| | 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
109124
Status
Published
Date of creation
2015-11-01 18:07 UTC (g.mozgova@yandex.ru)
Date of last update
2015-11-26 12:35 UTC (g.mozgova@yandex.ru)
Date of publication
2015-11-26 12:35 UTC (g.mozgova@yandex.ru)

This document is also available in the following languages:
Origin of report
1. Country
  • Belarus
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Galina Mozgova
Deputy Head of the National Coordination Biosafety Centre, BCH NFP
State Scientific Institution "Institute of Genetics and Cytology at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus" (SSI IGCNASB)
Academicheskaya str, 27
Minsk
Belarus, 220072
Phone:+375 17 2949182
Fax:+375 17 2841917
Email:g.mozgova@igc.by,g.mozgova@yandex.ru
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection; the National Coordination Biosafety Centre of the Institute of Genetics and Cytology, NAS Belarus; Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Belarus; Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus; the Belarusian State Accreditation Centre; the Institute of Microbiology, NAS Belarus; the Institute of Biophysics and Cell Engineering, NAS Belarus; the Forest Institute, NAS Belarus; the the Scientific and Practical Center for Potato, Fruit and Vegetable Growing; NAS Belarus the Scientific and Practical Center for Animal Breeding, NAS Belarus; the Central Botanical Garden, NAS Belarus; the Scientific and Practical Center for Foodstuffs; NAS Belarus; the Institute of Plant Protection, NAS Belarus; the Institute for Experimental Botany, NAS Belarus; the State Customs Committee of the Republic of Belarus; the Republican Scientific and Practical Centre of Hygiene; the Belarusian State Institute of Metrology; Aarhus Centre of the Republic of Belarus; the Biological Faculty of the Belarusian State University; the National Center of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Public Health; Laboratories for GMO Detection: the Institute of Genetics and Cytology, Brest Regional Center of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Public Health, Vitebsk Center for Standardization, Metrology and Certification, Gomel Center for Standardization, Metrology and Certification, Grodno Center for Standardization, Metrology and Certification, Mogilev Center for Standardization, Metrology and Certification.
Submission
10. Date of submission
2015-11-01
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2011-10-01
11. Time period covered by this report
End date
2015-10-29
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 fully 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
  • 2006
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?
  • Less 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
By 2006 the National Biosafety Framework had been developed and established in the Republic of Belarus. The most important result of its establishment was the adoption of the Law on "Safety in Genetic Engineering Activities", №96 dated January 9, 2006. The National legislation of the Republic of Belarus (laws, regulations, guidelines) can be entirely found on the Biosafety Clearing-House website (http://bch.cbd.int/database/results?searchid=642147) in "Belarus" profile. Accession of the Republic of Belarus to the Customs Union of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) resulted in the adoption of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union of the EurAsEC (Customs Union Commission Decision № 880 "On Food Safety" and № 881 " Food Products in Terms of their Labeling" of December 9, 2011), setting a threshold of 0.9% instead of 0% for the labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients and establising the need to quantify GM components.
Over the past period from 2011 to 2015 on the basis of SSI "The Central Botanical Garden of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus" and RUE "The Scientific and Practical Center of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus for Potato, Fruit and Vegetable Growing" established trial fields, which meet safety requirements for the testing of transgenic plants under natural climatic conditions at their first release to the environment. 3 fields in total have been established in Belarus (the third - at the SSI "The Institute of Genetics and Cytology").
During the period from 2011 to 2015 NCBC sent 26 formal responses to the requests of governments and organizations of the Republic of Belarus. Prepared 5 policy notes and materials. Presented 4 proposals and issued 4 expert opinions on the content of GM ingredients in food products and seeds. On October 1, 2013 (CEI project) it organized the International Conference "Sharing Experience in the Field of Education and Raising Public Awareness of Biosafety Issues"; in the preparation of the Third National Report 2 national workshops were held - "Detection of GMO in the Republic of Belarus" and "Public Participation in Biosafety Issues." Two working meetings on "Requirements for the Documentation Required in the Release of Non-pathogenic Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment" were held. NCBC participated in the organization and holding of 17 international and 18 national seminars and conferences on biosafety and biodiversity issues. During the preparation of the Third National Report inquiries about the detection of GM components, including unauthorized, in food and feed were sent to all the Republican Laboratories for GMO Detection (LDGMOs) in order to monitor the situation in the country for 2011-2015.
