2006年-世界发展银行全球_Evaluation_of_GEF_Support_for____________Biosafety___Full_Report_140页_749kb

Summary of GEF Support for Biosafety Evaluation

Core Content

This report evaluates the effectiveness of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) support for biosafety, particularly in relation to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). The evaluation was conducted by the GEF Office of Monitoring and Evaluation and involved multiple methods, including stakeholder interviews, field visits, and desk reviews of national biosafety frameworks (NBFs). The study aimed to assess whether GEF support aligns with the CPB, is effective in capacity building, and contributes to the implementation of the protocol.

Main Conclusions

1. GEF Support Alignment with CPB

   • GEF support has generally been consistent with the CPB and has been perceived as neutral and in line with the protocol.
   • The UNEP Toolkit was found to be largely consistent with the CPB, with 78% of respondents rating it as very consistent.
   • However, some modules were not timely enough to meet the needs of all countries.

2. Ratification and Implementation Acceleration

   • GEF support has contributed to the relatively rapid ratification of the CPB.
   • The development and implementation of NBFs have supported compliance with the protocol.
   • However, some areas of capacity building were underfunded, limiting the depth of assistance.

3. NBF Development Project Design and Funding

   • The initial design and funding of the NBF development project did not fully account for local complexities.
   • The average time required for NBF development was found to be 28–30 months, longer than the original 18-month allocation.
   • The lack of sufficient supervision fees and legal expertise impacted the effectiveness of technical support.

4. Stakeholder Participation and Awareness-Raising

   • Awareness-raising and stakeholder participation efforts were not as broad as required.
   • National Coordination Committees (NCCs) were established in most countries, but representation was not always comprehensive.
   • The establishment of national project websites has improved information access and transparency.

5. Risk Assessment and Management Capacities

   • Most NBF projects focused on general or introductory training in risk assessment and management.
   • Fewer efforts were made to develop administrative, inspection, enforcement, and monitoring capacities.
   • Existing regulatory systems were often used, but their extension to LMOs was limited.

6. Regional Cooperation and Harmonization

   • Subregional cooperation and information sharing were satisfactory.
   • However, there was little formal intergovernmental collaboration or harmonization of scientific, legal, and regulatory instruments.
   • The EU accession countries were exceptions in this regard.

7. Umbrella Modality Effectiveness

   • The umbrella approach was effective in countries with prior biosafety experience but less so in those with limited experience.
   • It allowed for economies of scale and efficient delivery of support to many countries.
   • The approach was too ambitious and lacked flexibility to adapt to country-specific needs.

8. Global Coordination and Integration

   • Global coordination by the GEF Secretariat was weak, and there was limited consideration of integrating biosafety with other biodiversity-related activities.
   • The GEF has not fully engaged the scientific community in exploring synergies and integration opportunities.

Key Recommendations

1. Customized Support

   • Future assistance should be better planned and tailored to the specific needs and priorities of each participating country.
   • Integration with regional collaboration should be encouraged where appropriate.

2. Longer Term Training

   • The GEF should provide more systematic and long-term training in risk assessment and risk management to build and sustain specialist capacities.

3. Public Awareness and Participation

   • Awareness-raising and public participation should continue to be emphasized, including support for the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH).

4. Enhanced Donor and Partner Collaboration

   • The GEF should seek greater collaboration with donors and other partners to share costs and improve efficiency in biosafety capacity building.

5. Strategic Integration

   • The GEF should explore strategic and programmatic integration of biosafety with other biodiversity-related initiatives, both within GEF and at the country level.

Main Views and Insights

• The GEF has played a pivotal role in supporting the development and implementation of biosafety frameworks, especially through the NBF development and implementation projects.
• There is a need for more flexibility in the funding and support modalities to better address the diverse needs of participating countries.
• Regional and subregional workshops were successful in information sharing but fell short in formal harmonization of legal and regulatory frameworks.
• The involvement of private sector and civil society in awareness-raising workshops was limited, which could hinder comprehensive stakeholder engagement.
• The GEF has not fully capitalized on the potential for synergies between biosafety and other biodiversity-related initiatives.

Key Information

• GEF Strategy: The GEF Strategy was approved in 2000 and aimed to assist countries in preparing for the CPB's entry into force.
• NBF Development: 100 countries participated in the NBF development project, with 30 additional countries receiving support in 2003–2005.
• NBF Implementation: 12 countries received implementation support, with varying progress.
• BCH Support: The GEF has allocated significant resources to support the BCH, including the development of national websites and databases.
• Toolkit Evaluation: The UNEP Toolkit was widely regarded as useful, though some modules were not timely.
• Donor Collaboration: Limited coordination among donors has led to inefficiencies in resource allocation and utilization.

Conclusion

The evaluation highlights both the successes and shortcomings of GEF support for biosafety. While the GEF has contributed to the development and implementation of biosafety frameworks, more tailored and flexible approaches are needed to address the diverse and complex requirements of different countries. Strengthening stakeholder participation, enhancing regional collaboration, and promoting integration with other biodiversity initiatives are critical for future effectiveness.