| | english | español | français |
Go to record ID

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Second Regular National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Record information and status
Record ID
102397
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-09-30 11:24 UTC (joanna.rybak@mos.gov.pl)
Date of last update
2011-10-27 19:28 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of publication
2011-10-27 19:28 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)

Origin of report
Country
  • Poland
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Janusz Zaleski
Under-Secretary of State, Chief Nature Conservator
Ministry of the Environment (MoE)
Wawelska Str. 52/54
Warsaw
Poland, 00-922
Phone:+48 57 92 392
Fax:+48 57 92 832
Email:janusz.zaleski@mos.gov.pl
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Report based on information derived from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, inspections: the State Sanitary Inspection, the Main Inspectorate of Plant Health and Seed Inspection, the Veterinary Inspection, the National Labour Inspectorate, the Agricultural and Food Quality Inspection, Customs Service and NGOs.
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-09-30
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-09-27
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-09-29
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
12. Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
15. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
  • A domestic regulatory framework is fully in place
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • One or more national biosafety laws
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
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?
  • Less than 5
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
The Polish legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been in place since 2001. The Republic of Poland introduced specific legislation on GMOs to protect its citizens' health and the environment.
A few national authorities responsible for different types of activities with GMOs have been Appointed:
-  The Minister of the Environment - contained use of GMOs, intentional introduction of GMOs into the environment, coordination of monitoring and gathering information about GMOs,
-  The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development - GM feed and GM seed material,
- The Minister of Health - pharmaceuticals and GM food.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes
23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Yes
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • Yes
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
  • Yes
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Yes
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
The Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (Official Journal No. 36, Item 233; 2007) regulates among other thinds contained use of genetically modified organisms.
On the basis of the Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms have been laid down following regulations:
-   The regulation of the Ministry of the Environment of 8 July 2002 laying down the detailed manner of carrying out the assessment of risks to human health and the environment related to the undertaking of activities involving the contained use of GMOs, the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, including the placing of GMO products on the market, and the requirements which should be satisfied by the documentation containing the results of such an assessment (Official Journal of 16 July 2002) Pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Act on Genetically Modified Organisms of 22 June 2001 (Official Journal No. 76, Item 811; 2002, No. 25, Item 253, and No. 41, Item 365),
-  The regulation of the Ministry of the Environment on 21 February 2002 laying down the detailed rules of procedure for the Commission on Genetically Modified Organisms(Official Journal on 11 March 2002) Pursuant to Article 13 (2) of the Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms (Official Journal No. 76, Item 811), -   The regulation of the Ministry of the Environment on 29 November 2002 laying down the list of pathogenic organisms and their classification, as well as the measures required for particular containment levels Official Journal 02.212.1798 on 16 December 2002
Pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on Genetically Modified Organisms of June 22 2001 (Official Journal No. 76, Item 811; 2002, No. 25, Item 253, and No. 41, Item 365),
-   The regulation of the Ministry of the Environment on 29 November 2002 laying down the list of pathogenic organisms and their classification, as well as the measures required for particular containment levels Official Journal 02.212.1798 on 16 December 2002
Pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on Genetically Modified Organisms of June 22 2001 (Official Journal No. 76, Item 811; 2002, No. 25, Item 253, and No. 41, Item 365)
-   The regulation of the Ministry of the Environment of 6 June 2002 laying down the formats of application forms for consent and authorization of activities involving genetically modified organisms(Official Journal of 27 June 2002) Pursuant to Article 22 of the Act on Genetically Modified Organisms of 22 June 2001 (Official Journal No. 76, Item 811; 2002, No. 25, Item 253, and No. 41, Item 365)
-  The regulation of the Ministry of the Environment of 16 May 2002 laying down the substantive scope of research to be carried out by entities which apply to perform research and give opinions in the field of genetically modified organisms. (Official Journal of 13 June 2002)
For further information see the EU report. 
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?
  • Yes
30. Has your country adopted a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
32. If you answered Yes to question 31, does the mechanism also apply to cases of intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment that were not subject to transboundary movement?
  • Yes
33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • Yes
34. Does your country have the capacity to detect and identify LMOs?
  • Yes
35. 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?
  • Yes
36. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • Yes
37. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
41. 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
42. 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
50. 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:
For further information see point 28 and the EU report
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
51. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • Yes
53. 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?
  • Yes
54. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
55. Has your country declared through the BCH that in the absence of a regulatory framework its decisions prior to the first import of an LMO-FFP will be taken according to Article 11.6 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • No
56. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity building in respect of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • No
63. 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:
The Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (Official Journal No. 36, Item 233; 2007) contains provisions on placing GMOs on the market for processing purposes. These provisions are based on part C Directive 2001/18/EC. 
