| | 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
102553
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-19 13:56 UTC (Mike.Rowe@defra.gsi.gov.uk)
Date of publication
2011-10-19 13:56 UTC (Mike.Rowe@defra.gsi.gov.uk)

Origin of report
Country
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Mr Mike Rowe
Head of GM Policy and Regulation
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Nobel House, 17 Smith Square
London
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, SW1P 3JR
Phone:+44 207 238-3182
Email:Mike.Rowe@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Defra; European Commission
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-19
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-10-01
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-09-30
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)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
EU Directive 2001/18/EC sets out procedures for considering applications to release GMOs into the environment for research or commercial purposes.
The Food and Feed Regulation (1829/2003) creates a specific harmonised procedure for the scientific assessment and authorisation of GM food and feed products and sets out labelling requirements.
The Traceability and labelling regulation (1830/2003) sets out EU requirements for a document audit trail to account for and identify approved GM products throughout the marketing chain. 
See EU Report for further details.
As a Member State of the EU, the UK has introduced domestic legislation to implement EU legislation covering GMOs.  GM policy is a devolved matter and legislation has therefore been introduced separately in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) is the primary legislation that gives the general powers and responsibilities to control the deliberate release of GMOs in England, Scotland and Wales and implements Directive 2001/18.
The Genetically Modified (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 supplement the EPA by setting out detailed rules for the implementation of Directive 2001/18, including specific requirements for applications to release GMOs.
In addition to part VI EPA, Council Directive 2001/18 and EU Regulations 1829/2003 and 1830/2003 are implemented in the UK by way of:
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 (SI 2443/2002, as amended by SI 2411/2002).
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 541/2002, as amended by SSI 439/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 3188/2002, as amended by SI 1913/2005)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SI 167/2003, as amended by SI 206/2003 and SI 272/2005)
- The Genetically Modified Animal Feed (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2334/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Animal Feed (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 433/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Animal Feed (Wales) Regulations 2004 (SI 3221/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Animal Feed Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004 (SI 386/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Food (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2335/2004).
- The Genetically Modified Food (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 432/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Food (Wales) Regulations 2004 (SI 3220/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Food Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004 (SI 385/2004)
EU Regulation 1946/2003 on the transboundary movement of GMOs has been implemented in the UK by:
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movement) (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2692/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 316/2005)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movement) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 1912/2005)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (SI 209/2005)
EU Regulation 1830/2003 on the labelling and traceability of GMOs has been implemented in the UK by:
-  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2412/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 438/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 1914/2005)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (SI 271/2005)
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:
Under Regulation EC/726/2004, any medicinal product consisting of or containing a GMO must be assessed in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, which has been implemented in the UK via SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2003 [Northern Ireland].
See EU Report for further details. 
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:
The UK has introduced legislation to enforce the EU Regulation on Contained Use via the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (SI 2831/2000, as amended by SI 63/2002, SI 2466/2005 and SI 284/2010 in relation to national security interests and to implement EU legislation), implementing Directive 90/219 (as amended) on the contained use of GMOs in England, Scotland and Wales and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (SI 295/2001, as amended by SI 524/2006 and SI 343/2012)
Transit of GMOs is regulated by EU Regulation 1946/2003, which is implemented in the UK via SI 2692/2004 [England]; SSI 316/2005 [Scotland]; SI 1912/2005 [Wales]; and 209/2005 [Northern Ireland].
See EU Report for further details.
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:
For field trials, the organisation intending to introduce GMOs into the environment must first obtain written authorisation from the relevant UK Compentent Authority.  Authorisation is issued on a case by case basis following a risk assessment and is applicable only on the relevant national territory.
See EU report for details regarding the import for introduction into environment. The authorisation procedure involves all Member States and is applicable throughout the EU.
