| | english | español | français |
Go to record ID

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Second Regular National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Record information and status
Record ID
102407
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-09-30 21:03 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of last update
2011-11-21 20:18 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2011-11-21 20:18 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Zambia
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Dr. Alfred J. Sumani
Acting Registrar
National Biosafety Authority
c/o National Science and Technology Council, Curriculum Development Centre Building, Longacres, P. O. Box 51309
LUSAKA
Zambia
Phone:+260 211 255854
Fax:+260-211-257194
Email:chamanika@yahoo.com
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Mr. I. N. Makumba - Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources - Chairperson
                                 
Mr. C. Mwape - Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Service, Zambia Agriculture Research Institute

Mr. G. Kaula - Plant Protection and Biotechnology, Zambia Agriculture Research Institute

Dr. J. Chipili - Plant Protection and Biotechnology, Zambia Agriculture Research Institute

Dr. F. S. Mwangala - National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research

Dr. M. M. Lewanika - Zambian Open University

Mr. Y. Vibetti - Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development - Vice Chairperson

Dr. Z. Munkombwe - Phamarceutical Regulatory Authority

Mr. C. Simoloka - National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research

Dr. F. Miti - Seed Control and Certification Institute

Dr. A. Mutiti Mweetwa - School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia

Ms. I. Dinala - Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training, Secretariat

Mr. P. Mbewe - Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training, Secretariat

Ms. A. Yawe - Participatory Ecological Land Use Management Associations
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-09-30
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
12. Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
15. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
  • A domestic regulatory framework is partially in place
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • One or more national biosafety laws
  • One or more national biosafety regulations
  • One or more sets of biosafety guidelines
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
18. Does your country have permanent staff to administer functions directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
19. If you answered Yes to question 18, how many permanent staff members are in place whose functions are directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • More than 10
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Partially
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
Zambia has established the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) through the Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007. Currently, Zambia has published GMO Regulations for Food, Feed and for Processing through the Statutory Instrument No. 42 of 2010. The NBA currently has one permanent staff but utilises staff in other statutory institutions such as the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, Seed Control and Certification Institute, the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute, the University of Zambia, Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authority, Zambia Environmental Management Agency, Food and Drug Control Laboratory, and other relevant institutions within the National Biosafety Framework as and when the need arises.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes
23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • No
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
The Pharmaceutical Act No. 14 of 2004 provides for the regulation of importation, exportation, distribution and use of pharmaceutical products including LMOs. A number of Regulations are being developed while Guidelines are already in place and in use.
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • Yes
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
  • Yes
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
Draft Regulations have been developed and are being reviewed by the Ministry of Justice.
Articles 7 to 10 – Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment
29. Has your country adopted law(s) / regulations / administrative measures for the operation of the AIA procedure of the Protocol?
  • Yes
30. Has your country adopted a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
32. If you answered Yes to question 31, does the mechanism also apply to cases of intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment that were not subject to transboundary movement?
  • Yes
33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • Yes
34. Does your country have the capacity to detect and identify LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
35. Has your country established legal requirements for exporters under its jurisdiction to notify in writing the competent national authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of an LMO that falls within the scope of the AIA procedure?
  • Yes
36. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • Yes
37. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Not applicable
39. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs has your country approved to date for import for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Not applicable
40. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs, not imported, has your country approved to date for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Not applicable
41. In the current reporting period, how many applications/notifications has your country received regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
42. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
50. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 7-10 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs for intentional introduction to the environment:
The National Biotechnology Laboratory under the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research is the referral laboratory and has capacity to detect and identify LMOs. Satellite laboratories under the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute and Seed Control and Certification Institute across the country, including points of entry, still need capacity in both human and infrastructure. Draft Regulations, such as, those for Import, Transportation and Transiting provide for legal requirements for accuracy of information contained in the notification.

