| | 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
102628
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-28 18:36 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of last update
2011-12-20 03:32 UTC (estaciojulietafe@gmail.com)
Date of publication
2011-12-20 03:33 UTC (estaciojulietafe@gmail.com)

Origin of report
Country
  • Philippines
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Mario G. Montejo
Secretary, Department of Science and Technology Chairman, National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines
Department of Science and Technology
Department of Science and Technology General Santos Avenue, Bicutan
Taguig City
Philippines
Phone:+632 837 2939
Fax:+632 837-2937
Email:mgmontejo@dost.gov.ph
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
DA (BPI, PRS, FIDA, PHILRICE, BAI, CODA, PCA, NFRDI, Regional Offices)
DENR (PAWB, EMB, ERDB, FMB, Regional Offices)
DOH (FDA, Regional Offices)
DOST (PCAARRD, PCIEERD, PCHRD, NRCP, Regional Offices)
DFA (UNIO)
DOT
DILG / Local Government Units
MONSANTO
PIONEER
BAYER CROPSCIENCE
BASF PHILIPPINES
SEARCA-BIC
SEARICE
BIOTECH COALITION OF THE PHILIPPINES
EARTH SAVERS MOVEMENT
CONSUMER RIGHTS GROUP
MASIPAG
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (DILIMAN, LOS BANOS, MINDANAO)
WESTERN VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
IRRI
PROGRAM FOR BIOSAFETY SYSTEM
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
PRRM (PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT)
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-28
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2007-09
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
  • One or more sets of biosafety guidelines
  • 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)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
Question # 15 Explanatory Comment:

The Philippines has a National Biosafety Framework as per Executive Order 514 (E.O. 514)issued on 17 March 2006. Guidelines are in place for risk assessment of agricultural plants and plant products by way of a Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08, series of 2002. The Department of Environment and Natural Resource is formulating regulations for GM forest and  wildlife resources. Guidelines are also in place for Contained Use of LMOs which is being implemented by the Department of Science and Technology.

Question # 16 Explanatory Comment :

National Biosafety Framework- E.O. 514,issued on 17 March 2006

Regulations: DA AO No 8s. 2002 is based on Presidential Decree 1433, known as the Plant Quarantine Act, The Consumer Code, our commitments to WTO-SPS (World Trade Organization-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures), Adoption of Codex and IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) standards.

Biosafety Guidelines - Executive Order 430, issued on 16 October 1991,  creating the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines; Philippine Biosafety Guidelines series of 1991; Guidelines on the Planned Release of GMOs and PHES (Potentially Harmful Exotic Species) issued on 8 September 1998; DA Administrative Order No. 8: Guidelines on Risk Assessment for Field Trials, Propagation and Direct Use for food, feed or processing.

Other laws, regulations that indirectly apply to GMOs : Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection, Plant Variety Protection Act, Network of Integrated Protected Areas, etc.

Question # 17 Explanatory Comment:

EO 514 mandates the DOST, DENR, DA and DOH to allocate from their existing budgets such amount as may be necessary to implement the NBF, including to support the operations of the NCBP and its secretariat. Thereafter, the funding requirements shall be included in the yearly General Appropriations Bill submitted to Congress.  
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • No
24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:
As UN Member State, the Philippines implements the World Health Organization Certification Scheme on the Quality of Pharmaceutical Products Moving In International Commerce (World Health Assembly Resolutions WHA22.50 (1969), WHA28.65 (1975), WHA41.18 (1988), WHA45.29 (1992) and WHA50.3 (1997)
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • No
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?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
Question # 25 Explanatory Comment:

