| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|Implementation Plan|Background|Online discussions   Printer-friendly version

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

Return to the list of threads...


Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9753]
Dear participants,

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

Guiding questions you may wish to consider in this regard are:
- Do the indicators adequately enable measuring progress on achieving the outcomes?
- Are the indicators sufficiently clear, simple and measurable?

Best wishes,
Galina Mozgova
posted on 2019-07-11 12:40 UTC by Ms. Galina Mozgova, Belarus
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9763]
Dear colleagues,
In principle I agree with the way the indicators are phrased and also with their content.

However I have a general remark:
Currently not all objectives are directly reflected by a corresponding indicator. There are also indicators which do not directly relate to a specific objective.

In order to make the Implementation Plan more user-friendly, I believe that each objective should be reflected by at least one indicator. The indicators should have corresponding numbers. If more than one indicator relate to an objective, this could be done by introducing an additional level, e.g. 1.1.1.

In addition I suugest that there are no indicators which do not measure a specific objective.

Best regards
Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria
posted on 2019-07-17 17:46 UTC by Mr. Andreas Heissenberger, Austria
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9769]
Dear colleagues,
thank you very much for the opportunity to indicate possible opportunities for improvement. There is one point I would like to address regarding the Indicators of the Draft Implementation Plan:
A: Areas for Implemention, Indicators to Goal 3:
As a significant Indicator, 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 should be included.
The access to such facilities/ infrastructure might also be included into the Objective 3.1. for consistency.

Best regards,
Nina Duensing
Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Germany
posted on 2019-07-18 08:18 UTC by Ms. Nina Keiss, Germany
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9772]
Dear colleagues,

I understand that the indicators are adequate to measure progress in implementing the Protocol. However, I think that another indicator could be included for Goal 1: Percentage of Parties providing information on the integration of biosafety into national strategies, action plans, programs and legislation.
It would also suggest the inclusion of one more indicator for Target 3: Percentage of Parties cooperating to identify LMOs.

Best regards,

Wellington Adriano Moreira Peres
Ministry of Environment, Brazil
posted on 2019-07-18 10:35 UTC by Mr Wellington Adriano Moreira Peres, Brazil
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9788]
Dear all,
to answer the question posed by our moderator if the indicators adequately enable measuring progress on achieving the outcomes I would say, they are a good start but are not sufficient to measure all of the outcomes.
For Goal No 1 until now there is no indicator that shoes if the biosafety framework is functional. I would therefore add an additional indicator:
Percentage of transboundary moved LMO for which information that complies with Article 8, 10 and 13 was provided.
For Goal No 2 an indicator addressing the percentage of performed risk assessments and applies management measures could be suitable.
For Goal No 3 I support Nina  [#9769], not only access to guidance documents and the availability of detection methods are necessary but also staff, laboratories and financial resources.
Concerning Goal No 5 I would prefer to have an indicator that shows the percentage of parties that found the guidance useful.
For the new Goal an UTM indicators are needed that show how many parties have control mechanisms. Information on negative or positive detection outcomes could be provided. This is i.g. done by the German “Bundesländer”. They usually exchange information on the results of the controls on seeds they perform to identify contamination of conventional seeds with approved and not approved LMO. The indicator is able to provide the information if the measurements to prevent UTM were  successful.

posted on 2019-07-19 15:47 UTC by Ms. Birgit Winkel, Germany
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9790]
Fellow Participants,
In furtherance to my previous contributions and in appreciation of this unique opportunity offered through this platform, I wish to make more submissions through this thread.
In my opinion, the indicators to a large extent enable measuring progress on achieving the outcomes. Again, they are reasonably clear, simple and measurable. However, I observed much emphasis on measuring progress based on the percentage of Parties involved, with less consideration of the roles of Stakeholders whose participations enhance effective implementation of the protocol. I suggest the percentage of other Parties should be relatively considered also.
Furthermore, it is very important to note that engaging the provision of data infrastructure, as a relevant measuring tool can enhance transparency and reliability in measuring progress and outcomes and reveal the quantitative evidence of the assessments. Including statistical results as an element under indicators therefore, shall facilitate qualitative and quantitative analysis of outcomes.
Best regards,
Edel-Quinn Ijeoma Agbaegbu
Every Woman Hope Centre, Nigeria
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9800]
a. Objective 3. Indicator (2) to my mind could better read “percentage of parties that have established operational guidance material and techniques to detect and identify LMOs”
b. Goal 5. Indicator (1) also should read “percentage of parties that have established appropriate guidance materials and techniques for taking into account socio economic consideration in accordance with article 26 of the protocol.

c. B Enabling environment. Goal 4. An additional indicator is needed: as follow:
Number of formal regional agreements between parties to implement the protocol.
posted on 2019-07-20 13:42 UTC by Dr. Félicien Amakpe, Benin
RE: Opening discussions on Thread 5 – Indicators [#9808]
Dear colleagues,

It is important to consider aspects such as emerging risks, creation of new technologies and the possible adverse effects in the environment and health and according with the objective 3, I consider important the responsibility and compensation for damages caused by the transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms, it must also be taken into consideration formulating regulations or flexible procedures between countries and it should be updated according to the time. In addition to take into account other considerations such as proper labelling, including risks to the environment and biodiversity.

According to indicators, I think that it is necessary that the parties have Access to appropriate guidance materials for taking into account socio-economic considerations in accordance with Article 26 of the Protocol and the objectives 3 and 4 including aspects like socioeconomic influence and inclusive with the objective 6 that is in respect of the modalities for the cooperation on identifying LMOs and adverse effects on biological diversity. Finally I consider important to include a request a  monitoring report before and after release.

Best regards
Mariana Ayala
Biosafety Subdirection, INECC, Mexico City.
posted on 2019-07-21 20:52 UTC by MsC Mariana Ayala, Mexico