| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Assessment and Review|4th A&R/Final evaluation of Strategic Plan   Printer-friendly version

Fourth assessment and review of the Protocol and final evaluation of the Strategic Plan 2011-2020

The COP-MOP, in its decision CP-9/6, decided that the fourth assessment and review of the Cartagena Protocol will be combined with the final evaluation of the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011-2020. It requested the Executive Secretary to analyse and synthesize information on the implementation of the Protocol using, inter alia, the fourth national reports as a primary source, the Biosafety Clearing-House and experience from capacity-building projects and the Compliance Committee, where appropriate.

The COP-MOP requested the Liaison Group on the Cartagena Protocol and the Compliance Committee, working in a complementary and non-duplicative manner, to contribute to the fourth assessment and review of the Protocol and final evaluation of the Strategic Plan and to submit their conclusions to the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. It requested the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, at its third meeting, to consider the information provided and conclusions reached by the Liaison Group and the Compliance Committee and to submit its findings and recommendations to the COP-MOP, at its tenth meeting.

Pursuant to decision CP-9/6, the Executive Secretary compiled, analysed and synthesised information on the implementation of the Protocol obtained from the fourth national reports and other sources, as compared to baseline data obtained during the second reporting cycle. The analysis was made available to the Liaison Group on the Cartagena Protocol at its 14th meeting, the Compliance Committee at its 17th meeting and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its third meeting. The Subsidiary Body on Implementation considered the matter at its third meeting on the basis of the summary of progress under the different thematic areas in the Strategic Plan provided in document CBD/SBI/3/3 and the analysis of information from several sources provided in document CBD/SBI/3/3/ADD1, and adopted Recommendation SBI-3/2. An update to the analysis, based on the additional fourth national reports received, was made available for COP-MOP 10.

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, at its tenth meeting, adopted decision CP-10/7.

Analysis

To facilitate the compilation and analysis of the data contained in the fourth national reports the online analyzer tool was used to compare the data with baseline data provided in the second reporting cycle.

The assessment of progress on each of the operational objectives of the Strategic Plan was based on information on the related indicators that was obtained from the fourth national reports and other sources, as compared with baseline data.

The matrix below provides the source of information related to each of the indicators of the Strategic Plan used in the assessment. The source of information is provided for the baseline and for the fourth national reporting cycle.

Operational Objective 1.1 National Biosafety Frameworks:
To enable all Parties to have operational national biosafety frameworks in place for the implementation of the Protocol
Indicator Source of information
1.1.1 Number of Parties, in particular centers of origin, that have in place national biosafety legislation and implementing guidelines not more than 6 years after accession to/ratification of the Protocol Baseline: Q15 and 16 of the second national report and Q3 from the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q14 and 15 of the fourth national report
1.1.2 Percentage of the Parties that have in place administrative rules and procedures for handling notifications and requests for approval of imports of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing; contained use and for introduction into the environment Baseline: Q26, 29 and 54 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q24, 27, and 42 of the fourth national report

1.1.3 Percentage of Parties that have designated national focal points and competent national authorities Baseline: BCH on 1 January 2012
Fourth reporting cycle: BCH on 31 December 2019

1.1.4 Percentage of Parties that have received notifications in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol or appropriate domestic legislation. Baseline: Q37 and 41 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q29 of the fourth national report
1.1.5 Percentage of Parties that have taken import decisions in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol or appropriate domestic legislation. Baseline: Q38 and 42 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q33 of the fourth national report
 
Operational Objective 1.2 Coordination and support:
To put in place effective mechanisms for developing biosafety systems with the necessary coordination, financing and monitoring support
Indicator Source of information
1.2.1 Number of Parties that have assessed their capacity-building needs, including training and institutional needs, and submitted the information to the BCH not more than 3 years after accession to/ratification of the Protocol Baseline: Q 145 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q133 of the fourth national report
1.2.2 Percentage of the Parties that have developed national biosafety capacity-building action plans for implementing the Protocol Baseline: Q148 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q136 of the fourth national report
1.2.3 Percentage of the Parties that have in place training programmes for personnel dealing with biosafety issues and for long-term training of biosafety professionals Baseline: Q4 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Not available*

