Online tool for submission of the interim national report for the Nagoya Protocol
Mr. Matthew DIAS,
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity#7530
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity#7530
hace 11 años
Dear IAC experts,
As you may recall during the IAC meeting we did not have time to cover any of the practical and technical issues related to the online implementation of the interim national report. A preliminary version of the interim national report has been implemented in the ABS-CH and is available on the training website (https://training-absch.cbd.int/register/NR).
As you are aware, the guidelines and format of the interim national report were decided at COP-MOP 1 and made available as part of decision NP-1/3 on monitoring and reporting (Article 29) (https://www.cbd.int/npmop1/doc/).
Here are a few things to keep in mind as you review the online version of the reporting format:
1. Please use the latest versions of Chrome or Firefox. As there may be other problems related to using Internet explorer (IE) after we receive all the feedback we will then make sure the online reporting format is compatible with IE 9+.
2. Please note that the loading speed of the form can be slow. We are aware of this issue and we will optimize for speed as a final step after integrating the feedback received.
3. Please think about how questions could be auto-populated with information already published in the ABS-CH?
4. Please review the two new questions 63 and 64 of the interim national report that have been added to better reflect paragraph 8 of decision NP 1/7 on resource mobilization for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol adopted at the first meeting of the COP-MOP.
Thank you.
Matt
As you may recall during the IAC meeting we did not have time to cover any of the practical and technical issues related to the online implementation of the interim national report. A preliminary version of the interim national report has been implemented in the ABS-CH and is available on the training website (https://training-absch.cbd.int/register/NR).
As you are aware, the guidelines and format of the interim national report were decided at COP-MOP 1 and made available as part of decision NP-1/3 on monitoring and reporting (Article 29) (https://www.cbd.int/npmop1/doc/).
Here are a few things to keep in mind as you review the online version of the reporting format:
1. Please use the latest versions of Chrome or Firefox. As there may be other problems related to using Internet explorer (IE) after we receive all the feedback we will then make sure the online reporting format is compatible with IE 9+.
2. Please note that the loading speed of the form can be slow. We are aware of this issue and we will optimize for speed as a final step after integrating the feedback received.
3. Please think about how questions could be auto-populated with information already published in the ABS-CH?
4. Please review the two new questions 63 and 64 of the interim national report that have been added to better reflect paragraph 8 of decision NP 1/7 on resource mobilization for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol adopted at the first meeting of the COP-MOP.
Thank you.
Matt
Posted on behalf of Alicja.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues,
Please accept my apologies for slight delay in the feedback as well as its form (unfortunately I cannot use the option reply and provide feedback on the forum as then I am transferred automatically to our default internet explorer – which is not compatible with ABS CH).
I have couple of observations concerning the report – most of them of minor nature & couple of accompanying questions. I summarize them below:
1/ question 3 – if answer ‘no’ is ticked (so no information is provided under Art. 14(2) to the ABS CH, then it would seem redundant to have the option to link ABS CH record
2/ questions 7 & 8 – are we not in principle asking for the same things? I realise that those questions are taken from the format of national interim report as agreed by COP-MOP, however I have the impression that in the annex of COP-MOP decision they did have a different function. Question 7 (7 on-line as well) – is about making permits available to ABS CH, question 15 (8 on-line) asks whether your country issues IRCC. The way in which q15 was modified make it almost identical with q 7. I wonder whether this was intentional.
3/ I had troubles to distinguish between question 21 and 22 – are we not asking the same thing?
4/ question 35 – although arguably it repeats the question from Annex of COP-MOP decision, I wonder what is the added value of asking such question to parties which do not have access regime. Should we not allow – in this context – for an answer ‘no access regime’..? [the same for q 38-41].
5/ is question 62 not a repetition of question 56-57? [although I understand this is taken directly from the Annex to the COP-MOP decision].
As for your question whether more information can auto-populated from ABS CH, I think your proposal addresses the need in a very good way.
Best regards,
Alicja
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues,
Please accept my apologies for slight delay in the feedback as well as its form (unfortunately I cannot use the option reply and provide feedback on the forum as then I am transferred automatically to our default internet explorer – which is not compatible with ABS CH).
