| | 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
102649
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-31 20:46 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of last update
2011-11-21 16:55 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2011-11-21 16:55 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Uganda
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
MR. DAVID O. OBONG
PERMANENT SECREATRY
MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT
P. O. BOX 20026
KAMPALA
Uganda
Phone:+256-414505945,+256-414505942
Fax:+256-414505941
Email:psmwe@mwe.go.ug
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT, UGANDA NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL INDUSTRY AND FISHERIES.
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-31
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-09-11
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-10-31
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 partially in place
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)?
  • Partially
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
[  A NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOSAFETY POLICY WAS PASSED IN 2008. THE BIOSAFETY LAW IS STILL IN DRAFT FORM. A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT) TO ADVISE THE CNA ON ALL MATTERS OF RELEVANCE TO BIOSAFETY AND IT IS DOING ITS WORK, PENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE LAW. THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORK WAS COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO THE BCH.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes, to some extent
23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • No
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
ALL LMOS DESTINED FOR USE IN THE COUNTRY ARE CURRENTLY REGULATED PENDING THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE BIOSAFET LAW.
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • No
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
  • Yes
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
REGULATION OF TRANSIT LMOS IS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT LAW BUT CURRENTLY THERE IS NO LAW TO BASE ON TO REGULATE IT, HENCE TRANSIT OF LMOS IS CURRENTLY NOT REGULATED.

INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT HAS BEEN HANDLED SO FAR REGARDING LMOS IS BEING COMPILED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE BCH.

HOWEVER, NO APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR REGARDING LMO PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMANS.

CONTAINED USE IS REGULATED USING THE EXISTING LAW ON REGULATION OF RESEARCH (UGNDA NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT)
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?
  • Yes
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
39. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs has your country approved to date for import for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 10
40. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs, not imported, has your country approved to date for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
41. In the current reporting period, how many applications/notifications has your country received regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 10
42. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 10
43. With reference to the decisions taken on intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment, has your country received a notification from the Party(ies) of export or from the exporter(s) prior to the transboundary movement?
  • Yes, always
44. Did the notifications contain complete information (at a minimum the information specified in Annex I of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety)?
  • In some cases only
45. Has your country acknowledged receipt of the notifications to the notifier within ninety days of receipt?
  • Yes, always
46. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s)?
  • In some cases only the notifier
47. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s) in due time (within 270 days or the period specified in your communication to the notifier)?
  • Yes, always
48. What percentage of your country’s decisions fall into the following categories?
  • Approval of the import/use of the LMO(s) with conditions
100%
  • Request for additional relevant information
50%
49. In cases where your country approved an import with conditions or prohibited an import, did it provide reasons on which its decisions were based to the notifier and the BCH?
  • Yes, always
50. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 7-10 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs for intentional introduction to the environment:
\ALL APPLICATIONS SO FAR RECEIVED HAVE BEEN FOR CONFINED FIELD TRIALS AND CONTAINED USE. THIS IS FOR GENERATION OF PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FOR INFORMED DECISION MAKING IN FURTURE IN CASE WE RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FOR LARGE SCALE / MARKET RELEASES  WHICH WILL AWAIT THE NATIONAL LAW TO BE PASSED.