For further information see the EU report.
Article 12 – Review of decision
64. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • Yes
65. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?
  • No
66. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
67. In the current reporting period, how many decisions were reviewed and/or changed regarding an intentional transboundary movement of an LMO?
  • None
71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 12 in your country:
For further information see the EU report.
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
72. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • Yes
73. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • No
75. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • None
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country:
The Republic of Poland has never made use of the simplified procedure for imports of LMOs as specified in Article 13.
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
77. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?
  • No
80. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 14 in your country:
The Republic of Poland has not entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements as per Article 14 during the reporting period.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
82. If you answered Yes to question 81, does this mechanism include procedures for identifying experts to conduct the risk assessments?
  • Yes
83. Has your country established guidelines for how to conduct risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • No
84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?
  • Yes
85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • No
86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • Yes
88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?
  • Yes, always
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • No
90. In the current reporting period, if your country has taken decisions regarding LMOs, how many risk assessments were conducted in the context of these decisions?
  • Less than 10
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • Not applicable
92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?
  • No
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
Poland has built a complex system on risk assessment for human health and environment comprising contained use of GMO, deliberate release into the environment of GMO, placing on the market of GMOs as well as products containing or consisting of GMOs. Relevant regulations you can find in the Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms (Official Journal No. 36, Item 233; 2007) and the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 8 July 2002 laying down the detailed manner of carrying out the assessment of risks to human health and the environment related to the undertaking of activities involving the contained use of GMOs, the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, including the placing of GMO products on the market, and the requirements which should be satisfied by the documentation containing the results of such an assessment (Official Journal of 16 July 2002), pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Act on Genetically Modified Organisms of 22 June 2001.
Environmental risk assessment must be provided in accordance with the precautionary principle and in line with all conditions laid down in the domestic and EU law. First and foremost a notifier must take into consideration GMO characteristics and its general purpose that could have the potential adverse effects to human health and the environment in comparison with characteristics and purpose of its non- genetically modified counterpart (organism from which the GMO is derived). Risk assessment should be carried out in a scientifically manner based on available scientific and technical data on a case by case basis. New information on the GMO may need to be readdressed in order to determine whether the risk has changed and whether there is a need for amending the risk management scheme.
Satisfactory Environmental Risk Assessment must be conducted by completing the following six steps:
1. Identification of characteristics which may cause adverse effects;
2. Evaluation of the potential consequences of each adverse effect, if it occurs;
3. Evaluation of the likelihood of the occurrence of each identified potential adverse
effect;
4. Estimation of the risk posed by each identified characteristic of the GMO(s);
5. Application of management strategies for risks from the deliberate release or
marketing of GMO(s);
6. Determination of the overall risk of the GMO(s)
For further information see the EU report.
Article 16 – Risk management
94. Has your country established and maintained appropriate and operational mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified in risk assessments for:
94.1) LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • Yes
95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
96. 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
97. 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?
  • Yes
98. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to taking measures regarding the treatment of LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Yes
99. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 16 in your country, including any details regarding risk management strategies, also in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs:
The environmental monitoring programmes for genetically modified plants are based on two approaches: Where there is scientific evidence of a potential adverse effect linked to the genetic modification, then case-specific monitoring should be carried out after placing on the market. For unanticipated adverse effects general surveillance is mandatory for GMOs for cultivation.
For further information see the EU report.
The guiding principle necessary to preserve the effective monitoring system is an appropriate information sharing between GMO users at all stages of the placing on the market. Hence all GMO users in Poland are required to notify immediately the operator/notifier who obtained a decision on the marketing GM product and competent authority all new information about threats and risks to human health or the environment associated with a given GMO.
In connection with the obligation to fulfill all post-market monitoring obligations there have been imposed specified responsibilities upon the Minister for the Environment. In the case of information on any possible adverse effect caused by GM product and obtained by the post-market monitoring network system, the minister in charge is obliged to pass it directly to the European Commission and the authorities of other Member States of the European Union. It is also required to prepare an assessment report with recommendations as to the possibility to continue the marketing of the GM product in question or prohibit the further marketing of this product. These rules stem from the general principle stating that every GM product is used in the same way throughout the European Union and in every Member State the same rules for its safe use are applied.
The Polish reference laboratories and 6 laboratories to control GMO samples, working for inspections (The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate - in charge of food, The Plant Health And Seed Inspection - in charge of GM seeds and field trials, The Veterinary Inspectorate - in charge of feed, Customs administrative authorities with regard to control of legal trading of GMOs, Agricultural and Food Quality Inspection with regard to control of wholesales trading of GMOs) are well equipped and have a trained staff to detect GMOs.
