Post: The recently published plant health (Phytosanitary) act and the impact on the forestry sector

July 4, 2025

The recently published plant health (Phytosanitary) act and the impact on the forestry sector

The Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Act 35 of 2024 (PHA), has finally been gazetted as an Act following a lengthy regulatory process. This is an important step in the right direction for the national phytosanitary system, a step that the Forestry Sector sincerely welcomes as a key piece of legislation to support responsible trade and market access for the sector.

As part of this framework, the National Plant Protection Organisation of South Africa (NPPOZA), housed within the Department of Agriculture, plays a central role in implementing and coordinating phytosanitary measures. The Act clarifies and strengthens NPPOZA’s mandate, ensuring a more coordinated approach to plant health in South Africa.

The Evolution of Phytosanitary Legislation in South Africa.

South Africa has been a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) since 1 January 1995 when the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO SPS Agreement) was ratified, and a member of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) even longer than that. The IPPC as we know it today (aligned with the WTO SPS Agreement) was structured following the 1997 and 2005 revised IPPC texts. At this point instead of going through the lengthy process of developing new legislation, it was best to have the responsibilities of the NPPOZA placed under some current legislative framework until more specific legislation could be set up to guide the NPPOZA in fulfilling its international obligations.

The NPPOZA was therefore established and mandated under the Agricultural Pests Act, Act 36 of 1983 (APA). The APA predates key legislative and structural reforms such as (but not limited to) the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, Act 47 of 1996 and the WTO SPS Agreement which laid foundation for deregulating agricultural boards and promoting international trade of agricultural products. This means that although the APA was the most appropriate legislative framework at the time, it lacks the scope required to fulfil our international obligations as a member of the WTO. Following this, there were many amendments passed to the APA to support its new expanded mandate, however, it was clear that a specific piece of legislation was required as capacity remained constrained.

In 2007, a National Plant Health policy was presented to cabinet but unfortunately rejected by government and referred back for redrafting as a draft White Paper. In 2009, South Africa’s first (and still only) Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) was conducted and one of the key recommendations was that the NPPOZA required a legislative framework that is specific and fit for purpose to establish sufficient capacity and fulfil its mandate as outlined by the IPPC. By 2014, the National Plant Health white paper was presented as a policy proposal and accepted by Parliament as a Bill in 2021. In his 2024 State of the Nation Address the President joked about finding his pen to sign Bills into Acts and just before the year concluded his pen still had enough ink to enact the Phytosanitary Bill into law.

So now the NPPOZA has a specific Act to guide the functioning and capacity to fulfil its mandate, in theory at least, and further support the private sector in trade and market access activities. But how is it different to the APA?

KEY CHANGES: HOW THE OLD ACT DIFFERS FROM THE NEW

If an Act does not make provision for certain functions, the implementing authority is limited in their ability to allocate resources and create capacity for those functions. The NPPOZA has a primary obligation to work towards safe and fair trade of plants, plant products and other regulated articles. This mandate as stipulated in the principles of the IPPC includes both imports and exports.

The APA’s primary objective, however, was to prevent the introduction and spread of new pests in South Africa. This means it had key focus on imports. Despite the fact that there were many amendments to the APA to try to accommodate for this mandate, it was always to be a temporary home for the NPPOZA with a more fit for purpose vehicle needed. This is the first important aspect of the new PHA, that it provides a clear mandate for exports, re-exports and consignments in-transit. Under the APA, inspections and certification for exports were conducted according to relevant International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM’s) but in actual fact, there was no legislative mandate and regulatory controls to ensure the credibility of the consignment after certification and prior to export. This was a weakness in the system that was highlighted in the 2009 PCE, a weakness that impacts South Africa’s phytosanitary regulatory credibility. This was highlighted on the international stage in 2024 when Spain’s Citrus Management Committee President accused South Africa of having “no credibility in terms of plant health” following a war of words around phytosanitary concerns. This was quite a harsh statement and probably fuelled by more than just phytosanitary concerns, however, it shows how the weaknesses in our phytosanitary system can be exposed to the detriment of market access. Through the new legislation, we now have the export focus which means that the NPPOZA has the explicit mandate to allocate resources to export related SPS activities and when a consignment from South Africa reaches a port of entry in another country, importers now know that it comes from a place that has improved phytosanitary regulatory framework, which will hopefully improve the South African brand on the international stage.