* No specific question was included in the fourth national report
1.2.4 Percentage of Parties that have in place national coordination mechanisms for biosafety capacity-building initiatives Baseline: Q5 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q137 of the fourth national report
1.2.5 Amount of new and additional financial resources mobilized for the implementation of the Protocol Baseline: Q6 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q167 of the fourth national report
1.2.6 Number of Parties that have predictable and reliable funding for strengthening their capacity in implementing the Protocol Baseline: Q7 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q124 of the fourth national report
1.2.7 Number of Parties reporting that their capacity-building needs have been met Baseline: Q146 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q134 of the fourth national report
1.2.8 Number of cooperative arrangements reported involving LMO exporting and importing Parties Baseline: Q8 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q 58 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 1.3 Risk assessment and risk management:
To further develop and support implementation of scientific tools on common approaches to risk assessment and risk management for Parties
Indicator Source of information
1.3.1 Percentage of Parties adopting and using guidance documents on risk assessment and risk management for the purpose of:
  1. Performing their own risk assessment and risk management;
  2. Evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers.
Baseline: Q9(a)and 9(b) of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q71(a), 71(b), and 72 of the fourth national report
1.3.2 Percentage of Parties adopting common approaches to risk assessment and risk management Baseline: Q11 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q73 of the fourth national report
1.3.3 Percentage of Parties that undertake actual risk assessment pursuant to the Protocol Baseline: Q12 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q75 and 76 of the fourth national report
 
Operational Objective 1.4 LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects:
To develop modalities for cooperation and guidance in identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health
Indicator Source of information
1.4.1 Guidance on living modified organisms or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, developed by Parties and available Not available
1.4.2 Number of Parties that have the capacity to identify, assess and monitor living modified organisms or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health. Baseline: Q13(a) and 13(b) of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q70(a), 70(b), 70(c) and 70(d) of the fourth national report
 
Operational Objective 1.5 Liability and Redress:
To adopt and implement the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Indicator Source of information
1.5.1 Entry into force of the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol Baseline: status on 31 December 2011
Fourth reporting cycle: status on 15 January 2020
1.5.2 Percentage of Parties to the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety having in place national administrative and legal frameworks incorporating rules and procedures on liability and redress for damage caused by living modified organisms Baseline: Q29 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q171 (Parties to the NKLSP only); Q173(a) and (b); and Q178 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 1.6 Handling, transport, packaging and identification:
To enable Parties to implement the requirements of the Protocol and COP-MOP decisions on identification and documentation requirements for living modified organisms
Indicator Source of information
1.6.1 Percentage of Parties that put in place documentation requirements for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing Baseline: Q109 and 110 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q92 and Q93 of the fourth national report

1.6.2 Percentage of Parties that put in place documentation requirements for living modified organisms for contained use and for intentional introduction into the environment Baseline: Q111 and Q112 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q95 and Q97 of the fourth national report

1.6.3 Number of Parties with access to tools that are capable of detecting unauthorized LMOs. Baseline: Q114 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q102 of the fourth national report

1.6.4 Number of Parties using guidance developed for the handling, transport and packaging of LMOs Baseline: Q14 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q99 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 1.7 Socio-economic considerations:
To, on the basis of research and information exchange, provide relevant guidance on socio-economic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms
Indicator Source of information
1.7.1 Number of peer reviewed research papers published, made available and used by Parties in considering socio-economic impacts of LMOs Baseline: Q16 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q164 of the fourth national report

1.7.2 Number of Parties reporting on their approaches to taking socioeconomic considerations into account Baseline: Q15 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q 162 of the fourth national report

Analysis based on the number of Parties responding "Yes".
1.7.3 Number of Parties reporting on their experiences in taking socio-economic considerations into account in reaching decisions on import of living modified organisms Baseline: Q176 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q163 of the fourth national report

1.7.4 Number of Parties using guidelines on socio-economic considerations The reporting format does not contain a question related to the use of guidelines. In the absence of specific information at the national level, information is based on the development of global guidance, as per operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan.
 
