I.Capacity-building activities
1.Takes note of the report
of the Independent Evaluation of the Action Plan for Building
Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (
UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/6/INF/2);
2.Alsotakes note
of the working document (
UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/6/7/Add.1) prepared by the Executive
Secretary to facilitate the comprehensive review and possible
revision of the Action Plan for Building Capacities for the
Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety;
3.Adopts a new Framework and
Action Plan for Capacity-Building for the Effective Implementation
of the Cartagena Protocol, as contained in annex I to this
decision, to replace the updated Action Plan for Building
Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety;
4.Invites Parties, other
Governments, and relevant organizations to implement the framework
and Action Plan for capacity-building referred to in paragraph 3
above and to share their experiences through the Biosafety
Clearing-House;
5.Also invites developed
country Parties and donors and relevant organizations to take into
account the above Framework and Action Plan in providing financial
and technical support to developing countries, in particular the
least developed and small island developing States among them, and
countries with economies in transition;
6.Requests the Executive
Secretary to prepare, for consideration by the regular meetings of
the Parties, reports on the status of implementation of the above
Framework and Action Plan, on the basis of the submissions made by
Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations;
7.Decides to review the
above Framework and Action Plan for Capacity-Building in
conjunction with the mid-term review of the Strategic Plan for the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011-2020 and the
third assessment and review of the effectiveness of the
Protocol;
8.Requests the Executive
Secretary to raise awareness of the above Framework and Action Plan
for Capacity-Building and encourage regional stakeholders and
donors to play a greater role in supporting its implementation by
Parties;
9.Also requests the
Executive Secretary to continue supporting Parties through
strategic capacity-building activities, including regional and
subregional training workshops and the development of online
training modules, subject to the availability of funds;
II.Strategic approaches to
capacity-building
10.Takes note of the
analysis of strategic approaches to capacity-building contained in
section III of the note by the Executive Secretary on the status of
capacity-building activities (
UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/6/7);
11.Invites Parties, other
Governments and relevant organizations to adopt, as appropriate and
in a timely manner, the strategic approaches to capacity-building
outlined in section 3.6 of the capacity-building framework and
action plan referred to in paragraph 3 above with a view to
improving the design, delivery, effectiveness, impact and
sustainability of biosafety capacity-building initiatives;
12.Requests the Executive
Secretary to provide, as appropriate and subject to the
availability of funding, technical support to Parties to implement
the strategic approaches to capacity-building outlined in section
3.6 of the Framework and Action Plan for capacity-building referred
to in paragraph 3 above;
III.Coordination Mechanism
13.Takes note of the report
by the Executive Secretary on the implementation of the
Coordination Mechanism (
UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/6/7, section IV) and
decides to
adopt the restructured and streamlined elements of the Coordination
Mechanism contained in annex II to the present decision;
14.Invites donor countries
and agencies and other organizations providing capacity support in
biosafety to participate actively in the Coordination
Mechanism;
15.Decides to restructure
and streamline the Coordination Mechanism, as set out in annex II
to the present decision.
Annex I
FRAMEWORK AND ACTION PLAN FOR
CAPACITY-BUILDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CARTAGENA
PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
I.INTRODUCTION
1.Article 22 of the Protocol
requires Parties to cooperate in the development and/or
strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in
biosafety, including biotechnology to the extent that it is
required for biosafety, for the purpose of ensuring the effective
implementation of the Protocol, taking fully into account the needs
of developing country Parties, in particular the least developed
and small island developing States among them, and Parties with
economies in transition for financial resources and access to and
transfer of technology and know-how.
2.At their first meeting, held
in 2004, the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
(COP-MOP) adopted an Action Plan for Building Capacities for the
Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In
2006, the Parties to the Protocol adopted a revised version of the
Action Plan and decided to conduct a comprehensive review every
five years, based on independent evaluations. In 2010, the Parties
adopted terms of reference for the comprehensive review and
requested the Executive Secretary to commission the independent
evaluation of the Action Plan and to also prepare a working
document to facilitate the comprehensive review of the Action Plan,
taking into account the information and suggestions submitted by
Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations, the
information provided in the second national reports, and the
findings of the independent evaluation.
3.The independent evaluation of
the Action Plan, which was conducted in late 2011 and early 2012,
recommended the development of a new document to replace the
current Action Plan, comprising two components: (i) a "framework
for capacity-building" , which would serve as a reference and
guidance tool; and (ii) a "results-based Action Plan" consisting of
prioritized actions, specific expected results/targets and a
limited set of measurable indicators. Furthermore, the independent
evaluation, as well as the submissions from governments and
relevant organizations, recommended that the Action Plan or its
replacement be aligned with the Strategic Plan for the Protocol for
the period 2011-2020.
4.The present Framework and
Action Plan for Capacity-Building for the Effective Implementation
of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was prepared on the basis of
the information provided in the second national reports on the
implementation of the Protocol, the findings and recommendations of
the independent evaluation of the Action Plan and the views and
suggestions submitted by Parties, other Governments and relevant
organizations to the Secretariat and through the online forum on
capacity-building. It also takes into account recommendations of
the Liaison Group on Capacity-Building for Biosafety.
II.SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS AND BASIS
FOR ACTION
5.The effective implementation
of the Protocol continues to be hampered by the lack of capacity in
many developing country Parties, in particular the least developed
and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with
economies in transition. In their second national reports on the
implementation of the Protocol, 114 Parties of the 143 Parties
(80%) that submitted their reports by 31 December 2011 reported
that they lack capacity in various areas. In particular, most
Parties expressed a need for capacity-building in risk assessment,
risk management, detection and identification of living modified
organisms, public awareness and participation, and in measures to
address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of
living modified organisms (LMOs). Many Parties also expressed the
need for institutional building; human resources development;
scientific, technical and institutional collaboration; and
information exchange and data management, including participation
in the Biosafety Clearing-House.