I have couple of observations concerning the report – most of them of minor nature & couple of accompanying questions. I summarize them below:
1/ question 3 – if answer ‘no’ is ticked (so no information is provided under Art. 14(2) to the ABS CH, then it would seem redundant to have the option to link ABS CH record
2/ questions 7 & 8 – are we not in principle asking for the same things? I realise that those questions are taken from the format of national interim report as agreed by COP-MOP, however I have the impression that in the annex of COP-MOP decision they did have a different function. Question 7 (7 on-line as well) – is about making permits available to ABS CH, question 15 (8 on-line) asks whether your country issues IRCC. The way in which q15 was modified make it almost identical with q 7. I wonder whether this was intentional.
3/ I had troubles to distinguish between question 21 and 22 – are we not asking the same thing?
4/ question 35 – although arguably it repeats the question from Annex of COP-MOP decision, I wonder what is the added value of asking such question to parties which do not have access regime. Should we not allow – in this context – for an answer ‘no access regime’..? [the same for q 38-41].
5/ is question 62 not a repetition of question 56-57? [although I understand this is taken directly from the Annex to the COP-MOP decision].
As for your question whether more information can auto-populated from ABS CH, I think your proposal addresses the need in a very good way.
Best regards,
Alicja
Dear Alicja
Thank you for your comments on the interim national report. As you rightly point out in your message, the text of the interim national report was adopted at COP-MOP, therefore it is not possible for us to revise at this stage for the online version. However, when inviting Parties to submit the interim national report, in accordance with decision NP-1/3, paragraph 3, Parties and non-Parties will also be invited to provide feedback to the guidelines and the format for submission of the interim national report, taking into account further experiences gained in the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. In light of the feedback received, the national report format can then be revised in preparation for the next reporting cycle on the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.
In relation to your first comment on question 3, we can delete the possibility of linking to ABS-CH records for the related questions, as you propose.
With respect to your third comment on the difference between questions 21 and 21, please note that question 21 deals with GR held by ILCs and question 22 addresses TK held by ILCs.
With regards to your fifth comment, please note that questions 56-57 are about receiving or providing technical support for capacity-building rather than financial support (question 62).
I hope these explanations are helpful,
Matt
Thank you for your comments on the interim national report. As you rightly point out in your message, the text of the interim national report was adopted at COP-MOP, therefore it is not possible for us to revise at this stage for the online version. However, when inviting Parties to submit the interim national report, in accordance with decision NP-1/3, paragraph 3, Parties and non-Parties will also be invited to provide feedback to the guidelines and the format for submission of the interim national report, taking into account further experiences gained in the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. In light of the feedback received, the national report format can then be revised in preparation for the next reporting cycle on the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.
In relation to your first comment on question 3, we can delete the possibility of linking to ABS-CH records for the related questions, as you propose.
With respect to your third comment on the difference between questions 21 and 21, please note that question 21 deals with GR held by ILCs and question 22 addresses TK held by ILCs.
With regards to your fifth comment, please note that questions 56-57 are about receiving or providing technical support for capacity-building rather than financial support (question 62).
I hope these explanations are helpful,
Matt
Dear Matt,
My apologies for not responding before now. My comments on this area are as follows:
a) Autopopulation
a. It would be helpful if the screen appearing on the ‘Add records’ button would open at the appropriate set of records rather than utilising a drop-down menu from the ‘select document type’ button (especially as not all records are documents). It would also help if the records displayed on the screen were ordered by type and then, perhaps, submission date. That said, where there is no ambiguity or choice in the relevant record (e.g. NFP. IRCCs, CPCs) given that the identity of the Country is known from Q.1,I suggest the relevant associations are made automatically (since they will be called up on the ‘add records’ screen automatically). In some cases, particularly IRCCs and CPCs, the number of records my ultimately be quite high, and the reporter may find it challenging to manually link all. A half-way point would be an ‘add all’ check with the ability to deselect some individually.
b) Part 1 Institutional structures for the implementation of the Protocol.
a. Q. 3. I see the potential of linking (non-existent) record is still present if the ‘no’ answer to Q 3 is selected, and assume this functionality will be changed as you suggested earlier. However, is it worth adding the potential to create a new record at this point, or might this be confusing?
