| | 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
102508
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-13 04:46 UTC (geoff.ridley@epa.govt.nz)
Date of last update
2011-10-13 04:47 UTC (geoff.ridley@epa.govt.nz)
Date of publication
2011-10-13 04:47 UTC (geoff.ridley@epa.govt.nz)

Origin of report
Country
  • New Zealand
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Mr Ed McIsaac
Policy Officer - Environment Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)
Private Bag 19901
Wellington
New Zealand, 5045
Phone:+64 4 918 4795
Fax:+64 4 439 8517
Email:ed.mcisaac@mfat.govt.nz
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Environmental Protection Authority
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ministry for the Environment
New Zealand Customs Service

Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-03
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-10
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
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 10
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:
For a review of the legislative basis for New Zealand compliance with the Protocol please see New Zealand's First National Report, section 4 at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_natreports.shtml?country=nz#natrep1

From 2005 until June 2011 the Environmental Risk Management Authority, established under the HSNO Act, was responsible for the regulation of LMOs. In June 2011 the Environmental Risk Management Authority was disestablished and replaced by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

The EPA is an independent, quasi-judicial decision-making agency established under the EPA Act to make decisions on the import and domestic use of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (as well as all other new organisms and hazardous substances).
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?
  • Yes
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
A pharmaceutical containing an GMO requires a HSNO Act approval before it can be released for use. The HSNO Act has specific provisions to allow for the emergency use of such GMOs.
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:
All GMOs require an approval under the HSNO Act whether for contained or uncontained use. Only those GMOs that are released from containment without controls are not regulated. No GMOs have been released without controls in New Zealand.
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?
  • Yes
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
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?
  • Less than 5
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?
  • Less than 5
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?
  • Less than 5
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?
  • Less than 5
43. With reference to the decisions taken on intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment, has your country received a notification from the Party(ies) of export or from the exporter(s) prior to the transboundary movement?
  • No
44. Did the notifications contain complete information (at a minimum the information specified in Annex I of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety)?
  • Not applicable
45. Has your country acknowledged receipt of the notifications to the notifier within ninety days of receipt?
  • Not applicable
46. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s)?
  • Yes, always
47. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s) in due time (within 270 days or the period specified in your communication to the notifier)?
  • Yes, always
48. What percentage of your country’s decisions fall into the following categories?
  • Approval of the import/use of the LMO(s) with conditions
100%
49. In cases where your country approved an import with conditions or prohibited an import, did it provide reasons on which its decisions were based to the notifier and the BCH?
  • Yes, always
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:
All GMOs imported or developed in New Zealand require an approval under the HSNO Act. New Zealand has received only one application for the release of a GMO into the environment and this came from a New Zealand importer. This application was for the use of an animal vaccine for equine influenza in an emergency situation. The release was approved with controls. The vaccine has not yet been used as it is intended for use in an outbreak of this exotic disease. See http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-details.aspx?appID=GMR07001  
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:
To date, the Environmental Protection Authority has granted only contained use approvals for GMOs under the HSNO Act. All approved GMOs must therefore be held in containment, registered containment facilities, under supervision by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). MAF is the government agency responsible for compliance and enforcement under the HSNO Act. MAF requires authorised signoff and receipt, prior to transfer of any GMO out of an approved containment facility, whether the organism is intended for use in another domestic containment facility, or if it is intended for export.
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:
In this reporting period only one application for the release of a GMO from containment has been made. This application was for the use of an animal vaccine for equine influenza. The release was appoved with controls. The vaccine has not yet been used. See http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-details.aspx?appID=GMR07001

