Solomon Islands | BCH-NR3-SB-113021 | Third National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety | Biosafety Clearing-House

Loading...
Third National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (NR3)
  |  
BCH-NR3-SB-113021-1   |   PDF   |   Print   |  
last updated: 22 Jan 2018
General Information


Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock(Biosecurity Divsion), Ministry of Health & Medical Services, Solomon Islands National University(Research & Faculty of Natural Resoources), Ministry of Forests & Research), Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources(Research & Aquaculture Division), Kastom Kaden Association, Taiwanese Technical Mission to Solomon Islands & Ecological Solution of Solomon Islands(ESSI)
EN

01 Jan 2011
31 Dec 2017
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Yes
EN
Article 2 – General provisions
A domestic regulatory framework is partially in place
EN
2013
EN
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
Yes, to some extent
EN
An operational & recurrent budget annually approved under Environment & Conservation Division(Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management & Meteorology), Biosecurity Division(Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock) is most appropriate for implementing national biosafety famework.
EN
Yes
EN
One
EN
Partially
EN
Solomon Islands National Biosafety Framework was developed in 2011 and was finalised in 2012. It was operational around in late 2013.. Although it has to go through cabinet for final approval, practically it is operational and been consulted upon finalisation.<br />One of the country's biosafety most related activity in implementing article 2 is the development of Solomon Islands Biosecurity Act 2013. A result the Framework ongoing implementation and operation to mainstream biosafety into practical policy approaches, legal and administerative measures. <br />Other related legal instruments developed and reviewed is&nbsp; Environmental Act 1998 and Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998. The former is under review and should capture areas on developments and monitoring biosafety &amp; related processing facilities while the later was successfully amended this year 2017. The amendment is specific on scientific authorities which would be useful as competent authorities in implementing the cartegena protocal. <br />Other existing related legal instruments as reported previosly includes the Protected Areas Act 2010 and Regulation 2011 which are administered and enforced by the Environment and Conservation Division .&nbsp; The revised Agriculture and Livestock Act 1982 being overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. The Health Act 1980 and its regulation 1981 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 />The Environment and Conservation(Competent Authority) as the Focal Point has a permanent staffs who can response directly to biosafety issues and oversee its implementation.<br />
EN
Article 5 - Pharmaceuticals
Yes, to some extent
EN
There are existing instruments like the Biosecurity Act 2013 that can mainstream regulation of LMOs, invasive and other pesticides not coverd under Pesticides Regulations 1982.
EN
Partially
EN
In implementing Article 5, some of the existing issues under the importation and management of chemical products and biosafety pharmaceuticals include:<br />• Limited overall oversight and control for such chemicals imported into the Solomon Islands<br />• Limited of clarity on the different roles and responsibilities for chemical or pharmaceutical management by the existing stakeholders, including government, private sector and public users<br />• There is yet need for approved standards for different products and/or a lack of enforcement of those standards in combination with a lack of overall oversight meant that chemical products were entering the country without proper labels and instructions<br />• Limited effort in registration and tracking of chemicals following importation, including where, when or how chemicals are transported, stored, used or disposed of.<br />• Existance of knowledge gaps within the general population on the risks posed by certain developments, activities, practices and substances. While there is general concern for environmental protection and pollution prevention, these concerns are typically outweighed by the need for economic development.<br />• Need for improvemnet of regulation for chemical storage and transport.<br />• There is a shortage of local waste disposal options, including chemical disposal etc.<br />Note also that the import, sale, supply and use of pharmaceuticals, drugs and poisons are regulated by the Ministry of Health and Medical Service (MHMS) under the Pharmacy an Poisons Act 1941 and regulations and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1941 although mainstreaming of biosafety in pharmecuticals remain at large.<br /><br />
EN
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
Yes, to some extent
EN
Biosecurity Act 2013 has provide an opportunity to cater for implementing this requirement.
