18 January 2024

Re: Media query - Delays in Rotterdam and Act No. 36 of 1947 Legislation
Att: Tony Carnie (Environment Journalist, Daily Maverick)

As an introduction, we would like to confirm that CropLife South Africa firmly supports the regulation
of the agrochemical industry and will continue to assist its members in complying with all legislation.
However, we must ensure that the processes are efficient and well-communicated, as the industry
needs this for its logistical and commercial planning.
Agricultural remedies essentially encompass all plant protection solutions, including biologicals,
semiochemicals, and many products other than pesticides. It's important that these products are
regulated relevant to the type of product being registered.
In addition, CropLife SA remains a proponent of integrated pest management (IPM), which refers to
incorporating all plant protection solutions, including biological, cultural, mechanical and sanitation
methods of plant protection, as well as biotechnology, in order to ensure sustainable food production.
With this background, please find herewith the written responses to your questions.

1. With regard to the legal domestication of the requirements of the Rotterdam Convention PIC
procedures, what specific concerns has CropLife SA raised with Minister Creecy concerning
these on/off/on regulations? Is CropLife SA willing to share any of the formal original
submissions it has made to the Minister since the publication of GN413 on May 12, 2021?
(Since then, the Minister has published a series of notices in the Government
Gazette indicating her intention to either suspend, repeal or delay the implementation of the
RC domestic regulations).

The comments submitted by CropLife SA were made to correct the registration status of chemicals
listed in the regulation. No objection was made to the actual process of the PIC procedure for
chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention.
The draft regulation (Government Notice No. 2239 of 5 July 2022) was accurate and during the public
comment period, CropLife SA submitted some comments. Unfortunately, the final published version,
Government notice No. 3072 of 21 February 2023, contained errors which were pointed out to the
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and other government departments
by CropLife SA. The biggest concern was that there were errors between the draft regulation and the
final published document.
To their credit, DFFE immediately responded, with the outcome being an extension of the
implementation date to allow DFFE time to consider submissions from CropLife SA (and possibly
others). Again, to their credit, DFFE drafted a revision and submitted said draft for public comment
(Government Notice No. 3989 of 24 October 2023). It must also be stated that CropLife SA is not of
the opinion that Minister Creecy is intentionally delaying the implementation, but rather ensuring that
the regulations are free of errors, which is of paramount importance.

2. Given the series of delays and amendments mentioned above, what is CropLife's
understanding of the current legal status of the May 2021 regulations? (ie have the 2021
regulations been repealed or are they still in effect, subject to a period of further consultation

PostNet Suite 437, Private Bag X132, Centurion, South Africa, 0046 | +27 (0)72 224 4715 | www.croplife.co.za | Reg Nr: 2002/031906/08
 on proposed amendments and revised time frames for implementation?). If it is CropLife's
view that they have been scrapped in total and replaced with a new version published in 2023,
what controls exist currently to regulate the import/export/transit of RC Appendix III chemicals
in South Africa?

Even if the local regulations relating to the PIC procedure are not finalised, all agricultural remedies
in South Africa are still strictly controlled and regulated under Act No. 36 of 1947 (CropLife SA cannot
comment on other chemicals contained in Annex III of the Convention, only those applicable to
agricultural remedies). No one may import an agricultural remedy without a valid registration
certificate, or if not registered (for example for trial purposes), a letter from the Registrar authorising
its import into the country. This is applicable to all agricultural remedies, including those listed in Annex
III of the Convention.

3. Concerns have been expressed that the delays referred to above are largely due to deliberate
delay/lobbying tactics by the agricultural remedies manufacturing sector (ie CropLife and other
international players). What is CropLife's view on these perceptions? If CropLife disputes
these suggestions, what other factors could account for the delays, considering that South
Africa ratified the Convention more than 20 years ago? In simple terms, what other interest
groups have an interest in deliberately delaying the immediate implementation of the
regulations, other than the agro-chemical sector?

CropLife SA is not in a position to comment on other interest groups’ involvement.

