of Cartagena.
With less than one error of my share, I believe to understand that the strategic planning of implementation of the Protocol of Cartagena was approved by all as much for the vision declined that for its contents. This plan did he know a beginning of execution? If so, was an assessment with mid--course emphasized the insufficiencies from them? So not, it would be desirable that one starts his execution to be practical instead of producing indefinitely documents certainly relevant but which constitute only literature. Best regard.