Hon Deputy Speaker and hon members of this august House, good afternoon. I must indeed commend the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs for finalising this National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill, which is an important Bill for the Department of Environmental Affairs and our provinces.
Once promulgated, the Bill will facilitate the implementation of amending Threatened or Protected Species Regulations and the implementation of the comprehensive Alien and Invasive Species Regulations. The main aim of the Bill is to clarify the scope of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004; to strengthen the regulatory and enforcement provisions; to prevent abuse of the permitting system; to give national effect to the obligations of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the Convention on Biodiversity; to amend the definition of waste; and to align the penalty provision for regulations in the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004, with other specific environmental management Acts.
The Bill will also enhance service delivery as it provides the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs with the legal mandate to develop regulations that specify the timeframes applicable to the issuing authority when considering and issuing permits and registration certificates. These provisions will improve service delivery and address uniformity in terms of timeframes within which applications should be considered.
The Bill provides the Minister with the legal mandate to provide the regulations for the reporting requirements of permit and registration holders to the issuing authority. This will strengthen the legal requirements relating to reporting, which will assist the authorities in terms of the monitoring and the utilisation of species.
Together with the courts, the provinces, law enforcement agencies and SARS, the Department of Environmental Affairs continues to be an integral part of the fight against organised environmental crimes. The sentencing, last week, of the Thai kingpin to an effective 40 years of imprisonment must serve as a deterrent to poachers and would-be poachers.
With this Bill, more provisions are introduced to assist the country in its fight against environmental crimes relating to rhino poaching, the illegal removal of cycad species from the wild, and so forth. The Bill now makes provision for the issuing authority to suspend a permit if the permit holder is under investigation for the contravention of a provision of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act.
The compulsory registration of professional hunters and outfitters will ensure uniformity in the system and prevent the abuse of the permit system. Currently professional hunters and outfitters register in individual provinces, and if they are noncompliant in one province, and the permit to operate is withdrawn, they can still operate in another province. The national system will now ensure that they have to register nationally in order to operate in any of the provinces.
With this Bill, we will also ensure that specimens in transit through the Republic are always accompanied by the necessary documentation. This will assist us in addressing the movement of illegal specimens, like rhino horn, through our ports. Many persons are in possession of provincial permits, but have also not yet applied for permits in terms of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act. These persons may not be aware that they do not comply with the Act, even though they have no intention of carrying out an illegal activity. We say they may not, but of course not all of them. The intention is to allow these persons to apply for permits, without the fear of being prosecuted for not having applied earlier. The Bill will provide the Minister with the legal mandate to declare amnesty from prosecution for the purpose of facilitating compliance with the provisions of the Act. This offers individuals with rhino horns in their possession an opportunity to apply for permits now, as there will be an opening.
The strengthening of the regulation provision will allow the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs to, by regulation, limit the number of permits that can be issued in order to protect our species. Trade and export are integral to the process of bioprospecting. However, the biotrading industry always contests that they are not regulated by the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, Nemba, because the bioprospecting activity of trade is not explicitly mentioned. The revision of the definition of bioprospecting in commercialisation, as well as the inclusion of the definition of commercial exploitation, will close a regulatory gap in regulating the biotrading industry.
The Bill further revises the purpose and application of Chapter 6 of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act. The current provisions of Chapter 6 are not explicitly encouraging the sustainable use of indigenous plants, animals and associated traditional knowledge. This approach is in line with the country's international obligation under the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Bill revises the current provision on the bioprospecting Trust Fund and ... [Time expired.] It also speaks to that trust anyway. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on behalf of the ANC, and happily on behalf of the whole Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, to recommend to this House the adoption of the amendments in the National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill, which the portfolio committee adopted unanimously.
The National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill was introduced and referred to the portfolio committee in May of this year. The Bill is a composite Amendment Bill which seeks to amend five pieces of environmental legislation.
The portfolio committee processed the introduced Bill by receiving briefings from the department, calling for written submissions, and hosting public hearings for oral submissions by the public. The portfolio committee then engaged in a lengthy and detailed deliberation on this Bill to try and process the amendments to five Bills.
