second caribbean sub-regional workshop · house” hosted a second sub-regional workshop for...

United Nations Environment Programme

UNEP-GEF Project for Capacity Building for the Effective Participation in the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)

Global Environment Facility

15, Chemin des Anémones, 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland

SECOND CARIBBEAN SUB-REGIONAL WORKSHOP

Venue:

University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus

St. Michael, Barbados

19 - 23 November, 2007

Submitted by:

Julian Bourne, CPB RA

Malachy Dottin, CPB RA

Terrence Gilliard, CPB RA

Fred Phillips, CPB RA

Anthony Richards, CPB RA

Marydelene Vasquez, IT RA

Stephen Vitoria, IT RA

Second Caribbean Sub‐Regional Workshop Report

of 19

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2

Acknowledgements 3

Introduction 3

Objectives 3

Preparation 3

Narrative Summary of Workshop Proceedings 5

Day One – Monday November 19, 2007 5

Day Two – Tuesday November 20, 2007 7

Day Three – Wednesday November 21, 2007 8

Day Four – Thursday November 22, 2007 10

Day Five – Friday November 23, 2006 14

Lessons Learned 16

Conclusions and Recommendations 17

Annex 1 : Workshop Agenda

Annex 2 : List of Participants

Annex 3 : Participants’ Expectations

Annex 4: Group Session – Sharing Experiences on BCH and CP Implementation

Annex 5: Group Session - Identify specific issues or questions which you would like to see discussed or resolved during the workshop

Annex 6: Group Session - Rapid analysis of what information exists that has not yet been entered into the BCH

Annex 7: HERMES Role Play

Annex 8: HERMES Practical Exercise

Annex 9: Practical Exercise on AJAX

Annex 10: Summary of Daily Workshop Evaluations

Annex 11: Workshop Photos


of 19

Acknowledgments The authors want to thank to the following persons, for their support and help before, during and/or after the workshop:

• Professor Leonard O’Garro, UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit • Giovanni Ferraiolo, Secretariat, Convention on Biological Diversity • Philippe Leblond, Secretariat, Convention on Biological Diversity • Management and Staff, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus (UWI-CH)

Introduction

The Project entitled “Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the Biosafety Clearing House” hosted a second sub-regional workshop for Caribbean countries in St. Michael, Barbados from November 19th to 23rd of 2007. The primary regional objective of this workshop was to strengthen collaboration and exchange experiences between participating countries. An additional objective was to deliver to the participants all the new training materials and tools which have recently been developed through the efforts of the UNEP-GEF and the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity. An underlying theme in all the activities was to transfer knowledge to the participants to enable them to use the training materials and deliver national training courses effectively. Representatives from nine Caribbean countries participated. The workshop was facilitated by a joint team of UNEP-GEF staff, SCBD representatives, 7 Regional Advisors and local hosts.

Objectives The objectives of this workshop, as stated by Fred Vogel on the morning of the first day, were:

• To share national experiences on the BCH • To identify and address outstanding Issue • To introduce the new BCH and • To introduce new tools to assist countries in their national participation in the BCH • To introduce the new training material

Preparation

Training database and Hermes instances Before the workshop, a training database on the BCH Training site was setup. This database included 16 countries (including one for each country participating in the workshop) with 4 users for each country, including one NFP and 3 NAUs. Also 16 Hermes instances were setup by Philippe Leblond, linked to the corresponding country in the training database. With this configuration, records entered by participants during the training sessions on the BCH Management Center were then visible in the corresponding Hermes instance.


of 19

Cards with all the information required to login as administrator to the HERMES websites were distributed to participants before the Hermes training sessions. For the HERMES module, a role-play was adapted by Stephen Vitoria and Marydelene Vasquez to be used to present the basic features of HERMES to the participants. A previously developed HERMES practical exercise was adapted for this audience for use in the practical session on Day 4. For this exercise, it was necessary to load the HERMES user manual onto all the computers in the lab for participants to use as a reference during the practical exercise. Lab setup Day 1 of the Workshop was held in a conference room equipped with facilities for visual presentations. Days 2 to 4 of the workshop were held in one of the IT labs of the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus. The lab had 18 computers running Windows XP, with Internet connection via a Local Area Network. The lab was setup by Stephen Vitoria and Fred Vogel during the week before the workshop. Netop was installed on each computer. Additionally, all the files for the two Interactive Modules were copied onto each computer. During the workshop, we experienced some problems with Netop. For example, when a computer entered a power saving state then its display could no longer be controlled by computer designated as the Teacher, and it was lost from NetOp control. These problems could not be resolved because we could not change the computer configuration settings to stop them from entering an idle state. Power saving could not be turned off because it required administrator level authorization, and this level of security clearance was not available from the network administrator. Logistical Preparations Dr. Leonard O’Garro and support staff of the local Barbados UNEP mission arranged logistics relating to hotel reservations, airport pick-ups, the opening ceremony, daily subsistence allowances, preparation of folders with workshop materials, a formal dinner for participants, etc. Facilitation Meeting A facilitation meeting was held on the afternoon of Sunday November 18, 2007. All RAs as well as Fred Vogel of the UNEP Project Team and Professor O’Garro from the UNEP Biosafety Unit in Barbados, met at the Shell Suite on the UWI campus to discuss outstanding issues and review preparations for the workshop. The respective roles of the Day Lead Facilitators and the Day Contents and Agenda Focal Points were clarified.


of 19

Narrative Summary of Workshop Proceedings Day 1 – Monday, November 19, 2007 Primary Focus: Introduction and Regional Experiences Day Lead Facilitator: Marydelene Vasquez Day contents & agenda focal point: Stephen Vitoria Opening Ceremony The Opening Ceremony commenced at 9:00AM in the Shell Suite at UWI. It featured the following speakers:

Professor Leonard O’Garro, UNEP Regional Biosafety Coordinator Professor Sean Carrington, Dean – Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, UWI-CH Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, UNEP BCH Project Manager Giovanni Ferraiolo, Programme Officer – BCH, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological

Diversity (SCBD) Dr. Rosina Wiltshire, UNDP Representative and UN Resident Coordinator

During her opening remarks, Dr. Wiltshire invited all participants to introduce themselves. At the end of the Opening Ceremony, Fred Vogel of the UNEP-GEF BCH Project Team explained the workshop objectives, reviewed the agenda and explained the workshop methodology. He closed by reminding participants they this is THEIR workshop and it provided a unique opportunity to share experiences, address outstanding issues and meet the SCBD staff. He advised participants that at the end of the week, they would receive a CD-ROM with a copy of all workshop presentations and training materials. Marydelene Vasquez, the Day Lead Facilitator, then asked participants to state their expectations of the workshop. These expectations can be found in Annex 3 hereto. She then reviewed some of the housekeeping details such as workshop start and end times, location of toilet facilities, location of meeting rooms, etc. She also presented a list of “ground rules” outlining common courtesies that participants would be asked to observe during the week to ensure a smooth flow of events. Jyoti Mathur-Filipp gave participants an overview of the global status of the BCH Project. Giovanni Ferraiolo delivered a presentation on the Modalities of Operation of the BCH, the current status of data entry for Caribbean countries, recent changes made to the BCH and upcoming activities. Professor O’Garro delivered a presentation on the Status of Biosafety in the Caribbean. He explained the role of the National Biosafety Frameworks and noted that the key challenges in


of 19

the region are low capacity and financial constraints. He then outlined the structure of the proposed regional project which would aim to address these regional constraints. After lunch, Marydelene Vasquez and Stephen Vitoria jointly presented a summary of the status of BCH Project implementation in each of the Caribbean countries, as well as a summary of national information records for each country, which can currently be found in the BCH. The participants were then organized into 4 groups based on their country and their level of experience in BCH Project implementation. As far as possible, countries that were well advanced in project Implementation were teamed with countries that were about to embark on project implementation. The groups were asked to discuss the following points, share their experiences and lessons learned and make recommendations for the future: GROUP 1: Main issues/impediments/setbacks encountered while executing the BCH Project

GROUP 2: Main issues/impediments/setbacks to inputting national information to the BCH GROUP 3: Outstanding training needs in relation to the BCH and the CP – this analysis could

go beyond the lifetime of the BCH project GROUP 4: Outstanding resource needs in relation to the BCH and the CP – this analysis could

go beyond the lifetime of the BCH Project They were given flipchart paper on which to capture their conclusions and were asked to be prepared to make group presentations. Each group was also given the following questions. Participants were asked to discuss these at the country level and each country was asked to submit a response on colored paper.

