Malawi | BCH-NR4-MW-248065 | Fourth National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety | Biosafety Clearing-House

Loading...
Fourth National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (NR4)
  |  
BCH-NR4-MW-248065-2   |   PDF   |   Print   |  
last updated: 09 Jul 2021
General Information

CHM-NFP-MW-238264-7 National Focal Points Dr. Lilian Chimphepo This document has been updated. This is not the latest published version. Click here to view the latest version of the record.

Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Department of Agriculture and Research Services, Forestry Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM), Malawi Bureau of Standards (MBS), Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA), Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Labour, Lilongwe Wildlife Trust (LWT), Malawi Police Services (MPS), Environmental Affairs Department (EAD), Fisheries Department, National Commission of Science and Technology (NCST), Programme for Biosafety Systems (PBS), Cotton Council of Malawi.
EN

01 Oct 2015
30 Sep 2019
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Yes
EN
Article 2 – General provisions
Article 2 requires each Party to take the necessary and appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement its obligations under the Protocol
National measures are fully in place
EN
  • One or more national biosafety laws
  • One or more national biosafety regulations
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
Yes
EN
Target 14 of the NBSAP focuses on strengthening the level of protection on safe handling, transfer and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse impact on biodiversity taking into account risks to human health. Department of Fisheries that does not allow live exotic fish species into the country. furthermore, there is a requirement by law to label any product that comes into the country indicating whether or not it contains GMO
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Some resources are allocated for monitoring compliance to Biosafety Law and Regulations
EN
Yes
EN
10 or more
EN
No
EN
Although the country has more than 10 members of staff in different institutions that are working on Biosafety, the porous nature of our borders makes it difficult to effectively monitor the entry of living modified organisms. Therefore, more staff are required. There is also need to enhance capacity of the existing members of staff. Apart from the legal framework under the custody of the National Competent Authority, other policies and legislations exist in other institutions that have direct bearing on LMOs entry, production, use and handling in the country.
EN
Article 5 - Pharmaceuticals
Yes
EN
Although the Biosafety Act has provisions for regulating the transboundary movement, handling or use of LMOs which are pharmaceutical, its implementation remains a challenge. the Pharmacy, Medicine and Poisons Board is mandated to regulate pharmaceuticals, the linkages with biosafety is not very clear.
EN
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
The country had taken some decisions concerning importation of LMOs for contained use in 2019 and all the relevant information is available but have not been submitted on the BCH.
EN
Articles 7 to 10 – Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
1 to 4
EN
Yes, always
EN
  • Approval of the import/use of the LMO(s) with conditions (100)
Yes, always
EN
Importation of LMO for confined field trials always approved with conditions.
EN
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
None
EN
Yes
EN
None
EN
Article 12 – Review of decision
Yes
EN
No
EN
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
No
EN
No
EN
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
1 to 4
EN
1. There is an arrangement with PBS to support the country to build capacity in implementation of the biosafety legal framework. 2. The country has an arrangement with NEPAD to support capacity build initiative of the NBRC in biosafety and biotechnology
EN
Articles 15 & 16 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Yes
EN
  • For imports of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment
  • For imports of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing
  • For decisions regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movements for direct use as food or feed, or for processing
  • For imports of LMOs for contained use
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
1 to 9
EN
No
EN
1 to 9
EN
No
EN
1 to 9
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
No
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
The country needs a full training package because the National Biosafety Regulatory Committee has been reconstituted and the new members need to be trained as well. Advances in technologies also means that experts need regular training to get familiarized with new and emerging technologies
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
The country is participating in the Multi-country project aimed at building capacity of Laboratories in LMO testing in support of national biosafety decision making. Two laboratories are participating in this project. The project has procured basic equipment for LMO testing and is going to train lab technicians in LMO sampling and testing.
EN
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements2 and emergency measures
2 In accordance with the operational definition adopted in decision CP-VIII/16, “‘Unintentional transboundary movement’ is a transboundary movement of a living modified organism that has inadvertently crossed the national borders of a Party where the living modified organism was released, and the requirements of Article 17 of the Protocol apply to such transboundary movements only if the living modified organism involved is likely to have significant adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, in the affected or potentially affected States.”
Yes
EN
None
EN
Yes
EN
None
EN
The country need to build more capacity in LMO detection not only for the lab personnel but also the customs staff in all the boarders of the country. Since our boarders are porous there is urgent need to enhance collaboration with all neighboring countries for effective implementation of the protocol.
EN
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Documentation specific for LMOs
EN
Yes
EN
Documentation specific for LMOs
EN
Yes
EN
Documentation specific for LMOs
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
1 to 9
EN
No
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
1 to 9
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
None
EN
The training was done over six year ago and some of the customs officers trained have been transferred hence the need to train the new staff in all the boarders on biosafety and identification of LMOs.
EN
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
Not applicable (only one competent national authority was designated)
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
