Open-ended online discussions on the post-2020 Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Dear participants,

Although threads for comments on the different specific aspects of the Implementation Plan have been opened, kindly be reminded that this main thread for general comments will remain open until the end of the discussion period on 19 July.

I look forward to reading your views on the general issues raised in my previous post
https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/post2020/forumimplementationplan.shtml?threadid=9749
as well as any other relevant matters you would like to discuss.

Best wishes,
Galina Mozgova

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela welcomes the discussions of this online forum in relation to the Specific Implementation Plan after 2020 for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Implementation Plan). The inclusion of biosafety in the global framework of post-2020 biodiversity is essential to underpin the objectives of the CBD, in particular for the conservation of diversity and the sustainable use of its components.

In contributing to the preparation for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, as well as developing a specific Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period: 2021-2030, as a follow-up to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 2011-2020; I humbly submit my comments on the Draft Implementation Plan in this thread.
For the protocol to be held as a significant step forward in reconciling the respective needs of trade and environment protection there is need to include vision and mission in the Implementation Plan. In accordance to the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs), resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health and specifically focusing on transboundary movements. This should guide the vision and mission of the emergent Implementation Plan.
Giving the fact that there is sufficient flexibility to account for development during the period of implementation in the structure of the Implementation Plan, there is therefore, a strong desirability in including milestones in the plan. This is to ensure adequate periodic review of relevant issues, instruments and practices and ensure proper estimation of outcomes. It could also reflect lessons learned and inform recommendations in addressing operational gaps in the action plan and developing standards under the protocol. Enhancing conceptual and practical operational measures for consideration of activities under the protocol could become dramatically negative should this element be omitted in the content this strategic Implementation Plan. 
The outcome of some goals did not adequately describe the effect of achieving the goal.
A. UNDER AREARS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
In Goal 1: (Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks) outcome - the effect of achieving this goal should clearly state thus; ‘Functional national biosafety with adequate regulatory and legislative frameworks to enable competent authorities of all Parties to carry out their responsibilities most efficiently under the Protocol’.
In Goal 2: (2. Parties carry out scientifically sound risk assessments of LMOs, and manage and control identified risks), the outcome should clearly demonstrate;
• Precautionary stance in addressing uncertainties
• A risk management plan which is a necessary component for complete risk assessment application for all Parties towards a qualitative approach to risk assessment of LMOs.
• The development of standards under the protocol
The indicator should engage statistical tools to complement the percentages in measuring the outcome and revealing the quantitative evidence of the assessments.
In Goal 6: (Parties identify LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects and those that are unlikely to have adverse effects on biological diversity and take appropriate measures) objective should include; ‘Availability of insurance and compensation arrangement in liability instrument’ which aims to cover claims for damage to persons, properties/economic loses and ecological damages.
B. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
In Goal 3: (Parties raise public awareness and deliver education on the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs and consult the public in decision-taking on LMOs); public awareness, education and participation, is the main outcome and can be effectively achieved through the activities of other relevant organisations and stakeholders alongside Parties to ensure appropriate information dissemination to the public and effective participation in decision-making.

MRS. EDEL-QUINN AGBAEGBU
EVERY WOMAN HOPE CENTRE (EWHC), NIGERIA
ewhcnigeria@gmail.com

Dear Participants,

I would like to thank participants [#9755], [#9756] who have already provided their comments on the draft Plan and its individual sections.

At the same time, I would like to kindly remind you that one week has almost passed since the opening of this very important discussion on the draft Implementation Plan. The end of the forum is Friday 19 July and we have not so much time left for the discussions.

Taking into account the importance of the subject matter and the fact that the Implementation Plan will affect global, regional and national actions and plans, I would ask you to take a more active part and provide your valuable expertise both on the Plan in general (thread 1), as well as on the goals, objectives, outcomes and indicators (separate threads 2-5 for the discussion).

Your expertise and input on the draft Implementation Plan are very important  and needed so that a revised version of the Implementation Plan can be prepared for consideration by the Liaison Group on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, tentatively scheduled to be held in October 2019. The Subsidiary Body on Implementation, at its third meeting, is expected to review a draft of the Implementation Plan and prepare a recommendation for consideration by the meeting of the Parties, at its tenth meeting.

I invite you to take a look at the documents that have been produced by the Secretariat to facilitate the discussion on the draft Implementation Plan, which are available on the webpage http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/post2020/forumimplementationplan.shtml:
1. The synthesis of submissions made in response to notification 2019-027. The views submitted on the structure and content of the Implementation Plan are provided in section II of the document; and
2. The draft Implementation Plan. The document provides an overview of the process undertaken for the development of the Implementation Plan and describes the considerations that were taken into account when preparing the draft of the Plan. The draft Implementation Plan is presented in the annex.

