CBD

Distr.
GENERAL
UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
20 July 2010
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION
ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SERVING AS THE
MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE CARTAGENAPROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
Fifth meeting
Nagoya, 11-15 October 2010
CAPACITY-BUILDING: REPORT OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN BIOSAFETYEDUCATION AND TRAINING
Note by the Executive Secretary
1.
The Executive Secretary is pleased to circulate herewith, for the information of participants
attending the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the report of the third International Meeting of Academic Institutions
and Organizations Involved in Biosafety Education and Training which was held from 15 to 17 February
2010, at Tsukuba, Japan.
2.

The report was previously issued by the Secretariat as document UNEP/CBD/BS/CM-ET/3/3.

/...
In order to minimize the environmental impacts of the Secretariat’s processes, and to contribute to the Secretary-General’s
initiative for a C-Neutral UN, this document is printed in limited numbers. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies
to meetings and not to request additional copies.

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 2REPORT OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONSAND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN BIOSAFETY EDUCATION AND TRAININGI.

INTRODUCTION

3.
The third International Meeting of Academic Institutions and Organizations Involved in
Biosafety Education and Training was held from 15 to 17 February 2010, at Tsukuba in Japan. It was
attended by a total of 44 participants from 23 countries and four international organizations.
4.
The countries represented were: Belgium, Chile, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Germany,
Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Serbia, Slovenia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand and the United Republic of Tanzania. The organizations represented
were: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations
University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate
Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) and the Center for Society, Technology, and Medicine of
the College of Medicine National Cheng Kung University. The full list of participants is contained in
Annex III to this report.
5.
The meeting was organized by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and theGovernment of Japan through the University of Tsukuba in collaboration with the Institute of Advanced
Studies of the United Nations University (UNU-IAS). Funding for participants from developing countries
and countries with economies in transition was provided by the Ministry of Environment of Japan, Japan
Society for Promotion of Science and the University of Tsukuba. Other sponsors were: Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) via the Project for Establishing Core
Universities for Internationalization (Global 30), the Environmental Diplomatic Leader Program with
Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology of Japan Science and Technology
Agency, and Plant Transgenic Design within University of Tsukuba and the Ministry of Foreign Affairsof the Government of Japan.
6.

The objectives of the meeting were to:(a)Exchange information and experiences on existing biosafety education and training
programmes and initiatives;(b)
Review the progress made in implementing recommendations of the previous two
meetings of academic institutions and organizations involved in biosafety education and training;(c)
Propose strategies and mechanisms to improve biosafety education and training
programmes in order to meet the needs of Parties to the Protocol, including the possibility of developing
model biosafety education programmes tailored to the needs of different regions;(d)Explore options for facilitating ongoing collaboration and exchange of information,
training materials, curricula and faculty members between academic institutions and organizations
offering biosafety education and training programmes.

/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 3II.

MEETING PROCEEDINGSOPENING OF THE MEETING
7.
The meeting was opened by Ambassador Kiyoshi Araki from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofJapan. Opening remarks were also made by Dr. Kazuko Shiojiri, Vice President of University of Tsukuba
and Mr. Charles Gbedemah on behalf of the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
8.
In his opening statement, Ambassador Araki welcomed the participants to Japan and underscoredthe importance of the meeting. He noted that biosafety education and training are major pillars forbuilding capacities for the effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. He reported
that Japan has made significant contributions to biosafety capacity-building efforts including through its
financial contributions to the Global Environment Facility and through dispatching experts overseas. He
observed that the co-organization of this meeting was part of Japan’s continued support to such efforts.
Ambassador Araki informed participants that Japan will host the tenth meeting of the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 10) and the fifth meeting of the Parties to theProtocol in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture in October 2010. He expressed hope that the two meetings willproduce fruitful outcomes including the adoption of a Supplemental Protocol on Liability and Redress inthe context of Cartagena Protocol, finalization of the International Regime on Access and BenefitSharing and adoption of the post-2010 biodiversity targets.
9.
In her remarks, Dr. Shiojiri expressed her gratitude to the CBD Secretariat for having given the
University of Tsukuba the opportunity to host the meeting. She informed participants that University ofTsukuba with its motto of “coexistence with the world as an international center of knowledge” hasdeveloped many global relationships with universities, institutes, organizations, as well as industry andbusiness companies. She reported that the university has more than 1,700 international students from 104
countries, the second largest number of international students at a national university in Japan. She
informed participants that in the preceding year, the Ministry of Education and Sciences selected
University of Tsukuba as one of the 13 core universities that would receive and educate international
students under an ambitious initiative known as, “Project for Establishing Core Universities forInternationalization - (Global 30)”. The project aims at sponsoring and training 300,000 international
students in Japan by 2020. Dr. Shiojiri further reported that the Environmental Diplomatic Leader (EDL)
program of the university is one of the distinguished examples of the international collaboration onsustainable management of biological resources. The programme has established a new innovativeeducational training center at the University which aims at producing "environmental diplomatic leaders.
10.
Speaking on behalf of Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Mr. Gbedemah thanked the Government of Japan for sponsoring and hosting themeeting. He underscored the urgent need for promoting biosafety education and training, noting that
effective implementation is still constrained by the limited capacity of the Parties, especially the lack oftechnical human resources. He urged participants to come up with concrete recommendations that would
contribute to addressing this challenge by fostering the development and improvement of academic
programmes in biosafety.
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS
11.
After the opening session, the participants elected Prof. Kazuo Watanabe (Japan) and Prof.
Amanda Galvez (Mexico) to serve as Co-Chairs of the meeting and Prof. Chris Viljeon (South Africa) toserve as Rapporteur.

