Date: 16/04/2010
Source: The Democratic Alliance
Title: DA: Morgan: Speech by DA Member of Parliament on Water and Environmental Affairs budget vote

Honourable Chairperson, Honourable Minister, Honourable Members

The Copenhagen Climate Change negotiations were a great disappointment. South Africa's own negotiating mandate had envisaged achieving a legally binding agreement that would among other things, achieve a commitment to substantial emission reductions from the developed world according to what the science requires, as well as a measurable and verifiable deviation from the business-as-usual case by countries of the developing world. Instead, after more than two weeks of negotiations we got the weak, unenforceable Copenhagen Accord.

The Minister is on record as being disappointed with COP 15, despite the fact that President Zuma was directly involved in the process that led to the production of the Accord. And so it is back to the drawing board. The climate roadshow moves to Mexico this year, where regrettably the chance of achieving a legally binding agreement also seems slim. And that means that South Africa, the host of COP17 in 2011, will be left with the burden of hosting the final COP at which the details of the post-2012 climate framework will be thrashed out.

This is a huge responsibility for South Africa, as it is likely to be the Johannesburg Declaration or the Cape Town Accord, that will determine whether the world will not exceed an average global warming of more than 2degrees C. Time is now of the essence. The longer South Africa and other countries leave their response to climate change, the more difficult and costly it becomes to respond.

The DA has noted President Zuma's commitment to a nationally appropriate mitigation action plan to enable a 34% deviation below the Business as Usual emissions growth trajectory by 2020 and a 42% deviation by 2025. This was subsequently communicated to the UNFCCC on 29 January 2010. But we also note that the devil is the detail, and that our country's commitment is contingent on financial, technological and capacity building support from the developed world. So in effect, we are not moving for now.

Improve the relationship between mining and the environment

Last year in this debate I called for an open and honest debate about coal. Our blessing of abundant coal is becoming a curse as it drives out a commitment to diversifying energy production. And the proliferation of new mining applications across South Africa, from Mpumalanga to Limpopo to the Cape Winelands, is in effect a low scale war against the environment. Last year, Madam Minister, I asked you to invoke section 3A of the amendments to the National Environmental Management Act to create an advisory committee on mining and the environment. You subsequently told me in private correspondence that you would not be acting in good faith if you did this, as the function of authorising mines rests with the Minister of Mineral Resources.

This is true. But the Department of Mineral Resources is in fact not acting in good faith. More than a year ago the Members of the House passed both the NEMA Amendment Act and the MPRDA Amendment Act, with the purpose of beginning a timeline which would result in the Minister of Environmental Affairs, after 36 months after commencement of the last of the two amendment Acts, becoming the competent authority that would authorise mines in South Africa. While you commenced the NEMA Amendment Act, your colleague, the Minister of Mineral Resources has yet to commence the MPRDA Amendment Act. And so a process that was supposed to take three years, will now take at least four years. This is an unfortunate situation, and is a slap in the face of your Department.

And proof that we need the authorisation of mines to become a competency of your Department is that a new order mining right was granted to Coal of Africa to mine adjacent to the Mapungubwe World Heritage site, despite strong objections from your Department. The DA fully supports you on this matter, Madam Minister, but regrettably under the current regime of mining law the input of your Department is reduced to nothing more than providing comments. And Madam Minister, in a statement you suggested your own disquiet with the new order right adjacent to Mapungubwe, as the Department of Mineral Resources did not even have the courtesy to inform you that the right was to be granted. Your senior officials heard about it through the media. Now more than ever before you need to find a structured way to engage with the Minister of Mineral Resources on issues of mining and the environment. And you need to remind your Cabinet colleague that the Honourable Members of this House passed a law which allows you to ultimately be the competent authority for the granting of mining authorisations.

Finalise the transfer of fisheries

Madam Minister, what exactly is happening with the transfer of fisheries-related functions to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries? A Presidential Proclamation was signed early this year which provided for the transfer of approximately 80% of the functions that your Department was previously responsible for managing, to the Agriculture Department. Both during the presentation of this Budget to the Portfolio Committee and during the Strategic Workshop, which you attended Madam Minister, members participating in this debate were led to believe that the Presidential Proclamation would stand. But on Tuesday this week Minister Joemat-Petterssen said in her pre-budget briefing that all the functions of Marine and Coastal Management would be transferred to her Department. So who is right Madam Minister, you or the Minister of Agriculture?

It is worth noting, Chairperson, that if indeed all the functions of MCM are being transferred to the Agriculture Department, which Minister Joemat-Petterssen claims is the case, then our committee has been presented with a budget and a business plan for the Department of Environmental Affairs, and which we debate here today, that does not reflect what will actually happen. Chairperson, the DA supports the retention of the enforcement of the Integrated Coastal Management Act and any functions that relate to oceans research within the Department of Environment. Just like we believe that the environmental functions of mining should revert to the Department of Environmental Affairs, so should the environmental functions of Marine and Coastal Management.

