| | 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
102439
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-04 15:12 UTC (anitavja@gmail.com)
Date of publication
2011-10-04 15:12 UTC (anitavja@gmail.com)

Origin of report
Country
  • Saint Lucia
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Ms. Anita James
Biosafety/Biodiversity Coordinator
Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry (MALFF)
4th/5th Floor, Sir Stanislas James Building The Waterfront
Castries, Nil
Saint Lucia, 00124 or ZSLCO3
Phone:+1 758 468 4122/27
Fax:-758-4532035
Email:anitavja@gmail.com
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
The Quarantine, Forestry, Plant Propagation, Veterinary and Livestock Services Sections of the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry; the Ministry of Health, the Attorney-general's Chambers, the Sir Arthur Lewis Community College, the Saint Lucia National Trust, the Saint Lucia Manufacturers Association, the Customs and Excise Department, former employee of Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-04
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-08-10
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-10-04
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?
  • Only a draft framework exists
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • One or more sets of biosafety guidelines
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • No
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?
  • Less than 5
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
Not able to provide any details at this time as biosafety still needs to be implemeneted in a major way in this country.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • No
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
Same as above.
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • No
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
Same as above.
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • No
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?
  • No
36. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • No
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?
  • No
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:
Same as above.
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?
  • No
52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • No
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?
  • No
54. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
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?
  • Yes
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)?
  • No
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:
Same as above.
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?
  • No
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:
Same as above.
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:
Same as above.
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:
Saint Lucia has been offered bilateral assistance on some aspects of biosafety management but has not been able to sign any memorandum of agreement as yet.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • No
83. Has your country established guidelines for how to conduct risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • No
84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?
  • No
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:
Saint Lucia has had officers trained in risk assessment of living modified organisms but has not been able to do any such assessments as yet in country.
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?
  • No
94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
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 country is currently examining whether assistance provided by a country may contain any potential LMOs.
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • No
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?
  • Never
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
This process is still in the very incipient stages as there is currently no regulation of LMOs in country but the national emergency management organsisation is very much integrally involved in plans for biosafety management in the country and an emergency measures contact hsa been established.
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • No
114. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • No
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
No movement here.
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?
  • No
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
Attempts have been slowly made to build the capacity of the authority.
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 and 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 not available
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 and in the BCH
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
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 not available
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 not available
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 not available
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 not available
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?
  • No
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes
131. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country:
In the very early stages of implementation. In training relevant personnel, in the use of the BCH, they were shown how to coordinate information to be made available to the BCH.
Article 21 – Confidential information
132. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • No
133. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • No
134. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country:
No movement here.
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?
  • Multilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
138. If you answered Yes to question 137, how were these resources made available?
  • Bilateral channels
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.
  • Average
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Development of national biosafety frameworks
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase II)
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?
  • Yes
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
  • 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
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:
Saint Lucia is slowly building up its capacity in biosafety.  It has trained officers in GMO detection in Chile and Mexico and LMOs in Norway, officers in risk assessment and officers followed training under the UNEP-GEF development framework for biosafety. Accessing GEF funds have been quite successful as far as biosafety matters are concerned.
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
  • No
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • No
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes
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:
Public awareness occurred under the NBF development process and the PSA on biosafety is occasionally televised on the National Television Network.
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
167. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
No movement here.
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?
  • No
169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
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?
  • Never
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
No movement 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?
  • No
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • No
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
No movement here.
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
181. Here you may provide further details on any activities undertaken in your country towards the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress:
No movement here.
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes, First report only
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Lack of relevant information at the national level
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.
Currently biosafety is very low on the country's agenda because of the myriad of challenges that it currently faces, including the impact since the passage of Hurricane Tomas that the country is still trying to recover from. Biosafety seems very low priority even on CARICOM's agenda and is not even discussed to any significant extent at regional meetings.  It is hoped that with the new regional implementation project on biosafety that will be coming onstream in the not too distant future and implemented by the University of the West Indies, that biosafety will take centre stage and become more integral to the development patterns of our island.
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.
This report was relatively easy to fill out because there has not been much movement in biosafety management in country. It is hoped that in the future that this trend will improve. It was difficult getting some of the agencies to participate in completing the report because of their busy schedules.
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.
Here you may provide further details
There is no actual regular national budgetary allocation except for salaries. Funding has come from the UNEP-GEF funds to the tune of $10000US and from Chile in training an officer in GMO detection and a customs officer in front line GMO detection work. I cannot give an idea of the funding quantum. We are currently trying to source funding from Argentina for biosafety training and $8000US wsa obtained from the US to train a journalist in communicating on biosafety and biotechnology.
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • 1 per year or more
Here you may provide further details
The Biosafety Clearing House Training programmes were offered under the BCH 2 project.  We did four  under that project and one so far under the Implementation Project. Also we have obtained training for one of our stakeholders to attend training in biosafety. And one technical officer was trained in Chile in GMO detection and as a UNEP Regional Advisor.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • No
Here you may provide further details
We have not reached that stage of development as yet as we are just establishing our systems.
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
  • 50,000 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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Biosafety is just emerging as an issue that needs further prioritisation by the policy makers.
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
We have not reached that far as yet.
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
Saint Lucia is seeking the assistance of Argentina in that regard.
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
Here you may provide further details
No notifiers has indicated interest in that regard.
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • No
Here you may provide further details
This may be in development through the regional component of the biosafety implementation project.
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
Here you may provide further details
We have had no occasion to do so as yet.
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
  • No
Survey 13.c) Monitor
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Still in development.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
May occur with the regional component of the biosafety implementation project
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Not reached that far as yet.
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
Here you may provide further details
No developments in that regard as yet.
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
None
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
May be developed with the regional component of the biosafety implementation project.
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
  • One or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • One or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
A customs officer has been trained in monitoring and two technical officers in risk assessment and management and control.
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
These labs are being further enhanced under the biosafety implementation project.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Not reached that far as yet.
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
  • No
Survey 22.b) Effective
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Do not know as have not checked them out as yet.
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
Through a regional training program
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
Through bilateral assistance from Chile.
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • No
Here you may provide further details
To be developed.
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • None
Here you may provide further details
To be developed with biosafety implementation project.
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • None
Here you may provide further details
None as yet. Will be worked on with the regional component of the biosafety implementation project.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Not reached that far as yet.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
None as yet will be developed with the regional component of the biosafety implementation project.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Modalities have not been developed as yet but will be done with the current implementation project.
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • No development as yet
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Had training for curriculum officers from the Ministry of Education on the BCH.  Need to engage them in further discussions.
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • 5 or more
Here you may provide further details
What exists on the BCH website is available to stakeholders.
Survey 35. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system?
indicator 3.1.6
Survey 35.a) Monitoring system
  • No
Survey 35.b) Enforcement system
  • No
Here you may provide further details
In the process of development through the implementation project.
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
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
Education workshops, press releases, education seminars, radio talks, television panel discussions
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
Poster, booklet and brochure on biosafety.
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • hand delivery
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
  • 5 or more
Here you may provide further details
Workshops, panel discussions,
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Television and radio programs including jingles and PSAs
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.,
Local and national levels done by biodiversity unit, project coordinator of implementation project
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Strategy not produced as yet but is to be developed under implementation project.
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
Poster, booklet, brochure,3 PSAs for television, jingles in two languages