In 2011-2014 LDGMOs at the NCBC of the Institute of Genetics and Cytology performed work in the amount of 2456400 thousand Belarusian roubles ($ 287,096.00) for the determination of GM components in food and feed; participated in the interlaboratory collations of results for the accredited Laboratories for GMO Detection of the Republic of Belarus.
Article 5 - Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • Yes
23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Partially
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
  • Yes
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
  • Yes
27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes
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
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
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
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)?
  • No
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?
  • No
68. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • No
70. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • None
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
On 10.10.2008 the Treaty establishing a single customs territory and formation of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (the Eurasian Economic Community, EurAsEC) entered into force. In connection with the accession to the Customs Union of the EurAsEC Belarus adopted Technical Regulations of the Customs Union TR CU 021/2011 "On Food Safety" and TR CU 022/2011 "Food Products in terms of their Labeling", including 0.9% for GM products labeling (documents are in "Belarus" profile on the Biosafety Clearing-House website). Sec. 3.3. of Technical Regulations states that up to February 15, 2015 the production and release of products in circulation are allowed in accordance with the mandatory requirements previously established by the regulatory legal acts of the Customs Union of the EurAsEC, or the Law of the Member State of the Customs Union of the EurAsEC, subject to available documents on assessment (confirmation) of the product conformity specified mandatory requirements, issued or adopted prior to the entry into force of Technical Regulations. Currently, the Agreement on the Customs Union of the EurAsEC has become invalid in connection with the entry into force the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). By February 15, 2015 the transitional periods for the above Technical Regulations on food products had ended, and now Technical Regulations of the Customs Union of the EurAsEC CU TR 021/2011 and CU TR 022/2011 are in effect within a framework of the Technical Regulations of the EAEU Customs Union.
The Technical Regulations of the EAEU Customs Union in the field of LMOs circulation, as well as rules on GM products labeling are similar to the European Union Directives and Regulations on labelling and comply with the requirements in paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 14 in your country
Article 20 of TR CU 021/2011 states that "Methods of examination (testing) and measurement of food products are specified in the List of Standards containing regulations and methods of examination (testing) and measurement, including the rules of sampling required for the application and enforcement of the requirements of these Technical Regulations and implementation of assessment (confirmation) of conformity of food products." For LMOs it is the Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Inspector of RF of 30.11.2007 №80 "On Supervision over the Circulation of Food Products Containing GMOs" (together with "MR 2.3.2.2306-07.23.2. Food Products and Food Supplements. Biomedical Assessment of the Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms of Plant Origin. Methodological Guidlines", "MR 4.2.2304-07. Control Methods and Microbiological Factors. Food Products and Food Supplements. Methods of Identification and Quantification (Quantitative Determination) of Genetically Modified Organisms of Plant Origin. Methodological Guidlines", "MR 4.2.2305-07. 4.2.Control Methods. Biological and Microbiological Factors. Food Products and Food Supplements. Detection of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Microorganisms Having Genetically Modified Analogues in Food Products by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Methods and PCR with Electrophoretic Detection. Methodological Guidlines". This Regulation can be found in "Belarus" section on the website of the Biosafety Clearing-House.
The methodological base developed in the Customs Union is largely harmonized with the requirements of international organizations and the European Union and provides a level of protection not less than that defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
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
78. If you answered Yes to question 77, does this framework include procedures for identifying and/or training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • Yes
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:
  • One or more
c) Monitoring:
  • One or more
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
  • Yes
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
  • Yes
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:
  • Yes
b) Identify:
  • Yes
c) Assess:
  • Yes
d) Monitor:
  • Yes
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:
  • Yes
b) Risk management:
  • Yes
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
  • Yes
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
  • Yes
90. If you answered Yes to question 89, please indicate the scope of the risk assessments (select all that apply):
  • Field trial
  • LMOs for Contained use
91. If you answered Yes to question 89, were the summary reports of the risk assessments submitted to the BCH?
This question is relevant to indicator 3.1.5 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes, always
92. If you answered Yes to question 89, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs for direct use as food, feed, or for processing?
  • No
93. If you answered Yes to question 89, how many risk assessments were conducted in the current reporting period?
  • 5 or less
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?
