| | 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
102950
Status
Published
Date of creation
2012-01-03 16:25 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2012-01-03 16:25 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Solomon Islands
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Joe Horokou
Director
Ministry of Environment Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology
P.O.Box 21
Honiara
Solomon Islands
Phone:+677 23031
Fax:+677 28054
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Minisry of Agriculture and Quarantine
Ministry of Health and Medical Services
Customs Divisions(Ministry of Finances)
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-12-30
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2002-10
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-11
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 temporary measures have been introduced
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?
  • No
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 draft National Biosafety Framework was developed for Solomon Islands in 2011. The Framework is expected to mainstream biosafety into existing policy, legal and administerative measures. The biosafety policy objective as outlined in the draft framework is to address issues related to food, agriculture, the environment and trade and sustainable development.
 
There are number of related legal instruments in place which include  Environmental Act 1998 and the Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998, The Protected Areas Act 2010 and Regulation 2011 which are administered and enforced by the Environment and Conservation Division .  The Agricultural Quarantine Act 1986 and a draft Biosecurity Bill 2011 and  the   revised Agriculture and Livestock Act 1982 is overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. The Health Act 1980 and its regulation 1981 are administered by the Environmental Health Division, Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MHMS). Other related legal instruments are the Pure Food Act 1996);The Public Health Ordinance 1970; The Pure Food (Fish & Fishery Products) Regulation 2005; The Draft Pure Food (Food Control) Regulation 2009; Consumer Protection Act 1995; Pesticides Regulations 1982 under the Safety at work Act 1982; and the Poisons Act 1941.

The Environment and Conservation as the Focal Point has a permanent staff that oversee the biosafety development as part of their responsibility. This is similar to relevant ministries and organisation in mainstreaming biosafety. This is expected to have effects on budgetary allocation for the implementation of the biosafety framework.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • No
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
The current relevant instrument for implementation of Article 5 is the Health Act 1980 and its regulation 1981. There is a provision for regulating food and drugs as well as offensive trades. This can be used as a basis  to regulate pharmaceutical or  genetically modified pharmaceutical from future review as it will be deemed relevant for the current administerative setup.

There is still lack of capacity to detect and assess pharmaceutical genetically motified organisms, and monitored its transboundry movement. As such information available for reporting is also limited.
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?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
There is no specification on regulating the transit and contained use of LMOs. This is expected to be covered in the newly proposed Biosecurity Bill 2011. The current arrangement might or not allow possible transit because of lack of specification for refusal and guidelines for contained use. Improving existing knowledge of biosafety and by having biosafety framework will play a vital part in guiding the implementation of Article 6.
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • No
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:
The existing relevant biosafety instruments are not specific on AIA and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment. Hence, they are very general in scope and nature. However, they offer opportunities for mainstreaming biosafety issues into existing legislations which draft framework envisages as the right approach.

Similarly, administration of matters relating to Article 7-10 can be accomodated within existing administrative arrangement and/or mechansims. A similar approach has been incorporated and adopted in the Protected Areas Act Regualtions for the Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) arising from utilisation of biodiversity. The functions of decision making bodies can be broadened with amendments to relevant legal instruments.
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:
There is no specific law for LMOs intended for direct use for food or feed and processing. As such, procedures for making decison and imposing requirements are currently lacking in existing legal and regulatory mechanisms or arrangements. Possible review of relevant existing biosafety instruments could be the basis for mainstreaming these issues and for effective implementation.
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:
Mechanism and procedure for making decision or for possible review as far as intentional transboundary movement of LMOs is concern will be in accordance with the draft framework proposal. For such procedures to be effective and easy to implement, the framework recognises that they must be consistent with other decision-making mechanisms as required for Articles 7-10 above. Conditions and procedures for review and revoking of decisions is to be considered under the implementation of Article 12. At the moment, there is very limited undertaking to this requirement.
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:
Simplified procedure for intentional transboundry movement of LMOs will be part of the proposed system for assessment, permitting and enforcement. While it is important to have in place the checks and balances needed to ensure safe intentional transboundary movement of LMOs, the system should also be easy to implement.
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:
There are no direct bilateral, regional and multilateral arrangement or agreement made to deal with the transboundry movement of LMOs. Other similar arrangements are in place but they are more concerned with other issues such as transboundry movement of hazardous materials such as wastes, organics pollutants and wildlife.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • No
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?
  • No
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?
  • None
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • No
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:
Requirements under Article 15 will be implemented after the finalisation of the draft framework. To address this Article effectively, the draft framework recognises and identified the need for the establishment of authority and technical body to develop necessary guidelines and undertake necessary assessment process.
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?
  • No
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:
There are no risk management measures in place, partly because of lack of capacity to undertake such exercises. Although the recommended approach would be to engage relevant partners to assist, it is required under the draft framework that managing risks associated with the GMOs shall be the responsibility of the applicants (the importer or the exporter in this case).

