| | 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
102585
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-25 15:32 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2011-10-25 15:32 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Antigua and Barbuda
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Diann Black-Layne
Chief Environment Officer
Environment Division, Government of Antigua and Barbuda
#1 Prime Minister's Drive Factory road
St. John's
Antigua and Barbuda
Phone:+1.268.462.4625
Fax:+1.268.462.4625
Email:dcblack11@yahoo.com,plantprotection@antigua.gov.ag
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Plant Protection agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Unit, Environment Division, Legal Affairs, Central Board of Health, Ministry of Trade, Vet and Livestock Division, Planning Unit in the Ministry of Finance, Government Labs.  NGOs conculated inlcuded the Enavironmental Awareness Group, and Gardc,  Farmers association.
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-24
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2006
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
12. Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
15. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
  • Only a draft framework exists
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • 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:
Draft environmental Bill will be passed into law within the next six months. This Bill has in provisions  that directly apply to biosafety and would provide a domestic legal framework that formerly regulates national biosafety. Currently existing laws related  to trade management  phytosanitary control, pest and chemical management and pharmaceutical control,  forestry and watershed management are the primary means of legal control and enforcement.

The is also a draft Plant Protectect bill that has some provisions related to Biosafety.  It is expected to be passed within the next 12 months.
 
With respect to staff, since we are a small island the staff allocation is more like several persons in various agencies that combine is a total of one man power.  There has been significant administrative systems in place to ensure that the admin work continues.  In fact some GMO seeds have been confiscated by the plan protected agency. This arrangement is expected to change when the legal framework is in place.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
The Ministry of Health is responsible for the approval of all pharmaceuticals used and imported into the country. The existing border controls for general trade management provide the enforcement capacity with customs officials provding the main support.
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:
As indicated above Antigua and Barbuda has made interceptions and process requests to import GMO seed.  Most of these requests were rejected.  The  decisions were made on a general risk assessment.   The risk assessment and administrative systems used are outlined in the NBF.  A coordinating mechanism exist to ensure the management of LMOs  is done in a manner consistent with the treaty. The Enviroment Division and Plant Protection Unit are the two main agencies (along with natonal experts and competent authorities) responsible for the implementation of the NBF.
Articles 7 to 10 – Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment
29. Has your country adopted law(s) / regulations / administrative measures for the operation of the AIA procedure of the Protocol?
  • Yes
30. Has your country adopted a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
32. If you answered Yes to question 31, does the mechanism also apply to cases of intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment that were not subject to transboundary movement?
  • Yes
33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • Yes
34. Does your country have the capacity to detect and identify LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
35. Has your country established legal requirements for exporters under its jurisdiction to notify in writing the competent national authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of an LMO that falls within the scope of the AIA procedure?
  • No
36. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • No
37. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
41. In the current reporting period, how many applications/notifications has your country received regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
42. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
50. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 7-10 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs for intentional introduction to the environment:
As explained earlier, there has been informal applications and even illegal importation of LMOs into the Country.    The Country does have some capacity to assess risk but to do a significant risk assessment we would need to procure outside help at high cost.  So the risk assessment is basic at best and generally LMOs are not approved for importation into the country.   These admin procedures are still not fully known by the public hence the illegal importation.

The risk assessment is conducted by the network of agencies and competent authorities e.g.  Customs, Plant Protection, Environment Division and Analytical Services Lab.  During this reporting period there has been at least one interception and two applications for importation. It is felt that LMOs are being brought illegally into the Country but the agenies are not aware of the extent of this.

the AIA notifications are incorperated into the  phytosanitary certificate.    
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
51. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • No
53. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure that decisions regarding LMOs-FFP that may be subject to transboundary movement will be communicated to the Parties through the BCH?
  • 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?
  • Yes
56. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity building in respect of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • No
63. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 11 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs-FFP:
This mechanism has not yet been triggered since Antigua and Barbuda has not had any application to import LMOs  FFP.   It is generally viewed that since the system is not being fully implemented it is uncertain if this is a reflection of no imports or just no application to import.  A local coordinating network exists that has linkages to regional research bodies as CARDI and IICA and International bodies such as FAO. This network provides Antigua and Barbuda with the capacity to carry out limited risk assessment and it is on this that decisions would be based.  Antigua and Barbuda has adopted a risk averse stance in any case of  scientific uncertainty. It is generally viewed that this process and the decisions will be taken at a regional basis  to reduce cost of risk assessment and improve decision making.
Article 12 – Review of decision
64. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
65. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?
  • No
66. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
67. In the current reporting period, how many decisions were reviewed and/or changed regarding an intentional transboundary movement of an LMO?