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 4
12.
The meeting then adopted the following agenda on the basis of the provisional agenda(UNEP/CBD/BS/ CM-ET/3/1), which was developed by the Secretariat in consultation with theOrganizing Committee of the Government of Japan:
1.

Opening of the meeting.

2.

Organizational matters:
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.

Election of officers;
Adoption of the agenda;
Organization of work.

3.

Exchange of information and experiences on existing biosafety education
programmes

4.

Progress on implementation of the recommendations made by previous international
meetings of academic institutions and organizations involved in biosafety educationand training.

5.

Strategies and mechanisms to improve biosafety education and training.

6.
Collaboration and exchange of information among academic institutions andorganizations involved in biosafety education and training.
7.

Other matters

8.

Conclusions and recommendations.

9.

Closure of the meeting.

13.
The participants also adopted the organization of work for the meeting, as contained in annex I tothis report.
ITEM 3.

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCES ON EXISTING
BIOSAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

14.
Under this item, participants made short presentations on the status of their biosafety education
programmes and training activities and shared their experiences and lessons learned with emphasis on thedevelopments since the last meeting held in 2007 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A number of participants
submitted written reports which were compiled and distributed on CD-ROM. It was agreed that thepresentations will also be made available through the Biosafety Clearing-House. From the presentations
the following key points were noted:(a) In most countries training in biosafety is still predominantly through non-academic (nonaccredited) short-term courses, workshops and conferences. These are carried out primarily to build
awareness and general appreciation of biosafety issues among the various stakeholders and to assist
specific target groups (including regulators, policy-makers, scientific and technical staff) acquire basic
knowledge and skills in the performance of their duties. While short term non-formal training activities
have contributed to capacity-building in biosafety, there are concerns regarding: (1) their long term
sustainability; (2) the uneven quality, balance and objectivity of their course content; and (3) the
credentials of trainers/experts offering them.
(b) A few institutions, such as GenØk – Centre for Biosafety and the International Centre for
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), are offering short-term non-accredited courses inbiosafety on a regular basis.
/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 5(c) There are very few standalone degree and diploma-granting programmes in biosafety
currently offered around the world. This is largely due to the limited funding available for biosafety ingeneral and the uncertainty about the long-term demand (job opportunities) for biosafety graduates tomerit offering stand alone degree programmes in biosafety. Examples of standalone programmes include
the Master in biosafety programme which will be offered by the University of Malaya in the 2010/2011
academic year. This will be a follow-up to the previous post-Graduate Diploma in Biosafety that wasdeveloped as part of the UNIDO e-biosafety training network.
(d) A number of Universities are offering biosafety courses as part of other accredited degree
programmes such as Botany, Ecology, Entomology, Molecular Biology, Biotechnology, among others. It
was noted that these courses allow graduates to have better flexibility in career path considering theuncertainty of the long-term demand and employment options for biosafety trained graduates.
Universities offering biosafety courses as part of other programmes include: Kenyatta University in
Kenya, National Agrarian University in Peru, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Peradeniya
University in Sri Lanka, University of Abobo-Adjamé in Côte d’Ivoire, University of Dar-Es-Salaam,
University of the Free State in South Africa, University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, University of thePhilippines Los Baños and University of Tsukuba in Japan.
(e) Currently, biosafety education is mostly offered at the postgraduate level. This includes
dedicated graduate (PhD and MSc) research on specific areas such as risk assessment and risk
management, LMO detection and legal aspects. A few universities, such as Moi University in Kenya, areoffering biosafety courses at the undergraduate level.
(f) Many biosafety training programmes in developing countries have been made possible
through collaborative initiatives between local universities and universities/institutions in developed
countries. Examples include: the collaborative training in biosafety between Genøk and various
institutions in Africa, Asia and Latin America; University of Bamako-RIBios collaborative training
initiative in West Africa, the BiosafeTrain project involving Danish and East African Universities andresearch institutions; and the UNIDO e-biosafety training network.
(g) A few regional and South-South collaborative initiatives on biosafety education and training
have been implemented and others are proposed. For example, the Higher Institute of Applied
Technologies and Sciences in Cuba has developed a joint biosafety academic programme with the
National University of El Rosario and Universidad Juan Agustin Maza in Argentina through which they
will exchange academic staff and training materials. The University of Malaya is also planning to have amulti-campus Asian cooperative biosafety academic programme which will involve academic staff
exchange and transfer of credits.
(h) The sustainability of academic collaborative initiatives has been one of the biggest
challenges. It was reported that some of the initiatives, such as the University of Bamako-RIBios
initiative, wound up after the donor funds ran out. Others, such as the UNIDO e-Biosafety training
programmes at University of Concepcion in Chile and Ghent University in Belgium have been scaled
down. The participants emphasised the need for factoring into such collaborative initiatives, resource
generation strategies to ensure their sustainability when donor funding ends.
15.

Other key challenges include:(a) Shortage of qualified and experienced trainers/staff in different aspects of biosafety(including regulatory and technical/scientific aspects) and the high turnover of staff.