b. Q.4. The same point applies.
c. Q. 5. Again, the same point.
d. Q.6. The same points apply.
e. Q.7. In Q 4, for example, the options appear or are concealed as a result of the anser to the first question. However, in Q.7 if the ‘not applicable’ box is checked the Yes/No radio buttons remain visible although cannot be accessed. Why not make them vanish, to maintain a consistent approach?
f. Q.7. Although the numbers at the moment are not high, in future a country may have caused the creation of many IRCCs. Would you expect them all to be linked here?
g. Q 7, 8. I agree with Alicja’s point. I cannot think of an example where the answers will be different. If anyone else can, that would be fine and we might adjust the questions accordingly; if not, can we not either delete one or autofill 8 from 7, with an explanation for the recorder and the option of overwriting if necessary?
h. Q. 9. Same point as for Q.3.
i. Q. 10. What record do you think might be linked to here? If none, then I suggest deleting the option.
c) Part 2.
a. Q.16. How useful is it to have the precise number of permits or equivalent? Would a set of ranges (e.g. 1-10, 11-20 etc, although other ‘steps’ might be better) be both easier to compile and at least as informative?
d) Part 5.
a. Q. 31. If the question is not applicable, I suggest the radio buttons, the text box and the link facility be concealed, to maintain a consistent approach.
e) Part 6.
a. Q. 35. In answer to Alicja’s question, Art 8(a) applies to regulatory requirements as well as access legislation (see Art 8 first paragraph), so it is relevant here.
Best wishes
Chris
My apologies for not responding before now. My comments on this area are as follows:
a) Autopopulation
a. It would be helpful if the screen appearing on the ‘Add records’ button would open at the appropriate set of records rather than utilising a drop-down menu from the ‘select document type’ button (especially as not all records are documents). It would also help if the records displayed on the screen were ordered by type and then, perhaps, submission date. That said, where there is no ambiguity or choice in the relevant record (e.g. NFP. IRCCs, CPCs) given that the identity of the Country is known from Q.1,I suggest the relevant associations are made automatically (since they will be called up on the ‘add records’ screen automatically). In some cases, particularly IRCCs and CPCs, the number of records my ultimately be quite high, and the reporter may find it challenging to manually link all. A half-way point would be an ‘add all’ check with the ability to deselect some individually.
b) Part 1 Institutional structures for the implementation of the Protocol.
a. Q. 3. I see the potential of linking (non-existent) record is still present if the ‘no’ answer to Q 3 is selected, and assume this functionality will be changed as you suggested earlier. However, is it worth adding the potential to create a new record at this point, or might this be confusing?
b. Q.4. The same point applies.
c. Q. 5. Again, the same point.
d. Q.6. The same points apply.
e. Q.7. In Q 4, for example, the options appear or are concealed as a result of the anser to the first question. However, in Q.7 if the ‘not applicable’ box is checked the Yes/No radio buttons remain visible although cannot be accessed. Why not make them vanish, to maintain a consistent approach?
f. Q.7. Although the numbers at the moment are not high, in future a country may have caused the creation of many IRCCs. Would you expect them all to be linked here?
g. Q 7, 8. I agree with Alicja’s point. I cannot think of an example where the answers will be different. If anyone else can, that would be fine and we might adjust the questions accordingly; if not, can we not either delete one or autofill 8 from 7, with an explanation for the recorder and the option of overwriting if necessary?
h. Q. 9. Same point as for Q.3.
i. Q. 10. What record do you think might be linked to here? If none, then I suggest deleting the option.
c) Part 2.
a. Q.16. How useful is it to have the precise number of permits or equivalent? Would a set of ranges (e.g. 1-10, 11-20 etc, although other ‘steps’ might be better) be both easier to compile and at least as informative?
d) Part 5.
a. Q. 31. If the question is not applicable, I suggest the radio buttons, the text box and the link facility be concealed, to maintain a consistent approach.
e) Part 6.
a. Q. 35. In answer to Alicja’s question, Art 8(a) applies to regulatory requirements as well as access legislation (see Art 8 first paragraph), so it is relevant here.
Best wishes
Chris
