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

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Third National Report on the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Record information and status
Record ID
109119
Status
Published
Date of creation
2015-10-31 19:10 UTC (lozan@mediu.gov.md/3811)
Date of publication
2015-10-31 19:10 UTC (lozan@mediu.gov.md/3811)

Origin of report
1. Country
  • Republic of Moldova
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Dr. Angela Lozan
BCH FP, Heal of Biosafety Office
Ministry of Environment (ME)
Cosmonautilor Str.9, ]
Chisinau
Republic of Moldova, 2005
Phone:+373 22 22 68 74
Fax:+373 22 22 68 74
Email:lozan@mediu.gov.md
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health Care, Ministry of Economy, Academy of Sciences, State University of Moldova, State Agrarian University, NGOs: Ecotiras, Ecospectru, farmers, consumer's organizations, local authorities, mass-media etc.
Submission
10. Date of submission
2015-10-31
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2011-11-01
11. Time period covered by this report
End date
2015-10-31
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
14. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 3.1.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • A domestic regulatory framework is partially in place
15. If you indicated that a national biosafety framework exists in the above question, when did it become operational?
This question is relevant to the indicator 1.1.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 2010
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • One or more national biosafety laws
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
There is budgetary allocation to support operational activities to the Division of the Natural resources, Biodiversity and Biosafety within the Ministry of Environment. The appointed National Biosafety Commission is an intergovernmental advisory body that ensure scientific expertise and no specific budgetary allocations is provided. 
18. Does your country have permanent staff to administer functions directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
19. If you answered Yes to question 18, how many permanent staff members are in place whose functions are directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Less than 5
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country
There are total 24 records published to the BCH, including: Laws, Regulation or Guideline - 5
Article 5 - Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • No
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.8.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.1.2 and 1.8.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
By present no any notification received by the National Competent Authority for LMOs intended for contained use and /or transit of LMOs and no any approval of permission made in the reporting period.
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 OR a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
30. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
31. If you answered Yes to question 30, does the mechanism also apply to cases of intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment that were not subject to transboundary movement?
  • No
32. 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
33. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Yes, but to some extend. The existent national law and regulation establish a checklist of information to be submitted in the notification. This check list in not fully in line with the Annex 1 of the Protocol. A new law on GMO has been elaborated recently and is under the consultation process and is going to be approved during the current year. The new law stipulates provisions for the accuracy of information in the notifications ans in conformity with the CP requirements.
34. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
35. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
38. 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
39. 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
46. 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
During the reporting period there were no one notification received by the National Competent  Authority that seeking approval for the import, transboundary movement of LMOs intended for deliberative release into the environment. By present no any decision approved  in this regard.
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
47. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
48. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Yes, but to some extent. The regulation to the national law stipulates a checklist of requested information that should be provided in the notification. In some context the checklist should be harmonized with the Annex I of the Protocol.
49. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
50. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.1.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
51. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity-building in respect of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
52. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • Yes
53. How many LMOs-FFP has your country approved to date?
  • Less than 5
54. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • Less than 5
55. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • None
56. Has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of its decision(s) regarding import, of LMOs-FFP?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, always
57. 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?
  • No
58. 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
In the reporting period there where three decisions taken by the National Biosafety Commission and the National Competent Authority that  permitting the import of GM soybean intended to be used as feed for poultry farming: MON 40-3-2 (MON-Ø4Ø32-6), MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) and MON 87701 (MON-877Ø1-2).
Article 12 – Review of decision
59. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
60. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?
  • No
61. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