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 6(b) Limited funds to support biosafety education and training activities, including procurementof training materials, field research and support to students, e.g. to attend the on-campus training
sessions.
(c) Limited availability of biosafety teaching material (including real-life dossiers and full risk
assessment reports) and key publications to support the courses.
(d) Lack of infrastructure for practical training.
(e) Lack of sufficient technical and scientific background by some students to effectively
participate in some of biosafety training programmes. For example, students sometimes lack basic
knowledge in subjects such as plant molecular biology to be able to understand risk assessment and risk
management or to effectively participate in practical GMO detection sessions.
(f) Lack of political will to support biosafety education and training. Most of the existing
programmes are project-oriented with no long-term funding support.
16.
The following are some of specific experiences and lessons learned that were highlighted byparticipants regarding the organization and delivery of biosafety education and training courses andprogrammes:(a) Commitment on part of the students to actively participate in the online sessions and tofollow through with all the training modules on time, a necessary component of E-learning.
(b) Usefulness of developing standardized training modules covering basic knowledge, issues
and practices relating to different biosafety topics to ensure consistency in the content and quality of the
programmes. In this regard, the University of Malaya, in collaboration with the Ministry of Higher
Education, is in the process of developing standardized teaching modules in biosafety which will beoffered as part of relevant academic programmes in various public and private institutions of higher
learning in Malaysia.
(c) The need for the development of specific course materials on biosafety to facilitate effective
transfer of knowledge and skills is crucial. In this regard, Minzu University of China has developed atextbook on “Biosafety and Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms” which has been
recommended by Science Press as a key textbook on biosafety education to all universities in China. The
University of Malaya, the Higher Institute of Applied Technologies and Sciences in Cuba and the
National Autonomous University of Mexico have also developed such training materials.
(d) Usefulness of developing structures to facilitate continued communication, coordination andnetworking among students and resource persons that participate in biosafety education and training
programmes. Establishing an “alumni network” is one effective way of promoting such interaction
among participants and building social and pedagogical support after the training courses. A network
established by the GenØk – Centre for Biosafety has proved very useful.
(e) Development of a balanced curriculum that addresses not only the scientific and technicalaspects of biosafety but also the regulatory and socio-economic aspects.
(f) The need to put in place strategies to ensure the sustainability of courses/programmes.
17.
With regard to the organization of short-term courses, the following experiences and lessons
learned were highlighted:/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 7(a) The importance of planning the courses as early as possible since administrative and logistics
issues can affect timeliness.
(b) The need for clear organizational and decision making structures. The tasks andresponsibilities in organizing the courses must be clearly divided among the partners involved and thefinal decision maker in case of disagreements must be designated.
(c) The need for an effective structure of the various components of the courses to ensure goodinterrelationship and balance (e.g. between plenary and laboratory practical sessions, where appropriate).
(d) The need to circulate the course materials (including the programme and backgrounddocuments) to participants prior to the commencement of the course.
(e) The importance of using examples and case studies from within the country or region where
the course is taking place to illustrate relevant points.
(f) The need to carefully plan and tailor the courses to specific target audiences. It is important
to ensure that the right level of technical and information detail is provided to the participants.
(g) The importance of hands-on practical training and the need to ensure, when conducting
group practical sessions, that all members in a group participate in the laboratory work, and that the“scientist” or experienced participants do not dominate, but instead act as resource persons to help the
non-experienced participants.
(h) The importance of conducting clear and well planned post-course evaluations which help
define goals and desired outcomes before the next course takes place.
18.

The following general points were also highlighted during the meeting:(a) General introductory workshops and short courses on biosafety offered over the past few
years were considered outmoded. There is a need for in-depth academic training and education linked toareas of professional and practical application.
(b) Building capacity in biosafety must be considered as a long-term activity in which a criticalmass of individuals and institutions acquire capabilities across a range of functions.
(c) More innovative, varied, yet targeted approaches are required in the design and delivery of
biosafety training and capacity building programmes, including and emphasis on learning-by-doing anditerative approaches.
(d) Regional initiatives and networks were considered more effective if they focus on
information exchange and facilitating South-South cooperation.
(e) It is important that academic institutions identify the gaps in their biosafety education andtraining programmes, taking into account the needs and demands of students, regulators, industry andother stakeholders and the career opportunities of students after the training.
19.
Overall, the participants welcomed the experiences shared. They expressed the need to support
universities or other educational institutions in their efforts to establish and provide high quality
education and training in the area of biosafety. It was noted that in the light of rapid development of

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 8
biotechnology, education and training in biosafety is imperative and must be tailored to keep pace withnew trends.
ITEM 4.

PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONSMADE BY PREVIOUS INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS OF ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN BIOSAFETYEDUCATION AND TRAINING

20.
Under this agenda item, representatives from four regional groupings namely Africa (Dr. Flora
Ismail), Asia and the Pacific (Dr. Rofina Yasmin Othman), Central and Eastern Europe (Dr. Aleksej
Tarasjev) and Latin America and the Caribbean (Dr. Antonietta Gutiérrez-Rosati) presented short reportson the progress made with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the last meeting intheir respective regions. Representatives of the United Nations University - Institute of Advanced
Studies (UNU-IAS), Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture(SEARCA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) also
made presentations on their current regional and global activities related to biosafety education andtraining.
21.
Dr. Ismail reported that the African region made limited progress in implementing the activities
that were recommended at the second meeting due to a number of factors. For example, it was notpossible to organise the regional meeting of universities and centres of excellence involved in biosafety
education and training due to lack of funding. It was also reported that although an electronic discussion
forum was established participation was very limited. Nevertheless, a number of biosafety education andtraining initiatives, including short courses, were implemented. For example with support from the
BiosafeTrain project (www.biosafetrain.dk), short-term biosafety courses were organised in Tanzania (July
2007), Kenya (November 2007); Uganda (October 2009) by the University of Dar-Es-Salaam, Universityof Nairobi and Makerere University respectively, in collaboration with other institutions including theInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) and the GMO-ERA Project.
Several MSc and PhD students were also trained in various biosafety areas. A few universities in theregion are offering biosafety courses as part of other academic programmes. These include: theUniversity of Dar-Es-Salaam in Tanzania, University of Nairobi and Kenyatta and Moi universities in
Kenya, Makerere University in Uganda, University of the Free State in South Africa, University Cheik
Anta Diop (UCAD) in Senegal, University of Bamako in Mali and the University of Abobo-Adjamé inCôte d’Ivoire. In addition, various institutions, including: the Interdisciplinary Biosafety Network(RIBios), GenØk-Centre for Biosafety, USAID-funded Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS),
NEPAD/ABNE (African Biosafety Network of Expertise), the World Bank-GEF biosafety project inWest Africa and the GMO Laboratory Network for the Southern African Development Community(SADC) have also supported a number of short-term non-academic biosafety courses in collaboration
with local universities.
22.
In the Asian region, a number of follow-up activities to the recommendations of the second
meeting of academic institutions were carried out. A “Workshop on Biosafety Education in Asia” washeld at the University of Tsukuba in Japan from 31 October to 1 November 2007. At that workshop, theparticipants established the Asian Biosafety Education Network (ABEN), through which they agreed tocooperate to support human resource development, education and research in biosafety, focussing on theneeds for education on the policy, legal, ethical, economic and social implications associated withmodern biotechnology applications. Through the ABEN, institutions involved in biosafety education andtraining plan to develop accreditation criteria for certifying biosafety professionals in the region. It wasnoted that countries in the region have developed biosafety laws which might require certified experts toperform certain tasks. Efforts are underway to mobilise more members to join the ABEN. The network
has already started catalyzing collaboration between various institutions. For example, the University of
Malaya is collaborating with Universities in Thailand. As well, memoranda of understanding have been/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 9developed to facilitate exchange students between different universities. A number of universities in theregion are offering biosafety courses as part of other academic programmes or as non-academic shortcourses for practitioners. These include: University of Malaya in Malaysia, University of Tsukuba inJapan, University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Kasetsart
University in Thailand, Yangzhou University and Minzu University of China, National Cheng Kung
University, University of Zanjan and the Agricultural University of Mazandaran in Iran.
23.
In the Central and Eastern Europe region most of the proposed follow-up activities, including theregional meeting of relevant institutions, were not implemented due to lack of funding. Currently there isno institution in the region offering an academic degree or diploma in biosafety. Very few universities in
the region, including University of Ljubljana in Slovenia and the University of Belgrade in Serbia, areoffering biosafety courses as part of other academic programmes or as non-academic short courses. Few
short-term ad-hoc training activities and collaborative partnerships have also been implemented byorganizations, such as the FAO-supported hands-on training workshop on GMO detection held in Osijek,
Croatia in 2008 and the workshop on risk assessment and risk management held in Prague in 2008. The
European Commission also supported a few training courses in the region, including the training course
on GMO detection, identification and quantification held in March 2008 in Sofia, Bulgaria.
24.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, very few universities and institutions have started formal
biosafety educational programs. Biosafety education is mostly offered as a part of the curricula for other
degree programmes for biologists, agronomist or other related professions. This is happening, forexample, in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina and Chile. In Cuba, the Institute of Applied
Technologies and Sciences offers a Master degree in biosafety and also short courses and individual
training. In Chile, the University of Concepción in collaboration with UNIDO is offering a diploma inbiosafety. Short-term training courses for regulators and technical personnel have also been also beendeveloped in some countries. In Brazil, AnBio runs biosafety training activities for professionals and also
for school students. The National Autonomous University of Mexico has also offered tailored short-term
biosafety courses and has developed specific training modules and materials/manual on LMO detectionin Spanish. Dr. Gutiérrez-Rosati reported that no region-wide network for institutions involved in
biosafety education and training has yet been established to facilitate exchange information andexperiences. There is a need for support to establish such a network and/or sub-regional networks. She
noted that the use of different national languages (Spanish, English and Portuguese) in the region has
often made it difficult to organise joint training, share training materials and exchange experts.
25.
The United Nations University - Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) has undertaken anumber of activities in support of biosafety education and training. In 2008, it published a report entitled,“Internationally Funded Training in Biotechnology and Biosafety – Is it Bridging the Biotech Divide?”,which presents findings of a two-year assessment study. The assessment revealed that capacity levels
remain insufficient in most developing countries and noted the need for more targeted and in-depth
capacity building, the need to understand capacity building as an iterative and long-term endeavour, thediffering capacity needs of diverse stakeholders and the promise and challenges of regional approaches tocapacity building. The UNU-IAS is also preparing other research reports, including reports on: (a)"Analysis of risk assessment methodologies" (to be published) and (b) "Risk communication, Sustainable
commercialization and governance of Biotech in Asian developing countries- case of Biotech Papaya,
Philippines" (to be published) and "Rethinking capacity building: a brief comparative analysis in ABS
and biosafety". With regard to education, the UNU-IAS collaborated in the development of a course on
International Regulation on Biotechnology at University of Melbourne (2007). It has also facilitated thedesign and development of course modules for Masters program on various aspects of biosafety inselected universities in Asia, in collaboration with Tsukuba University, and is considering supporting theestablishment of a Network of Biosafety Educators that would encourage exchange of information andscholars in the area of biosafety.

