front page comments
Mr. Marco D'Alessandro,
Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)#7500
Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)#7500
il y a 11 ans
Dear Matthew, dear colleagues
Many thanks to you and the Secretariat for setting up the discussion forum and the training website as well as for the further progress made on the ABS-CH.
Some initial comments:
The ABS-CH is still not working correctly by using our official browser (Internet Explorer, Version 9.0.8122.16421). I know that this is not the newest version, but after all it is not so old and it is working perfectly for other webpages, including for the CBD-CH as well as for the Biosafety-CH. Is there any reason why the ABS-CH can only be compatible with the newest version of the IE browser? I suppose that many users of the ABS-CH are using even older IE version. I think that it will be very important to have an ABS-CH that will be compatible with older versions, similar as it is the case for the CBD-CH and for the Biosafety-CH.
On the front (first) page you’ll find the ABS-CH overview with the most important information in boxes. I like this overview.
If you click on the first box (Parties to the NP) you’ll find all Parties to the NP, including the information that they have submitted to the ABS-CH. In an older version there was a nice map indicating the Parties to the NP. That was very useful but I cannot find the map anymore. It might also be useful to find a list of those Parties that have ratified it or signed the NP but that are not yet Party to the NP. On the other hand, there are now very sophisticated filter options. I really do not see a reason for having all these options. For instance, if you select the “region filter” you might end up with a serious of subfilters that, in my opinion, do not add any value in the context of ABS?
In addition, for each Party to the NP you’ll find the ABS national focal point as well as the CBD focal point. I think that there should only be the ABS national focal point in the ABS-CH. Those seeking information on ABS will need to know exactly which person they might need to contact. A user sending an ABS-request to the CBD focal point might not get any answer as in many countries the CBD focal point has to do nothing with the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Moreover, who is responsible for updating information on the CBD Focal Point in the ABS-CH?
In the second box there seems to be a bug. If you start the webpage, the number of countries that have submitted national focal points is 170 with 180 national focal points. However if you press the box and then return to the first page by pressing the home bottom it indicates 200 countries with 401 national focal points.
I do not understand why there are separate boxes for model contractual clauses and community protocols. Either such information is submitted by the publishing authority and then it should be part of the national records, or it will be submitted by others, and then it should be part of the reference collection in the virtual library.
Finally, I would like to highlight that there is quite some duplication of information that one finds on the ABS-CH as well as on the Webpage of the CBD. As said before, if information will be found on both webpages it is of utmost importance that there is consistency in this information. I’m still of the view that we should avoid duplicating information on different webpages in order to avoid inconsistencies, as these might misguide users seeking information on ABS.
I will provide you with more feedback, as soon as I will find time for further testing.
Best regards. Marco
Many thanks to you and the Secretariat for setting up the discussion forum and the training website as well as for the further progress made on the ABS-CH.
Some initial comments:
The ABS-CH is still not working correctly by using our official browser (Internet Explorer, Version 9.0.8122.16421). I know that this is not the newest version, but after all it is not so old and it is working perfectly for other webpages, including for the CBD-CH as well as for the Biosafety-CH. Is there any reason why the ABS-CH can only be compatible with the newest version of the IE browser? I suppose that many users of the ABS-CH are using even older IE version. I think that it will be very important to have an ABS-CH that will be compatible with older versions, similar as it is the case for the CBD-CH and for the Biosafety-CH.
On the front (first) page you’ll find the ABS-CH overview with the most important information in boxes. I like this overview.
If you click on the first box (Parties to the NP) you’ll find all Parties to the NP, including the information that they have submitted to the ABS-CH. In an older version there was a nice map indicating the Parties to the NP. That was very useful but I cannot find the map anymore. It might also be useful to find a list of those Parties that have ratified it or signed the NP but that are not yet Party to the NP. On the other hand, there are now very sophisticated filter options. I really do not see a reason for having all these options. For instance, if you select the “region filter” you might end up with a serious of subfilters that, in my opinion, do not add any value in the context of ABS?
In addition, for each Party to the NP you’ll find the ABS national focal point as well as the CBD focal point. I think that there should only be the ABS national focal point in the ABS-CH. Those seeking information on ABS will need to know exactly which person they might need to contact. A user sending an ABS-request to the CBD focal point might not get any answer as in many countries the CBD focal point has to do nothing with the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Moreover, who is responsible for updating information on the CBD Focal Point in the ABS-CH?