Operational Objective 1.8 Transit, contained use, unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures:
To develop tools and guidance that facilitate the implementation of the Protocol's provisions on transit, contained use, unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
Indicator Source of information
1.8.1 Percentage of Parties having in place measures to manage LMOs in transit Baseline: Q25 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q23 of the fourth national report

1.8.2 Percentage of Parties having in place measures for contained use Baseline: Q26 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q24 of the fourth national report

1.8.3 Percentage of Parties using the guidance to detect occurrence of unintentional releases of living modified organisms and being able to take appropriate response measures Baseline: Q18 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q88 of the fourth national report
 
Operational Objective 2.1 National Biosafety Frameworks:
To further support the development and implementation of national regulatory and administrative systems.
Indicator Source of information
2.1.1 Number of Parties with operational regulatory frameworks Baseline: Q15 and 16 of the second national report and Q3 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q14 and 15 of the fourth national report

2.1.2 Number of Parties with functional administrative arrangements Baseline: Q17, 18 and 122 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q17, 18 and 109 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 2.2 Risk assessment and risk management:
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 LMOs
Indicator Source of information
2.2.1 Ratio of risk assessment summary reports as against number of decisions on LMOs on the BCH Baseline: January 2012
Fourth reporting cycle: January 2020
2.2.2 Number of risk assessment summary reports in the BCH that are in compliance with the Protocol Not available
2.2.3 Number of people trained on risk assessment, as well as in monitoring, management and control of LMOs Baseline: Q19(a), 19(b) and 19(c) of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q65(a), 65(b) and 65(c) of the fourth national report
2.2.4 Number of Parties that have infrastructure, including laboratories for monitoring, management and control Baseline: Q20 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q83 of the fourth national report
2.2.5 Number of Parties that are using the developed training materials and technical guidance Baseline: Q21 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q66, 67 and 68 of the fourth national report
2.2.6 Number of Parties that are of the opinion that the training materials and technical guidance are sufficient and effective Baseline: Not available*
Fourth reporting cycle: Q69 of the fourth national report

* No question was included in the 2nd national report or in the Survey on this issue
 
Operational Objective 2.3 Handling, transport, packaging and identification:
To develop capacity for handling, transport, packaging and identification of living modified organisms
Indicator Source of information
2.3.1 Number of customs officers and laboratory personnel trained Baseline: Q23 and 24 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q101 and 103 of the fourth national report

2.3.2 Percentage of Parties that have established or have reliable access to detection laboratories Baseline: Q25 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q104 of the fourth national report

2.3.3 National and regional laboratories certified with the capacity to detect LMOs Baseline: Q26 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q105 of the tfourth national report

2.3.4 Number of certified laboratories in operation Baseline: Q27 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q106 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 2.4 Liability and Redress:
To assist Parties to the Protocol in their efforts to establish and apply the rules and procedures on liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of living modified organisms
Indicator Source of information
2.4.1 Number of eligible Parties that received capacity building support in the area of liability and redress involving living modified organisms Baseline: Q28 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q132 of the fourth national report

2.4.2 Number of domestic administrative or legal instruments identified, amended or newly enacted that fulfill the objective of the international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress Baseline: Q29 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q173(a) of the fourth national report; Q171 of the fourth national report (Parties to the NKLSP only)

 
Operational Objective 2.5 Public awareness, education and participation:
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 LMOs
Indicator Source of information
2.5.1 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 Baseline: Q154 of the second national report
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q147 of the fourth national report

2.5.2 Percentage of Parties that inform their public about existing modalities for participation Baseline: Q30, 31 and 32 of the survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q148 and 149 of the fourth national report

2.5.3 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 Baseline: Q152 of the second national report
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q144 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 2.6 Information sharing:
To ensure that the BCH is easily accessed by all established stakeholders, in particular in developing countries and countries with economies in transition
Indicator Source of information
2.6.1 Number of submissions to the BCH from developing countries and countries with economies in transition Source: number of BCH records, submitted by non-(WEOG & Japan) countries