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 1026.
The Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture(SEARCA), which was established in 1966 by the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization(SEAMEO), has supported a number of activities related to education and training in biosafety andbiotechnology. The Centre seeks to build human resource capacities of Southeast Asian institutions
working toward agricultural and rural development through graduate scholarship, training, research anddevelopment, and knowledge management. It has provided scholarships to graduate students from
SEAMEO countries to pursue masters and doctoral degrees in agriculture and related sciences. This has
allowed the creation of a pool of experts in fields such as molecular biology, biotechnology, entomology
and agronomy which are related to biosafety. Other SEARCA initiatives geared towards human resource
development include the Professorial Chairs Program, Visiting Scientist Program, the Academic Bridging
Program and the Southeast Asian University Consortium (UC) for Graduate Education and Natural
Resources. The Consortium, which links 9 universities top agricultural universities in the sub-region
facilitates free exchange of information, facilities, and expertise. Activities of the Consortium include: (i)student exchange programme which allows students to cross-enrol and take courses or conduct theirresearch in any of the Consortium member universities and transfer course credit units to their host
university; (ii) faculty exchange which enables faculty members visit other UC members and teachcourses, advise students and share first-hand experience with their counterparts on academic and research
activities in their fields of expertise; and (iii) research fellowships for faculty or research staff of UC
members to conduct collaborative research projects in SEARCA’s priority areas, which include:
sustainable natural resource management, food and agriculture policy, biotechnology in agriculture andbioinformatics. Another SEARCA initiative relevant to biosafety is the Biotechnology Information
Center, which was established, in collaboration with the International Service for the Acquisition ofAgri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), to serve as the hub of the regional network for science-based
information on agricultural biotechnology. The Center also organises training workshops on
biotechnology, food safety and environmental safety, including risk assessment and risk management.
27.
The representative of UNESCO, Ms. Rovani Sigamoney, described her organization’s mandate
and programmes relevant to biosafety education and training, noting that UNESCO assists governments
to catalyze and promote regional and international action, develop relevant policies, build capacity,
promote sustainable development through science to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
She reported that UNESCO's International Basic Sciences Programme (IBSP) is working towards:
strengthening national capacities for basic research and training; promoting the sharing and transfer ofscientific information and knowledge through training and North-South and South-South co-operation;
improving science education and public awareness of science; science and technology capacity building
through networking; and science policy advice. She also reported that UNESCO’s biotechnology
programme provides catalytic support to international centres, national institutions and UNESCO Chairs
in life sciences and biotechnologies to: (a) enhance scientific, technical and human capacity-building in
the biosciences and biotechnologies at the graduate and post-graduate levels; (b) increase accessibility tonovel and applicable science for human progress; (c) transfer knowledge in the biological sciences andbiotechnologies; and (d) strengthen network activities and advocate best practices. Ms. Sigamoney also
noted that UNESCO's "Ethics of Science and Technology" programme promotes the consideration ofscience and technology within an ethical framework through Standard-setting (including codes ofconduct), capacity-building and awareness-raising. She also described UNESCO's Chairs programme andthe University Education Twinning and Networking Scheme (UNITWIN). She noted that UNESCO
Chairs serve as “think-tanks” and “bridge-builders” between the academic world, civil society, local
communities, research and policy-making. To date there are more than 200 Chairs in Natural Sciencesand 10 in Biotechnology. She described how the Chairs are established, including the procedure forsubmitting a proposal to established a Chair, and how they function.

/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 11
ITEM 5.

STRATEGIES AND MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE BIOSAFETYEDUCATION AND TRAINING

28.
Under this item, participants discussed possible strategies and mechanisms for promoting andimproving the development and delivery of academic biosafety education and training programmes. The
discussions focussed on the content of the programmes and considerations regarding their format,
organization and delivery.
A. Core curriculum elements
29.
During the plenary session, the participants brainstormed on the core curriculum elements that
academic institutions may wish to consider in designing their biosafety courses and programmes. A listof topics which was proposed by participants is presented in Annex II to this report. A small group wasestablished to review the list and propose a shorter list of core elements. The following elements were
proposed and adopted by the plenary session:(a) Conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity(b) Socio-economic considerations(c) The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and other relevant legal instruments(d) Risk assessment and risk management(e) Introduction to modern biotechnology, current status and emerging and convergent
technologies.
30.
The Secretariat was requested to take into account the above elements when updating thecommon format for the Compendium of Academically-Accredited Biosafety Courses and Programmes in
the Biosafety Clearing-House.
B.

