Agenda: Discussion on Prestwich Site visit.

Present:

African National Congress (ANC):

Mrs. MAA Njobe (Chairperson)

Mr. S L Dithebe

Mrs N D Mbombo

Prof I J Mohamed

Ms S D Motubatse-Hounkpatin

Ms H M Mpaka

Mr. N Ngcobo

Rev L J Tolo

Mrs. T J Tshivhase

Democratic Alliance (DA):

Mr. S E Opperman

Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP):

New National Party (NNP):

United Democratic Movement (UDM):

United Christian Democratic Party (UCDP):

Ms M A Seeco

Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC):

The Chair welcomed Members and explained the reason for the meeting. She reminded Members that at the last briefing by SAHRA to the Committee, they reported on the recently discovered remains at Prestwich Site in Green Point. SAHRA also extended an invitation to the Committee to visit the site. The Committee was able to take up the invitation this morning.

Officials of SAHRA including the CEO, Ms Pumla Madiba, provided the Committee with an update at the site. Members were notified of the fast approaching deadline to do something (as provided for in the NHRA) SAHRA was faced with, notwithstanding the fact that the developer has been very accommodative. It was agreed to by the Committee that an urgent meeting of the Committee be scheduled for later this afternoon in Parliament to try and come up with suggestions, recommendations to assist SAHRA on what to do.

The Committee, after deliberations, agreed on the following recommendations to SAHRA:

Short term.

• SAHRA must continue with the collections of remains at the site until a final decision on what to do with them is found.
• Construction work at the site should therefore be put on hold for the time being.
• Consultations with the communities should continue.

Long term.

• SAHRA must negotiate with the developers the erection of a symbolic structure at the site.
• The remains could be kept or displayed in a museum e.g. Glass cupboards, this will depend on the outcome of the current debate on whether remains should be stored or buried
• The remains collected to be buried at a special site identified by SAHRA, where a monument could be constructed and be declared a heritage site.

The Committee instructed that these recommendations be forwarded to SAHRA as soon as possible. SAHRA must also be asked to keep the Committee informed on what they have decided on.

The meeting adjourned at 15:45

Committee Secretary: Mr. J Ramrock

Committee Chairperson: Mrs. MAA Njobe

The minutes of the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, meeting, held in Small Auditorium, on 16 September 2003, at 11h30.

by the Department of Science and Technology.

Present:

African National Congress (ANC):

Mrs. MAA Njobe (Chairperson)

Mr. S L Dithebe

Mrs N D Mbombo

Prof I J Mohamed

Ms S D Motubatse-Hounkpatin

Ms H M Mpaka

Mr. N Ngcobo

Rev L J Tolo

Mrs. T J Tshivhase

Democratic Alliance (DA):

Mr. S E Opperman

Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP):

New National Party (NNP):

United Democratic Movement (UDM):

United Christian Democratic Party (UCDP):

Ms M A Seeco

Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC):

The Chair welcomed Members and guests including Mr. Ben Durham: Manager: Biotechnology Strategy, DS & T. The Chair also informed Members that this is a joint meeting with the Select Committee on Education and Recreation.

Mr. Durham took the Committee through the National Biotechnology Strategy of the Department of Science and Technology. Some of the points he raised included the following:

• Biotechnology can be defined as a collection of technical knowledge about living organism or the elements they are composed of that are used to create products and services to satisfy our needs and desires.
• Biotechnology has been used in agriculture and manufacturing industry to produce food, chemicals, medicines and many other products that have been of benefit in many areas including nutrition and human and animal health.
• The most recent advances in biotechnology are often called Modern Biotechnology or genetic engineering. They include a cluster of techniques that have been focus on genetic modification of crops and production of animal vaccines. Modern Biotechnology is based on the manipulation of coded chemical information/instructions existing in the nucleus of cells. In doing so, biotechnology can be used to change the function and processes of living organisms. These manipulations increase the precision and decrease the time that it would take to make the same changes by conventional techniques. Not withstanding its potential for socioeconomic development, the challenges facing humanity include serious ethical concerns emerging from the use of the technology to manipulate nature in such an intrusive manner, and potential risks to human health and the environment.
• Globally, the biotechnology industry is still in the formative stages. In South Africa, it is still very much in the research and development stage.
• The DST acknowledges the uncertainty and controversy inherent in biotechnology. However its chosen mandate is to operate within a framework of science-based decision – making.
• DST has undertaken several initiatives to investigate conditions limiting the development of competitive industries in the country.
• The government has explicitly stated its intention to increase R&D spending from approximately 0.27% to 1% of national GDP. The funds will be channeled into three operational objectives as outlined in the National Research and Development Strategy, which aims ultimately to create employment and improve the quality of live for all South Africans: Innovation, Human Capital Transformation and Capacity Building and New social systems and organizational frameworks.
• Within the strategy, specific technology missions have been identified as forces to drive South Africa’s research and development competitive advantage. Biotechnology was identified as one of the technology missions, the implementation framework for which is mapped out in the National Biotechnology Strategy. The stated objective of the strategy is not to promote Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) but rather to address the primary means by which Government can influence the development of biotechnology.
• The major intervention of the strategy in monetary terms, but also in long-term strategic outlook, is the formation of the Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centers (BRIC’s). There are three in the country: Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria. The DST is investing R400 million over three years to address the lack of innovation in biotechnology. The BRIC’s are not funding organizations – they will act as nuclear for the development of biotechnology platforms. Each BRIC will specialize in specific areas of technology within the national development imperatives, local expertise and market opportunities.
• The National Bioinformatics Network is being set up to provide computational power, genome interpretation facilities and networking links between the BRIC’s and other research institutes. In addition the Department of Labour has joined forces with the DST to create learning opportunities to ensure the development of bioinformatics skills and capacities in South Africa.
• There is much controversy about biotechnology such as GMO’s, biosafe (environment and human), corporate control and agendas, trade, stem cell research, cloning, HIV, research funding priorities, to name a few. Due to the influence public perception will have on the biotechnology industry; these issues must be discussed and debated. Responsible, honest and ethical development in this field is essential for innovation. At the beginning of 2003 the Foundation for Education, Science and Technology (FEST), launched a program, funded by DST, on the Public Understanding of Biotechnology (PUB). The aim of the programme being to promote a clear understanding of the scientific principles that underlie biotechnology as well as to stimulate debate on the benefits, risks and ethical issues in biotechnology. It is important that the facts be put in front of the public, so that there is an informed and not an emotional debate on biotechnology.
• South Africa needs to catch-up with the rest of the international community in regard to biotechnology.
• There is varied views within SADC concerning biotechnology
• USA funding has been secured for a workshop on biotechnology in the States set for December 2003.
• The first draft of biotech audit is to be published within a few weeks from now.

