VZCZCXRO7776
RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHML #1862/01 1180850
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 280850Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY MANILA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0773
INFO RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 1259
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHZS/ASEAN COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MANILA 001862 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EB/TPP/ABT FOR SPIRNAK AND GOETHERT 
STATE PASS USDA/FAS/ITP FOR SIMMONS, RICHEY AND CLARKSON 
ICD FOR PETLOCK 
STATE PASS USTR FOR BWEISEL, MSANDLER AND DKATZ 
STATE PASS USAID FOR JLEWIS 
STATE PASS USDOC FOR 4430/ITA/MAC/KBOYD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD ECON SENV TBIO TSPL RP
SUBJECT:  GRP ADOPTS CONFLICTED BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORK 
 
REF: 05 Manila 12 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, NOT FOR INTERNET, PROTECT 
ACCORDINGLY 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary.  President Arroyo issued an executive 
order (EO) adopting the National Biosafety Framework 
(NBF) as a compliance mechanism under the Cartagena 
Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).  The NBF, a compromise 
between pro- and anti-biotech policy makers, promulgates 
conflicting principles in recognizing the need for 
science-based risk assessments while allowing social, 
cultural, and ethical considerations to guide biosafety 
decisions.  Adding non-science based requirements could 
make the existing regulatory system more restrictive, 
complicated, and detrimental to GRP Department of 
Agriculture and donor efforts to use biotechnology to 
promote agricultural productivity and food security. 
Without a funding mechanism, however, implementation of 
the EO will likely stall.  End Summary 
 
------------------------------------ 
National Biosafety Framework Adopted 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (U) President Gloria Arroyo recently signed EO 514, 
establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF), 
prescribing guidelines for its implementation, and 
strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety of the 
Philippines (NCBP).  The GRP approved the new framework 
despite DA, industry, and Post advocacy to use solely 
science-based assessments and move out socio-economic 
considerations from the coverage of the NBF (reftel).  As 
a compromise, the drafters of the EO regarded non-science 
based assessments as discretionary provisions (versus 
mandatory as found in earlier versions of the NBF) that 
agencies may choose to require from technology 
developers.  The EO also clarified that the 2002 DA 
Administrative Order No. 8 or the commercialization 
guidelines shall continue to be in force and applied in 
the evaluation and monitoring of plant and plant products 
derived from modern biotechnology, assuaging industry 
fears that the EO would disrupt the existing regulatory 
system. 
 
¶3.  (U) The NCBP, a multi-sectoral committee chaired by 
the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), was 
tasked to oversee implementation of the NBF and set 
scientific, technical, and procedural standards on 
biosafety.  The committee is composed of the secretaries 
of the Departments of Agriculture, Health (DOH), 
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Foreign Affairs 
(DFA), Trade and Industry (DTI), and Interior and Local 
Government (DILG); biological, physical, environmental, 
health, and social scientists; and representatives from 
consumer, community (such as farmer, fishermen, or 
indigenous people), and industry groups. 
 
¶4.  (U) The NBF is the Philippines' compliance mechanism 
to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).  Framers of 
the NBF contend that the framework will strengthen 
current science-based determination of biosafety and 
enhance decision-making by incorporating social, 
economic, ethical and cultural assessments. 
------------------------- 
New Administrative Set-up 
------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U)  NCBP reorganization to include DTI, DFA, DILG, 
and appoint representatives from consumers and industry 
could be completed in early 2008.  In the meantime, NCBP- 
member agencies will continue to perform their regulatory 
functions, as follows: 
 
-- DOST will ensure that best available science is 
utilized in adopting biosafety policies, measures and 
guidelines and will take the lead in evaluating and 
monitoring biotech articles intended for use in 
laboratories and greenhouses. 
 
-- DA will address biosafety issues in promoting 
agricultural productivity and food security and will take 
 
MANILA 00001862  002 OF 003 
 
 
the lead in evaluating and monitoring plants and plant 
products derived from biotechnology. 
 
-- DENR will ensure that environmental impact assessments 
are considered in biosafety decisions and will take the 
lead in evaluating and monitoring biotech articles 
intended for bioremediation and genetic and wildlife 
resources improvement. 
 