6.A review of the status of
implementation of the Protocol
1 noted
that in their second national reports, many developing country
Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island
developing States among them and Parties with economies in
transition reported that they do not have in place fully
established and functioning biosafety regulatory frameworks that
meet the requirements of the Protocol. Many reported that they have
no practical experience as yet and lack appropriate legal,
institutional and technical capacity for decision-making on LMOs
for intentional introduction into the environment or for LMOs
intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing
(LMOs-FFP). They do not have in place a mechanism for handling
requests, have no procedures for decision making, and have limited
capacity to review applications, including capacity to undertake or
review risk assessments prior to making a decision. Only 63 Parties
reported that they had acquired the necessary capacity to conduct
risk assessments. Many developing country Parties, in particular
the least developed and the small island developing States among
them, also noted a lack of legal frameworks and technical capacity
to prevent, detect and/or appropriately respond to illegal and
unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs where they occur.
Furthermore, 42 Parties reported that they have no capacity to
enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of
LMOs, and 63 Parties stated that they have such capacity only to
some extent.
7.According to various reports
2 there are major weaknesses in
the current approaches to capacity-building under the Protocol. For
example, in a number of countries biosafety capacity-building
activities are implemented in an ad hoc and fragmented
("piecemeal") manner and are not mainstreamed into broader national
development plans and relevant sectoral policies and programmes.
Furthermore, many initiatives lack rigorous appraisal at the design
stage and are not based on comprehensive systematic stocktaking and
needs assessments. A number of initiatives have also been designed
with unrealistic and overly ambitious expectations and with
insufficient inputs. Also, some initiatives are being designed in a
top-down manner, with limited involvement of relevant stakeholders
to ensure local ownership and commitment. Besides, a number of
initiatives have a short-term to medium-term horizon (ranging from
1 to 3 years) which is often too short to ensure effective delivery
and sustainable results. Moreover, many biosafety projects have not
incorporated measures to ensure the sustainability of their
activities and outcomes at the end of the funding period. Finally,
a number of initiatives are currently poorly tracked, evaluated and
reported and often there is a lack of objective baseline data upon
which to assess the progress made.
8.In terms of delivery, seminars
and workshops are the main mechanisms used for human resource
development in the vast majority of capacity-building initiatives.
There are very few formal biosafety education and training
programmes leading to academic qualifications. A number of
initiatives have developed standardized training packages, toolkits
and guidelines on different topics. Furthermore, in spite of the
efforts being made through the Coordination Mechanism for the
Implementation of the Action Plan, the level of coordination and
communication between different initiatives and donors remains
poor, leading to incoherence in capacity-building delivery and
duplication of effort in certain areas and little or no attention
to others.
9.This capacity-building
framework and action plan aims to advance implementation of the
capacity-building components of the Strategic Plan for the Protocol
and to assist Parties to address their capacity-building needs and
challenges, including the shortcomings identified above. In
particular, it seeks to guide and assist Parties, other Governments
and relevant organizations to develop, implement and evaluate
biosafety capacity-building activities in a strategic, systematic,
and forward-looking manner. The framework and action plan sets the
overall vision; provides basic guiding principles; proposes
strategic steps and tasks that Parties, other Governments and
relevant organizations could take at the national, regional and
international levels; and presents a results-oriented action plan
to translate the ideas in the strategic plan into concrete actions
and results.
10.In the context of this
framework and action plan, capacity-building is described as the
process of developing, strengthening and maintaining the
capabilities needed to elaborate and implement measures to ensure
the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms
resulting from modern biotechnology.
3 This
encompasses development of capacities at (i) the individual level
(including the knowledge, skills, and competencies of individuals);
(ii) the organizational level (including the institutional
structures, processes and procedures; the infrastructure
(facilities, equipment and materials, inter-institutional networks
and partnerships, and human resources); and (iii) the systemic
level (including the enabling policy and legal frameworks,
governance systems, external partnerships and externalities that
affect the effectiveness and sustainability of capacity-building
efforts).
III.FRAMEWORK FOR
CAPACITY-BUILDING
11.This framework has been
developed within the context of the Strategic Plan for the
Protocol. It is designed to serve both as a strategic document and
as a reference or guidance tool. As a strategic document it sets
the overall vision, direction, objectives and scope of
capacity-building under the Protocol, including key areas requiring
urgent action. As a reference or guidance tool it provides a
general conceptual and operational framework for capacity-building,
including the guiding principles and approaches, strategic
processes and steps that may be taken, and general guidance on key
tools, good practices and lessons learned that Parties, other
Governments and relevant organizations could use or apply in
designing and implementing their own capacity-building
interventions.
12.The framework is relevant to
a wide range of individuals and organizations involved in the
design, implementation and/or funding of biosafety
capacity-building initiatives. It can be adapted to many situations
and contexts to address specific capacity-building needs and
challenges. It is a living tool that will be updated on the basis
of the experiences gained and lessons learned from previous and
ongoing global efforts.
3.1Vision
13.By 2020 all Parties will have
in place the requisite human resources and institutional capacities
for ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the
safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms that
may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human
health.
3.2Objectives
14.Consistent with Strategic
Objective 2 of the Strategic Plan for the Protocol, the objective
of the capacity-building framework is to further develop and
strengthen the capacity of Parties to implement the Protocol. The
purpose of the framework is to guide, catalyse and facilitate the
capacity-building initiatives of Parties, other Governments and
relevant organizations, by providing a strategic framework aiming
to:
(a)Promote a common understanding
of the key issues, priorities, guiding principles and approaches
regarding capacity-building for the effective implementation of the
Protocol;
(b)Foster a strategic, focused,
coherent and coordinated approach to capacity-building in
biosafety, including biotechnology to the extent that it is
required for biosafety;
(c)Guide the identification and
prioritization of capacity-building needs by Parties, and catalyze
the development and implementation of targeted, synergistic and
integrated biosafety capacity building initiatives at the national,
regional and international levels;
(d)Facilitate the engagement of
donors and the coordinated design and implementation of development
assistance and technical cooperation programmes in the area of
biosafety;
(e)Facilitate the mobilization and
leveraging of financial, technical and technological resources and
expertise;
(f)Promote regional and
international cooperation and coordination with respect to
capacity-building in biosafety to foster synergy and
complementarity among various initiatives.