EN
No
EN
No
EN
An existing legal instrument that can be ammended to implement Article 6(in regulating the transit of LMOs) is the Biosecurity Act 2013. However, the existing capacity limitations at the national level can also be a challenge regulate the transit of LMOs. Ability of responsible authorities to detect, monitor, report(prior) and handle transit LMOs remains outstanding. Let alone existing need to develop specification for regulating the transit and contain use of LMOs.<br />The current arrangement might not also allow possible transit because of lack of specification for refusal and guidelines for contain use. Improving the knowledge of biosafety and the existence of biosafety framework is important to guide the implementation of Article 6.<br /><br />
EN
Articles 7 to 10 – Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
None
EN
None
EN
There is no specific law and also existing relevant biosafety instruments are not specific on AIA and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment. However, with it offer opportunities for mainstreaming biosafety in existing legislations with current framework approach. <br />Similarly administration of matters relating to Article 7-10 can be accomodated by the existing arrangement and or proposed committee for reaching decisions. These can be referred to by relevant reviewed legal instruments for establishment of legal procedures etc. <br />With limitations at the national level, sourcing external support is necessay and having LMOs issues and its negative impacts on society(socially, economically &amp; environmnetally) realised is important to garner support to address these issues. At the moment these requirements are slow to progress but will be surely in focus as developments continues. <br /><br />
EN
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
No
EN
Currently, there is no specific laws and regulations but again there are opportunities for amendments to capture this particular issue on LMOs FFP in the Biosecurity Act 2013, Wildife protection and Management 1998(Amendmnet 2017) and the Environment Act 1998 which is currently under review. <br />Anticipation of such initiative, especially in sectors responsible of LMOs FFP is also low due to technical capacities in the country, limited case of LMOs FFP and need for improved knowledge in this field.<br />The indication of "No changes since the previous report" indicates the slow progress in operationalising the National Framework due to the national process of addressing priority issues. Let alone the limited capacity of responsible authorities to undertake those programmes.<br />As previously reported there is no specific law for LMOs intended for direct use for food or feed and processing but there are opportunity to amend extisting laws to cater for LMOs FFP.&nbsp; <br />
EN
Article 12 – Review of decision
Yes, to some extent
EN
With Biosecurity Act 2013 in place, there are provisions that enables the Director to consult for decision review or make changes in relation to international movement of exotic species including invasives and GMOs.
EN
No
EN
No
EN
None
EN
The limited experience with review of decision under articles 12 hinges on cases available to undergo such progress. This is yet to be traced to the internal capacity to intercept and respond to such cases which in longer terms demands implementation of this article.<br />Since the last reporting, there is no report of cases which undergo a review process therefore most of activity under this articles remains the same as the last reporting.<br /><br />
EN
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
Yes, to some extent
EN
As per the National Framework existing system and focal points should set the procedure for processing applications.
EN
No
EN
None
EN
Simplified procedure for intentional transboundry movement of LMOs slowly progressing due to non availability of LMOs cases to be applied through a proposed simplified procedure.<br /><br />
EN
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
No
EN
There are no direct bilateral, regional and multilateral arrangement or agreement been made to deal purposely with the transboundry movement of LMOs. Although there are number of relevant agreements have been signed for the purpose of restricting transboundry movement of materials such as wastes, pollutant organics and wildlife speciemen etc.&nbsp; <br />Since biosafety is an emerging issue the preassessment and arrangement is slowly progressing around the need to improve institutional capacities. There are opportunities having national institutions such as Solomon Islands National University(SINU) and regional organisations(technical institutions) such as the Secretarait of the Pacific Community(SPC) who can assist during this process.<br />
EN
Articles 15 & 16 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Yes, to some extent
EN
National Biosafety Framwork 2012 remains overaching for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions on LMOs.
EN
No
EN
One or more
EN
One or more
EN
One or more
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
n/a
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
Risk assessment is outline in the National Biosafety Framework but is yet to be yielded. Generally,although there are need for risk assessment, the consequence of such risk is invisible or not of immediate concern hence these gaps.<br />Also necessary risk management measures is not 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 />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 nationally, provincially or locally/customary or internationally.&nbsp; Monitoring, measuring or evaluation of the implementation shall made against the management plan and the agreement made at the point of license issues. <br />
EN
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
Yes, to some extent
EN
With the Biosecurity Act 2013, there are some measure in place for relavent biosaftey cases.
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Internal understanding in place, especially amongst relevant authorities with the enforcement of Biosecurity Act 2013 and the Wildlife Protection and Managemnet Act1998(Amendmnet 2017) to fully implement the CITES.
EN
No
EN
Never
EN
Most cases of unintended transbountary movements and emergency measure is addressed on adhoc undertakings only. Strenthening the responsibility of competent authorities under this new arrangement will be important for the establishment of necessary mechanisms. On temporary bases,any suspicions of the occurrences of GMO in the Solomon Islands is to be forwarded to Environment Conservation Division for further verifications.