Baseline: 1 January 2012
Fourth reporting Cycle: 1 January 2020
2.6.2 Amount of traffic from users to the BCH from developing countries and countries with economies in transition Source: Google Analytics number of visits and unique visitors per year over the reporting period from non-(WEOG & Japan) countries

Baseline: Annual average 2008-2011
Fourth reporting Cycle: Annual average 2016-2019
 
Operational Objective 2.7 Biosafety education and training:
To promote education and training of biosafety professionals through greater coordination and collaboration among academic institutions and relevant organizations
Indicator Source of information
2.7.1 Number of academic institutions by region offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes Baseline: Q33 of the survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q145 of the fourth national report

2.7.2 Number of biosafety training materials and online modules available Baseline: Q34 of the survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q146 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 3.1 Compliance with the Protocol:
To strengthen the mechanisms for achieving compliance
Indicator Source of information
3.1.1 Number of Parties that have identified and addressed their non-compliance issues Source: number of submissions made by Parties to the Compliance Committee

Baseline: Submissions made during the second reporting cycle
Fourth reporting Cycle: Submissions made during the fourth reporting cycle
3.1.2 Number of Parties having approved and functional national legal, administrative and other measures to implement the Protocol Baseline: Q15, 17, 18 and 122 of the second national report and Q3 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 109 of the fourth national report

3.1.3 Percentage of Parties that designated all National Focal Points Baseline: BCH on 1 January 2012
Fourth reporting cycle: BCH on 31 December 2019

3.1.4 Number of Parties having in place a system for handling requests including for Advance Informed Agreement Baseline: Q29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 51, 54, 57, 59 and 60 of the second national report
Fourth reporting cycle: Q27, 29, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the fourth national report

3.1.5 Percentage of Parties that published all mandatory information via the BCH Baseline: Q20, 46, 61, 62, 78, 89 and 124(h) of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q112(a), 112(b), 112(c), 112(h), 112(i), 112(k), 112(l) and 112(q) of the fourth national report

3.1.6 Number of Parties having in place a monitoring and enforcement system Baseline: Q35 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q168* of the fourth national report

* Compared to question 35(a) of the Survey only
3.1.7 Number of national reports received under each reporting cycle Source: number of national reports submitted by the ‘cut off date’ for the preparation of the analysis

Baseline: 31 December 2011
Fourth reporting Cycle: 15 January 2020
3.1.8 Number of Parties able to access financial resources to fulfill their obligations under the Protocol Baseline: Q135 of the second national report and Q7 of the Survey
Fourth reporting cycle: Q124 and 167 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 3.2 Assessment and review:
To improve the effectiveness of the Protocol, including through regular assessment and review processes
Indicator Source of information
3.2.1 Number of assessment reports submitted and reviews published Source: number of national reports submitted by the ‘cut off date’ for preparation of the analysis

Baseline: 31 December 2011
Fourth reporting Cycle: 15 January 2020
3.2.2 Number of Parties modifying their national biosafety frameworks to correspond with amendments to the Protocol adopted to address new challenges Not applicable
 
Operational Objective 4.1 BCH effectiveness:
To increase the amount and quality of information submitted to and retrieved from the BCH
Indicator Source of information
4.1.1 Ratio of risk assessment summary reports as against number of decisions on LMOs Source: BCH;

Baseline: January 2012
Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020
4.1.2 Number of publications contained in the Biosafety Information Resource Centre Source: BCH; number of records available in the BCH-BIRC

Baseline: January 2016
Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020
4.1.3 Amount of traffic from users to the BCH Source: Google Analytics; total visits and unique visitors per year

Baseline: Annual average 2008-2011
Fourth reporting Cycle: Annual average 2016-2019
4.1.4 Number of references to the BCH Sources: Google and Google Webmaster Tools; links count equals net of cbd.int, chm cbd.net and biodiv.org