When providing your comments, you may wish to respond to the questions that you find in threads 2-5, intended to facilitate the discussion.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Galina Mozgova

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the online forum on the draft Post-2020 Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

We have the following general comments:

• The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework must be rooted in the Convention on Biological Diversity and its implementation

• The Cartagena Protocol operationalised the CBD’s provisions on living modified organisms (Article 19.3)

• Additionally, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress operationlised Article 27 of the Cartagena Protocol

• Accordingly, the Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol should be part of the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework, and cross-references should be made in this regard

• The Implementation Plan should be a complete and comprehensive plan for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol, including the Supplementary Protocol, buidling upon the Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2011-2020)

• In this regard, it is important to include a Vision and a Mission for the Implementation Plan which is rooted in the objective of the Cartagena Protocol as the proposed ‘areas for implementation’ and the necessary ‘enabling environment’ are not ends in themselves

• In particular, serious attention should be paid to areas which have been inadequately implemented to date, in order for the full implementation of the Cartagena Protocol in the context of achieving its objective

• In particular, organisms developed through new technologies that fall under the scope of the Cartagena Protocol should be given urgent attention, as the Cartagena Protocol’s provisions are inadequate to deal with the risks that they pose as the Cartagena Protocol was drafted with ‘traditional’ LMOs in mind

• Capacity building should be addressed fully under the post-2020 action plan for capacity building for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and the Supplementary Protocol, and cross-references should be made in this regard with the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework and the Implementation Plan

Thank you to the Secretariat for their tireless work in supporting the CBD and its Protocols, and to the Moderator of this online forum.

Best regards,

Lim Li Lin
Third World Network

Dear colleagues,

I appreciate the preparation of the document and welcome the draft implementation plan and the explanation on how the implementation plan was developed. However, I would like to highlight that the draft implementation plan shows lack of recognition and inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities' perspective.

In this regard, I will propose the following indicators to be included in the draft implementation plan

Under the areas of implementation:

Goal 1: Percentage of Parties that have established legislation or policies that address indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) concerns about biosafety

Goal 2: Percentage of Parties who have secured free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and have engaged IPLCs in carrying out risk assessment and risk management

Goal 5: Percentage of Parties who are able to take into account socio-economic and cultural considerations arising from the impacts of LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, especially with regard to the value of biodiversity to IPLC

Goal 6: Percentage of Parties who have ensured the full and effective participation of IPLC in identifying LMOs or traits that may have likely to have possible impacts on indigenous peoples traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Goal 9: Percentage of Parties that involved IPLCs in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol.

Under Enabling Environment:

Goal 1: Percentage of Parties that have identified capacity building for IPLC

Goal 3: Percentage of Parties engaging IPLCs in decision-making processes

Goal 4: to insert ‘including, indigenous peoples and local communities’ after the word ‘stakeholders’


best regards,
June Cadalig Batang-ay

Dear colleagues,

regarding [#9756] the comment referring to the Outcome of Goal 6 under A: Areas for Implmentation (identify LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects and those that are unlikely to have adverse effects): In my understanding, the suggested additional Outcome ‘Availability of insurance and compensation arrangement in liability instrument’ is not an intended Outcome of this specific Goal. Rather, such arrangements are layed down in the liability instrument under the Cartagena Protocol, the Nagoya Kuala-Lumpur Supplementary Protocol, which is covered by an individual Goal 7. Therefore, I find this suggested additional Outcome under Goal 6 slightly redundant and probably misplaced.

Best regards,
Nina Duensing
Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Germany

Dear colleagues,
first of all I would like to thank Galina for taking the burden of moderating this online forum and the secretariat for providing us with background material and the draft Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol.

I believe that in general it reflects quite well the decision taken by the Parties at COP/MOP8. However, I also think that some work has to been done on the details. Some suggestions will follow soon under the specific threads.

I agree with most of the arguments and explanations included in the document, as well as the general structure of the Implementation Plan.

There are some points I would like to comment on:
Even if the Implementation should be flexible, in order to be able to adapt to new technological or political developments, it has to be taken care of the measurability of the indicators throughout the 10 year period of the Implementation plan. This requires some level of continuity with reagrd to goals objectives and indicators, which needs to be reflected in the format for the national reports is crucial to measure progress.

I’m very much in favour of including milestones, which might also be reflected in a working program. The timeframe to reach these milestones should be ambitious and of course might be different for each goal or objective. I agree that this should be done after a more advanced version of the Implementation Plan has been developed.

With regard to the mission and vision: I can understand that for many Parties this is essential, and that to have these elements might be also important for identification with and communication of the Implementation Plan. This is especially important if biosafety is not adequately addressed in the post2020 biodiversity framework. However, if the Implementation Plan does not serve a strategic purpose, we might discuss if we still call it vision and mission.
If it is decided that we keep those elements, the mission might need to be reworded a bit. Currently it reads “to strengthen global, regional and national action and capacity…”. If we look at the current draft of the Implementation Plan all but one goals are addressing Parties (i.e. a single Party). I therefore suggest, in case we stick to keeping the mission, the following wording: “to strengthen national capacity and national, regional and international co-operation to ensure an adequate level of….”

Best regards
Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria

Dear participants,

The open-ended online discussions on the post-2020 Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Implementation Plan.

On the basis of input received during the online discussions, a revised draft Implementation Plan will be prepared, for consideration by the Liaison Group, at its thirteenth meeting, tentatively scheduled to be held from 22 to 25 October 2019.

Only four more days remain for making contributions. The discussions are scheduled to close at 21:00 GMT on Friday, 19 July.

The Secretariat echoes the moderator’s invitation to participants to contribute to the discussions, while thanking those that have done so already.