After deliberations, the portfolio committee proposed that the Bill be split into two Bills, and proposed the immediate passing of the National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill. This we are doing now, in order to amend the following five Acts: the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004, the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, Act 39 of 2004, the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, Act 59 of 2008, the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act, 2008, and the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Amendment Act, Act 57 of 2009.
The portfolio committee further agreed that the proposed amendments in the introduced Bill to the National Environmental Management Act, commonly known as Nema, which is the only Bill of the original composite Bill which is not being passed today, require further deliberations, as they raise serious constitutional, legal, political and practical challenges, in respect of which the portfolio committee requires further information, legal advice and proposed amendments. These amendments will be processed at the beginning of next year in a separate Bill, when the necessary information, advice and amendments are placed before and processed by the committee as a second Amendment Bill or as an amendment to Nema.
The intention with the splitting of the Bills was that the first Amendment Bill, being passed today, would deal with the noncontroversial and urgent amendments to our main biodiversity law, which we know by the acronym, Nemba. The second Amendment Bill, then, will deal with the further amendments next year to Nema.
The biodiversity amendments are regarded as very urgent, as they address most of the present challenges we face relating to the permitting system in respect of listed, threatened or protected species - for example, rhinoceros - and alien and invasive species. The amendments to Nema are more complex, of course, and need further deliberation.
I now deal with the actual amendments to the five Amendment Bills within the composite Bill, which we are passing today. Most of the proposed amendments in the first amendment formed part of the introduced Bill and a few more were added from our consultation process during the deliberations of the committee. All these extra amendments were aimed at reducing loopholes in areas of uncertainty in the present Acts, by mainly facilitating the implementation of the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations in their amended form and the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations. The first Amendment Bill proposes substantial amendments to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. The other four Acts listed above have more minor and technical amendments.
The first Bill to be amended, the Biodiversity Bill, aims to, amongst other things, achieve the following. The Bill adds one further objective to the Biodiversity Act in order to emphasise the need to protect the ecosystem as a whole, including species which are not targeted for exploitation. The Bill revises the purposes of Chapter 4 in the Biodiversity Act in order to provide for the regulation of threatened and indigenous species to ensure that the utilisation of these species is done in an ecologically sustainable manner.
The Bill ensures that species, both listed and nonlisted, are properly regulated. Many species that are commercially utilised, for example on game farms, are not of national importance or of a high conservation value, but the hunting of the nonlisted species needs to be regulated to prevent overutilisation. It is also important to regulate these indigenous species that are not of a high conservation value in order to prevent the inclusion of such species in one of the threatened categories in future. Therefore, the Bill provides for the regulation of these indigenous species that are not of a high conservation value in order to make sure that they are sustainably utilised. The Bill addresses some of the challenges in the present permit system with respect to the hunting of listed, threatened or protected species, and activities involving alien species or listed invasive species. Currently, the permit system is being abused by ruthless individuals or syndicates to legally obtain threatened or protected species, such as rhinoceros horn. The Minister has already mentioned the recent case of the Thai gentleman who came here and was found guilty, and then ... [Interjections.] ... well, he is not such a gentleman, no. He then called upon South African ubuntu, and in true South African manner, we bestowed all ubuntu upon him - and only gave him 40 years for his sins! Let's hope that ubuntu keeps on working in these magical ways. [Laughter.]
HON MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!
The Bill provides for circumstances under which a permit application or permit may be deferred, refused, cancelled or suspended. The Bill will strengthen the implementation of legal requirements and administrative processes to limit the possible abuse of the permit system.
It is acknowledged that amendments in the Bill, on their own, will not be able to stop the ever-growing scourge of rhino poaching, which has become a highly lucrative organised crime being perpetrated by highly sophisticated crime syndicates, locally and abroad. I can just tell you that the recent price for a rhino horn like that is half a million rand. However, it will assist to address activities associated with rhino poaching in the following manner: National registration of professional hunters and hunting outfitters will now be required. Any person who facilitates the killing of a rhino in a manner other than that which was intended by the permit, or who exports the horns for a purpose other than what the permit provided for, faces the possibility of having his or her national registration withdrawn. The person will then not be able to obtain a permit to operate as a professional hunter or hunting outfitter in any province, as obtaining the permit is subject to national registration.
