This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 005345 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR OES/ETC/H.LEE, EB/TPP/ABT/R.SINGH 
STATE FOR OES/STC, AF/S AND AF/EPS 
USDA FOR FAS/BIG/JPPASSINO 
USDA FOR FAS/OA/BIOTECH, FAS/ITP AND APHIS/BRS 
FOR USAID/EGAT/EGAD/AFS 
STATE PASS USTR FOR PCOLEMAN 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV TBIO SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA: BIOSAFETY UPDATE 
 
REFS: A) STATE 259661; B) PRETORIA 5285; C) PRETORIA 5223; 
 
D) PRETORIA 1806; E) 03 PRETORIA 6111; F) 03 PRETORIA 1441 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, PROTECT ACCORDINGLY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  In October 2004, the National Department 
of Agriculture (NDA) published amendments to the current 
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act, to bring it in 
line with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; public 
comments were requested by November 19, but it is unclear 
how quickly the NDA will follow up.  Environmental laws put 
into effect in 2004 have the potential to make the GMO 
approval process slower and more cumbersome.  Government 
officials are particularly concerned with potential 
requirements for environmental impact assessments, along 
with the prospective role of the Minister of Environmental 
Affairs and Tourism and the South Africa National 
Biodiversity Institute.  On the good news front, the 
Department of Science & Technology continues to support 
biotech programs, local courts continue to uphold protection 
of business confidential information in GMO applications and 
a regional group is pursuing biotech projects as well, with 
South Africa to host its center of excellence.  End summary. 
 
Amendments to GMO Act 
--------------------- 
 
2.(SBU) Further to post's April biotech policy update (Ref 
D), the SAG's National Department of Agriculture (NDA) 
decided to amend its Genetically Modified Organisms Act 
(introduced in 1997, promulgated in 1999) directly, rather 
than make changes to the implementing regulations.  In 
October 2004, the NDA published its draft amendments to 
bring the Act in line with the Cartagena Protocol for 
Biosafety (CPB).  Public comments were requested by November 
19, 2004 and it is not clear how and when the NDA will 
respond to the comments.  Parliament eventually will have to 
approve the amended law.  The amendments appear overall to 
be reasonable, except for a few concerns noted below (paras 
3-4). 
 
¶3. (SBU) Under the current GMO Act, the Executive Council 
responsible for making regulatory decisions consists of 
eight members: one representative from six government 
departments (Agriculture, Science & Technology, Health, 
Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Trade & Industry, and 
Labor), the chair of the Advisory Committee that provides 
scientific and technical analysis of risk assessment data, 
and the GMO Registrar, an official from NDA responsible for 
administering the Act.  The draft amendments expand the 
Council to 10 members, adding representatives from the 
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, and the Department 
of Arts and Culture.  The contribution to be made by the 
latter is not evident to us, and officials from Department 
of Science & Technology told EmbOffs on December 3 that they 
shared this concern. 
 
¶4. (U) The amendments also make conflicting references to 
the need for an "environmental assessment" and an 
"environmental impact assessment," and the assessment is not 
clearly defined.  DST officials told EmbOffs they raised 
this concern and requested clarification from NDA.  An APHIS 
expert who spent 10 weeks in Pretoria as Embassy Science 
Fellow also noted that added requirements to notify the 
CPB's Biosafety Clearinghouse in the event of an accident 
appear to go beyond the provisions of the CPB. 
 
Various stakeholders respond 
---------------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) The GMO amendments mention opportunities for public 
comment, but this did not appear to satisfy anti-GMO 
activists.  Anti-GMO lobby group BioWatch's 19-page 
submission of highly negative comments can be found online 
at www.biowatch.org.za/Amendment_Bill_comments_V _Final.doc. 
BioWatch calls the SAG's approach "narrow, non-consultative" 
and the proposed amendments "poorly drafted and wholly 
inadequate."  The group demands that the SAG apply a 
precautionary approach and urges a new process that allows 
much greater public participation in determining GMO policy 
and redrafting the GMO Act.  It also urges public 
Parliamentary hearings and debates on GMO policy and 
legislation. 
 
¶6. (U) Local press reported comments on the amendments from 
the anti-GMO Centre for Biosafety director, Mariam Mayet: 
"They do not fully implement the Biosafety Protocol, 
perpetuate the lack of transparency (in the act), will 
expedite the trade in GMOs, make it easier for the 
biotechnology industry to conduct field trials and appear to 
open up a hitherto closed door to human gene therapy." 
Mayet also expressed concerns about proposed amendments that 
allow the GMO registrar to "fast-track" permits without the 
approval of the national Executive Council.  The NDA's 
manager for genetic resource management, Julian Jaftha, 
clarified to the media that fast-track approvals only 
applied to the extension of previously-granted approvals. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Pro-biotech AfricaBio shared its comments with 
EmbOffs.  AfricaBio noted broadly that the CPB pertains only 
to Living Modified Organisms, and the amendments do not 
always adhere to the provisions, wording and scope of the 
Protocol.  AfricaBio also does not support the specific 
addition of two persons with knowledge of ecological matters 
(and a "non-prejudiced position" on GMOs) to the Advisory 
Committee that reviews applications and provides technical 
advice to the Executive Council members.  It notes that 
specific expertise has not been singled out for other 
members in the Advisory Committee and suggests alternative 
language that allows greater flexibility in determining 
composition of the Committee.  AfricaBio also questioned the 
addition of Department of Arts and Culture to the Executive 
Council. 
 
