SOUTH AFRICA: BIOSAFETY UPDATE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PRETORIA 001256

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: 04 PRETORIA 5345

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, PROTECT ACCORDINGLY


1. (SBU) Summary: Recent biosafety developments and policy
decisions in South Africa raise the possibility that local
conditions for the approval and use of agricultural
biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may
worsen. A recent judicial ruling supported greater
transparency and disclosure of information in GMO decision-
making, but criticized the petitioner, an anti-GMO lobby
group, for its overly vague demands for information. End
summary.

//Regulatory requirements increasing; some questioned//


2. (SBU) Collaborators in a USAID-sponsored project to
commercialize a genetically modified, pest-resistant ("Bt" -
- named for the bacterium, "Bacillus thuringiensis" that
provides the gene that is toxic to certain insects) potato
variety in South Africa told mission officers on March 18
that the South African GMO Executive Council's requests for
supporting data and information had expanded significantly
in 2004, to include environmental studies on non-target
organisms, nutrient cycling, microbial diversity, and soil
micro-organisms. In response, project researchers from
South Africa's parastatal Agricultural Research Council and
Michigan State University have begun field studies in many
of these areas, but they plan to argue that there is no
scientific basis for the expensive and time-consuming soil
microbial studies. The researchers also plan to gather data
to show the ecological impact of the Bt potato compared to a
conventional potato grown with normal applications of
pesticide. Prevailing GMO regulations also ask applicants
to provide an assessment of the socio-economic-cultural
impact of any proposed GMO use, with no further specifics.
The Bt potato project researchers intend to carry out
studies on the compatibility of the crop with the cultural
heritage and beliefs of farmers, and studies on the impact
of BT technology on the ethics of farmers. While it is
acceptable that key socioeconomic issues related to the
introduction of any new crop (Bt or otherwise) should be
reviewed and taken into account, the researchers have
planned a very extensive analysis, in anticipation of
increasing demands by the regulators. A Syngenta
representative attending the Bt potato project meetings told
EST Officer that the additional data requests being made of
all recent applicants for GMO approvals in South Africa were
a direct result of lobbying by a small group of anti-GMO
activists, whose main interest was to delay and subvert the
approval process, rather than promote biodiversity.


3. (SBU) Comment: The Bt potato project has the potential
to introduce the first public sector-supported, locally
researched and developed genetically modified food crop in
Africa. The South African GMO regulator's growing demands
for additional data and research on environmental impacts
(and possibly socio-economic impacts, in the future) could
ultimately raise costs to a point that commercialization of
the potato will not be feasible. It is significant that the
project managers have decided to argue with the GMO
regulators on certain additional information requests,
partly because they do not want to "set the bar too high,"
particularly for future public sector-funded projects. End
comment.

//Regulatory decision against third country field-test//


4. (U) The GMO Executive Council reportedly turned down a
request from Dow Agrosciences to test genetically-modified
maize for purposes of gathering information for use in
European Union GMO registrations. According to a February
press release by the anti-GMO lobby group African Centre for
Biosafety (ACB),the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism raised concerns about the potential impact on non-
target organisms. The ACB had submitted objections to the
application, noting Dow's failure "to address the impacts of
GM maize on non-target organisms, the emergence of
superweeds and the persistence of Bt toxins in the
environment." The ACB also "expressed outrage" at Dow's
attempts to use South African land for field trials,
treating South Africa as its "guinea pig."

//Environmental advisors are non-scientific "experts"//


5. (SBU) In late February 2005, the Minister of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism announced the
establishment of a National Environmental Advisory Forum
(NEAF) to provide the Minister with strategic advice on
environmental management issues from a wide range of
stakeholders. The NEAF consists of representatives from
business, non-governmental organizations, community-based
organizations, labor, and youth. The Minister also
appointed four NEAF representatives with "specialized
skills," including Mariam Mayet of the African Center for
Biosafety, one of several active anti-GMO lobbying groups in
South Africa. Ms. Mayet is not a scientist and used to
serve as legal advisor to Biowatch (see para 6 below). The
Environmental Justice Networking Forum is one of four NGO
representatives on the NEAF. EJNF organized a noisy protest
outside a November 2004 seminar on Food Aid and
Biotechnology, organized by the NGO AfricaBio for USAID, and
supported by State/EB. There are no academic/scientific
representatives with expertise in agricultural biotechnology
on the NEAF. Comment: We anticipate that NEAF
recommendations to the Environmental Minister on any GMO
case would be negative or would demand additional field data
and research on environmental impacts, not always with a
scientific basis. End comment.

//Court decision favors transparency//


6. (SBU) The Pretoria High Court, responding to a petition
from anti-GMO group Biowatch, on February 24 affirmed the
group's constitutional right to access some information
about GMO approvals. The Court ordered the South African
government to divulge certain details of all permits and
authorizations granted for GMO imports, exports, field
trials and general releases. Importantly, the Court also
ruled that proprietary research data contained in the permit
applications and precise locations of field trials need not
be publicly released. U.S.-based Monsanto and two other
U.S.-based seed companies were also cited as respondents in
Biowatch's petition, despite Monsanto having volunteered to
make the information from its GMO applications available to
Biowatch. While Biowatch called this ruling a "victory", it
is noteworthy that the judge censured Biowatch for the
"inept manner" in which it sought access to information from
regulators. Monsanto lawyers termed Biowatch's tactics as a
"fishing expedition." The judge noted how Biowatch's
approach compelled Monsanto and the other two respondent
firms to come to court to protect their interests, and in
response to a request made by Monsanto, he ordered Biowatch
to pay all court costs incurred by Monsanto South Africa.
Biowatch announced on March 18 that it was planning to
appeal the ruling on payment of Monsanto's legal costs.
Comment: The GMO Registrar, Executive Council and Minister
of Agriculture likely contested Biowatch's petition for
access because of the added workload the multiple demands
for information placed on an already overburdened staff.
The court's decision certainly adds to the workload of the
GMO regulators, and may slow the entire approval process.

FRAZER