Environmentalists tested the clout of the legal system last week, asking the courts to force genetic modification (GM) operators in the country to reveal more information about their practices.
Cape Town-based Biowatch took the Registrar of Genetic Resources in the Department of Agriculture with five other respondents to the Pretoria High Court, in a first-ever court challenge for access to information on GM activities in the country.
During a two-day court case the registrar, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and the minister of agriculture said the information sought by Biowatch was too broad, and that the government did not have the capacity to make all the information available. But eventually advocate Mervyn Rip, SC, conceded that Biowatch is entitled to most of the information it is seeking.
Biowatch is now awaiting the judge’s decision, expected on June 4, granting it access to information around how environmental impact assessments are conducted, where GM field trials are taking place, clarity on the decision-making process involved in the granting of permits for GM research and field trials, and information on the public participation process.
The legal action against the registrar, the executive council, the agriculture minister, and biotechnology companies Monsanto, Stoneville Pedigreed and D & PL South Africa came as a last resort for anti-GM environmentalists who have slammed GM companies and the government for lack of transparency and stone-walling.
“We have got nowhere with getting information from the government or GM companies over the years even though we should have the constitutional right to this information as set out in the Nema [National Environmental Management Act], the PAIA [Public Access to Information Act] and in provisions in the GMO Act,” said Biowatch’s Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss.
She said 2 000 applications have been processed by the Department of Agriculture over the past few years. “If they have the capacity to deal with the commercial companies, they should have the capacity to deal with the public … If they admit to not having enough capacity, then how are they dealing with issues around monitoring and inspecting GM research in the country?”
Counsel for Monsanto, advocate Jerome Wilson, said the scope of the information sought by Biowatch would mean the commercial confidentiality of the company would be breached.
But the Open Democracy Advice Centre, which joined the action as a Friend of the Court, said anyone wanting to limit the constitutional right of access to information could only do so on specific and compelling grounds.
Environmental lawyer and head of the Africa Centre for Biosafety Mariam Mayet said the environmentalists have tried to engage with the government and the pro-GM companies since 1999. “The entire GM regulation system is shrouded in secrecy and because they don’t provide us with relevant information we cannot meaningfully object or comment on the regulation process.”