15.The capacity-building
framework also seeks to guide the provision of financial, technical
and technological support to developing countries, in particular
the least developed and small island developing States among them,
as well as countries with economies in transition, including
countries among these that are centres of origin and centres of
genetic diversity.
3.3Guiding principles
16.In light of the operational
experience and lessons learned from various capacity-building
processes and programmes, capacity-building initiatives undertaken
in line with this framework should, as appropriate:
(a)Be country-driven, i.e., based
on the needs and priorities identified by the recipient countries
themselves;
(b)Ensure national ownership and
leadership, including the setting of priorities and the design,
implementation and evaluation of the initiatives;
(c)Ensure broad, informed and
timely participation of relevant stakeholders in the design,
implementation and evaluation of capacity-building
interventions;
(d)Recognize that
capacity-building is a dynamic, progressive and long-term process,
applying an adaptive and learning-by-doing approach;
(e)Maximize synergy and
complementarity among biosafety capacity-building
initiatives;
(f)Apply a results-oriented
approach, focusing on achieving specific capacity-building results
and outcomes;
(g)Promote policy dialogue with
donors and organizations providing biosafety capacity building
assistance and encourage the participation of civil society and the
private sector in such dialogue;
(h)Apply a holistic approach,
integrating biosafety activities with relevant sectoral and
national policies, strategies and programmes;
(i)Encourage the development and
implementation of nationally-designed and resourced activities that
address the specific needs and priorities of each country;
(j)Promote regional and
subregional approaches to capacity-building;
(k)Build the political will and
commitment for the implementation of the Protocol.
3.4Focal areas for
capacity-building
17.In line with Strategic
Objective 2 of the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety, the priority focal areas for capacity-building for the
period 2011-2020, in the context of this capacity-building
framework and action plan, will be the following:
(1)National biosafety
frameworks;
(2)Risk assessment and risk
management;
(3)Handling, transport, packaging
and identification of living modified organisms;
(4)Liability and redress;
(5)Public awareness, education,
and participation;
(6)Information sharing; and
(7)Biosafety education and
training.
18.It is recognized that
capacity-building needs vary from country to country. It is also
noted that some of the above focal areas may not be priorities for
some Parties. Therefore, the prioritization of specific capacity
needs must be a country-driven process. In addition to the above
focal areas, Parties may wish to determine their specific priority
needs and communicate the information to the Biosafety Clearing
House.
3.5Strategic actions
19.The activities listed here
are generic strategic tasks that may be undertaken at the national,
regional and international levels to facilitate effective design,
implementation and evaluation of the capacity-building initiatives
across the various focal areas of the Strategic Plan for the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The tasks are not listed in any
order of priority. The specific activities relating to the priority
focal areas are outlined in the Action Plan described in section IV
below.
3.5.1National level
20.Tasks that may need to be
undertaken at the national level include:
(a)Assessment of existing human
resource and institutional capacity, including existing tools and
mechanisms as well as completed and ongoing projects to identify
the capacity needs and gaps;
(b)Development of a national
biosafety capacity-building strategy and action plan, prioritizing
the capacity-building needs and defining specific objectives based
on the key elements provided above, including development of
timelines, outputs, and targets;
(c)Development of a resource
mobilization strategy to guide national efforts to mobilize
existing capacities and ensure their effective utilization;
(d)Establishment and/or
strengthening of a national coordination mechanism in order to
promote synchronized and synergistic implementation of
capacity-building activities and the harmonized use of external
financial and technical assistance at the national level;
(e)Assessment of existing funding
from national, bilateral and multilateral sources and assessment of
short-term and long-term funding needs;
(f)Integration of biosafety into
broader national development strategies and plans, including
country Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), country
assistance strategies and/or other similar instruments and relevant
sectoral policies and programmes, including the national
biodiversity strategies and action plans.
3.5.2Subregional and regional
levels
21.Tasks that may need to be
undertaken at the subregional/regional level include:
(a)Establishment of regional
websites and databases;
(b)Establishment of mechanisms for
regional and subregional coordination of biosafety regulatory
framework implementation, as appropriate;
(c)Development of subregional and
regional mechanisms for human-resources development and training in
biosafety, including through regional courses, staff exchanges, and
joint research;
(d)Development of subregional or
regional infrastructure and/or administrative mechanisms for the
assessment and management of risks of living modified
organisms;
(e)Establishment of a forum for
the exchange of information on public awareness, education and
participation;
(f)Promotion of regional and
subregional collaborative initiatives on biosafety;
(g)Establishment of regional and
subregional advisory mechanisms;
(h)Establishment and/or
strengthening of regional centres of excellence and training.
3.5.3International level
22.Tasks that may need to be
undertaken at the international level include:
(a)Ensuring the effective
functioning of the Biosafety Clearing-House;
(b)Enhancing the mobilization of
financial resources from multilateral, bilateral and other donors
to assist developing country Parties, in particular the least
developed and the small island developing States among them, and
Parties with economies in transition, including those that are
centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity;
(c)Identification and maximization
of opportunities for collaborative initiatives and partnerships to
enhance synergies, leverage resources and achieve greater
impact;
(d)Ensuring effective use of the
roster of experts;
(e)Strengthening South-South
cooperation;
(f)Development/updating of
international guidance on various technical issues;
(g)Development of indicators for
evaluating capacity-building measures at different levels;
(h)Regular review and provision of
further guidance by the Parties to the Protocol.