If a person is involved in activities associated with poaching, the issuing authority may defer a decision to issue a permit if the person is under investigation for a contravention of the Act. At the moment, we have this crazy system: While we are investigating someone, we are actually still obliged to give them further licences because the Act does not specifically provide for it. It does now. The issuing authority may refuse a permit if the activities associated with poaching are likely to have a negative impact on the survival of the species; the permit may be refused or cancelled if the applicant is convicted for an offence in terms of the Act; and the Bill proposes that a person who does not necessarily kill the rhino illegally, but who is nevertheless involved in this activity, or who allows the activity to be carried out, is also guilty of an offence. The Bill prescribes a system for the compulsory registration of professional hunters, outfitters and trainers in the hunting industry. This will ensure the implementation of a national registration system and will address the current challenges involving professional hunters being able to continue to operate in certain provinces, even though found guilty of an offence in another province.
The Bill provides for self-administration and the recognition of associations in the biodiversity sector. This system can be utilised to monitor compliance of the various subsectors in the biodiversity sector, through the professional bodies and associations, placing responsibility on the sector to promote compliance and best practice.
The Bill makes provision for new offences in the following instances: a person who engages in the bioprospecting discovery phase without proper notification to the Minister; a person who carries out a restricted activity which has been prohibited involving a listed invasive species; and a person who is involved in an illegal restricted activity, but who does not physically carry out the restricted activity.
The Bill makes provision for the declaration of an emergency intervention for the control or eradication of an alien species or listed invasive species where such alien species or listed invasive species may be a threat to a particular ecosystem. Of course, the reference to an alien or invasive species is not a reference to the hon Dr Oriani-Ambrosini! The Bill now provides the scientific authority, which is already established in terms of the Biodiversity Act, with the legal mandate to assist the department with the scientific work regarding the regulation of species to which international agreements on international trade are applicable.
There are a few further amendments which I don't have the time to go through. I will again remind you that we have also amended four other Bills of a more technical nature, and again, I think mentioning them is not necessary.
The portfolio committee therefore requests the House to adopt the amendments proposed to the aforementioned Acts, as contained in the National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers, hon members, a shocking video of a pseudo rhino hunt in North West province was aired last night on television. It appears to show a number of individuals, including Thai national Chumlong Lemthongthai, who was convicted to 40 years in jail last Friday for various wildlife offences, present at the so-called hunt. The individual who was issued the permit, Nimit Wongprajan, did not fire the first shot which is required for a legal hunt. In fact, he did not fire a shot at all. The animal was shot about five times before it succumbed. Thereafter, the pseudo hunter, a coward, posed for photos with the rhino. There was no intention for the horn to be used as a trophy. The intention of all involved was to export that horn on the illegal market.
Pseudo hunts have been a significant problem in South Africa over the last four years. It is evident that regulatory loopholes and lack of enforcement have contributed to the spike in pseudo hunts. The Bill before us will, among other things, empower the Minister and issuing authorities to prescribe more stringent measures for the management of species, including rhinos, and for the management of individuals conducting activities that affect various species.
Currently, there are no provisions in the Biodiversity Act requiring the registration and recognition of professional hunters, outfitters and trainers. The Bill before us gives the Minister a legal mandate to prescribe a system for the registration and recognition of the professional hunters and other players in the hunting industry.
An excellent new amendment we present in this Bill today is a legal mandate for the issuing authority of licences and permits to defer a decision to issue a permit if the applicant is under investigation for contravening the Biodiversity Act in relation to a similar restricted activity.
