| | 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
102467
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-05 12:53 UTC (rita.andorko@fm.gov.hu)
Date of publication
2011-10-05 12:53 UTC (rita.andorko@fm.gov.hu)

Origin of report
Country
  • Hungary
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Mrs Rita Andorkó
councillor
Ministry of Rural Development, Strategy Department, Biodiversity and Gene Conservation Unit
Ministry of Rural Development, Kossuth tér 11.
Budapest
Hungary, 1055
Phone:+36-1-7953726
Fax:+36-1-7950069
Email:rita.andorko@vm.gov.hu
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
all relevant Hungarian Ministries and other state institutions dealing with biosafety issues
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-05
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-10
Time period covered by this report
End date
2011-09
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
  • One or more national biosafety regulations
  • 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
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?
  • More than 10
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:
Hungarian legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been in place since 1998. Hungary acceded the European Union in 2004, its legislation is in harmonization with current EC legislation. The main legal measures which are in harmonization with the EU legal framework are provided at http://biodiv.kvvm.hu/cooperation/research/fol935505 include:
Hungarian Act on gene technological activities (Act No. XXVII of 1998)
Decree 82/2003. (VII. 16.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on the order of the registering and supplying data as well as on the documentation which shall be enclosed in the notification regarding the gene technological activity.
Parliamentary Resolution 94/2003 (IX. 23.) on the Ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Joint Decree 111/2003 (XI. 5.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Economy and Transport, the Ministry of Health, Social and Family Matters and the Ministry of Environment and Water on activities which shall be considered and not considered as gene technological activity as well as on authorities which are entitled to supervise the gene technological activity.
Decree 128/2003. (XII. 19.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on the organization and the activity of the Gene Technological Advisory Committee
Government Decree 148/2003. (IX. 22.) on the imposing gene technological penalties
Act on the publication of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety signed in 24 May 2000 in Nairobi (Act No. CIX of 2004)
Government Decree Nr. 132/2004. (IV. 29.) on the authorization procedure of the gene technological activity as well as on the liaison with the European Commission
Decree 138/2004. (IX. 23.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on the authorization fees for the authorization of the gene technological activity
Decree 142/2004. (IX. 30.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Economy and Transport on certain rules of the gene technological activity in the field of agriculture and industry.
Decree 31/2006. (IV. 29.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Economy and Transport and the Ministry of Finance on the import and market of genetically modified feeds
Decree 86/2006. (XII. 23.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on coexistence measures on the cultivation of genetically modified, conventional and organic plants
Decree 14/2008. (IV. 17.) of the Ministry of Health on the designation of the competent authority dealing with the gentechnological activites related to human-health, production of human medicines, and chemicals in contact with the human body; and designation of the special authority contributing to the authorization procedures relating to agricultural, food production and other industrial uses of gene technology.
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?
  • No
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
For more details see the EU implementation report.
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:
For more details see the EU implementation report.

transit: Decree 31/2006. (IV. 29.) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Economy and Transport and the Ministry of Finance on the import and market of genetically modified feeds.

contained use: see also the Hungarian Act on gene technological activities (Act No. XXVII of 1998)
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?
  • No
34. Does your country have the capacity to detect and identify LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
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 more details see the EU implementation report.
Hungary has prohibited cultivation through safeguard measures on individual authorized GMOs, such as MON810 and  genetically modified Amflora potato.
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 EU has developed a comprehensive legal framework on GMOs, which also addresses the import of GMOs intended for direct use for food or feed, or for processing. The EU has declared with reference to Article 14.4 of the Cartagena Protocol that it relies on its existing legislative framework for intentional movements of GMOs within the EU and for imports of GMOs into the EU.
With regard to the decisions taken for placing on the market of LMOs-FFP, it has to be noted that those decisions are taken for the whole European territory and not by the MS individually.
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?
  • No
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
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?
  • No
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:
Hungary has not 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:
Hungary has not entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements as per Article 14(1).
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
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?
  • Not applicable
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?
  • None
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?
  • Yes, always
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
The EU domestic legal framework, based on a prior risk assessment before authorisation is given, is applicable. The EU has put in place a comprehensive system of risk assessment and risk management dealing with releases into the environment or placing on the market of GMOs, whether imported into or developed within the EC. The notification provided by the company indending to market a GMO must include a full risk assessment of the risks to human and animal health and to the environment, which is assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), with an active involvement of Member States, notably as regards the authorisation of GMOs for cultivation, where they carry out the intial risk assessment. The aim of the environmental risk assessment is, on a case by case basis, to identify and evaluate potential adverse effects of the GMO, both direct and indirect, immediate or delayed, on human health and the environment.