Best regards,

Peter Deupmann
Legal Officer
Biosafety Unit
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to thank Galina for moderating this online forum and the Secretariat for their excellent work, putting together such a well-balanced and comprehensive Draft Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol. In my view, it is clearly structured und covers the important issues while removing previous redundancies. Also, I agree with the majority of the arguments and the reasoning given in introduction to the document.
In addition to my overall support for the general structure and content of the Draft Implementation Plan, I would like to make a few minor suggestions for specific improvements in the specific threads.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute!

Best regards,
Nina Duensing
Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Germany

Dear Colleagues,
Frist of all many thanks to Galina for moderating the discussion.
Let me start that I agree with the comments made by Andreas Heissenberger and Nina Duensing (on this and on other threads).
Another issue that I want to raise comes from the recent meeting of the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology. During the meeting it was agreed that almost all (and probably all) organisms developed through Synthetic Biology are LMO and thus fall within the scope of Cartagena Protocol.
Another outcome of the AHTEG meeting is that a proposal about ways to implement a technology horizon scanning mechanism were made. Such horizon scanning can benefit Cartagena Protocol in addition to the CBD.
I think those two issues are important for the future work under and implementation of the Protocol and should be included in the Implementation plan under some form. Preferably, it will be a form that will be harmonized with the parts of the CBD documents for post-2020 dealing with synthetic biology and horizon scanning.
Best Regards,
Nikolay

Dear Colleagues,
I would like to thank the Secretariat for the documents, and I would also like to thank Galina for moderating the online discussion.
I think this is a very well-structured draft implementation plan reflecting the views that have been made during the submission period.
I fully agree with Andreas Heissenberger comment (#9758) that the plan should be flexible adapting to new technological developments but also in the same time the process should be measurable throughout the indicators given in the implementation plan. Therefore including milestones which are already mentioned in points 19 and 20 of the introduction of the draft implementation plan should be somehow reflected in a more concrete way. However, this task could only be done in a later stage as already suggested.
I will make my detailed suggestions in the specific threads.
Best regards,
Rita Andorkó
Ministry of Agriculture, Hungary

Dear Participants,

Many thanks to those of you who provided views on general and separate threads. I think this week is very efficient.
I would like to announce that in order to provide the opportunity for all participants to the Forum to expess their views in consultation with the Secretariat it was decided to extend the on-line Forum.
It will remain open over the weekend and will be closed on Monday around 1pm GMT.

I look forward to hearing views from participants to the Forum,

Best regards,
Galina

Firstly, I wish to express my thanks to the Secretariat for the background documents and to Galina for moderating this important discussion. In providing general comments on the draft Implementation Plan, I would just like to highlight the need - expressed by many others in submissions made on this issue and in comments made in this forum - to reflect the elements of the Cartagena Protocol’s 2011-2020 Strategic Plan that are still relevant.  For example, starting with Focal area 1 (“Facilitating the establishment and further development of effective biosafety systems for the implementation of the Protocol”), objective 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”) has not yet been fully met.  There remains significant knowledge and capacity gaps for many Parties that prevent their effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol, and this should be the focus of any Cartagena Protocol Implementation Plan post-2020.  Thus, Parties should retain a focus in the Implementation Plan for the post-2020 framework on the “basics” of Cartagena Protocol implementation, such as: performance of a risk assessment and management of risks in line with Cartagena Protocol requirements (operational objectives 1.3 and 2.2); adoption of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress (operational objectives 1.5 and 2.4); and, implementation of Cartagena Protocol requirements and COP-MOP decisions on identification and documentation requirements for living modified organisms (LMOs) (operational objective 1.6). 

In addition, the development of “new elements reflecting lessons learned” should assist Parties with the implementation of the existing strategic plan that do not require additional investment of resources. For example, and to further support the goals of reducing the number of targets and retaining a focus on achievable goals and the objectives of the Cartagena Protocol, I suggest Parties consider including in the Cartagena Protocol Implementation Plan a new operational objective around LMOs or traits that are unlikely to have adverse effects.  The vast majority of products that currently fit within the Cartagena Protocol’s definition of LMO have a proven environmental and food safety records, having been cultivated for more than 20 years and eaten by billions of people worldwide without one single documented health problem.    To support the goals of improved implementation and efficiency, identifying those LMOs or traits that are unlikely to have adverse effects allows for a focus on areas of greatest need in the Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol post-2020.  The Cartagena Protocol is and should be concerned with LMOs that are likely to have adverse effects.   Thus, the requirements of Parties can be reduced for commercialized LMOs that have been assessed by several other Parties and have extensive histories of safe use.

Lastly, I would caution against a disproportionate focus and expansion of the elements of the implementation plan for “new developments” when the objectives related to the overarching field of modern biotechnology remain incomplete. The Cartagena Protocol continues to apply to and be appropriate for the developing field of “modern biotechnology” and the resulting types of “living modified organisms”, and “new developments” do not automatically present risks that cannot be managed under the existing framework.

Regards,

Sarah Lukie
Global Industry Coalition

Dear Galinda

Greetings from Iran!