INFORMATION ON ALL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND PROCESSED SO FAR IS BEING COMPLILED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE BCH
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
51. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • No
53. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure that decisions regarding LMOs-FFP that may be subject to transboundary movement will be communicated to the Parties through the BCH?
  • No
54. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
55. Has your country declared through the BCH that in the absence of a regulatory framework its decisions prior to the first import of an LMO-FFP will be taken according to Article 11.6 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • No
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:
THE ISSUES RAISED IN QNS 51-57 WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE ACT. THERE ARE PROVISIONS COVERING THEM IN THE DRAFT BILL WHICH IS STILL UNDERGOING CONSULTATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL BY DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS.
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:
THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE DRAFT BILL WHICH IS STILL UNDERGOING CONSULTATIONS.
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:
TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT LAW, WHICH IS NOT YET COMPLETE
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:
DISCUSSIONS HAVE STARTED WITHIN SOME SUB-REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING POSSIBLE HARMONISATION OF LMO POLICIES AND STANDARDS FOR HANDLING SPECIFIC LMOS, BUT THESE ARE STILL IN THEIR PRELIMINARY STAGES.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
82. If you answered Yes to question 81, does this mechanism include procedures for identifying experts to conduct the risk assessments?
  • Yes
83. Has your country established guidelines for how to conduct risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?
  • Yes
85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • Yes
86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?
  • Yes, always
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • 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?
  • Less 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:
EXPORTERS ARE ALWAYS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT RISK ASSESSMENTS AND SUBMIT RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTS AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATIONS. THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTS AND EITHER AGREES WITH THEM OR DISAGREES OR REQUESTS FOR MORE INFORMATION AND / OR CLARIFICATION FROM THE NOTIFIER