  • None
71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 12 in your country:
No review procedure has been established since no trade has taken place in LMOs hence no decisions have yet been made on any LMOs product.There is not yet a need for a review mechanism
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?
  • Yes
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:
Antigua And Barbuda is not adverse to utilising the sim plified procedure if the opportunity arises, once the national parties are fully convinced and assured of the safety of the transfer. However with the country having no experience with the importation of LMOs it is unlikely that the simplified procedure would be used before the authority gained significant experience with the transfer and trade of LMOs.
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:
Antigua and Barbuda is part of two regional trade and Political  organisations Caricom and OECS.These two groups of countries usually coordinate sectoral policy; trade in LMOs could eventually become the subject of a regional agreement. Presently Antigua And Barbuda is responsible for making its own decisions although it relies on the support of several specialised regional institutions in its decision making process.
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?
  • No
84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?
  • No
85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • No
86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?
  • Not applicable
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • Not applicable
90. In the current reporting period, if your country has taken decisions regarding LMOs, how many risk assessments were conducted in the context of these decisions?
  • None
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • Not applicable
92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?
  • Not applicable
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
There is a regional approach to the risk assessment procedures.  There is a draft manual that shoulds be finalized and adopted by CBD.  This process is currently underway with consultations in the various regions.   This should be finalized by next year for adoption by the COP.
Article 16 – Risk management
94. Has your country established and maintained appropriate and operational mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified in risk assessments for:
94.1) LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes, to some extent
94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
96. Has your country taken measures to ensure that any LMO, whether imported or locally developed, undergoes an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life-cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use?
  • No
97. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • No
98. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to taking measures regarding the treatment of LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • No
99. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 16 in your country, including any details regarding risk management strategies, also in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs:
Although no specific detailed risk assessment has been done to date, risk assessments carried out for the purpose of importing regulated plant articles also takes into account requests for import of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment
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?
  • Less than 5
104. Has your country notified affected or potentially affected States, the BCH and, where appropriate, relevant international organizations, of the above release?
  • No
106. Has your country immediately consulted the affected or potentially affected States to enable them to determine appropriate responses and initiate necessary action, including emergency measures?
  • No, consultation was never made
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
Presently procedures exist for the illegal importation of products which are applicable to the illegal importation of LMOs. Search and destroy is the main emergency response or development of a longer term eradication process
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
108. Has your country taken measures to require that LMOs that are subject to transboundary movement are handled, packaged and transported under conditions of safety, taking into account relevant international rules and standards?
  • No
109. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is not known through means such as identity preservation systems, they may contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?
  • No
110. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is known through means such as identity preservation systems, they contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?
  • No
111. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are destined for contained use clearly identifies them as living modified organisms and specifies any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information, including the name and address of the individual and institution to whom the LMO are consigned?
  • No
112. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment of the Party of import, clearly identifies them as living modified organisms; specifies the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of this Protocol applicable to the exporter?
  • No
113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
114. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • No
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
There has been very little work in this area of implementation of the treaty. Regulations to the draft environmental bill after it becomes law will provide the legal enforcement capacity to give adequate effect and full implementation of the specified requirements for safe transportation of LMOs.
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, to some extent
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
Several national competent authorities were established with the assistance of the UNEP-GEF project for the preparation of a National Biosafety Framework for the country.  in addition, an operational focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was established and is responsible for all comunications with the BCH and for liaising with the Competent National Authorities.  Due to the lack of the required resources in some instances, the competent national authorities are unable to function optimally.  The Government, however, does support the attendance of various regional and ingernational training sessions and workshops that may be held on various aspects of biosafety.
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 but only partially available in the BCH
124.e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
124.k) Final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.l) Final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks (Article 11, paragraph 4) or in accordance with annex III (Article 11, paragraph 6) (requirement of Article 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information not available
124.m) Declarations regarding the framework to be used for LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 6)
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.p) Cases where intentional transboundary movement may take place at the same time as the movement is notified to the Party of import (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))
  • Information not available
125. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • 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?
  • No
131. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country:
Antigua and Barbuda has had little to report since there has been no official trade in LMOs. No risk assessment for LMOs has been done and hence no decisions have been taken and/or reviewedor review any decisions. The establishment of a specific legal framework to manage biodiversity and the movement of LMOs has not yet been passed into law athough it is scheduled to do so within the next six months. Existing laws have been and are used to manage biosafety and the movement of LMOs.  The sole instance of an unintentional release into the environment on an LMO in the country has not been assessed for impact and the scale of the significance of this remains largely unknown.  A basic framework as regards Article 20 exists but specific regulations and the like have yet to be developed and implemented.  All of the required information - some of which is available - has to be entered/updated on the BCH.     it is hoped that the upcoming NBF Implementation plan would result in a number of the information sharing requirements being met.