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:
The UK has transposed the EU Regulations on LMOs-FFP that implement Article 11, via:
- SI 2334/2004 [England]; SSI 433/2004 [Scotland]; SI 3221/2004 [Wales]; and SI 386/2004 [Northern Ireland], in relation to the feed aspects of EU Regulation 1830/2003
- SI 2335/2004 [England]; SSI 432/2004 [Scotland]; SI 3220/2004 [Wales]; and SI 385/2004 [Northern Ireland], in relation to the food aspects of EU Regulation 1829/2003
See EU Report for further details.
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:
Not applicable
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 UK has not made use of the simplified procedure for imports of LMOs as specified in Article 13.
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:
The UK has not entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements as per Article 14(1).
See EU Report
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?
  • 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?
  • Yes, always
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • No
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)?
  • 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:
As a Member State of the EU, the UK has transposed the risk assessment provisions Directive 2001/18/EC via Part VI EPA and SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2003 [Northern Ireland].
Assessment is carried out by the notifier and an evaluated by EFSA and Competent Authorities in the Member States.  In the UK, this function is performed by Defra and the national competant authorities in the Devolved Administrations with advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.
For field trials, see question 50.
See EU Report for further details.
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?
  • Yes
98. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to taking measures regarding the treatment of LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Yes
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 EU legislative framework provides that the environmental risk assessment described under question 93 should be conducted with a view to identifying if there is a need for risk management.  The UK implements this via part VI EPA and SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2002 [Northern Ireland].
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:
Article 14 of Regulation 1946/2003 provides for measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movement of GMOs and appropriate responses, including emergency measures.  This Regulation is directly applicable in the UK.
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:
The provisions of Article 18 are transposed in the UK via part VI EPA and SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2002 [Northern Ireland].
See EU report for details.
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
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
The European Union and Member States have designated their own competent authorities and focal points. There is close collaboration and information sharing between EU and national administrations.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the competent national authority on the safety of GM food and animal feed, and on GM labelling issues in the UK.
Defra is the competent national authority on the environmental safety of GM organisms and generally on issues to do with GM crops. 
In the Devolved Administrations, competent authorities are:
- Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
- The National Assembly for Wales
- Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland
The national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol and the BCH is the head of GM Policy and Regulation in Defra.
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 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 available and in the BCH
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
124.k) Final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.l) Final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks (Article 11, paragraph 4) or in accordance with annex III (Article 11, paragraph 6) (requirement of Article 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information 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 available and in the BCH
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?
  • 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, always
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:
As the EU Focal Point, the Joint Research Centre supplies information to the Secretariat and BCH on behalf of the UK.
The UK Focal Point and competent authorities supply country-specific information to the Secretariat and BCH on an ad hoc basis as required.
See EU Report for further details
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:
Article 21 is dealt with by EU Directive 2001/18/EC, and EC Regulations 1829/2003 and 1946/2003 and transposed in the UK via the legislation detailed in response to question 21. 
See EU Report for details.
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?
  • 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?
  • Yes
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:
The UK has contributed to capacity building initiatives, including significant donations to the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), the leading international agriculture research organisation. One of CGIAR's primary roles is to develop, for use in developing countries, new plant varieties that are more productive and resistant to biotic and abiotic stress.  The UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) are working with CGIAR on a joint programme to improve the productivity and resilience of staple crops important to the poor in developing countries.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
151. Has your country established a strategy or put in place legislation for promoting and facilitating public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • Yes
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?
  • No
157. In the current reporting period, has your country promoted and facilitated public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • 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?
  • More than 5
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
The UK is a Party to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.  This is implemented at EU level via Directive 2003/4/EC, which in turn is implemented in the UK via SI3391/2004; and SSI520/2004 [Scotland].
An amendment to the Aarhus Convention was adopted May 2005 on public participation in the decision-making process for GMOs.  The UK ratified this on 1 May 2009.  The provisions of this amendment are consistent with EU Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation 1829/2003 (transposed to the UK, see question 21).
See EU Report for further details.
In addition to activity at EU level, the UK maintains a website which sets out the public participation arrangements under the EU legislation.  Furthermore, the UK keeps a public register of all GMOs which have been approved for use in the EU.
