Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Bill: DALRRD briefing; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Department briefing on the Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Bill [B14-2021]

The Chairperson said the meeting had been convened so that Members could be briefed on the Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Bill [B14-2021] (Sec 76).

Mr Mcebisi Skwatsha, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), said the Bill had cleared all hurdles, and had also been processed by the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. The Bill sought to repeal the old 1983 Act, and its purpose was to regulate the import and export of plant products.

Mr Mooketsa Ramasodi, Director-General (DG): DALRRD, said the Bill was holistic in scope and aligned to the International Plant Protection Convention. The Bill looked at a mechanism to prevent the introduction, entry, spread and establishment of pests in South Africa. It would also cover exports from South Africa.

The Bill also looked at regulated and quarantined pests from South Africa. Non-regulated and non-quarantined pests were also covered.

The Bill was an important piece of legislation, as the previous Act had not responded to South Africa's trade realities. The Bill would thus lead to improved competitiveness of South African agricultural produce internationally.

Mr Dipepeneneng Serage, Acting Deputy Director-General (DDG): Agricultural Production, Biosecurity, and Disaster Management, DALRRD, presented the Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Bill, which was a section 76 Bill.

Key concepts/definitions

He said the Bill contained the following key concepts and definitions:

• Phytosanitary measures, which referred to official measures, regulations or procedures aimed at preventing the introduction and/or spread of quarantine pests, and limiting the economic impact of regulated non-quarantine pests.
• Quarantine pest, which meant a pest of potential economic importance to an area endangered thereby, and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.
• Regulated pest, which meant a quarantine pest or a regulated non-quarantine pest. This was where there was a specific focus from government because it did not want such a pest to occur, and it would want to empower the Minister to be able to demarcate areas where certain crops may not be farmed.

Mr Serage said South Africa was a signatory member of the World Trade Organisation Agreement on the application of Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures (WTO-SPS Agreement), and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

He said that plant health was not a concurrent mandate. It was currently the preserve of the national Department. What the Department did at the national level had to cover everything as far as plant or arable farming was concerned. A key reason for the amendments was that the current law that regulated plant health predated 1994, which was the Agricultural Pest Act (APA) of 1983. It also predated the Constitution.

At the time the APA was promulgated, the focus was not really on trade. Instead, the focus was on the control of pests within South Africa. South Africa now traded with its counterparts in other countries. For that to happen, there needed to be a relationship between South African laws and the laws of other countries. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) had statutory bodies. One was the French body, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), now known as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). The plant health convention of the WOAH was called the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The WTO ensured that all signatories to it were able to negotiate and discuss plant health issues in a more centralised forum, and were then able to have scientific discussions on phytosanitary matters.

He said the Department used the words “plant health” and “phytosanitary” interchangeably. “Phyto” meant plants, and “sanitary” meant free of diseases and insects. The Department would decide whether the Bill became the Plant Health Bill, or the Phytosanitary Bill.

Problem statement

Mr Serage said the introduction and spread of potentially damaging pests in South Africa could have a significantly negative impact on South African biosecurity, agricultural production, food security, and market access. Deficiencies of the existing Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No.36 of 1983) were:

• It predated the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa;
• It predated the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC, 1997);
• The definitions were not aligned with the IPPC standards;
• There was no provision for the National Plant Protection Organisation of SA (NPPOZA) in accordance with the IPPC (Article IV), and its functions;
• There was also no provision for export control, re-export and in-transit control -- the emphasis was on imports and national control.

Timeline for processing the Plant Health Bill

Due to what happened with the political cycle, the Department had had to get a new socio-economic impact report after the Bill went to the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor (OCSLA).

The Bill had been reintroduced in the National Assembly in July 2021.

[Please see the presentation for the details.]

Overview of Agricultural Pests Act, which was being repealed

Mr Serage said the Agricultural Pests Act (Act No. 36 of 1983) provided for measures by which agricultural pests could be prevented and combated. The Act also included regulations on the import of controlled goods to prevent the introduction of plant pests and diseases, subject to import permits.

The importation of goods had to be through a permit. At South African airports, there were dogs within a K9 unit belonging to the Department. The unit checked for fruits, fruit products, plants and plant products in the luggage of passengers. If one compared the airport scenario in South Africa to that of other countries, one would realise that South Africa could only confiscate the fruit etc -- it did not have any legal follow-up mechanism. The current Act was not up to the standard of other laws in the country. If one was found to have controlled products without a permit, people could be jailed and charged large fines. At the moment, South Africa did not have the legal provisions to impose fines that would be a deterrent.

The whole Agricultural Pests Act would be repealed.

[Please see the presentation for details.]

Mr Serage said the objectives of the Bill were to provide for phytosanitary measures, to prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of regulated pests to safeguard South African agriculture and plant natural resources. In turn, this supported:

• Safe and fair international and domestic trade;
• The maintenance of current export markets and the establishment of new markets;
• Crop production/food security programmes;
• Economic growth and development;
• Job creation.

