VZCZCXRO0716
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #0100/01 0201410
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201410Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7037
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 2001
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 6485
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 8827
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 0609
RUEHTO/AMEMBASSY MAPUTO 6009
RUEHAN/AMEMBASSY ANTANANARIVO 0826
RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS 1400

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 000100 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, OES/PCI, AND AF/S 
DEPT PASS EB/TPP/MTAA/ABT - MSZYMANSKI, JBOBO 
USDA FAS FOR OSTA/NTPMB - FNAIM, EPORTER, MCHESLEY 
USDA FAS FOR OCBD - KSKUPNIK, JMAURER, MMOORE, DEVANS 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA - KMCKINNELL, 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 129940 B) PRET 002513 
 
¶1. Summary:  Embassy Pretoria's proposal for the FY 2009 
Biotechnology Outreach Strategy Fund requests funding to bring two 
experts in the subject matter to South Africa to meet with 
regulators, academia, consumers, and legislators on currently 
relevant topics such as regulation of stacked genes, labeling of 
genetically modified organisms (GMO) on foods, and liability and 
redress.  This proposal was developed among EST/Econ, PAS, and 
USDA/FAS.  Additionally, we considered GSA and NGO representatives 
input to establish this proposal. 
 
¶2.  Additionally, since FAS/Pretoria is a regional post, covering 
much of Southern Africa, FAS/Pretoria is coordinating with Embassies 
in Madagascar, Mozambique, and Mauritius to submit separate 
proposals requesting funding for similar programs to support a 
regional biotech strategy.  End Summary. 
 
Pretoria 
---------- 
 
¶3. Over the past 4 years, using funding from State/EB and USDA, 
FAS/Pretoria has developed relationships with key partners in 
Southern Africa, the United States, and international organizations 
to address regulatory and public acceptance issues pertaining to 
biotechnology.   As these relationships have developed, trust and 
respect has also grown between the USG and the biotech industry, 
public and private.  To continue to build on these relationships, we 
are requesting funding again this year to bring U.S. experts to 
engage the local industry and stakeholders in discussions on 
labeling of GMOs, liability and redress, stacked genes, and regional 
harmonization. 
 
Background 
--------------- 
¶4.  Misinformation and misperceptions about biotechnology threaten 
the acceptance of U.S. agricultural and food products derived from 
biotechnology in Southern Africa and threaten U.S. producers' access 
to international markets.  United States' exports to the largest 
markets in the region (South Africa, Mauritius, Madagascar, and 
Mozambique) grew over 30 percent from 2007 to 2008, due to increases 
in exports of intermediate and consumer oriented agricultural goods, 
such as vegetable oils and prepared sauces and cereals.  It is 
expected U.S. exports to these markets will continue to increase in 
2009 and beyond as consumer demand increases and these countries 
begin to diversify their suppliers to include the United States. 
USDA cooperators' interest in conducting activities in these markets 
is also on the rise, leading to increased interest in the United 
States as a supplier. 
 
¶5.  Several key countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have passed 
biosafety legislation in the past year, or are in the process of 
formulating their policies and have requested help from USDA.  These 
include South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Mauritius. All 
have drafted biosafety policies and are currently working on 
implementation procedures. They are very pro-biotech, but admittedly 
lack the necessary understanding of many aspects of biotech and 
genetic engineering.  There is a significant need for training on 
implementation procedures, characteristics of efficient regulatory 
frameworks, producer and consumer awareness strategies, et al. 
Qframeworks, producer and consumer awareness strategies, et al. 
 
¶6.  The lack of basic understanding of agricultural biotechnology 
among consumers, members of the media and political decision-makers 
is a critical impediment to a rational, pragmatic acceptance of the 
technology.  The African public remains easily persuaded by 
misinformation regarding the basic risks, benefits and regulatory 
approaches to best evaluate the benefits of adopting agricultural 
biotechnology.  Biosafety committees in the region remain inactive 
or unsure where to focus their attention due to a lack of 
understanding of the benefits of biotechnology.  Due to this lack of 
activity, science-based information in the regulatory 
decision-making process is minimal and opponents of biotechnology 
are the most vocal input, which could be reflected in new 
regulations concerning GMOs. 
 
¶7.  One of the most significant new regulations is a South African 
consumer protection bill that includes mandatory labeling of all 
food products containing GMOs.(This bill is awaiting presidential 
signature.)  Introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry, 
without consultation with the GMO Act competent authorities 
 
PRETORIA 00000100  002 OF 003 
 
 
(Departments of Health and Agriculture), this bill requires 
mandatory labeling of GMOs for all domestic and imported food 
products. 
 