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes, always
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:
As regards imports of LMOs, the EU applies its domestic legislative framework to all imports of LMOs, whether these originate from parties or non-parties to the Protocol.  EU Regulations are directly applicable to the UK.
As regards exports of LMOs, notification requirements of the exporter to the competent authority of the Party of import established by Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 apply regardless of whether the country of import is a Party or a non-Party to the Protocol. Copies of the respective documents are sent to the Compentent Authority of the Member State from which the GMO is exported and to the  European Commission (Article 6). Since entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 in November 2003, most notifications for LMOs intended for deliberate release related to the export of LMOs for use in small-scale field trials.
A UK company exported OX513A GM mosquitoes to the Cayman Islands for open field trials, consistent with the requirements of EU regulation 1946/2003.
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
168. Has your country adopted domestic measures aimed at preventing and/or penalizing transboundary movements of LMOs carried out in contravention of its domestic measures to implement this Protocol?
  • Yes
169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
170. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO to or from territories under its jurisdiction?
  • Less than 5
171. Has your country informed the BCH and the other Party(ies) involved?
  • Only the other Party(ies) involved
172. Has your country established the origin of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
173. Has your country established the nature of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
174. Has your country established the circumstances of the illegal transboundary movement(s)?
  • Yes, some cases
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
The UK's Environmental Protection Act 1990 prohibits the import, storage, use and release of any LMO which does not have an approval under the EU regulatory regime, and provides for criminal sanctions to enforce this.
In addition, the UK has introduced domestic legislation to enforce EU legislation covering the export of LMOs (SI 2443/2002 and SI 2692/2004 [England], and in the Devolved Administrations - SSI 541/2002 & SSI 316/2005 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 & SI 1912/2005 [Wales]; and SI 167/2003 & SI 209/2005 [Northern Ireland]).  This legislation provides for penalties in case of non-compliance with EU legislation.
The UK has experienced a limited number of cases where GM fish have been exported to the UK which are not authorised for marketing or release in the EU.  These cases have been dealt with in conformity with EU regulations.  These cases have not posed any harm to human health or the environment.
See EU Report for further details at EU level.
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?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
The UK contributed to the European Commission's report on socio-economic impacts of GM.
The UK regions are currently considering co-existence measures and will inform the BCH when these enter into force.
See EU Report for further details at EU level.
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:
UK signature of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol is currently being considered.
See EU Report for further details at EU level.
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.
Not applicable
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.
Not applicable
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
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • None
Here you may provide further details
No training is provided/funded by the United Kingdom government
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
No dedicated mechanism, we instead benefit from ad hoc and independently organsied capacity building activities
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
No dedicated mechanism, we instead rely on in-house government experts and independent expert advisory committees who fufil other responsbilities in addition to those relevant to the Protocol
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
Agreements would be organised at European Union (rather than UK) level
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
EU Directive 2001/18/EC sets out procedures for considering applications to release GMOs into the environment for research or commercial purposes.
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
Guidance from the European Food Safety Authority  Guidance / advice from the Advisory Committee on Relases to the Environment (ACRE)
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
EU Directive 2001/18/EC sets out procedures for considering applications to release GMOs into the environment for research or commercial purposes.
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • Yes
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
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
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
No. EU legislation does not provide for socio-economic considerations to be included in decision making process.
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
United Kingdom government policy envisages that providing products have met the necessary case-by-case safety requirements they should be given fair market access.
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
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
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • Yes
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
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
Unknown - this information is not routinely collected
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Unknown - this information is not routinely collected
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
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • One or more
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
European Environmental Liability Directive applies (Directive 2004/35/EC)
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
Survey 32. If you indicated multiple modalities for public participation in the question above, which one was most used?
indicator 2.5.2
  • National website
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
Unknown - this information is not routinely collected
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 - this information is not routinely collected
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
  • One or more
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
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • National website
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
  • 25 or more