  • Yes
95. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • Yes
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
  • Yes
97. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 15 and 16 in your country
In addition to the previously adopted regulations and national methodologcal guidelines regulating the assessment of potential risks of LMOs to human health and the environment for the period covered by the report, in connection with the accession of the Republic of Belarus to the Customs Union of the Eurasian Economic Community, Belarus approved a list of standards containing rules and methods of examination (testing) and measurement, including biomedical evaluation of the safety of genetically modified organisms of plant origin at the first entry on the market of the Customs Union. Requirements for the biomedical evaluation are set out in the methogological guidelines 2.3.2.2306-07 "Biomedical Assessment of the Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms of Plant Origin", approved by the Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation dated November 30, 2007 № 80. It should be noted that the methodological guidelines developed earlier in the Republic of Belarus and the Customs Union are similar to the requirements to the nature of information on genetically modified plants to be provided by applicants, as well as the biomedical assessment carried out by the applicant. They are based on the recommendations of international organizations in this field, such as the WHO, as well as on the national experience of such research gained in the study of toxicology and allergology of untransformed organisms. These standards are currently in effect within a framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
However, the newly established methodological recommendations give a fuller description of the system of biomedical research in case of release of new genetically modified plants on the market of the country. An important distinction is also in that all biomedical research is of long-term nature (sampling of biological material for research is conducted on the 30th and 180th day of the experiment).
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
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
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
  • Yes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
  • Yes
115. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • Yes
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?
  • Yes
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
  • 10 or more
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
  • Yes
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
  • 10 or more
121. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are currently operating in the detection of LMOs?
This question is relevant to indicator 2.3.4 of the Strategic Plan
  • 10 or more
122. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
The Republic of Belarus has 18 certified laboratories involved in GMO detection in all Regions of the country: 8 at the State Committee for Standardization, 6 at Ministry of Health , 2 at Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and 2 at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. In the preparation of the Third National Report as part of a consultative process the Republican Scientific and Practical Seminar "Detection of GMOs in the Republic of Belarus" was conducted. During the seminar a meeting with representatives of all GMO detection laboratories and customs officers was held. It was revealed that despite ongoing training, in connection with changes in the threshold for labeling of GMOs from 0% to 0.9% in Belarus and the need for quantitative identification of authorized and unauthorized GM events, for many laboratories there is a need for further practical training of specialists. There is also a need for training of customs officers on biosafety, including GMO detection, identification and sampling. It was decided to provide a stable operational contact between the NCBC and the laboratories for GMO detection in the Republic of Belarus, including joint inter-laboratory collations, validation of new methods and experts training, as well as enter a proposal to the State Customs Committee to participate in the training of customs officers on biosafety and the liability of the Republic of Belarus to implement the obligations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, develop a program for a corresponding special course.  
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?
  • Yes
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
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 but only partially available 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 available and in the BCH
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 not available
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
  • 25 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
  • 10 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
135. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country
Information provided by the Republic of Belarus in BCH is updated in the process of preparing the Third National Report on the implementation of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Article 21 – Confidential information
136. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • Yes
137. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • Yes, always
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?
  • Yes
143. If you answered Yes to question 142, how were these resources made available?
  • Bilateral channels
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
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
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
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
  • 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
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Taking into account risks to human health
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
  • Yes
150. If you answered Yes to question 149, has this information been submitted to the BCH?
This question is relevant to indicator 1.2.1 of the Strategic Plan
  • Yes
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
  • 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
  • Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
  • Scientific biosafety research relating to 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
  • No
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
  • Less than 1 per year
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
BCH II and BCH III projects were not carried out, since the application for the BCH II participation was not submitted and the application for the BCH III participation was submitted, but the project was not launched, since an agreement with GEF on financing was not signed.
Currently a joint project of the Institute of Genetics and Cytology and UNEP-GEF "Support to Preparation of the Third National Report on Biosafety to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - Latin America, Caribbean, Central and Eastern Europe." is being performed.
The project aims to maintain and develop the National Biosafety Framework of the Republic of Belarus in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol.
Project objectives:
1) Support and development of the National Biosafety Framework within the scope of the commitments undertaken by the Parties on the implementation of the Protocol in accordance with Article 33 of this Protocol;
2) Carrying out of a consultative process with all organizations of the Republic of Belarus, responsible for decisions in the field of safety of GMOs and with laboratory specialists for GMO detection. The analysis of the information gathered during the consultation process to identify key trends and issues in the practice of organizations and ministries on the  implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;
3) Assistance in the preparation and timely submission (prior to November, 1 2015) of the Third National Report on Biosafety to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the website of the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH);
4) Publication of the Third National Report on the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and materials of meetings and workshops in the form of publications in the Russian and English languages.