• Members expressed concern with the lack of public consultation in regard to the debate on GMO’s and wanted to know what the Department is doing to counter the one sided public bombardment by the anti- GMO side.
• On technology transfer, what funding is available to protect patents and what follow-up is done for marketing purposes during the embryonic stage?
• How is it possible that old stem cells can be used to replace new cells?
• Food does not taste as it used to anymore and we suspect that technology is responsible for that. Potatoes, tomatoes and bananas taste terrible.

• There is an ethical debate currently taking place within the public domain regarding biotechnology. Science needs to investigate and mitigate against risks, especially human health risk, and advice accordingly. At the moment is there no convincing argument that GMO is harmful to humans. Only five products in South Africa are biotech produced. The need for more public engagement is there.
• DST has tabled draft legislation for next March that is looking at the protection of intellectual property. The Innovation Fund will provide incentives for students with good ideas. The BRIC’s are there to provide state funding. It is true that big companies owned a lot of patents, but the Department is looking at alternatives, especially on food security.
• Most forms of life are produced through cloning, but human cloning is not allowed in South Africa and is, in any case, very risky.

The Chair thanked the presenters and suggested the need of simplification of information on biotechnology.

The meeting adjourned at 13:15

Committee Secretary: Mr. J Ramrock

Committee Chairperson: Mrs. MAA Njobe Date:

The minutes of the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, meeting, held Room V226, on 23 September 2003, at 11h00.

Present:

African National Congress (ANC):

Ms M A A Njobe (Chairperson)

Mr. S L Dithebe

Mr. D Mabuyakhulu

Ms X C Makasi

Mrs N D Mbombo

Ms H M Mpaka

Mr. N Ngcobo

Democratic Alliance (DA):

Mr. S E Opperman

Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP):

Inkosi B P Biyela

Ms M M Mdlalose

New National Party (NNP):

Mrs. A Van Wyk

United Democratic Movement (UDM):

United Christian Democratic Party (UCDP):

Ms M A Seeco

Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC):

The Acing – Chair, Mr. S L Dithebe, welcomed Members and guests including Ms. Majory Pyoos and Dr S Paterson of the DS & T.

Ms Pyoos addressed the Committee on Technology and Business Development. Some of the comments she made included the following:

GODISA Programme:

• This programme concentrates on funding to start-up technology based business in the first years of operation.

Tshumisano Progamme:

• Specialize in supporting existing business.

DST Annual Report 2002/2003.

Dr Paterson addressed the Committee on policy in regard to the Department and in particular the Annual Report 2002/2003. He reminded the Committee that this is the first report of the Department following the spilt with the Department of Arts and Culture. His comments mostly surrounded on how the Annual Report was produced and compiled. A comprehensive meeting on the report to the Committee is still to follow later in the Committee’s programme.

• Members wanted to know whether the Department works with DTI on some of the projects?
• Is the Department involved with the Chem City project in the Free State?
• What criteria were used in granting the Tshumisano Project without the participation of women?
• To who should people referred their enquiries on projects to?
• Are people with disabilities involved with these projects?

Responses.

• The Department will be going in partnership with the Department of Public Works on the GODISA Project.
• The Department will have technology embizos with the Western Cape Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces. The reports on the outcomes of this will be shared with the Portfolio Committee.
• There are very few engineering companies owned by women.
• There is no formal help desk, but we do route questions to the relevant sections of the Department.
• The Department does have a specific unit that deals with gender/disability issues. We have seats on committees that aim at people with disabilities. The challenge is to try and support businesses that work with disabled people.

The Acting – Chair thanked the presenters and advised them that the Committee will call on the Department soon for a more intense discussion on the Annual Report 2003/2004.

The Committee discussed the adoption of the Annual Report of the DACS&T 2001/2002.

Mrs Mbombo seconded by Mrs Seeco proposed adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to.

The meeting adjourned at 13:15

Committee Secretary: Mr. J Ramrock

Committee Chairperson: Mrs. MAA Njobe