To implement Articles 7-10, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs for introduction into the environment, Zambia adopted the precautionary principle to enable it establish a national biosafety regulatory framework.
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
51. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • Yes
53. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure that decisions regarding LMOs-FFP that may be subject to transboundary movement will be communicated to the Parties through the BCH?
  • Yes
54. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
55. Has your country declared through the BCH that in the absence of a regulatory framework its decisions prior to the first import of an LMO-FFP will be taken according to Article 11.6 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • No
56. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity building in respect of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • Yes
58. How many LMOs-FFP has your country approved to date?
  • None
59. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • None
60. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • None
63. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 11 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs-FFP:
The Zambian Government did not accept the Food Aid that contained GE maize because  the regulatory system and appropriate infrastructure to cope with the scientific assessment that came with the introduction of LMOs and products thereof were not in place. In addition, there was uncertainty about the safety of GE foods, not only for human and animal consumption but also for the environment.  This necessitated the Zambian Government to evoke the Precautionary Principle.  In addition, the GE food aid was brought into Zambia without the "Advance Informed Consent" by the Zambian authorities, contrary to international practice.

The Zambian Government requested for assitance from the Royal Norweigian Government to build capacity in detecting LMOs through the project "Capacity to implement the National Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety".
Article 12 – Review of decision
64. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • Yes
65. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?
  • No
66. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
67. In the current reporting period, how many decisions were reviewed and/or changed regarding an intentional transboundary movement of an LMO?
  • None
71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 12 in your country:
The National Biosafety Authority did not receive any  applications for review of decision during the reporting period.
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
72. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
73. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • No
75. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • None
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country:
Zambia did not apply the simplified procedure in the current reporting period because the coutry has not yet established a mechanism for simplified procedure.
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
77. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?
  • No
80. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 14 in your country:
In the current reporting period, Zambia has not entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements and arrangements.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
82. If you answered Yes to question 81, does this mechanism include procedures for identifying experts to conduct the risk assessments?
  • Yes
83. Has your country established guidelines for how to conduct risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?
  • Yes
85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • No
86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?
  • Not applicable
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • Not applicable
90. In the current reporting period, if your country has taken decisions regarding LMOs, how many risk assessments were conducted in the context of these decisions?
  • None
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • Not applicable
92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?
  • Not applicable
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
In the current reporting period, Zambia did not take any decisions/risk assessments regarding LMOs because no applications were received. However, the National Biosafety Laws and Regulations require that the exporter or developer conducts risk assessment and bears the cost.
Article 16 – Risk management
94. Has your country established and maintained appropriate and operational mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified in risk assessments for:
94.1) LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes, to some extent
94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • Yes, to some extent
95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
96. Has your country taken measures to ensure that any LMO, whether imported or locally developed, undergoes an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life-cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use?
  • Yes
97. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Yes
98. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to taking measures regarding the treatment of LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • No
99. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 16 in your country, including any details regarding risk management strategies, also in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs:
The National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (NISIR) collaborated with the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GenØk) in scientific fellowships and exchange programmes.  In addition, NISIR collaborated with China's Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences of SEPA (NIES/SEPA) to build capacity in risk management
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
100. Has your country made available to the BCH the relevant details setting out its point of contact for the purposes of receiving notifications under Article 17?
  • No
101. Has your country established a mechanism for addressing emergency measures in case of unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs that are likely to have significant adverse effect on biological diversity?
  • Yes
102. Has your country implemented emergency measures in response to information about releases that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
103. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning occurrences that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movement(s) of one or more LMOs to or from territories under its jurisdiction?
  • Less than 10
104. Has your country notified affected or potentially affected States, the BCH and, where appropriate, relevant international organizations, of the above release?
  • No
106. Has your country immediately consulted the affected or potentially affected States to enable them to determine appropriate responses and initiate necessary action, including emergency measures?
  • No, consultation was never made
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
In some occurences, only the exporter(s) were informed of the unintentional transboundary movements but this information was not posted on the BCH nor relevant states or international organisations notified.
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
108. Has your country taken measures to require that LMOs that are subject to transboundary movement are handled, packaged and transported under conditions of safety, taking into account relevant international rules and standards?
  • Yes, to some extent
109. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is not known through means such as identity preservation systems, they may contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?
  • Yes
110. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is known through means such as identity preservation systems, they contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?
  • Yes
111. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are destined for contained use clearly identifies them as living modified organisms and specifies any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information, including the name and address of the individual and institution to whom the LMO are consigned?
  • Yes
112. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment of the Party of import, clearly identifies them as living modified organisms; specifies the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of this Protocol applicable to the exporter?
  • Yes
113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
114. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
Relevant Regulations regarding Handling, Transportation, Packaging and Identification have been drafted and are with the Ministry of Justice for clearance.

