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 outcomes of the draft Implementation Plan.

A guiding question you may wish to consider in this regard is:
- Does the outcome of each goal adequately describe the effect of achieving the goal?

Best wishes,
Galina Mozgova

Dear colleagues,
Some comments with regard to the outcomes listed in the draft implementation plan.

“areas for implementation”
Outcome related to goal 3: As already stated under my post under thread “Goals”, I believe that HTPI as well as UTM (and emergency measures) should be covered by a separate goal each. Detection is a very important tool to implement these two Articles (17 and 18). Therefore I suggest to rephrase the outcome accordingly and formulate under the relevant new goals something along the lines “Parties do handle UTM according tp the Protocol”, or Parties are able to fulfil their obligations under HTPI according to the Protocol”

Outcome related to goal 7: Probably we need two outcomes (or even two goals) relating to the NaKuLU Supplementary Protocol: One relating to increasing the number of ratifications and another related to the implementation of the Supplementary Protocol by those Parties which have already ratified it. The current outcome covers both aspects (while the goal itself does not).

“enabling environment”
Outcome related to goal 3: I believe that this text needs some rephrasing as public information does cover more aspects than just “decision-taking”, as already listed under the objectives related to goal 3.

Best regards
Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria

Dear all,
concerning the Outcomes I would assume to change the wording for Goal # 5:
The outcome should be that parties that want to take socioeconomic considerations have guidance that build a good basis. Therefore I would rephrase the outcome following:
Parties that want to take socioeconomic considerations into account are able to do the assessment on basis of the provided guidance. 
For the new Goal an UTM the outcome should be that parties are able to prevent, identify and monitor unintended and illegal transboundary movements and releases.
Regards
Birgit

Honourable Colleagues,

It is a pleasure to join in your discussions in this thread.
After a careful analysis of the Implementation Plan, I observed that the outcomes of some goals did not adequately describe the effect of achieving the particular goal.
In Goal 1: (Parties have in place functional national biosafety frameworks) outcome - the effect of achieving this goal should have clearly stated 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

In Goal 3B; (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 organizations and stakeholders alongside Parties to ensure appropriate information dissemination to the public and effective participation in decision-making.                                                                    

Kind regards,
Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu
Every Woman Hope Centre, Nigeria

Dear colleagues,

At respect of the goal adequately describe the effect of achieving the goal, I consider that it is fine. However, should be updated regarding the creation of new technologies  and update databases with easy access, not only to experts.

Finally, new goals of the Cartagena Protocol could be added, supplementing it with some aspects of Nagoya Protocol such as the role with the Biodiversity in the agriculture.

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