The last few months have been turbulent within MCM. Staff have turned into politicians, vested interests have been revealed, and fisheries management has worsened. To Minister Joemat-Petterssen, whether you take 100% or 80% of the fisheries functions, I wish you good luck. MCM is a mess.

Enforce Environmental Law

The compliance and enforcement capacity of the Department of Environmental Affairs is steadily improving. There are close to a thousand environmental management inspectors in South Africa. The vast majority of these men and women work in the conservation sector, therefore, there is a need to increase the number of inspectors that work on prosecuting polluters.

The DA welcomes the Minister's announcement that four dedicated environment courts are in the process of being established in South Africa. This will go a long way to improving the prosecution of environmental crimes.

For the various environmental laws to be respected and to have credibility, they need to be enforced. And it is important that the Department shows no fear or favour when it acts against transgressors. But this is not always the case. Take for example the R100m boat yard being built for the military in Langebaan by the Department of Public Works (DPW). The local community was misled as to the size of the project and they commenced work last year without obtaining an environmental authorisation. There has been no scoping report, no involvement of interested and affected parties, and no EIA. DPW has apparently applied for a section 24(G) application for the rectification of this illegal activity. Nevertheless, work continues on the site. If this was a private developer the building would have been stopped and the developer fined. But because it is another government department, they are allowed to get away with avoiding full compliance with the law. The law must apply equally to all, but in Langebaan this is not the case.

Let me take this opportunity to commend the management of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park in KZN for taking the enforcement of environmental law seriously, and for achieving results. In February 2010 three unauthorised developments were dismantled in the Park after refusal to comply with a High Court Order. And in March a pilot was found guilty in the Mtubatuba Regional Court for flying over the Park below the legal limit. The CEO of the Park, Andrew Zaloumis, noted at the time that research indicated that low flying impacted negatively on the biology of some threatened species. He is taking this environmental crime seriously, and the managers of other protected areas, most notably the Kruger National Park, would do well to rigorously enforce this law.

Threats to Biodiversity

Chairperson, the threats to biodiversity in this country are numerous and growing. There is currently an assault on our rhino population. Between 2005 and 2009 approximately 260 rhinos were killed by poachers in South Africa. Whereas there were 19 rhinos killed in 2005 there were well over 100 rhinos killed last year. As it stands at the moment, in April 2010, the poaching figures for this year will far exceed what occurred last year.

The demand for rhino horn in the Far East is relentless, and Africa's biodiversity is suffering. There has been some recent success in catching poachers and rhino horn dealers. But we are dealing with sophisticated criminals, who are brazen enough to fly into a reserve in a helicopter, kill an animal, remove its horn, and then fly away, treating your Department's enforcement capabilities with contempt. Madam Minister, we need a serious response to these criminals. The war will not merely be won by rangers in the field. We need a commitment to boosting intelligence capabilities and strong, ongoing coordination with the police and national prosecuting authority.

Another threat to biodiversity is the fate of the 4000 lions that are currently housed in captive breeding facilities in South Africa. The Department's promulgated regulations to end canned hunting, which you yourself have called a reprehensible practice in reply to a DA parliamentary question, are currently being challenged by the Predator Breeders Association in Court, and when your regulations are upheld, which I expect they will be, there will be a serious welfare problem for these lions.

Last weekend I was at Lions Rock sanctuary in Bethlehem in the Free State to witness, alongside Princess Alia bint Al Hussein of Jordan, the release of several lions that had previously lived at zoos in her country. It was a beautiful and emotional experience to see these great animals attain their freedom. I urge the Minister to deal proactively with the fate of the 4000 lions in this country that are in captive breeding facilities, many of which will cease to have any economic value to lion breeders in the near future. There are many organisations that are prepared to work with you on this challenge and to offer their expertise. Please engage with them.


Improve performance at the Weather Service

Members of this House do not have a record of paying much attention to the work of the South African Weather Service. Over the last few years I have developed the distinct impression that it is being run like a spaza shop, with no disrespect to spaza shops, many of whom run tight operations. A forensic investigation was conducted two years ago, which while it uncovered irregularities did not hold any officials accountable. I believe there is a more need for a further, more thorough, forensic investigation and I have directed correspondence to the Minister in this regard. Further, SAWS is not meeting its commercialization targets, and the CEO is not meeting the terms of her performance contract.

There is confusion between the provisions of the SAWS Act and the PFMA as to who is the accounting authority. In correspondence with the Auditor General, he has informed me that despite the SAWS Act saying that the CEO is the accounting authority, that the PFMA must prevail, and that in fact the Board is the accounting authority. He recommended as far back as three years ago that the SAWS Act needed to be amended to reflect this, but nothing has happened. Madam Minister, please introduce the required amendments to this House this year.