Standard Operating Procedures for sampling and detection of LMOs are being harmonised.
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
116. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol to be responsible for liaison with the Secretariat?
  • Yes
117. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Biosafety Clearing-House to liaise with the Secretariat regarding issues of relevance to the development and implementation of the BCH?
  • Yes
118. Has your country designated one or more competent national authorities, which are responsible for performing the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are authorized to act on your country’s behalf with respect to those functions?
  • Yes, one
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, all information
122. Has your country established adequate institutional capacity to enable the competent national authority(ies) to perform the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes, to some extent
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
The Competent Authority is the National Biosafety Authority (NBA). The process of strengthening the capacity of the NBA to effectively perform the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is underway.

The transfer of the National CPB and BCH Focal Points from the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research Institute (NISIR) to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training and the NBA respectively resulted in capacity gaps that still need to be addressed.
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
124. Please provide an overview of the status of the information provided by your country to the BCH by specifying for each category of information whether it is available and whether it has been submitted to the BCH.
124.a) Existing national legislation, regulations and guidelines for implementing the Protocol, as well as information required by Parties for the advance informed agreement procedure (Article 20, paragraph 3 (a))
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.b) National laws, regulations and guidelines applicable to the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 5)
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))
  • Information not available
124.d) Contact details for competent national authorities (Article 19, paragraphs 2 and 3), national focal points (Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 3), and emergency contacts (Article 17, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
124.k) Final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.l) Final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks (Article 11, paragraph 4) or in accordance with annex III (Article 11, paragraph 6) (requirement of Article 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.m) Declarations regarding the framework to be used for LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 6)
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.p) Cases where intentional transboundary movement may take place at the same time as the movement is notified to the Party of import (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))
  • Information not available
125. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • Yes
126. Has your country established a mechanism for the coordination among the BCH National Focal Point, the Cartagena Protocol focal point, and the competent national authority(ies) for making information available to the BCH?
  • No
127. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • No
128. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
  • No
129. If you answered Yes to question 128, has your country reported these problems to the BCH or the Secretariat?
  • Not applicable
130. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?
  • No
131. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country:
Zambia is in the process of establishing a formal mechanism for coordination among the BCH National Focal Point, the CPB Focal Point and the NBA for making information available to the BCH because these functions were transfered from NISIR to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training (for the CPB Focal Point), and the NBA (for the BCH Focal Point). However, the National Biosafety Act provides for these functions to reside in the NBA and the country is building capacity to operationalise this; as a result the information submitted by Zambia to the BCH is not complete and up-to-date.