62. 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
67. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
The existent simplified procedure is applicable for GMOs -FFP that have been previously approved in the EU countries before the intention to introduce in Moldova.
68. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • Yes
69. If you answered Yes to question 68, has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of the cases where the simplified procedure applies?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, always
70. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • Less than 5
71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country
The mentioned decisions for three soybean lines -  MON 40-3-2 (MON-Ø4Ø32-6), MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) and MON 87701 (MON-877Ø1-2) has been taken according the simplified procedures.
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
72. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?
  • Yes
73. If you answered Yes to question 72, how many LMO-related collaborative bilateral/multilateral arrangements has your country established with other Parties/non-Parties?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.8 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
74. If you answered Yes to question 72, has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of the agreements or arrangements?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, always
75. If you answered Yes to question 72, please provide a brief description of the scope and objective of the agreements or arrangements entered into
The Republic of Moldova has signed and ratified the Association Agreement with the European Union and Atomic Association of the European Union and the member states in 2014. The agreement stipulates harmonization of the national regulatory frameworks in a number of fields of activity, including GMOs regulation.
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 14 in your country
A new Law on GMOs, which is harmonized with the EU Directive 18/2001 on deliberative release into environment and FFP has been drafted and now is in the consultation process before approval.
Articles 15 & 16 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management
77. Has your country established a national framework for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
Yes but to some extend. The National biosafety law imply the risk assessment as the obligatory procedure that has to be a component part of decision making. The notifications applied are requested to involve the document of risk assessment to be submitted to the Competent Authority. The document of RA is going to be re-evaluated by the National Biosafety Commission. The National Biosafety Commission is an scientific consultative advisory body that is in charge with risk assessment and scientific review. However, there are not sufficient trained domestic risk evaluators for LMOs, lack of a domestic guidelines for Risk assessment in line with the Annex III of the Protocol and the Guidance developed under the AHTEG. There is critical needs for capacity building for training of risk evaluators and expertise.  
78. If you answered Yes to question 77, does this framework include procedures for identifying and/or training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • No
79. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.3 of the Strategic Plan
a) Risk assessment:
  • One or more
b) Management / Control:
  • None
c) Monitoring:
  • None
80. Is your country using training material and/or technical guidance for training in risk assessment and risk management of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
81. Is your country using the "Manual on Risk Assessment of LMOs" (developed by CBD Secretariat) for training in risk assessment?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
82. Is your country using the "Guidance on Risk Assessment of LMOs" (developed by the Online Forum and the AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management) for training in risk assessment?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
83. Are the currently available training materials or technical guidance on risk assessment and/or risk management of LMOs sufficient?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.6 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
84. Does your country have the capacity to detect, 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?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.4.2 and 1.6.3 of the Strategic Plan
a) Detect:
  • No
b) Identify:
  • No
c) Assess:
  • No
d) Monitor:
  • No
85. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of conducting risk assessment or risk management, or for evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
a) Risk assessment:
  • No
b) Risk management:
  • No
86. Is your country using the "Guidance on Risk Assessment of LMOs" (developed by the Online Forum and the AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management) for conducting risk assessment or risk management, or for evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
87. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
88. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.4.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
89. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO including any type of risk assessment of LMOs, e.g. for contained use, field trials, commercial purposes, direct use as food, feed, or for processing?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.3.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
94. 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
95. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • No
96. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.2.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
97. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 15 and 16 in your country
The country has limited existent capacities to provide risk assessment and management, including monitoring, detection of LMOs and assessment of possible risks and effects. There is lack of a reference accredited laboratory within the National Competent Authority that will be accessible to ensure monitoring , detection and identification of LMOs.