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
100. Has your country made available to the BCH the relevant details setting out its point of contact for the purposes of receiving notifications under Article 17?
  • Yes
101. 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
102. Has your country implemented emergency measures in response to information about releases that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
103. 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
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
There were no occurrences under the Polish jurisdiction that led, or could have led, to an unintentional transboundary movement of a living modified organism that had, or could have had, significant adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health during the reporting period.
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
108. 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
109. 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?
  • Yes
110. 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?
  • Yes
111. 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?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes
113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • Yes
114. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • Yes
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
For further information see the EU report.
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
116. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol to be responsible for liaison with the Secretariat?
  • Yes
117. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Biosafety Clearing-House to liaise with the Secretariat regarding issues of relevance to the development and implementation of the BCH?
  • Yes
118. Has your country designated one or more competent national authorities, which are responsible for performing the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are authorized to act on your country’s behalf with respect to those functions?
  • Yes, one
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, all information
122. 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
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
In accordance with the Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms (Official Journal No. 36, Item 233; 2007), the Minister of the Environment is the central governmental administrative authority competent on GMO related issues.
The Minister of the Environment fulfills a role of the competent authority of UE Member State, that is defined in Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms. Direct tasks of the Minister of the Environment resulting from the national law include in particular:
-   making decisions on:
a) deliberate release of GMOs into the environment,
b) contained use of GMOs,
-   making decisions on:
a) placing GM products on the market (for cultivation and/or processing),
b) export or transit GM products,
-   coordination of control and monitoring activities regulated by the Act on GMOs,
-  coordination of gathering and sharing information on human and the environmental safety with regard to GMOs.
THE CHIEF SANITARY INSPECTOR
The Chief Sanitary Inspector is the governmental administrative authority competent on genetically modified food as well safety and conditions in facilities designed for work with GMOs. He makes decisions regarding the placing on the market of GMOs intended for food and of food products containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs and supervises with subordinate inspectors the safety of GM food products intended for human consumption.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is the governmental administrative authority competent on GM seeds and the placing on the market GM feed. On the basis of a new bill being currently discussed in the Polish Parliament he'll be as well the competent authority on coexistence between GM and non-GM plants. Simultaneously the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is responsible for registration plant protection products that could contain genetically modified organisms.
NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS

Cartagena protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity
The Ministry of Environment
Department of Nature Conservation
phone +48 22 57 92 342
Fax: +48 22 57 92 730
michal.gizinski@mos.gov.pl
phone +48 22 57 92 538
Fax: +48 22 57 92 730
Biosafety Clearing House
The Ministry of Environment
Department of Nature Conservation
Phone +48 22 57 92 723
Fax: +48 22 57 92 730
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
124. Please provide an overview of the status of the 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.
124.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 and in the BCH
124.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 and in the BCH
124.c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.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 and in the BCH
124.e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
124.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 available but not in the BCH
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.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 available and in the BCH
124.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 available and in the BCH
124.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 available and in the BCH
124.n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.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 available but not in the BCH
124.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 available but not in the BCH
125. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • Yes
126. 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
127. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • Yes, in some cases
128. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
  • No
129. If you answered Yes to question 128, has your country reported these problems to the BCH or the Secretariat?
  • Not applicable
130. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?
  • Yes
131. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country:
Minister of the Environment responsible for BCH in Poland runs a national BCH website. Nevertheless, there is a deep discussion in the EU on whether continue to develop BCH national portals. Participants (among other the Polish delegates) taking part in 2nd Meeting of the National Focal Points (NFC) / Competent Authorities (CA) regarding the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and Regulation 1946/2003 that was held in Berlin from 12 to 13 May 2011 were discussed this issue. It seems that the opinion on more practicability of the Central Portal prevailed. However there is out of discussion that providing with appropriate information in a timely manner is crucial for the functioning the system and biosafety at all.
Article 21 – Confidential information
132. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • Yes
133. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • Yes, always
134. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country:
Every notifier submitting an application in Poland is allowed to indicate the information that should be treated by the competent authorities as confidential, provided that verifiable justification is given in such cases. Decisions on which information will be kept confidential are taken by the Minister of the Environment after consultation with the notifier. Exemptions from the confidentiality clause include:
• General description of the GMO or GMOs, name and address of the notifier, purpose of the release, location of release and intended uses;
• Methods and plans for monitoring of the GMO or GMOs and for emergency response;
• Environmental risk assessment.