Zambia has not yet utilised the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs because the country has not received any applications yet.
Article 21 – Confidential information
132. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • Yes
133. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • In some cases only
134. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country:
The National Biosafety Act provides for the treatment of confidential information as such. However, the NBA shall determine what information shall be treated in this manner.
Article 22 – Capacity-building
135. Has your country received external support or benefited from collaborative activities with other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
136. If you answered Yes to question 135, how were these resources made available?
  • Bilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?
  • Yes
140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.
  • Difficult
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Technology transfer
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
  • No
146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
  • Yes
147. If you answered Yes to question 146, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Technology transfer
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol
  • Handling of confidential information
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
  • taking into account risks to animals' health
148. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
  • No
149. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • No
150. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 22 in your country, including further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds:
Procedures and guidelines for accessing GEF funds are lengthy and bureaucratic.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
151. Has your country established a strategy or put in place legislation for promoting and facilitating public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • No
153. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • Yes
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • No
157. In the current reporting period, has your country promoted and facilitated public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
158. If you answered Yes to question 157, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • Not applicable
159. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country consulted the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs and made the results of such decisions available to the public?
  • None
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
The National Biosafety Act provides for public participation and relevant Regulations and Guidelines have been developed.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
166. If your country is not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, has it contributed information to the BCH on LMOs released in, or moved into, or out of, areas within its national jurisdiction?
  • Not applicable
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
168. Has your country adopted domestic measures aimed at preventing and/or penalizing transboundary movements of LMOs carried out in contravention of its domestic measures to implement this Protocol?
  • Yes
169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
170. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO to or from territories under its jurisdiction?
  • Less than 10
171. Has your country informed the BCH and the other Party(ies) involved?
  • No
172. Has your country established the origin of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
173. Has your country established the nature of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes, some cases
174. Has your country established the circumstances of the illegal transboundary movement(s)?
  • Yes
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
The illegal transboundary movements were due to trade and relief food.                                                       Type your text here
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Not applicable
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
One study involving Zambia, Malawi, Namibia and Zimbabwe was undertaken jointly and facilitated by RAEIN-Africa.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • No
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • No
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Lack of financial resources to gather the necessary information
  • Difficulty in compiling the information from various sectors
Other information
184. Please use this field to provide any other information on issues related to national implementation of the Protocol, including any obstacles or impediments encountered.
Due to the 2002 precautionary principle position that the country took, the perception in the country has remained that GMO/LMOs have been banned. There is, therefore, need for country-wide awareness-raising to improve the public perception of GMO/LMOs. Moreover, most institutions that are likely to work with LMOs lack appropriate facilities for handling and containment. As a result, this has affected the implementation of the CPB.

Re Q. 14 - Zambia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 11th June 1992 and ratified it on 28th May 1993. Zambia also ratified the Catargena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) on 7th April 2004 by accession and the CPB came into force on 25th July 2004
Comments on reporting format
185. Please use this field to provide any other information on difficulties that you have encountered in filling in this report.
Some of the questions are ambigious and repetitive. The questionnaire is too bulky and in some cases the explanatory remarks come after a number of questions instead of soon after each question. The questions should be restricted to the current reporting period, for instance, the use of the phrase "Has your country ever...?" in some questions goes beyond the reporting period.
Survey on indicators of the Strategic Plan (2014)
In decision BS-VI/15, Parties requested the Executive Secretary to conduct a dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan that could not be obtained from the second national reports or through other existing mechanisms.