In the second box there seems to be a bug. If you start the webpage, the number of countries that have submitted national focal points is 170 with 180 national focal points. However if you press the box and then return to the first page by pressing the home bottom it indicates 200 countries with 401 national focal points.
I do not understand why there are separate boxes for model contractual clauses and community protocols. Either such information is submitted by the publishing authority and then it should be part of the national records, or it will be submitted by others, and then it should be part of the reference collection in the virtual library.
Finally, I would like to highlight that there is quite some duplication of information that one finds on the ABS-CH as well as on the Webpage of the CBD. As said before, if information will be found on both webpages it is of utmost importance that there is consistency in this information. I’m still of the view that we should avoid duplicating information on different webpages in order to avoid inconsistencies, as these might misguide users seeking information on ABS.
I will provide you with more feedback, as soon as I will find time for further testing.
Best regards. Marco
Dear Marco,
Thank you for your feedback. Below is my response to each your main issues.
Browsers support: Yes, you are correct. We have been trying out a newer front-end framework from google to make the ABSCH more responsive on mobile devices. We have identified that it has been causing the problems for IE 9. We will fix this issue immediately to ensure the ABSCH will support IE 9 and above, consistent with the other CBD applications.
Map and signatory issue: The previous map had a few problems and we have removed it with the idea to replace it with an common map that will be maintained for all CBD web applications. Some questions for you: Where would you like to see the map displayed? on the homepage? and/or as option in the country profile search page? Would It help to add a filter for signatory? Then it would be possible to filter by both party status and signatory.
Searching and filtering: Based on feedback received we currently offer 3 types of searches. National and reference record are separated into different searches and country profiles have been included under the find information section. The country profiles show similar information to the national search except with more focus on an overview of country information. Country profiles will also include additional information (such as ITPRGR status), national records are only information submitted to the ABSCH. For each search, it would be help to get some feedback on which options (sorts, groups, filters and sub-filters) are useful and which are not.
Focal points: I agree with you and can remove the CBD focal points. We will fix the counts on the homepage accordingly.
Separate boxes for model contractual clauses and community protocols: As you rightly point out, Article 19 and 20 tools and community protocols and procedures and customary laws can be part of the national records, if these are part of the national ABS framework. If not, they can be submitted by any registered user as a reference records. We received some feedback encouraging to increase visibility of this type of information based on their relevance for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. The relevance of this information is also recognized in Article 14, paragraph 3, which provides that additional information, if available and as appropriate, may include: relevant competent authorities of ILCs, and information as so decided; (b) model contractual clauses; (c) methods and tools developed to monitor genetic resources; and (d) codes of conduct and best practices. The formats for submission are based on the Virtual Library common format, therefore it is only an issue of visibility. It also answers the need to define what kind of information goes into the Virtual Library. In this way, there will be a clear distinction, for instance, on where to find and where to submit a community protocol for accessing associated TK and where to submit or find general literature on community protocols.
Possible duplication of information on the CBD website: This is a indeed a relevant point that will be taken into account. At the very least and as general rule, when information is shown in different places we can make sure that it is coming from the same source. We will also have to address similar issues as we improve the CBD website based on guidance outlined in the CBD web strategy document.
Thank you for your feedback. Below is my response to each your main issues.
Browsers support: Yes, you are correct. We have been trying out a newer front-end framework from google to make the ABSCH more responsive on mobile devices. We have identified that it has been causing the problems for IE 9. We will fix this issue immediately to ensure the ABSCH will support IE 9 and above, consistent with the other CBD applications.
Map and signatory issue: The previous map had a few problems and we have removed it with the idea to replace it with an common map that will be maintained for all CBD web applications. Some questions for you: Where would you like to see the map displayed? on the homepage? and/or as option in the country profile search page? Would It help to add a filter for signatory? Then it would be possible to filter by both party status and signatory.
