Chairperson, hon Minister, Deputy Minister and other Ministers present, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, hon members, we are meeting here today to approve the funds allocated to the Department of Science and Technology for their programmes. As we look at this department and its programmes, the question is: Do we, as Parliament, agree that the funds allocated to the department will be used for a just cause?
One of the priorities of the department is to cushion the impact of climate change on our people. The department accepts that climate change is one of the major threats facing humanity in the 21st century, with Africa being the hardest hit. The challenge is to have the capacity to adapt to climate change.
Climate change poses a greater threat to poor people, whose survival depends on natural resources. Subsistence farmers, for example, depend on rainfall for irrigation. If rainfall patterns change, their lives are disrupted.
Let us try to see what made the department concentrate on this phenomenon of climate change. Let's look at the impact of climate change on agriculture and food security.
I grew up in a rural area, as a rural girl, as a daughter to subsistence farmers. Around September the first rains would fall. Around October, more rain would fall. We would start ploughing and we would harvest bags and bags of mealies. For the whole year we would be exchanging bags of mealies for mealie meal. We would have food on our table every day. But, over time, that has changed. One asks oneself what is happening. The answer is always: It is climate change. [Applause.] Climate change comes with floods that will clean off the good soil from the earth's surface - soil that is needed for food production. Then, when the droughts come and we want to plant, it is a disaster. Food production is made more difficult.
Climate change also has an impact on biodiversity, because higher temperatures, droughts and floods are threats to ecosystems. Even the migration patterns of some migratory animals might change. At times, the changes in temperature affect species distribution and population sizes. This causes changes in reproduction patterns and, at times, even the extinction of species.
If we look at the impact on human health we see that once there are floods, we have a larger area in which disease-carrying insects can start reproducing. For example, we'll have malaria mosquitoes breeding in flooded areas, and the breeding area grows larger and larger with the floods. We also find that even where there was no malaria in the past, we will now start having outbreaks. That is one of the impacts of climate change.
Climate change also has an impact on water resources. We will have water, then not have water; we will have floods followed by droughts. We will find that the places where people can get water will become very scarce. As these water sources dry up, competition between animals and people for water will start to develop. Forget about plants being irrigated. When people and animals share drinking places, one can imagine what will happen there: The development of disease will become very easy.
Such are the impacts of climate change, and they are the things that made the Department of Science and Technology decide that it needed to start studying these phenomena and developing people who could look at intervention strategies that could save people from these horrible things that are bound to happen to them.
Looking at all this, one can observe that the use of these funds by this department would be for a good cause. It is to save people from the horrible impact that they could experience from climate change.
A number of things have been said here, by the Minister herself, as well as by other members of the committee. I observed something important in what each and every one of them said. Everybody has spoken and from what has been said, one can see how everything - the MeerKAT, or whatever - is going to impact positively on people who would otherwise have been impacted on negatively. Therefore, I recommend that, as Parliament, we give this Budget Vote the thumbs-up.
Chairperson, I would like to begin by thanking all the members who have participated in the debate for their contributions. It is clear that all members have an astute appreciation of the critical role that science and technology can play in our country, on the continent and globally. I am, therefore, very pleased by the support that we have received and the understanding shown by members of all the critical areas that we must address.
I do agree with hon members that we need an improved budget. Of course, I remind hon members that in terms of a new law they do have the power to make recommendations in respect of adjustments to the budget. I am hopeful that they are sharing their sentiments with members in other committees of Parliament.
Hon Smith, we have a commitment to 1% of GDP. It is not an aspiration, but a target that the department has set for itself. Sadly, I believe the achievement of that target did not follow as it should have done. So, when I say I believe we must aim for at least 1,5% by 2014 - or more, with your assistance and that of other hon members - we plan to follow through and achieve that target. We will not aspire. I don't believe in aspirations; I believe in following through. So, I believe we must have improvement. We must plan for improvement. We must fight for improvement and ensure that we do have better resourcing of research in the country.
In the European Union they have a 3% threshold, and this is set. I read in an article recently that the Ministers of Finance of EU countries are very unhappy about this. They argued that there should not be a hard-and-fast target, especially in these difficult economic times. The Ministers of Science and the science councils argued that such a threshold must be maintained; in fact, it should grow even further. So, I believe this is something we must pursue vigorously and not be shy about.
The development of a human capital strategy was delayed by the absence of a full complement of staff in that particular section in the department. We have now made the necessary appointments and I believe the committee was informed that, within the next few months, we will be coming to it with a strategy to indicate how we intend to proceed in respect of investment in human capital development in science and technology. We will be coming to the committee with that particular draft plan.
On the matter of the Technology Innovation Agency and the Space Agency, you must remember that these are new institutions. We had a number of entities in the country existing as distinct and separate components doing different work, either in biotechnology or in space science or other areas. These have existed as entities with their own rules on financial management, human resource practices, etc. We need to bring these entities under two major agencies with similar policies on human resources, salaries, financial management and so on.