• Rapid analysis of what information exists that has not yet been entered into the BCH • Identify specific issues or questions which you would like to see discussed or resolved

during the workshop. The groups embarked on their discussions. It was decided to close the day’s activities at 3:00 pm to enable participants to visit the bank to cash their DSA cheques, so the group discussions could not be completed. It was agreed therefore that the group discussions would continue the following day. Participants were asked to fill in their evaluation forms for the day. The Monday Navigation meeting was postponed until Tuesday morning. The UNEP Project Team, RAs, and SCBD representatives met to review the events of the day and make adjustments to the agenda for the following day, which had become necessary due to the early closure of the day’s activities.


of 19

Day 2– Tuesday, November 20, 2007 Primary Focus: Workshop Training Materials – CP and using the BCH Day Lead Facilitator: Anthony Richards Day contents & agenda focal point: Malachy Dottin Anthony Richards, the Day Lead Facilitator, and Malachy Dottin, the Day Contents and Agenda Focal Point, started the day by recapping the events of the first day. They then presented the revised agenda for Day 2. The first event of the day was the daily evaluation and navigation meeting, which had been postponed from the previous day. Participants then continued their group discussions, which had begun the day before. At the end of the discussion period, each group presented the results of their discussions to the plenary and further discussion followed each presentation. These results can be found in Annex 4 hereto. The answers provided to the country-level questions were collected and can be found in Annexes 5 and 6 hereto. Lydia Eibl-Kamolleh of the UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit delivered a presentation on the “Administrative Procedures for Closing a Country BCH Project” which was followed by a question and answer session. Countries were asked to sign up for one-on-one sessions with Lydia to be conducted during lunch breaks throughout the week. These sessions were held throughout the week. Malachy Dottin presented the session on the Cartagena Protocol. He outlined the history of how the Protocol came to be adopted. He then explained the various rights and obligations arising out of the Protocol with emphasis on the procedures outlined for transboundary movement of LMOs. Participants were then invited to move to the Computer Lab which would be the venue for the remainder of the week. Once in the lab, participants were asked to do the Interactive Module 1 to reinforce their understanding of the Cartagena Protocol. Julian Bourne gave an introduction to the BCH in which she explained what the BCH is, and the Parties’ obligations, under the Cartagena Protocol, to enter specific types of national information into the BCH. She also explained the modalities of operation of the BCH and the benefits to Parties arising from participation in the BCH. Participants were then asked to do the Interactive Module 2 to reinforce their understanding of the BCH. A group exercise followed, facilitated by Malachy Dottin and Fred Phillips, in which participants were asked to discuss various scenarios presented in a set of discussion points relating to the Cartagena Protocol and the BCH. Each group read their conclusions to the assigned discussion points and these were verified by the facilitators.


of 19

Giovanni Ferraiolo of the SCBD then gave a presentation on the BCH covering its role in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and the modalities of its operation. He detailed the changes implemented at the start of November 2008, which include a change of the appearance, improved user friendliness, enhanced query facilities, and greater quality control. He then mentioned current plans for further improvements. Finally, he mentioned the improved options for interoperability with national biosafety websites offered by the HERMES application and AJAX plug-in. After this introduction to the BCH, participants were assigned Case Studies, which had been updated to reflect the changes to the BCH Central Portal. These case studies enabled participants to consolidate their skills in using the BCH query facilities and understand how the BCH can assist in the implementation of the Protocol. The day’s activities concluded with the navigation meeting and filling out of evaluation forms by participants. Summaries of the participants’ evaluations can be found in Annex 10. Day 3 – Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Primary Focus: Registering Information on the BCH Day Lead Facilitator: Fred Phillips Day contents & agenda focal point: Anthony Richards The Day Lead Facilitator, Fred Phillips, started the day with a review of the Tuesday’s activities and a presentation of Wednesday’s revised agenda. This was followed by summaries of the contributions made in the navigation meetings. Ricardo George made the presentation for Day 1’s navigation meeting and Marydelene Vasquez presented the contributions from Day 2. Giovanni Ferraiolo made a presentation to clarify the stipulations under Article 11 in the Protocol for LMOs intended for use as food, feed and processing. He threw light on the differences between declarations under 11.1, article 11.4 and Article 11.6.

In this discussion, Giovanni clarified the following issues:

1) Article 11.1 applies to LMOs that may be used in a country for FFP, but which may be subject to transboundary movement, i.e. may be exported. Under article 11.1, a country needs to register into the BCH all LMOs that it either grows and exports, or imports and re-exports.

2) Some non-party states are voluntarily submitting decisions relating to LMO-FFPs (Article 11.1).

3) How does a state party regulate imports of LMO-FFP? The potential importer has responsibility to make declarations under Article 11.6 in order to provide a system for regulation.


of 19

4) Article 11.4 applies to LMOs that are to be used only within the country for FFP. These LMOs will not be exported.

5) Article 11.6 is not compulsory. All it means is that, if the country does not have a regulatory framework in place for handling applications for the importation of LMOs for FFP, the country can opt to use the AIA procedure until they can develop their own regulatory framework. (Barbados is an example of one such country that has done this.)

6) How strong is the Protocol with regard to SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement) and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement)? The Protocol remains weak as long as states parties remain in non-compliance (e.g. we fail to submit minimum information to BCH).

This session was critically important as it clarified the meaning and ramifications of Article 11, which apparently had not been fully understood by many of the participants. Fred Vogel then presented a brief demonstration of the MOODLE site which can be found at moodle.unep.ch. He explained that the site contained all the training materials developed through the BCH project and described how the site could be used by participants in conducting their own workshops. Terrence Gilliard then presented a session on the Information Sharing Obligations of parties to the Protocol. This presentation mentioned the benefits as well as the obligations of Parties. It focused particularly on Article 20, which details the various types of information that countries must make available through the BCH. It also described what types of information must be made available when a country makes decisions under the AIA or under the FFP procedures. Several participants expressed their appreciation for this clarification of their obligations. Stephen Vitoria then made a presentation on using the Management Centre to enter information into the BCH. The participants were then organized into groups and asked to complete Case Study 20 to reinforce the previous sessions on data entry and on information-sharing obligations of Parties. If they finished the first Case Study, they were asked to do Case Study 10 (different from the previous Case Study 10 found on MOODLE.) During this hands-on exercise, participants were given usernames for NFP’s and NAU’s for access to a training BCH site and were asked to enter data as required under the Case Study. The hands-on session was facilitated by Stephen Vitoria and Anthony Richards. This session led to the questions regarding a country’s obligations in relation to contained use of LMOs and at what point must a Party report an accidental release. The day’s events concluded at half-day to allow participants to enjoy a free afternoon. Participants were asked to fill out evaluation forms for the day. No navigation meeting was held since it was a short day.


of 19

Day 4 – Thursday, November 22, 2007 Primary Focus: Options for National Participation in the BCH Day Lead Facilitator: Stephen Vitoria Day contents & agenda focal point: Julian Bourne The Day Lead Facilitator, Stephen Victoria, started the day by reviewing the activities completed on Wednesday and presenting the revised agenda for Thursday. There was no navigation review since no navigation meeting had been conducted the previous day.

The first item on the day’s agenda was a session on Options for National Participation and Solutions for a National Presence on the Web presented by Philippe Leblond. The presentation reviewed the 4 options for national participation. It was emphasized that these 4 options are the same as always and have not changed. Philippe then introduced two new solutions being offered by the Secretariat to assist countries who have chosen option 1 to establish their own national biosafety website with links to the national information stored on the BCH. The first new solution presented was the Hermes application. Hermes is a complete content management (CMS) solution, which provides both the space and the building blocks for the development of a national biosafety website. This solution allows users to create and maintain their national website online. It is developed, hosted, maintained and fully supported by the Secretariat.

To further illustrate the options for national participation, a demonstration was made of how different countries have implemented options 1, 3 and 4. The following websites were used for this demonstration:

Tajikistan using HERMES: http://tj.biosafetyclearinghouse.net http://bch.biodiv.tj (same website as above but different URL)

Costa Rica using HERMES: http://cr.biosafetyclearinghouse.net Estonia using HERMES: http://ee.biosafetyclearinghouse.net Brazil using AJAX: http://bvh.mct.gov.br India using OPTION 3: http://indbch.nic.in

http://indbch.nic.in/writereaddataxml/ Colombia using OPTION 4: http://www.bch.org.co

The Ajax Plug-in is the second solution presented in this session. It is used when there is an existing national web site. Implementing AJAX technically only requires adding two lines of HTML code to an existing web page and can therefore be implemented literally in minutes.


of 19

It was emphasized that having a national website is NOT an obligation under the Protocol and that making information available on a national website does NOT fulfill a Party’s information sharing obligations under the Protocol. Rather, a country may for other national reasons, choose to have a national website. Hermes and Ajax are solutions that will assist country’s wishing to establish their own national biosafety website. Both solutions provide out-of-the-box interoperability with the BCH Central Portal.

Marydelene Vasquez and Stephen Vitoria then enacted a role-play to show participants how to use Hermes to implement a national biosafety website which automatically displays national information that has been previously entered through the BCH Central Portal. A description of the role-play can be found in Annex 7 with a sample script. The role-play was designed to be humorous as well as didactic. Using a role play was a strategy to introduce dry technical material to a non-IT audience.

Following the role play, participants were asked to work in groups to complete a Hermes Practical exercise. In this exercise, participants had the opportunity to implement what they had learnt about Hermes by customizing their own country website. To enable this exercise, practice Hermes websites had been created previously by Philippe Leblond and user accounts set up to allow participants access to the practice sites. These user accounts and passwords were handed out to participants at the start of the exercise. A copy of this exercise can be found in Annex 8. The exercise was facilitated by Marydelene Vasquez and Stephen Vitoria with additional technical guidance provided to participants by Giovanni Ferraiolo, Philippe Leblond and Fred Vogel.