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:
This matter has not yet come up but provisions have been made in the National Biosafety Framework including limiting access to the information.
Article 22 – Capacity-building
135. Has your country received external support or benefited from collaborative activities with other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
136. If you answered Yes to question 135, how were these resources made available?
  • Multilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?
  • Yes
140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.
  • Average
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Development of national biosafety frameworks
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • 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?
  • Yes
146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
  • Yes
147. If you answered Yes to question 146, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
148. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
  • Yes
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:
Economic difficulties and budgetary constraints have limited the management of biosafety and the development of institutional capacity for biosafety.   External assistance is therefore vital  and such assistance has been/continues to be critical in the development of national biosafety capacity and in assisting the nation in fullfilling the requirements of the convention. Accessing GEF Funding has been challengingparticularly as regards meeting the documentation requirements.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
151. Has your country established a strategy or put in place legislation for promoting and facilitating public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • No
153. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • No
154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
  • No
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • No
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • Yes
157. In the current reporting period, has your country promoted and facilitated public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
158. If you answered Yes to question 157, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • Yes
159. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country consulted the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs and made the results of such decisions available to the public?
  • None
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
Members of the public who are desirous of importing commodities that may be LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment have been briefed on the procedures that have to be followed if such an LMO is to be considered for introduction into the environment.  in addition, several publics would have been in attendance on workshops that have been held in the reporting period on accessing information on the BCH.  To date there has been no decision made on an LMO as a result of the conduct of a risk assessment on same; hence, there has been no need to inform the public on such decisions.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • Yes
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
164. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, were the transboundary movements of LMOs consistent with the objective of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • No
165. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, was information about these transboundary movements submitted to the BCH?
  • 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:
There was one instance of importation from a non-Party known to the authorities and this was an instance of unintentional importation.  As such the incident did not occur in a manner that is consistent with the Protocol.
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
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
The LMO in question was able to bypass the measures that are in place to prevent the illegal transboundary movement since the agency responsible for issuing permits after the conduct of risk assessment was not consulted and hence the item was imported in the absence of official permission to do so.
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Not applicable
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • No
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • No
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • No
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Lack of financial resources to gather the necessary information
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.
Antigua And Barbuda is presently going through severe economic difficulties with three years of negative growth and severe debt and fiscal problems. Presently IMF is implementing a three year adjustment programme. This fiscal squeeze and the resulting budgetary cuts and restrictions have severely limited the work on biosafety. External assistance will be critical in continuing the work in biosafety and in meeting the obligations under the treaty. During the next reporting period, work  will be focused on establishing the legal framework with laws directly related to biosafety, public awareness and technical capacity enhancement especially in the areas of risk management socioeconomic evaluation and identification of LMOs. Efforts to strenghthen institutional capacity will continue.

Re: Q. 14 - Antigua and Barbuda signed the Protocol in May 2000 and ratified in December 2003.
Comments on reporting format
185. Please use this field to provide any other information on difficulties that you have encountered in filling in this report.
This reporting format is preferred to past approaches as it facilitates easy and accurate reporting on the critical areas of biosafety mnagement and work carried out under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of the Convention on Biological Diversity.                                          ]
Survey on indicators of the Strategic Plan (2014)
In decision BS-VI/15, Parties requested the Executive Secretary to conduct a dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan that could not be obtained from the second national reports or through other existing mechanisms.

The answers to the survey are displayed below.
Here you may provide further details
THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT (2012 - 2015)
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
SOME REGIONAL DIPLOMA COURSES (UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES CAMPUSES) ARE CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED AND EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN 2014.  ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA INTENDS TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THIS WHEN IT BEGINS.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
THE CURRENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM OF THE UNEP-GEF REGIONAL NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT IS ASSESSING SUCH NEEDS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF CONTINUED CAPACITY BUILDING BEYOND THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT.
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
  • 100,000 USD or more
Survey 7. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
indicator 1.2.6
  • No
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
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA PARTICIPATED IN A REGIONAL EXERCISE HELD IN BELIZE WITHIN THE LAST 24 MONTHS TO DEVELOP THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.  THE PROCESS WAS SPEAR-HEADED BY THE BISOAFETY UNIT OF THE CBD SECRETARIAT.