To clarify, the errors in the published regulations needed to be corrected and again, CropLife SA
applauds the DFFE for its rapid response once the errors were pointed out to them. Any delay (or not)
with the domestication of the PIC regulations has zero impact on local product authorisations that are
granted (or not) by the Registrar (Act No. 36 of 1947).

4. It is noteworthy that (proposed) amendments to the 2021 Regulations appear to remove any
reference to PIC procedures concerning Annexure III in transit. What is CropLife's view on the
necessity for the South Africa agro-chemical sector to notify the South African DNA about
Annex III products in transit? If CropLife's view is that transit controls/notification on RC Annex
III chemicals should not be included in domestic regulations, what are the reasons for this view
- and how does CropLife propose that government could control and close potential loopholes
related to Annex III chemical products in transit?

Today, irrespective of the domestication of PIC regulations, there are still controls in place. Customs
officials need to be provided with proof that an agricultural remedy has a local registration before it
can enter our country. Where a registration is not in place (for example small volumes of product
required for local trial purposes) an import permit is required. For products in transit (for example an
agricultural remedy is authorised for use in Zimbabwe but not South Africa) both an import permit and
an export permit are required. Therefore, the delay in the domestication of PIC procedures does not
mean porous borders.

5. On the issue of alleged 'double standards' regarding the continued domestic sale, use and
distribution of Annex III chemicals in South Africa and Africa (when Annex III and certain other

PostNet Suite 437, Private Bag X132, Centurion, South Africa, 0046 | +27 (0)87 940 4168 | www.croplife.co.za | Reg Nr: 2002/031906/08
 severely hazardous pesticides are banned or restricted in other RC member states or in the
EU) what is CropLife SA’s view on the resolution of such alleged double standards?

These are two separate issues, namely the PIC regulations and product authorisations. It is quite
normal for some countries to have plant protection solutions authorised for local use when they are
not registered in other countries. Local climatic conditions, pest occurrence, crops and regulatory
procedures differ from country to country. Therefore, products can be registered in one country and
not in another.
Regarding the PIC procedures, the purpose is information sharing, so that it is a transparent process
and countries can make their own decision whether they want to import a specific product or not.

6. In relation to reform of the 1947 Act as proposed in the 2010 SA Pesticide Management Policy,
what is CropLife SA’s position on the adequacy of the 1947 Act; the need for urgent law reform
and the reasons why reform has been delayed for the last 14 years?

The original creation date of Act No. 36 of 1947 should not be assumed as the last date of amending
or updating the Act. There have been several amendments to the Act, and Regulations supporting
this Act are often created and published, with the latest being 25 August 2023 (Government Notice
No. 3812 of 25 August 2023: Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act,
1947 (Act 36 of 1947) » Regulations relating to Agricultural Remedy). In this way, the Act is kept
relevant. It is therefore incorrect to say there have not been changes in the past 14 years. The
Registrar (Act No. 36 of 1947) has indicated that the Act is currently under review.

7. What role has CropLife played in this 1947 reform process? Please provide specific examples

As with any citizen or stakeholder in the industry, CropLife SA engages in public comment periods
when drafts of new regulations are published.

8. What is CropLife’s position on the need for a thorough review/re-evaluation of all agricultural
chemicals registered in South Africa since 1947 in relation to human safety and environmental
impacts?

New regulations are created and published by DALRRD in support of Act No. 36 of 1947 and
constantly update the requirements for local product authorisations. In addition, legislation from other
government departments (such as the GHS system from the Department of Employment and Labour)
result in a review of registrations. Registrations are constantly updated, and a specific product
registration is reviewed every three years. The new regulations also contain a clause that a
registration holder is obliged to inform the Registrar of any new data pertaining to environmental or
human toxicology.

PostNet Suite 437, Private Bag X132, Centurion, South Africa, 0046 | +27 (0)87 940 4168 | www.croplife.co.za | Reg Nr: 2002/031906/08
 9. Does CropLife SA still hold the view (as stated on the current CropLife SA website) that South
Africa has “very strong” regulations in respect of the control of pesticides and other agricultural
remedies?

