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

Dear participants,

In this thread, I invite you to post any comments you may have on the objectives of the draft Implementation Plan.

Guiding questions you may wish to consider in this regard are:
- Do the objectives adequately cover what must be accomplished to achieve each goal?
- Do the objectives adequately reflect the main achievements for the implementation of the Protocol?

Best wishes,
Galina Mozgova

Dear colleagues,
Some comments with regard to the objectives listed in the draft implementation plan under “areas for implementation”.

As with the goals, I think that the objectives should also follow a logical order. Therefore I suggest to put current objective 1.2. at the end (as new 1.4.) and to change the order of 2.1 and 2.2.

With regard to the current goal 3 it is important to have one objective referring to the access to labs. I suggest to add “3.2. Parties have access to laboratories able to detect and identify LMOs.”

No comments regarding the objectives listed under “enabling environment”.

Best regards
Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria

Dear colleagues,

I understand that the objectives are adequate to achieve the Goals set for the implementation of the Protocol. However, I believe it is opportune to include two more objectives in Goal 3 (Parties are able to detect and identify LMOs):
3.2. The Parties shall cooperate to identify LMOs;
3.3. The Parties have mechanisms to prevent illegal transboundary movement.

Best regards,
Wellington Adriano Moreira Peres
Ministry of Environment, Brazil

Dear Colleagues,
I think that objective 1.4. (Competent national authorities have the necessary budget and adequately trained staff to carry out their tasks) set out in goal 1 (Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks) of the draft implementation plan would have more relevance in the specific post-2020 action plan for capacity building. However, the specific post-2020 action plan for capacity building should be aligned with the implementation plan, I doubt that this objective has the right place here in the implementation plan, and furthermore there is no indicator either reflecting to this objective.
Best regards,
Rita Andorkó
Ministry of Agriculture, Hungary

Dear Galina, dear secretariat, dear colleagues,
to meet goal No 2, it is also necessary to have mechanisms in place that are able to check if the risk assessment was based on the right assumptions and if it came to the correct conclusions and also if risk management measures were appropriate. Therefore I would add objective 2.3: Measures to validate the risk assessment and monitor the effectiveness of the management measures are in place.
For the new goal concerning unintended and illegal transboundary movements, there should be following objectives:
• Monitoring concepts for the identification of not approved LMO are in place including sampling methods, detection and identification.
• Management measures for identified unapproved LMO are applied.
Regards
Birgit

Dear colleagues,

We consider that another objective should be included to accomplish the goal: “Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks”. The added objective should be that Parties have implemented mechanisms, policies and budget to set the conditions to perform social (independent) evaluation of the biotechnologies and other convergent technologies. The mechanism to make the results of these evaluations binding should be established (a variant or an addition to Objective 4.2).

We share the idea that objective 3.1 should be modified in order to include the access to laboratories and capacity building to detect and identify LMOs. Particularly for monitoring and identifying the emergent LMOs, and its products, an very relevant issue.

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

Dear All,

In my contributions to this thread, I wish to state from my personal point of view that the objectives did not cover all that should be accomplished in some of the goals and could not reflect the main achievement for the implementation of the protocol.
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) for instance, objective should have included; ‘Availability of insurance and compensation arrangement in liability instrument’ which aims to cover claims for damages to persons, properties/economic loses and ecological degradation.
The objectives should also address proper elimination of operational gaps as in the case of Goal 4B whose objective in my suggestion should be; ‘‘Parties should cooperate to support implementation of the Protocol including overcoming the operational gaps through the exchange of scientific, technical and institutional knowledge”.

Best wishes,

Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu
Every Woman Hope Centre, Nigeria

2- Objectives: In A, Area of implementation,
i. The goal 2 as it is formulated would be replaced by Objective 2.1 and objective 2.1 sent to Goal 2. This permutation to my mind is necessary as the ”Parties cary out scientifically sound risk assessment of LMOs, and manage and control identified risk” is contained in 2.1. . 
ii. The objective 3.1 could be reformulated by replacing the words “Access to” by “established”. Then the objective 3.1 would read: “parties have established appropriate guidance materials and technical tools for the detection and identification of LMOs”
iii. Objective 5.1: this also could be reformulated by replacing the words “Access to” by “established” and then read: “Parties have established appropriate guidance materials for taking into account socio-economic considerations in accordance with article 26 of the protocol.
iv. Objective 7.1. This objective should start by the word “All”. It should then read: “All the parties to the Cartagena Protocol become Parties to the Supplementary Protocol”

Dear colleagues,

Regarding objetives, I think that the focal point could be an important centre of interchange information related to new technologies and could be a point to keep and share information.

In consideration with the objectives, specifically with “Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks” I consider that is neccessary implement some  mechanisms and  policies of risk, probably the access to laboratories and capacity building to detect and identify LMOs could be useful particularly for monitoring and identifying the emergent LMOs and its products that is essential to take appropriate measures to identify  adverse effects on biological Diversity.

Best regards
Mariana Ayala
Biosafety Subdirection, INECC, Mexico City.