Management plan developed for this purpose will reflect the recommendation of the risk assessment taking into consideration other related legislations, policies and management plans either at the national, provincial or local level and internationally.  Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation shall be made against the management plan and any such  agreement entered into as part of the license conditions.
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
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:
Most cases of unintended transbountary movements and emergency measures are addressed mostly on adhoc basis. Strenthening the responsibility of competent authorities under this new arrangement will be important for the establishment of necessary mechanisms. In the absence of any operational mechanisms, it is expected for Environment and Conservation Division to deal with any suspicions of occurrences of GMO in the Solomon Islands for further verifications.
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?
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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 is a very limited capacity within the Quarantine and Customs Division for handling, transport, packaging and identification of transboundry movement of GMOs. Necessary guidelines and legal requirement needs to be developed to ensure full implementation of requirements under Article 19.
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?
  • No
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, some 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?
  • No
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:
Environment and Conservation Division(ECD) under the Ministry of Environment, climate change, Disaster risk management and Meteorology (MECDM) remains the Focal Point overseeing biosafety. The Director, ECD is the Focal Point who undertake secretariat role and correspondances with regards to biodiversity matters and for this purpose, the biosafety issues.

The two major competent Authorities are the Ministry of Agriculture,through the  Quarantine Division and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. These agencies will play a critical role in overseeing the implementation of biosafety framework. However there are other agencies whose technical support will be required to undertake such activities as research and risk assessments. The competent authorities are required to work with the Environment and Conservation Division whenever occurrences of LMOs are reported.
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 not 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 but not 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 not available
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
124.i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information not available
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
124.k) Final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.l) Final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks (Article 11, paragraph 4) or in accordance with annex III (Article 11, paragraph 6) (requirement of Article 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information not available
124.m) Declarations regarding the framework to be used for LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 6)
  • Information 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 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?
  • 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:
Relevant information on legislations relating to biosatety are available with respective agencies administering them but not in the BCH. A draft Biosafety Framework is being developed and is expected to be finalised soon and made available to the BCH.

Appointment for Competent Authorities and establishment of this  undertsanding is expected after the formalisation of the new framework. This should also be made available to BCH as soon as agreed and endorsed.

Information on LMOs affairs, i.e reports, decisions,declarations and status might not be available and accessible thus marked not available for the purpose of this report .

Mechanism for strengthening BCH National Focal Point depends on opportunities and coordination for relevant officers to attend.

The proposed administrative system and its component constituents including its decision making process, risk assessment and risk management are set in a way to fulfil information sharing.

The National Biosafety Committee (NBC) that constitutes of representatives of GOs, NGOs and financial institutions including academic institutions serves as the local clearing house. It is designed to provides advice to the focal point in the process of approving permits and other matters relating to Biosafety issues. The NBC shall constitute of appointed officers from the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management & Meteorology, Ministry of Agriculture and livestock, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Ministry of Health, Ministry of finance, Ministry of Development. Including World Fish Centre, Kastom Garden, University of the South Pacific/the Solomon Islands College of Higher Education.
Article 21 – Confidential information
132. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • No
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 no set procedure(s) to protect confidential information under the protocol. This is expected to be established under the developed framework.
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?
  • Regional 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
143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
  • No
146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
  • Yes
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
  • Technology transfer
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to 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?
  • No
150. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 22 in your country, including further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds:
Capacity building needs is necesary as far as Solomon Islands is concern. There is very little being done to implement activities under this Article due to capacity constraints.

-There is one inaugural training course undertaken in 2005 supported by UNDP and organised in collaboration with University of Canterbury and New Zealand Institute of Gene Technology.  The training is mainly to build capacity and get stakeholders to broader knowledge for the development of national biosafety framework.

- Capacity needs indicated above are Solomon Islands priorities to effectively respond to threats posed by LMOs; although capacity building in those areas need to be done overtime. There hasn't been any capacity development in above areas before.

- The National Capacity Self Assessment report 2008 and a National Capacity Development Action Plan 2008-2012 identifies capacity building as exteremely important needs and priorities for Solomon Islands. Biosafety capacity development needs can easily be accommodated with the other priority needs idenfitied in the reports mentioned above.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
151. Has your country established a strategy or put in place legislation for promoting and facilitating public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • No
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • No
153. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • No
159. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country consulted the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs and made the results of such decisions available to the public?
  • None
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
Public awareness and participation remains one of the challenges for implementation. Also,effecting public participation in making decisions is a challenge. Thus having a mechanism for reaching decisions on issues regarding LMOs is important. This is yet to be established.

Mainstreaming LMOs knowledge like introducing it in the formal education system and developing simplified education materials for knowledge and awareness among rural population is important for the implementation of Article 23. Opportunities to realise this exist through the environmental management courses offered in the tertiary training institution in the country.