Take, for example, the case of Dawie Groenewald, who faces over 1 700 charges for, among other things, racketeering, money laundering and dealing in rhino horn. He was, after being arrested, able to apply for new permits. The magistrate did initially prevent certain activities, but the period expired and the issuing authority did not have any legal basis on which not to issue new permits upon application, despite the investigation not having been concluded. The amendment in this Bill would prevent a similar situation in the future.
With the intention of improving our country's credibility and reputation at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Cites, this Bill provides the scientific authority, already provided for under the existing Biodiversity Act, with a legal mandate to assist the department with the scientific work regarding the regulation of species to which an international agreement on international trade is applicable. If this country is to pursue an application for the trade in rhino horn in the future, this scientific authority will aid in improving the standing of South Africa at Cites.
During the processing of this Bill the department tried to sneak in new amendments on marine biodiversity, in particular empowering provisions intended to allow the Minister to regulate boat-based whale watching and white shark cage diving under the Biodiversity Act. I expressed various concerns about these inclusions. Firstly, these issues are currently regulated under the Marine Living Resources Act. That Act has been split by presidential proclamation, whereby the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries each have responsibilities under the Act. While the Ministers will argue there is no confusion over who is responsible for what, there are legal uncertainties. It would not have been good lawmaking to amend the Bill before us, while not simultaneously amending or repealing parts of the Marine Living Resources Act, MLRA.
Secondly, and linked to the prior point, the issue of regulatory authority is a matter before the court. These matters should be finalised in court before we amend legislation. I was therefore happy that my colleagues on the committee agreed to remove the proposed amendments. I have no problem with us revisiting these amendments in the future, but the department needs to be thorough with its drafting and there needs to be public consultation on these particular amendments.
In conclusion, let me express my anger that charges against five of the co- accused of Lemthongthai were withdrawn by the National Prosecution Authority, NPA. The video which I referenced at the start of my input today appears to show the involvement of the co-accused in a pseudo hunt, and by pseudo I mean illegal. I urge the NPA to revisit its decision and to reinstitute charges. Of course, we should celebrate the stiff sentence handed down by the court to Lemthongthai, but the illegal trade in rhino horn involves a number of different people at different stages of the chain. The NPA should therefore prosecute the co-accused and send the signal that no one shall be spared in the complex network of illegal trade in rhino horn.
As we pass this Bill, the executive's job is to implement it. This Bill will close a number of loopholes in wildlife management. What we require, though, is for officials in government, whether national or provincial, to act ethically. Legislation and regulations can easily be subverted if officials who provide permits for hunting, for example, do not implement the law correctly.
It is shocking that in the North West, where the video I referenced was filmed, not a single official has been held to account for the large number of permits for pseudo hunts that were issued. With this in mind, I wrote to the Public Protector on Friday and requested an investigation into the processing of permits in that province in 2010 and 2011 by the North West Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism.
Everyone knows there is a problem in that provincial department. The national department even approached that department to suggest an intervention by national government. The provincial department declined. I suspect too many people in that department have too much to hide. The DA supports the passing of the National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill today and hopes it will, among other things, contribute to reducing wildlife crimes in South Africa. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, Minister, hon members, in light of the current challenges experienced with regard to the poaching and abuse of our national resources, both flora and fauna, the amendments in this Bill are absolutely necessary.
The Bill is meant to address some of the challenges regarding the permit system with respect to the hunting of threatened and endangered species, alien species or listed invasive species.
Currently, the permit system is being abused by ruthless individuals or syndicates, much like the officials in the North West province that were exposed for issuing permits illegally.
This Bill seeks to provide regulation for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner, and it seeks to ensure that the utilisation of biodiversity is managed in an ecologically sustainable way, to ensure the protection of all our species, whether they be endangered, protected or of a high conservation value or whether they be species deemed not to be of high conservation value.
In light of the high crime rate involving poaching of various kinds, and the fact that criminals often seek out the legal loopholes, it is necessary for the executive authority to be appropriately empowered. A classic example is the withdrawal of charges by the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, against a syndicate middleman in the case of recent rhino poaching.
The Bill will provide the Minister with the legal mandate to regulate those species deemed not high on the conservation list and, more importantly, the legal mandate to categorise, in respect of the threatened or protected species, who will receive permits.