A discussion session followed the Hermes practical exercise. Having been exposed to the new Hermes and Ajax solutions and seeing a review of the options for national participation in the BCH, participants were asked to provide recommendations for improvements as well as to pose questions on any aspect of Hermes, Ajax or national participation on which they still required clarification. Answers were provided by Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, Project Manager of the BCH Project, and Giovanni Ferraiolo and Philippe Leblond of the SCBD. A summary of the contributions, questions and answers which arose in this session are given below:

Question: Can both the Hermes and Ajax applications be used at the same time? Answer: There is no need to use both. Ajax is a subset of the Hermes. Ajax is only a 2 line code plug-in used when the country has an existing web site and would like to add more country details necessary for public viewing. Question: Does HERMES offer facilities for translation? Answer: HERMES offers the flexibility to display pages and data in different languages. It is not limited to the 6 UN languages. A country using HERMES can maintain their website in several different languages. The viewer can then choose to display the website in whichever language they choose.


of 19

Suggestion: The images in the User Manual are not very clear. They need to be made sharper. Comment: It was difficult to understand how to make a hyperlink to a document that was uploaded to the website. Question: Is it possible to allow access to both the training site and a live site, running simultaneously? Answer: Yes, but the country must send a request or reminder to the SCBD when this is needed in order for this to be set up. Question: May a country change its Option for National Participation in the MOU from Option 3 to Option 1? Answer: Yes. To make this change to the MOU, the country needs to submit the change requested with a justification for the requested change in writing to the BCH Project Manager. This request can then be officially approved. Suggestion: Explore the possibility for a web building application with features similar to Hermes but with greater flexibility for the user to design their own sites. Currently, Hermes seems to be too restricted, for example, content management. Comment: It was not possible to see the pages 45 – 50 of the user manual. Question: Could the money set aside in the MOU budget for IT persons be used for additional training as the need for IT expertise may not be necessary when a new option is chosen? Answer: Yes. This change can be made, providing a valid justification is sent to the Project Manager. Question: If a country already has a website would it be possible for it to use the Hermes application as the sole host? Answer: This is entirely dependent on the country. At the end of the day, the country’s obligation as a Party to the Protocol is to ensure that all the required national information is entered into the BCH. Comment: Hermes would be considered as a tool for implementing the national option while Ajax is more beneficial to countries that already have a website and wish to use their existing site to display the BCH information. Question: If a country has almost completed its obligations (ed. note: under the MOU), is it possible for it to switch the present option being used? Answer: The operative word there is almost. It is entirely up to the country and once the obligations are not fully completed, then the country can change their option.


of 19

Question: Why is there not an interactive training module for Ajax? Answer: It is a good idea for the exercise manual on Ajax. The AJAX solution is very new and is still being worked on. Developing an interactive training module for Ajax it is a request that in the future could be implemented. Question: What is the latest date at which a Party can get its information posted on the BCH in order to be considered in the discussions of the COP MOP meeting schedule for May 2008? Answer: It is important for Parties to get their information in at the earliest possible date for it to be factored into the decision making of the COP/MOP meeting, at least a month before the details are vetted and translated into the six UN languages. The latest date is possibly January15, 2008, but getting it in by December 31, 2007 is much safer. Question: Is it possible for a country to get more than 15 RA training days, to assist with the project’s implementation? Answer: It is may be possible. An exceptional reason would have to be provided in writing to the BCH Project for this to be approved. The door is not open; neither is it closed. If a country feels that this is the necessary, then they should write to the Project Manager and this request will be accommodated if it is possible. Comment: The presentations made on both solutions were interesting and important. Any country decision in regard to the use of these solutions would be made after consultation with colleagues in country. Question: As the creator of these solutions, which would you choose? (This was directed to the SCBD.) Answer: This is entirely up to the country. Option 1 is easier than Option 3 since for Option 1, the country only has to enter their national information once. After that, the remainder of the work is done through or by the SCBD. Comment: The Hermes tool seems very handy tool for developing the national biosafety website. The feature which allows an additional language, for example, our national language, is also extremely useful and gives us the opportunity to establish a national biosafety website at minimal or no cost or requirement for IT expertise. The Hermes tool is also very user friendly. Error Report: On the login page, at the check box, the spelling should be corrected from ‘remeber me’ to “remember me”. Comment: Grenada does not yet have a website thus Hermes is being considered as a suitable solution for Grenada.


of 19

Upon the conclusion of the above session, Jyoti Mathur-Filipp conducted a session to respond to requests made by participants on Day 1 of the workshop, when participants had been asked to identify specific issues or questions that they wanted to see discussed or resolved during the workshop. During this session, Ms. Mathur-Filipp specifically addressed those issues from this list which were still outstanding. A list of the issues raised by countries can be found in Annex 5. This concluded the activities for Thursday, Day 4 of the regional workshop. Participants were asked to fill evaluation forms for the day and a navigation meeting was held. Feedback from the evaluations and the navigation meetings for this day indicated that participants were very pleased with the content delivered and with the pace of the activities since sufficient time was allowed for discussion and for question-and-answer sessions. There were comments that sufficient time was not allowed for understanding and learning about the Ajax Plug-in. It was therefore decided by the facilitators to add another session to the 5th day for a further session on Ajax and a practical exercise. Day 5 – Friday, November 23, 2007 Primary Focus: Forward planning, sustainability, enabling countries to successfully complete

BCH project Day Lead Facilitator: Terrence Gilliard Day contents & agenda focal point: Marydelene Vasquez The final day of the workshop started, as usual, with a review of the previous day’s activities and a report from the previous day’s navigation meeting. The Day Lead Facilitator, Terrence Gilliard, then presented the revised agenda for Friday, Day 5 of the workshop. The first activity of the day was a Review of the Ajax Plug-in. This was scheduled in since participant feedback from the previous day indicated that this solution had not been fully understood and that further explanation and some practical exercise were needed. Philippe Leblond reviewed the material on the Ajax Plug-in. Participants were then assigned a short practical exercise on using the Ajax Plug-in to display information records from the BCH on national web pages. Fred Vogel guided participants through the practical. Philippe Leblond and Regional Advisors provided additional technical assistance to participants as they worked through the exercises. A copy of the exercise is attached in Annex 9 hereto. Participants were assembled for Group Photos during the coffee break. Group photos as well as selected other photos from the workshop can be found in Annex 11 hereto. Professor Leonard O’Garro made a presentation on the GEF Strategy for Financing Biosafety. He explained that the objective was to build capacity of eligible countries to implement the Protocol at national, sub-regional and regional levels and that the strategy must cater for activities required to complete implementation of the Protocol. He then described the role


of 19

of the National Biosafety Frameworks, which are outputs of the Development Project, in achieving the enforcement of Biosafety Protocol and the strategic role of GEF support in assisting countries in achieving the Implementation Project objectives. He explained that countries wishing to implement national, sub-regional or regional projects must set aside a portion of their national allocation of GEF funds in the biodiversity focal area for this purpose. The final activity of the workshop was a forward planning exercise. Each country was asked to plan their way forward to completion of the national BCH Project as outlined in their MOUs. They were given the following outline to guide them through this exercise.

• Endorsement Letter • Sign MOU • Strategy for data entry of existing records

o CNAs, NBF, Roster of Experts, Existing Laws • Changes to the MOU

o decide on any changes o submit justification and new budget

• Training Schedule / RA Missions o targeted training for different stakeholder groups o specific assistance with option chosen o assistance with MOU preparation o assistance with project closing out procedures

• Closing out procedures The Project Manager, Jyoti Mathur-Filipp and Marydelene Vasquez, the newly appointed Regional Specialist, then met individually with each country group to discuss their forward strategy individually. Each country was also asked to submit their forward strategy in writing or electronically. These were collected during each country interview and will be used in planning regional activities for the next 12 months. The workshop was then concluded with final word of thanks from the BCH Project Manager, Jyoti Mathur-Filipp and final words by Giovanni Ferraiolo, Programme Officer – BCH, of the SCBD. Participants were then asked to fill out the final evaluation form. Comments from the day’s evaluation forms indicated that participants felt the workshop had been successful in transferring useful knowledge to the countries. Special appreciation was expressed for the second Ajax session, Professor O’Garro’s presentation and the individual country interviews, in which participants were able to discuss country-specific issues directly with the BCH Project Manager.


of 19

The workshop facilitators had a wrap up meeting to analyse the success of the workshop, identify what improvements can be made for future workshops and identify strategies for addressing noted weaknesses in national participation in the BCH e.g. national information not being entered, insufficient participation by official BCH Focal Points, etc. These points will be included below in the sections on Lessons Learned and Conclusions and Recommendations.

Lessons Learned 1. The agenda was very dynamic, which created a bit more overhead during the week for the

facilitators but in the end the workshop was successful in meeting the stated objectives and in fulfilling specific needs mentioned by participants. Facilitators must always be prepared to be flexible in changing the agenda to accommodate participants’ feedback and requests as well as unforeseen disruptions to the schedule due to factors arising outside of the agenda. Flexibility, without losing focus of key objectives, is critical to the success of these workshops.

2. Severe disruptions to the schedule on Day 1 led to a frantic pace for Day 2, which created a lot of pressure for Tuesday’s facilitators. The Day Facilitators were successful in getting the agenda back on track but participants did complain that too little time was allotted for activities on those days when we were trying to “catch up.”

3. Participants appreciated the relaxed pace of the last 2 days of the workshop. 4. The daily evaluations and navigation meetings allowed the facilitators to adjust the

agenda and the pace to accommodate the participants stated requirements and make them as comfortable as possible.

5. Some problems were experienced with facilitators not receiving emails prior to the workshop. It appears that some emails that were sent out by organizers were not received by all facilitators. This resulted in different facilitators having different versions of the agenda. With various versions of the agenda circulating, the agenda delivered to participants on the first day was not the most current version. This did not create a problem in completing the required programme for work, as the facilitators were very flexible and responsive in adjusting the agenda as needed. Neither did it seem to affect the participants understanding of the daily work programme as each day began with a description of the day’s activities. Nevertheless, it is essential that communication be more efficient for future workshops to avert any potential adverse effect on their success.