¶8.  The bill includes a significant change to product liability, 
where a consumer no longer has to demonstrate that a producer was 
negligent before receiving compensation for injury.  The new 
legislation puts the burden of proof on the producer or supplier, 
meaning that a consumer can sue almost any producer or supplier for 
harm or injury that is the result of a failed, defective, or unsafe 
product.  Almost every supplier must comply with the bill, even if 
the supplier does not reside in South Africa.  Foreign producers who 
sell products through a South African agent for use in South Africa 
would be included under the bill. 
 
¶9.  These regulations will have a significant impact not only on 
regional trade, but also on U.S. exports to South Africa, since all 
products will have to be labeled and producers/suppliers could be 
held liable for any purported harm their product may have caused. 
 
 
¶10.  Currently, South Africa does not allow the import of U.S. maize 
due to asynchronous approval of biotechnology events (i.e. the 
United States has approved events that are not approved in South 
Africa).  If events approved in the United States were also approved 
in South Africa, there would be a greater opportunity for trade. 
The precedence this sets is significant as new events begin to 
appear in different crops, such as wheat - the United State's top 
export to the region - increasing the likelihood of an embargo on 
U.S. wheat until the time the event has been approved in the 
region. 
 
¶11.  Zero tolerance for adventitious presence is another issue under 
discussion in these countries (South Africa, Madagascar, Mauritius, 
and Mozambique) as is the management of stacked genes. 
 
¶12.    South Africa is seen as a leader in the biotechnology front 
in Africa, and many neighboring countries look to South Africa, for 
guidance and direction.  South Africa is an ally of the United 
States in that they have a progressive biosafety policy in place, 
based on sound science and backed by an informed, forward-thinking 
GMO Council and Advisory Committee.  However, uneducated parties can 
introduce legislation that will affect the administration of the 
current GMO biosafety legislation, such as the pending consumer 
protection bill. Other countries that look to South Africa for 
guidance might adopt similar legislations that would affect trade. 
 
Activity 
--------- 
¶13. Two U.S. experts will travel to South Africa for two weeks to 
conduct meetings and workshops in different cities with legislators, 
academia, consumers, and regulators to discuss relevant topics of 
labeling of GMOs, liability and redress, management of stacked genes 
and regional harmonization. 
 
¶14.  The U.S. experts 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. 
Qoften make decisions based on erroneous information. 
 
¶15.  The U.S. experts would provide an overview and introduction to 
biotechnology to committee members with appropriate portfolios.  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.  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, adventitious presence, 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 
 
PRETORIA 00000100  003 OF 003 
 
 
relating to biotechnology, including labeling of foods containing 
GMOs, liability and redress,  and the potential trade impacts of the 
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 
 
Science and Technology Portfolio Committee - Discuss United States' 
support of biotech businesses and ways 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. 
 
¶16.  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 ag biotechnology issues.  These could 
include roundtables with print media, one-on-one interviews, radio 
call-in programs, etc. 
 
 
¶17.  Additional opportunities for these experts will be arranged to 
address biotech stakeholders include business breakfasts and 
workshops in Pretoria, as well as meetings with the GMO Executive 
Council and Advisory committees and relevant government agencies. 
 
 
¶18.  Length of Program:   Two weeks  (5 days in Pretoria and 5 days 
in Cape Town, plus one weekend in between the two segments) 
 
Cost for 2 experts: 
TOTAL:       $22,500 
 
Airfare (US - Johannesburg - Cape Town - US):$8,000.00 
Hotel and Per Diem (14 days):     $8,500.00 
Meeting Rooms:       $4,000.00 
Miscellaneous (materials, invitations, etc) $2,000.00 
 
¶19. COMMENT: As stated in the summary, FAS/Pretoria is a regional 
post responsible for coverage of most of Southern Africa, with no 
staff resident in those countries.  We are collaborating with the 
our ECON/POL/PAS contacts in the missions in Antananarivo, Maputo, 
and Port Louis to submit similar proposals for biotech outreach 
events in those countries. 
 
 
¶20.  Understanding that each proposal must stand on its own merit, 
we would like to have the group considered as a package that 
demonstrates a regional approach to biotechnology in Southern 
Africa.  Regional trade plays a critical role in food security in 
Southern Africa, and disparate regulations dealing with 
biotechnology and its products could severely affect the flow of 
products, including food aid,  among the countries.  This regional 
approach is critical in ensuring regulations throughout the region 
are harmonized as not to affect trade, development, humanitarian 
assistance, and investment. END COMMENT. 
 
¶19.  Point of Contact:  Kari Rojas, Agricultural Attach, 
FAS/Pretoria, kari.rojas@fas.usda.gov   011-27-12-431-4057 
BOST