The Department of Agriculture has no regulation for transit of GM agricultural crops/seeds at the moment. Most of the imports of GM seeds and commodities containing GMOs are destined for the Philippines. The Plant Quarantine Service (PQS) of the Department of Agriculture requires that if a shipment/container, a part of which is destined for the Philippines, is opened, PQS inspects the remaining part of the shipment. Otherwise, if shipments just pass the Philippines and are not opened or unloaded in the port, no inspection is done by PQS. So far, most shipments of GMOs destined to the Philippines are required to be in the Registry of Approved regulated articles and required to be accompanied by a Phytosanitary Certificate.
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, 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?
  • Yes
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
39. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs has your country approved to date for import for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 10
40. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs, not imported, has your country approved to date for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 5
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?
  • Less than 5
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?
  • Less than 5
43. With reference to the decisions taken on intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment, has your country received a notification from the Party(ies) of export or from the exporter(s) prior to the transboundary movement?
  • Yes, always
44. Did the notifications contain complete information (at a minimum the information specified in Annex I of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety)?
  • In some cases only
45. Has your country acknowledged receipt of the notifications to the notifier within ninety days of receipt?
  • Not applicable
46. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s)?
  • In some cases only
47. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s) in due time (within 270 days or the period specified in your communication to the notifier)?
  • Not applicable
48. What percentage of your country’s decisions fall into the following categories?
  • Approval of the import/use of the LMO(s) with conditions
100%
  • Request for additional relevant information
80%
49. In cases where your country approved an import with conditions or prohibited an import, did it provide reasons on which its decisions were based to the notifier and the BCH?
  • In some cases only the notifier
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:
Question # 31 Explanatory Comment:

The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requires a biosafety permit for LMOs for field test and propagation. The Biosafety permit for field testing is valid for 2 years while permit for propagation is valid for 5 years. The Plant Quarantine Clearance (Import Permit) which is a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measure serves as the AIA.The Plant Quarantine Clearance (PQC) for GM seeds and commodities is based on the Approval Registry of Regulated Articles. In addition, it is required by the BPI that for every importation, a declaration of GM content should accompany the shipment upon arrival in the Philippines.

Question # 32 Explanatory Comment:

For LMOs introduced into the environment not subject to transboundary movement, a biosafety permit is required. The technology developer should apply for a biosafety permit from the BPI. Movement of LMOs within the country will require a domestic permit.

Question # 34 Explanatory Comment:

The BPI Molecular Laboratory, at present, can handle protein based (Lateral strips) and DNA-based detection methods (Conventional PCR) of LMOs. Quantitative Analysis can be done pending acquisition of real time PCR.

Question # 35 Explanatory Comment:

In general, all legal requirements are based on the WTO-SPS agreement. That is, if the country of import requires an SPS measure such as notification, the BPI issues a Plant Quarantine Certificate or certificate of GM content, whichever is required. Most importing countries requires a PQC consistent with Article 8 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Philippines can formally put in place in the future a legal requirement for exporters to notify in writing the Competent National Authority of the party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement, including accuracy of information, as it deems necessary.

Question # 48 Eplanatory Comment:

The Philippines prohibit importation of unapproved LMOs events.
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?
  • Yes
57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • Yes
58. How many LMOs-FFP has your country approved to date?
  • More than 10
59. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • Less than 5
60. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • Less than 5
61. Has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of its decision(s) regarding import, of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes, always
62. Has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of its decision(s) regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP within 15 days?
  • Yes, but with delays (i.e. longer than 15 days)
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:
Question # 51 Explanatory Comment :

The regulations for LMOs-FFP are the following:

1. DA Administrative Order No. 8s. 2002 (Section 11); Policy on Importation for Direct Use as Food or Feed, or for Processing

2. DA Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 8; Guidelines for the Phytosanitary Inspection of Regulated Articles for   Food , Feed and Processing, Pursuant to AO No. 8 (Series of 2002), "Rules and Regulations on the Importation and Release into the Environment of Plants and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology"

3. DA AO No. 22  s.2007; Amending Specific Sections of Part V of D.A. Administrative Order No. 8, s. 2002, "Approval Process for the Importation of Regulated Articles for Direct Use as Food or Feed, or for Processing"

4. DA AO No.31s. 2008. (Oct. 13, 2008 ); Adoption of codex principles for the risk analysis of foods derived  from modern biotechnology and the codex guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant -DNA plants

Question # 58 Explanatry Comment:

Approved LMOs  for direct use as food and feed or for processing (FFP) from Sept 12, 2007 up to date :