I would like to provide my the comments of the Islamic republic of Iran on the well prepared “draft implementation plan for the CPB” and request for some modifications as following:

1- Since so far there has been no evidence for actual case of adverse effect and in order to follow the language of the mail protocol it would be necessary to add the word "potential" in front f the term "adverse effect" all over the draft. For example please change the first sentence of the paragraph 22 of section II in this way: The vision of the current Strategic Plan is “biological diversity is adequately protected from any "potential" adverse effects of living modified organisms”.

2 - The goal 1 of area A: 2. Parties carry out "scientifically sound review of" risk assessment of LMO, and manage and control the identified risks.

3- Please add the following item under the objective 2.2 of goal 2 area A: 2.3. Parties can effectively review risk assessments provided by developer and make decisions.

4- The goal 5 of area A: 5. If they decide to do so, parties are able to take into account socio-economic considerations …

5- Ggoal 6 of area A: 6. Parties identify LMOs or traits that are "likely" to have adverse effects …

6- The objective 6.1 of goal 6 of area A : 6.1. Modalities for cooperation on identifying LMOs or traits that are "likely" to have adverse effects…

7- Please add another indicator under the first indicator of goal 6 of area A in this way: (2) Number of events in the BCH on LMOs that are "not likely" to have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (according to Para 4, Article 7 of CPB)

8- Please delete goal 7 of area A and its objective (7.1) and its outcome and indicator completely.

9- Please add another indicator for goal 1 of area B in this way: (5) percentage of parties that contribute financially or technologically to enhance the other parties’ capacity

10- The outcome of goal 3 of area B: Throughout public awareness, education and participation, Parties ensure that the public is appropriately informed about the benefits and potential risk of LMOs and involved …

Best Regards

Behzad Ghareyazie

Iran CPB NFP

Dear colleagues,
Firstly I would like to express my thanks to the Secretariat for providing us with the draft Implementation Plan and also Galina for moderating this online forum.
I support the currently drafted structure of the Implementation plan with clear goals reflecting the most challenges for the Parties considered under the Cartagena protocol.
I completely agree with and I support all comments made by Andreas Heissenberg and Nina Duensing  in their reactions [#9758] and [#9770], respectively.
Some comments in this online forum mention the issue of organisms developed through new technologies and suggest the inclusion of this topic in the Implementation plan. In my view, this suggestion can result in possible redundancies as this issue has been formally discussed under the CBD so far, and can be expected that the CBD post 2020 framework will cover it also for upcoming period. Thus careful synchronization between the work under the CPB and CBD is necessary also in this regard.
Best regards
Hana Jirakova
Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic

Dear Colleagues,
first of all I´d like to echo the gratitude to Galina for her moderation and to the secretariat for providing the really helpful background documents.
For me a vision and a mission are relevant to this document, as they are able to provide a frame, a common goal, that reminds us of the reason why we need to fulfil the implementation plan. It is also useful for the next “generation” of biosafety negotiators that to date may not be involved and need to know what the background for the plan is.
Furthermore I support the idea raised by Andreas [#9758] and Rita  [#9773] to include milestones. To only have a plan where we only see after 10 years that we missed the goals is not very helpful. I would even go further: We not only need milestones but also tools to control if the milestones are met and tools to react if they are not.
I will also comment on the specific threads,
Best regards
Birgit

Dear all,

Thank you for this opportunity to exchange comments on the Draft Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol. Although Argentina is not yet a Party to the Protocol, it is important to stress a few points of the Draft Implementation.

In overall, an adequate science based flexibility is needed in order to take into account any innovation that could arise during the implementation period.

The implementation of the Protocol, focus on a highly innovative area as modern biotechnology, should not be stopped by an excessive generation of guidelines.

Goal 1 (“Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks”) and Goal 2 (“Parties carry out scientifically sound risk assessments of LMOs, and manage and control identified risks”) of the Draft Implementation Plan, are the fundamental points to the continuous development of the biotechnology.

In relation to Goal 5 ("Parties are able to take into account socio-economic considerations when taking decisions on the import of LMOs in accordance with Article 26 of the Protocol"), it should be noted that there is still no agreed definition on the items that should be covered in the "socioeconomic considerations". In addition, guidances that may be generated will not be mandatory for the Parties because Article 26 of the Protocol is not binding. Socioeconomic considerations are not included in the objective and scope of the Protocol (Articles 1 and 4).

Unjustified obstacles to trade of biotechnological products may arise from boosting the use of not harmonized assessments/guidance based on criteria which are not root on a case- by-case science based approach.

For the above mentioned, it is considered convenient to eliminate the Goal of the Implementation Plan.

In relation to Goal 6 (“Parties identify LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects and those that are unlikely to have adverse effects on biological diversity and take appropriate measures”), it is very welcome the idea of identifying those LMOs that are unlikely to have adverse effects based on a history of safe use.

Regards,

Mónica Saenz Almagro
Directorate of Biotechnology (Argentina)

Dear colleagues,

Mexico welcomes the discussion on the draft of the Post 2020 Cartagena Protocol Implementation Plan and want to thank Miss Mosgova for the moderation of the forum and to the Secretariat for the work put on this Implementation Plan.

As previously suggested by other colleagues, and as you will read in the interventions from Mexico in the following threads, we think that the Implementation Plan should be very totally harmonized with the Biodiversity plan post 2020 and the policies and actions aimed to mitigate climate change effects, this considering the current situation of our biodiversity and the environment.