6. Having DSAs given out in cheques proved cumbersome since it then required participants to take time out of the day’s work schedule to visit the bank to cash their DSA cheques.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The lack of national information was recognized as a significant problem in the Caribbean region. Information is lacking even for those countries, which have received one or more training courses including instruction on data entry. Several of the recommendations herein attempt to address this problem by focusing the training efforts more directly on ensuring that national information is entered.


of 19

2. More time should be spent working one-on-one with each user especially during the

session on how to enter national information through the Management Centre. 3. To address the lack of national information in the BCH, when RAs go to countries to

conduct national workshops, they should let the country check on what national information has been entered for that country. Then the country should be asked to identify what information exists that has not been entered into the BCH and what are the reasons for them not being entered.

4. One of the recognized problems inhibiting data entry is that BCH focal point in some

countries are not operationally involved with the BCH Project or implementation of the Protocol. Some individuals are appointed for their political status in the government hierarchy instead of their operational function. The result is that the BCH Focal Point, whose role is central in entering national information, often does not participate in the BCH training workshops, and is not fulfilling their operational role in the data entry process. It was recommended therefore that the BCH Project should be stricter in ensuring that the BCH Focal Point attends training workshops. It was further suggested that since the BCH Focal Points do attend the COP/MOPs, a training course for them could be arranged to piggy-back on those meetings.

5. It was noted that logistics for this workshop, including inter alia transportation to the

training venue, DSA payments, communication amongst facilitators before the workshop, and hotel arrangements, could have been smoother. This is based on participants’ comments in the evaluation forms and navigation meetings as well as from observations made by the facilitators themselves. It was noted that using a hotel as both the training venue and for participants’ accommodations would address some of these logistical problems, although it does require more effort in setting up the lab prior to the workshop.

6. It was noted by several facilitators that they did not receive one or the other email prior

to the workshop. This created some confusion especially as it relates to the agenda. It is recommended that a system of receipt verification be implemented in the future to ensure that all relevant persons do receive the necessary emails. This could be easily done by requiring read-receipts on the emails sent out. In the case that a read receipt is not received within a few days, follow-up with subsequent emails or even by telephone could be done.

7. It was noted that we need to be certain that by the end of the training module on the

management centre, participants are able to enter national information. It was suggested that the users may learn it at the time of the training but that they subsequently forget how to use it since they don’t have the chance to use it very often.


of 19

8. DSA payments should be made to participants in cash since paying them in cheques then requires them to take time out during the day to cash the cheques at a local bank. This causes severe disruptions to the workshop schedule. In the future, if the payments are being made by local UN offices, we should request/insist that participants be paid their DSA in cash. In the case where a travel agent assists with logistics in country, they handle payments and these payments should also be made in cash.

9. More case studies are needed in general to offer a wider variety of training materials to

be used in courses. This could be a significant advantage when there are participants who are repeating the course since they could have an opportunity to work on new case studies. It was also recommended that additional case studies specifically for data entry practice be developed since data entry has been identified as a critical area in which countries are not fulfilling their obligations under the CP.

10. It was further recommended that the number of “snapshots” in the answer keys to the

case studies could be reduced so that even when changes are made to the BCH appearance or as changes appear in the query results, the case studies remain relevant.

11. The presence and active participation of the SCBD was a great advantage in this workshop

and a key element in its success. Giovanni Ferraiolo was able to clarify several points in the Protocol which had not been clearly understood previously by many of the participants, and even by the Regional Advisors. Philippe Leblond was able to spend the time necessary to explain both Hermes and Ajax. Where additional sessions were requested, these were granted. Given that the majority of the participants are not IT professionals, this extra time was essential to their understanding of the solutions available to support Option 1 for national participation in the BCH, which in turn was critical in their reassessment of their choice of national option.

12. Comments on the workshop evaluation forms indicated that participants felt that they

gained valuable information from this workshop. Several participants also expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet in groups or one-on-one with the Project Team, especially with the Project Manager.

In summary, the workshop was successful in achieving the following: • It allowed the BCH Project Team, the SCBD, and the Parties to illustrate that there is

insufficient entry of national information for the region, to identify the missing information, and to address this problem directly in the workshop sessions.

• Both first time and repeat participants gained new information that will be valuable for

their fulfillment of obligations under the Protocol, their participation in the BCH and in the successful completion of their national BCH Project.


of 19

• Countries consolidated their understanding of the Cartagena Protocol and the BCH. • Countries gained a greater understanding of the 4 options for national participation. In

the light of this, some have chosen to change their option in line with their country’s requirements and resources.

• Countries became acquainted with the new solutions, Hermes and Ajax, created by the

SCBD to complement Option 1 for national participation. • Countries had an opportunity to become acquainted with all the Regional Advisors and

especially the new Regional Advisors, which they had not had the chance of meeting before.

• The new Regional Advisors had an excellent opportunity to participate as trainers for the

first time, with the support and guidance of the other Regional Advisors, the BCH Project Team and the SCBD representatives. This is a unique and highly beneficial preparation for their future national workshops.

• Countries had an opportunity to plan their way forward to the successful completion of

their national BCH projects, and to discuss this with the BCH Project Team. It is expected that this will lead to renewed focus and efforts by countries to fulfill their obligations under the CP and to complete national BCH activities as described under their MOUs. In the cases of Jamaica and Suriname, who have not yet signed their MOUs, the workshop served as an opportunity to clarify outstanding questions regarding the MOU itself.

• The workshop provided an important opportunity for networking among the Caribbean

biosafety / biodiversity community. • Through Professor O’Garro’s presentations, participants were updated on UNEP’s plans for

biosafety-related projects and activities in the region.


UNEP-GEF Project for Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the

Biosafety Clearing House

Global Environment

Facility

2nd Caribbean Sub-regional Workshop Agenda Annex 1, Page 1 of 3

ANNEX 1

WORKSHOP AGENDA Second Caribbean Regional Workshop

19 – 23 November 2007 University of the West Indies, Barbados

DAY 1 – Monday, November 19, 2007

Primary Focus : Introduction and Regional Experiences Day Lead Facilitator (DLF1): Marydelene Vasquez Day contents & agenda focal point: Stephen Vitoria Time Task Presenter

0900 Opening addresses Introduction of UNEP representative(s), SCBD rep(s), BCH Project Team and RAs

Gov’t Rep, JMF2, GF3, UN Res. Coord., LO4

0940 Workshop Main Objectives & Program of work. Methodology FV5

0950 Participants Introduction, Expectations and Concerns MV6, Participants

1010 BCH Project : Overview and Update JMF

1030 Coffee Break

1045 Current Status of Cartagena Protocol GF

1105 Status of Biosafety in the Region LO

1200 Lunch

1330 BCH Project Implementation Status and Nat’l Information Status in Caribbean countries

MV / SV7

1345 Group Discussions to Share Experiences and Individual Country Exercise to Determine Country-Specific Outstanding Issues

Participants / JMF/ Regional Advisors

1445 Plenary Session: Report Back from Groups DLF, Participants

1500 Close of day’s activities

1 Day Lead Facilitator 2 Jyoti Mathur-Filipp 3 Giovanni Ferraiolo 4 Leonard O’Garro 5 Fred Vogel 6 Marydelene Vasquez 7 Stephen Vitoria




Global Environment

Facility


DAY 2 - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 Primary Focus: Workshop Training Materials – CP and using the BCH Day Lead Facilitator: Anthony Richards Day contents & agenda focal point: Malachy Dottin Time Task Presenter

0900 Recap of previous day AR8 / MD9 Report on Monday’s Navigation Meeting AR

0915 Group Sessions Continued from Previous Day MV / SV 0945 Groups Report Back in Plenary Session MV / Participants 1030 Coffee Break 1045 Navigation Report Summary MV / SV 1100 Administrative procedures for closing a country BCH Project LEK10 1130 Introduction to the Cartagena Protocol MD 1230 Lunch Break 1330 Introduction to the BCH JB11 1430 Group Exercise : Discussion Points MD 1500 Introduction to the new BCH. Surfing and Finding Information. GF 1530 Coffee Break 1545 Group Exercise: Case Studies TG12 / SV 1645 Day evaluation DLF 1700 Workshop Navigation Meeting DLF

DAY 3 – Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Primary Focus: Registering Information on the BCH Day Lead Facilitator: Fred Phillips Day contents & agenda focal point: Anthony Richards Time Task Presenter

0900 Recap of previous day FP13 0910 Navigation meeting recap Participants 0915 Discussion on Article 11 - FFPs GF 1010 Introduction to MOODLE FV 1035 Coffee Break 1050 Information Sharing Obligations on Becoming a Party to the Protocol TG 1115 Registering Info on the Management Center SV 1135 Case Studies for Management Centre plus assisting in inputting info AR / SV 1300 Lunch Break

8 Anthony Richards 9 Malachy Dottin 10 Lydia Eibl-Kamolleh 11 Julian Bourne 12 Terrence Gilliard 13 Fred Phillips




Global Environment

Facility


DAY 4 – Thursday, November 22, 2007 Primary Focus: Options for National Participation in the BCH Day Lead Facilitator: Stephen Vitoria Day contents & agenda focal point: Julian Bourne Time Task Presenter

