| | english | español | français |
Go to record ID

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Third National Report on the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Record information and status
Record ID
109137
Status
Published
Date of creation
2015-11-03 09:36 UTC (sarah.cundy@defra.gsi.gov.uk)
Date of publication
2015-11-03 09:36 UTC (sarah.cundy@defra.gsi.gov.uk)

Origin of report
1. Country
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Ms Sarah Cundy
Head of GM policy and regulation
Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Nobel House 17 Smith Square
London
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, SW1P 3JR
Phone:+442072384223
Email:sarah.cundy@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Animal and Plant Health Agency
Devolved Governments of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
Food Standards Agency
Health and Safety Executive
Submission
10. Date of submission
2015-11-03
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2011-09-01
11. Time period covered by this report
End date
2015-10-31
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
14. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 3.1.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • A domestic regulatory framework is fully in place
15. If you indicated that a national biosafety framework exists in the above question, when did it become operational?
This question is relevant to the indicator 1.1.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 2001 or earlier
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • One or more national biosafety laws
  • One or more national biosafety regulations
  • One or more sets of biosafety guidelines
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
18. Does your country have permanent staff to administer functions directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
19. If you answered Yes to question 18, how many permanent staff members are in place whose functions are directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Less than 5
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country
See the EU report for applicable Regulations and Directives. The UK has introduced domestic legislation to implement EU legislation relating to GMOs as follows:
Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) is the primary legislation giving general powers and responsibilities to control the deliberate release of GMOs in Britain.
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 (SI 2443/2002, as amended by SI 2411/2002); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 541/2002, as amended by SSI 439/2004); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 3188/2002, as amended by SI 1913/2005); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SI 167/2003, as amended by SI 206/2003 and SI 272/2005)
- The Genetically Modified Animal Feed (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2334/2004); The Genetically Modified Animal Feed (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 433/2004); The Genetically Modified Animal Feed (Wales) Regulations 2004 (SI 3221/2004); The Genetically Modified Animal Feed Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004 (SI 386/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Food (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2335/2004); The Genetically Modified Food (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 432/2004); The Genetically Modified Food (Wales) Regulations 2004 (SI 3220/2004); The Genetically Modified Food Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004 (SI 385/2004)
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movement) (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2692/2004); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 316/2005); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movement) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 1912/2005); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Transboundary Movements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (SI 209/2005)
-  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2412/2004); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 438/2004); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 1914/2005); The Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (SI 271/2005) 
- The Genetically Modified Organisms (Containded Use) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1663)                                                  
Article 5 - Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes
23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Yes
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
Under Regulation EC/726/2004, any medicinal product consisting of or containing a GMO must be assessed in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, which has been implemented in the UK via SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2003 [Northern Ireland].
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.8.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.1.2 and 1.8.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Yes
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms has been implemented in GB as the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1663). In Northern Ireland, this is currently implemented by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (SI 295/2001, as amended by SI 524/2006 and SI 343/2012).
Article 6 refers to arrangements for transit of LMOs. i.e., LMOs not covered by the advanced information agreement. EU regulation 1946/2003 indicates that there are no additional provisions relating to transport required above the existing legislation related to the transport of dangerous goods. This is the European Agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road (ADR 2015).  This is implemented in GB as the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/1348), with equivalent regulations in Northern Ireland.
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 OR a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
30. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
31. If you answered Yes to question 30, does the mechanism also apply to cases of intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment that were not subject to transboundary movement?
  • Yes
32. Has your country established legal requirements for exporters under its jurisdiction to notify in writing the competent national authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of an LMO that falls within the scope of the AIA procedure?
  • Yes
33. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • Yes
34. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
35. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
38. 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
39. 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
46. 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
Regarding import for introduction to the environment, see the EU report for details; the authorisation procedure is applicable throughout the whole of the EU.  
For deliberate release into the environment (such as field trials), authorisation is granted from the national competent authority. Authorisation is issued on a case-by-case basis following a risk assessment and is applicable to the national territory.
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
47. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
48. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • Yes
49. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
50. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
51. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity-building in respect of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
52. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • No
58. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 11 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs-FFP
The UK has transposed the EU Regulations on LMOs-FFP that implement Article 11, via:
- SI 2334/2004 [England]; SSI 433/2004 [Scotland]; SI 3221/2004 [Wales]; and SI 386/2004 [Northern Ireland], in relation to the feed aspects of Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003 on the traceability and labelling of gentically modified organisms and the tracebability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending 2001/18/EC.
- SI 2335/2004 [England]; SSI 432/2004 [Scotland]; SI 3220/2004 [Wales]; and SI 385/2004 [Northern Ireland], in relation to the food aspects of Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed.
Article 12 – Review of decision
59. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • Yes
60. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?
  • No
61. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
62. In the current reporting period, how many decisions were reviewed and/or changed regarding an intentional transboundary movement of an LMO?
