| | 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
102469
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-05 20:22 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of last update
2011-11-10 20:41 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2011-11-10 20:41 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Estonia
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Liina Eek
Adviser
Ministry of the Environment
Narva mnt 7a
Tallinn
Estonia, 15172
Phone:+372 6262 877
Fax:+372 6262 901
Email:liina.eek@envir.ee
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Board
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-09-30
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-09
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-09
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 fully 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?
  • Less than 5
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:
As an EU Member State, Estonia complies with European Community law. For the description of the EU framework, please see the report of EC.

Estonia has adopted the Act on the Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, valid since 01.05.2004, which provides regulations in accordance with Directive 2001/18 of the European Council. The act was amended and provisions about co-existence of GMOs and conventional crops were added in 2011. Additional regulations under Ministry of Agruculture for co-existance measures will be adopted during 2011.

Additionally, there are several sctoral legal acts connected to biosafety, based on EU legal acts: The Act on Contained Use of Genetically Modified Microorganisms (01.08.2002); The Food Act, (last redaction cince 20.01.2011); The Act on Seeds and Plant Propagation Material (new version will be adopted in 2011 that has some new provisions about GMOs as well); The Feed Act (11.01.2007).
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?
  • Partially
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
The use of GM medicinal products are regulated by the Medicinal Products Act. The State Agency of Medicines is the National Drug Regulatory Authority for Human and Veterinary Products and Competent Authority for Medical Devices in Estonia. SAM has the following obligations: marketing authorization and quality control of medicinal products including biological products, evaluation and approval of applications for clinical trials, import and export authorization of medicinal products, control of licit use of psychotropic and narcotic substances, control over precursors, drug information, advertising and promotion control and pharmaceutical inspection.

See also the report of EC.
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?
  • Yes
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
In regard of q 25 please see the report of EC.

In regard of contained use: The Act on Contained Use of Genetically Modified Microorganisms (01.08.2002). The Labour Inspectorate under Ministry of Social Affairs is responsible for issuing licences for use of genetically modified micro-organisms in contained use.
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
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?
  • 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:
Please see the report of EC. As Estonia belongs to EU then Estonian authorities participate in the decision making process as descibed in the report of EC, but decisions are made on the level of European Commission.  Estonia itself has issued no permits for environmental releases.
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?
  • No
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:
Please see the report of EC: As Estonia belongs to EU then toe decisions are made on the level of EC and no decisions are made in Estonia (q 57) . Also, the decisions are input in to the BCH by EC and not by individual member states (q 61 and 62).                                                     
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
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
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
77. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?
  • No
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?
  • Yes
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • Yes
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?
  • More than 10
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:
See the report of EC.

Estonia has not carried out any initial risk assessment before the risk assessment of EFSA. Estonian scientists are not activly participating in EFSA risk assessment procedure, however, the expertise is available if the need would rise.

Estonain scientsts are participating in evaluation of risk assesment documents (dossiers) of GMO applications.  (see q 86 and 87).

Special courses have not been organized for past couple of years. The courses were organized in the frameworks of UNEP/GEF biosafety projet and training materials are available electronically.
  
Estonia has not taken any decisions on GMOs, but it has particiapted in risk assessment evaluation process while processing GMO application for EU (q 90).
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
94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • Yes
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?
  • 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:
Estonia folows the EU risk management prodecure, see the report of EC for more details.

As Estonia does not grow GMOs then the risk management system is in place, but "dormant". System is in place for LMO/FFPs.

Unintentional movements - customs checks documentation of shopments from third countries on board. Customs has a right to take samples from shipment if there is a threat of illegal (not labelled) GM shipment. Estonia has ability to identify GMOs from shipments, serticied laboratories and trained laboratory staff.
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
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
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
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:
Handling, packaging and transport of GMOs is regulated by EU legislation, please see the report of EC.

Estonia has laboratories that are able to detect and analyse GMOs.