No more will people from other countries take our plants without our permission for medicinal purposes or just to have a cup of tea. No more will undesirable people be allowed to get permits to deplete our wildlife. No more will we be confronted with ruthless poachers posing as legal and professional hunters.
Having given this authority to the Minister, Cope will monitor the implementation thereof and hold the executive accountable for ensuring that there is no abuse of power.
In the words of Wangari Maathai, we owe it to ourselves and to the next generation to conserve the environment so that we can bequeath to our children a sustainable world that benefits all. This Bill seeks to achieve that. Cope supports the Bill. I thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, we have a solemn custodial duty towards the management, security and welfare of our environment. Our Constitution includes the right to a healthy environment and promotes sustainable development. Through this Bill, we seek to strengthen and properly co-ordinate this resolve.
The composite amendments that this Bill proposes address key shortcomings within the five pieces of environmental legislation it encompasses. The revision and clarification of certain ambiguities, the deletion of obsolete provisions, the alignment of penal provisions, and the changing of certain timeframes from a period of four to five years for preparation of the environmental implementation and management plans, allow a greater margin for the successful achievement of objectives set in terms of these timeframes. However, these extensions should not be viewed as an opportunity for great departmental procrastination.
The increase in fines and penalties for contraventions of the various environmental acts is welcomed, but is not enough. The polluter pays principle must be enforced against any person, natural or juristic, found guilty of harming our environment. Pre-emptive environmental impact assessments must be stringent enough, always erring on the side of caution when assessing environmental impact.
We fully support the amendment of section 24, which reaffirms that no exemption may be granted from the requirements to obtain environmental authorisation when intending to undertake a listed activity, in terms of section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act.
We also support the amendment in section 24, which empowers the Minister to provide further support, as the threats and challenges are fluid, and can change on an immediate and unpredictable basis. Our laws must be flexible enough to allow for an immediate and further departmental response to such crises as and when they occur.
In conclusion, I reiterate the words of the Minister when she said that South Africa's natural and cultural resources underpin a large part of the economy, and that many people are dependent on them for employment, food, shelter, medicine and spiritual wellbeing.
The IFP supports this Bill and wholly supports a safe, sustainable, and healthy environment in South Africa. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon members, this is hon Dlomo's maiden speech. I hope the noise will be lesser and all protocols will be observed. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and members at large, I greet you. With regard to the adequacy of the National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill of 2012, stemming from rhino poaching, South Africa has a proud track record of successful rhino conservation, and has the highest number of white rhino on the continent. At the end of 2007, South Africa had conserved 35% of Africa's black rhino in the wild and 93% of the continent's white rhino.
But, the ongoing scourge of rhino poaching in our country is an area of great concern to government and ordinary South Africans, whom we represent here in Parliament. Rhino poaching is a crime that is, undoubtedly, fuelled by a thriving black market trade in rhino horns. Since January this year, a total of 459 rhinos have been poached, mainly in the Kruger National Park, our iconic flagship conservation endeavour. The Kruger National Park remains the worst affected area, with 320 rhinos killed this year alone.
October was the worst month for rhinos in South Africa, with 75 of them killed during that month. This November, 34 rhinos have already been killed, and November is not yet over. The growing relentless killing of rhinos by the poachers threatens to reverse the hard-won population increase achieved by the conservation authorities during the 20th century.
The illegal killing of rhino and the smuggling of their horns in recent years clearly indicates the increasing involvement of the highly organised and well-structured crime syndicates that are operating ludicrous international enterprises. In addition to the loss of horns through the increased poaching, concerns have also been raised regarding the leakage of South African rhino horns onto the illegal international market, from stockpiles in the public and private sector.
The concern for conservation authorities is that poaching continues to escalate at the current rate, unabated. We could reach the situation where the rhino numbers start declining, to a point where more animals could be poached than are born into the rhino population, as has been experienced in other rhino range states in the recent past.