Searching and filtering: Based on feedback received we currently offer 3 types of searches. National and reference record are separated into different searches and country profiles have been included under the find information section. The country profiles show similar information to the national search except with more focus on an overview of country information. Country profiles will also include additional information (such as ITPRGR status), national records are only information submitted to the ABSCH. For each search, it would be help to get some feedback on which options (sorts, groups, filters and sub-filters) are useful and which are not.
Focal points: I agree with you and can remove the CBD focal points. We will fix the counts on the homepage accordingly.
Separate boxes for model contractual clauses and community protocols: As you rightly point out, Article 19 and 20 tools and community protocols and procedures and customary laws can be part of the national records, if these are part of the national ABS framework. If not, they can be submitted by any registered user as a reference records. We received some feedback encouraging to increase visibility of this type of information based on their relevance for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. The relevance of this information is also recognized in Article 14, paragraph 3, which provides that additional information, if available and as appropriate, may include: relevant competent authorities of ILCs, and information as so decided; (b) model contractual clauses; (c) methods and tools developed to monitor genetic resources; and (d) codes of conduct and best practices. The formats for submission are based on the Virtual Library common format, therefore it is only an issue of visibility. It also answers the need to define what kind of information goes into the Virtual Library. In this way, there will be a clear distinction, for instance, on where to find and where to submit a community protocol for accessing associated TK and where to submit or find general literature on community protocols.
Possible duplication of information on the CBD website: This is a indeed a relevant point that will be taken into account. At the very least and as general rule, when information is shown in different places we can make sure that it is coming from the same source. We will also have to address similar issues as we improve the CBD website based on guidance outlined in the CBD web strategy document.
Dear Matthew, dear colleagues
Thank you very much for your reply.
With regard to the country map, probably a good place to put it would be the page which indicates the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol (https://absch.cbd.int/search/national-records/parties). To me it is not so important to also see the countries that signed the NP. Indeed, as there is no way one can sign the Protocol anymore, this information is not so relevant, and there might also be other countries working towards the ratification that did not make it in time for the signature.
With regard to the browser issue, unfortunately the problem still continues to exist. Moreover, we discovered that the content of the ABS-CH varies depending on which computer one is using (even with the same browser version). For instance by using the firefox on my colleagues computer, the filters on the right sight do not appear.
Finally, I just saw Alicja's email. I strongly agree that we should have sufficient time to look again on existing formats and to discuss the search functions and operationalisation of the ABS-CH. Probably we could include that under Agenda Item 3 and extend this discussion at least till lunch time or afternoon of the second day.
In particular, with regard to "Legislative, administrative or policy measures" we should include a filter or a clear search function that allows to easily find the measures in each country addressing access requirements, benefit-sharing requirements, and last but not least user compliance measures according to Articles 15 to 17 of the NP.
I also think that it is important to look again on the formats for the checkpoint communiqué (CP) as well as for the international recognized certificate of compliance (IRCC) at this meeting and not to postpone this discussion to a next meeting of the IAC.
Best regards and see you soon in Montreal
Marco
Thank you very much for your reply.
With regard to the country map, probably a good place to put it would be the page which indicates the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol (https://absch.cbd.int/search/national-records/parties). To me it is not so important to also see the countries that signed the NP. Indeed, as there is no way one can sign the Protocol anymore, this information is not so relevant, and there might also be other countries working towards the ratification that did not make it in time for the signature.
With regard to the browser issue, unfortunately the problem still continues to exist. Moreover, we discovered that the content of the ABS-CH varies depending on which computer one is using (even with the same browser version). For instance by using the firefox on my colleagues computer, the filters on the right sight do not appear.
Finally, I just saw Alicja's email. I strongly agree that we should have sufficient time to look again on existing formats and to discuss the search functions and operationalisation of the ABS-CH. Probably we could include that under Agenda Item 3 and extend this discussion at least till lunch time or afternoon of the second day.
In particular, with regard to "Legislative, administrative or policy measures" we should include a filter or a clear search function that allows to easily find the measures in each country addressing access requirements, benefit-sharing requirements, and last but not least user compliance measures according to Articles 15 to 17 of the NP.
I also think that it is important to look again on the formats for the checkpoint communiqué (CP) as well as for the international recognized certificate of compliance (IRCC) at this meeting and not to postpone this discussion to a next meeting of the IAC.
Best regards and see you soon in Montreal
Marco