EN
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
Yes, to some extent
EN
The Biosecurity Act 2013 would be the most relevant existing legal instrument that will be reviewed to take into consideration transboundary movement of LMOs&nbsp;
EN
No
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Existing or a stand-alone document
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
One or more
EN
No
EN
One or more
EN
No
EN
None
EN
The most relevant existing legal instrument that can be reviewed to implement and enforce <br />handling, transport, packaging and identification of LMOs is the Biosecurity Act 2013 under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Parts 2 of the Act provides for border control and strengthening while Parts 4 &amp; 5&nbsp; covers import and export procedures respectively. <br />With regards to LMO FFP is the limited awareness and capacity to monitor and address its movement and availability in the country. Especially the very limited capacity within responsible authories of Biosecurity(Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock), Ministry of Commerce, Industry, Labour and Immigration, Customs Division(Ministry of Finace and Treasurery) and Ministry of Environmnet, Climate Change, Disaster Managemnet &amp; Meteorology(MECDM) itself. <br />Limited capacity and unavailability of governance and decision making structure at the national level has extended limitation to monitoring(including documentation &amp; identification of LMOs), specialised training for LMO identification and support for establishment of laboratories. <br /> Necessary guidelines and legal requirement needs to be developed to ensure full implementation of requirements under Article 19.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
EN
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
Yes
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Officers within Environment and Conservation Division were appointed to faciliate and coordinate implemenation of cartagena protocol.
EN
Since the second national report, the national competent authority remains with Environment and Conservation Division(ECD) under the Ministry of Environment, climate change, Disaster risk management and Meteorology (MECDM). The Director, ECD remains the Focal Point with assistance to undertake secretariat role and correspondances with regards to biodiversity matters were provided by appointed(delegated) Conservation Officers.<br />The three other competent Authorities were identified which includes the Ministry of Agriculture and livestock through the&nbsp; Biosecurity Division, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and the Ministry of Forests and Research. These agencies were implicated in the Wildlife Management and Protection Act(amendment 2017) which would indirectly contributes to biosafey issues. Especially in building&nbsp; their capacities to undertake important roles such as research and risk assessments.<br />As previously reported, these competent authorities were responsible for the technical need of the country. Capacities of some of these authorities are improving overtime considering needs at the national level. Having biosafety issues a priority of the country will definetly mainstream biosafety and provide to build capacity at the national level to adequately implement cartegena protocol.&nbsp; <br />
EN
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information not available
EN
Information available but only partially available in the BCH
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
BCH National Focal Points has all the opportunities to attend trainings at national and regional level is the understanding.
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Information regarding above are coordinated and made available to relevant competent national authorities.
EN
Yes, in some cases
EN
Yes
EN
Limited stable internet connection
EN
Yes
EN
One or more
EN
10 or more
EN
  • 5B6177DD-5E5E-434E-8CB7-D63D67D5EBED (N/A)
Limitation to cordinate at the national level to stocktake and monitor biosafety related onground issues is important for updating BCH in the country. And especially with regards to publishing decisions, this was undermined due to limited capacity to monitor and report on biosafety issues etc.<br />Limited efficient internet access is also a contributing factor to delays in managing BCH at the national level. This is especially true for internal coordination and sharing by various stakeholders or competent authorities to update and share infomration.<br />Having a biosafety project officer to implement cartegena protocal or initiate the progress of BCH in countries(with human resource need) is important to update and coordinate information and provide necessary reporting.<br /><br />
EN
Article 21 – Confidential information
No
EN
Yes, always
EN
This might also hinges on the fact that confidential information under the Protocol is yet to be a pressing issue at the national level. This is also true of the notifier identifying information that is to be treated as confidential. Procedures to protect such confidential information is still at large and expected to improve overtime.
EN
Article 22 – Capacity-building
Yes
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
The country receives trainings at national and regional level which are helpful to the development and strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities of the responsible competent authorities.
EN
Regional channels
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Mainly through sub regional networking and sharing during workshop on reated iussues on biosafety, invasive species and other threats to the biodiversity and environment.
EN
Regional channels
EN
Yes
EN
Average
EN
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
Yes, to some extent
EN
This is because of limited resources, our trainings are basically crosscutting and should cater for biosafety.&nbsp;
EN
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
No
EN
Yes
EN
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Handling of confidential information
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Less than 1 per year
EN
No
EN
With National Capacity Self Assessment report 2008 and a National Capacity Development Action Plan 2008-2012 as reported previosuly , there were number of trainings and capacity building programs has been implemented. <br />Although there is no specific trainging on Biosafety was conducted in the country, the general capacity of the national authority has improved from various related training programs. The need though is to mainstream the biosafety and plan specific trainings because of the onground needs. It must be acknowledged that training should be done in consideration of infrastructure(material and equipments) availability at the national level. <br /><br />
EN
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
Yes, to some extent
EN
There are ongoing awareness during World Environment Day annually which dessiminate information on biodiversity, biosafety and invasives as amongst emerging issues of concern to Solomon Islands.