To do that, you do need to take your time, particularly when, with TIA, you are dealing with more than one entity. There are several Brics that will now reside under the ambit of TIA. That is why I have said that it will take 12 to 24 months. I am not sure why 2013 was mentioned in the committee. I suspect it was a slip of the tongue on the part of a member who was very nervous in front of hon Smith. [Laughter.]
We are working very hard to ensure that the timeframe I have referred to is indeed achieved. We are addressing the organisational requirements and policy aspects that I have referred to, as well as the requirements of National Treasury, because we must meet their particular rules to begin to make our case for financing.
I am always a bit worried when organisations begin by arguing for increased resources before getting their establishment issues right. We believe the establishment issues must be addressed while these institutions also make use of the funding that is already available to them. There is funding allocated to the TIA entities. TIA is actually able to get off the ground, but its full operation - where we begin to see the results of an innovation agency - will, I think, be evident within the 24-month period I have referred to.
I think we should give them the space to really get the organisational structure right so that, when we make the argument to Treasury for the kind of resources that will begin to place us at a level where we have venture support that really enhances innovation in South Africa, we would do so in an orderly way. I would ask that Members of Parliament really support us in that regard.
Will the hon Minister take a question?
Definitely not from the hon James, as I know he will give me a very hard time.
Hon member, you know the procedures of the House. You can't just stand up and ask the Minister whether she would take a question. You must ask that through the Chairperson. You may continue, hon Minister.
Thank you, Chairperson. We will have dinner together later and he will be able to ask me all sorts of questions, plus he can put them on the Order Paper.
The matter of monitoring and evaluation that was referred to by the hon member from Cope is something we have begun to address in the department. We must align our framework for monitoring and evaluation with the requirements emanating from the Presidency, as well as the performance requirements that come from statutes and from the Public Finance Management Act.
So, through a unit we have established, we are establishing a proper set of criteria that we will utilise in order to respond to the framework that government is currently using. I assure you that you should not worry that we are not going to monitor progress. In fact, as I have said, we are no longer going to be hoping and aspiring; we want to be performing and planning appropriately.
I hope members will pay attention to the department and ensure that it does meet the indicators and targets that it has put before you in the corporate strategy.
Members made reference through hon Shinn to the matter of the National Research Foundation and Professor Charles. We have had discussions with Ms Shinn on this matter and I really don't want to delve into it in this honourable House. We have asked the chairperson of the NRF board to undertake certain steps to repair the damage that the hon Shinn has referred to. I don't want to convert the House into a tribunal of some kind because we don't know the full story. I certainly don't. I want the orderly performance of science to proceed and our programmes to be achieved and everybody to be satisfied that they are being treated fairly and with justice in our system.
I would be the first to fight if the academic intention of one of our professionals was impacted upon by any of the science councils. If a paper that was written with content that the NRF disagreed with was being hidden in a drawer, I would quarrel. If a person had an opinion with which the NRF disagreed, and they tried to stop that opinion from being expressed, I would have a quarrel.
But, as to a disciplinary case within their human resource processes, if it harms relations, I believe the board has the capacity to address that and I have asked them to pay attention to it. If members wish to delve further, I will certainly come before the committee, as I had indicated to Dr Ngcobo, and give you any further explanation that you might want, but I really don't wish to delay the House with that particular matter.
On the question of the Joule and the hon Kalyan's comments, as the hon Kalyan stood up I said to Deputy Minister Hanekom that it had been a great debate but now we were in trouble. He said to me, no, she's going to be very positive. I said, you watch. And I was correct, as usual. [Laughter.]
Hon Kalyan, on the question of what we are doing about learners regarding maths and science, I certainly believe the hon Dunjwa referred to some of that. I know that Minister Motshekga dealt with some of that in the Basic Education debate. I am sure Minister Nzimande would also have addressed that in his budget debate. The documents of the education departments as well as the work the Deputy Minister referred to speak of what is being done.
Concerning climate change, we certainly are supporting a lot of research in the area, but I believe that there are a number of very exciting initiatives in the environment and geosciences faculties at our universities that we need to tap into. There are also institutes in our universities that have a great deal of experience in research on climate change.
I believe an alliance must be built between the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and performing institutions, so that we make the greatest possible use of the research and activity that is coming out of all these learned bodies in the country. I don't think there is enough collaboration and we need to do more around that.
On drought-resistant crops and the impact of climate change on health, a great deal of research is being done and, again, we are working with the departments of Environment and of Health to address these areas.
The Chairperson tells me my time is up.
The Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative continues to be funded by the Department of Health. If I had more than R5 billion, I probably would have funded it, but since I have very little money, I am afraid I can't fund everything. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Minister. I would like to remind members that there is going to be an EPC on Communications at 16:30 in E249, and another EPC, on Energy, here in the Old Assembly Chamber, also starting at 16:30.
Debate concluded.