REGARDING CAPACITY FOR RISK ASSESSMENT (QNS 84 AND 85), AND RELATED QUESTIONS, CAPACITY BUILDING IS A PROCESS, NOT AN EVENT. THEREFORE SOME CAPACITY EXISTS, BUT IT IS NOT YET ADEQUATE AND STILL REQUIRES BOOSTING.
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?
  • Yes, to some extent
95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
96. Has your country taken measures to ensure that any LMO, whether imported or locally developed, undergoes an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life-cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use?
  • Yes
97. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • 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:
TO SOME EXTENT, UGANDA HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN COOPERATION WITH OTHER PARTIES AS PART OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT IT BELONGS TO (AFRICAN UNION, EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY AND COMMON MARKET FOR EASTERN AND SOUNTHERN AFRICA) AS WELL AS AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL AS PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY THROUGH THE MECHANISMS UNDER THE CPB.
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:
A CONTACT PERSON FOR EMERGENCY MEASURES HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BUT NO CASE OF UNINTENTIONAL/ TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
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, to some extent
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, to some extent
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, to some extent
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, to some extent
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, to some extent
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?
  • Yes, to some extent
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
SOME GE RESEARCH FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE COUNTRY AND SOME PERSONNEL TRAINED IN RELEVANT FIELDS; SOME BOARDER ENTRY PHYTOSANITARY STAFF HAVE ALSO BEEN TRAINED IN RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS BUT THEY STILL NEED FURTHER TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR QUICKLY FINDING INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION OF INFORMATION REGARDING DIFFERENT LMOS FROM THE BCH AND OTHER DATABASES.
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
116. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol to be responsible for liaison with the Secretariat?
  • Yes
117. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Biosafety Clearing-House to liaise with the Secretariat regarding issues of relevance to the development and implementation of the BCH?
  • Yes
118. Has your country designated one or more competent national authorities, which are responsible for performing the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are authorized to act on your country’s behalf with respect to those functions?
  • Yes, one
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, all information
122. Has your country established adequate institutional capacity to enable the competent national authority(ies) to perform the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes, to some extent
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
SOME PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE AND TRAINED IN DIFFERENT RELEVANT AREAS, BUT SOME ARE STILL UNDERGOING TRAINING AND MORE PERSONNEL ARE NEEDED TO COVER MORE RELEVANT AREAS AND TO CATER FOR THOSE WHO LEAVE THE RESPONSIBLE BODIES ON BIOSAFETY FOR JOBS IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
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 but only partially available in the BCH
124.b) National laws, regulations and guidelines applicable to the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 5)
  • Information not available
124.c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))
  • Information not available
124.d) Contact details for competent national authorities (Article 19, paragraphs 2 and 3), national focal points (Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 3), and emergency contacts (Article 17, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
124.i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information 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 not available
124.n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.p) Cases where intentional transboundary movement may take place at the same time as the movement is notified to the Party of import (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
125. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • Yes
126. Has your country established a mechanism for the coordination among the BCH National Focal Point, the Cartagena Protocol focal point, and the competent national authority(ies) for making information available to the BCH?
  • Yes
127. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • Yes, in some cases
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:
SOME OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND PROCESSED THROUGH THE NATIONAL REGULATORY PROCESS AND SUMMARIES OF RISK ASSESSMENT AND DECISIONS TAKEN IS BEING COMPILED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE BCH.
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:
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE DRAFT LAW AND IN EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ALLOWING THE NOTIFIER TO IDENTIFY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND APPLY FOR CONFIDENTIALITY TO THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY. THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY MAY GRANT CONFIDENTIALITY DEPENDING ON THE MERIT OF THE APPLICATION (IF THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED AS CONFIDENTIAL INDEED WARRANTS CONFIDENTIALITY).
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?
  • Bilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
138. If you answered Yes to question 137, how were these resources made available?
  • Multilateral channels
139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?
  • Yes
140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.
  • Average
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
  • No
146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
  • Yes
147. If you answered Yes to question 146, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Technology transfer
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol
  • Handling of confidential information
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
  • LIABILITY AND REDRESS
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:
SOME CAPACITY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BUT MORE IS NEEDED. SOME EXPRTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BCH ROSTER. SOME FEW EXPERTS ARE STILL PENDING, WHILE SOME OTHERS HAVE NOT YET RESPONDED TO THE CALL TO FILL THE ROSTER OF EXPERTS FORM.
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?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • 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?
  • 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:
APPLICATIONS SO FAR HANDLED ARE FOR CFT AND RESEARCH. THE PUBLIC WILL BE INVOLVED AT COMMERCIAL RELEASE LEVEL. HOWEVER, SOME INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PRESS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASES OR UPON REQUEST.                                                 ]
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • Yes
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
164. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, were the transboundary movements of LMOs consistent with the objective of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes, always
165. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, was information about these transboundary movements submitted to the BCH?
  • 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:
DEALINGS WITH NON PARTIES ARE STRICLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CPB.
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
168. Has your country adopted domestic measures aimed at preventing and/or penalizing transboundary movements of LMOs carried out in contravention of its domestic measures to implement this Protocol?
  • No
169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
170. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO to or from territories under its jurisdiction?
  • Never
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
N/A
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Only in some cases
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
SOCIO-ECON CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DECISION MAKING, BUT THEIR IMPORTANCE WILL MAINLY BE STRESSED FOR COMMERCIAL RELEASES. CURRENTLY DEALING WITH CFTS ONLY
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • Yes
181. Here you may provide further details on any activities undertaken in your country towards the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress:
CONSULTATIONS ARE ON-GOING WITH RELEVANT GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES AND DEPARTMENT TO PAVE WAY FOR THE SIGNING AND SUBSEQUENT RATIFICATION.
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes, First report only
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Lack of relevant information at the national level
Other information
184. Please use this field to provide any other information on issues related to national implementation of the Protocol, including any obstacles or impediments encountered.
INADEQUATE PERSONNEL IN THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENT BODIES, AND POOR RESPONSE FROM DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS.

