UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/9/4

Page 5

/ / CBD
/ Distr.
GENERAL
UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/6
12 April 2016
ENGLISH ONLY

COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE UNDER THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY

Thirteenth meeting

Montreal, Canada, 24-26 February 2016

Report of the Compliance Committee under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the work of its thirteenth meeting

Introduction

1.  The thirteenth meeting of the Compliance Committee was held on the premises of the Secretariat in Montreal, Canada, from 24 to 26 February 2016.

/…

UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/6

Page 9

2.  The following members of the Committee were present:

UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/6

Page 9

Africa:

Ms. Kaouthar Tliche Aloui

Ms. Martha Kandawa-Schulz

Mr. Johansen Voker

Asia and the Pacific:

Mr. Seung-Hwan Choi

Mr. Banpot Napompeth

Central and Eastern Europe:

Mr. Martin Batic

Ms. Angela Lozan

Ms. Dubravka Stepic

Latin America and the Caribbean:

Mr. Héctor Conde Almeida

Ms. Jimena Nieto Carrasco

Ms. Sol Ortiz García

Western Europe and Others:

Mr. Ruben Dekker

Mrs. Clare Hamilton

UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/6

Page 9

Item 1. Opening of the meeting

3.  Ms. Jimena Nieto Carrasco, Chair of the Committee, opened the meeting at 9.30 a.m. on 24February 2016. She welcomed the participants and thanked the Secretariat for facilitating the organization of the meeting.

4.  On behalf of the Executive Secretary, the Principal Officer for Biosafety welcomed members and introduced the new Legal Officer, who had joined the Biosafety unit in September 2015. He also paid tribute to the Senior Legal Officer, Mr.Worku Yifru, who had served the Compliance Committee since its inception with great distinction. In his remarks, the Principal Officer noted that the Committee had a substantial number of items on the agenda for its current meeting, and he drew particular attention to the importance of the Committee’s input to the third assessment and review of the Protocol and mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan.

5.  The representative of the Secretariat reported that two members of the Committee, Mr. Rai Rana from the Asia-Pacific region and Mr. Geoff Ridley from WEOG, were not able to attend the meeting. He confirmed that, with 13 members present, there was a quorum for the meeting to proceed in accordance with rule 16 of the Committee’s rules of procedure.

6.  The Secretariat recalled that the Committee had previously decided to hold its thirteenth meeting in conjunction with the meeting of the Liaison Group on Capacity-building in order to achieve consistency in the contributions of the Group and the input of the Committee to be forwarded to the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) in the context of the third assessment and review and the midterm evaluation of the Strategic Plan. Ultimately, however, it had not been possible due to the need to postpone the meeting of the Liaison Group to allow sufficient time to prepare the analysis to be considered by the Group for their contribution to the third assessment and review and mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan.

Item 2. Organizational matters

2.1. Adoption of the agenda

7.  The Committee adopted the following agenda on the basis of the provisional agenda (UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/1) prepared by the Secretariat:

1.  Opening of the meeting.

2.  Organizational matters:

2.1 Adoption of the agenda;

2.2 Organization of work.

3.  Review of compliance with the obligation to submit national reports and whether the information in the reports is complete.

4.  Evaluation of the status of implementation of the Protocol in meeting its objectives: input to the third assessment and review and the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan.

5.  Review of general issues of compliance.

6.  Clarifications on what constitutes unintentional transboundary movement in contrast with illegal transboundary movement.

7.  Report and recommendations of the Committee to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol at its eighth meeting.

8.  Other matters.

9.  Adoption of the report.

10.  Closure of the meeting.

2.2. Organization of work

8.  The Committee agreed on the organization of its work as proposed by the Secretariat, as specified in annex I to the annotations to the provisional agenda (UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/1/Add.1). The Committee agreed to consider the information documents prepared for this meeting under the agenda item “other matters” if possible before agenda item 7, to allow any outcomes of the discussion to be included in the report of the Committee to be submitted to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol at its eighth meeting.

Item 3. Review of compliance with the obligation to submit national reports and whether the information in the reports is complete

9.  Introducing the item, the representative of the Secretariat outlined the structure and content of the note by the Executive Secretary (UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/2). He noted that, following the preparation of the document, additional third national reports had been received, raising the total to 112. He informed the Committee that the Secretariat was in communication with Parties that had submitted incomplete national reports. He drew the attention of the Committee to the suggestions contained in section III of the document.

10.  The Chair invited members to provide comments on the document, in particular the suggestions submitted for the consideration of the Committee. The Committee:

(a)  Expressed concern about the lower rate of submission of the third national reports in comparison with the previous reporting cycle;

(b)  Welcomed the funds that had once again been made available by GEF to a number of eligible Parties to support the preparation of their national reports but noted with concern that 39 Parties that were eligible for GEF funding to complete their national reports either had not applied for those funds or were unable to access them;

(c)  Noted with regret that administrative changes within the United Nations had created systems challenges that had resulted in delays for a number of eligible Parties in accessing funding, and also noted that the issue had caused difficulties for a number of Parties in fulfilling their obligations under the Protocol, for example as regards submission of their third national reports;

(d)  Noted with concern that third national reports were still due from 58 Parties, including 12 Parties that had accessed GEF funds for the preparation of their third national reports;

(e)  Recognized that the efforts of the Committee and individual members had contributed positively to the high rate of submission of second national reports as well as reports that were long overdue;

(f)  Welcomed the efforts made by the Secretariat in assisting Parties in submitting national reports and ensuring their completeness;

(g)  Expressed profound concern, however, that Luxembourg, the Marshall Islands and Nicaragua had not submitted an interim, first, second or third report to date.