The answers to the survey are displayed below.
When did your national biosafety framework become operational?
indicator 1.1.1
  • 2004
Here you may provide further details
EU funded workshop towards harmonization of GM detection in Africa  i. NEPAD/ABNE funded exchange visit to the Kenyan National Biosafety Authority  ii. SADC regional Biosafety Policy harmonization workshop  iii. RAEIN Africa funded workshop on COP -  MOP preparatory meetings
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • 5 per year or more
Here you may provide further details
Various learning Institutions provide training in Biosafety issues.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
The National Biosafety Authority has been established.
Survey 6. How much additional funding (in the equivalent of US dollars) has your country mobilized in the last four years to support implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, beyond the regular national budgetary allocation?
indicator 1.2.5
  • 5,000 USD or more
Survey 7. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
indicator 1.2.6
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Government funding to the National Biosafety Authority
Survey 8. How many LMO-related collaborative bilateral/multilateral arrangements has your country established with other Parties/non-Parties?
indicator 1.2.8
  • None
Here you may provide further details
No application received
Survey 9. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of conducting risk assessment and/or risk management?
indicator 1.3.1.1
Survey 9.a) Risk assessment
  • No
Survey 9.b) Risk management
  • No
Here you may provide further details
No risk assessments undertaken
Survey 10. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
indicator 1.3.1.2
  • No
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
COMESA and SADC harmonised regional Biosafety Policies
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
Here you may provide further details
No application received
Survey 13. Does your country have the capacity to identify, assess and/or monitor living modified organisms or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health?
indicator 1.4.2
Survey 13.a) Identify
  • Yes
Survey 13.b) Assess
  • Yes
Survey 13.c) Monitor
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
National Biotechnology Laboratory has been established and other satellite Laboratories that can identify LMOs
Survey 14. Does your country have available any guidance for the purpose of ensuring the safe handling, transport, and packaging of living modified organisms?
indicator 1.6.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Existence of the Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007 and relevant Regulations
Survey 15. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Existence of the Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007 and relevant regulations
Survey 16. How many peer-reviewed published materials has your country used for the purpose of elaborating or determining national actions with regard to socio-economic considerations?
indicator 1.7.1
  • None
Survey 17. What is your country's experience, if any, in taking socio-economic considerations into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.3
No applications received
Survey 18. Does your country have the capacity to take appropriate measures in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released?
indicator 1.8.3
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Existence of relevant instruments such as the Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007, The Plant Pests and Disease Act  Cap 233
Survey 19. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.3
Survey 19.a) Risk assessment
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
i. Short, focused & tailor made courses  ii. Attachments to various institutions
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
National Biotechnology Laboratory has been established and other satellite Laboratories that can identify LMOs
Survey 21. Is your country using training material and/or technical guidance for training in risk assessment and risk management of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.5
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
i. EU documents  ii. African Model Law   iii. Cartegena Protocal on Biosafety
Survey 22. Are the available training materials and technical guidance on risk assessment and risk management of LMOs sufficient and effective?
indicator 2.2.6
Survey 22.a) Sufficient
  • Yes
Survey 22.b) Effective
  • Yes
Survey 23. How many customs officers in your country have received training in the identification of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
Customs Officers trained in various Biosafety issues
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
Personnel in various institutions have received in-house training and also attachments to other international Laboratories i.e in Europe, China and the USA
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
National Biotechnology Laboratory has been established and other satellite Laboratories.
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • None
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • None
Survey 28. Has your country received any financial and/or technical assistance for capacity-building in the area of liability and redress relating to living modified organisms?
indicator 2.4.1
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Short term courses on liability and redress by CBD in Uganda and India
Survey 29. Does your country have administrative or legal instrument that provide for response measures for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms?
indicator 2.4.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
i.   The National Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy  ii.  The Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007 and relevant regulations
Survey 30. Has your country informed the public about existing modalities for public participation in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
i. Cotton Development Trust (CDT) have been carrying out public participation and awareness campaigns  ii. National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (NISIR) are conducting a Public Awareness and    Participation (PAPP) project in conjunction with RAEIN Africa.  iii. The National Biosafety Authority has produced a translation of the scientific terms and phrases contained in the CPB and the Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007 into seven (7) local languages.
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Newspaper
  • Forums
  • Mailing lists
Survey 32. If you indicated multiple modalities for public participation in the question above, which one was most used?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Mailing lists
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
i. The University of Zambia  ii. The Copperbelt University
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
Training materials available on Biosafety at the University of Zambia
Survey 35. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system?
indicator 3.1.6
Survey 35.a) Monitoring system
  • Yes
Survey 35.b) Enforcement system
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
i.  The Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007 and relevant regulations
Survey 36. Please indicate the number of regional, national and international events organized in relation to biosafety (e.g. seminars, workshops, press conferences, educational events, etc.,) in the last 2 years.
indicator 4.3.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
i. Exchange visits to Kenya  ii. Participated in second Kenyan National Biosafety conference
Survey 37. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year.
indicator 4.3.2
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
i. Articles in the National Farmers Union Publication  ii. Electronic and Print Media
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • Local Electronic and Print Media
Survey 39. How many collaborative initiatives (including joint activities) on the Cartagena Protocol and other Conventions and processes has your government established in the last 4 years?
indicator 5.2.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
i. Participation in COP - MOP
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
i Workshops  ii. Electronic and Print Media
Survey 41. If you answered yes to the question above, please indicate what entity is responsible for carrying out the programmes and/or services and at which level the programmes take place.
indicator 5.3.1
E.g. local, national, etc.,
i. The National Biosafety Authority  ii. The National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research  iii. Zambia Agricultural Research Institute  iv. Cotton Development Trust  v. Seed Control and Certification Institute
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • No
Survey 43. Please indicate the number of educational materials on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public.
indicator 5.3.4
  • 5 or more
Here you may provide further details
i. The translation of scientific terms and phrases contained in the CPB and Biosafety Act No. 10 of 2007 into seven ( 7) Zambian local Languages  ii. The teaching syllabus at the University of Zambia