A Regional CEE Course on Integrate Impact Assessment of LMOs under the Cartagena Protocol has been organized in 2014 in Moldova with the support of GENOK Center, Norway and the Ministry of Environment of Moldova.  A number of domestic academia experts and decision makers has been involved in the testing of the Guidance and the Roadmap on Risk assessment developed by the AHTEG of the Cartagene Protocol on Biosafety. 
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
98. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
A custom declaration should be filled out by importers in case of transboundary movement of LMOs.

The measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movement are not fully efficient due to the lack of a detection laboratory in the country.

A casual measures undertaken to provide sampling, detection of LMOs and monitoring of crop varieties and agricultural/food products in the local market in the country. 
99. 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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
The Ministry of Environment is the appointed body to ensure emergency measures in case of unintentionally imports of LMOs. There is not sufficient clear roles and responsibilities within the competent authorities and notifiers approved in case of emergency measures related the possible accidents with LMOs.
100. Does your country have the capacity to take appropriate measures in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.8.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
101. 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
105. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country
In 2013 a number of samples of soybean and corn (agricultural products) collected from the main producers (cultivators) in the Northern and Central part of Moldova have been tested in an EU accredited GM detection laboratory (Vilnius, Lithuania. The results of detection shown that the cultivated crops are not GMOs. However, a botanical impurification (small amount) of GM soybean (MON) has been detected that were present in the limited samples of corn.  
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
106. 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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
The additional regulation to the Biosafety Law stipulates special measures for GMOs to be handled, packaged and transported in a safe manner.
107. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
There is a legal provision stipulates that the accomaining documentation should contain words "..the product is GMO; or may be produced from /or contain GMO"
108. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
There is legal requirement that the importer have to declare in the Custom Declaration on personal responsibility that the imported biological/agricultural goods are "GMO or produced/or contain GMOs". There is requirement for labelling of food/feed/seed products, including the imported goods, that should indicate clearly if they are GMO or contain GMO, if the quantitative amount is more hen 1% for products and 0,3% for seeds.
109. If you answered Yes or Yes, to some extent to question(s) 107 and/or 108, what type of documentation does your country require for the identification of LMOs-FFP?
  • Existing types of documentation
110. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
There is a common (not differentiated) legal provision for all types of imported products that may contain GMO for various types of uses, including contained use.
111. If you answered Yes or Yes, to some extent to question 110, what type of documentation does your country require for the identification of LMOs that are destined for contained?
  • Existing types of documentation
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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, to some extent
There is a common (not differentiated) legal provision for all types of imported products that may contain GMO for various types of uses, including  intentional introduction into environment.
113. If you answered Yes or Yes, to some extent to question 112, what type of documentation does your country require for the identification of LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Existing types of documentation
114. Does your country have available any guidance for the purpose of ensuring the safe handling, transport, and packaging of living modified organisms?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.6.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
115. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • No
116. How many customs officers in your country have received training in the identification of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • None
117. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • No
118. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • None
119. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
120. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • None
122. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
There are limited capacities to provide detection of LMOs under the University of the Academy of Sciences. However, the lab id not accredited for the LMO detection and is not nominated as the reference laboratory to be able to ensure monitoring, identification of LMOs. 
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
123. 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?
  • Not applicable
124. 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
Here you may provide further details
The appointed by the Government National Competent Authority  is the Ministry of Environment.  The National Biosafety Commission is in charge to provide consultative scientific  advisory and expertise to the NCA. They are the two main institutional bodies that perform administrative functions required by the Protocol. To be mentioned that there are  not enough sufficient institutional capacities to ensure risk assessment and risk management procedures, including monitoring and laboratory detection of LMOs, emergency measures and prevention of illegal and unintentional transboundary movement of LMOs by the administrative bodies.
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
126. Please provide an overview of the status of the mandatory 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.
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
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
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
c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))
  • Information available and in the BCH
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
e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
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 not available
j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
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 not available
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
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 not available
n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
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
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 not available
127. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • Yes
128. 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
129. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • Yes, always
130. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
This question is relevant to indicator 4.1.8 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
131. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?
  • Yes
132. 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:
This question is relevant to indicator 4.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • 5 or more
133. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year:
This question is relevant to indicator 4.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
134. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred:
This question is relevant to indicator 4.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • National website
  • BCH Central Portal
  • National Libraries
135. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country
The CEE Regional Biosafety Course on Integrative risk assessment of LMOs under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety organized by GENOK, Norway and the Ministry of Environmet, 3-8 February 2014, Chisinau, Moldova.

A book Classic and Modern biotechnology, M.Lesanu, A.Lozan, published in collaboration with the State University of Moldova, Chisinau, 2011 and available through the National website, National libraries. Report on CEE Regional Biosafety course published via National website, BCH Central Portal, Genok website.
Article 21 – Confidential information
136. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • No
137. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • No
138. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country
There are legal provisions related what kind of information should not be considered as confidential, and should be accessible to the public.  The Lan on Biosafety, art. 39, as well as the additional regulation on public information and participation to GMO decision making stipulated type of information that could not be confidential.
Article 22 – Capacity-building
139. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.6 and 3.1.8 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
140. 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
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how were these resources made available?
  • Bilateral channels
142. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
144. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
145. If you answered Yes to question 144, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 157.
  • Average
146. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Development of national biosafety frameworks
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase II)
147. 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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
The CEE Regional Biosafety Course on Integrative risk assessment of lMOs under the Cartagena Protocol oeganised in Moldova, February 2014. The domestic stakeholders and risk evaluators has been trained during the course.
148. If you answered Yes to question 147, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Socio-economic considerations
149. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
151. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.7 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
152. If you answered Yes to question 151, 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
  • 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
  • Taking into account risks to human health
153. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
154. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
155. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • 1 per year or more
156. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • Yes
157. 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
A regular (1 per year) university course on Biosafety and Sustainable development is teaching for master degree students at the State University of Moldova, Faculty of Biology and Soil Sciences since 2010.