Mr Serage added that travelling was unintentionally a source of pest introduction. Tourism was found to be one of the most challenging areas for the agricultural sector, because it was through tourism that pests and diseases were introduced. That was one of the main reasons the Department would want to ensure that it safeguarded the country against the introduction of regulated pests or quarantine pests. Once the Bill was in place, the Department would be able to ensure that it had sufficient regulations and laws as far as travelling was concerned. The Department would be able to service the current export markets easily.

When it met with its counterparts -- the competent authority of other countries -- to open new markets, it would meet their NPPOZA. South Africa does not currently have a legitimate NPPOZA because its law has not made provisions for it. South Africa had to work with what it had, to marshal itself into a structure equivalent to an NPPOZA, because it needed that to enable trade.

Summarising the Bill, Mr Serage added that the control of diseases and pests needed to be regulated by law. “National control” referred to the scenario where the Department needed to provide in law for its regulation anywhere in the country where agricultural production happened. He gave the example of a disease or pest with high economic importance, which, in one case, related to potatoes. The pest had not been imported. The Department had directed the whole crop to be destroyed, because it feared the spread of that pest to other areas where it did not naturally occur.

He commented that the current Act did not make provision for export control. This meant that the Department did not have the power to stipulate that someone could not export a particular product to a particular country. If it had that provision to control the export of plants and plant products, it would be the Department’s duty to issue a phytosanitary certificate. It was currently issuing such certificates, because it had to make do with what was available and formulate its NPPOZA, even if that was not currently provided for in the South African law.

South Africa would not be able to export plants and plant products without a phytosanitary certificate. Re-export aided in economic growth. If one country required products, and South Africa knew it could access them, then a country could come to South Africa, conduct inspections, and export products further to another country. Re-export happened mainly with seeds, which were relatively easy to export because of their shelf life. There was already a process happening where seeds could come into South Africa, be checked and certified, and then exported to another country.

[Please see the presentation for details.]

Clause by clause analysis

The Department showed a table with the relevant section, provision subject, and explanatory summary.

Mr Serage highlighted the following sections:

Section 3 - Powers of the Minister. This provided for the “power of the minister to make regulations and control measures to further the objectives of the Act.”

Section 4 - Prescribing of the control measures. This provided that “the Minister may prescribe the control measures which must be complied with by users of land in order to achieve the objectives of the Bill. These control measures may include quarantine measures and restriction on the movement of infested material.”

Section 17 - Declaration of regulated pests. This “provides for conditions under which the executive officer may declare regulated pests (quarantine pests or regulated non-quarantine pests).” Mr Sarage added that the pests mentioned here were those of economic importance.

Section 28 - Offences and penalties. This provided for the following: “Prescribes penalties for certain offences to any person who violates the provision of this Act and related regulations.” Mr Sarage added that under the current law, if the Department wanted to confiscate plant material from someone, it would have to go to a magistrate within the jurisdiction of the area where the person committed the offence, and the fine was about R300. Such penalties did not really deter infringements. The Department, through section 28, wanted to be able to align with other countries so that fines could be issued. If necessary, transgressors could also be jailed. The section was mainly about fines that were high enough so that travellers would not be tempted to bring certain products into the country. At the moment, the Department could confiscate transgressors’ products and destroy them. Before establishing the Border Management Authority (BMA), the Department had a K9 unit of about 20 dogs at ports of entry. Each dog and handler was relatively expensive, so the Department provided an expensive service, but it “got nothing out of it.”

Section 31 - Compensation. This “provides for compensation by the Minister regarding certain matters in the Bill.” Mr Serage added that this section could provide compensation if, for example, the Department ordered that a crop of potatoes, bananas, etc. had to be destroyed because of pests or diseases. Compensation would be made if the infestation was not the fault of the owner.

[Please see the presentation for details.]

Mr Serage said the departments and stakeholders consulted included national departments such as the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), the State Law Adviser, provincial Departments of Agriculture, the Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB), research institutes, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), the National House of Traditional Leaders, the agricultural industry, the South African National Seed Organisation (SANSOR), Grain SA, importers and exporters, trading partners and the general public.

Financial implications

The implementation of the Bill had no additional implication in terms of human and financial resources, since the NPPO of South Africa had already been established and was funded.

Key activities such as surveillance and response activities would be catered for under the current medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) allocation, and would receive further prioritisation over multiple MTEFs.

The branch received an additional MTEF allocation (2020 to 2023) to respond to biosecurity threats, strengthen inspection services at points of entry, and revitalise laboratories and quarantine stations. Reprioritisation of allocations continued to support the phytosanitary system.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked Members whether they wanted to pose any questions. As none of the Members had any questions, the Chairperson requested the Deputy Minister to provide closing remarks.

Deputy Minister Skwatsha thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present. He hoped that the Bill would become an Act very soon.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister, the Director-General, and the DDG for having availed themselves on a Friday.

Committee minutes

The Chairperson asked the procedural staff whether there was a quorum to consider and adopt the outstanding minutes.

They responded that the meeting had no quorum to consider and adopt the outstanding minutes, so the Chairperson ruled they would have to be considered at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.