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
  • Yes
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
  • Yes
161. If you answered Yes to question 160, please indicate what entity is responsible for carrying out the programmes and/or services and at which level the programmes take place (e.g. local, national, etc.):
This question is relevant to indicator 5.3.1 of the Strategic Plan
SSI "Institute of Genetics and Cytology" (NCBC) and the Aarhus Centre of the Republic of Belarus are responsible for the implementation of outreach programs in the field of biosafety. Educational work is carried out by these two centers, both separately and together through the publication of articles, speeches on radio, television, reading of special courses for students, joint training seminars. In particular, during the period covered by the Third National Report, NCBC distributed and promoted the pursuance of GMO security strategy and activities of government, scientific and educational organizations on the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the Republic of Belarus in 34 newspaper articles and press conferences, 55 radio and TV programs. During the period of 2011-2015 NCBC issued 2 monographs on Biosafety, 2 educational manuals for Master's Degree Students, PhD students and University students, 1 guideline on risk assessment; published 20 research articles on the promotion of biosafety and the implementation of biodiversity conservation programs in Belarus; held 4 courses of lectures for undergraduates and 13 review lectures for students and the public. Together with the Aarhus Centre held two workshops on scientifically grounded education in the field of modern biotechnologies, their potential risks and the organization of biosafety systems in the Republic of Belarus and other countries. One of the workshops was held in preparation for the Third National Report.
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
  • 10 or more
164. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • Yes
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
  • Newspaper
  • семинары для широкой общественности ]
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
  • 25 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
174. If you answered Yes to question 173, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • Yes
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
During the reporting period, the Expert Council on Biosafety under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection carried out risk assessment of 3 living modified organisms of plant origin. Prior to conducting assessment, awareness-building and information distribution campaigns were led in mass media to inform that according to the Legislation, interested individuals and legal entities within 60 days from the date of placement of information about risk assessment on the website of the National Coordination Biosafety Centre can read the above information and send their comments and proposals to the National Coordination Biosafety Centre on. At the end of the specified term the National Coordination Biosafety Centre summarizes the comments and suggestions and within 10 days sends them to the Expert Council. During the meeting of the Expert Council on May 28, 2015, it was decided to place the information on the risk assessment prior to the release of LMOs into the environment both on the NCBC and the Aarhus Centre websites.
During the reporting period, the NCBC conducting special courses for students, holding seminars, speeches on radio and television, explained to the public the accessibility of information posted on the website of the Biosafety Clearing-House and the possibility of its use for training purposes. During the seminars "Sharing Experience in the Field of Education and Raising Public Awareness of Biosafety Issues", Minsk, October 1, 2013 (http://biosafety.org.by/cei-2013), "Public Participation in Biosafety Issues", Minsk , July 17, 2015 (http://biosafety.org.by/seminar_17-07-2015), "Detection of GMOs in the Republic of Belarus", Minsk, 21 September 2015 (http://biosafety.org.by/ node / 27793), "the First Belarusian-Pakistani Scientific Seminar", Minsk, October 6, 2015 (http://biosafety.org.by/node/27798)  the structure of the Biosafety Clearing-House website, as well as materials and information posted on it were presented and its accessibility was explained to the public.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
177. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
178. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
179. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
183. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:
The Republic of Belarus acceded to the Eurasian Economic Community Customs Union (EurAsEC) in 2008. For this reason, the Republic of Belarus adopted, in addition to national legislation, Technical Regulations of the Customs Union of the EurAsEC CU TR 021/2011 and CU TR 022/2011. To date, these Technical Regulations are in effect within a framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC). The Technical Regulations of the Customs Union CU TR 021/2011 "On Food Safety" and 022/2011 "Food Products in Terms of their Labeling" are posted in the section "Belarus. Legislation" on the website of the Biosafety Clearing-House.
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?
  • Yes
185. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • Yes
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
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?
  • Not applicable
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?
  • Yes
197. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country
In 2014 the Deputy Head of the NCBC participated in the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on the consideration of social and economic issues (Article 26) of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
198. Has your country ratified or acceded to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
199. If you answered No to question 198, is there any national process in place towards becoming a Party?
  • 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
  • Yes
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