0900 Options for National Participation including an introduction to the new tools for Option 1 – HERMES and AJAX

FV / PL14

0945 Demonstration of completed national websites using different national options

FV / PL

1000 HERMES tutorial MV / SV 1030 Coffee Break 1045 HERMES Practical Exercise MV / SV / PL / GF 1200 Lunch Break 1330 Question and answer session on options for national participation,

changes to national options, HERMES and AJAX GF / PL

1500 Coffee Break 1530 Resolution of country-specific issues JMF 1600 Day evaluation DLF 1630 Workshop Navigation Meeting DLF 1900 Group Dinner

DAY 5 – Friday, November 23, 2007 Primary Focus: Forward planning, sustainability, enabling countries to successfully complete BCH

project Day Lead Facilitator: Terrence Gilliard Day contents & agenda focal point: Marydelene Vasquez Time Task Presenter

0900 Recap of the previous day TG 0910 Review of AJAX PL 0930 AJAX Practical Exercise FV / PL / RAs 1000 Group Photo 1015 Coffee Break 1030 GEFs biosafety strategy and future steps LO 1130 Group Session – Countries Plan the Way Forward JMF / MV /

Participants 1315 Group Exercise : Way Forward JMF / MV 1300 Closing Remarks JMF, GF 1315 Day evaluation DLF 1330 Close of Workshop DLF 1330 Lunch Break

14 Philippe Leblond

United Nations

Environment Programme



Global Environment Facility

2nd Caribbean Sub-Regional Workshop Annex 2, Page 1 of 3

ANNEX 2

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Second Caribbean Sub-Regional BCH Workshop

University of West Indies, Barbados

19 - 23 NOVEMBER 2007 1

Prof. Nora Quintana Noy Chief of the Department of Information Street 28 #502 1/1 5a y 7a Avenida Miramar Playa Ciudad Habana Cuba

2

Anita Victorine James Biodiversity/Biosafety Coordinator Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry 4th Floor, Sir Stanislas James Building The Waterfront Castries St. Lucia

3

Mr. Ricardo George Information Systems Manager Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry Sir Stanislaus James Building Waterfront Castries, St. Lucia

4

Ms. Angela Alleyne Biosafety Coordinator Ministry of Energy and the Environment First Floor, SP Musson Building Hincks Street Bridgetown Barbados

5

Ms. Edwina A Kirton Plant Quarantine Officer Ministry of Agriculture Crumpton Street Bridgetown St. Michael Barbados

6

Mrs. Stacy Lubin-Gray Environmental Officer (BCH Project Officer) Best Commission #1 Nassau Court P O Box CB 10980 New Providence, Bahamas

7

Mr. Deon Stewart Deputy Chief Environmental Health Inspector (BCH Project Coordinator) Best Commission #1 Nassua Court P O Box CB 10980 New Providence, Bahamas

8

Mr. Sean Townsend Senior Research Officer Jamaica Clearing House Mechanism CHM & BCH Focal Point Natural History Division Institute of Jamaica 10-16 East Street Kingston, Jamaica

9

Mr. Marcus Richards Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries Richmond Hill, Kingstown St. Vincent & the Grenadines

10

Mr. Michael James c/o Plant Pathology Section Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development Graeme Hall Christ Church BB11000


11

Dr. Janil Gore-Francis Plant Protection Officer/BCH Focal Point Plant Protection Unit Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Marine Resources & Agro Industry P.O. Box 1282, St. John’s, Antigua

12

Mrs. Carol-Faye George Environment Education & Information officer Environment Division # 1 prime Minister Drive Off Factory Road, St John’s, Antigua

13

Shelley Soetosenojo Environment Officer Heerensstraat 40 3rd Floor Paramaribo,Suriname

14

Lystra Culzac-Wilson (Mrs) National Project Coordinator National Biosafety Framework Project Upper Queen’s Drive P. O. Box 193 Kingstown St. Vincent & The Grenadines

15

Mr. Reginald Andall CARDI P. O. Box 270 St. George’s Grenada

16

Mr. Wilan Hamilton Forester II BCH Project Focal Point Forestry & National Parks Department Queen’s Park St. George’s Grenada

REGIONAL ADVISORS 1 CPB

Mr. Anthony Richards Laboratory manager/Consultant HLSCC Marine center Laboratories Tortola, Britsh Virgin Islands

2 CPB

Ms. Julian Bourne 58 Hughenden Avenue Apt # 1, Kingston 20 Jamaica West Indies

3 IT

Mr. Stephen Vitoria 71 Daisy Drive Wanstead Heights St. James Barbados

4 IT

Ms. Marydelene Vasquez PO Box 371 Belize City Belize

5 CPB

Mr. Terrence Gilliard Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry Castries Saint Lucia

6 CPB

Fred E. A. Phillips 1202 York Mills Road, Unit 1603 Don Mills, Ontario Canada M3A 1Y2 Or #9 Locust Hall Terrace St. George Barbados


7 CPB

Dr. Malachy Pilgrim Dottin, Ph.D Biotechnologist, Director of Research and Biotechnology Laboratory Ministry of Agriculture Ministerial Complex Botanical Gardens St George’s Grenada W.I.

UNEP-GEF 1 Jyoti Mathur-Filipp

BCH Project Manager UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit 11 – 13 Chemin des Anémones 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland

2 Mr. Philippe Leblond Computer Information Systems Officer SCBD Montreal, Canada

3 Mr. Frédéric Vogel Programme Officer UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit International Environment House 15, Chemin des Anemones CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva, Switzerland

4 Ms. Lydia Eibl-Kamolleh Fund Manager UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit Nairobi, Kenya

5 Leonard O'GARRO UNEP-GEF Biosafety U.N. House, P.O. Box 625C, Bridgetown, St. Michael Barbados

6 Mr. Giovanni Ferraiolo Programme Officer – BCH Biosafety Division Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 413 Saint-Jacques Street Suite 800 Montreal, QC, H2Y 1N9 Canada

2nd Caribbean Sub-regional Workshop Annex 3, Page 1 of 2

ANNEX 3 Second Caribbean Sub-regional Workshop

19th November 2007

Day 1: Countries’ Expectations Country Expectation Antigua & Barbuda

To gain more information and training on the BCH. To network with others in the region regarding the BCH. To get a better understanding of the BCH data entry program

options. Bahamas To learn of the experiences of the other countries in the region

in implementing the BCH project. To learn about the new BCH project tools being developed by

the CBD. To refresh myself on how to use the BCH Central Portal. To find ways to build capacity to make the BCH successful. To network with other countries. To gain enough experience at this training workshop so that we

can hold training workshops as well. Barbados How to use the tools of the BCH.

How the BCH and other focal points, eg: Enquiry Points (SPS, TBT, etc…) are integrated.

How the BCH works on the ground – country experiences. To obtain as much information on the BCH as possible, and how I

can assist in its effective implementation in Barbados. To leave this workshop with a clear understanding of the BCH

and how it works. To learn more about the BCH. To be equipped with, and to gain an understanding of the

materials/tools that will be required on a day to day basis for my job.

Mostly to have an open mind on the project. Learn from the experiences of other countries which have

already started implementing their BCH project. To learn more about the new features of the BCH. To learn how to link to other clearing houses. To revisit the issue of developing a regional BCH node. Earlier

discussion concerning this was held at the first regional BCH workshop in December 2005. This is essential for the implementation of NBFs in the region.

Cuba As I am very new in this responsibility, my principle concern is to learn and gain experience from everyone here present for the effective implementation of the BCH and receive feedback and learn from each other.

Also need a little training about UNEP GEF projects that I will be also working with in that field.


Grenada To gain a greater understanding of the practicalities of the BCH. To gain an increased familiarity with the BCH.

Jamaica Networking – getting to know participants so that we can gain an understanding of the work being carried out in each country.

To learn from the experiences of others in order to effectively execute the BCH project in Jamaica, especially in regards to the execution of the Public Awareness Workshop.

To obtain information for the effective and successful development of the National Biosafety Framework.

St. Lucia At the end of 5 days, I will be retooled with the necessary skills to implement a successful BCH system in my country.

To effectively set up a national BCH system. To learn from the experiences of others.

St. Vincent & The Grenadines

To interact and exchange experiences. To become familiar with the new material. To get as much information as possible to advance the project in

St. Vincent & The Grenadines. To gather as much information as possible regarding biosafety,

biotechnology and the BCH, to create a greater personal awareness and knowledge which will therefore assist me to be able to train and educate others in my country.

To offer necessary support to our local BCH. Suriname Get more information on the BCH, how to use it and how to

implement it nationally. To understand how the BCH will contribute in implementing the

Cartagena Protocol in Suriname.


ANNEX 3 Second Caribbean Sub-regional Workshop

19th November 2007

Day 1: Countries’ Expectations Country Expectation Antigua & Barbuda

To gain more information and training on the BCH. To network with others in the region regarding the BCH. To get a better understanding of the BCH data entry program

options. Bahamas To learn of the experiences of the other countries in the region

in implementing the BCH project. To learn about the new BCH project tools being developed by

the CBD. To refresh myself on how to use the BCH Central Portal. To find ways to build capacity to make the BCH successful. To network with other countries. To gain enough experience at this training workshop so that we

can hold training workshops as well. Barbados How to use the tools of the BCH.

How the BCH and other focal points, eg: Enquiry Points (SPS, TBT, etc…) are integrated.

How the BCH works on the ground – country experiences. To obtain as much information on the BCH as possible, and how I

can assist in its effective implementation in Barbados. To leave this workshop with a clear understanding of the BCH

and how it works. To learn more about the BCH. To be equipped with, and to gain an understanding of the

materials/tools that will be required on a day to day basis for my job.