Soybean MON89788, Corn 3272, Soybean A2704-12,Corn MON89034,Soybean DP356043, Corn MIR162, Soybean CV127,Soybean A5547-127, Corn Bt11 x  corn GA21, Corn TC1507 x Corn 59122, Corn 59122 x Corn TC1507 x Corn NK 603, Corn Bt11 x Corn MIR604, Corn MIR604 x Corn GA21, Corn Bt11 x corn MIR604 x corn GA21,Corn MON89034 x corn NK603, Corn MON89034 x corn MON88017, Corn MON89034 x corn 1507 x corn 88017 x corn 59122, Corn NK603x corn T25, Corn Bt11 x corn MIR162 x corn GA21, Corn 3272 x corn Bt11 x corn MIR604 x corn GA21, Corn BT11 x corn MIR162 x corn MIR604 x corn GA21, Corn MON89034 x corn TC1507 x corn NK603, Corn Bt11 x corn MIR162 x corn TC1507 x corn GA21, Corn Bt 11 x DAS 59122 x MIR604 x TC1507 x GA21
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?
  • Yes
66. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • Yes, decision reviewed
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:
Question # 64 Explanatory Comment:
 
The Department of Agriculture has established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs

DA AO 8, Section 3, Principles of Risk Assessment:  "If new information on the regulated article and its effects on human health and the environment becomes available, the risk assessment shall be readdressed to determine whether the risk has changed or whether there is a need to amend the risk management strategies accordingly."

DA AO 8  likewise provides the conditions for a revocation of a permit. A permit is revoked if new technical information indicates that the regulated article will result in significant risk to human health and the environment

The DA had already received a request for review of a decision

In March 2007, the DA received a request from Greenpeace demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of corn Mon863 from the global market; e.g., the Greenpeace demand for the government to withdraw corn MON 863 is based on the reinterpretation of statistical results performed by Seralini G.E. et al entitled  "New Analysis of Rat Feeding Study with GM Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity".Published by the CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering).The authors alleged that the Monsanto submission in 2003 to the European Commission for authorization to market, was based on an erroneous analysis of the data of a 90-day rat feeding study…

Comprehensive risk assessment on the study re corn MON 863 vis-a-vis the original submission by Monsanto  was done  by five independent experts.  Based on their review, no adverse effects was identified on human and animal health or the environment and corn MON863 was confirmed to not adversely affect the health of rats.
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:
The Philippines has a regulatory framework in place.
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:
not applicable
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • In some cases only
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?
  • More than 10
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • Yes, always
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:
Explanatory Comment

Question # 81:

Risk Assessment Guidelines takes into consideration the following:

(i) Codex Alimentarius guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinanty-DNA Plants CAC/GL 45-2003

(ii) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

(iii) OECD Consensus Documents  (Compositional Consideration Documents, Biology Documents, Consideration for Environmental Risk Assessment and other relevant documents.)

Summary reports of the risk assessment conducted by the DA-BPI are found in the BCH.

Question # 89:

Not all the Risk Assessment reports are submitted to the BCH. Risk Assessment for Field Trials of LMOs has yet to be submitted pending clarification on the appropriate information vis a vis the prescribed format in the BCH, which for sometime kept on changing.
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?
  • Yes
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?
  • No
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?
  • No
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:
Concerns on the potential risks identified during the risk assessment process is addressed by establishing mitigating measures that should be implemented during the conduct of the field trial and during propagation.

These measures form part of the conditions for approval of applications on LMOs which the proponent has to comply with. 

Example of the condition is the implementation of insect resistance management in Bt corn and weed evolution monitoring in the case of herbicide resistant corn. 
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?
  • Less than 5
104. Has your country notified affected or potentially affected States, the BCH and, where appropriate, relevant international organizations, of the above release?
  • No
106. Has your country immediately consulted the affected or potentially affected States to enable them to determine appropriate responses and initiate necessary action, including emergency measures?
  • Yes, in some cases
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
The DA has adopted Annex 3 of the Codex Alimentarius Plant Guidelines issued in 2009 as the Standard for food safety assessment in situations of low-level presence of recombinant-DNA plant material in food and feed.

The DA is currently consulting stakeholders on the "Rules and Regulations in the Application of Annex 3 to the Codex Alimentarius Plant Guidelines".

Please also see Article 25 Question No. 175.
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, to some extent
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
Permit conditions require proper identification, handling, packaging and transport of regulated articles. (DA AO No. 8, s.2002/ DA MC No. 8 s.2003 "Guidelines on the Phytosanitary  Inspection of Regulated Articles for Food, Feed and Processing Pursuant to DA AO No.8s.2002")

Regulated articles for contained, field test and propagation are clearly identified.