Design and delivery of biosafety courses and programmes

31.
Three discussion groups were established to develop guidance that may be considered byrelevant institutions to improve the design and delivery of three categories of academic biosafety courses
and programmes, namely:(a) Short-term biosafety courses and programmes(b) Short-term specialised certificate courses(c) Formal degree and diploma programmes
32.
It was emphasised that the guidance was intended to provide suggestions for consideration indeveloping or re-designing and offering biosafety courses and programmes, based on the experience ofinstitutions that have organised similar programmes, and not to be in anyway prescriptive. Each
discussion group was asked to consider the following aspects:(a)Duration of the courses/programmes(b)Size of the classes(c)Form of certification

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 12(d)Formal evaluation and assessment of students(e)Quality control, including external moderation and internal(f)Minimum requirements for admission(g)

Sustainability of the courses/programmes(h)Types of training material necessary(i)Requirement for practical sessions.

33.
The reports from the three groups which were presented and revised during the plenary arepresented in Annex III to the report.
ITEM 6.

COLLABORATION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AMONG
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN
BIOSAFETY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

34.
Under this agenda item, participants had a brainstorming session and developed a list of action
points to promote networking and collaboration among academic institutions involved in biosafety
education programmes, at the global, regional or subregional levels. As a result, an activity plan
specifying actions to be carried out as well as the timeframe and responsible persons was developed andis presented in Annex V.
ITEM 7.

OTHER MATTERS

35.
The participants expressed the need to hold another international meeting of academic
institutions and organizations involved in biosafety education and training after the fifth meeting of theConference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol. The agenda for the
meeting will be developed by the Secretariat taking into account issues that will emerge from the online
discussions to be conducted through the portal for biosafety education and training on the Biosafety
Clearing-House. Countries and institutions interested in hosting and co-organizing the meeting wereinvited to express their interest to the Secretariat.
ITEM 8.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

36.
The participants emphasised the need to promote a pedagogical approach to biosafety educationand training. It was stressed that effective implementation of the Protocol requires well-trained biosafety
professionals and certified experts to undertake various tasks. It was also reiterated that the current
biosafety education and training efforts in different countries clearly need to be reviewed andstrengthened. In order to achieve this, academic and other relevant institutions, especially those indeveloping countries and countries with economies in transition, require additional financial andtechnical resources.
37.
The participants adopted the following recommendations addressed to different stakeholders
aimed at promoting and improving the development and delivery of academic biosafety education andtraining programmes:
Parties and other Governments
38.
Request the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of Parties to
the Protocol to invite Parties and other Governments to:/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 13(a) Support existing and new national, subregional and regional biosafety education and training
initiatives, including mobility support;(b) Establish national and regional or sub-regional coordination mechanisms for education andtraining in biosafety;(c) Commission country surveys/studies to establish baseline data on the current situation withregards to education and training related to biosafety;(d) Make available to academic institutions relevant documentation (including real-life dossiersand full risk assessment reports), where available, for biosafety education and education purposes.
Academic institutions
39.

Urge academic institutions to:(a) Establish a global network on biosafety education and training and lobby for dedicated funds
to facilitate communication and collaboration between relevant educational institutions;(b) Reach out to national policy makers to make them aware of the importance of education andtraining in biosafety;(c) Develop and share through the Biosafety Clearing-House lists of academics involved intraining and education of biosafety;(d) Ensure that their biosafety training and education programmes are accredited by the relevant
accrediting bodies;(e) Provide open source biosafety course material and teaching tools;
Secretariat
40.

Request the Executive Secretary to:(a) Create a portal for biosafety education and training on the Biosafety Clearing-House to makegeneral and specialized information available, including existing funding support.
(b) Establish a sorting mechanism within the roster of experts to identify individuals involved intraining and education in biosafety;(c) Take into account the revised list of core curriculum elements when updating the common
format for Academically-Accredited Biosafety Courses and Programmes in the Biosafety ClearingHouse.
Other stakeholders
41.
Invite the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR) to establish a component forbiosafety education and training.

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 14ITEM 9.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

42.
During the last session, participants reviewed and adopted the draft report of the meetingcovering the proceedings of the previous two days. The Secretariat, in consultation with the co-chairs andthe Rapporteur, was requested to incorporate proceedings of the last day and send the final draft report toall participants for comments before posting it on the website.
43.

The meeting closed at 5.30 p.m. on 17 February 2010.

/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 15
Annex IORGANIZATION OF WORK

15 February 201010 a.m. – 10.30 a.m.

Agenda item:
1.
Opening of the meeting.

10.30 a.m. – 10.45 a.m.

Agenda items:
2.
Organizational matters:
2.1.
Election of officers;
2.2.
Adoption of the agenda;
2.3.
Organization of work.

10.45 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.
11.15 a.m. – 1 p.m.

1 p.m. – 2 p.m.
2 p.m. – 3.30 p.m.

Coffee/Tea BreakAgenda items:
3.
Exchange of information and experiences on existing biosafety education
programmes.
Lunch BreakAgenda item 3 (continued)

3.30 p.m. – 4 p.m.

Coffee/Tea Break

4 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.

Agenda items:
4.
Progress on the implementation of the recommendations of previous
international meetings of academic institutions and organizations involved in
biosafety education and training.

16 February 2010
9 a.m. – 10.30 a.m.

Agenda items:
5.
Strategies and mechanisms to improve biosafety education and training.

10.30 a.m. – 11 a.m.
11 a.m. – 1 p.m.

Coffee/Tea BreakAgenda item 5 (continued)
Group discussions on item 5

1 p.m. – 2 p.m.
2 p.m. – 3.30 p.m.

