• About
  • Why SIZA
  • Standards
  • Audit Process
  • SIZATrack360
  • Training & Support
  • Grievances
  • SIZA Connect
  • Contact
  • info@siza.co.za
  • Helpline: 086 111 1568
  • WhatsApp Line: 067 083 1640
  • MySIZA Platform
The Sustainability Initiative of South Africa (SIZA) The Sustainability Initiative of South Africa (SIZA) The Sustainability Initiative of South Africa (SIZA)
  • About
    • Managing SIZA
  • Why SIZA
    • Subscription Levels & Costs
    • Terms & Conditions
  • Standards
    • Reviewing Standards
    • Audit Process Methodology
  • Audit Process
    • Completing the SAQ
    • Choosing An Audit Firm
    • Audit Execution
    • Audit Frequency & Between Audit Monitoring
    • Audit Disputes Process
  • SIZATrack360
    • SIZATrack360 Resources
    • SIZATrack360 FAQs
    • Tracking Impact Data – M&E Reports
  • Training & Support
    • Upcoming Training
    • Resources
  • Grievances
  • SIZA Connect
    • SIZA 10 Year Celebration
    • Newsletters
    • Logo Usage
  • Contact

High Court Ruling Providing Clarity on the PCO Regulations.

  • Home
  • Auditing Newsletter
  • High Court Ruling Providing Clarity on the PCO Regulations.

On January 26th, 2026, the Western Cape High Court ruled in favour of CropLife SA, confirming that the 2023 regulations relating to agricultural remedies (Government Notice 3812), as issued under the Farm Feeds, Fertilisers, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947, do not apply to the Pest Control Operator (PCO) Regulations of 2011.

The Court has deemed that a “restricted agricultural remedy” listed in Annexure A of Government Notice 3812 is not the same as a “restricted-use agricultural remedy” referred to in the 2011 PCO regulations. Thus, restricted agricultural remedies are not subject to PCO regulatory oversight.

Notably, restricted agricultural remedies are still regulated under other legislation, such as the Hazardous Substances Act 15 of 1973. Please note that restricted agricultural remedies are also typically referred to as highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs).

Practical implications for agricultural stakeholders

In the short-term, the announcement will provide relief for farmers due to the following:

  • The purchase or sale of restricted agricultural remedies is not legally limited to PCOs.
  • Spraying restricted agricultural remedies does not have to be supervised by a registered PCO.
  • Application for a PCO license is not currently required solely due to the use of these remedies (although this may change in the future if legislation is amended).

CropLife SA has developed a declaration for its members to complete prior to the sale and/or purchasing of restricted agricultural remedies. This confirms that the purchaser understands the risks associated with the management of HHPs, and must be completed each time HHPs are bought, with declarations retained on file by the distributor. Thus, this aims to mitigate the risks previously addressed through the PCO framework.

PCOs remain highly valuable

Stakeholders who have invested time, effort, and money in PCO registration should note that their investment remains relevant. The government may amend regulations at any time to bridge this legislative gap, subject to public consultation. A multistakeholder work group has also committed to engaging with the government to create a suitable alternative solution that restricts the use of HHPs in support of South Africa’s international commitments to phase out agricultural HHPs by 2035.

Auditing considerations

Based on the latest government communication to industry, auditors are no longer expected to verify a PCO license (or proof of application) solely because of restricted remedies/HHPs purchased and used on-site. However, auditors must still ensure that:

  • All agrochemical use, especially HHPs, is legally compliant with the Farm Feeds, Fertilisers, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947.
  • Management practices align with the SIZA Environmental Standard, including the safe storage, handling, training, and recordkeeping requirements.
  • Compliance with the SANS 10206:2020 standards.

Overall, the High Court ruling has brought some clarity and short-term relief for the agricultural sector. However, while this alleviates immediate financial and operational strains, stakeholders should remain vigilant. HHPs continue to pose significant environmental and health risks, and future regulatory oversight is likely. Thus, suppliers and auditors should maintain a high standard for chemical management practices and associated documentation to ensure operations are legal and compliant. For more information, please contact Matthew Guest at matthewg@siza.co.za.

Tags: Audit, Audits, Environmental, Environmental Audits, PCO Regulations, SIZA Audits, SIZA Environmental, Sustainability

Previous Post

Greenhouse Gas requirements for auditors to assess.

Next Post

Water Use and Water Resource Impacts:  How will an auditor evaluate these practices?

Related Posts

Auditing Newsletter February 27, 2026

Water Use and Water Resource Impacts:  How will an auditor evaluate these practices?

Auditing Newsletter February 27, 2026

Greenhouse Gas requirements for auditors to assess.

Auditing Newsletter February 27, 2026

What an auditor must check for if livestock is on site, including biosecurity measures

Company

  • About Us
  • Why SIZA
  • Grievances
  • Newsletters
Logo
Navigating sustainability and compliance within South Africa's dynamic agricultural sector.

Contact Information

10 Niblick Way,
Section 5, The Beachhead,
Somerset West 7130 | South Africa
+27(0) 21 852 8184
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Logo Usage
  • MySIZA Platform