Documentation accompanying LMOs-FFPs  shall indicate that it is or may contain an LMO.
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, all 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, to some extent
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 not available
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 available and in the BCH
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 but only partially available 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 but only partially available 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?
  • Yes
129. If you answered Yes to question 128, has your country reported these problems to the BCH or the Secretariat?
  • No
130. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?
  • No
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:
DA AO 8 identifies the following information as non-confidential in the process of applying for a biosafety permit under the BPI:

Name and address of the applicant, Description of the regulated article, Description of the intended destination (including all intermediate and final destinations), Uses and distribution of the regulated article, Summary of risk assessment of the effects of the regulated article on the environment and human health, Where appropriate, description of the proposed procedures, processes and safeguards which will be used by the applicant to prevent escape and dissemination of the regulated article at each of the intended destinations,  Description of the methods and plans for emergency response in case of accidental release of the regulated article into the environment; and Description of the proposed method of final disposition of the regulated article.

BPI inform the applicant if the information which the latter has identified as Commercial In Confidence (CIC) does not qualify for such treatment and  provide it an opportunity for consultation and review of its decision prior to disclosure to any third party.

An applicant may refer to data or results from applications previously submitted by other applicants:

Provided, that (i) the information, data or results are not CIC, or (ii) if the otherwise, the previous applicants have given their consent in writing to the use of their confidential information, data or results.
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?
  • Yes
136. If you answered Yes to question 135, how were these resources made available?
  • Bilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
138. If you answered Yes to question 137, how were these resources made available?
  • Bilateral channels
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.
  • Average
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Development of national biosafety frameworks
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
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
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Technology transfer
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol
  • Handling of confidential information
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
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
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
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Technology transfer
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
  • Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol
  • Handling of confidential information
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
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:
Activities undertaken for the development of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety:

Training for DENR Staff on: Enhancing Competence in Addressing Issues on GMOs and IAS; (Luzon Group) June 13-17, 2011; (VisMin Group) July 18-22, 2011

Workshop on Insect Resistance Management Policy Review; June 23-24, 2011
Study Tour for the Kenya National Biosafety Authority; Manila, Los Baños, Laguna and Pampanga; May 16-20, 2011;
Seminar on Implementation Experience and Regulatory Compliance to DA AO No. 8; Los Baños, Laguna, February 15, 2011
Training for CNAs Staff and IBCs on Biosafety Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); December 4-6, 2010; 
Workshop on the Biosafety Clearing House, 8-9 October 2010
Seminar on Environmental Risk Assessment of GM Crops; Quezon City; October 26, 2010;
Training for CNAs Staff and IBCs on Biosafety Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); June 9-11, 2010;
Training for CNAs Staff and IBCs on Biosafety Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); May 26-28, 2010;
Visit of Vietnamese Biosafety Regulators (Discussion on the National Biosafety Framework and Philippine Biosafety Regulation); Manila and Los Baños, Laguna; May 15-30, 2010; 
Asia Pacific Conference on Insect Resistance Management (IRM) for Bt Crops; Makati City; March 18-19, 2010;
Capacity Building for DENR Biosafety Unit on Environmental Risk Assessment and Post Commercial Monitoring of GMOs; Quezon City and Pamapanga; November 16-18, 2009;
Seminar on Low Level Presence (LLP) of Recombinant DNA Plant Material; Makati City; October 13-14, 2009;
Capacity Building on Biosafety for DOH; Tagaytay City; October 8-9, 2009;
Study Tour for WEMA (Water Efficient Maize for Africa); Manila, Pampanga and Los Baños; September 12-20, 2009;
Biosafety and Biosecurity Approaches in Relation to the Release of GMOs and Introduction of PHES; Los Baños, Laguna; August 17, 2009
Seminar-workshop on Communicating Biosafety for DOST Personnel; Los Baños, Laguna; June 24-25, 2009;
Briefing-cum-Presentation of the Philippine Biosafety Regulatory System and DOST Biotechnology Agenda to Nigerian Candidates; Taguig City; May 5, 2009; 
Biosafety Regulations: Experiences in Implementation Los Baños, Laguna; October 23-24, 2008;
Insect and Weed Resistance Management for Transgenic Crops; Isabela; May 26-27, 2008.