Mostly to have an open mind on the project. Learn from the experiences of other countries which have

already started implementing their BCH project. To learn more about the new features of the BCH. To learn how to link to other clearing houses. To revisit the issue of developing a regional BCH node. Earlier

discussion concerning this was held at the first regional BCH workshop in December 2005. This is essential for the implementation of NBFs in the region.

Cuba As I am very new in this responsibility, my principle concern is to learn and gain experience from everyone here present for the effective implementation of the BCH and receive feedback and learn from each other.

Also need a little training about UNEP GEF projects that I will be also working with in that field.


Grenada To gain a greater understanding of the practicalities of the BCH. To gain an increased familiarity with the BCH.

Jamaica Networking – getting to know participants so that we can gain an understanding of the work being carried out in each country.

To learn from the experiences of others in order to effectively execute the BCH project in Jamaica, especially in regards to the execution of the Public Awareness Workshop.

To obtain information for the effective and successful development of the National Biosafety Framework.

St. Lucia At the end of 5 days, I will be retooled with the necessary skills to implement a successful BCH system in my country.

To effectively set up a national BCH system. To learn from the experiences of others.

St. Vincent & The Grenadines

To interact and exchange experiences. To become familiar with the new material. To get as much information as possible to advance the project in

St. Vincent & The Grenadines. To gather as much information as possible regarding biosafety,

biotechnology and the BCH, to create a greater personal awareness and knowledge which will therefore assist me to be able to train and educate others in my country.

To offer necessary support to our local BCH. Suriname Get more information on the BCH, how to use it and how to

implement it nationally. To understand how the BCH will contribute in implementing the

Cartagena Protocol in Suriname.


ANNEX 4 Sharing Experiences on BCH and CP Implementation

Day 1 : Results of Group Discussions Monday 19th November 2007

Group 1: Jamaica and St. Vincent & The Grenadines What are the main issues/impediments/setbacks you have encountered while executing the BCH Project? 1. Human Resources

Eg: non attendance of members of the BCH task force 2. Uncertainties in how to complete forms for project closure, eg: Form 5.

4. Problems of commitment by stakeholders, eg: customs Biosafety is not perceived as a priority, eg: by the Comptroller of Customs Lack of time for people to attend

4. The chosen BCH option was not available, eg: option 3.

************ Group 2: What are the main issues/impediments/setbacks to inputting national information to the BCH? 1. Personnel are not trained, and therefore don’t know how to use the BCH. 2. The BCH NFP does not have access to enter the data in the BCH.

The password for accessing the BCH may be held by someone else (eg: a different focal point), and they are not communicating it.

3. The person responsible for the BCH project is NOT the NFP and therefore they do not have

the password. If the official NFP is difficult to work with, then there may be problems inputting data.

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

Group 3: Barbados & Cuba What are the outstanding training needs in relation to the BCH and the CP – this analysis could go beyond the lifetime of the BCH project? 1. There is a requirement for IT RAs to assist in training (use of BCH and data entry). 2. Would like to see the development of Caribbean case studies.


3. Would like to see online biosafety training courses being developed, that are accessible through the BCH, eg: on risk assessment and risk management.

4. Require training in:

Public Participation Risk Assessment LMO Detection

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

Group 4: Bahamas & St. Lucia What are the Outstanding resource needs in relation to the BCH and the CP – this analysis could go beyond the lifetime of the BCH Project? What are the outstanding resource needs for the BCH in our countries? 1. More trained people are required. 2. Refresher courses needed for previously trained personnel. 3. A sustainable BCH management plan needs to be developed, incorporating a recurring

budget allocation. What are the outstanding resource needs for the CPB in our countries? 1. More trained people are required. 2. Legislation is required. 3. There is a requirement for greater public awareness and participation in decision making. 4. There is a need for greater participation in international negotiations, eg: WTO, CPB. 5. There is a requirement for more infrastructure, eg: labs for testing LMOs.

ANNEX 5 Identify specific issues or questions which you would like to see

discussed or resolved during the workshop Day 1 : Results of Group Discussions

Monday 19th November 2007 Antigua and Barbuda 1. The exact nature of drafts that can be placed on the BCH (e.g. draft NBF & draft Biosafety

Law) Suriname 1. Administrative procedures for entering the BCH project 2. Specific activities/outputs of the BCH project 3. Requirements for a country to participate in the BCH project 4. Minimum requirements for establishing a BCH St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) 1. What is a country’s flexibility in using BCH funds? SVG would like to make country-specific

changes to the MOU’s budget due to the fact that the website (BCH) will now be hosted on the Government’s website. We may therefore no longer require a server and proposed other virus protection programmes, etc. Can we therefore redirect funds to purchase additional equipment and conduct further training, etc.?

Jamaica

1. Can the BCH Focal Point and the NEA be from different agencies? 2. Can access be granted to the BCH Focal Point without going through the CP Focal

Point? St. Lucia

1. Learn more about BCH with regard to new options (HERMES / AJAX etc.) 2. Like to see an example of an up and running BCH website in the Caribbean. 3. Some further insight into designing the strategy sustainability document

The Bahamas

1. Closeout procedure for the Project a. Reporting requirements b. Financial reports

2. Summary of long-term support of BCH by CBD 3. Anticipated role of the regional advisor long term (if any) noting that the number of

regional advisors has just been increased. Barbados

1. Unable to download Interactive Modules for BCH website. Suggestion – make Interactive Modules available on CD-ROM.

2. MOU finalization 3. BCH Focal Point Validation of records for the Biosafety Experts

ANNEX 6 Rapid analysis of what information exists that has not yet been

entered into the BCH Day 1 : Results of Group Discussions

Monday 19th November 2007 Antigua and Barbuda: 1. National Biosafety Website 2. Law, regulations and guidelines 3. Roster of Experts 4. Capacity Building Project 5. Country needs and priorities Suriname 1. Surveys on the biosafety situation in Suriname 2. National Biosafety Framework 3. Listing of Biosafety related legislation 4. National Biodiversity Strategy 5. Roster of Experts 6. Important Stakeholders 7. Workshop Reports St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1. The National Biosafety Bill. This is a draft currently in the process of becoming law. 2. Roster of Experts – preliminary and includes NCC (National Coordinating Committee)

members Jamaica

1. Draft framework policy 2. Outcomes of public consultation in the development of the policy 3. Roster of experts 4. Contact information of Nat’l Coordinating Committee, NEA, National Program

Coordinator, Competent Authority 5. Biotechnology policy

St. Lucia

1. National Laws a. Plant Protection Act b. Forestry Law c. Wildlife Act d. Fisheries Legislation e. Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act

2. Information on Protocol operation 3. Roster of Experts

The Bahamas

1. Legislation (still in draft form) 2. Report on information of the Protocol


ANNEX 7 Role Play Exercise for Demonstrating the Key Characteristics of

HERMES Preparation: The facilitators need to prepare some files beforehand to be used in this exercise. Firstly, a JPG graphic file 940px wide needs to be prepared to be used as a replacement banner. Also a replacement style sheet needs to be prepared to replace the default style sheet. Finally, some photos need to be made available on the hard disk to be placed in a Photo Gallery that will be added during the demonstration. Ask the participants to open their presentations of the tutorials corresponding to the subject matter dealt with in the role-play. Role Play Stephen Vitoria plays the part of Reginald Adolphus (R.A.) Perfect. His character has a positive and pleasant personality. He comes to demonstrate the use of HERMES, the Content Management System, to the National Focal Point. Mary Vasquez plays the part of Emma Payne, the National Focal Point. Her character has a negative and demanding personality. She is reluctant to believe that a software development tool can be that effective, easy to use and inexpensive to implement. These character names were chosen to be funny. When it is done in another language, suitably funny names should be substituted. The following script serves as a general guide of the topics to touch in the demonstration/role play. The actors don’t have to learn the script word-for-word. What they really need to have is a list of the characteristics/advantages of HERMES that should be mentioned in the discussion. In the way, the dialogue can develop naturally, as long as the actors touch on all the keys points. The behaviour of the actors should be exaggerated to make the role-play comical. It starts with Mr. R.A. Perfect showing the client the key characteristics of HERMES. About halfway through the demonstration, he has to leave for a lunch appointment with his wife. Ms. Payne has become very interested in this tool and still has many questions so he leaves her with the task of answering her own questions using the HERMES Manual available on MOODLE. She talks aloud to herself while she uses MOODLE to find the manual. Mr. R.A. Perfect returns an hour later (in reality, only 1 or 2 minutes.) He asks Mrs. Payne if she was able to find the answers to her questions. She then explains to him, point-by-point what she learned during his absence. A sample dialogue: Mr. R.A. Perfect: Good Morning, Ms. Emma Payne. (pronounced “I’m a pain” for comic effect.) Ms. Payne: Good morning. Come in.