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management &amp; Meteorology(MECMD) in collaboration with partners and NGOs
EN
No
EN
One or more
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Public access is promoted through awareness as indicated above.
EN
No
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
No
EN
No
EN
One or more
EN
One or more
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Education materials which cover genral informations on wildlife trade, Invasive species managemnet and LMOs has been dessimanted to the Public during events like the World Environment Day celebrated annually.
EN
No
EN
Not applicable
EN
Public awareness and participation remains an overall challenge considering the level of public knowledge and experiences with LMOs and its issue. <br />Mainstreaming LMOs knowledge like introducing it in the formal education system with oppourtunites at Solomon Islands National University(SINU) and developing simplified education materials for knowledge and awareness amongst public is important for the implementation of Article 23. <br />Mechanisms and processes for decision making as well as accessing decisions regrading LMOs as outlined in National Biosafety Framework 2013 is a base to be consulted overtime.&nbsp; <br />
EN
Article 24 – Non-Parties
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
There are very limited&nbsp; or no case of having contacts with non parties at the national level over LMOs and its movements.
EN
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
Yes, to some extent
EN
Biosecurity Act 2013 is currently enforced via the Ministry&nbsp; of Agriculture and livestock (MAL)and is an opportunity and could be of relevance.
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
There is understanding amongst agencies such as Biosecurity, Customs, Police and other releavnt Government Ministries suc as Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry etc to exchange and consult on detecting possible illegal transboundary movement of LMOs.
EN
Never
EN
The Biosecurity Act 2013 may provide for illegal transboundry movement issues, specifically on biosecurity issues(pests &amp; invasives etc) and this can be an interim measure to implementing Artcile 25.Specification on LMOs is expected to be based on emerging issues that the country would faced and in attempting to rationalise considering socio-economic of the country.&nbsp; During this reporting period, there is unknown cases, maybe due to lack of proactive means to detect and inform of such movements.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
EN
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
No
EN
Not applicable
EN
None
EN
There is yet very limited awareness and understanding of surrounding LMOs and it's socio economic impacts on people's livelihood, health and the environmnet at large which can be applied in decision making at the national level(&amp; especially when importing products).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
EN
No
EN
The process for considerations of socio economic attributes was outlined in the National Biosafety Framework 2008 and should always be consulted(on relevant stakeholders) when intending to import LMOs. Especially the socio economic effect and the impact it will has on the environmet and resource owners and users. This will be strengthen after the formalisation of the framework.
EN
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
No
EN
Yes
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
The process for ratification, acceptance and approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur is in progress, especially the national consutlation, cabinet approval and preparation of instruments by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade(MFAET). Further development on liability and redress will be updated on BCH accordingly.
EN
Article 28 – Financial Mechanism and Resources
5,000 USD or more
EN
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
No
EN
  • Lack of relevant information at the national level
Other information
There remain many challenges since the submission of the second national report which also prolongs this third national report submission. Some of the outstanding challenges faced are:<br />-Limited human resources, i.e staffs with Biosafety focus scope(job description) to coordinate and carry out the reporting requirements<br />-Limited budgetary allocation to prioirty issues, concerns and activities only&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <br />In terms of implementation of the Cartegena Protocol, the issue of biosafety remain invisible in many aspects. Immediate effects and impacts of biosaftey is not quantified and visible as a cause. Its issue is not fully researched and linked to certain health, environment, social and economic issue that would become a major concern at the national level compare to issue of biosecurity, e.g rhinocerous cocount beetle, african giant snails etc. Therefore biosafety programme is slow to be implemented. It was recommended with financial assistance, this can be promoted and support governmnet institutions and experts to undertake studies on bisafety issues, allowing for promoting issues for rectification.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <br />
EN
Comments on reporting format
This report was produced bythe focal point, Environment Conservation Division(ECD), Ministry of Environment ,Climate Change, Disaster Mnagement and Meteorology(MECDM) with close consultation with relevant stakeholders listed above. 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:<br />-Limited information and data available.<br />-Financial limitation.<br />-Time constraint for further stakeholder and public consulation and contribution.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
EN