See http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo/gmo_guidance.html
In accordance with the precautionary principle, environmental risk assessments must be based on the following principles:
 GMO characteristics and GMO use that have the potential to cause adverse effects are to be compared to characteristics and use of the non-modified organism from which the GMO is derived;
 Risk assessment should be carried out in a scientifically sound and transparent manner based on available scientific and technical data;
 Risk assessment should be carried out on a case by case basis;
 New information on the GMO and its effects 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 accordingly.
Article 4 of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms demands that any person submitting a notification under the authorisation procedures for GMO releases into the environment or placing on the market of GMOs as or in products needs to carry out an environmental risk assessment. Annex III of the Directive specifies the information that may be necessary to carry out the risk assessment. The environmental risk assessment comprises several steps that need to be addressed:
 Identification of characteristics which may cause adverse effects. These characteristics will vary from case to case and may include direct effects on human health or the environment as well as indirect effects occurring through a causal chain of events, through interactions with other organisms, transfer of genetic material or changes in use or management. As observations of indirect effects are likely to be delayed, immediate effects during the period of the release of the GMO as well as delayed effects that become apparent at a later stage or after termination of the release need to be considered.
 Evaluation of the potential consequences of each adverse effect, if it occurs.
 Evaluation of the likelihood of the occurrence of each identified potential adverse effect.
 Estimation of the risk posed by each identified characteristic of the GMO.
 Application of management strategies for risks from the deliberate release or marketing of GMOs.
 Determination of the overall risk of the GMO.Annex VII of the Directive provides guidance on the monitoring plan as part of the risk management strategy. More specific guidance notes are provided in Council Decision 2002/811/EC of 3 October 2002. The objective of the monitoring plan is to confirm that any assumption regarding the occurrence and impact of potential adverse effects of the GMO or its use in the risk assessment are correct, and to identify the occurrence of adverse effects of the GMO or its use which were not identified in the risk assessment.

The design of the monitoring plan should, among others:
 Be detailed on a case by case basis;
 Take into account the characteristics of the GMO, its use and scale of use, and the range of relevant environmental conditions;
 Incorporate general surveillance for unanticipated adverse effects;
 Provide for case-specific monitoring for a sufficient time period to detect immediate and direct as well as, where appropriate, delayed and indirect effects which have been identified in risk assessment.;
 Provide for the use of already established routine surveillance practices where appropriate
The EC has cooperated with members of the European Economic Area (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) on the issue of antibiotic resistance markers in risk assessment.
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
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 competent Hungarian authorities carry out risk assessments on the basis of the relevant EC legislation. For an overview of the EU procedure for risk assessment and risk management please see the EU's implementing report.
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?
  • No
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:
For more details see the EU's implementing report.
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:
Hungary is a Member State of the European Union, its legislation is in line with the legal framework of the EU. For more details please see the EU's implementation 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, more than one
119. In case your country designated more than one competent national authority, has your country conveyed to the Secretariat the respective responsibilities of those authorities?
  • Yes
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, some information
121. 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
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
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 not available
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 and 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 not available
124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
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 not available
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 and 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, always
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:
In Hungary, the Ministry of Rural Development has been designated as focal point for the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) (Contact: Ms Rita Andorkó, Ministry of Rural Development, Biodiversity and Gene Conservation Unit, Strategy Department. Address: H-1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér. 5., Hungary.). For more details see the EU's implementation report.
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:
For more details see the EU's implementation 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)?
  • No
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?
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
  • No
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.
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
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?
  • No
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
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?
  • Yes
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:
Public awareness and participation is an integral part of the regulatory framework on GMOs of the EC and Hungary. For more details see the EC implementation report.
Public information on activities regarding genetically modified organisms (including information on all intentional releases of GMOs into the environment) on the Hungarian Biosafety Websites (see question 1 above). Drafts and final authorization decisions are published in the Official Journal as well as on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Hungary is also Party to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters signed on 3rd July 2001 and published on 4th December 2001.
For more details see the EU's implementing report.
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?
  • No
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
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?
  • Not applicable
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?
  • No
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:
For more details see the EU's implementing report.