Re: Q. 15 - Only a draft framework exists

Re: Q. 136 - Regional channels and multilateral channels as well
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.
SOME OF THE QUESSTIONS EG. 64, 72, 81, 83, 84, 85 REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF MECHANISMS ARE RESTRICTIVE AS THESE ARE PROCESSES. MORE OPTIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN IN FUTURE TO CATER FOR CASES WHERE THE PROCESS HAS BEGUN BUT IS NOT YET COMPLETE.
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
  • 2003
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • 1 per year or more
Here you may provide further details
THE ACTUAL NUMBER VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR DEPENDING ON NEED AND AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • No
Survey 6. How much additional funding (in the equivalent of US dollars) has your country mobilized in the last four years to support implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, beyond the regular national budgetary allocation?
indicator 1.2.5
  • 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
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
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
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
  • 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
Here you may provide further details
SOME LIMITED CAPACITY EXISTS IN A FEW RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS, UNIVERSITIES AND KEY MINISTRIES (DEALING WITH AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, TRADE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC PLANNING),  BUT THE CAPACITY IS STILL INADEQUATE AND MORE CAPACITY IS STILL REQUIRED ESPECIALLY AT LOCAL LEVEL.
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
Survey 15. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
THIS IS MAINLY IN FORM OF EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE AND A HANDFUL OF OTHER EXPERTS IN BIOSAFETY, BUT NO FORMAL NATIONAL GUIDELINES
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
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE AND OTHER REGULATORS CONSULT THEM INDIVIDUALLY DEPENDING ON THE TASK AHEAD OF THEM, HENCE THE NUMBER SELECTED ON THIS IS AN ESTIMATE
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
OVER TEN APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE FOR CONFINED FIELD TRIALS OF LMOS IN UGANDA AND EACH TIME AN APPLICATION IS HANDLED, SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS  ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION DURING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
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 CAPACITY EXISTS, BUT THE ACTUAL ANSWER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY COUNTRY CAN ABLY COPE / HANDLE UNINTENTIONAL RELEASES OF LMOS DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; WHEN THEY COME TO LEARN ABOUT THE RELEASE, WHERE THE RELEASE OCCURS AND THE NATURE OF LMO RELEASED.
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
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 10 or more
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
SOME LIMITED CAPACITY EXISTS IN A FEW RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS, UNIVERSITIES AND KEY MINISTRIES (DEALING WITH AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, TRADE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC PLANNING),  BUT THE CAPACITY IS STILL INADEQUATE AND MORE CAPACITY IS STILL REQUIRED ESPECIALLY AT LOCAL LEVEL.
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
  • One or more
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 10 or more
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
SOME LABORATORIES IN PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES AND PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE AVAILABLE BEING IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, BUT NONE OF THE EXISTING LABORATORIES IS CERTIFIED AS YET. ARRANGEMENT  ARE STILL UNDERWAY TO HAVE SOME KEY LABS CERTIFIED
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
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
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
ABOUT FIVE PERSONS WERE TRAINED FOR I WEEK, BUT MORE TRAINING IS STILL  REQUIRED
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
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
SOME LIMITED SENSITIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE ESPECIALLY IN THE CAPITAL BUT THE COUNTRYSIDE IS STILL LARGELY IGNORANT ABOUT THE MODALITIES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND AWARENESS.
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
  • Forums
  • Mailing lists
  • Public hearings
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • One or more
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • 5 or more
Here you may provide further details
ONLINE MATERIALS ARE OPEN-ACCESS MATERIALS AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH THE EXACT NUMBER, SO THE NUMBER GIVEN IS AN ESTIMATE
Survey 35. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system?
indicator 3.1.6
Survey 35.a) Monitoring system
  • Yes
Survey 35.b) Enforcement system
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
THE MECHANISMS IN PLACE ARE GENERAL FOR BIODIVERSITY AND ARE MAINLY IN INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, EXCEPT THE NATIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE OPERATING UNDER THE UGANDA NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CNA)
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 Libraries
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
  • One or more
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
SEVERAL INITIATIVES EXIST SOME UNDER GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND A FEW OTHERS FROM NGOs
Survey 41. If you answered yes to the question above, please indicate what entity is responsible for carrying out the programmes and/or services and at which level the programmes take place.
indicator 5.3.1
E.g. local, national, etc.,
MAINLY AT NATIONAL LEVEL; THE PROCESS IS OPEN TO DIFFERENT PLAYERS
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
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
MOST EDUCTIONAL MATERIALS ARE OPEN-ACCESS MATERIALS AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH THE EXACT NUMBER, SO THE NUMBER GIVEN IS AN ESTIMATE