There has been no litigation as regards the confidentiality of information on GMOs during this reporting period in Poland.
For further information see the EU report.
Article 22 – Capacity-building
135. 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?
  • No
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?
  • Yes
140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.
  • Easy
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Development of national biosafety frameworks
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
143. 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
144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Institutional capacity
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
  • Yes
146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
  • Yes, a few
147. If you answered Yes to question 146, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Socio-economic considerations
148. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
  • Yes
149. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • Yes
150. 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:
Broad areas in which capacity in Poland is needed have been identified.
1. Risk management.
2. Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels.
3. Socio-economic considerations.
4. Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs.
It is the need to take full account of the specific regional and local characteristic, particularly ecosystems, environments and specific geographical areas with the wealth of biodiversity. Very important is also the possibility of taking specific management or restriction measures, including prohibition measures, in order to ensure biodiversity protection in fragile ecosystems (on the basis of scientific information).
We can observe that collection and exchange relevant information on socio-economic implications connected with marketing of LMO's, including socio-economic benefits and risks, is still relatively low and therefore needs strengthening.
Regular and in-depth monitoring performed by authorisation holders and specialized inspections seems to be essential for the detection of any potentially adverse effects. Very helpful would be a standard monitoring report form in which all relevant information concerning post-market monitoring could be collected in a harmonized way. The monitoring activities should be taken at national and regional level and the results of such monitoring have to be made available to the public. The last important thing in this regard is appropriate follow up of all the information provided by the monitoring activities. Such a follow up of monitoring activities should consolidate the main outcomes in order to address interactive or cumulative effects. If new information becomes available with regard to the risk of the LMOs to human health or the environment, an assessment report indicating how to proceed further shall be prepared.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
151. 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
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • Yes
153. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
  • Yes
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • Yes
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • Yes
157. 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
158. If you answered Yes to question 157, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • No
159. 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?
  • More than 5
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
Environmental Information Centre - unit department subordinate to the Minister of Environment organized from March 2007 to February 2009 a nationwide information campaign entitled "Genetically modified organisms and the natural environment''. In the course of its implementation 101 training, 6 nationwide conferences, and summarizing international conference on 27 February 2009 were carried out. The project was financed by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management and from the European Union funds.
Project target audience groups were:
- Local government bodies, members of regional councils and provincial councils,
- County officers and municipal officers,
- Farmers,
- Entrepreneurs.
Project objective was to increase knowledge of public administration about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and enhance public awareness in this regard.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • Yes
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
164. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, were the transboundary movements of LMOs consistent with the objective of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes, always
165. If you answered Yes to questions 162 or 163, was information about these transboundary movements submitted to the BCH?
  • Not applicable
166. If your country is not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, has it contributed information to the BCH on LMOs released in, or moved into, or out of, areas within its national jurisdiction?
  • No
167. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
There have not been any transboundary movements of living modified organisms intended for intentional introduction  into the environment between Poland and a non-Party during the reporting period.
Some GMOs intended for research purposes (contained use) have been imported during this reporting period. The Republic of Poland hasn't introduced any regulations on the import of GMMs (genetically modified microorganisms) or GMOs intended for contained use. The import is allowed after a user is given a decision on the contained use of GMO or GMM. This decision must be display during customs clearance.
The Republic of Poland imports annually over 2 million tones of GM soybean per year (mainly from Argentina). This product has been on the Polish and the EU market for many years.
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
168. 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
169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
170. 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?
  • Never
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
Poland has in place the penalty system containing explicit obligations applied in case of contravention of the provisions of the Polish domestic regulations on GMO related issues. Appropriate legal regulations can be found in Chapter 7 "Civil and criminal liability" in the Act of 22 June 2001 on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (Official Journal No. 36, Item 233; 2007).
This system is currently being rebuilt. The fundamental change relies on walking away from prison sentences to fines and financial penalties. The final decision on its shape will be made by the members of the Polish Parliament in the near future.
There haven't been any illegal transboundary movements of living modified organisms into or from the Republic of Poland during the reporting period.
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. 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?
  • Yes
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • Yes
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
Socio-economic factors in decision-making process
There is in Poland the support of some groups (including non-governmental organizations, politicians) to incorporate these factors into decision-making process and the opposition of others (such some scientists) who are afraid of the "dilution" risk assessment process by pushing the scientific evidence concerning the safety of GMOs into the background. The inclusion of socio-economic factors into the assessment of GMOs may take place at two levels:
- in the authorization process prior to the placing GMOs on the market and / or
- when the decision to introduce a national ban on the use of GMO is considered.