Mr. R.A. Perfect: I would like to show you HERMES, the new tool the SCBD has made available to the countries that are participating in the BCH. Ms. Payne: Oh really? And what does it do? Mr. R.A. Perfect: It enables countries to develop their own national Biosafety websites, which automatically incorporate the information they have previously entered in the BCH central portal. It also allows them to customize this website additional national information that is not included on the BCH. Ms. Payne: Oh no, is it an application? Definitely we will need to hire an expensive IT expert! Mr. R.A. Perfect: No, it is extremely easy to use. HERMES is a Content Management System so you only need to put in the content. This content will then automatically display in an appropriate format on the website. Look. (Mr. R.A. Perfect enters the sample national site xx.biosafetyclearinghouse.net. He describes the home page, the banner, content area, left navigation bar, links to BCH records, and how to login as administrator. He highlights the interoperability with the Central Portal of the BCH.) [Tutorial 1.2] Ms. Payne: But it’s empty! So it’s useless! Mr. R.A. Perfect: No, with this tool you can:

- Manage content (pages and text) - Manage files (images, documents, etc.) - Manage menus - Site management

[Tutorial 1.1] Ms. Payne : So how do you do that? Mr. R.A. Perfect: First you should login as administrator. Like this. [Tutorial 2.1] (Mr. R.A. Perfect demonstrates the login procedure.) Ms. Payne: Oh! The screen has changed! Mr. R.A. Perfect: Icons appear at the top to close session, change the personal profile of the administrator, switch to design mode and manage files. [Tutorial 3] Ms. Payne: Ok so what is “My Profile” for? Mr. R.A. Perfect: I’ll show you. (Mr. R.A. Perfect enters My Profile and explains the different fields.) [Tutorial 3]


Ms. Payne: And this other icon with the triangular ruler? Mr. R.A. Perfect: It allows the user to switch to Design Mode. (Mr. R.A. Perfect toggles the Design Mode a few times to demonstrate the changes in the screen. Then he explains the design bar, and the editable sections of the page, etc.) [Tutorial 3] Ms. Payne: And what about this little folder icon? Mr. R.A. Perfect: That is for File Management. (Mr. R.A. Perfect enters File Management and explains its functions.) [Tutorial 3] Ms. Payne: But all the pages are still empty! How do I add my own content? Mr. R.A. Perfect: That is easy! We can add modules to the Content Area. A module can contain text, photos or discussion forums. Let us add a content module with text. (Mr. R.A. Perfect demonstrates how to add a module and fills it with some sample text, showing simple formatting such as making text bold, italic and underlined; adding lists, and section headings. He also takes this opportunity to show the Quick Reference for CMS syntax.) [Tutorial 4.3] Ms. Payne: That’s interesting! But I would also like to add photos. Mr. R.A. Perfect: That is just as easy as adding text! (Mr. R.A. Perfect demonstrates how to add a photo module and fill it with photos. For this part of the exercise, the role players must be sure to have appropriate photos handy.) [Tutorial 5.1] Mr. R.A. Perfect: So you can see how easy it is to create and customize a national biosafety website with the HERMES tool. Ms. Payne: Yes, it does seem quite straightforward. It may be useful after all. Mr. R.A. Perfect: I am glad that you think so. Well, its midday. I must leave now because I have a lunch appointment with my wife. Ms. Payne: No! You can’t leave! I have many more questions! Mr. R.A. Perfect: Oh really! Well, I am very glad that you are so interested! Don’t worry. I will show you how to answer your own questions. You can access a HERMES Manual on the MOODLE site. This manual will give you all the information that you need. (Mr. R.A. Perfect shows her how to access MOODLE and the HERMES Manual.)


Mr. R.A. Perfect: So I will leave you with this manual. I will return after lunch to see if you have managed to find all your answers. (Mr. R.A. Perfect leaves and Ms. Payne peruses the Manual, speaking aloud to herself, as she discovers all the information in the Manual. About a minute later, Mr. R.A. Perfect returns. The audience is meant to understand that an hour has passed. Ms. Payne’ attitude is very different than it was in the morning. She is now very enthusiastic about HERMES.) Mr. R.A. Perfect: Good afternoon. How are you? So tell me what you have learned about HERMES. Ms. Payne: Well, I learned how to add hyperlinks to other web sites. Let me show you! (Ms. Payne demonstrates how to add a link.) [Tutorial 5.4.] Mr. R.A. Perfect: Excellent! I see that you are a fast learner! Ms. Payne: Oh yes, I am. I also learned how to rearrange modules on the page. I don’t have to erase anything. (Ms. Payne demonstrates how to move modules around within the page.) Ms. Payne: Now let me show you how to change the default banner and replace it with our very own banner. (Ms. Payne demonstrates how to change the banner. The role players must have a replacement banner prepared ahead of time, which is no more than 940 pixels wide.) [Tutorial 6.1] Mr. R.A. Perfect: Oh! Ms. Payne! How intelligent you are! You have learned so much! Did you also learn how to change the default font and style? Ms. Payne: Oh yes! Of course! I am an expert now! I figured out how to change the default style sheet and put in my own customized Cascading Style Sheet which defines the formatting styles that I like. I created a new stylesheet called “MyStyles.css” and substituted it for the “default.css.” (Ms. Payne demonstrates how to change the default style sheet. The appearance of the site changes as she loads her own style sheet. The role players should have a substitute style sheet prepared ahead of time. It is preferable that the changes to the font size, colour and family be very obvious for the purposes of this demonstration.) [Tutorials 6.1 and 6.2] Mr. R.A. Perfect: How beautiful! Well congratulations, Ms. Payne. You have created and customized a national Biosafety website for your country in only one day!


ANNEX 8 Practical Exercise Using HERMES

In this exercise, participants must use the HERMES Manual 1.0 (which has been made available on all computers) as a reference. The instructions below contain references to the pages in this Manual where help for that particular task can be found. Note that the first three tasks have very detailed instructions, to assist you in completely them successfully. For the rest, you will need to read the reference materials available to find out how to complete them. NOTE: This exercise must be done using Internet Explorer. Part One 1) Access the national website as administrator.

a. Enter the appropriate URL. (Each group will be assigned a national website, as well as an administrator account and password by the course facilitators.) Enter the assigned username and password. Click on “Sign in.” Do not click on “Remember Me.”

Reference: HERMES Manual, page 7. b. Update the information in “My Profle.”

i. Fill in the Contact Details fields with your contact information. ii. Save the changes by clicking on “Update my Profile.”

Reference: HERMES Manual, page 9. 2) Change the Welcome message on the Home Page to something more appropriate and relevant to

your country. E.g. Step 1: Change to Design Mode by clicking on the icon located at the top of the screen (pg. 10). Once you are in Design Mode, the Design Bar appears at the top of the screen. Additionally, the editable section of the page will be highlighted. Step 2: To edit the information in this module, click on the icon. Upon clicking on this icon, a new window appears, called the Content Module Menu. Click on the “Edit” option. Insert the following text:

Welcome to the <insert country name> Biosafety Website <insert country name> signed the Convention on Biological Diversity on <insert date> and ratified it on <insert date>.

3) Add a text module to the home page. (pgs. 24- 26) Step 1: On the design bar, select “CONTENT” as the type of module and set the position at “Row 1”. Step 2: Click on the “Add Module” button on the right portion of the design bar. Step 3: To insert text into this module, click on the icon. Upon clicking on this icon, a new window appears, called the Content Module Menu. Click on the “Edit” option.


Step 4: Insert the text below into the content module, making sure to use various formatting options including bold and italics. Click on Quick Reference at any time to see a quick guide to the wiki-type syntax.

Biosafety Issues for <insert country name>: With the quick pace of scientific and technological change in biotechnology over the last two decades, and the many applications in the pharmaceutical and agro-food industries, there is an urgent need in <insert country name>, as a country with high biodiversity, to develop a national policy with respect to the use and trade of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) for her own benefit and as part of her obligations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

4) Add a hyperlink to the UNEP website at the bottom of the home page. (pgs. 32-33) The URL

address is www.unep.org. 5) Add a new page called “Mission Statement” using a variety of formatting styles (bold, italic,

underline, lists, etc.) and hyperlinks e.g. to other government websites. It should appear immediately below the Home Page link on the left navigation bar. (pgs. 20 – 23) Add the following text:

Mission Statement To ensure the health of the citizens of <Country> and to safeguard its biodiversity, by promoting sound decision making and careful management as it relates to the importation and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for any purpose within the country, ensuring that there is harmony between national development and respect for nature, while guaranteeing the protection of the civil rights of all citizens. The objectives of this website are:

• To inform the public about national policies, decisions and laws relating to biosafety. • To educate the general public about biotechnology and trade in GMOs. • To provide a forum for discussion on biotechnology and biosafety. • To facilitate trade with other countries by providing ready access to information. regarding national

mechanisms government the transboundary movement of GMOs. 6) Update the following properties of the new page appropriately: Title, Navigation Title, Menu

Title, Position, Description, and Subject. Save the changes. 7) Change the banner (“banner-en.jpg”) substituting a more customized one. (pgs. 45 – 47) You can

find a new banner that can be used in this exercise in the graphic file “Caribbean-banner-en.jpg” under the “Hermes Exercises” folder on the desktop.


Part Two 8) Add a photo gallery to the “Mission Statement” page. Fill in the following metadata fields: File

to upload, Title, Full Description, Source or Credits, Photo data. Save the changes. Select a photo to upload. First click on the BROWSE button to find all graphic files. (pgs. 38 – 41).

9) Add a discussion forum. 10) Upload the file “c:\unep\publications\Cartagena Protocol.pdf” to the HERMES website. Create a

hyperlink to this file within the “Mission Statement” page. (Please note that the instructions for this cannot be found in the HERMES Manual.)


