| | 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
102954
Status
Published
Date of creation
2012-01-03 20:48 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2012-01-03 20:48 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Samoa
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Taulealeausumai Laavasa Malua
Chief Executive Officer
Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment
Private Bag
Apia
Samoa
Phone:+(685) 23800
Fax:+(685) 23176
Email:taulealeausumai.laavasa@mnre.gov.ws
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Government ministries - Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), Ministry of Agriculture-Biosecurity Services, MAF-Fisheries, MAF-Crops Division, MAF-Livestock Division.

Local NGOs - METI

Local Environmental Consulting Companies - Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd (PECL)
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-12-28
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
12. Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
15. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
  • Only a draft framework exists
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • 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)?
  • No
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
A draft Biodiversity Bill, Biosafety (LMOs) Regulations (draft) and National Biodiversity Policy (draft) have been prepared following an inclusive process and is with the Attorney General's Office for final drafting and subsequent submission to Parliament for enactment. In the meantime, the Biosecurity Act 2005 regulates all movement of live animals and plants including cultures, in and out of the country and has guidelines in place for screening and risk assessment.

For Q 19, In the absense of the functioning national biodiversity framework, MAF-Quarantine effectively perform the functions directly related to the national biosafety framework in so far as regulating the entry of all living organisms including cultured germplasm into the country. One exception is pharmaceutical LMOs, which falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.  MAF-Quarantine collaborates with other agencies and institutions notably, MAF-Fisheries, MAF-Livestock, MAF Crops Division, the National University of Samoa and the Scientific Research Organization of Samoa (SROS) on matters related to risk assessments where required expertise is not available within Quarantine. 
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:
There is no evidence of pharmaceutical LMOs being regulated in Samoa. The Ministry of Health (MOH) under the Health Ordinance ___ is assigned this responsibility.  The last LMO survey conducted (2003) reported that there is no official record of the existence of an LMO of any kind in Samoa. No recent survey has since been conducted.
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • Yes
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
  • Yes
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
There is presently no functioning mechanism for specifically determining if LMOs are passing through Samoa's borders. The proposed mechanism for regulating LMO movement including those in transit or contained use are in the draft National Biosafety Framework which is yet to be enacted. In the interim, the Quarantine (Biosecurity) Act 2005 empowers the MAF-Quarantine Division to regulate the importation of all imported living plants and animals including cultures pass but there are no specific requirements for disclosing information such as genetic profiles of imported living organisms to determine if they are LMOs. Living plants and animal germplasm in transit and or for contained use are regulated and treated consistent with existing guidelines of the Biosecurity Act 2005.

The lack of information to indicate whether or not an imported plant or animal germplasm or those in transit are LMOs, means there is no way of knowing if LMOs are crossing Samoa's borders. Existing Biosecurity requirements for information disclosure is limited only to  historical records of pest and diseases associated with the imported LO and does not extent to its genetic profile. Consequently there are officially no LMOs recorded to have passed through Samoa's borders.

There are Quarantine guidelines and procedures for containing intercepted living organisms generally and these procedures apply to all LOs that are intercepted at border control including those in transit.
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:
Samoa has three instruments in draft form only  - the legislation awaiting final legal drafting before submission for Parliamentary approval and enactment into law. These are (i) the Biodiversity Bill, (ii) Biosafety Regulations and the (iii) National Biosafety Policy for Samoa.  Delays in getting these instrument finalized and enacted is partly dueto limited capacity for drafting.

Regarding Questions 29-32, there is no specific instrument yet passed dealing with LMOs but the Quarantine (Biosecurity) Act 2005 effectively performs the regulatory functions for border protection against the importation of all animals and plants including cultured specimens.

For Question 34, limited capacity exists within Forestry for identifying commonly traded exotic timber species that have been improved genetically based on phenotypic characteristics and using information on genetic improvement provided by the Secretariat for the Pacific Community's Forests and Trees Program. 
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?
  • No
57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • No
63. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 11 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs-FFP:
No additional comments.
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:
The National Competent Authority defined in the draft instruments (NBF) has the authority to grant notification for exemptions and review of decisions. This NCA was convened and activated to guide and contribute to the preparation of the draft biosafety regulation, NBF and Biosafety Policy. It has not been active since these draft instruments were prepared and submitted for Parliamentary approval.
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
72. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
73. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • No
75. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • None
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country:
The NBF is yet to be approved and the NAC has not been re-activated to coordinate NBF implementation.
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 specific bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements for LMOs yet. Samoa however works closely with the Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) who coordinates regional actions on related issues, such as cross border control of invasive species and who provides legal advice on issues related to biosafety.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • 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?
  • No
85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • No
86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?
  • Not applicable
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • Not applicable
90. In the current reporting period, if your country has taken decisions regarding LMOs, how many risk assessments were conducted in the context of these decisions?
  • None
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • Not applicable
92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?
  • No
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
The mechanism and guidelines referred to in Q81 and Q83 are only in draft form and have yet to be formally approved and adopted as part of the draft NBF.