Agricultural Board and Veterinary and Food Board are responsible for sampling of GMOs.
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, more than one
119. In case your country designated more than one competent national authority, has your country conveyed to the Secretariat the respective responsibilities of those authorities?
  • Yes
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, all information
121. In case your country has designated more than one competent national authority, has your country established a mechanism for the coordination of their actions prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
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
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 available and 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 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 available and 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 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?
  • Yes, in some cases
128. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
  • Yes
129. If you answered Yes to question 128, has your country reported these problems to the BCH or the Secretariat?
  • Yes
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:
Most of decisions are made on the level of EU, information is input into the BCH on the level of EC, please refer to the report of EC

In regard of q 128 - failed to find information about NCAs, but this was quickly solved by Secretariat and the link was restored
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?
  • Yes, always
134. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country:
See the report of EC. Estonia applies the rules of EU. Directive 2001/18/EC has taken over with GMO deliberate realease act and it contains provisions about confidential information that are in line with CPB.
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?
  • No
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)?
  • No
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?
  • No
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, a few
147. If you answered Yes to question 146, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
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
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, to some extent
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • Yes
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, to a limited extent
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
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?
  • Less than 5
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
Estonia complies with EU legislation, please refer to the report of EC. Consultation about GMO applications are carried out on EU level, Estonia does not take any additional initiative to involve local people to this process as information is available from sites referred to in  report of EU and also the links are availbe from website of Ministry of the Ensironment in Estonia.
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?
  • Yes
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
164. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, were the transboundary movements of LMOs consistent with the objective of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes, always
165. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, was information about these transboundary movements submitted to the BCH?
  • Not applicable
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:
Please read the report of EC. Estonia does not have any particular rules for non-parties except of those listed in the report or EC.
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?
  • Never
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?
  • Only in some cases
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:
Please see the report of EC.

Estonia has worked out the co-existence measures, they will come into force in 2011.
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?
  • Yes
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:
Process for signing the Protocol has been initiated. Protocol has been translated into Estonian, the analysis about the impact of ratification has been performed and is waiting for approval from other ministries (Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs).
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Not applicable
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.
Re: Q. 14 - Entry into force on 22 June 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.
The format is not fully compatible with open office and might cause problems in filling in to the governments that use open office instead of MS Word.
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
  • 2010
Here you may provide further details
There is no additional budget
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
Academic courses in universities
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
There is no central mechanism, every competent authority is handling their line of duty.
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
  • No funds mobilized
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
Everything is covered by the state budget.
Survey 8. How many LMO-related collaborative bilateral/multilateral arrangements has your country established with other Parties/non-Parties?
indicator 1.2.8
  • 3 or more
Here you may provide further details
JRC, ENGL, EFSA, OECD biotechnology programmes
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
  • Yes
Survey 9.b) Risk management
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
We have adopted guidelines released by EFSA and European Comission that are partially translated to Estonian.
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
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
European Union guidelines
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
There is a common approach in the EU.
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
All risk assessments have been in laboratory conditions, since there has been no field trials in Estonia.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
We have difficulties with monitoring, since Environmental Inspectorate does not handle this and Environmental Board has not enough people.
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
EU guidance documents
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
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
LMO decisions are made by the Committee of Gene Technology and socio-economic effects have been under the discussion. However, although some members are taking those into account, the final decision is mostly made on the basis of the risk assessment on the environment and human health.
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
Theoretically yes, but no experience so far.
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
  • 50 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 50 or more
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
There are 2 accredited laboratories
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
EU/EFSA guidance materials
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
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Customs officers are not responsible for the identification of LMOs. This is done by other surveillance bodies, like Enviromental Board.
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 10 or more
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • Yes
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
There are 2 accredited laboratories, one under Tallinn University of Technology and other under the Agricultural Research Centre. However, the required equipment is established in many other laboratories, including both academic and private sector laboratories.
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
2
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
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
There are no specific measures for damage caused by LMOs. This is civered by general legislation of liability and redress.
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
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • National website
  • Newspaper
  • Public hearings
  • booklets
Survey 32. If you indicated multiple modalities for public participation in the question above, which one was most used?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Public hearings
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
Specific courses in Tallinn University of Technology and Tallinn University, others give related courses.
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • None
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
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
  • None
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
  • None
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • none
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
  • None
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • No
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
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
Book, booklets, guidance materials, powerpoint presentations of training materials etc