Lunch BreakAgenda items:
6.
Collaboration and exchange of information among academic institutions
and organizations involved in biosafety education and training.

3.30 p.m. – 4 p.m.
4 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.

Coffee/Tea Break

17 February 2010
9 a.m. – 10.30 a.m.

Agenda item 6 (continued)
Group discussions on item 6
Agenda items:
Group presentations

10.30 a.m. – 11 a.m.
11 a.m. – 1 p.m.

Agenda items:

Coffee/Tea Break/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 16

Consideration of group discussion reports
1 p.m. – 2 p.m.
2 p.m. – 5 p.m.

Lunch BreakAgenda items:
7.
Other matters
8.
Conclusions and recommendations
9.
Closure of the meeting.

Annex II
List of Topics That May Be Considered for Inclusion in the Curriculum of Biosafety
Education and Training Courses and Programmes

























Conservation and sustainability of biodiversity
Liability and redressSocio-economics
Risk benefit analysis
Introduction to Biosafety Protocol
Introduction to relevant international agreements
Risk assessment:o Environmental risk assessmento Food and feed safety assessment
Monitoring including post release
Containment and confinement
Biodiversity
Current status of Biotechnology
Emerging and convergent biotechnologies
Science policy development
Bioethics
Relevant biological concepts
National and regional regulatory systems
Specific needs of the participants as prescribed in Art. 7 to 10 and 11
Decision making proceduresTraceability
Labelling systems
Regulatory systems
Biosafety research methodology
Public participation during decision making process.

Annex III/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 17
Reports of Discussion Groups on Guidance on the Development and Delivery of Academic
Biosafety Courses and Programmes
GROUP 1 - Short term specialized training courses
Definition

More than half of the duration of the course should be focussed on one
biosafety topic (e.g. risk assessment or LMO detection)

Duration

Minimum of 20 contact hours (need not be consecutive)

Class size

Not relevant

Form of recognition

Formal accreditation or certification by an academic institution

Evaluation

Formative assessment

Quality control

External moderation and student evaluation

Minimum requirements
for admission
Sustainability

Based on content and institutional requirements

Type of training
material
Requirement forpracticals

Peer reviewed or other pedagogical resources

Up to institution offering the course and funding

Case specific

GROUP II: Short-Term Biosafety Training Courses
Definition

Comprehensive Biosafety Course accredited by a formal body or instituteof higher learning of at least 40 hours

Duration

At least 40 theoretical contact hours with suggested additional practicalhours

Size of cohort

Accreditor’s minimum, Maximum 35 participants (e.g. formula - 10:1?)

Target group(s)Undergraduate and graduate students, but can vary

Minimum requirements
for admission
Form of Certification

Bachelors or associate degree or equivalent experience

External moderation &quality control
Sustainability

Accrediting Authority (e.g. University or Higher Education Ministry)

Certificate with the Accreditor’s name, general content, date, course hours
duration, signature of the institutional authority, equivalent credit hours of
the Accrediting University

Funds, joining with partner institutes, consistent course faculty,
administrative capacity. Integration into accreditors' system/University,
MoUs. Cost recovery: Fee structure/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 18
Participant feedback

Strategic questionnaire

Assessment/evaluationof students

Research papers, case studies and exams
Student attendanceTraining material

Practical/case studies, plenary lectures, background documents, e-learning
content.
Requirement for development of a “course kit” including course materials
and syllabus for the course

Other issues to consider

Frequency of course offering (related to sustainability)?
Delivery methods (e-learning)?
Intellectual property issues? Encourage waiving of intellectual property
rights of biosafety course materials for public access

GROUP III: Formal Degree and Diploma programmes
A. Stand-alone programmes
Definition

Formal programme with a minimum of one year, including taught courses
and dissertation or thesis to meet the country minimum credit hours foraccreditation of a master programme.
The programme should contain all the minimum core elements as definedin paragraph 27 of the report. Graduate/Postgraduate only.
More possibility as regional or international programmes

Duration

Minimum of one year duration

Size of cohort

According to institution’s minimum and mode of delivery

Target group(s)Specialist “professional “programme”, unsuitable for undergraduate

Minimum requirement
for admission

Undergraduate or higher qualification or equivalent. Should not be limited
to only science based undergraduates e.g. law, social sciences etc.

Form of certification

According to the National Accreditation Body requirements or Countryequivalent- Masters in Biosafety- MSc (Biosafety)- Masters after Master (European system)- Masters after Bachelor

Mode of delivery

Programmes can be delivered in different modes. On-campus or e-learningwith residential component recommended (mixed mode). Experience shows
e-learning alone may not be sufficient especially for components like GMO
testing and field trials and case study.

External moderation &quality control

Faculty competency: Should have faculty that has experience or proof in
the subjects to be taught. To include international experts, if country/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 19
doesn’t not have full capacity?
Training/retraining of experts
Sustainability

Ensure availability of funding for setting up formal programmes

Assessment/evaluationof students

Formal assessment In accordance with Institutional requirements. Quality
control according to the national accreditation requirements.