In 2014 Moldova has endorsed the GEF Star allocation funds for the Biosafety/SLM project under the UNEP intended to build capacities for country specific needs in order to further implementation of the Cartagena Protocol requirements in the country and in accordance with the national Strategy NBSAP for 2014-2020 (approved in 2014). 
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
158. 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
159. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
This question is relevant to indicator 5.3.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
160. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
This question is relevant to indicator 5.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
162. Has your country established a biosafety website searchable archives, national resource centres or sections in existing national libraries dedicated to biosafety educational materials?
This question is relevant to indicators 2.5.3 and 5.3.3 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
163. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 5.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
164. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • Yes, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
The summary of notifications of GMOs intended to be imported and used as FFP has been posted via the national website and ensure public information and participation to decision making.
165. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
166. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
167. Has your country informed the public about existing modalities for public participation in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
168. If you answered Yes to question 167, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public:
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • National website
  • Mailing lists
  • Public hearings
169. If you indicated more than one modality for public participation in question 168, which one was most used?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.5.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • National website
170. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • Yes
171. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.7.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
172. Please indicate the number of educational materials and/or online modules on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public in your country:
This question is relevant to indicators 2.7.2 and 5.3.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • One or more
173. 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, to some extent
Here you may provide further details
A number of meetings and workshops organized for public and decision makers within the Detection and monitoring activities undertaken with the support of the National Ecological fund and the Ministry of Environment in 2012-2013.
A regular educational course is teaching in the State University of Moldova.
The CEE Regional Biosafety course (GENOK-ME) organized with participation of representatives of NGOs and public.
A number of meetings of the National Biosafety Commission invited the representatives of civil society (NGOs Eco-Tiras, EcoSpectru).
174. If you answered Yes to question 173, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • No
175. 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?
  • Less than 5
176. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country
The National Biosafety Commission has consulted the public during the decision making process for three GMOs soybean notifications for FFP. (see the list of country's decisions)
Article 24 – Non-Parties
177. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
178. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
179. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
184. 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
185. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
186. 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?
If you replied Never to question 186 please go to question 191
  • Never
191. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country
There are general provisions  in the Contravention Code and Administrative Code  that covers all types of contraventions related the environmental protection, including environmental pollution, wast management, radiation, biodiversity degradation, forestry management etc. There are no special provisions for taxation or contravention  for  illegal transboundary movements of LMOs been approved.
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
192. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.7.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
193. 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
194. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.7.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • None
196. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • No
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
198. Has your country ratified or acceded to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • Yes
200. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.4.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
201. Does your country have administrative or legal instrument that provide for response measures for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms?
This question is relevant to indicators 1.5.2 and 2.4.2 of the Strategic Plan
  • No
202. 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 country has signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplimentary Protocol on Liability and Redress in January 25, 2012.
Article 28 – Financial Mechanism and Resources
203. 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?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • 5,000 USD or more
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
204. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.6 of the Strategic Plan
a) Monitoring system:
  • Yes
b) Enforcement system:
  • Yes
205. Has your country submitted all the previous due 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.
In the reporting period of 2011-2015 years Moldova has undertaken a number of actions towards the national implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety:

1. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan  2014-2020 is approved (2014) and involves special provisions and actions for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the next period.
2. The Moldova-EU Association Agreement has been ratified in 2014 and intended to harmonization of the national regulation framework with the EU, including the EU Directive 18/2001 on deliberative release of GMOs to the environment and placing to the market.
3. The new Law on GMOs is drafted and harmonized with the EU directives and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The draft law is under the consultation process with the governmental bodies and the public. Is expected to be approved by the end of 2015.
4. The Ministry of Environment undertaken monitoring of GMOs in the samples of soybean and corn crop varieties cultivated in Moldova. The samples has been detected in collaboration with an accredited GMO detection laboratory in the EU - Vilnius, Lithuania (2013). The project was supported by the National Ecological Fund (extra-budgetary fund).
5. The CEE Regional Biosafety Course on Integrative Impact Assessment of LMOs under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety held in Chisinau, Moldova on 2-8 February 2014. The course organized by the GENOK, Norway in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment of Moldova and funded by the NORAD, Norway. The Guidance on Risk assessment and management elaborated by the AHTEG under the Protocol has been tested during the course by regional participants. The course involved 45 participants from 14 countries in the CEE region, including decision makers, academia, NGOs, risk evaluators etc.
6. A university course on Biosafety and Sustainable development is teaching regularly for Master degree students at the State University of Moldova since 2010.
7. The CBD/CPB Meeting on Capacity Building under the Cartagena Protocol for governments, organizations etc., as well as Liaison Group meeting held in Chisinau , Moldova in 2011.
8. A number of workshops, publications and events organized with the topic of Biosafety addressed to the stakeholders, representatives of the governmental bodies, academia, NGOs  and public; The BCH is updated regularly with the relevant country information (with the support of the UNEP BCH II project in 2011).

However, due to the limited financial budgetary resources and the political instability in the country during the last year, Moldova has encountering constrains in the progress activities for further implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, as ex. mechanisms and procedures for risk assessment, monitoring and detection of LMOs, socio-economic considerations, ratification and implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala- Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on liability and redress etc. In 2014 Moldova is seeking the GEF/UNEP support under the Country STAR allocation for for the country specific capacity building needs to address Biosafety issues in order to implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and to address the climate change adaptation.
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
In our view the proposed Questionnaire for the 3rd national reporting is a very useful and helpful document that advise the country to provide with national information and updates concerning the current state and progress on the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol at country level.   The majority of questions and options for responses in the Report Questionnaire are very clear and understandable. 

As regard to the questions 106-112 - Under the Art. 18 of the Report, we would suggest that the questions should be some shorter (to be easy for understanding) and more options for responses would be appreciated.