Mechanisms and processes for decision making as well as accessing decisions regrading LMOs is outlined under the draft framework being developed for Solomon Islands. It is expected to be implemented upon the finalisation of the framework.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
166. If your country is not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, has it contributed information to the BCH on LMOs released in, or moved into, or out of, areas within its national jurisdiction?
  • Not applicable
167. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
There are very limited  or no cases of contact with non parties as envisaged in this Article. As such, the implementation of Article 24 is only limited or hardly existent.
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?
  • 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:
The draft biosecurity bill 2011 may provide for illegal transboundry movement issues.Specification on LMOs is expected to be one of the focuses of this instrument.  During this reporting period, there is unknown cases, maybe due to lack of proactive means to detect and inform of such movements.
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • No
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • No
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
The process for considerations of soci economic attributes relating to LMOs is one of the important elements recognised by and outlined in the draft framework. This should always be relied upon when planning to import LMOs. Especially the socio economic effect and the impact it will have on the environmet and resource owners and users or human health. This will be strengthened after the formalisation of the framework.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • No
181. Here you may provide further details on any activities undertaken in your country towards the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress:
Some brief discussions have been done with relevant authorities in Solomon Islands about Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol. Necessary submissions will be prepared to pave the way for the Protocol to be ratified as early as Mid 2012. Development of a biosafety law is particularly important for the Cartagena Protocol and its supplementary protocol.
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
  • Lack of full time staff to coordinate and carry ot this work.
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.
There are many challenges faced resulting in the lack of submission of the first report and or an interim repport. Some of the challenges faced are:

-Lack of human capacity, i.e full time staffs to coordinate and carry out the reporting requirements

-Limited budgetary allocation to support necessary activities.

Re: Q. 14 -

The Solomon Island has ratified the Convention of Biological Diverty (CBD) on 3rd October 1995. In addition to the umbrella agreement, the CBD elaborates its obligations relating to biosafety in the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety ("the Biosafety Protocol").   Solomon Islands ratified and signed the Cartagena Protocal on Biosafety to the CBD in 2004, 4 years after its adoption by CBD COP in 2000.

As a Party to the Convention, Solomon Islands has a draft National Biosafety framework and is in the process of finalising the reprot soon. The project is funded by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF) to enable the Solomon Islands Government meet its obligations under the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The project however was delayed due administrative and capacity issues until 2011.

Re: Q. 15 - Also, Only a draft framework exists
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 report is done by the focal point, Environment Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Mnagement and Meteorology with close consultation with relevant stakeholders. And due to challenges with limited human resource capacity and time faced to complete other works, the compilation of this report yet faced other issues such as:

-Limited information and data available.

-Financial limitation.

-Time constraint for further stakeholder and public consulation and contribution.
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
  • 2012
Here you may provide further details
As far as the Ministry of Environment is concerned, we are not aware of any additional funding to have been mobilised by this agency.
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • None
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • No
Survey 6. How much additional funding (in the equivalent of US dollars) has your country mobilized in the last four years to support implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, beyond the regular national budgetary allocation?
indicator 1.2.5
  • No funds mobilized
Survey 7. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
indicator 1.2.6
  • No
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
Here you may provide further details
The Ministry of Agriculture has been conducting risk assessment under its Quarantine Act for certain animal imports or specimens into the country. Training in risk assessment and management for relevant officials is therefore necessary.
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
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
The Agriculture ministry may have adopted such approaches when conducting its risk assessment.
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
Here you may provide further details
I am not aware of any such assessment being conducted in the country.
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
  • No
Survey 13.b) Assess
  • No
Survey 13.c) Monitor
  • No
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
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
I cannot confirm the level of details put into risk assessment in the country, say by Ministry of Agriculture because I have not seen any of their previous risk assessment reports.
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Basically the country has not technical capacity and resources to do this.
Survey 19. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.3
Survey 19.a) Risk assessment
  • One or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • One or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • One or more
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • No
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
  • No
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
  • No
Here you may provide further details
The country has not produced any training materials and technical guidance on risk assessment and management, although it may depend on other international guidance.
Survey 23. How many customs officers in your country have received training in the identification of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • None
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • None
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • No
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
  • 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
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
  • No
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • N/A
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
  • None
Survey 35. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system?
indicator 3.1.6
Survey 35.a) Monitoring system
  • No
Survey 35.b) Enforcement system
  • No
Survey 36. Please indicate the number of regional, national and international events organized in relation to biosafety (e.g. seminars, workshops, press conferences, educational events, etc.,) in the last 2 years.
indicator 4.3.1
  • None
Survey 37. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year.
indicator 4.3.2
  • None
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • N/A
Survey 39. How many collaborative initiatives (including joint activities) on the Cartagena Protocol and other Conventions and processes has your government established in the last 4 years?
indicator 5.2.1
  • None
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • No
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • No
Survey 43. Please indicate the number of educational materials on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public.
indicator 5.3.4
  • None