Risk assessments are required as part of the screening process for border control undertaken for all imported living organisms carried out  by the Quarantine Division of MAF as required under the Biosecurity Act 2005. The MAF Quarantine collaborates with other line ministries with the appropriate expertise e.g. MNRE-Forestry, MAF-Fisheries, MAF-Livestock and MAF-Crops Research to undertake risk assessment. But, Quarantine Division has no records of intentionally (or otherwise) imported LMOs nor does it has the capacity to detect LMOs from ordinary living organisms.
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?
  • 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:
Q 94 & 95 were reported in the First National Report to have been fully established. This is only in draft form and have not been formally approved. The answers given above are to indicate the current status which is that the mechanisms have been developed but in draft form only and awaiting formal approval and operationalization.

Samoa is part of a SPREP-led regional initiatives that is coordinating actions against  invasive species in the Pacific Island. There is no specific focus on LMOs but this is the nearest regional cooperation mechanism operating in this region that Samoa is a part of.

Samoa Quarantine Division regulates the entry of all living organisms into the country and there are requirements for advance informed agreements (AIA) for the intentional importation of living plants and animals, but nothing specifically targeting LMOs.

Measures for risk management associated with LMOs are set out in the draft Biosafety regulation, National Biosafety Framework and Biosafety Policy. And while these are still awaiting formal approval and enactment, there has not been any incidences of intentional importation of LMOs or advanced notification that would have triggered or mobilized the designated National Competent Authority into action, even if only informally.                                       
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:
No information concerning occurrences that may have led to the unintentional introduction of LMOs is known to have been received from another country.
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?
  • No
111. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are destined for contained use clearly identifies them as living modified organisms and specifies any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information, including the name and address of the individual and institution to whom the LMO are consigned?
  • No
112. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment of the Party of import, clearly identifies them as living modified organisms; specifies the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of this Protocol applicable to the exporter?
  • No
113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • No
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:
Q.108 - Protocols are provided in the Biosecurity Act  for the safe handling of living organisms in transit including submission of relevant information if in transit for over 24 hours. This requirement applies generally to all living organisms and is not specific to LMO. LMO specific protocols are defined in the draft NBF.
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?
  • No
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
National Focal Point for the Cartagena Protocol is the CEO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. National Focal Point for the BCH is the CEO, MNRE.

The National Competent Authority is defined in the draft NBF. It consists of members drawn from government agencies, private sector, academic institutions and civil society. The agencies and organizations making up the NCA were brought together to play a leading role in the development of the draft NBF and Biosafety Policy between 2003-2004. Since then, the NCA has not since been convened or re-activated.
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 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 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 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?
  • No
126. Has your country established a mechanism for the coordination among the BCH National Focal Point, the Cartagena Protocol focal point, and the competent national authority(ies) for making information available to the BCH?
  • No
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:
There are no further details on the implementation of Article 20.
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:
Procedures addressing Article 21 are set out in the draft NBF. The 'yes' responses to Q 132 and Q133 are with reference to these draft procedures.
Article 22 – Capacity-building
135. Has your country received external support or benefited from collaborative activities with other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
136. If you answered Yes to question 135, how were these resources made available?
  • Multilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?
  • Yes
140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.
  • Average
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Institutional capacity
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
  • 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
148. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
  • No
149. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • No
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • No
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • No
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • Yes
157. In the current reporting period, has your country promoted and facilitated public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
158. If you answered Yes to question 157, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • 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:
For Q 154 and 155, the proposed mechanisms in the draft NBF are yet to be formalized and operationalized. For Q 159, there has not yet been an incidence involving an LMO for which a decision was necessary and which would have required public consultation as required under Article 23 (2) and (3).
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
166. If your country is not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, has it contributed information to the BCH on LMOs released in, or moved into, or out of, areas within its national jurisdiction?
  • Not applicable
167. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
No further details.
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:
There is no record of any LMO related information being received by the Focal Point.  For Q 169, there are no LMO specific measures in place other than the general biosecurity requirements regulating the movement of all living plants and animals including cultured tissues and germplasms. The draft NBF also recommends the development of strategy for detecting the illegal transboundary movements of LMOs. These recommendations have not been implemented. 
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Not applicable
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • No
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
No further information.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • No
181. Here you may provide further details on any activities undertaken in your country towards the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress:
No further information.
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
  • Not applicable
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.
Delays in finalizing the drafting of the Biological Diversity Bill and draft Biosafety Regulation is due to lack of legal drafting expertise and limited capacity of Competent National Authority.

Implementation of the Protocol has also been delayed by (i) the limited qualified personnel within MNRE as the Competent National Authority and (ii) the high turnover of staff, particularly those that previously participated in UNEP BCH funded training.

Re: Q. 14 - Date of signature - 24 May 2000; by ratification, instrument deposited  May 30, 2002.                                                                                
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.
No difficulties encountered in filling this report using this format. The format is simple and clear as it is.