3.6Strategic approaches to
capacity-building
23.In addition to the general
guiding principles outlined in section 3.3 above, Parties, other
Governments and relevant organizations are encouraged to adopt, as
appropriate, the following strategic approaches to improve the
effectiveness, impact and sustainability of their capacity-building
initiatives:
(a)Ensure that the design of
capacity-building initiatives is based on systematic stocktaking
and needs assessments in order to ensure that they are strategic,
demand-driven and cost-effective;
(b)Diversify approaches to human
resources development beyond seminars and workshops to include
formal education and training programmes, learning by doing
approaches, staff exchanges, peer-to-peer learning through
professional networking, and self-instruction;
(c)Promote formal academic
training in biosafety at graduate and post-graduate levels in order
to develop a cadre of biosafety experts in various fields at the
national level;
(d)Broaden the scope and depth of
training activities in specific areas of professional
responsibilities (including risk assessment, risk management, LMO
detection and others);
(e)Adopt a systematic approach to
training in biosafety, including, inter alia, conduct of
training needs assessments, setting of clear training objectives,
use of a wide of a range of customized training methods and tools,
systematic evaluation and follow-up of the training
activities;
(f)Promote the
"training-of-trainers" approach and ensure that the trained
trainers have the necessary pedagogical skills, institutional
support, structures, facilities and resources to be able train
others;
(g)Maximize existing opportunities
for distance-learning, including interactive e-learning modules
available online and on CD-ROM, in order to increase the number of
participants benefiting and help to reduce the cost of
training;
(h)Institutionalize short-term
biosafety trainings (including seminars and workshops), which are
currently offered on an ad hoc one-off basis by various government
departments and organizations, under designated national or
regional training institutions, to facilitate their delivery in a
systematic, integrated and efficient manner;
(i)Review the criteria for
selection of target audiences for training and other
capacity-building activities to ensure that a wide range of
participants (from both government and non government
organizations), who are in most need, have the requisite background
and are in a position to readily apply the acquired knowledge and
skills, are given due consideration;
(j)Adopt a long-term and phased
approach to capacity-building within the context of the national
capacity-building strategies, the national biosafety frameworks
(NBFs) and the Strategic Plan for the Protocol;
(k)Adopt a regional or subregional
approach to capacity-building in biosafety to, inter alia,
facilitate the sharing of information and technical resources,
enhance coherence and synergy of capacity-building activities, and
maximize the use of existing institutional, technical and human
resources;
(l)Incorporate in all biosafety
capacity-building projects sustainability measures, including
strategies for retention of the knowledge and capacity built and
continued use of the projects outputs, once the external funding
and other support ends;
(m)Ensure that all biosafety
capacity-building projects are systematically tracked and evaluated
based on prior agreed indicators, and share evaluation reports
through the Biosafety Clearing House.
3.7Sustainability strategies and
measures
24.The essence of
capacity-building is to ensure that Parties have lasting
capabilities to fulfil their obligations under the Protocol. In
this regard, Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations
are encouraged to incorporate into the design and delivery of
capacity-building initiatives strategies and measures that would
foster ongoing action, sustainable results and long-term impact
beyond the "lifespan" of the initiatives. It is advisable to
develop sustainability plans at the design stage and not in the
final months of capacity-building interventions. It is also
advisable to build sustainability elements into the various modes
of delivery of capacity-building initiatives.
25.Among other things, Parties,
other governments and relevant organizations are encouraged to:
(a)Set realistic objectives for
their capacity-building initiatives;
(b)Ensure active involvement of
relevant stakeholders to foster a sense of ownership and commitment
to long-term action;
(c)Create effective linkages among
different sectors; establish strategic partnerships to leverage and
maximize resources;
(d)Build strong institutions and
coordination mechanisms that involve relevant stakeholders;
(e)Mainstream biosafety into
broader development plans and relevant sectoral programmes;
(f)Adopt modes of delivery such as
"training of trainers" that create a "multiplier effect";
incorporate biosafety management costs into the national
budgets;
(g)Ensure that the design of
capacity-building initiatives is based on realistic assessments of
the domestic resources available to sustain the activities;
and
(h)Diversify the sources of
funding and technical support.
26.Another important strategy to
promote sustainability is to institutionalize the implementation of
capacity-building activities to ensure that the knowledge, skills
and other capacities developed as part of capacity-building
interventions are retained and integrated into existing
institutional programmes. In this regard, it is important to ensure
that the institutions selected to implement initiatives are well
managed and appropriately resourced to take-over and sustain the
initiatives' activities. It is also crucial to ensure that the
institutions selected are recognized in the national regulatory
frameworks, have permanent staff and supportive leadership, rely on
local personnel and resources to implement the activities and have
strong support from the government. The latter may require
deliberate awareness-raising and outreach to senior management and
political leadership to help muster the necessary political will
and commitment.
27.In addition, a consistent and
objective approach to monitoring and evaluation would help to
ensure the sustainability of initiatives by enabling Parties, other
Governments and relevant organizations to determine adjustments
that need to be made during the implementation process.
28.Finally, promotion of
regional and South-South cooperation, establishment of inter-agency
partnerships and networks, establishment or strengthening of
regional centres of excellence, and the development of adaptable
capacity-building products, such as online training modules or
e-learning courses and online databases or virtual libraries, are
important strategies that could facilitate sustained access to
technical support and assistance and ongoing knowledge-sharing and
learning.
IV.THE RESULTS-ORIENTED
CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTION PLAN (2012-2020)
29.The Action Plan below is
designed to facilitate the implementation of the capacity-building
components of the Strategic Plan of the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety for the period 2011-2020. It includes an indicative list
of expected results and a set of activities to be implemented, as
appropriate, by Parties, other Governments and relevant
organizations at the international, regional, and national levels
to contribute to capacity-building for the effective implementation
of the Protocol in a strategic and focused manner. The proposed
activities are not meant to be prescriptive or exclusive. Rather
they are illustrative of the kinds of core activities that would
need to be undertaken, as appropriate, in order to achieve the
desired results by 2020. The Action Plan is meant to complement
other relevant initiatives and plans, including the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and
the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and
Capacity-Building.
4.1Objectives, activities and
expected results
Focal area 1: National biosafety
frameworks
Operational objective 1
To further support the development and implementation of national
regulatory and administrative systems.