ANNEX 9 Practical Exercise on AJAX

Introduction The BCH Ajax Plug-In is a lightweight JavaScript application based on Ajax technology that can be easily integrated to any website to allow dynamic display of information from the BCH Central Portal. The use of the BCH Ajax Plug-In does not require any specific IT knowledge. The Plug-In works on all server platforms and does not require any software installation. All required files are located on the BCH Central Portal and maintained by the Secretariat. The BCH Ajax Plug-In is a client side application. The connection to the BCH Central Portal is made directly by the client (end-user). Integration The BCH Ajax Plug-In has been designed to make its integration to any website as simple as possible. The BCH Ajax Plug-In can be integrated to any webpage by simply adding the following lines of HTML. <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="http://bch.biodiv.org/centralportal/ui/offsite/bch-offsite.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" > GenerateRecords("focalPoint", "ca", "en");</script>

Here is a very basic HTML page integrating the BCH Ajax Plug-In. <html> <body> <h1>National Focal Points</h1> <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="http://bch.biodiv.org/centralportal/ui/offsite/bch-offsite.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" > GenerateRecords("focalPoint", "ca", "en");</script> </body </html>


Customization The BCH Ajax Plug-In can be easily customized to show any specific type of BCH national information for any country. Support for languages is currently under development. The BCH Ajax Plug-In can be customized by simply changing the parameters of the GenerateRecords method defined below. function GenerateRecords(documentType, country, language);

documentType The parameter specifies what type of BCH national information to display. The valid values are the following: Type of information to display Value

National Focal Point focalPoint

Competent National Authority authority

National Database nationalDatabase

Law, Regulation or Guideline law

Agreement or Arrangement agreement

Decision on LMO decisionUnderAIA

Decision on LMO-FFP decisionUnderA11

Other Decision decision

Biosafety Expert biosafetyExpert

Report on Assignment biosafetyExpertAssignmentReport

Capacity Building Opportunity capacityBuildingOpportunity

Capacity Building Project capacityBuildingProject

Capacity Building Need or Priority countryNeedsAndPriorities

Risk Assessment riskAssessment

country The parameter specifies what country for which the information is displayed. The BCH Ajax Plug-In uses 2-letter ISO 3166 country codes. The official list can be found at: http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1.html language

Some language codes Language to display

Value

English en

Russian ru

Spanish es


Exercise Open the AJAX Folder that is on your desktops. Double-click on the “my_first_ajax” file. On top you will see a warning message. Click on it and choose “Allow Blocked Content…”.

You should see the following window. It shows the list all National Focal Points for Canada in French.


Go back to your AJAX folder and right click on the “my_first_ajax” file and go to “Open With” and choose “Notepad”.

You should see the following window:

Do the following quick exercises: 1. Display the list of all Laws, Regulations and Guidelines for Brazil in Spanish. 2. Display the list of all Risk Assessments for New Zealand.


Answer key Exercise 1: <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="http://bch.biodiv.org/centralportal/ui/offsite/bch-offsite.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" > GenerateRecords("law", "br", "es");</script> Exercise 2: <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="http://bch.biodiv.org/centralportal/ui/offsite/bch-offsite.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" > GenerateRecords("riskAssessment", "nz", "en");</script>

ANNEX 10 - SUMMARY OF DAILY EVALUATIONS

Barbados Regional WorkshopDay 1 - Monday, November 19, 2007

Total AvgNo. Questions 1 2 3 4 5 Responses Score

1In your opinion, was the topic matter clearly stated in the agenda? 8 5 13 4.4

2Please rate how well the topics in the agenda were covered in the actual training session? 1 7 4 12 4.3

3How was the balance between the presentations and case studies? 9 NA

4 Was the time allocated to the sections sufficient? 10 2 12 4.2

5Please rate whether sufficient opportunity was given to participate in discussions, topics? 2 4 6 12 4.3

6 Was the delivery by the presenters clear? 5 7 12 4.6Please rate the following:

7 Slides, presentations 7 4 11 4.48 Handouts, training aids (interactive modules) 4 4 8 4.59 Case Studies NA

10 How was the layout of the room? 1 8 3 12 4.211 How was the seating arrangement? 1 7 4 12 4.3

12Was there enough access to training materials, equipment? 5 2 7 4.3

13Would you recommend your colleagues, associates working in the same areas to attend a similar Training? YES 11 NO 0 4.3

14 If yes, which colleagues?Policy MakersTechnical staffPrivate Sector StakeholdersCommunity based groups and schools (secondary & tertiary)

15 Additional comments e.g. what you liked or what could be improved & how.Provides the opportunity to gain experience and listen to other participants.Facilitators are very receptive and willing to answer questions of all participants.

Room too coldEnjoyed the free and frank discussion.

The flow of the presentations was great.Time allocated to the presentations could have been increased.Liked: the interaction with the facilitators and participants.Disliked: the logistical arrangements.

Daily Avg

Transportation needs to be more structured (seeing as this was our responsibility, it should have been communicated prior to our arrival so we could have been better prepared).

There is a need to organise the accommodation. On arrival there was no one to adequately give instructions at the villas. Also, there was no water and at one time the guard instructed me to drink water from the tap.


Barbados Regional WorkshopDay 2 - Tuesday, November 20, 2007



2Please rate how well the topics in the agenda were covered in the actual training session? 5 10 15 4.7

3How was the balance between the presentations and case studies? 6 9 15 4.6


5Please rate whether sufficient opportunity was given to participate in discussions, topics? 2 14 15 4.1


7 Slides, presentations 3 12 15 4.88 Handouts, training aids (interactive modules) 5 10 15 4.79 Case Studies 7 8 15 4.5

10 How was the layout of the room? 6 9 15 4.611 How was the seating arrangement? 2 2 3 8 15 4.1


13

Would you recommend your colleagues, associates working in the same areas to attend a similar Training? YES 15 NO 0 4.5

14 If yes, which colleagues?

15 Additional comments e.g. what you liked or what could be improved & how.

Daily Avg


Barbados Regional WorkshopDay 3 - Wednesday, November 21, 2007


1In your opinion, was the topic matter clearly stated in the agenda? 1 5 8 14 4.4


3How was the balance between the presentations and case studies? 1 5 8 14 4.4

4 Was the time allocated to the sections sufficient? 4 7 5 16 4.1

5Please rate whether sufficient opportunity was given to participate in discussions, topics? 1 7 9 17 4.5


7 Slides, presentations 1 7 7 15 4.48 Handouts, training aids (interactive modules) 5 10 15 4.79 Case Studies 7 9 16 4.6

10 How was the layout of the room? 1 8 6 15 4.311 How was the seating arrangement? 9 6 15 4.4



14 If yes, which colleagues?Technicians- 6Policy makers-5TechnicalAll - 1

15 Additional comments e.g. what you liked or what could be improved & how.More time needed for practising data entry on BCHMore time for data entryMore time for data entryDelivery of lectures too fast; accents

Coffee break was excellent.

Introduction of case study was a bit chaotic at times; participants should pay attention; facilitators shouldclearly indicate that they want the attention of participants.

NGO/CBO- 1

Daily Avg

Thanks to Jyoti & Marydelene for looking after my needs.Longer period of discussion on Giovani's presentation of Article 11 would have been appreciated.


Barbados Regional WorkshopDay 4 - Thursday, November 22, 2007


1In your opinion, was the topic matter clearly stated in the agenda? 2 2 10 14 4.6


3How was the balance between the presentations and case studies? 1 4 8 13 4.5

4 Was the time allocated to the sections sufficient? 1 4 9 14 4.6



7 Slides, presentations 7 8 15 4.58 Handouts, training aids (interactive modules) 6 7 13 4.59 Case Studies 2 8 10 4.8




14 If yes, which colleagues?Policy = 1Technical = 4Both = 8

15 Additional comments e.g. what you liked or what could be improved & how.The day was excellent.More time could have been allotted to Hermes.Enjoyed the Hermes & Ajax session, the time with Jyoti was very good.The Hermes is very user Friendly but the Ajax concept was not clear enough.It was very instructive today; I hope we will be able to apply this back home.More hands on practice with Ajax would have been good.Very good time management today got enough time for Q & A.

Daily Avg


Barbados Regional WorkshopDay 5 - Friday, November 23, 2007



2Please rate how well the topics in the agenda were covered in the actual training session? 5 10 15 4.7

3How was the balance between the presentations and case studies? 3 9 12 4.8




7 Slides, presentations 1 5 9 15 4.58 Handouts, training aids (interactive modules) 2 10 12 4.89 Case Studies 3 6 9 4.7




14 If yes, which colleagues?

Both technical and policy x 5

BCH data entry and IT personnel

Technical (with influence of policy)Technical

15 Additional comments e.g. what you liked or what could be improved & how.Excellent workshop!

Overall, a very good workshop.

The one-on-one with Jyoti was most welcomed.Facilitators one-on-one with countries.

My conclusions are the following:* It has been very useful.

* Always keep us in mind.* Thanks to the UNEP-GEF Project for its support.

Daily Avg

* Hope to improve the knowledge with my colleagues.

Policy makers so they can understand the importance of the BCH

All groups which would need to be in the forefront.

I can say that at the end of this workshop I have gained knowledge on Biosafety that I had not much idea of and I will seek to get more involved in the programme. Thank you.Next time, time can be saved by placing the list of participants' departure in a central location rather than have it being read out.

AJAX presentation was good and interactive. Prof. Ogarro's presentation was good. Discussion with Jyoti was good.

Today's activities were more relaxed and the one-on-one sessions served to have specific questions answered which may not be shared by all participating countries.

Policy makers, technicians, CBOs, NGOs

Annex 11Workshop Photos

Second Caribbean Sub-Regional BCH Workshop

Annex 11, Page 1 of 3

second caribbean sub-regional workshop · house” hosted a second sub-regional workshop for...

Documents