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:
The HSNO Act requires that the importer or developer of a GMO has an approval to do so. The simplified procedure is not applicable in New Zealand.
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:
Not applicable.
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • 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?
  • Yes, always
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • Yes, always
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?
  • Less than 5
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • Yes, always
92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?
  • Yes, always
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
For a full explanation of risk assessment procedures under the HSNO Act see New Zealand's First National Report, section 28 at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_natreports.shtml?country=nz#natrep1
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
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:
Not applicable.
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?
  • 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?
  • Never
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
Not applicable.
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
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
Please refer to information provided in New Zealand's first national report.
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
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
No further comment.
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 available and 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 not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information available and 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 and in the BCH
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information available and in the BCH
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 available and in the BCH
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 available and in the BCH
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?
  • 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:
No further comment.
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:
Information designated as confidential in an application to the EPA will not be released provided that the grounds for confidentiality are sound and there are no outweighing public interest considerations.
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?
  • 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
  • Risk management
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
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?
  • No
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:
A number of government agencies are responsible for the regulation and compliance of New Zealand's GMO legislation. The capacity to impliment the legislation is a fundamental part of the funding of these agencies.
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • 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?
  • No
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:
For a full explanation of public consultation under the HSNO Act see New Zealand's First National Report, section 54 at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_natreports.shtml?country=nz#natrep1
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 further comment.
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
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
New Zealand investigated the importation of GM zebra danios (danio rerio), an aquarium fish, however the trans-boundary movement occurred outside the reporting period. Current information available at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/gmfish
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?
  • Yes
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:
No further comment.
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 further comment.
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes
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.
No further comment.
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.
It would have been useful to be able to print this web-based form out as a single A4 document for consultation and editing purposes.
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
  • 2001 or earlier
Here you may provide further details
We have provided input in working groups, sent people to meetings, etc.
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • 10 per year or more
Here you may provide further details
The universities, Crown research institutes, and other facilities run training for staff/students handling LMOs.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • No
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
We do not know the funding provided for the training courses mentioned in Question 4.
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 provided input in working groups, sent people to meetings, etc.
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
The HSNO Act states the principles, matters, approach, and methodology to be taken into account when making decisions regarding the importation, production, field test, or release of LMOs. The HSNO Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html?src=qs
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
As the HSNO Act states the principles, matters, approach, and methodology to be taken into account when making undertaking risk assessments regarding the importation, production, field test, or release of LMOs. The HSNO Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html?src=qs
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
As the HSNO Act states the principles, matters, approach, and methodology to be taken into account when making undertaking risk assessments regarding the importation, production, field test, or release of LMOs. The HSNO Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html?src=qs
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
We have undertaken risk assessments for the importation, production, field test, and release of LMOs. All risk assessments can be found here: http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-search.aspx
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
All risk assessments by the EPA can be found here : http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-search.aspx.  See question 20 for information about monitoring.
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
There are Government standards for the containment of LMOs that refer to external standards for handling, transport, and packaging. See here: http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/find-application-form/all-applications/Pages/approved-containment-facility.aspx
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
The HSNO Act requires such considerations to be taken into account when making decisions regarding the importation, production, field test, or release of LMOs. The HSNO Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html?src=qs. All risk assessments can be found here: http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-search.aspx.
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
Unknown.
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
The HSNO Act requires socio-economic considerations to be taken into account when making decisions regarding the importation, production, field test, or release of LMOs. The HSNO Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html?src=qs. All risk assessments can be found here: http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-search.aspx
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
The Biosecurity Act provides the legal mechanisms and powers for the appropriate control measures to be taken in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released.  The Biosecurity Act can be found here:  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0095/latest/DLM314623.html
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
  • 50 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
The New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) oversees the management of all facilities holding LMOs within New Zealand territory.  Such facilities are required to approved by statute and must have an operator and adequate structural and operational provisions in place to ensure that LMOs are contained.  MPI audits these facilities at least annually.  There is also an enforcement regime in place under statute to ensure that non-compliances with the regulatory frameworks are appropriately managed.  MPI is also responsible for managing this enforcement regime.
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
New Zealand's Ministry for the Environment (MfE), Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) all prepare and distribute information on LMOs, including basic science, regulatory requirements, and agencies involved.  In conjunction with the EPA, MPI trains warranted enforcement officers that have responsibility for LMO regulatory enforcement.  This training includes technical training and guidance.  MPI also provides extensive technical support for warranted officers and people working in and managing facilities where LMOs are held.
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
New Zealand Customs officers are not required to have training in the identification of LMOs because this is not an area of regulation that the New Zealand Customs Service has responsibility for.  New Zealand has an integrated border management system whereby oversight of LMO regulations is primarily managed by Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).  This occurs at the border, with Customs and immigration personnel, as well as at facilities holding LMOs.  MPI staff receive training in LMO identification, in addition to other LMO training.  Currently, there would be ~30 people with this training.
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 100 or more
Here you may provide further details
In New Zealand, training in the identification of LMOs for regulatory purposes is part of the wider training in complying with the regulatory requirements for containment of LMOs, harmful organisms and human pathogens.  All people working under government authorisations to hold LMOs are required to have this training.  The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) enforces these training requirements.
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
In New Zealand, if the detection of LMOs is required, regulatory authorities have access to several government diagnostic laboratories for this purpose.  In addition, access arrangements to technical diagnostics with several universities and research institutes is also available.  New Zealand also has arrangements with at least four overseas laboratories for detection of LMOs in imported seed.
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • None
Here you may provide further details
In New Zealand, there is no specific certification process for laboratories undertaking LMO detection.  Two government laboratories coordinate such activities and these are approved as facilities to hold LMOs similar to other institutions.  These laboratories, however, are also approved as diagnostic laboratories as well as being accredited under International Standards Organisation (ISO) quality management standards.
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
The two main laboratories are government-operated through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).  One has an animal focus (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/animals/ahl), while the other has a plant focus (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/plants/phel)
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
The HSNO Act carries liability provisions.  The Biosecurity Act carries provisions for minimising impacts upon biodiversity caused by LMOs, as well as some compensation provisions.
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
The public is informed when notifiable applications are opened for public submission. Documentation for all applications is available through the EPA website.
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
  • Mailing lists
  • Public hearings
  • EPA publications e.g. The Bulletin
Here you may provide further details
Notification through the EPA website, mailing lists, and EPA publications are equally used. Hearings are undertaken if requested.
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
Universities and similar institutions run training for staff/students handling LMOs.
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Unknown.
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
The New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) oversees the management of all facilities holding LMOs within New Zealand territory.  Such facilities are required to approved by statute and must have an operator and adequate structural and operational provisions in place to ensure that LMOs are contained.  MPI audits these facilities at least annually.  There is also an enforcement regime in place under statute to ensure that non-compliances with the regulatory frameworks are appropriately managed.  MPI is also responsible for managing this enforcement regime and taking the appropriate legal measures should this be required.
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
  • 5 or more
Here you may provide further details
Within the past 3 years, New Zealand and Australia have formed the Association of Biosafety for Australia and New Zealand (ABSANZ) and held three annual joint conferences.  In addition, there have been a number of training workshops and government and research institutional seminars and fora regarding biosafety, biosecurity, and risk goods management.
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
Here you may provide further details
Unknown.
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • N/A
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
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Unknown.