The new Act also makes provision for improved coordination between national, provincial and local spheres of government. While this is not a massive change, it does clarify the powers of the executive authority, the ability to delegate powers and that the NPPOZA should work with the different spheres of government as well as research institutions, associations, organisations and other relevant bodies. This is already taking place under the APA, where the NPPOZA has delegated certain powers to assignees such as the Border Management Authority (BMA) and the NPPOZA works with agricultural organisations to a certain extent. This just provides a clear framework for it to do so.

Finally, the PHA provides the framework to align the national legal mandate of the NPPOZA with its international obligations as a signatory to the WTO SPS Agreement and the Convention as stipulated in Article IV of the IPPC.

While this might not seem like a major change, especially considering the fact that as a member of the IPPC, South Africa should have an NPPO aligned to the principles of the IPPC and WTO SPS Agreement, for us as a sector, this clarification provides us with a much more effective tool in engaging with the NPPOZA.

FORESTRY AND THE PHA: CLARIFYING THE MANDATE

In any other country we could have concluded the article here since it is understood that when speaking about plant health and phytosanitary measures forestry is included. But whether fortunately or unfortunately for you, I still have quite a bit more to say on this topic, particularly as it relates to the Forestry Sector and our engagements with the NPPOZA.

Engaging with the NPPOZA thus far has been challenging. The prevailing sentiments from the NPPOZA are that forestry is not part of their mandate, that they only deal with forestry pests that also affect agricultural crops (not forestry specific pests), and that since forestry products are not food, they are not considered under the auspices of the NPPOZA. It is important to note that there are certain functions of plant health that are dealt with outside of the NPPOZA, however, where it relates to phytosanitary measures i.e., plant health as it relates to trade, the NPPOZA is the only contact point between South Africa and the IPPC, or as it is referred to in formal structures, NPPOZA is South Africa’s focal point for the IPPC.

While not everything in the new Act is new, it certainly clarifies some of these misconceptions to enable more constructive engagement with the NPPOZA. So, let’s break it down and provide some clarity:

In chapter 1, the new Act provides definitions which includes the definition for ‘plants’ as “any living plant and parts of it, including [but not limited to] seeds and germplasm”. So, from the offset, it clearly includes forestry. Then the definition for ‘plant products’ includes “any unmanufactured material of plant origin, and those manufactured products which, by their nature or that of their processing, may create a risk for the introduction and spread of pests”. This would include products such as wood chips or planks which are not necessarily growing trees in and of themselves, but do come directly from trees and carry a risk of pest introductions.

Furthermore, the definition of ‘regulated articles’ is “any plant, plant product, storage place, packaging, conveyance, container, soil and any other organism, object or material capable of harbouring or spreading pests, deemed to require phytosanitary measures, particularly where international transportation is involved”. In our context it would include something like wood packaging materials (wooden pallets) which are able to harbour and spread pests and therefore are subject to phytosanitary controls. In fact, there is a specific international standard from the IPPC on how to treat and inspect wood packaging materials (ISPM 15). Next, still in chapter 1, forestry operations are clearly included under the definition of a “user of land” both in terms of land ownership and rights, as well as “the right to cut trees or wood on land or to remove trees, wood, or other organic material from land” which sounds a lot like any harvesting operation in forestry.

