Genetically Modified Organisms Bill: briefing
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SELECT COMMITTEE ON LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
19 June 2006
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS BILL: BRIEFING
Acting Chairperson: Rev P Moatshe (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Department of
Agriculture R. No. 1420 Genetically Modified Organisms Act 15 of 1997
Genetically Modified
Organisms Act 15 of 1997 [SAPL4] [Assented to 20 May 1997] [Date of
Commencement: 1 December 1999]
Portfolio
Committee Amendments to Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill [B34A-
2005]
Genetically
Modified Organisms Amendment Bill [B34B-2005]
SUMMARY
The Department of Agriculture met with the Committee for an informal
briefing on the Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill. The meeting
encompassed issues on the Bill that were discussed from a previous meeting
between the two parties on 19 January 2006.
Members agreed that the Bill would not be passed at this stage. The issues
raised by the Committee regarding the Bill were: (1) The definition of the word
“user” in the Bill was too wide, there are many players in the chain which made
it difficult to identify who the user was in terms of the definition; (2) Users
were the only people liable for damages and it was not clear whether other
parties such as polluters would be liable for damages; (3) The recovery of
costs under Section 17 only encompassed direct costs and did not take into
consideration indirect costs; and (4) the Council was not obliged to include
public input in its assessment process but rather it could include the public
in its decision-making process on specific matters.
Committee members were also concerned with issues facing the small farmer who
was not protected by the Bill and the fact that GMO seeds would be the only
seeds on the market. They raised the following questions: (1) What would happen
to natural seeds that could be used by in the future? (2) Why should GMO seeds
be the only seeds on the market? (3) Were GMO’s harmful? (4) Who stood to
benefit from the Bill? (5) How did the Department intend to address the plight of
the small farmer?
Mr Jafta attempted to respond to the Committee but the Committee felt that his
answers to the questions were unconvincing. The Chair suggested that the
Departmental delegation do further research on the issues raised at the meeting
so that the Department was in a better position when they met again.
MINUTES
Briefing by Department of Agriculture
Dr J Jafta (Senior Manger: Genetic Resources Management) explained that the
presentation was an informal briefing which dealt with the Genetically Modified
Organisms Act 15 of 1997. He spoke about the provisions in the Act and
highlighted that:
- The definition of “user” in Section 1 of the Act requires further discussion
because liability provisions dealt with users.
- Council makes final decisions on whether a GMO will be made. The powers and
duties of Council had been separated into two categories: discretionary powers
and obligatory powers. One of the discretionary powers that Council may
consider public input where there will be a direct impact on the public.
- In the previous meeting a concern was raised regarding the situation where
Council does not reach consensus in terms of Section 7 of the Act, which states
that a lack of consensus could result in Council making no final decision on matters
before it. To address this it was proposed in the Bill that when Council makes
a decision and does not reach consensus the result was that the provision was
denied.
Discussion
The Chair welcomed the Department of Agriculture to the meeting. He commented
that the Bill had been forwarded to the Committee, who were currently
familiarising themselves with the Bill.
Mr L Van Rooyen (ANC) stated that the Bill was not conducive to the growth of
small farmers. He drew the Departments attention to Section 17 of the Act which
holds the user liable for all costs if something goes wrong, and remarked that
the presenter had stated that the user was anyone in the value chain, which
included the farmer. Mr Van Rooyen added that he failed to see how a small farmer
who was forced to use GMO seeds (because such a farmer would not be able to use
his own) would be held liable for the scientific consequences of GMO seeds. He
was also thrown by the idea that the actual risk-taker, the big companies that
manufactured GMO seeds, could shift responsibility to small farmers. He
remarked that the Bill only protected big companies and asked how the
Department addressed the plight of small farmers.
He added that he had a problem with Section 17 which stipulated that they may recover
costs, and that there were two types of costs namely direct and indirect costs.
The section did not take indirect costs into consideration where for example an
impact was only felt 4 or 5 years down the line. He asked how one would recover
costs in such a situation.
The Chair said that the legislation before them was a difficult one to deal
with. He asked the presenter a series of questions. Firstly, what would happen
to natural seeds that could be used by anyone in the future. Secondly, he
inquired on how emerging farmers would be helped. Thirdly, he asked whether the
Bill was being proposed for the sake of international protocol that would in
the end control everything through out the world. Finally, he referred to the
Registrar who issued permits and entries for the ‘nitty-gritty’ activities, and
asked about the Registrars role and whether the Bill will benefit emerging
farmers.
Dr Jafta responded that the Department did have concern for the small scale
farmer, and that it was not expected that all small scale farmers would be
obliged to use GM technology. He explained that the Bill did not restrict the
access farmers had to conventional seeds, and that farmers with access to
conventional seeds could use them but must use them according to plant right
protection (which allows farmers to replant safe seeds). Mr Jafta reported that
only 10% of farmers use maize hybrid and 90% did not, the other 90% usually
opted for other types of hybrids, such as the farm saved hybrid. The department
had a programme for collecting and saving traditional seeds.
Dr Jafta added that the Bill aimed to give effect to all activities, which
extended to things other than GMO seeds.
Ms K Nagiah (Department of Agriculture) responded to the issue of liability
under Section 17 which had been raised by Mr Van Rooyen. She explained that to
be held liable, an individual had to take steps to commit a harmful act. The
alleged act of the accused would be tested in a court of law. Thus any accused
would have the right to challenge allegations made against them and this would
constitute another leg to determine liability.
Dr Jafta responded to the Chair’s inquiry on the Registrar. He stated that
there would be specific guidelines stipulating how the Registrar would carry
out his/her functions and Council would compose a list of criteria on
activities so that if the Registrar made an error, an appeal could be made on
that error with reference to the list.
