Lack of direction

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has just presented their “Evaluation of GEF Support for Biosafety” at a side event. While many participants gathered at the back of the room where free meals were provided by the GEF, the accomplishments of the GEF (or should I say the lessons learned from the failed projects) where outlined.

One of the modalities of GEF support is capacity building, which has been of general and introductory nature. The report presented by the GEF shows that capacities for biosecurity have not been successfully developed since many nations have to deal with other biodiversity issues. Those issues requiring national capacity building have to compete in national agendas where there is not previous experience with biosafety issues.

The GEF recommends consultation and coordination by the GEF Secretariat for better direction of biosafety projects in junction with donors. But, where is that coordination taking us? We speak of capacity building but we do not really know what are the capacities that we need to build. The GEF, or any other agencies for that matter, can not assist nations to build their biosafety framework until a clear definition of the framework of transboundary movement with necessary information for risk assessment is provided.

As many of the delegates said: “thank you for a wonderful presentation”, but pressing issues need to be addressed before we start building capacities for national frameworks. We cannot speak of regional (or global!) coordination and consultation if the framework of exchange between Parties and non-Parties to the Protocol isn’t defined. Until then, technical advice and the development of toolkits will have limited use, participation, and success.