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?
  • No
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
For more details see the EU's implementing report.
Hungary also contributed to the EU's report on the socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation. Since there has not been any GMO cultivation in Hungary for the time being, the coutry has no practical experience regarding this issue. Therefore, in case of Hungary, social and economical implications of the cultivation of GM crops can only be estimated, for example with ex ante analysis.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • Yes
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:
For more details see the EU's implementing report.
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes
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.
For more details see the EU's implementing report.
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
  • 2001 or earlier
Here you may provide further details
Beyond the regular biosafety allocation, there has been organised a public awareness campaign in Hungary, in 2012 and 2013. Goal of the campaign was to raise awareness of farmers, comsumers and other stakeholders on the cultivating, use, handling and transporting of GMOs - including LMOs. 18.000 USD has been mobilized for this purpose.
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • 1 per year or more
Here you may provide further details
There are university courses on GMO and biosafety issues on some Hungarian Universities.  The National Food Chain Safety Office organised a thematic course on sampling of GMOs last year.
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
  • 5,000 USD or more
Survey 7. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
indicator 1.2.6
  • No
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
Here you may provide further details
As Member State of the European Union, Hungary adopted and uses guidance documents for risk assessment and management of the EC. For further detailes, see EU response.
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
Here you may provide further details
See EU response.
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
See EU response.
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
In Hungary, the Hungarian Scientific Advisory Committee carries out risk assessment of GMOs/LMOs.
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
Here you may provide further details
See EU response.
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
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
In Hungary, there is a priority issue to elaborate how socio-economic considerations could be taken into account in the decision making process regarding GMOs/LMOs. This evaluation is an ongoing process now.
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
  • 50 or more
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
See Question 15.
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
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • None
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 10 or more
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
National laboratory facilities in Hungary:   -Central Seed Testing Laboratory (member of the European Network of GMO Laboratories) of the National Food Chain Safety Office  -National Reference Laboratory for Food and Feed of the National Food Chain Safety Office
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
Here you may provide further details
We use guidances of the Joint Research Centre of the European Union. These documents are publicly available on the following webpages: http://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guidancedocs.htm and http://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/capacitybuilding/documentation.htm.
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
  • 10 or more
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • 10 or more
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
The national reference laboratories in Hungary are the following:   -Central Seed Testing Laboratory (member of the European Network of GMO Laboratories) of the National Food Chain Safety Office  -National Reference Laboratory for Food and Feed of the National Food Chain Safety Office
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
See Q 25.
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • One 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
Here you may provide further details
The national legislation is harmonised with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.
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
Here you may provide further details
The Hungarian Act Nr. 27 of 1998 contains detailed rules on public participation on LMO decision making processes.
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
  • Forums
  • Mailing lists
  • Public hearings
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
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
There has been organised a roadshow in different regions of Hungary in order to raise public awareness in the field of safe use, handling, transport and packaging of GMOs/LMOs in years 2012 and 2013. In the framework of the largest and most visited agricultural and food exhibition in Hungary (the 76th National Agriculture and Food Exhibition) conferences and workshops had been organised relating the GMO issue.
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
  • 10 or more
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
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
See Q 36.
Survey 41. If you answered yes to the question above, please indicate what entity is responsible for carrying out the programmes and/or services and at which level the programmes take place.
indicator 5.3.1
E.g. local, national, etc.,
The Ministry of Rural Development is responsible for public awareness programmes. The above mentioned Roadshow was organised at local level, in different countries of Hungary. The Ministry of Rural Development organised the largest and most visited agricultural and food exhibition in Hungary (the 76th National Agriculture and Food Exhibition). Besides, civil organisations are also active in this field.
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
In 2006 Hungary developed its GMO-free strategy and the process required for the realisation of its objectives, with the agreement of all five of the parliamentary parties at the time [Parliamentary Resolution 53/2006 (XI.29)]. This Decision contains the main elements of the communication strategy. This strategy has not been changed since that time, therefore Article XX of The Fundamental Law of Hungary (1st January 2012) indicates the main objective of the Hungarian strategy on GMOs.
Survey 43. Please indicate the number of educational materials on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public.
indicator 5.3.4
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
GMO/LMO information materials accessible to the public are awailable on the Governmental website as well as on the Hungarian Biosafety Website, mainly in Hungarian language:  http://gmo.kormany.hu/ and http://biosafety.abc.hu/biosafe_eng.html