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.<br />&nbsp; <br />There are number of related legal instruments in place which include&nbsp; 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 .&nbsp; The Agricultural Quarantine Act 1986 and a draft Biosecurity Bill 2011 and&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; 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 &amp; 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.<br /><br />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.

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&nbsp; to regulate pharmaceutical or&nbsp; genetically modified pharmaceutical from future review as it will be deemed relevant for the current administerative setup.<br /> <br />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.

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.

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.<br /><br />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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).<br /> <br />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.&nbsp; Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation shall be made against the management plan and any such&nbsp; agreement entered into as part of the license conditions.

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.

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.

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.<br /><br />The two major competent Authorities are the Ministry of Agriculture,through the&nbsp; 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.

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.<br /><br />Appointment for Competent Authorities and establishment of this&nbsp; undertsanding is expected after the formalisation of the new framework. This should also be made available to BCH as soon as agreed and endorsed.<br /><br />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 .<br /><br />Mechanism for strengthening BCH National Focal Point depends on opportunities and coordination for relevant officers to attend.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 &amp; 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.

There is no set procedure(s) to protect confidential information under the protocol. This is expected to be established under the developed framework.

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. <br /><br />-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.&nbsp; The training is mainly to build capacity and get stakeholders to broader knowledge for the development of national biosafety framework.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />- 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.

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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

There are very limited&nbsp; 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.

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.&nbsp; During this reporting period, there is unknown cases, maybe due to lack of proactive means to detect and inform of such movements.

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.

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.

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:<br /><br />-Lack of human capacity, i.e full time staffs to coordinate and carry out the reporting requirements<br /><br />-Limited budgetary allocation to support necessary activities.<br /><br />Re: Q. 14 -<br /><br />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”).&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Re: Q. 15 - Also, Only a draft framework exists<br />

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.

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.