Outcomes
- National biosafety frameworks developed and implemented;
- Functional national biosafety systems.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- Number of Parties with operational regulatory frameworks
(biosafety laws and regulations)
- Number of Parties with functional administrative
arrangements
| (a)National biosafety
policies, laws and regulations in place and being implemented (b)National institutions
and administrative systems for handling LMO applications in
place (c)Standard operating
procedures for handling LMO applications in place (d)Provisions made in the
national annual budgets for operationalizing the national biosafety
system (e)Trained staff in place
to administer the national biosafety system (f)Biosafety is
mainstreamed into broader development plans and sectoral policies
and programmes, including the national biodiversity strategies and
action plans | 1.1Development and
implementation/ enforcement of national biosafety policies and laws
and the implementing regulations or guidelines 1.2Development of a best
practice guide on:
(i)Implementation of
national biosafety frameworks; (ii)Enforcement of
national biosafety laws and regulations; (iii)Establishment and
management of administrative systems; and (iv)Mainstreaming of
biosafety into relevant policies/plans 1.3Development of
training modules based on elements of the above guide 1.4Organization of
training-of-trainers workshops on the elements of the best practice
guide 1.5Development and/or
implementation of an electronic system for:
(i)handling of
notifications and (ii)registration of
applications and approvals/decisions taken 1.6Organization of
training courses and on-the-job training programmes for personnel
responsible for administering the biosafety regulatory
systems |
Focal area 2: Risk assessment and risk
management
Operational objective 2
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 living modified
organisms (LMOs).
Outcomes
- Resources, including human resources, and the administrative
mechanisms required to assess risks of LMOs are available;
- Training materials and technical guidance on risk assessment
and risk management developed and used by Parties;
- Infrastructure and administrative mechanisms established for
the management of risks of LMOs at national, subregional or
regional levels.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- Ratio of risk assessment summary reports as against number of
decisions on LMOs on the BCH
- Number of people trained on risk assessment of LMOs as well as
in monitoring, management and control of LMOs
- Number of Parties that have infrastructure including
laboratories for monitoring, management and control of LMOs
- Number of Parties using the training materials and technical
guidance developed
- Number of Parties that are of the opinion that the training
materials and technical guidance are sufficient and effective
| (a)Parties have trained
experts in fields relevant for risk assessment and risk
management (b)Guidance on risk
assessment and risk management of LMOs readily available and being
used by Parties (c)Local experts
conducting risk assessments and/or risk assessment audits as part
of decision-making regarding LMOs (d)Parties submitting
risk assessment summaries to the BCH (e)Baseline data on
biodiversity relevant for risk assessment and risk management
available (f)Parties have the
necessary infrastructure for risk assessment and risk
management (g)Parties using
science-based risk assessment methods (h)Parties have LMO
monitoring programmes based on defined protection goals, risk
hypotheses and relevant assessment endpoints | 2.1Establishment of
institutional arrangements (e.g., technical and advisory committees
or other arrangements) for conducting or reviewing risk
assessments 2.2Organization of
training-of-trainers workshops on risk assessment and risk
management 2.3Development of
guidance documents on risk assessment and risk management 2.4Development or
strengthening of technical infrastructure for risk assessment and
risk management 2.5Conducting scientific
biosafety research relating to LMOs 2.6Review of existing
data and/or conducting new research to acquire data on biodiversity
for specific ecological areas (e.g., botanical files, consensus
documents, national inventories, etc.) relevant to risk assessment
and risk management 2.7Establishment and
maintenance of user-friendly databases to facilitate easy access to
data on biodiversity relevant for risk assessment and risk
management 2.8Development of LMO
monitoring frameworks and programmes, including post-release
monitoring of LMOs 2.9Training of
scientists, phytosanitary officers, inspectors and other relevant
officials on LMO monitoring, enforcement and emergency
response |
Focal area 3: Handling, transport, packaging
and identification
Operational objective 3
To develop capacity for handling, transport, packaging and
identification of living modified organisms.
Outcomes
- Customs/border control officials and other officials are able
to enforce the Protocol's requirements related to handling,
transport, packaging and identification of LMOs;
- Personnel are trained and equipped for sampling, detection and
identification of LMOs.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- Number of customs/border control officers and laboratory
personnel trained
- Percentage of Parties that have established or have reliable
access to detection laboratories
- Number of national and regional certified laboratories with the
capacity to detect LMOs
- Number of certified laboratories in operation
| (a)National systems for
implementing the Protocol's requirements on the handling,
transport, packaging and identification of LMOs in place and are
operational (b)National systems,
including standard operating procedures, for detection and
identification of LMOs in place (c)Local experts able to
detect and identify LMOs in shipments (d)Capacity for
verification and certification of documentation accompanying LMO
shipments at the points of entry in place (e)Certified LMO testing
facilities established at national and (sub)regional levels (f)Systems for
traceability and labelling of LMOs in place (g)Regional and
subregional networks of laboratories for LMO detection and
identification established | 3.1Establishment of
national systems for implementing the Protocol's requirements on
the handling, transport, packaging and identification of LMOs 3.2Development of
national systems to implement international rules and standards for
sampling and detection of LMOs to facilitate mutual recognition of
LMO identification results within and between countries 3.3Establishment of
mechanisms for auditing the efficacy of the national systems for
handling, transport, packaging and identification of LMOs 3.4Organization of
national and (sub)regional training workshops on LMO documentation
and identification requirements for customs and border control
officials and other relevant stakeholders 3.5Development of
standardized forms and checklists on identification requirements
for use in verification of the documentation accompanying LMO
shipments 3.6Development of
methodologies and protocols for sampling and detection of LMOs
and/or adapting existing ones 3.7Organization of
trainings for local scientists and laboratory technicians in LMO
detection and analysis 3.8Establishment of
infrastructure for detection and identification of LMOs, including
accredited laboratories 3.9Establishment of
(sub)regional networks of laboratories for LMO detection |
Focal area 4: Liability and redress
Operational objective 4
To assist Parties to the Protocol to establish and apply rules and
procedures on liability and redress for damage resulting from the
transboundary movements of living modified organisms, in accordance
with the Nagoya - Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability
and Redress.