-- DOH will formulate health assessment guidelines and 
will take the lead in evaluating and monitoring processed 
food derived from or containing biotech products. 
 
¶6.  (U)  As required under Article 19 of the CPB, DFA is 
the focal point for liaising with the Protocol's 
Secretariat.  The above-mentioned agencies were also 
 
SIPDIS 
designated as competent national authorities for 
performing administrative functions under the Protocol. 
The NCBP Secretariat was designated the focal point for 
the Biosafety Clearinghouse, in compliance with Article 
20 of the CPB.  It will coordinate with the Protected 
Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), an attached agency to 
the DENR and the focal point for the Clearinghouse 
Mechanism under the Convention on Biological Diversity. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
Conflict Between Social and Scientific Principles 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶7.  (U)  The EO recognized several widely accepted guides 
to biosafety decision-making.  It prescribed that risk 
assessments must be science-based and carried out on a 
case-by-case basis or applied to a "transformation 
event."  In addition, consistent with WTO Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary harmonization rules, the EO reasserted the 
importance of expert advice from international bodies and 
regulatory authorities of countries with experience in 
biotechnology.  The EO also subscribed to a more flexible 
"precautionary" approach in Articles 10 and 11 of the CPB 
that the lack of scientific knowledge or consensus does 
not indicate a particular level of acceptable risk. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  On the other hand, the EO adopted several 
other principles that directly conflict with science- 
based standards.  For example, the EO drew from Article 
28 of the CBP in permitting social, economic, ethical, 
and cultural assessments prior to commercialization.  The 
EO also gave flexibility for GRP agencies to jointly 
issue environmental impact assessment guidelines as a 
requirement for biosafety decision-making.  These 
additional requirements may be inconsistent with WTO 
principles and would likely lengthen the approval process 
and make the regulatory system tedious and prone to 
corruption.  It could also make it more expensive for the 
private sector and public institutions -- which rely on 
meager national government budgets -- to commercialize 
their biotech innovations. 
 
------------------ 
Industry Reactions 
------------------ 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Monsanto, an American company, is concerned 
that as a result of the EO, biotech commercialization 
rules may become more restrictive and arbitrary.  The 
company anticipates difficulty renewing its permit to 
commercially propagate Bt corn (MON810, the first biotech 
food crop approved for commercial release in Asia), which 
will expire in 2007.  They are particularly worried about 
the DENR's environmental impact assessment system, which 
they perceive as prone to corruption.  Biotech Coalition 
of the Philippines President Ben Pecson was surprised 
that the President signed the EO after it had languished 
in her office for nearly two years.  He said the EO is 
inconsistent with the national policy to promote the use 
of biotechnology to address economic development goals. 
 
------------------------ 
Another Unfunded Mandate 
------------------------ 
 
¶10. (SBU)  The reorganization of the NCBP will commence 
 
MANILA 00001862  003 OF 003 
 
 
only after an inter-agency group concludes an agreement 
to share financial and technical resources.  Without its 
own funds, the NCBP would have to rely on ad hoc 
allocations from member agencies or external funding to 
implement the NBF and embark on capacity building 
programs identified in the EO.  The DENR-PAWB is 
requesting additional funding from the United Nations 
Environmental Program's Global Environment Facility (UNEP- 
GEF) to implement the EO, just as it did a $175,000 grant 
in 2003 to develop the NBF.  PAWB officials said the 
signing of the EO is an important milestone in securing 
additional funding for capacity building.  Another is 
ratification of the CPB by the Senate, which started 
hearings and will likely ratify before the end of the 
year. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  DENR and anti-biotech NGOs succeeded in 
securing the legal basis for adding non-science based 
assessments in the biosafety regulatory system.  Although 
the NBF is toned down from earlier versions, it could 
complicate the biotech regulatory system and delay 
approvals for the use of GM products.  Under the new 
rules, the biosafety assessment process -- from 
greenhouse to single site to multi-site to commercial 
release -- could take at least two years to complete. 
Approvals could take much longer if required to address 
non-science based considerations.  The adoption of the EU- 
like provisions could undermine the Philippines' 
leadership role in agricultural biotechnology in Asia. 
Post will continue to monitor developments and work with 
the GRP and industry partners in assessing the EO's 
impacts on the biotech policy environment. 
 
KENNEY