Environmental official's perspective on biosafety policy 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) A seasoned official from Department of 
Environmental Affairs and Tourism told EST Officer on 
December 3 that the next six months will be critical for 
SA's policies on biosafety, as the amended GMO Act and 
environmental regulations are finalized and new personnel 
appointments are made.  DEAT recently advertised for a new 
Director of Biosafety to improve its extremely limited 
capacity.  The DEAT official said that this appointment 
could "go either way" and may be awarded to an individual 
with strong anti-GMO leanings.  Many senior DEAT officials 
are susceptible to influence by what the official termed 
"the greens."  When EST Officer noted the recent statements 
of DEAT Director General Chippy Olver in support of the 
SAG's GMO policies (Ref C), the DEAT official termed these 
comments as "atypical" for Olver. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Recently-enacted environmental legislation may have 
negative impacts on the GMO approval process.   The National 
Biodiversity Act, which was signed into law in June 2004 and 
effective as of September 1, gives significant powers to the 
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism on biosafety 
issues.  The law states, "If the Minister has reason to 
believe that the release of a genetically modified organism 
into the environment under a permit applied for in terms of 
the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997, may pose a 
threat to any indigenous species or the environment, no 
permit for such release may be issued in terms of that Act 
unless an environmental assessment has been conducted..." 
under provisions of other legislation on Environmental 
Impact Assessments (EIA, see para 10 below).    The Act does 
not define "environmental assessment."  In giving special 
powers to the Minister, the provision does not appear to be 
consistent with the GMO Act (which gives similar powers to 
an Executive Council on which DEAT is represented) and could 
create grounds for appeal of all GMO regulatory decisions, 
effectively slowing down-or grinding to a complete halt--the 
GMO approval process. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Amendments to the National Environmental 
Management Act intended to strengthen environmental 
compliance and enforcement have led to the revamping of the 
Environmental Impact Assessment process.  The DEAT official 
told EST Officer that under new EIA rules being developed, 
GMO approvals were going to be required to have full-fledged 
environmental impact assessments.  The official intervened 
personally to convince DEAT colleagues to change from the 
onerous requirement for an EIA to requiring an "initial 
assessment" (Note: the IA is more equivalent to the 
environmental assessment in the U.S.) for GMO approvals. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Officials at DEAT as well as DST told EmbOffs 
they had concerns about the role and capacity of the 
recently-established South African National Biodiversity 
Institute (Ref B) to provide timely, science-based risk 
analysis of biodiversity impacts from GMO products.  The new 
Biodiversity Act directs SANBI to "monitor and report 
regularly to the Minister on the impacts of any genetically 
modified organism that has been released into the 
environment, including the impact on non-target organisms 
and ecological processes, indigenous biological resources 
and the biological diversity of species used for 
agriculture."  However, the SAG is not providing resources 
to enable SANBI to develop the capacity to carry out this 
mandate. 
 
Positive developments on biosafety, biotech policy 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶12. (U) The Department of Science & Technology continues to 
provide strong program support for biotechnology.  In August 
2004, Minister of Science & Technology Mosibudi Mangena 
reiterated his Department's commitment to a platform for 
biotechnology research, development and commercialization 
(Note: this was incorrectly reported in the media as a "new" 
initiative; it was first time the new Minister has discussed 
his department's biotech programs, which have been in place 
since early 2003, see Refs E, F. End note). 
 
¶13. (SBU) PlantBio, South Africa's fourth biotechnology 
innovation center--and the first with a national scope and 
an exclusive focus on plant biotechnology--was officially 
launched in October 2004.  DST sources tells us that 
PlantBio has already received many strong project proposals, 
but current funding levels are limited to R 9 million (USD 
1.6 million at USD = R5.7).  Three biotech regional 
innovation centers in Gauteng, Western Cape and KwaZulu 
Natal provinces are actively engaged in funding research and 
related projects to bring biotech to the market, working in 
close cooperation with government-supported biotech 
incubators that support the efforts of fledgling biotech 
companies. 
 
¶14. (SBU) In mid-November, New Partnership for African 
Development (NEPAD) S&T representatives held a regional 
workshop of representatives of countries from southern 
Africa (including from South Africa's DST) to discuss 
potential projects.  Professor Aggrey Ambali, a new NEPAD 
BioSciences advisor who hails from Malawi and will work with 
NEPAD Science & Technology Adviser John Mugabe, discussed 
biotech programs in the Southern African region with country 
representatives.  DST sources told EST Officer that the 
group decided that South Africa's Council on Scientific and 
Industrial Research (CSIR) will host a center of excellence 
in the NEPAD southern sub-region, to screen project 
proposals and make research awards.  The Canadian 
International Development Agency is providing financial 
support for establishing a network of excellence in 
biotechnology and genomics, including these regional centers 
of excellence.  Comment: The development of sub-regional 
program areas within NEPAD in the biosciences provide a 
positive and functional alternative to the Southern African 
Development Community, which has taken a strong 
precautionary approach to biotech and GMOs, influenced more 
by politics than science.  End comment. 
 
¶15. (SBU) South African courts have consistently, if slowly, 
ruled in favor of the NDA and the South African government 
in cases brought by BioWatch and other anti-GMO groups 
demanding access to business proprietary information used in 
GMO approval assessments and appealing government GMO permit 
decisions. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Comment: Many of the laws and regulations 
affecting biosafety and GMO risk management are in flux. 
Our DEAT colleague rightly noted that SAG decisions in 
upcoming months will significantly shape South Africa's 
biosafety policy.  FRAZER