STATUS OF UNEP/GEF NATIONAL BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

1. STATUS OF UNEP/GEF NATIONAL BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT BY RUFUS EBEGBA FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT 22 APRIL 2014

2. Content • Introduction • Biosafety in Nigeria • The UNEP/GEF NBF IMP. Project • Conclusion

3. 1. 0 INTRODUCTION • As a country with a population of over one hundred and Fifty million people Nigeria, has adopted modern biotechnology as one of the measures that will ensure food and socio-economic security and environmental sustainability, • Agriculture--- • Environment--. • Medicine/health improvement--- • Industrial growth---. • Modern biotechnology as one of the approaches in the attainment of various sustainable development in all sectors of the economy particularly to address challenges that have been difficult to resolve using conventional approaches.

4. 1. 0 INTRODUCTION .Nigeria is endowed with rich biodiversity .Nigeria does not wish advancement in modern biotechnology to adversely affect biodiversity and human health

5. 1. 0 INTRODUCTION • Nigeria joined the league of nations that took precautionary safety measures by signing and ratifying the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2000 and 2003 respectively. • Nigeria has also signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2012. • The Federal Ministry of Environment is the National Focal Point and the Competent National Authority(CNA) on Biosafety in Nigeria. it has the mandate for the safe management of modern biotechnology activities, and the use of the products of modern biotechnology –genetically modified organisms(GMOs).

6. 1. 0 INTRODUCTION • To address the challenges that modern biotechnology might pose to the environment and human health, biosafety has become a major safety measure being championed by the Federal Ministry of Environment in Nigeria. • Nigeria Successfully completed the UNEP-GEF Development of NBF project (2002-2006). • Nigeria Commenced the UNEP-GEF NBF Implementation Project in July 2011 and its currently on going.

7. 2.0 BIOSAFETY IN NIGERIA • The biosafety system in Nigeria is geared towards: • Minimizing or eliminating the possible harmful effects of Modern biotechnology on the environment, biodiversity and human health using policies, laws and guidelines • determining in advance when hazards to human health and natural systems will result if any particular GMO is released into the environment and prevent such hazards;

8. 2.0 BIOSAFETY IN NIGERIA • harnessing the benefits of modern biotechnology safely and legally; • To prevent Nigeria serving as a dumping ground for unregulated Genetically Modified Organisms which may have adverse impact on our Environment and human health.

9. 2.0 BIOSAFETY IN NIGERIA • discern whether a GMO will actually yield the benefits it was designed to provide and • make as certain as possible that hazards will not arise when GMOs are transported intentionally or unintentionally, between different ecosystems and countries;

10. 2.0 BIOSAFETY IN NIGERIA • To reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to the goals and objectives of the convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which Nigeria has signed and ratified and other United Nations biosafety resolutions and treaties.

11. NBTS (Health) NBTS (Agriculture) National Biosafety Committee NBTS (Environ.) Min of Environment NBTS (Industry) Biosafety Office Public Institutional Biosafety Committee Applicant

12. 3.0 THE UNEP/GEF NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT The objective of the project is  to assist Nigeria to establish and consolidate: • A. a fully functional and responsive regulatory regime in line with Cartagena Protocol and national needs and priorities; • B. a functional national system for handling request, perform risk assessment, detect GMOs, decision-making, perform administrative tasks; • C. a functional national system for “follow-up”, namely monitoring of environmental effects and enforcement; and • D. a functional national system for public awareness, education, participation and access to information

13. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT:EXPECTATIONS • Fully functional and responsive regulatory regime in line with Cartagena Protocol and national needs and priorities; • Functional national system for handling request, perform risk assessment, detect GMOs, decision-making, perform administrative tasks; • Functional national system for “follow-up”, namely monitoring of environmental effects and enforcement; and • Functional national system for public awareness, education, participation and access to information.