Best Regards,
Emmanuel González-Ortega
Inter secretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM), Mexico

Dear moderator and participants of the Open-ended online discussions on the post-2020 Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,

My name is Rodrigo Carvalho de Abreu Lima from Brazil. I represent the private sector, with a regulatory and international law background.

It is a pleasure to join the discussions regarding a draft post-2020 Implementation Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In my perspective, The Cartagena protocol is a comprehensive instrument to guide Parties on the adoption of measures that will allow the achievement of biosafety related to living modified organisms and biodiversity. 

My first general comment relates to the need to have in mind the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol as the basis for our discussion. It is quite relevant to put in perspective the objectives agreed and the state of the implementation of the objectives.

The future post-2020 Implementation Plan will only be useful if it promotes and guides Parties towards the effective implementation of key Cartagena Protocol pillars, as the Strategic Objective 1, putting in place further tools and guidance based, as, for instance, objectives 1.1.1 (National Biosafety Frameworks), 1.1.3 (Risk assessment and risk management), 1.1.4 (LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects).

Parties need to create national biosafety frameworks and establish the capacity to do risk assessment and management to be able to manage risks and address the Cartagena Protocol objectives. Without doing this, Parties will lack capacity and ability to put in place measures aimed at effectively adopt the Cartagena Protocol.

This should be the focus of the biosafety debates at the post-2020 Implementation Plan.
Moreover, it is relevant to quote objectives 1.1.6 (handling, transport, packaging and identification) and 1.1.8 (transit, contained use, unintentional transboundary movement and emergency measures) as key steps to be accomplished. 

The future Implementation Plan should strive to agree key objectives strictly linked to the objectives of the Protocol and avoid establishing several objectives that would impact its implementation. Considering that risk assessment and management are at the core of any biosafety policy, scientific evidences should be the basis for Parties to adopt measures related to LMOs.

In this regard, Parties should not adopt objectives related to socio-economic considerations that does not have clear relation to impacts on biodiversity, as stated at Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol. From a legal perspective, not any socio-economic argument is at the scope of the Protocol and, therefore, should not be treated at is scope.

One possible new operational objective should deal with LMOs or traits that are unlikely to have adverse effects. Considering that to be eligible for production and then trade, na LMO must pass through risk assessment procedures, at the exporting and importing country, involving environmental and human health concerns, Parties should treat these LMOs as unlikley to pose adverse effects. The concept of damage from Article 2.2 (b) and 2.3 of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol is an important guidance for Parties when it comes to deal with damage and measures to implement the Protocol. 

An objective to identifying those LMOs or traits that are unlikely to have adverse effects will allow Parties to deal and manage LMOs safely, as required by the Protocol.

To sum up, the Stretegic Plan should include specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time bound (SMART) targets that are limited in number, strictly linked to the scope of the Cartagena Protocol and that allows a clear and transparent communication to all stakeholders.

Dear All,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment during this online forum.  Although not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, the United States shares the overarching objectives articulated within Article 1 to ensure the safe transfer, handling, and use of LMOs.  We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Implementation Plan for the post-2020 period, and respectfully submit one overarching recommendation for consideration regarding the structure of the draft.

Within the draft Implementation Plan, it may be useful to reference the Article within the Protocol that each Goal is intended to address.  For example, Goal 6 appears to address language related to the advanced informed agreement procedure described in Article 7.4, while Goal 3 appears to reference work related to Article 17 on emergency measures conducted during the 2011-2020 period.  Linking the Goals to the Protocol's Articles may make it easier for Parties, Governments, and stakeholders to understand how the draft Implementation Plan is intended to address obligations under the Protocol.  

Thank you again for consideration.  We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to share perspectives. 

Samuel Crowell, Ph.D.
Agricultural Advisor
U.S. Department of State

Dear all,
First of all I would like to thank Dr Galina Mozgova for facilitating and moderating this discussion and for the CBD Secretariat for creating this opportunity for dialogue on the post-2020 Implementation plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Regarding the implementation plan, we think this is the most important component. The Cartagena Protocol is well established and implementation is where we should focus our efforts.
I would like to support the post from our Iranian colleague [#9778] as well as the post from the Czech representative on new technologies  [#9779].
The objectives and indicators under Goal 1 are important but not sufficient to assess whether national biosafety frameworks are truly functional – other elements, such as clarity about protection goals, are needed to ensure national biosafety frameworks are transparent and understandable and proportionate and predictable in their application. Further consideration of measures for these elements could be useful.
Regarding Goal 3, to enable Parties to  respond to  unintentional and illegal transboundary movements, there also needs to be standard setting such as thresholds and sampling methodologies to facilitate detection, in addition to the proposition about including detection methods. The suggestion by Ms Ms. Nina Duensing in comment [#9769] to include a measure of the percentage of Parties who have implemented the necessary legal preconditions as well as access to functioning organizational and technical infrastructure (laboratories/ facilities/ trained personnel) to detect and identify LMOs is also important. 
It would also be useful (under Goal 4) to consider how to enhance not only Parties’ sharing of information on the BCH but the sharing in a timely manner, as this would be key to helping identify possible unintentional and illegal movements
Warm regards
Delphine Thizy - Imperial College London

Dear all,

First many thanks to Galina for moderating this on line forum and to the secretariat for preparing the background documents.