Baseline: 2008-2011
Fourth reporting Cycle: 2016-2019
4.1.5 Number of countries with focal points registered on the BCH Source: BCH

Baseline: January 2012
Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020
4.1.6 Number of countries/regions having published biosafety laws and or regulations on the BCH Source: BCH; Number of countries having submitted information under “Laws and Regulations”

Baseline: January 2012
Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020
4.1.7 Number of AIA/domestic decisions available through BCH Source: BCH

Baseline: January 2012
Fourth reporting Cycle: January 2020
4.1.8 Number of users of the BCH requesting improvement on accuracy, completeness or timeliness of information Not available
 
Operational Objective 4.2 BCH as a tool for online discussions and conferences:
To establish the BCH as a fully functional and effective platform for assisting countries in the implementation of the Protocol
Indicator Source of information
4.2.1 Percentage of Parties participating in online discussions and real-time conferences on the BCH Source: BCH; average and breakdown of participating Parties in BCH forums and real-time conferences

Baseline: 2010-2012
Fourth reporting cycle: 2016-2019
4.2.2 Number of participants in online discussions and conferences, their diversity and background Source: BCH; total number and breakdown of participants in BCH forums and real-time conferences

Baseline: 2010-2012
Fourth reporting cycle: 2016-2019
4.2.3 Number of capacity building activities aimed to increase the transparency, inclusiveness and equity of participation in the BCH Source: BCH; forums and real-time conferences

Baseline: 2010-2012
Fourth reporting cycle: 2016-2019
 
Operational Objective 4.3 Information sharing other than through the BCH:
To enhance understanding through other information exchange mechanisms
Indicator Source of information
4.3.1 Number of events organized in relation to biosafety Baseline: Q36 of the survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q118 of the fourth national report

4.3.2 Number of biosafety related publications shared Baseline: Q 37 and 38 of the survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q119 of the fourth national report

 
Operational Objective 5.1 Ratification of the Protocol:
To achieve global recognition of the Protocol
Indicator Source of information
5.1.1 Percentage of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity that become Parties to the Protocol Source: BCH and the United Nation Treaty Collection web site.

Baseline: 31 December 2011
Fourth reporting Cycle: 31 December 2019
 
Operational Objective 5.2 Cooperation:
To enhance international cooperation and collaboration in biosafety
Indicator Source of information
5.2.1 Number of established relationships with other conventions as reflected in joint activities Source: Description of formal relationships established by the Secretariat with other conventions and organizations in relation to biosafety activities
Baseline: 31 December 2011
Fourth Reporting Cycle: 31 December 2019

 
Operational Objective 5.3 Communication and outreach:
To raise the profile of the Protocol
Indicator Source of information
5.3.1 Number of national awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety Baseline: Q40 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q143 of the fourth national report

5.3.2 Percentage of Parties that have in place national communication strategies on biosafety not later than 3 year after having adopted national biosafety laws Baseline: Q42 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q142 of the fourth national report
5.3.3 Percentage of Parties that have in place national biosafety websites, including national BCH nodes that are accessible to and searchable by the public Baseline: Q152 of the second national report
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q144 of the fourth national report

5.3.4 Number of Parties with awareness and educational materials on biosafety and the Protocol available and accessible to the public, including the diversity of these materials Baseline: Q43 of the Survey
Fourth Reporting Cycle: Q146 of the fourth national report

Baseline

In its decision BS-VI/15, the COP-MOP took note of the information provided in the second national reports and the analysis undertaken on the status of implementation of core elements of the Protocol and decided that the data and information contained in the analysis form the baseline for measuring progress in implementing the Protocol, in particular the subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Protocol and the mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

Furthermore, in its decision BS-VI/15, the COP-MOP requested the Executive Secretary to undertake a dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan that could not be obtained from the second national reports or through other existing mechanisms.

The data from the second national reports and the survey together form the baseline for measuring progress in implementing the Protocol.

Return to 4th assessment and review

   
   
Update on 2023-02-08
United Nations