  • None
66. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 12 in your country
Not applicable; we have not been asked to review a decision.
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
67. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
68. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • No
70. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • None
71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country
The UK has not made use of the simplified procedure for imports of LMOs as specified in Article 13.
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
72. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?
  • No
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 14 in your country
The UK has not entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements as per Article 14(1).
Articles 15 & 16 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management
77. Has your country established a national framework for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
78. If you answered Yes to question 77, does this framework include procedures for identifying and/or training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • Yes
79. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.3 of the Strategic Plan
a) Risk assessment:
  • 100 or more
b) Management / Control:
  • 100 or more
c) Monitoring:
  • 100 or more
80. Is your country using training material and/or technical guidance for training in risk assessment and risk management of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
81. Is your country using the "Manual on Risk Assessment of LMOs" (developed by CBD Secretariat) for training in risk assessment?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
82. Is your country using the "Guidance on Risk Assessment of LMOs" (developed by the Online Forum and the AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management) for training in risk assessment?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
83. Are the currently available training materials or technical guidance on risk assessment and/or risk management of LMOs sufficient?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.6 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
84. Does your country have the capacity to detect, 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?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.4.2 and 1.6.3 of the Strategic Plan
a) Detect:
  • Yes
b) Identify:
  • Yes
c) Assess:
  • Yes
d) Monitor:
  • Yes
85. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of conducting risk assessment or risk management, or for evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
a) Risk assessment:
  • Yes
b) Risk management:
  • Yes
86. Is your country using the "Guidance on Risk Assessment of LMOs" (developed by the Online Forum and the AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management) for conducting risk assessment or risk management, or for evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
87. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
88. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.4.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
89. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO including any type of risk assessment of LMOs, e.g. for contained use, field trials, commercial purposes, direct use as food, feed, or for processing?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.3.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
90. If you answered Yes to question 89, please indicate the scope of the risk assessments (select all that apply):
  • Commercial production
  • Field trial
  • LMOs for Contained use
  • LMOs for direct use as food
  • LMOs for direct use as feed
  • LMOs for processing
91. If you answered Yes to question 89, were the summary reports of the risk assessments submitted to the BCH?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, always
92. If you answered Yes to question 89, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs for direct use as food, feed, or for processing?
  • Yes, always
93. If you answered Yes to question 89, how many risk assessments were conducted in the current reporting period?
  • 10 or less
94. 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
95. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • Yes
96. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
97. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 15 and 16 in your country
Risk Assessment: As a Member State of the EU, the UK has transposed the risk assessment provisions Directive 2001/18/EC via Part VI EPA and SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2003 [Northern Ireland].
Assessment is carried out by the notifier and an evaluated by EFSA and Competent Authorities in the Member States.  In the UK, this function is performed by Defra and the national competant authorities in the Devolved Administrations with advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.
Risk Management: The EU legislative framework provides that the environmental risk assessment described under question 93 should be conducted with a view to identifying if there is a need for risk management.  The UK implements this via part VI EPA and SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2002 [Northern Ireland].
EC directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms sets out the criteria to be included in risk assessments for contained use and Annex 3 of the directive provides guidance on risk assessment. This has been implemented in GB as the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1663) and is supplemented by guidance issued by the Scientific Advisory Committee for Genetic Modification (SACGM) entitled "The SACGM Compendium of Guidance" (http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/acgm/acgmcomp/).
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
98. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
99. 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
100. Does your country have the capacity to take appropriate measures in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.8.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
101. 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
105. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country
Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 1946/2003 provides for measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movement of GMOs and appropriate responses, including emergency measures.  This Regulation is directly applicable in the UK.
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
106. 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
107. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
108. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
109. If you answered Yes or Yes, to some extent to question(s) 107 and/or 108, what type of documentation does your country require for the identification of LMOs-FFP?
  • Existing types of documentation
110. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
111. If you answered Yes or Yes, to some extent to question 110, what type of documentation does your country require for the identification of LMOs that are destined for contained?
  • Existing types of documentation
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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
113. If you answered Yes or Yes, to some extent to question 112, what type of documentation does your country require for the identification of LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Existing types of documentation
114. Does your country have available any guidance for the purpose of ensuring the safe handling, transport, and packaging of living modified organisms?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
115. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • Yes
116. How many customs officers in your country have received training in the identification of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 100 or more
117. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • Yes
118. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 100 or more
119. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
120. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
121. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are currently operating in the detection of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
122. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
The provisions of Article 18 are transposed in the UK via part VI EPA and SI 2443/2002 [England]; SSI 541/2002 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 [Wales]; and SI 167/2002 [Northern Ireland].