Although I think the draft plan prepared by the secretariat reflects most of the submissions, I would like to support some previous comments from the participants:

#9778: to include new indicators, in special the item 7 (to keep the Goal 6 and "add another indicator under the first indicator of goal 6 of area A in this way: (2) Number of events in the BCH on LMOs that are "not likely" to have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (according to Para 4, Article 7 of CPB") and item 9 ("add another indicator for goal 1 of area B in this way: (5) percentage of parties that contribute financially or technologically to enhance the other parties’ capacity"). I also agree with the suggestion of deletion of goal 7 as the Nagoya-KL is a distinct instrument and the objectives under Cartagena Implementation Plan should be kept under the provisions of the Protocol.

#9779, #9801: to not include the organisms developed through new technologies in the implementation plan "as this issue has been formally discussed under the CBD and can be expected that the CBD post 2020 framework will cover it also for upcoming period"

#9796: to reference the Article within the Protocol that each Goal is intended to address to make it easier the understanding of how the draft Implementation Plan is intended to address obligations under the Protocol. 

#9792, #9783: to delete the Goal 5 or to change the language in the Goal 5 according with the suggestions on #9797 to make it clear that is not mandatory for all Parties

I also consider important the comment from #9776 to focus on the “basics” for Cartagena Protocol implementation reflected on 2011-2020 Strategic Plan that are still relevant and in this sense #9801 made a very important point about the fact that “the objectives and indicators under Goal 1 are important but not sufficient to assess whether national biosafety frameworks are truly functional” and suggested the addition of other elements.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Luciana P. Ambrozevicius
Ministry of Agriculture - Brazil

I would like to thank the Secretariat for providing us with the draft implementation plan and the background.

Regarding Synthetic biology, Japan supports the sentences in para 18.
Accordingly, Japan supports the implementation plan that reflects the ideas mentioned in para 18.

Regarding Goal 5 (socio-economic considerations), as other participants have already commented, the socio-economic consideration is not a mandatory requirement for all parties. From this point of view, proposed indicator seems inappropriate.
To make it clear, Japan would like to suggest the following change on Indicator for Goal 5, for instance:
"Percentage of Parties that have access to appropriate guidance materials or share experiences for taking into account socio-economic considerations out of Parties that take decisions on taking into account socio-economic considerations for the import of LMOs in accordance with Article 26 of the Protocol."

General comments

We thank the moderator and others who have provided comments to the online forum.

We are submitting one response under the General thread as some of the issues we discuss are interconnected and are applicable to multiple threads.

In terms of general comments, we note that what is most required is personnel sufficiently trained and knowledgeable in the processes and practice of risk assessment and risk management.  We note that there is already a wide range of guidance available that is consistent with the Cartagena Protocol.  Therefore, we suggest that the emphasis of the Cartagena Protocol post-2020 implementation plan should be on practical training of personnel, as well as ensuring that they have the capacity to access and use the pre-existing guidance material and relevant scientific literature that is specific to the particular case at hand.

We also note that the draft implementation plan measures the goals mainly by percentage of Parties who are undertaking a particular activity. It does not propose a shift in direction for those areas which have been inadequately implemented to date and where Parties could do more (as mentioned in post #9765). It also does not make it clear where implementation should focus on maintaining the successes of past activity. This information should come from the lessons learnt from implementing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the last twenty years, and from implementing the Strategic Plan 2011-2020.

New Zealand’s view continues to be that capacity building is the most important aspect of the post-2020 implementation plan, and that a notable lesson learnt from the last decade is that attempts to produce guidance documents often leads to outputs that Parties cannot agree are fit for purpose, and thus does not translate into improved capacity in countries that need it and/or request it. We therefore recommend that capacity building is not only a goal under “B. Enabling environment”, but is also specifically referenced under “A. Areas for implementation”.  Without adequate capacity, there can be no effective implementation.

We do not consider that an implementation plan requires a vision or mission.  The chapeau language of the Cartagena Protocol, along with Objective 1, clearly outline what the Protocol is aiming to achieve and the context it operates in.  Further to this, we believe that the Convention’s two Protocols could be referenced in the post-2020 framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, and this would set out the strategic purpose of the Protocols (as mentioned in post #9758), not that this is necessary given the chapeau language and Objective 1 of the Cartagena Protocol.

A. AREAS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Goal 1 Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks

We agree with this goal.

Objective 1.2

We question the need for Parties to mainstream biosafety into national strategies, action plans etc as these documents often have a much broader focus and are not suitable mechanisms through which to address biosafety issues. It is more important that Parties have biosafety legislation or policy in place and that this legislation or policy is effectively implemented and enforced. We therefore recommend that Objective 1.2 be replaced with: “Parties effectively implement their biosafety legislation or policy”. 

For the reasons outlined above, we also query the need for indicator (3) “Percentage of Parties that have addressed biosafety in sectoral and cross-sectoral instruments”.

Objective 1.4

This requires a related indicator. A possible indicator could be: “Percentage of Parties that have the necessary budget and trained staff to carry out their tasks”.

Goal 2 Parties carry out scientifically sound risk assessments of LMOs and manage and control identified risks

We agree with this goal.