14. 3.0 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: SAKE HOLDERS INVOLVED • Regulators,(NBF,IBC, FMENV-Biosafety UnitStaff) • Scientists(Research Institutes, Universities) • Customs service, • NAQS, • NAFDAC, • NABDA, • Trade and Industry, • Federal Ministry of Agric and Rural Development, • Other stake holders(Farmers, Organized Private sector, Media)

15. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT:IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT • 2011 to 2015 • NEA(FMENV) • Implementing Agency,(UNEP) • NCC • Project Team(NPC, PA) • Total grant: $965,000.00 • Amount Expended so far : about $615,000.00

16. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT During the course of the execution of the Project From the inception of the project in June 2011 to March2014, the following progress has been made: • Advocacy activities toward the actualization of to National Biosafety law, • Yearly review of work plan and budget rephasal • Meetings of project team • Procurement of Office equipment,

17. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT • Meetings and training workshops for NCC members, • Meetings with Regional UNEP/GEF Task Manager, • Workshop for Stake holders, including staff of the Federal Ministry of Environment, • Survey and analysis of biosafety and modern biotechnology status in Nigeria,

18. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT • Risk Assessment training workshops organized, • Designated staff of National Biosafety Office and other Agencies are being trained and capacitated on procedures for handling LMOs with clearly outlines roles and responsibilities.

19. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT • Three zonal sensitization workshops organized, • A review meeting of the emerging Biosafety Act and regulations and guidelines identified • A review of biosafety decision making process workshop organized, • National workshop on the identification of gaps in the NBF, • A national workshop on identification of biosafety Centers of excellence, • Meetings with Agencies Biosafety Units

20. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BCH is updated . http://ng.biosafetyclearinghouse.net • Workshop on the review of the draft Nigeria National Biosafety Application Administration Guidelines, • Review of Nigeria National Biosafety Inspection Guidelines workshop, • Workshop on Biosafety Inspection, • Workshop on biosafety emergency measures,

21. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT • Review workshop of the guidelineson Biosafety Socio-economic considerations in decision making process, • Meeting with Agencies that have Biosafety Units, • Workshop on Public participation on Biosafety Matters Organized, • Workshop for Judicial, Customs and Quarantine Officers on Biosafety Organized, • Survey on Public Opinion on Biosafety/GMOs carried out, • National Biosafety Lab established, • All reports submitted to the ANUBIS

22. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT: Publications • Pamphlet on Nigeria Biosafety System, • Nigeria Biosafety Risk Analysis Framework • Nigeria National Biosafety Containment Facility Guidelines, • survey report on the status of Biotechnology/Biosafety including existing Human and Institutional Capacity,

23. 3.1 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT: Publications • IBC Guidelines, • Nigeria National Biosafety Application Administration Guidelines, • Nigeria National Biosafety Inspection Guidelines, • Nigeria National Guidelineson Biosafety Socio-economic considerations in decision making process, • National Biosafety Emergency Response Strategy, • Report of the Survey on Public Opinion on Biosafety/GMOs

24. 3.2 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT : MONITORING AND EVALUATION • Quarterly report, • Audit, • Activities reports, • Regional review meetings

25. 3.3 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT : SUSTAINABILITY • Mainstreaming of Biosafety into National system, • Appropriation, • Stakeholder Participation/ Public Awareness, • GEF 6

26. 3.4 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: Challenges • Absence of a Biosafety law(The Bill would have created a new CNA on biosafety for effectiveness of the project,) • Initial lack of the understanding of the issues surrounding the implementation of the project, • Government bureaucracy and delays of approval of the release of funds,

27. 3.4 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: Challenges • Issues surrounding ANUBIS reporting format, • Lack of flexibility in the implementation of the project, • Conflict of routine of official duties with the Project which is time demanding, • Unstable electricity, • High cost of organizing workshop due to large No of participants at workshops, to meet project requirement of stakeholders, • Inadequate public awareness on biosafety/modern biotechnology

28. 4.0 NBF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT:Lessons learnt . • New stake holders in the management of biosafety identified, • Ability to coop with ANUBIS and working under pressure, • Better understanding of the project implementation, • The need to identify new method of fund release, • Inter Agencies collaboration • Need for more public awareness on biosafety in the country,

29. Conclusion • Nigeria has the capacity to effectively implement the project not minding the challenges. • There need for the NASS to urgently pass the Biosafety bill represented to it, • There is need for Nigeria to participate in the GEF 6 to consolidate on biosafety management in the Country.

30. Thank you