The UK has a number of initiatives to check compliance with the requirements of Cartagena in relation to handling, transport, packaging and identification, which includes:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has programme of proactive inspections and interventions in facilities undertaking work with biological agents including genetically modified organisms. One risk control topic that can be inspected is 'transport' including handling, packaging, labelling. In addition, any Class 3 or Class 4 contained uses destined for transboundary movement have to be identified when permission is sought from the Competent Authority to undertake the contained use. This information is provided to the Biosafety Clearing House.
HSE, Public Health England along with transport couriers have provided a one-off training day for staff involved in transport of biological agents attended by 80 participants (March 2011)
HSE and Department for transport has published guidance in relation to transport of biological agents (http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/information.htm; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287775/guidance-note-17.pdf
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
123. In case your country has designated more than one competent national authority, has your country established a mechanism for the coordination of their actions prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
124. 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
125. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country
The European Union and Member States have designated their own competent authorities and focal points. There is close collaboration and information sharing between EU and national administrations.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the competent national authority on the safety of GM food and animal feed, and on GM labelling issues in the UK.
Defra is the competent national authority on the environmental safety of GM organisms and generally on issues to do with GM crops. 
The competent authority responsible for oversight of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014 comprises of the HSE and the Secretary of State for Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for England and Wales, and HSE and the Scottish Ministers for Scotland.
In the Devloved Administrations, competent authorities are:
- Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
- The National Assembly for Wales
- Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland
The national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol and the BCH is the head of GM Policy and Regulation in Defra.
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
126. Please provide an overview of the status of the mandatory 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.
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
a) Existing national legislation, regulations and guidelines for implementing the Protocol, as well as information required by Parties for the advance informed agreement procedure (Article 20, paragraph 3 (a))
  • Information available and in the BCH
b) National laws, regulations and guidelines applicable to the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 5)
  • Information available and in the BCH
c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))
  • Information not available
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
e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information available and in the BCH
g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information available and in the BCH
j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
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
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
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
n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
p) Cases where intentional transboundary movement may take place at the same time as the movement is notified to the Party of import (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information available and in the BCH
q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))
  • Information available and in the BCH
127. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • No
128. 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
129. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • No
130. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
This question is relevant to indicator 4.1.8 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
131. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?
  • Yes
132. 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:
This question is relevant to indicator 4.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 10 or more
133. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year:
This question is relevant to indicator 4.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
134. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred:
This question is relevant to indicator 4.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • National website
135. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country
As the EU Focal Point, the Joint Research Centre supplies information to the Secretariat and BCH on behalf of the UK.
The UK Focal Point and competent authorities supply country-specific information to the Secretariat and BCH on an ad hoc basis as required.
Article 21 – Confidential information
136. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • Yes
137. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • Yes, always
138. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country
Article 21 is dealt with by EU Directive 2001/18/EC, and EC Regulations 1829/2003 and EC Regulation 1946/2003 and transposed in the UK via the legislation detailed in response to question 21. 
Article 22 – Capacity-building
139. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.6 and 3.1.8 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
140. Has your country received external support or benefited from collaborative activities with other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
142. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
144. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • No
147. 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
149. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
151. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.7 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
153. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
154. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
155. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • 5 per year or more
156. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • Yes
157. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 22 in your country, including further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds
The UK has contributed to capacity building initiatives, including significant donations to the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), the leading international agriculture research organisation. One of CGIAR's primary roles is to develop, for use in developing countries, new plant varieties that are more productive and resistant to biotic and abiotic stress.  The UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) are working with CGIAR on a joint programme to improve the productivity and resilience of staple crops important to the poor in developing countries.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
158. 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
159. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
This question is relevant to indicator 5.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
160. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
This question is relevant to indicator 5.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
161. If you answered Yes to question 160, please indicate what entity is responsible for carrying out the programmes and/or services and at which level the programmes take place (e.g. local, national, etc.):
This question is relevant to indicator 5.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
Public consultation at a national level is undertaken in a number of ways including:  the consolidation of the GMO contained use regulations undertaken by HSE (CD263) (http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd263.htm). The scientific advisory committees for GMOs (Scientific Advisory Committee for Genetically Modification (http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/committees/sacgmcu/); and the Advisory Committee for Releases into the Environment ( https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-releases-to-the-environment)) host periodic public open meetings to discuss GMO related matters. The research councils (eg BBSRC, Wellcome Trust) have a number of public engagement exercises on new technologies.
162. Has your country established a biosafety website searchable archives, national resource centres or sections in existing national libraries dedicated to biosafety educational materials?
This question is relevant to indicators 2.5.3 and 5.3.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
163. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 5.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
164. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • Yes
165. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
166. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
167. Has your country informed the public about existing modalities for public participation in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
168. If you answered Yes to question 167, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public:
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • National website
  • Newspaper
  • Forums
  • Mailing lists
169. If you indicated more than one modality for public participation in question 168, which one was most used?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • National website
170. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • No
171. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.7.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 10 or more
172. Please indicate the number of educational materials and/or online modules on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public in your country:
This question is relevant to indicators 2.7.2 and 5.3.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • 25 or more
173. 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
174. If you answered Yes to question 173, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • Yes
175. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country consulted the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs and made the results of such decisions available to the public?