Objective 2.2

To enable Parties to apply appropriate risk assessment (Objective 2.1), it is important that Parties have appropriate capability to do so. We therefore recommend a new Objective 2.2 “Parties have appropriate human capability to carry out risk assessment and risk management procedures”.

The current objective 2.2 “Parties have access to appropriate guidance materials for carrying out risk assessment and risk management” should then become objective 2.3.   There could be an associated indicator along the lines of: Percentage of Parties that that have the tools and capacity to access relevant guidance materials”.

Goal 3 Parties are able to detect and identify LMOs

We agree with this goal.

Because any national biosafety framework (goal 1) and risk assessment (goal 2) cannot be implemented in their absence, the training of risk assessors is critical. We therefore recommend the addition of a new objective 3.1 that Parties build human capability (ie train risk assessors) for appropriate risk assessment and detection capacity. A new indicator should then be included to measure the percentage of Parties that provide training to build risk assessment capacity. This training should enable risk assessors to undertake a scientific assessment of the merits (risks and benefits) of each LMO on a case-by-case basis.

Current objective 3.1 and indicator (2) refer to appropriate guidance materials. We consider that this reference should include primary scientific literature. Our experience is that risk assessors require the primary scientific literature to more effectively enable case-by-case evaluations of the potential risks and benefits of a given LMO.

We support #9761’s suggestion to add an objective 3.2 “Parties have access to laboratories able to detect and identify LMOs”.

We support #9764’s suggestion to add an objective 3.3 “Parties have mechanisms to prevent illegal transboundary movement”.   A possible indicator could be something along the lines of “Percentage of Parties that have mechanisms (e.g. relevant domestic legislation) to prevent illegal transboundary movement”

Goal 4 Parties contribute to enhanced availability and exchange of relevant information through the BCH

While we agree with the overarching aim of this goal, we are uncertain as to quite what ‘enhanced’ would mean in practice.

One way to improve the exchange of relevant information would be to allow some flexibility in the BCH when it comes to accepting incomplete information, particularly as regards detection of illegal transboundary movements. Oftentimes, not all information that is required in mandatory reporting fields is available for a number of reasons. In the current BCH structure, a report can only remain in draft form unless all information fields are completed. It is our view that the reporting of incomplete information is preferable to no reporting at all.

We suggest that indicator (1) “Percentage of Parties making mandatory information available to the BCH” is reworded to focus on a change in state, e.g. “Increase in percentage of Parties making mandatory information available to the BCH”.

Goal 5 Parties are able to take into account socio-economic considerations when taking decisions on the import of LMOs in accordance with Article 26 of the Protocol

We agree with this goal.

We propose an indicator (2) “Percentage of parties that take into account socio-economic considerations or have made an informed decision to either not take into account socio-economic considerations or take them into account selectively”. This recognises that, under the Protocol, it is up to Parties as to whether they take into account socio-economic considerations.

Goal 6 Parties identify LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects and those that are unlikely to have adverse effects on biological diversity and take appropriate measures

We agree with this goal.

Goal 7 Increased number of Parties to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress

We believe that addressing issues of liability and redress are important and that Parties and non-Parties should have measures in place to address these issues.  We note that some Parties that have not ratified the Supplementary Protocol nevertheless have implemented its objectives through national legislation or policy.

We therefore recommend the Goal be reworded as: “Increased number of Parties that have measures in place to address the objective of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress”

We also recommend an additional indicator (2) “Number of Cartagena Protocol Parties that have implemented the requirements of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress in national legislation or policy.”

Goal 8 Parties are in full compliance with the requirements of the Protocol

We support this goal.

Indicator (1) “Percentage of Parties that comply with their obligations, as identified by the Compliance Committee” only references compliance in relation to the Compliance Committee and this might not capture the full situation. We therefore suggest that indicator (1) is amended to “Percentage of Parties that comply with their obligations as indicated in their national reports” as suggested by #9760. We also suggest that an indicator (2) is added “Percentage of non-compliance issues identified by the Compliance Committee that have been resolved”.


B. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

Goal 1 Parties are able to engage in capacity building activities addressing identified needs

We support this goal.

We note that indicator (2) “Percentage of Parties undertaking capacity building activities” would only apply to those Parties that have identified capacity-building needs. We therefore suggest that this indicator is amended to “Percentage of those Parties that require capacity building that undertake capacity building activities”.

Goal 2 Parties mobilize resources to support implementation of the Protocol

We support this goal

Goal 4 Cooperation by Parties on biosafety issues at the national, regional and international levels is enhanced

We support this goal in principle, but it is not clear what is meant by ‘enhanced’. The indicators will need to be adjusted to measure a change in state from ‘current’ to ‘enhanced’.

Mariska Wouters (Ministry for the Environment)

Messages posted on behalf of TWN. This message could not be submitted for technical reasons and was transmitted by e-mail to the Secretariat and received before 1300 GMT.

*********************************************************************

Thank you for the continued discussions. I am making this further post on behalf of both myself and my colleague, Lim Li Lin, who is currently on a plane and unable to physically make the posts!

We are making one posting under the General Comments thread, as the specifics under the Goals, Objectives, Outcomes and Indicators are all interrelated and applicable under multiple threads.