Outcomes
- Institutional mechanisms or processes identified or established
to facilitate the implementation of the Nagoya - Kuala Lumpur
Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- Number of eligible Parties that received capacity-building
support in the area of liability and redress involving LMOs
- Number of domestic administrative or legal instruments
identified, amended or newly enacted that fulfil the objectives of
international rules and procedures in the field of liability and
redress
| (a)Existing national
policies, laws and administrative systems identified and used,
and/or amended, to implement the Supplementary Protocol
requirements (b)Guidance available and
being used by competent authorities in the discharge of their
responsibilities under the Supplementary Protocol (c)National capacity for
determining appropriate response measures in the event of damage
developed (d)User-friendly
databases/ knowledge management systems in place and being used to
establish baselines and to monitor the status of biodiversity (e)Financial and other
support being provided by the GEF, bilateral and multilateral
donors and relevant organizations for the ratification and
implementation of the Supplementary Protocol (f)Best practices and
lessons learned in the implementation of the Supplementary Protocol
available through the BCH | 4.1Analysis of existing
national policies, laws and institutional mechanisms to determine
how they address or could address the requirements of the
Supplementary Protocol 4.2Establishment of new,
or amendment of existing, domestic legal and administrative
frameworks to implement the requirements of the Supplementary
Protocol 4.3Development of
guidance to assist competent authorities in discharging their
responsibilities under the Supplementary Protocol 4.4Organization of
training activities to strengthen the scientific and technical
capacity of the competent authorities to be able to evaluate
damage, establish causal links and determine appropriate response
measures 4.5Establishment of
databases and knowledge management systems to facilitate the
establishment of baselines and monitoring of the status of
biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem levels 4.6Strengthening national
capacity to provide for administrative or judicial review of
decisions on response measures to be taken by the operator in
accordance with Article 5.6 of the Supplementary
Protocol 4.7Compilation and
exchange of information on experiences and lessons learned in the
implementation of the Supplementary Protocol through the BCH 4.8Mobilization of
financial and other support for ratification and implementation of
the Supplementary Protocol |
Focal area 5: Public awareness, education and
participation
Operational objective 5
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 living modified organisms.
Outcomes
- Parties have access to guidance and training materials on
public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe
transfer, handling and use of LMOs;
- Parties are enabled to promote and facilitate public awareness,
education and participation in biosafety.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- 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
- Percentage of Parties that inform their public about existing
modalities for participation
- 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
| (a)Programmes for
promoting public awareness are being implemented (b)Guidance materials and
toolkits including methodologies and best practices for promoting
public awareness, and promote education and participation in place
and being used by Parties (c)Improved mechanisms
for public awareness, and promote education and participation (d)Effective
implementation of public awareness, and promote education and
participation at national, regional and international level | 5.1Collection of
information on legal frameworks and mechanisms put in place and
actual experiences on public awareness, education and
participation 5.2Development and
dissemination of training packages/online modules, guidance
materials and other tools for different target groups 5.3Organization of
regional and national workshops on the implementation of the above
guidance/toolkit in order to strengthen or establish national
mechanisms for public awareness, education and participation,
interlinking with complementary international agreements 5.4Organization of
training-of-trainers workshops for biosafety educators,
communicators and other government and non-government personnel at
national and (sub)regional levels 5.5Establishment of
mechanisms to inform the public about existing opportunities and
modalities for participation 5.6Establishment of
national biosafety websites, searchable databases and national
resource centres 5.7Development and
implementation of biosafety public-awareness programmes |
Focal area 6: Information-sharing
Operational objective 6
To ensure that the BCH is easily accessed by all established
stakeholders, in particular in developing countries and countries
with economies in transition.
Outcomes
- Increased access to information in the BCH and sharing of
information through the BCH by users in developing countries and
countries with economies in transition;
- Tools to facilitate implementation of the Protocol are easily
accessible through the BCH;
- Information on the BCH is easily accessible to stakeholders,
including the general public.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- Number of submissions to the BCH from developing countries and
countries with economies in transition
- Amount of traffic from users to the BCH from developing
countries and countries with economies in transition
| (a)Parties able to
register mandatory information in the BCH (b)Parties, non-Parties
and other stakeholders are able to post non-mandatory information
to the BCH (c)Improved coordination
and sharing of experiences on the BCH at national, (sub)regional,
and global levels (d)Increased awareness
and capacity of relevant stakeholders and general public to access
information through BCH (e)National systems set
up to gather, manage and upload onto the BCH all the information
required under the Protocol | 6.1Establishment/maintenance of national and regional
infrastructure for accessing the BCH 6.2Development of
national and (sub)regional systems for gathering/managing
information for submission to the BCH 6.3Creation of national
websites using, as appropriate, AJAX and Hermes tools 6.4Organization of BCH
training for specific target groups, using the BCH Regional
Advisors' network 6.5Enhancement of
cooperation between relevant international organizations on the
further development and population of the BCH to maximize use of
existing resources, experiences and expertise and to minimize
duplication of activities 6.6Organization of
training for information management experts on the BCH and putting
in place mechanisms to facilitate use of the BCH by various
stakeholders 6.7Establishment of
mechanisms to enable countries to monitor the use of the BCH at the
national level and to address gaps 6.8Continuation of the
BCH capacity-building projects at national and (sub)regional
levels 6.9Enhancement of the BCH
coordination mechanism at the national level, including
interministerial and interagency collaboration with relevant
stakeholders |
Focal area 7: Biosafety education and
training
Operational objective 7
To promote education and training of biosafety professionals
through greater coordination and collaboration among academic
institutions and relevant organizations.