  • More than 5
176. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country
The UK is a Party to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.  This is partly implemented at EU level via Directive 2003/4/EC, which in turn is implemented in the UK via SI3391/2004; and SSI520/2004 [Scotland]. The UK's implementation of the Convention is set out in it's national implementation report.
An amendment to the Aarhus Convention was adopted May 2005 on public participation in the decision-making process for GMOs.  The UK ratified this on 1 May 2009.  The provisions of this amendment are consistent with EU Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation 1829/2003 (transposed to the UK, see question 21).
In addition to activity at EU level, the UK maintains a website which sets out the public participation arrangements under the EU legislation.  Furthermore, the UK keeps a public register of all GMOs which have been approved for use in the EU.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
177. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
178. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
179. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • Yes
180. If you answered Yes to questions 178 or 179, were the transboundary movements of LMOs consistent with the objective of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes
181. If you answered Yes to questions 178 or 179, was information about these transboundary movements submitted to the BCH?
  • Yes, always
183. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
As regards imports of LMOs, the EU applies its domestic legislative framework to all imports of LMOs, whether these originate from parties or non-parties to the Protocol.  EU Regulations are directly applicable to the UK.
As regards exports of LMOs, notification requirements of the exporter to the competent authority of the Party of import established by Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 apply regardless of whether the country of import is a Party or a non-Party to the Protocol. Copies of the respective documents are sent to the Compentent Authority of the Member State from which the GMO is exported and to the  European Commission (Article 6). Since entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 in November 2003, most notifications for LMOs intended for deliberate release related to the export of LMOs for use in small-scale field trials.
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
184. 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
185. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
186. 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?
If you replied Never to question 186 please go to question 191
  • Less than 10
187. If your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO in the current reporting period, has your country informed the BCH and the other Party(ies) involved?
This question is relevant to indicators 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Only the other Party(ies) involved
188. If your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO in the current reporting period, has your country established the origin of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
189. If your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO in the current reporting period, has your country established the nature of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
190. If your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO in the current reporting period, has your country established the circumstances of the illegal transboundary movement(s)?
  • Yes
191. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country
The UK's Environmental Protection Act 1990 prohibits the import, storage, use and release of any LMO which does not have an approval under the EU regulatory regime, and provides for criminal sanctions to enforce this.
In addition, the UK has introduced domestic legislation to enforce EU legislation covering the export of LMOs (SI 2443/2002 and SI 2692/2004 [England], and in the Devolved Administrations - SSI 541/2002 & SSI 316/2005 [Scotland]; SI 3188/2002 & SI 1912/2005 [Wales]; and SI 167/2003 & SI 209/2005 [Northern Ireland]).  This legislation provides for penalties in case of non-compliance with EU legislation.
The UK has experienced a limited number of cases where GM fish have been exported to the UK which are not authorised for marketing or release in the EU.  These cases have been dealt with in conformity with EU regulations.  These cases have not posed any harm to human health or the environment.
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
192. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.7.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
193. 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
194. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.7.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • None
195. What is your country's experience, if any, in taking socio-economic considerations into account in LMO decision making? Please give details:
This question is relevant to indicator 1.7.3 of the Strategic Plan
The UK considers the scientific evidence base when making decisions on LMOs.
196. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Socio-economic considerations do not form part of the UK decision-making process. However, the UK has actively contributed to the work of the European Commission's Socio-Economic Bureau on Socio-Economic Considerations by attending EU-level meetings; contributing to on-line discussions and shaping the framework structure and content of the reference document
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
198. Has your country ratified or acceded to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • Yes
200. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.4.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
201. Does your country have administrative or legal instrument that provide for response measures for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.5.2 and 2.4.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
202. 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
The UK ratified the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress on 17 March 2015.
Article 28 – Financial Mechanism and Resources
203. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Not applicable
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
204. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.6 of the Strategic Plan
a) Monitoring system:
  • Yes
b) Enforcement system:
  • Yes
205. Has your country submitted all the previous due National Reports?
  • Yes
Other information
184. Please use this field to provide any other information on issues related to national implementation of the Protocol, including any obstacles or impediments encountered.
None from the UK
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
The questions where the Party is asked to quantify something, for example the number of customs officers trained in LMO detection or the number of laboratories involved in detection, are not meaningful. The focus should be on whether the resources available are considered to be adequete, there should be no need to quantify the answers.

It should be noted that there are two levels of reporting for the EU and its Member States. One is the national level and the other at the EU level. The EU will provide a separate report.