Mr Van Rooyen remarked that he was not satisfied with the answers given by the Department‘s
delegation. The 10% figure that Mr Jafta had given to the Committee was a
worrying one because eventually conventional seeds would be pulled off the
market. He explained that the result of this was that (1) they would be playing
into the hands of big farmers and (2) the impact on land redistribution would
be that the emerging farmer would be held at ransom because he/she could only
buy seeds at one time.
Mr R Tau (ANC) stated that the legislation had huge implications. He remarked
that the Department did not clearly state who stood to benefit from the Bill.
He asked how the poor benefited from the Bill, and stated that the presenters
put him in a position where he could not stand up in front of his constituency
and say that he represented them to the best of his ability because they had
not addressed these issues.
Dr Jafta responded to the 10% figure that Mr Van Rooyen had commented on. Mr
Jafta explained that it was incorrect t say that 10% of small farmers use
hybrid GMO seeds, because GMO seeds and conventional seeds can both be hybrids.
Dr Jafta said that there are reports on the advantages of GMO seeds over
conventional seeds and that an example of such an advantage would be the
increase of yield grain up to 40% and lower costs for all other inputs.
The Chair communicated that the members were sensitive to the presentation, and
that they might regret making a decision to use GMOs in the future. He
explained that members experienced a problem with Mr Jafta‘s answers because he
was not convincing. He asked the delegation the following questions: (1) If
both GMO seeds and conventional seeds were hybrids and GMO seeds did not
automatically supersede conventional seeds, why should GMO seeds be the only
seeds on the commercial market? (2) Were GMOs harmful? Conventional seeds did
not seem to be harmful, and GMO seeds did because it was only when one spoke
about GMO seeds that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and soil that
needs to be protected became an issue; it seemed as though GMOs were alien
seeds to the soil. (3) Who determined the EIA in the process where the soil is
contaminated with GMOs? (4) The Chair enquired about the relevance of Mr
Jafta‘s comment that the fact that South Africa had a GMO Act put South Africa
in a better position than countries that did not have a GMO Act.
Mr Van Rooyen questioned whether the Department had the capacity to manage
damage control when an accident occurred. He stated that the definition of
‘user’ in the Bill was too wide, and added that there were many players in the
chain which made it difficult to say who the user was. It was not clear in the
Bill whether a polluter would have to pay as the Bill only refered to users.
Dr Jafta responded to the Chair by saying that South Africa was better placed
with the GMO Act than countries that had not ratified the Act because it served
as a piece of legislation which South Africa could use to ‘implement’ GMOs. He
explained that both GMO seeds and conventional seeds had an impact on the
environment, but different kinds of input were required with the two seed
types. Conventional seeds for example might include fertilisers and
insecticides, which could also be utilised with GMOs but with GMOs there was a
reduced application for them.
Dr Jafta differentiated between scientists and Council. He explained that
scientists formed up a committee that made scientific assessments and looked
purely at GMOs. Council was the senior governing official that had knowledge of
GMOs and made decisions regarding GMOs.
Mr Tau asked Mr Jafta if the committee reports to Council on its issues.
Dr Jafta explained that the committee made an assessment and recommendations to
Council which then took into account socio-economic and public input in its
decisions.
Dr Jafta remarked that if a person was liable under a particular provision, the
Department was of the view that they must pay.
Ms Nagiah added that a user caused damage before being held liable. And that a
user was given an opportunity to take steps before a Court held them liable for
their actions. Linked to this there are other steps where the alleged user
could join other parties to court proceedings if they believed the other person
was liable for damage.
The Chair asked the delegation to give an example of damage.
Dr Jafta responded that an example of damage would be where a person used
yogurt which contained micro-organisms and GMOs and sold the yogurt as part of
a business. Such a person would be using the yogurt in an incorrect way which
might lead to damage.
Mr Tau communicated that he would like to revisit issues concerning the
composition of the Council and its objectives as they were contained in the
Act. He wondered why members of the public did not sit on the Council and
articulated that he did not see why they should not sit on the Council. He
asked for the Committee to have more time with the Act and the Bill so that
members could apply their minds to the matters before them.
Dr Jafta replied that he had explained that Council may in terms of Section 3(2)(c)
consider including the public in its decisions. He added that the numbers of
public interest groups were countless; he asked the Committee to consider the
impact of administering this and then asked how the Committee would determine
who could adequately represent all of the public interests.
Mr Tau remarked that one representative did not necessarily represent all of
civil society, and that there were means of attaining representation for
example public consultation and active public participation. He added that he
had a problem with the fact that Council was not obliged to consider the public
in its decision making process but may consider the public positions on a
particular matter. He added that he did not want to get into a debate at the
meeting because members needed time to look at the matters and said that he
would like for them to come back and discuss the matter once members were given
a chance to have more time with the pieces of legislation.
Dr Jafta asked the Committee for guidance on how the Department could consult
the local community on the Bill.
The Chair pronounced that the committee should go back and regroup. He
reiterated that Dr Jafta‘s answers to the questions posed at the meeting were
not convincing and suggested that the delegation do further research on the
issues raised at the meeting so that the Department would be in a better
position when they meet again.
Dr Jafta communicated that he believed the issues that the Department should
address within the Bill were (1) liability (2) recovery of cost and (3)
representation of civil society. He asked for the Committee‘s guidance on how
the Department could attain a wide scope of public representation. Finally, he
said that the impact of GMOs was another issue that the Department should
address.
The Chair responded to Dr Jafta‘s inquiry on the public by informing him that
the matter before them was a Section 75 issue and not a Section 76 (as relating
to the Constitution) public hearing issue which was done via the provinces. He
expressed that they could not go to the people if the committee had to pass the
legislation, which was a difficult one to deal with, as members had their
reservations on it.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.