the National Biosafety Regulatory Committee (NBRC)comprises of representatives from various sectors that are key in biosafety issues. The country under the BCHIII project has trained stakeholders including members of the NBRC on the use of the BCH in finding information, registering and using the BCH to search for resource materials for training on biosafety. furthermore, some of the sectors have nominated focal points which are designated users of the BCH.
EN
Institutions that will be included as national authorized users have been identified and will soon be registered on the BCH
EN
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
Information available and in the BCH
EN
Information available and in the BCH
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information available and in the BCH
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information not available
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information not available
EN
Information available but not in the BCH
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
Yes, in some cases
EN
No
EN
10 to 24
EN
1 to 9
EN
The country has organized several workshop under the Mult-country Project for LMO detection and other meetings supported by partners such as NEPAD and PBS which included refresher trainings on food and feed safety, genome editing and risk assessment among others. Under the LMO detection project the country has produced a newsletter on Biosafety.
EN
Article 21 – Confidential information
Yes
EN
In some cases only
EN
Information is treated as confidential if it is in conformity with the Biosafety Act
EN
Article 22 – Capacity-building
No
EN
Yes
EN
  • Multilateral channels
No
EN
Yes
EN
The country developed a concept to source funding for revision of the Biosafety Act and Regulations from GEF however it was not successful since the funds were inadequate and impact programmes were prioritized.
EN
Difficult
EN
Yes
EN
  • Institutional capacity and human resources
  • Integration of biosafety in cross-sectoral and sectoral legislation, policies and institutions (mainstreaming biosafety)
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Liability and redress
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
  • Institutional capacity and human resources
  • Integration of biosafety in cross-sectoral and sectoral legislation, policies and institutions (mainstreaming biosafety)
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Technology transfer
  • Sampling, detection and identification of LMOs
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Implementation of the documentation requirements for handling, transport, packaging and identification
  • 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
  • Liability and redress
No
EN
Yes
EN
Accessing GEF funds for biosafety activities is a very big challenge.
EN
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
Yes
EN
No
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
The Biosafety Act requires that any person intending to carry out activities involving LMOs has to publish in two common local newspapers to get views from the general public. This is however not adequate thus the need to revised legal provisions under access to information on LMOs in the Biosafety Act or Regulations.
EN
Yes
EN
In draft form but implementable
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
1 to 4
EN
No
EN
1 to 4
EN
No
EN
Yes
EN
Yes, to some extent
EN
Once they have any concerns on proposed activities regarding LMOs, the public can submit their concerns to the Biosafety Registrar and these are taken into consideration during the evaluation of the dossier by the National Biosafety regulatory Committee.
EN
Not applicable (no decisions were taken)
EN
Yes
EN
Under the BCHIII project stakeholders were trained on how they can access information on the Biosafety Clearing House. These stakeholders were drawn from various sectors including Non-Governmental Organizations who directly work with the general public on information sharing
EN
Article 24 – Non-Parties
No
EN
No
EN
No
EN
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements3
3In accordance with the operational definition adopted in decision CP VIII/16, “‘Illegal transboundary movement’ is a transboundary movement of living modified organisms carried out in contravention of the domestic measures to implement the Protocol that have been adopted by the Party concerned”.
Yes
EN
None
EN
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
Yes
EN
Not applicable (no decisions were taken)
EN
None
EN
No
EN
This one of the areas where the country need capacity building and prioritization of the aspects of socioeconomics to be considered.
EN
Article 28 – Financial Mechanism and Resources
100,000 to 499,000 USD
EN
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
Article 33 requires Parties to monitor the implementation of its obligations under the Cartagena Protocol and to report to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on measures taken to implement the Protocol
Yes
EN
Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress
Parties to the Cartagena Protocol that are not yet Party to the Supplementary Protocol are also invited to respond to the questions below
No
EN
Yes
EN
National measures are partially in place
EN
One or more national regulations
EN
Biosafety regulations 21(2) indicates that the operator will be liable to any damage to the environment or biodiversity caused by use or release of genetically modified organism.
EN
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
  • Yes, the operator must inform the competent authority of the damage
  • Yes, the operator must evaluate the damage
  • Yes, the operator must take response measures
Yes
EN
Yes
EN
  • Permit holder
  • Person who placed the LMO on the market
  • Developer
  • Exporter
  • Importer
No
EN
No
EN
  • Yes, in a civil liability instrument
No
EN
The country is currently using the Polluter Pays principle until the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress is ratified. However, a cabinet paper on ratifying the Protocol was drafted and submitted to Cabinet for consideration. Consultations with other legal experts are in the final stages.
EN
Other information
Limited financial support is the major challenge hindering effective implementation of the Protocol at national level. The legal analysis conducted in 2015 revealed a lot of gaps in the biosafety legal framework that need to be revised to strengthen the legislations to enhance compliance to implementation of the Protocol.
EN
Comments on reporting format
Generally the reporting template is user friendly. The only missing information noted was on questions on number of staff trained in various subjects where the focus was only on numbers trained and not on the period when the training was acquired. The information on timeframe for the training is important as it may guide which subject or target groups need refresher trainings in future. Examples need sub question for question 65
EN