National Workshops on the Biosafety Clearing-House Project I;
BCH Information and Education Campaign (PAWB-DENR, Quezon City) August 7, 2008; (Cebu City) August 19, 2008;(Davao City) August 21, 2008;(General Santos City) December 4, 2008; (Davao City) December 5, 2008;
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:
Section 7 of E.O. 514, provides mechanism for Public Participation:  "The concerned government departments and agencies, in developing and adopting biosafety policies, guidelines and measures and in making biosafety decisions, shall promote, facilitate, and conduct public awareness, education, meaningful, responsible and accountable participation. They shall incorporate into their respective administrative issuances and processes best practices and mechanisms on public participation in accordance with the following guidelines"

In DA AO 8, Section 8 G, Section 9 E and Section 12 D, Public Consultation is a requirement for application for field testing, propagation and direct use as food, feed, or processing.

The BCH Pilipinas is a tool that was established with the assistance of the UNEP-GEF in 2007 in support the policy on transparency by sharing, providing access to and exchange of information on pertinent laws, regulations on biosafety, as well as decisions made by the government on the use of LMOs for direct use, among others.
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?
  • Yes, always
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
167. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
DA AO8 allows transboundary movement with non-parties. DA AO8 was formulated consistent with the provision of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
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?
  • Less than 5
171. Has your country informed the BCH and the other Party(ies) involved?
  • Only the other Party(ies) involved
172. Has your country established the origin of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
173. Has your country established the nature of the LMO(s)?
  • Yes
174. Has your country established the circumstances of the illegal transboundary movement(s)?
  • Yes
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
The BPI has received reports of illegal transboundary movement as follows:

The first one was an allegation on the presence of LL601 in rice to be imported from the US. While the alledged presence of LL601 in shipments of imported rice may have been a case of low level presence or unintentional transboundary movement, the Department of Agriculture did not have the policy and guidelines in place during that time to ascertain such allegation. The policy in place was DA AO8 No. 8s. 2002, "Rules and Regulations on the Importation of Plant and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology", which is a zero-tolerance regime for unapproved events. The DA formally adopted Annex 3 on Food Safety Assessment in Situations of Low Level Presence of RecombinantDNA Plant Material in Food, on January 2009 and is at the moment, working on comments received on the proposed draft "Rules and Regulations on the Application of Codex Annex 3" after having conducted sectoral and regional consultations from August to October 2011. The BPI ensured that shipments of rice during the relevant period i.e 2006-2008 did not contain LL601.

The second involved a declaration of unapproved event of corn (TC1507) for propagation as per the required declaration of GM content from the importer/technology developer (DA MC No. 8 Series 2003). The BPI quarantined the shipment and the shipment was disposed of accordingly.
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?
  • No
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
The Principles of E.O. 514 includes in 2.5 Socio-economic, Cultural and Ethical Considerations, to wit: "The socio-economic, ethical and cultural benefits and risks, of modern biotechnology to the Philippines and its citizens, and in particular on small farmers, indigenous peoples, women, small and medium enterprises and the domestic scientific community, shall be taken into account in implementing the NBF".

Accordingly, the NCBP will create a Technical Working Group (TWG) to start work on the drafting of standards for the above principles consistent with internationally accepted standards.

Several socio-economic studies focusing on the cost and benefits of planting GM corn to farmers in the Philippines had been conducted prior to decisions to commercialize products of modern biotechnology. Studies indicate higher corn yield and income benefits to the farmers.    
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 DA, DENR, DOST and DOH have submitted their concurrence to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), on the signing of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplemental Protocol on Liability and Redress.

