VZCZCXRO4603
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #0192/01 0300634
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 300634Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3313
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 1980
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 5259
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 7848
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 9526

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PRETORIA 000192 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, OES/PCI, AND AF/S 
DEPT PASS EB/TPP/ABT - JFINN, GCLEMENTS, AND MKOCH 
USDA FAS FOR OSTA/NTPMB/MICHAEL HENNEY AND ANTHONY GILBERT 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA AFERRUS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD KPAO PREL SENV SF TBIO
SUBJECT:  PRETORIA'S PROPOSAL FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY FUNDS 
 
REF: A) STATE 160639 B) PRET 000004 
 
¶1. Summary:  Embassy Pretoria's proposal for the FY 2008 
Biotechnology Outreach Strategy Fund includes two activities to be 
held in South Africa.   This proposal was developed among EST/Econ, 
PAS, and USDA/FAS.  Additionally, we considered GSA and NGO 
representatives input to establish this proposal.  Our proposal 
includes a set of activities in the Pretoria area for government 
officials and a separate set of activities in Cape Town for 
Parliament members.  Additionally, since FAS/Pretoria is a regional 
post, covering much of Southern Africa, we would like to use the 
visit of this U.S. expert to the region to include travel to 
Madagascar after the activities in South Africa.  The purpose of 
this trip would be to provide a basic biotechnology, biosafety, and 
food safety introduction to Malagasy officials and other stake 
holders.  Embassy Antananarivo will submit a separate proposal on 
which we collaborated and fully support. End Summary. 
 
Pretoria 
---------- 
 
¶2. Building on progress made during last year's biotech outreach 
activities funded by EEB (see PRETORIA 000004); we would like to 
focus on capacity building and outreach within the Genetically 
Modified Organism Executive Council (GMO EC) and the Advisory 
Committee to the GMO EC. 
 
Background 
--------------- 
 
¶3.  South Africa is a leading country in biotechnology research and 
development; however, the GMO EC, which makes the final decision on 
approval of events, lacks human capacity and the confidence to make 
well informed decisions. 
 
¶4.  Unlike in the United States, the South African GMO EC makes a 
single consensus decision based on recommendations from the Advisory 
Committee, an independent scientific committee, and recommendations 
from each ministry/agency represented on the GMO EC. The consensus 
nature of the GMO EC decision-making means that individual members 
can request additional data from applicants outside their particular 
areas of expertise or regulatory jurisdiction (as a hypothetical 
example, an economist from the Department of Trade and Industry may 
wish to have additional food safety data).  This ad hoc rethinking 
at the GMO EC level is not always couched within any formal risk 
assessment framework.  Only the final decision document is made 
public and all of the deliberations occur behind closed doors.  As a 
result, the decision-making process is not transparent and it is 
difficult to reconstruct on what basis individual decisions are 
made. 
 
Activity 
--------- 
¶5.  We would like to propose an activity focused on the GMO EC and 
the Advisory Committee to build the risk-assessment competence of 
each of the individual member agencies.  In many instances, the 
persons who are responsible for their agency's separate risk 
assessments are also the same individuals who sit on the GMO EC. 
Improving competence could make separate agency risk assessments 
pass through the GMO EC intact, and help ensure that these risk 
assessments are reflected in  the final decision documents. 
Continuing to foster working relationships and technical exchanges 
between U.S. and South African regulators at the risk assessment 
level will benefit both countries. 
 
¶6.  Our visiting U.S. expert would spend 5 days conducting hands-on 
risk assessments with representatives of the GMO Executive Council 
Qrisk assessments with representatives of the GMO Executive Council 
and the Advisory Committee who evaluate risk assessments prepared by 
companies and research institutes submitting applications to the GMO 
Executive Council.  The expert would also share information with 
working level government scientists about what USDA/FDA/EPA believes 
is most important and how they analyze the information. 
 
Cape Town 
-------------- 
 
¶7.  The U.S. expert would travel to Cape Town, the seat of 
Parliament, for 5 days to meet with different Parliamentary 
Portfolio committees.  These committees are the key players in 
passing laws and regulations relating to biotechnology.  However, 
many committee members are not educated about biotechnology and 
often make decisions based on erroneous information. 
 
¶8.  The U.S. expert would provide an overview and introduction to 
biotechnology to committee members with  appropriate portfolios. 
 
PRETORIA 00000192  002 OF 002 
 
 
The expert will meet separately with each committee to discuss 
issues relevant to their sectors.  The targeted Portfolio Committees 
are: 
 
Environment Portfolio Committee - Discuss aspects of biotechnology 
and biosafety as it relates to biodiversity.  Additionally, 
reinforce the environmental gains from reduced soil erosion and 
decreased insecticide and herbicide use. 
 
Agriculture Portfolio Committee - Discuss the latest in 
biotechnology such as stacked genes, etc.  Provide information on 
global use of biotechnology.  Encourage the development and 
commercialization of agbiotech products to meet the unique needs of 
South Africa. 
 
Trade and Industry Portfolio Committee - Discuss trade issues 
relating to biotechnology, especially potential trade impacts of the 
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 
 
Science and Technology Portfolio Committee - Discuss how the United 
States supports biotech businesses and how to develop biotech 
businesses.  Stress the global scientific consensus on the safety of 
agbiotech products demonstrated by the WTO final panel decision in 
the EU case. 
 
¶9.  These activities will meet two USG policy objectives: 1) 
assisting South Africa with capacity building for government 
officials, and 2) assisting South African researchers to prepare 
their risk assessments better.  These activities will also 
indirectly assist US companies through USG advocacy for the future 
use of U.S. products and intellectual property in Africa. 
 
¶10.  Post proposes to hold special meetings for media contacts 
specifically associated with the agricultural and biotechnology 
sectors to discuss biotechnology regulations and developments in the 
United States.  Additionally, PAS will arrange press opportunities 
for the visiting expert to engage journalists that cover 
agriculture, agribusiness and agbiotechnology issues.  These could 
include roundtables with print media, one-on-one interviews, radio 
call-in programs, etc. 
 
¶11.  Length of Program:   Two weeks  (5 days in Pretoria and 5 days 
in Cape Town, plus one weekend in between the two segments) 
 
  Cost: 
 TOTAL:       $15,500 
 
Airfare (US - Johannesburg - Cape Town - US):   $4,500.00 
 Hotel and Per Diem (14 days):      $5,000.00 
 Meeting Rooms:       $4,000.00 
 Miscellaneous (materials, invitations, etc) $2,000.00 
 
¶12.  Point of Contact:  Kari Rojas, Agricultural Attach, 
FAS/Pretoria, kari.rojas@fas.usda.gov   011-27-12-431-4057 
BOST