If we move our attention to the weightier matters of the law, this new Act helps us with the explanation even further. In Chapter 2 of the new Act, section 9 focuses on the “Establishment of [the] National Plant Protection Organisation of South Africa” which states that the NPPOZA is “established according to Article IV of the Convention”. The Convention refers to the institutional framework of the IPPC, the guiding document which states that contracting parties (of which South Africa is included) have agreed to the 23 Articles in the IPPC. Article IV provides the general provisions relating to the organisational arrangements for an NPPO. In this article, the Convention clarifies that the focus of the NPPO is on plants and not only on food. It includes fields, plantations, nurseries, greenhouses and laboratories.

Moreover, it even goes beyond forestry and stipulates the NPPO to also focus on wild flora, and plant products in storage or transport. Nowhere in the entire 23 Articles of the Convention does it limit the NPPO’s function to only food production, the focus is abundantly clearly on plant health (as it relates to trade) and not just food.

Finally, while there are many other examples that we can use to explain that the scope of the NPPO includes forestry, ISPM 5 stipulates 34 this in no uncertain terms. In Supplement 2 of the standard, it states that “the scope of the IPPC covers the protection of cultivated plants in agriculture, horticulture and forestry, uncultivated/ unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats and ecosystems.” Some of the misalignment could stem from the organisational structure of the NPPOZA.

According to the latest NPPOZA organisational structure sent to the IPPC (2022) and more recent engagements, the NPPO has 3 key directorates:

Plant Health
1. Policy Norms and Standards, Pest Risk Analysis, Early Warning Systems, Import/Export Protocols
Inspection Services
1. Ports of Entry, Inspections, Quarantine and Diagnostic services
Food Import and Export Standards
1. Regulatory desk, Biosecurity Awareness and Promotion, WTO-SPS Coordination (notifications, compliance, disputes) The key challenge here are the sub-directorates placed under Food Import and Export Standards. Importantly, WTO-SPS coordination is greater than just food. When the Forestry Sector has a WTO-SPS related challenge the only IPPC contact point to assist is the NPPOZA, the fact that the relevant sub-directorate sits under food import/export standards makes it seem as if it should not include forestry when the legislative mandate is broader than food production.

To further explain Article IV of the Convention, the IPPC published a guide on Establishing a National Plant Protection Organisation where they stipulate that “In accepting international obligations governments commit to amending their current national legislation to conform to their new responsibilities. In this sense, international obligations prevail over national dispositions, and national provisions that contravene international obligations must be repealed.”

The improved alignment with the IPPC that the new Act provides is a welcomed improvement for our phytosanitary system that overcomes some of the key shortcomings of the APA. The improved focus on exports will in theory allow the Department of Agriculture (DOA) to allocate resources and capacity more effectively towards export related SPS capacity, potentially also allow them to rework the structure to make it relevant to their broader mandate. In practice, we know that the department will not be flushed with new finances and capacity from the onset, but as the structure and focus gets reworked to align with the new Act it will be crucial to ensure that the needs of the Forestry Sector are clearly articulated and prioritised in further engagements with relevant authorities. As a sector we need to ensure that we have a phytosanitary strategy and coordinated approach while continuing to engage with the NPPOZA. Going forward we hope to see the new Act filter down and reflected in the organisational structure thereby including the Forestry Sector as well.

FORESTRY SECTOR ROLE

While the scope of the legislative framework for phytosanitary measures has improved under this Act, resources remain constrained and therefore capacity will remain challenging. The National Biosecurity Hub, launched in October 2022 by the Ministers of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (DSI), has done exceptional work to start supporting the capacity building processes of government, but as a sector we should have a response as well. What is needed is a coordinated approach to our phytosanitary needs and priorities, a proactive strategy that we can engage with the NPPOZA constructively and not get caught up in the cross hairs of definitions and scope, but rather on priorities and impact to the sector.

KEY DOCUMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Act, Act 35 of 2024

Agricultural Pests Act, Act 36 of 1983

International Plant Protection Convention (1997)

Establishing a National Plant Protection Organisation

Guidelines for the Revision of National Phytosanitary Legislation ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms.

Source: Forestry In Focus (Page 32 – 35)