Yes, Act No. 36 and its supporting regulations provide a robust regulatory framework for plant
protection solutions in South Africa. As with any government department, the Act No. 36 of 1947
regulatory team could be more efficient if central treasury provided greater funding. In this way, the
approval and registration process could bring newer technologies to South African farmers more
quickly.

10. Regarding Section/Clause 17 of the 1947 Act, (“Preservation of Secrecy”) and the provision
of a £500 fine for unauthorised disclosure of business information, can CropLife confirm
whether this section has ever been amended/deleted - and if so, can you provide a copy of
the relevant amendment and date therof?

CropLife SA also interprets the Act in that way, however, the Registrar and other pieces of legislation
can impose a sanction on the registration holder, such as cessation of sales, cancellation of
registrations, and so forth. Unfortunately, CropLife SA cannot comment on a process that's controlled
by government, but CropLife SA agrees that the current amount should be reviewed. Kindly refer to
DALRRD for copies of any legislation or amendments required.

11. Juxtaposed against this provision for a £500 fine (roughly R10 000 at current exchange rates),
the 1947 Act only provides for a maximum fine of R1 000 for offences committed by chemical
manufacturers and other parties regulated by the Act. Can CropLife confirm whether R1 000
remains the maximum penalty provided for under the Act? (If this penalty has been adjusted
subsequently, can you kindly provide a copy of the relevant amendment and current quantum
of the current maximum fine?)

As per above, kindly refer to DALRRD.

12. Does CropLife SA share the view of current/former Exco member Henk van der Westhuizen
that the 1947 Act is “basically still a sound piece of legislation, with one or two possible major
exceptions” and that “Maybe it is time South Africa follows the example of the UK and other
developed countries, and leave this most important task to a body of independent experts,
funded by the industry and organised agriculture?” If not, why does CropLife SA continue to
promote this viewpoint on its website (albeit with a personal disclaimer)?

CropLife SA keeps this piece on its website as it is there to allow for debate. It must be clearly stated
that we are of the opinion that the regulatory fees already paid for a dossier to be evaluated should
be ringfenced and only spent for that purpose. In other words, it must be utilised specifically to promote
an efficient process for the evaluation of registration dossiers and ultimately timeous product
registrations. However, the current central treasury (all income goes to central treasury and thereafter
allocated out to ministries as budget allocations) policy of government probably will not allow for this
option.

PostNet Suite 437, Private Bag X132, Centurion, South Africa, 0046 | +27 (0)87 940 4168 | www.croplife.co.za | Reg Nr: 2002/031906/08
Government still has the overall right to approve or not approve a product. But our opinion remains
that the system for product registrations can be more efficient, bringing newer technologies to farmers
quicker, by better utilising the fees already paid to government for product registrations.

For media inquiries, please contact:

Name: Elriza Theron
Position: Advocacy and Communications Manager
CropLife South Africa
Tel: 072 443 3067
Email: elriza@croplife.co.za

Note to Editor:
CropLife South Africa is a not for profit, voluntary industry association that supports its members who
supply sustainable plant protection solutions and public health offerings in the agricultural, non-crop,
public health, and consumer sectors of South Africa.
The association strives to ensure the sustainability of the industry and the association’s members,
through the provision of education opportunities and guidance for compliance with all legislation
impacting the industry; all support efforts for our members are guided by the association’s stewardship
principles.
Via robust and science-based advocacy efforts, CropLife SA supports its members to be trusted
providers of environmentally compatible solutions that ensure sustainable, safe and affordable food
production, and therefore food security, in South Africa. In parallel, sustainable offerings for public
health, home and garden and consumer pest control solutions is also supported.

PostNet Suite 437, Private Bag X132, Centurion, South Africa, 0046 | +27 (0)87 940 4168 | www.croplife.co.za | Reg Nr: 2002/031906/08