Currently in Poland among people who support consideration of these factors the prevailing opinion is that they should be taken into account in both these processes. Of course during the authorization GMOs on the EU level cannot be taken into account all possible factors specific for the countries but there a set of key factors to be analyzed during the authorization of new GMOs should be established. Individual countries should also be entitled to prohibit GMOs (especially with regard to activities sensitive from the environmental point of view), based on that specific factors of social or economic nature, specific for a country or a country region.
Such an approach would contribute to enhancement of public confidence in government decision makers and the new GMO products from the one hand and ensure the economic interests of individual operators from the other.
The Republic of Poland cooperates closely with the European Commission in determining the impact of socio - economic factors in connection with the usage of GMOs, particularly in agriculture. Information provided by the Republic of Poland and other Member States contributed to a report  about the socio-economic implications of the placing on the market of GMOs for cultivation prepared by the European Commission in 2011.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • Yes
181. 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 Minister of Environment will take part in the next special signing event of the Supplementary Protocol on the 20th of September 2011, in New York, in conjunction with the High Level Event on Desertification of the 66th session of United Nations General Assembly and sign the Protocol on behalf of the Republic of Poland.
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Not applicable
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.
No further comments.
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.
We encountered technical problem in completing the form. We could not delete the comments in the column on the right site of the document that were appearing just after typing the text in the boxes (as if the mode review was on all the time). Besides, there were not more difficulties. The layout of questions and the structure of the document is clear and filling in it raises no doubts. 
Survey on indicators of the Strategic Plan (2014)
In decision BS-VI/15, Parties requested the Executive Secretary to conduct a dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan that could not be obtained from the second national reports or through other existing mechanisms.

The answers to the survey are displayed below.
When did your national biosafety framework become operational?
indicator 1.1.1
  • 2004
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Polish Government doesn't organize such trainings, but probably other institutions organize them. We have no information on that subject.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • No
Survey 6. 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?
indicator 1.2.5
  • No funds mobilized
Survey 7. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
indicator 1.2.6
  • Yes
Survey 8. How many LMO-related collaborative bilateral/multilateral arrangements has your country established with other Parties/non-Parties?
indicator 1.2.8
  • None
Survey 9. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of conducting risk assessment and/or risk management?
indicator 1.3.1.1
Survey 9.a) Risk assessment
  • Yes
Survey 9.b) Risk management
  • Yes
Survey 10. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
indicator 1.3.1.2
  • Yes
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • Yes
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
Survey 13. Does your country have the capacity to 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?
indicator 1.4.2
Survey 13.a) Identify
  • Yes
Survey 13.b) Assess
  • Yes
Survey 13.c) Monitor
  • Yes
Survey 14. Does your country have available any guidance for the purpose of ensuring the safe handling, transport, and packaging of living modified organisms?
indicator 1.6.4
  • Yes
Survey 15. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.2
  • No
Survey 16. 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?
indicator 1.7.1
  • None
Survey 17. What is your country's experience, if any, in taking socio-economic considerations into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.3
no experience
Survey 18. Does your country have the capacity to take appropriate measures in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released?
indicator 1.8.3
  • Yes
Survey 19. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.3
Survey 19.a) Risk assessment
  • 50 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • 50 or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 50 or more
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • Yes
Survey 21. Is your country using training material and/or technical guidance for training in risk assessment and risk management of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.5
  • Yes
Survey 22. Are the available training materials and technical guidance on risk assessment and risk management of LMOs sufficient and effective?
indicator 2.2.6
Survey 22.a) Sufficient
  • Yes
Survey 22.b) Effective
  • Yes
Survey 23. How many customs officers in your country have received training in the identification of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 50 or more
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 50 or more
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • Yes
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • 5 or more
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • 5 or more
Survey 28. 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?
indicator 2.4.1
  • No
Survey 29. Does your country have administrative or legal instrument that provide for response measures for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms?
indicator 2.4.2
  • Yes
Survey 30. Has your country informed the public about existing modalities for public participation in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Yes
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • National website
  • Newspaper
  • registers
Survey 32. If you indicated multiple modalities for public participation in the question above, which one was most used?
indicator 2.5.2
  • National website
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • One or more
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • One or more
Survey 35. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system?
indicator 3.1.6
Survey 35.a) Monitoring system
  • Yes
Survey 35.b) Enforcement system
  • Yes
Survey 36. 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.
indicator 4.3.1
  • None
Survey 37. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year.
indicator 4.3.2
  • None
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • National website
Survey 39. 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?
indicator 5.2.1
  • None
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • No
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • No
Survey 43. Please indicate the number of educational materials on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public.
indicator 5.3.4
  • 25 or more