11.  The Committee:

(a)  Requested the Secretariat to follow up with the Parties that had not submitted a third national report;

(b)  Noted that there had been some anomalies in the ability of Parties to access the available GEF funds for the preparation of third national reports and requested the Secretariat to contact GEF and explore the reasons for this along with the possibility of extending the deadline;

(c)  Requested the Secretariat to keep the Committee informed of any issue with access to GEF funds that could adversely affect the ability of Parties to comply with their obligations under the Protocol;

(d)  Also requested the Secretariat to continue to liaise with the Parties that had submitted incomplete reports in order to draw their attention to the information gap in their reports and seek the necessary information;

(e)  Agreed that the Chair of the Committee would send a follow-up letter to the Foreign Ministries of Luxembourg, the Marshall Islands and Nicaragua, with a copy to their national focal points, with a view to seeking an explanation of the situation that has prevented them from submitting their interim, first, second or third report to date and informing them that the Committee would recommend to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties at its eighth meeting that it issue a caution to those Parties as provided for in sectionVI, paragraph2(b), of the Procedures and Mechanisms on Compliance under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as contained in the annex to decision BS-I/7, unless a response is received before the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties.

12.  The Committee decided to recommend that, at its eighth meeting, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties should:

(a)  Express concern about the lower rate of submission of third national reports in comparison with the previous reporting cycle, and note with concern that third national reports are still due from 58 Parties, including 12 Parties that have accessed GEF funds for the preparation of their third national reports;

(b)  Welcome the funds that have once again been made available by GEF to eligible Parties to support the preparation of their national reports but note with concern that 39 Parties that were eligible for GEF funding to complete their national reports either did not apply for those funds or were unable to access them;

(c)  Note with regret that administrative changes within the United Nations created systems challenges that resulted in delays for a number of eligible Parties in accessing funding, and further note that this has caused difficulties for a number of Parties in fulfilling their obligations under the Protocol, for example as regards submission of their third national reports;

(d)  Welcome the efforts made by the Secretariat in assisting Parties in submitting national reports and ensuring their completeness;

(e)  Urge the Parties that have not yet submitted their third national report to do so as soon as possible;[1]

(f)  Also urge the Parties that have not submitted a complete third national report to do so as soon as possible;

(g)  Issue a caution, in accordance with sectionVI, paragraph2(b) of the Procedures and Mechanisms on Compliance under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as contained in the annex to decision BS-I/7, to Luxembourg, the Marshall Islands and Nicaragua for their failure to submit an interim, first, second and third national report, in compliance with Article 33, as provided in annex I.

Item 4. Evaluation of the status of implementation of the Protocol in meeting its objectives: input to the third assessment and review and the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan

13.  The Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to the note by the Executive Secretary on the subject (UNEP/CBD/BS/CC/13/3), which analysed the responses from the third national reports and other appropriate sources against the baseline set in the second reporting cycle, provided an overview of the extent to which the information in the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) is reliable and up-to-date, and described the experience gained by the Committee in implementing its supportive role, within the scope decided on by the Committee at its previous meeting.

14.  The Committee extensively discussed the information in the document, on the basis of which the Committee prepared its input to the third assessment and review and the mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan, which would be conducted by SBI. The input is contained in annex II to the present report. The Committee requested the Secretariat to finalize the input, including by adding relevant graphs, and to submit it to SBI for its consideration.

15.  The Committee:

(a)  Expressed appreciation for the comprehensive analysis provided in the document but noted that a few questions in the reporting format could be interpreted in different ways and that, as a result, the data perse might not always provide an accurate reflection of the state of implementation of the Protocol;

(b)  Acknowledged the lack of clear linkages between some outcomes and indicators in operational objective 3.1 of the Strategic Plan;

(c)  Expressed grave concern that, more than 12 years after the entry into force of the Protocol, only 51 per cent of Parties report having fully put in place national legal, administrative and other measures to implement the Protocol;

(d)  Recognized that there is a link between compliance and the availability of resources, and recognized the importance of availability of funding dedicated to biosafety and the need to ensure that GEF funds are made available for biosafety activities and capacity-building;

(e)  Noted the low number of Parties having made available to the BCH details of their national point of contact as required under Article 17 and recognized that Parties should be reminded of that obligation.

16.  The Committee welcomed that some of its members would be present at the eleventh meeting of the Liaison Group on Capacity-building and at the first meeting of SBI to inform those bodies, where required and possible, of the Committee’s input to the third assessment and review and mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan.

17.  The Committee decided to recommend that, at its eighth meeting, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties should:

(a)  Welcome progress made by Parties in complying with their obligations under the Protocol, yet note with concern that, 13 years after the entry into force of the Protocol, a number of Parties are not in full compliance in relation to most obligations under the Protocol;

(b)  Urge Parties that have not yet completely done so to put in place legal, administrative and other measures to implement their obligations under the Protocol, paying particular attention to the importance of putting in place monitoring systems as a prerequisite for effective reporting;

(c)  Also urge Parties that have not yet completely done so to make all required information available to the BCH and keep the records up-to-date, focusing in particular on information related to: (a)national biosafety frameworks, legislation, regulations and guidelines; (b) summaries of risk assessments; (c) final decisions regarding living modified organisms (LMOs) and living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP); (d) national focal points and national points of contact; (e) information on bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements they have entered into with relevance for biosafety;

(d)  Recommend that the Conference of the Parties, in adopting its guidance to the financial mechanism, with respect to support for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, invite the Global Environment Facility to make specific funding available to eligible Parties to put in place their national biosafety frameworks;