| | 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
113021
Status
Published
Date of creation
2018-01-22 14:34 UTC (melissa.willey@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2018-01-22 14:34 UTC (melissa.willey@cbd.int)

Origin of report
1. Country
  • Solomon Islands
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Mr. Joe Horokou
Director
Ministry of Environemnet, Climate Change, Disaser Management & Meteorology
P.O.Box 21
Honiara
Solomon Islands
Phone:+(677)26036
Fax:+(677)28054
Email:horokoujoe@gmail.com
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
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)
Submission
10. Date of submission
2017-11-29
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2011
11. Time period covered by this report
End date
2017
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 partially 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
  • 2013
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
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?
  • One
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Partially
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country
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.
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.
Other related legal instruments developed and reviewed is  Environmental Act 1998 and Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998. The former is under review and should capture areas on developments and monitoring biosafety & 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.
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 .  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 & 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.
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.
Article 5 - Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Partially
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
In implementing Article 5, some of the existing issues under the importation and management of chemical products and biosafety pharmaceuticals include:
• Limited overall oversight and control for such chemicals imported into the Solomon Islands
• 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
• 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
• Limited effort in registration and tracking of chemicals following importation, including where, when or how chemicals are transported, stored, used or disposed of.
• 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.
• Need for improvemnet of regulation for chemical storage and transport.
• There is a shortage of local waste disposal options, including chemical disposal etc.
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.

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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Biosecurity Act 2013 has provide an opportunity to cater for implementing this requirement.
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
  • No
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
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.
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.

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
  • No
30. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
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?
  • No
33. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • No
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
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.
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.
With limitations at the national level, sourcing external support is necessay and having LMOs issues and its negative impacts on society(socially, economically & 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.

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
  • No
48. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • No
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
  • No
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
  • No
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
  • Yes
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
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
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
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.
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.

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?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
As per the National Framework existing system and focal points should set the procedure for processing applications.
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
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.

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
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. 
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.
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
National Biosafety Framwork 2012 remains overaching for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions on LMOs.
78. If you answered Yes to question 77, does this framework include procedures for identifying and/or training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • No
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:
  • One or more
b) Management / Control:
  • One or more
c) Monitoring:
  • One 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
  • No
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
  • Not applicable
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:
  • No
b) Identify:
  • No
c) Assess:
  • No
d) Monitor:
  • No
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:
  • No
b) Risk management:
  • No
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
  • No
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
  • No
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
  • No
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?
  • No
95. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • No
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
  • No
97. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 15 and 16 in your country
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.
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).
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.  Monitoring, measuring or evaluation of the implementation shall made against the management plan and the agreement made at the point of license issues.
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
With the Biosecurity Act 2013, there are some measure in place for relavent biosaftey cases.
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
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
  • No
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
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.
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
The Biosecurity Act 2013 would be the most relevant existing legal instrument that will be reviewed to take into consideration transboundary movement of LMOs 
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
  • No
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, to some extent
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 or a stand-alone document
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
  • No
112. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment of the Party of import, clearly identifies them as living modified organisms; specifies the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of this Protocol applicable to the exporter?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
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
  • No
115. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • No
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
  • One or more
117. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • No
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
  • One 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
  • No
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
  • None
122. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
The most relevant existing legal instrument that can be reviewed to implement and enforce
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 & 5  covers import and export procedures respectively.
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 & Meteorology(MECDM) itself.
Limited capacity and unavailability of governance and decision making structure at the national level has extended limitation to monitoring(including documentation & identification of LMOs), specialised training for LMO identification and support for establishment of laboratories.
Necessary guidelines and legal requirement needs to be developed to ensure full implementation of requirements under Article 19.                                                
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Officers within Environment and Conservation Division were appointed to faciliate and coordinate implemenation of cartagena protocol.
125. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country
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.
The three other competent Authorities were identified which includes the Ministry of Agriculture and livestock through the  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  their capacities to undertake important roles such as research and risk assessments.
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. 
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 but not 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 but not 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 but only partially available in the BCH
e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information not available
f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
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 not available
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 not available
q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))
  • Information not available
127. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
BCH National Focal Points has all the opportunities to attend trainings at national and regional level is the understanding.
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Information regarding above are coordinated and made available to relevant competent national authorities.
129. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • Yes, in some cases
130. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
This question is relevant to indicator 4.1.8 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Limited stable internet connection
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
  • One 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
  • 10 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
  • N/A
135. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country
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.
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.
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.

Article 21 – Confidential information
136. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • No
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
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.
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
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how were these resources made available?
  • Regional channels
142. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Mainly through sub regional networking and sharing during workshop on reated iussues on biosafety, invasive species and other threats to the biodiversity and environment.
143. If you answered Yes to question 142, how were these resources made available?
  • Regional channels
144. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
145. If you answered Yes to question 144, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 157.
  • Average
146. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
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?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
This is because of limited resources, our trainings are basically crosscutting and should cater for biosafety. 
148. If you answered Yes to question 147, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • 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
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
  • Yes
152. If you answered Yes to question 151, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.
  • 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
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
  • Yes
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
  • Less than 1 per year
156. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • No
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
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.
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.

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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
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
  • No
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
Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management & Meteorology(MECMD) in collaboration with partners and NGOs
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
  • No
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Public access is promoted through awareness as indicated above.
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
  • No
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, to some extent
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
  • No
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
  • One 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
  • One 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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
174. If you answered Yes to question 173, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • No
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?
  • Not applicable
176. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country
Public awareness and participation remains an overall challenge considering the level of public knowledge and experiences with LMOs and its issue.
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.
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. 
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?
  • No
183. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
There are very limited  or no case of having contacts with non parties at the national level over LMOs and its movements.
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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Biosecurity Act 2013 is currently enforced via the Ministry  of Agriculture and livestock (MAL)and is an opportunity and could be of relevance.
185. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
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.
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
  • Never
191. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country
The Biosecurity Act 2013 may provide for illegal transboundry movement issues, specifically on biosecurity issues(pests & 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.  During this reporting period, there is unknown cases, maybe due to lack of proactive means to detect and inform of such movements.                                                  
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?
  • Not applicable
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
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(& especially when importing products).                                                     
196. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • No
197. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country
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.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
198. Has your country ratified or acceded to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
199. If you answered No to question 198, is there any national process in place towards becoming a Party?
  • 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 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.
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
  • 5,000 USD or more
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?
  • No
206. If you answered No to question 205, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission:
  • Lack of relevant information at the national level
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.
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:
-Limited human resources, i.e staffs with Biosafety focus scope(job description) to coordinate and carry out the reporting requirements
-Limited budgetary allocation to prioirty issues, concerns and activities only         
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.                                   
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
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:
-Limited information and data available.
-Financial limitation.
-Time constraint for further stakeholder and public consulation and contribution.