18 November 2005

Mr Jerry Boltina

Portfolio Committee on Agricultural and Land Affairs

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa

By fax: (021) 403 2808 and email: [email protected]

Dear Mr Boltina

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill. Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) is pleased that South Africa has finally become a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international environmental agreement to regulate and control the safe transfer, handling and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). However, we believe that the Genetically Modified Organisms Act (no 15 of 1997) (GMO Act) is inadequate and does not observe some of the basic principles enshrined in the Cartegena Protocol, our National Environment Management Act (no 107 of 1998)(NEMA), and our Constitution. It is our view that this Act favours industries and does not adequately protect communities, food security or the environment.

WESSA therefore welcomes many of the proposed amendments to the GMO Act, the main aims of which include the provision for measures to promote the responsible development, production, use and application of GMOs and to ensure that all activities involving the use of GMOs are carried out in such a way as to limit possible harmful consequences to the environment, and human and animal health. However, we remain concerned that the GMO Act and its proposed amendments still fall short of providing the necessary legal framework to address the urgent social, environmental and economic concerns that surround GMOs. We believe that the Amendment Bill proposals still do not ensure compliance with several aspects of the Cartagena Protocol.

WESSA urges full public disclosure, discussion and evaluation of the potential hazards, the potential benefits, and policy options for genetic engineering research and the development, and the use of products from that research. We urge the development of adequate legislative, regulatory, and other controls and that these decisions be based on a reverence for nature and life, as well as socio-economic equity.

We are therefore concerned that there is no obligation on the Executive Council (EC) or the Registrar to provide for public participation or public access to information. For example:

1. According to Section 5(2), the EC can decide whether or not to consider public input when assessing permit applications for activities involving GMOs.
2. Section 9(1) makes no provision to incorporate public oversight with regards to the functions of the Registrar.

The Act and its Amendments do contain provisions for access to information and public participation, but these are limited to certain types of authorisations and do not require all important information to be made available. There are also no clear processes set out for public participation and access to information. The proposed GMO Amendment Bill is therefore not aligned to the Cartagena Protocol, the Rio Declaration, or NEMA. We suggest that the Amendment Bill be amended to include clear requirements and procedures with respect to public participation and access to information.

The GMO Act and its amendments grant a large degree of discretionary power to the EC, the primary decision-making body for activities involving GMOs. This is concerning, especially since little or no guidance is given in the legislation. For example:

1. Section 5(1)(a) grants the EC the discretion to decide if an environmental impact assessment, or socio-economic impact assessment is needed to inform a permit application. No guidance is given as to when and under what conditions these assessments should be required.
2. Section 5(1)(c) refers to scientific-based risk assessments. No guidance is given with regards to the content of such assessments.
3. According to Section 5(2) the EC, can decide whether or not to consider public input when considering permit applications for activities involving GMOs, but no guidance is given regarding when, why and how the public should have an opportunity to provide input.

This lack of guidance is highly concerning, given that South Africa has no policy on genetic engineering. The Amendment Bill does allow for guidelines to be produced, but we believe that this is insufficient and would lack adequate legal influence. We therefore suggest that the Act should be amended to include a list of principles and outcomes (adapted from the NEMA, the Biodiversity Act, the Cartagena Protocol, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act). These principles would guide administrative decision-making concerning GMOs in South Africa, and ensure that the act is aligned with national legislation and international agreements.

We further suggest that the Amendment Bill specifies particular authorisations that should not be granted by the EC before it has called for and considered an environmental impact assessment and/or a socio-economic impact assessment. We propose that the EC must consider and take into account the findings of such assessments when considering GMO applications.

WESSA calls for acting in accordance with the polluter pays principle. According to this principle the costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects must be borne by those responsible for harming the environment. We suggest that the polluter pays principle be incorporated in the Act and that the applicant be held responsible for damages arising from the use of the GMOs by other persons. Amendments 17 (a) and (b) allows liability for damages to fall on the end users. We believe that this is inequitable and that in order to observe the polluter pays principle, liability should fall on the producer.

WESSA calls for acting in accordance with the precautionary principle, meaning that when an activity raises the possibility of serious or irreversible harm to the environment and its living creatures, precautionary measures that prevent the possibility of harm shall be taken, even if the causal line between the activity and the possible harm has not been proven.

In accordance with the observance of the precautionary principle WESSA believes that a moratorium should be implemented on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and on the release of all GMO’s into the environment. We believe that releases should be delayed until extensive, rigorous research is undertaken, which determines the long-term environmental and health impacts of GMOs, and until there has been public debate to ascertain the need for the use of each GMO intended for release into the environment.

We believe that it is critical to monitor the ongoing impacts of GMOs and their derivatives on people’s health, the environment and the economy. We also suggest that provision be made for on-going review and assessment of the potential health, environmental and economic impacts of any authorized applications.

In order to uphold consumers and farmers rights to freedom of choice and enable appropriate monitoring, we suggest that the Amendment Bill include a requirement and mechanism for mandatory labelling and traceability of GMOs and their derivatives.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns. We trust that these will be useful in helping shape legislation that protects the rights of consumers, small-scale and organic farmers, as well as the environment. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to gain clarity on any of the points raised.

Yours sincerely

Andy Gubb

WESSA Western Cape Regional Manager

Andy Gubb

National Spokesperson on Conservation Issues

31 The Sanctuary, off Pollsmoor Road, Kirstenhof, 7945

PO Box 30145, Tokai, 7966

Tel: (021) 701 1397

Fax: (021) 701 1399

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.wcape.school.za/wessa