Training material

Dedicated instructional materials on biosafety

Other issues to consider

Survival of existing of programmes. Need to set up regional-based
programmes, e.g. UNIDO network.
Requirement for practical work

B. Integrated programmes
Definition

Biosafety courses or modules as part of existing undergraduate or graduate
programmes, e.g. minor or module

Duration

One semester (minimum 30 hours) with equivalent credits hours, for bothundergraduate and graduate/postgraduate programmesSize of cohort

According to institution’s minimum and mode of delivery (e.g. distancelearning)

Target group(s)Undergraduate, graduate or postgraduate

Minimum requirement
for admission

Undergraduate or higher qualification or equivalence. Should not be limited
to science based undergraduates e.g. law, social sciences etc.

Form of certification

Bachelors, Masters or PhD, depending on the programme in whichbiosafety is integrated; Major or minor in biosafety

Mode of delivery

Programmes can be delivered in different modes. On-campus or e-learningwith residential component recommended (mixed mode).

Quality control

External moderation

Assessment/evaluationof students

Formal assessment in accordance with the institution’s requirements.
Quality control according to national accreditation requirements.

Training material
Other issues to consider“Course kits” including course materials on biosafety
Integrated modules should contain basic principles of all the core elementson biosafety identified in paragraph 29 of this report
Requirement for practical work.

/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 20
Annex IV
List of Action Points to Promote Networking and Collaboration among Academic
Institutions to Promote Biosafety Education and Training

























Encourage governments to support initiatives in training and education of biosafety training
though funding
International funding agencies are encouraged to support biosafety training and education
through global networks
Suggestion for an international biosafety facilitation fund for exchange of experts, scholarships
and Establish model for regional/subregional course
Fund existing and new efforts in capacity building on biosafety funding
Request countries and funding agencies to earmark funding for training and education in
biosafety
Funds from CBD to support initiatives in biosafety education and training at regional /subregional and cross regional level
Request countries/donors to provide funding for mobility support for biosafety experts in training
and education
Encourage governments to consider establishing an action plan for supporting training andeducation in biosafety
Need to facilitate communication between educational centres involved in biosafety training andeducation through a global network
Countries are encouraged to support regional platforms
National policy makers must be made aware of the importance of training and education in
biosafety
Establish a list of academics involved in training and education of biosafety
Request to create a portal on the BCH for biosafety education to make general and specialized
information available on the BCH on biosafety education and training including to funding
support etc
Encourage institutions already offering biosafety training and education to get these accreditedHighlight a separate group in the roster of experts through sorting mechanism to identify
individuals involved in training and education in biosafety
Repository for open source course material and teaching tools for training and education in
biosafety
Create avenues for the upgrade of existing knowledge in facultyCountries are encourage to establish a coordination mechanism for training and education in
biosafety
Encourage parties and academic institutions to waive all IPR on training material in biosafety
Standardize material for training and education in biosafety
Course material should be made public so that others can benefit from existing training material
Universities must be encouraged to collaborate on training and education in biosafety at aregional and subregional level
Recommend to the Society for Biosafety to have a section for biosafety training and education/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 21

Encouraging existing institution must play a more prominent role in training and education in
biosafety
Encourage bilateral cooperation in training and education on biosafety
Request countries to promote national coordination in different programs for training andeducation in biosafety
Encourage Biotech companies to provide open access to study cases of genetically modified
organisms that will have academic valueCountries are requested to establish baseline data on the current situation in training andeducation related to biosafety.
Annex V
Action Plan for Promoting Networking and Collaboration among Academic Institutions to
Promote Biosafety Education and Training

GOVERNMENTS
Encourage governments to support
existing and new national, subregional andregional initiatives in biosafety training
and education, including mobility support
Encourage governments to establish anational coordination mechanism fortraining and education in biosafety
Countries are requested to establish
baseline data on the current situation intraining and education related to biosafety
Request academic institutions andacademics to provide access to risk
assessment documentation where available
for biosafety training and education
SECRETARIAT
Create a portal / website on the BCH for
biosafety education to make general andspecialized information available on
biosafety education and training including
to funding support etc (move toacademics)

How
Recommendation
to COP-MOP,
reiterating
paragraph 9 ofdecision BS-IV/3.
MOP Decision

Who
Secretariat toinclude therecommendation in
the pre-sessional
document for MOP

When

Aleksej Tarasjev(moderator for
discussion forum)

March–June
2010(Determine
the content of
the website)

MOP Decision

Activity for theforum

CBD Secretariat toestablish the portalon BCH andprovide passwords
to participants.

David Quist, Wendy
Elliott & Sofia
Valenzuela (Listingsof educational
resources,
collaborative
partners andprograms, jobs,
meetings)

December
2010(Implement
the website)/...

UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/7
Page 22
Highlight a separate group in the roster ofexperts through sorting mechanism toidentify individuals involved in training
and education in biosafety(move to academics)
ACADEMIA
Facilitate communication andcollaboration between educational centres
involved in biosafety training andeducation through a global network
Establish a global network on biosafety
training and education and lobby for
dedicated funds
Make National policy makers aware of theimportance of training and education in
biosafety
Establish a list of academics involved intraining and education of biosafety

Activity for theforum – place
finalized
information on thewebsiteEncourage institutions already offeringbiosafety training and education to getthese accredited
Request academic institutions involved in
biosafety training and education to provide
open source course material and teachingtools
Recommend to the International Society
for Biosafety Research (ISBR) to have asection for biosafety training andeducation

Forum discussion

Forum discussion

Forum discussion

Forum discussion

Forum discussion

Send therecommendation to
ISBR------

Branka Javornik(Slovenia)