As indicated in a previous post (#9768), we have also proposed additional Goals and corresponding Objectives, Outcomes and Indicators on the following: contained use; illegal transboundary movements; unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures; and handling, transport, packaging and identification. We believe that these issues, while in the Strategic Plan 2011-2020, continue to be relevant and should be included in the post-2020 Implementation Plan.

With regard to contained use, we respectfully disagree with (#9814) that contained use is not in the scope of the Protocol. Paragraph 2 of Article 6 only states that the provisions of the Protocol with respect to the advance informed agreement procedure shall not apply to the transboundary movement of LMOs destined for contained use. All other provisions of the Protocol still do apply to LMOs destined for contained use, and moreover, any transboundary movement has to be undertaken in accordance with the standards of the Party of import, as well as the rights of Parties to subject such LMOs to risk assessment are preserved.

We agree with (#9802) that the perspectives of indigenous peoples and local communities need to be better recognised and reflected in the Implementation Plan and are in agreement with her suggestions.


A. Areas for implementation

Goal 1

With regard to Objective 1.1., we propose specifying “legal, administrative and other measures”, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Protocol.

With regard to Goal 1, the Outcome should be focused on the enabling of competent authorities of all Parties to “implement their obligations” under the Protocol. This will also bring the outcome in line with Objective 1.1. which is about Parties adopting measures to implement their obligations under the Protocol.

Goal 2

With regard to Objective 2.1., we propose adding the following at the end of the sentence: “including those LMOs developed through new technologies such as synthetic biology”.

With regard to Objective 2.2., access to appropriate guidance materials for carrying out risk assessment and risk management, in itself is not enough, and the Objective should also be that Parties are using the guidance materials. The objective should thus state that Parties have access to, “and use”, appropriate guidance materials.

With regard to Goal 2, the Outcome that Parties identify and appropriately manage risks to biodiversity of LMOs needs to include the phrasing, “taking also into account risks to human health”, in order to fully reflect the objective and scope of the Protocol.

With regard to Indicator (1) of Goal 2, we suggest that this be clarified to read: “Percentage of Parties taking decisions on LMOs on the basis of a risk assessment as required by the Protocol, and in accordance with the precautionary approach”.

Goal 3

With regard to Objective 3.1., access to appropriate guidance materials and technical tools for the detection and identification of LMOs, in itself is not enough, and the Objective should also be that Parties are using the guidance materials. The objective should thus state that Parties have access to, “and use”, appropriate guidance materials. This idea should also be reflected in Indicator (2) of Goal 3: Percentage of Parties that have access to, and that use, guidance to detect and identify LMOs.

We agree with post (#9761) that an additional Objective 3.2. be added as follows: Parties have access to laboratories able to detect and identify LMOs. This would also need to be reflected in an additional Indicator.

We propose an additional Objective 3.3: Parties have access to all the information necessary to detect and identify the living modified organism, including information that allows for its unique identification and where reference materials may be obtained. This reflects paragraph 3 of Decision BS VII/10. Corresponding Indicators should also be formulated for this proposed new Objective 3.3.

Goal 5

We strongly disagree with suggestions (e.g.#9809) that Goal 5 should be deleted. This is a critical component of the Protocol for which work is currently being undertaken and should continue. All Parties have a right to take into account socio-economic considerations in accordance with Article 26 of the Protocol.

With regard to Objective 5.1, access to appropriate guidance materials for taking into account socio-economic considerations in accordance with Article 26 of the Protocol, in itself is not enough, and the Objective should also be that Parties are using the guidance materials. The objective should thus state that Parties have access to, “and use”, appropriate guidance materials.

Goal 6

We agree with (#9760) that Goal 6 should be deleted. As indicated, the conflation of two separate ideas is problematic. In addition, an Outcome talking about the “Facilitated import of LMOs that are unlikely to have adverse effects on biological diversity” is nowhere reflected in the objective and scope of the Protocol and is therefore clearly inappropriate. Moreover, paragraph 4 of Article 7 clearly restricts the issue in relation to the advance informed agreement procedure, whereas Objective 6.2 takes a much broader approach, which is also inconsistent with the Protocol.

Goal 7

We strongly disagree with the suggestion (#9778) that Goal 7 be deleted. The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress operationalised Article 27 of the Cartagena Protocol. The Implementation Plan should be a complete and comprehensive plan for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol, which necessitates including a goal on the Supplementary Protocol.

We propose an additional Indicator (2): Percentage of Parties that have in place national rules and procedures on liability and redress for damage resulting from LMOs finding their origin in a transboundary movement.


B. Enabling environment

Goal 1

We propose an additional Objective 1.5: “The needs of the developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and the small island developing States among them, for financial resources and access to and transfer of technology and know-how in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, are met.” A corresponding indicator would also be necessary for this.

Goal 2

We propose that Goal 2 be re-worded to “Parties mobilize resources to support implementation of the Protocol in accordance with Article 28 of the Protocol and Article 20 of the CBD”

With regard to Objective 2.3, we propose that it is clarified to read as “New and additional resources from developed country Parties are mobilized to strengthen capacities for implementation of the Protocol”

With regard to Indicator (2), we propose that it is clarified to read “Percentage of developing country Parties reporting that they have benefitted from additional resource from developed country Parties”