Survey 9. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of conducting risk assessment and/or risk management?
indicator 1.3.1.1
Survey 9.a) Risk assessment
  • No
Survey 9.b) Risk management
  • No
Here you may provide further details
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA PARTICIPATED IN A REGIONAL EXERCISE HELD IN BELIZE WITHIN THE LAST 24 MONTHS TO DEVELOP THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.  THE PROCESS WAS SPEAR-HEADED BY THE BISOAFETY UNIT OF THE CBD SECRETARIAT.
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
N0 SUCH REPORTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • No
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
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
PERSONNEL WITH THE RELEVANT TRAINING ARE CURRENTLY IN THE EMPLOY OF THE GOVERNMENT.  HOWEVER, LABORATORY CAPACITY TO DO SO IS CURRENTLY LIMITED.
Survey 14. Does your country have available any guidance for the purpose of ensuring the safe handling, transport, and packaging of living modified organisms?
indicator 1.6.4
  • No
Here you may provide further details
A BIOSAFETY LAW IS CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED FOR PRESENTATION TO PARLIAMENT.  THIS IS BEING UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT.
Survey 15. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.2
  • No
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
NONE
Survey 18. Does your country have the capacity to take appropriate measures in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released?
indicator 1.8.3
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
SOME MINIMAL CAPACITY IS AVAILABLE.  HOWEVER, EMERGENCY FUNDING TO DO SO AS WELL AS LABORATORY CAPACITY WOULD BE SEVERELY LIMITING FACTORS.
Survey 19. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.3
Survey 19.a) Risk assessment
  • One or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • One or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
SEVERAL PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN WORKSHOPS ON RISK ASSESSMENT RE: BIOSAFETY IN THE PAST 5 OR SO YEARS.
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
CURRENTLY, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS VERY BASIC AND REAGENTS REQUIRED WOULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.
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
THE COUNTRY HAS USED SUCH IN SEVERAL NATIONAL BCH WORKSHOPS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST 3 - 4 YEARS.
Survey 22. Are the available training materials and technical guidance on risk assessment and risk management of LMOs sufficient and effective?
indicator 2.2.6
Survey 22.a) Sufficient
  • No
Survey 22.b) Effective
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
THE MATERIALS ARE SUFFICIENT AS FAR AS RAISING AWARENESS ON THE TOPIC FOR THE GENERAL, NOT-TOO-TECHNICAL PUBLIC IS CONCERNED.
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
THIS HAS BEEN LIMITED TO GENERAL TRAINING IN THE USE OF THE BCH AS WELL AS SOME BASIC LMO INFORMATION.
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
ONE PERSON IS CURRENTLY ATTENDING A TRAINING WORKSHOP IN EUROPE.
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
LAB IS NOT FULLY OUTFITTED WITH THE EQUIPMENT OR REAGENTS TO DO THIS WORK.
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • None
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • None
Here you may provide further details
NOT APPLICABLE
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
THE ENVIRONMENT BILL IS YET TO GO TO PARLIAMENT WHILE THE BIOSAFETY BILL IS CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED.  IT IS HOPED THAT BOTH PIECES OF LEGISLATION CAN BE PASSED IN 2014.
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
THIS WAS DONE THROUGH SEVERAL NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS THAT FORMED PART OF ACTIVITIES OF THE UNEP-GEF DEVELOPMENT OF NBF PROJECT (2002-2005)
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Forums
  • Public hearings
Survey 32. If you indicated multiple modalities for public participation in the question above, which one was most used?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Forums
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • None
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
INFORMATION ON THE CENTRAL PORTAL OF THE BCH.
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
PLANT PROTECTION HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE BCH FOCAL POINT AND ROUTINELY LOOKS FOR LMOS AMONG REQUESTS FOR IMPORT OF PLANTING MATERIALS INTO THE COUNTRY.
Survey 36. Please indicate the number of regional, national and international events organized in relation to biosafety (e.g. seminars, workshops, press conferences, educational events, etc.,) in the last 2 years.
indicator 4.3.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
MOST OF THESE ARE PART OF THE ACTIVITITES UNDER THE NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT CURRENTLY BEING EXECUTED.
Survey 37. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year.
indicator 4.3.2
  • None
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • 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
Here you may provide further details
SOME ARE BEING PLANNED FOR 2014 UNDER THE PRESENT NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • No
Here you may provide further details
ONE IS CURRENTLY BEING UNDERTAKEN AS A REGIONAL ACTIVITY FOR THE CARIBBEAN UNDER THE NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT.
Survey 43. Please indicate the number of educational materials on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public.
indicator 5.3.4
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
THESE WOULD BE THE FLYER & BROCHURE THAT WERE PRINTED UNDER THE NBF PROJECT (2002-2005)