At the beginning of this year, the ECDC and WHO jointly evaluated, among other things, the Dutch capacities related to ‘Biosafety & Biosecurity’. In September, the evaluation report was published on the WHO website and presented to the House of Representatives. The Dutch scores for biosafety and biosecurity were lower than for many other capacities.

As reported in the March 2025 newsletter, the Netherlands was the first European member state to combine the voluntary external evaluation by WHO (Joint External Evaluation, JEE) and the mandatory evaluation by ECDC (Public Health Emergency Preparedness Assessment, PHEPA) into a joint assessment by both parties. Prior to the external evaluation, a self-assessment was conducted consisting of substantive questions, a scoring table, a description of strengths and challenges, and concluding with recommendations. This self-assessment formed the basis for the external evaluation.

The external evaluation took place at the end of January 2025. The evaluation report was published in September on the WHO website and presented to the House of Representatives via an official letter. More information about the JEE and PHEPA processes can be found in the March 2025 newsletter. The official letter and the full WHO/ECDC report are available on the website of the Dutch government, via this link: JEE-PHEPA the Netherlands | Rapport | Rijksoverheid.nl

The Netherlands generally scores high in the JEE/PHEPA evaluation, demonstrating that the country has a strong and resilient public health system. However, there are points for improvement: biosafety scored low due to fragmented regulations, and in nine areas—including antimicrobial resistance, vaccination coverage, and risk communication—further improvement is needed, mainly due to a lack of resources. The organizations made a total of 86 recommendations, five of which are related to Biosafety & Biosecurity.

‘Biosafety & Biosecurity’ is one of the 23 capacities assessed and consists of two indicators: P7.1 focuses on biosafety and biosecurity policy and oversight, and P7.2 on education and training. The scope of this capacity is broad, covering both biosafety and biosecurity for human, animal, and plant pathogens, as well as GMOs. After a brief presentation of the self-assessment (conducted in part by the Biosecurity Office), the external evaluation team further discussed the strengths and challenges of Dutch biosafety and biosecurity policy.

In terms of biosafety, the Netherlands has an extensive system with guidelines and regulations under different legal frameworks for human, plant, and animal pathogens, as well as for genetically modified organisms. These legal frameworks fall under the responsibility of various ministries.

For laboratory biosecurity and dual-use, there is no specific legal framework. However, there are several initiatives to strengthen biosecurity on a voluntary basis, such as the establishment of the Biosecurity Office. This organization serves as an information point for both the government and organizations working with high-risk pathogens and has, over the past 10 years, developed various materials to support these organizations in raising biosecurity awareness and implementing biosecurity policies.

Most of the recommendations from the self-assessment focus on strengthening biosecurity, as this was identified as the weakest link in the whole-of-government system. This was acknowledged by the JEE/PHEPA evaluation team. The self-assessment scores—2 and 3 for P7.1 and P7.2, respectively—were adopted by the evaluators. The recommendations were also largely adopted and focus on biosecurity legislation and its implementation, the integration of biosecurity and dual-use in academic training programs, and the introduction of the Biorisk Management Advisor with a mandate in the areas of biosafety, biosecurity, and dual-use. 

At present, a National Action Plan is being developed, describing how the recommendations, including the five on Biosafety and Biosecurity, will be followed up and implemented. Biosecurity Office is currently in discussion with the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) and relevant stakeholders to coordinate how the five recommendations will be addressed in the Action Plan. In the second quarter of 2026, the House will be informed about this again.