Outcomes
- A sustainable pool of biosafety professionals with various
competencies available at national/ international levels;
- Improved biosafety education and training programmes;
- Increased exchange of information, training materials and staff
and students among academic institutions and relevant
organizations.
| Indicators | Results/Outputs | Activities |
|---|
- Number of academic institutions by region offering biosafety
education and training courses and programmes
- Number of biosafety training materials and online modules
available
| (a)Improved
identification of training needs and target audiences (b)Information on the
current situation with regard to existing biosafety-related
education and training initiatives available (c)Relevant documentation
(including real-life dossiers and full risk assessment reports)
made available for biosafety education and education purposes (d)Compilations of
existing biosafety training and education initiatives and trainers
are made available (e)E-learning courses and
other distance education and training programs on biosafety are
available (f)Scientific and
professional conferences and workshops support exchange of
information and experiences (g)Biosafety regulators
continuously trained through on-the-job and off-the-job training
programmes | 7.1Undertaking of
periodic training needs assessments to ascertain the demand for
biosafety education and training programme, and to identify target
audiences 7.2Development and/or
strengthening of biosafety education and training programs at
national and (sub)regional levels, including online and continuing
education programs 7.3Exchange of
information on existing biosafety education and training courses
and programmes through the BCH 7.4Integration of
biosafety into the curricula of existing relevant academic programs
and courses 7.5Establishment of
national and (sub)regional coordination mechanisms or networks for
institutions involved in biosafety education and training to
facilitate the sharing experiences and best practices 7.6Exchange of biosafety
training and research materials among academic institutions 7.7Development of
academic exchange and fellowship programs to facilitate the sharing
of expertise, including through North-South and South-South
cooperation 7.8Expansion and
maintenance of the database in the BCH on existing biosafety
training and education programmes/courses, academic staff/experts
on relevant subjects and training materials. 7.9Strengthening the
capacity of existing universities, research institutes and centres
of excellence to deliver biosafety education and training |
4.2Roles and responsibilities
1.The primary responsibility of
implementing this Action Plan rests with Parties and other
Governments. Other entities will play a supporting role, including
providing financial and technical assistance. Parties and other
Governments will,
inter alia, be responsible for:
(a)Identifying and communicating
their capacity-building needs to the Biosafety Clearing House
(BCH);
(b)Designing and implementing
specific capacity-building interventions;
(c)Mobilizing local resources and
availing themselves of financial and technical support available
through bilateral and multilateral channels;
(d)Providing to the BCH reports on
their capacity-building activities;
(e)Providing an enabling
environment and leadership to encourage the development of
capacity-building initiatives by other entities; and
(f)Providing direction to and
coordination for capacity-building activities of other entities,
including donors, within the framework of the national
capacity-building strategy or action plan.
2.Other entities, including the
Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations agencies and
other intergovernmental organizations, regional bodies, bilateral
and multilateral donors, academic and research institutions,
non-governmental organizations and the private sector will play
different roles in support of Parties and other Governments, based
on their comparative advantage and expertise, taking into account
the indicative roles identified in annex II to
decision
BS-I/5.
3.In addition to the roles
specified in annex II to
decision
BS-I/5, the Secretariat will, subject to the availability of
resources, undertake the following tasks:
(a)Assist Parties in identifying
their capacity-building needs by providing appropriate needs
assessment tools, providing advice upon request and organizing
(sub)regional workshops in this regard;
(b)Organize (sub)regional
workshops on project proposal development;
(c)Prepare toolkits on good
practices and lessons learned in biosafety project design,
management and evaluation;
(d)Organize training workshops for
Parties on resource mobilization for biosafety to, inter
alia, facilitate sharing of experiences and good practice and
the development of resource mobilization strategies, in the context
of activities to facilitate implementation of the Convention's
strategy for resource mobilization.
4.The Conference of the Parties
serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol has an
overall responsibility to provide guidance on the implementation of
this Action Plan and to review its effectiveness and
relevance.
4.3Resources for
implementation
5.The Action Plan will be
implemented with financial support from various sources, including
GEF, bilateral and multilateral funding, and voluntary financial
contributions through the Secretariat. Parties are also encouraged
to include in their national budgets allocations to finance
biosafety capacity-building activities.
6.Parties will be invited to
assess and submit to the Secretariat their funding requirements
related to the implementation of the Action Plan as part of the
overall process to assess the amount of financial resources needed
by developing country Parties, in particular the least developed
and the small island developing States among them, and Parties with
economies in transition to implement the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011 2020. In addition,
Parties and other Governments are encouraged to identify and
maximize opportunities for technical assistance and cooperation
from regional and international sources for the implementation of
the Action Plan.
7.The ability to mobilize
adequate financial, human and technical resources in a predictable
manner and on a sustainable basis will be critical to the
successful implementation of the Action Plan. In this regard,
Parties are encouraged to develop and implement national strategies
for resource mobilization and exchange, through the BCH,
information on the experiences, good practices and lessons
learned.
4.4Monitoring and evaluation
8.Monitoring and evaluation of
the implementation of the Action Plan will be done by the
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to
the Protocol. The Secretariat will prepare, on the basis of
submissions by Parties and other Governments, a report on the
status of implementation of the Action Plan and on how the
framework is being used by Parties, other Governments and relevant
organizations in the planning, implementation and monitoring of
their biosafety capacity-building activities or in supporting or
financing biosafety programmes. The report will be submitted to the
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to
the Protocol for its consideration and guidance on measures for
improvement.
9.The reports on the status of
implementation of the Action Plan will outline the activities
implemented and the key results achieved in order to provide a
clearer sense of the overall progress made at different levels. In
this regard, governments and relevant organizations would be
requested to make submissions on both their activities and the
results achieved. This would serve as a good measure of the
outcomes for the capacity-building focal area of the Strategic Plan
of the Protocol.
10.The indicators provided in
the Action Plan will be used to monitor and evaluate the progress
made. A more elaborate monitoring framework, describing, inter
alia, the indicators and the data collection methodology,
including how and where the data will be collected, will be
developed by the Secretariat.
V.REVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK AND
ACTION PLAN
11.A comprehensive review of the
Framework and Action Plan will be carried out for consideration by
the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties
to the Protocol in conjunction with the mid-term review of the
Strategic Plan for the Protocol and the third assessment and review
of the effectiveness of the Protocol, its procedures and annexes
mandated by Article 35 of the Protocol.