The DFA has indicated that the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplemental Protocol provides flexibility in the crafting of the Administrative Rules and Regulations on Liability and Redress. An inter agency TWG and their legal experts will formulate the domestic framework for this purpose.     
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes, First report only
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.
Provide some space for notes/clarification for the Party to register its comments
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
  • 2006
Here you may provide further details
Additional funding for the implementation of the Protocol was provided/sponsored by the following organizations:  • UNEP-GEF - National Report / BCH Phase II ( 4 Trainings)  • Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS)  • International Systems for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA)  • US Department of Agriculture (USDA) - i.e. Cochran Fellowship  • US AID  • International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)  • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
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
Academic Course (B.Sc in Agricultural Biotechnology) is offered at the University of the Philippines Los Banos  At least one (1) short term training is conducted depending on the availability of funds.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Functional mechanism for the coordination of biosafety capacity building initiatives is in place similar to the existing coordination mechanism among the CNAs engaged in biosafety regulations.
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
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Competent National Authorities (CNAs) namely the Departments of Science and Technology (DOST), Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Health (DOH) and Agriculture (DA) provide yearly allocation for capacity building activities to effectively and efficiently implement the protocol.
Survey 8. How many LMO-related collaborative bilateral/multilateral arrangements has your country established with other Parties/non-Parties?
indicator 1.2.8
  • None
Here you may provide further details
There is no specific LMO related agreement with other parties and non-parties. However, we are using the existing trade agreements  in cases where there are issues involving LMOs.
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
Locally developed guidance documents based on internationally accepted standards are used in carrying out the risk assessment and risk management:  • Executive Order No. 430, 15 October1990   • Philippine Biosafety Guidelines 1, Series 1990 (Page 17-39)  • Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative Order No. 8   • Executive Order 514 (Section 5 - Decision Making Process) - Page 13-1  • CODEX Plant Guidelines (CAC/GL44-2003, CAC/GL45-2003)  • Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ARTICLE III - Risk Assessment)  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
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
Locally developed guidance documents based on internationally accepted standard are used in carrying out the risk assessment  and risk management:  • Executive Order No. 430, 15 October1990  • Philippine Biosafety Guidelines 1, Series 1990 (Page 17-39)  • Department of Agriculture Administrative Order 8   • Executive Order 514 (Section 5 - Decision Making Process) - Page 13-1  • CODEX Plant Guidelines (CAC/GL44-2003, CAC/GL45-2003)  • Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ARTICLE III - Risk Assessment)  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • No
Here you may provide further details
National Regulation/Guidelines on GMOs based on internationally accepted standards and Article 15, Annex III of the Protocol
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
Here you may provide further details
The country conducted Risk assessment, as follows:  • 215 applications for contained use    • 16 applications for confined tests  • Multi-location field tests ( 10 applications under NCBP, 17 applications under DA-BPI)  • 62 applications for Direct Use (FFP)  • 8 applications for Propagation
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
Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Plant Industry Memorandum Circular on GMO Declaration (http://biotech.da.gov.ph/)
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
E.O. 514s. 2006, "National Biosafety Framework" provides that , "Consistent with Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol, concerned government departments and agencies may take into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of regulated articles on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities. Socio-economic considerations shall be conducted separately from risk assessment and in a transparent and rigorous manner.  The National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) shall issue guidelines based on internationally accepted standards for the conduct of socio-economic considerations, prior to decision to commercialize products of modern biotechnology.
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
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
Gonzales, Leonardo A., et al. Modern Biotechnology & Agriculture: A History of Commercialization of Biotech Maize in the Philippines. Los Baños: STRIVE Foundation. 2009.    Gonzales, Leonardo A., et al. Ex Ante Impact Assessment of 3-in-1 Rice. Manila: STRIVE Foundation and the Philippine Rice Research Institute. 2008.    Gonzales, Leonardo A. Four Seasons of Commercialization: Monitoring and Evaluating the Socio Economic Impact of Bt Corn in the Philippines. Los Banos: STRIVE Foundation. 2007.    Gonzales, Leonardo A. Four Seasons of Post-Commercialization: Monitoring and Evaluating the Socio Economic Impact of Bt Corn in the Philippines. Los Banos: STRIVE Foundation. 2007.    Gonzales, Leonardo A. Harnessing the Benefits of Biotechnology: The Case of Bt Corn in the Philippines. Los Banos: STRIVE Foundation. 2005.    Gonzales, Leonardo A. Food-Carrying and Income Generating Capacities of the Rice Sector. Manila: STRIVE Foundation and the Philippine Rice Research Institute. 2002.    Gonzales, Leonardo A. Likely Transcendental Effects of Agri-Biotechnology. The Case of Bt Hybrid Corn in the Philippines. Los Baños: STRIVE Foundation. 2002    Gonzales, Leonardo A. Breaking New Ground: The Prospect on Enhancing the Corn Sector's Global Competitiveness through Biotechnology. Los Banos: STRIVE Foundation. 2000.    Yorobe, Jose M., & Smale, M. Impacts of Bt maize on smallholder income in the Philippines. AgBioForum, 15(2), 152-162. 2012.    Yorobe, Jose.M., Jr., Rejesus, R.M., & Hammig, M.D. Insecticide use impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools: Evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems, 104(2011), 580-587. 2011.    Mutuc, M.E., Rejesus, R.M., & Yorobe, Jr., J.M. Yields, insecticide productivity, and Bt corn: Evidence from damage abatement models in the Philippines. AgBioForum, 14(2), 35-46. 2011.    Yorobe, Jose M., Jr., & Quicoy, C.B. Economic impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. Journal of Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 89(3), 258-267. 2006.
