Implementing National Biosafety
Framework Project in the Caribbean Region
Guyana became a Party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD)
in 1994 and remains resolute in its obligations under the Convention. The Convention on January
29, 2000 adopted a supplementary agreement, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB),
which entered into force on September 11, 2003. The Protocol adapts a proactive approach,
geared towards the protection of biological diversity against the potential risks posed by living
modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from Modern Biotechnology.
Since ratification of the Protocol, Guyana has taken several steps towards fulfilling its particular
obligations. Notably, in 2007, Guyana would have completed the development of a National
Biosafety Framework under the UNEP-GEF funded Global Project on “Development of
National Biosafety Frameworks.”
Also, training and capacity building efforts were pursued under the Regional Biosafety
Clearing-House (BCH) Project – Phase I (2007-2008) and Phase II (2011-2012), a key
instrument to be used in the implementation of the CPB. It is a web-based storehouse intended to
support the development and implementation of a regional strategy of information exchange and
communication. This includes scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on
Biosafety and LMOs and risk assessments: the site is managed by the Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD).
Guyana is now in the preparatory stages of the implementation of the National Biosafety
Project, under the UNEP-GEF funded Regional Project for the implementing National
Biosafety Framework in the Caribbean Sub-Region. The project is comprised of a national
and a regional component. The national component’s activities will support the establishment of
the necessary legal and institutional frameworks, public education programs and training
necessary for effective and sustained implementation of the CPB. Country-specific outcomes
expected include establishment and consolidation of the following: 1) a fully functional and
responsive NBFs in line with the CPB with respect to national and regional needs and
priorities; 2) a functional national systems and availability of services for handling
requests, performing risk assessment, detecting living modified organisms (LMOs),
decision-making and for performing administrative tasks; 3) functional systems for
monitoring environmental effects and enforcement; 4) functional national systems for
biosafety information management and stimulating public awareness, biosafety education,
and participation in the decision-making process. The Regional component will serve to
enhance the National component and generating a consensus on the mechanism with respect to
the obligations under the Protocol at the regional level.
The project has a duration of forty-eight (48) months with complete fulfillment expected in June
of 2015. It would require coordination between government agencies which will see the adoption
of policies, laws, and supporting regulations, through their varying mandates and expertise. A
bottom-up approach is taken allowing for Regional and International collaboration, garnering of
technical support and sharing of experiences, while addressing the needs within the region as it
relates to biosafety. The University of the West Indies (UWI) takes the lead as the Regional
executing organization (LEA), while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the
support of the Government of Guyana is the National Executing Agency (NEA) to the
project. Guyana and eleven other countries, namely, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad &
Tobago, and St. Vincent & the Grenadines will be participating in this project. Nationally,
project implementation will garner the technical resources of several national stakeholders.
In recognition of the importance of safeguarding its genetic biodiversity, Guyana has
established a Protected Areas Commission, facilitating two (2) new declarations in 2011.
Incredible effort has also been invested in the continued conservation of Guyana’s forest and
associated genetic resources for which the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) was
also developed.
The use of biotechnology in Guyana thus far has not proven to be a treat to biodiversity or
human health. It has been used primarily in the agriculture sector, partially due to the strong
economic support provided to Guyana’s economy from agricultural products and raw materials.
The main forms of biotechnology practiced in Guyana are plant tissue culture and natural
products chemistry involving key agencies, The National Agricultural Research and
Extension Institute (NAREI), Banks DIH Ltd. and Demerara Distillers Ltd and the
Institute of Applied Science and Technology (IAST). Despite these initiatives, the application
of biotechnologies employed in the industrial, medical and environmental sectors have not been
extensive due to the lack of current technologies and limited expertise. Guyana’s economy is in
transition, and modern biotechnology must be employed in the future to respond to the needs of
the society. It is important that Environmental Biotechnology also be readily available in Guyana
as a precautionary measure to respond to the needs of the mining sector, should the need arise for
remediation effort.
Also, ever increasing trade in the Caribbean region and efforts to reduce trade barriers under the
CSME presents a significant threat to the biodiversity of the region, principally in the form of
undetected gene flow. Undetected and unregulated entry of LMOs into the region is likely to
continue in the absence of common transboundary control system, insufficient information to
inform decision-making and risk management measures, weak public awareness of the risks
created by modern biotechnology, and weak legal and instructional frameworks for effective
management of such risks. Further, the threat to the Caribbean region’s significant biodiversity
from LMOs that could be introduced, either intentionally or by accident, is exacerbated by a
limited capacity to identify, assess or manage such risks, as highlighted in the inventory and
assessment work carried out by countries in preparing their NBFs, and an assessment of national
biosafety capacities that was undertaken as part of project preparation activities.
In the light of this, there is a need to ensure safe transfer of Genetically-modified Organisms
(GMOs) and Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) as specified in the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety. National frameworks are being implemented to foster the safe transfer of LMOs that
are likely to pose adverse effects on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, with
supporting procedures for advanced informed agreements.