Annex II
COORDINATION MECHANISM FOR
CAPACITY-BUILDING EFFORTS UNDER THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON
BIOSAFETY
A.Objective
1.The objective of the
Coordination Mechanism is to facilitate coordination, cooperation
and exchange of information with a view to promoting
complementarity and maximizing synergies between various capacity
building initiatives in order to minimize duplication of effort and
foster efficient utilization of available resources.
B.Guiding Principles
2.The Coordination Mechanism
will be guided by the following basic principles:
(a)The purpose of the mechanism
will be to facilitate the sharing of information regarding
biosafety capacity-building initiatives and not to supervise,
control or evaluate different initiatives;
(b)Participation in, and exchange
of information through the Coordination Mechanism will be voluntary
and open to all interested stakeholders;
(c)The mechanism will be a simple,
flexible and easily accessible system and its operation will
involve minimal additional resource requirements;
(d)The mechanism will be
operationalized in a phased and incremental manner;
(e)The mechanism will complement
and add value to, and not compete with, existing coordination and
networking initiatives at national, regional and international
levels.
C.Elements of the Coordination
Mechanism
3.The Coordination Mechanism
will consist of the following core elements:
(a)Liaison Group on
capacity-building in biosafety;
(b)Biosafety capacity building
databases;
(c)Information sharing and
networking mechanism; and
(d)Coordination meetings.
1.Liaison Group on
Capacity-building in Biosafety
4.The Liaison Group will be a
small ad hoc group of experts (not a standing body) constituted and
convened by the Executive Secretary in a transparent manner to
address specific capacity-building issues/topics, as need arises.
It will be composed of no more than fifteen experts selected from
among Parties, with due regard to equitable geographical
representation and gender balance, and a limited number of experts
from relevant organizations not exceeding one third of experts from
Parties. Members of the Liaison Group will serve in their
individual capacity and not as representatives of their Governments
or organizations. Every effort will be made to ensure any one
meeting of the Group includes some members that attended previous
meetings in order to maintain some level of continuity and
institutional memory.
5.The mandate of the Liaison
Group will be to provide expert advice to the Executive Secretary
on ways and means to enhance the coordination and effective
implementation of the capacity-building components of the Strategic
Plan for the Protocol.
6.Operations of the Liaison
Group will follow the guidance on the expert and liaison groups
contained in the consolidated modus operandi of SBSTTA
(annex III to decision VIII/10 of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention). To the extent possible, the Liaison Group will
conduct its work using electronic means, including e-mail, online
discussions through a restricted collaborative portal and
teleconferences. However, face-to-face meetings of the Group may be
organized, subject to availability of resources.
2.Biosafety capacity-building
databases
7.The capacity-building
databases will serve as a central repository of information on
biosafety capacity building initiatives around the world (including
projects, one-off activities and opportunities, and academic
courses), as well as information on country needs and available
tools and resource materials. Reports and/or web links to reports
on completed initiatives, including summaries of major
accomplishments and lessons learned will be incorporated into the
database for capacity-building initiatives.
8.The databases will facilitate
timely and structured access to information on completed, ongoing
and planned initiatives. This will allow users to identify overlaps
and gaps in the geographic and thematic coverage of existing
capacity-building initiatives, in order to minimise duplication of
efforts and resources, facilitating leverage of resources, and
identifying opportunities for collaboration, joint actions and
synergies.
9.The databases will be
maintained through the BCH. Common formats will be used to
facilitate submission of information in a structured and consistent
manner and also facilitate customized searching of the databases.
Persons designated by governments or relevant organizations will be
able to register and update information in the databases through
the BCH management centre using a password system.
3.Information-sharing and
networking mechanism
10.The focus of this element
will be to facilitate informal but systematic sharing of
information, experiences, good practices and lessons learned from
capacity-building initiatives as well as exchange ideas on how to
address identified needs, challenges and emerging issues. This will
be done primarily through the "online forum on capacity-building"
but also, as appropriate and subject to the availability of funds,
through face-to-face coordination meetings.
11.The online forum and the
face-to-face coordination meetings will provide a platform for
individuals interested in or involved in biosafety
capacity-building and research activities to interact, build
relations, network and share information, and learn from each
others' operational experiences. They will also give stakeholders
an opportunity to brainstorm, share their views and suggest
innovative ideas to improve the design and delivery of
capacity-building initiatives. Furthermore, they will provide
participants an opportunity to build a common understanding of the
general capacity-building issues, needs and the strategic
approaches to address those needs, and to foster dialogue and
consensus on key issues.
12.A wide range of online tools
including online discussion groups, collaborative portals and
restricted workspaces for specific groups or expert networks, and
e-mail listservs as well as through real-time online conferences
will be used, as appropriate.
4.Coordination meetings
13.The face-to-face coordination
meetings will complement the online forum by allowing individuals
from relevant organizations, Government agencies and donors
involved in designing, implementing or funding biosafety
capacity-building activities to meet face-to-face, in an informal
setting, to exchange information and review operational experience
and lessons learned regarding their capacity-building efforts. They
will also provide an opportunity to review and consider ways of
addressing gaps or overlaps between existing activities and foster
synergies and partnerships. Furthermore, coordination meetings will
facilitate the improvement of planning and delivery of
capacity-building assistance to countries while improving the
provision of assistance to countries with specific defined needs.
These meetings will be organized by the Secretariat in
collaboration with relevant organizations, subject to the
availability of funding.
D.Administration of the
Coordination Mechanism
14.The Coordination Mechanism
will be administered by the Executive Secretary, whose primary
functions will include the following:
(a)Maintaining the
capacity-building databases, including their regular updating based
on submissions received from Parties, other Governments, relevant
organizations and donors;
(b)Facilitating the dissemination
of information and lessons learned shared through the Coordination
Mechanism;
(c)Convening and servicing
meetings of the liaison group on capacity-building in biosafety,
and coordination meetings, as necessary;
(d)Preparing reports on operations
of the Coordination Mechanism for consideration by the meetings of
the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties
to the Protocol;
(e)Promoting awareness of the
Coordination Mechanism and encouraging various stakeholders,
including donor countries and agencies and organizations providing
capacity-building support, to participate more actively in its
activities.