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
The government departments concerned with LMO regulations have the inherent function to determine socio-economic considerations, in a context broader than Article 26.
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
Here you may provide further details
The proponents are required to submit contingency plan in case of unintentional release of LMOs. The said plan form part of their application for contained use, confined test, field tests, propagation and direct use.    Measures to address this issue are one of the conditions in the biosafety permit that the proponent has to comply with. The pertinent provisions in the Plant Quarantine Law is strictly enforced in the case of unintentional release.
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
  • 100 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • 100 or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 100 or more
Here you may provide further details
Regulators, Scientists, Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) members, Researchers, Biological Safety Officers (BSO)
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
• DA-BPI GMO detection laboratory  • Laboratories / facilities of public and private research institutions, state colleges and universities
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
• Executive Order No. 514  • Executive Order No. 430  • Department of Agriculture AO 8  • CODEX Alimentarius  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)  • Locally developed Training modules by NCBP, CNAs, NAST   • BCH educational materials
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
  • None
Here you may provide further details
In the Philippine administrative set-up,  Quarantine officers serve as border control officers. They are in charge of the identification, handling and transport of regulated articles imported into the country.
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
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • One or more
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
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Yes. The Philippines had been invited to workshops conducted by the CBD Secretariat:  regional workshop in India (November 2011) and Latvia (May 2012) and the latest was in Japan in February 2013.
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
Yes, the mandates of the agencies to regulate LMOs carry with it the responsibility to respond to damages to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. However, only the courts can award damages. The NCBP is currently conducting a study, through their legal adviser, on the domestic framework to the Supplemental Protocol on Liability and Redress resulting from damage to biodiversity.
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
• Executive Order No. 514   • Department of Agriculture Admistrative Order 8
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
  • Public hearings
  • Posting of Public Information Sheets in areas where the field trials will be carried out and in the following websites: • NCBP (http://ncbp.dost.gov.ph/) • DOSTBC (http://dost-bc.dost.gov.ph/) • DA-BPI (http://biotech.da.gov.ph/)
Here you may provide further details
Posting of Public Information Sheets in areas where the field trials will be carried out and in the following websites:  • NCBP (http://ncbp.dost.gov.ph/)  • DOSTBC (http://dost-bc.dost.gov.ph/)  • DA-BPI (http://biotech.da.gov.ph/)
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
  • None
Here you may provide further details
None on line. Set of training/informational materials are prepared by the organizers and resource persons on specific topics/areas and audience/participants every time we hold trainings, seminars and fora on biotechnology and biosafety regulations.
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
Here you may provide further details
Monitoring and enforcement systems are provided for in the national laws and regulations and being carried out by the staff of the concerned agency/ies engaged in biosafety regulation.
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
The said activities/events were organized not only by the CNA's but other organizations and advocacy groups whose objectives are to  increase the level of awareness of the public and other stakeholders on the products of modern biotechnology and the biosafety regulation of LMOs.
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
  • One 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 Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines • National Academy of Science and Technology • International Systems for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA) • Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)
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
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
The Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) Chairs a sub-committee on biological diversity where the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol is assessed.
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • Yes
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.,
Seminar series/fora on biotechnology and biosafety regulations are organized by other institutions/organizations. Public information and outreach programmes are included in the yearly activities of the CNAs, NAST and DA-Project Information Unit.
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
CNA's outreach communication strategy are part of the activities of the National Biosafety Regulatory system
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
Here you may provide further details
• Biosafety guidelines   • CDs on BCH, pertinent laws and regulations on GMOs  • Posters  • Brochures  • NCBP publication: Biosafety regulations in the Philippines: A review of the first fifteen years, preparing for the Next fifteen.