Stemming this tide requires a properly structured and concerted effort by government and other relevant role-players, as ongoing poaching of animals poses a significant threat to the rhino population, and also to the reputation of the ecotourism industry and the public image of South Africa.
The Biodiversity Act is the most suitable legislation for rhino conservation. It is a very important piece of legislation that deals with poaching of South Africa's biodiversity resources in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004. We are aware that the Biodiversity Act has introduced innovative approaches to rhino conservation, with some encouraging signs that rhino conservation work is reaping rewards. For example, the country's population of black rhinos is still growing, despite the ongoing threat of poaching. The annual growth of the overall rhino population is about 7%. Currently, over 2% of the rhino population is removed through legal hunting and poaching.
With increased efforts being put into antipoaching work, it is possible to see even more gains in the rhino conservation work today. South African law enforcement officials have made 224 poaching-related arrests in 2012 alone. Sentences imposed for rhino offences have also been increased in recent years, with poachers and horn smugglers receiving long prison sentences. We need ... [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
Hon member, your time is up. At least I gave you 20 minutes because it's your maiden speech. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker and hon members, the UDM supports the National Environmental Management Laws First Amendment Bill. Due to time limitations, I am only going to focus on the threats that the poorly regulated South African hunting industry poses to our biodiversity.
In 2005, the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs mandated a panel of experts, stating that, amongst other things, and I quote:
It seems as if the central overarching problem with hunting in South Africa is that there is no coherent and comprehensive oversight of the hunting industry and a lack of clear national norms and standards for sustainable hunting ... Issues that need to be addressed in such a framework include a definition of sustainable hunting, regulatory measures and the delegation of permitting arrangements, joint management and scientific monitoring arrangements agreed to between government, national and provincial park authorities and private landowners, and monitoring of the allocation of any revenues generated through such hunting towards conservation.
We hope that this Amendment Bill will help to close these legislative gaps as highlighted above. It should also help to harmonise management and monitoring systems between national and provincial governments with respect to the issuing of hunting permits, among other things. Standardising the issuing of hunting permits will help stem the wanton destruction of our national heritage.
One of the contentious issues the hunting rules and regulations should address is the fact that some wealthy communities have managed to remove all the fences separating the game farms from certain national parks to ostensibly expand the conservation area. This allows them uncontrolled access to the national heritage. In addition, these communities profited from hunting animals that strayed into their private nature reserves when the fences were removed.
The benefits of the hunting industry to the national economy are debatable whilst ecotourism with its known economic benefits and sustainability is under threat from unregulated hunting.
In conclusion, we need to increase awareness in communities about the importance of conserving our biodiversity. We need to help communities understand the meaning of biodiversity conservation for their livelihoods.
In this regard, the Bioprospecting Trust Fund should, among other things, be used for this purpose. We have over the years been quick to ratify international conventions that ended up benefiting outsiders at our expense. It is pleasing to see that this Amendment Bill gives the Minister enough powers to apply a balancing act in the application of international treaties for the benefit of all South Africans. [Time expired.] I thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Minister and Deputy Minister, hon members, historically in South Africa, a lack of bioprospecting legislation and associated regulations have permitted almost unconstrained access to South African bioresources, sometimes in destructively excessive quantities, for innovative value addition and offshore financial benefits. The consequence has been that the country as a whole, including traditional knowledge holding communities and bioresource providers, has not benefited equitably from the commercial and other gains derived from local bioresources gains.
The above scenario shifted in May 1997, with the drafting of the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biological Diversity. The policy outlined the necessity for establishing legislation and institutional structures to control access to South Africa's indigenous genetic resources.
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004 has sought to give effect to ratified international agreements, binding on the country, which relate to biodiversity. It legislates for, in part, the management and conservation of biological diversity, the use of indigenous biological resources, and a sustainable, fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprospecting involving indigenous biological resources, coinciding closely with the cornerstone of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD.
Of significance throughout this process is that the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs has been constant in ensuring that the fundamentals of the White Paper, and the 2012 amendments to the Biodiversity Act, reflect the following: Compliance in relation to evolving international agreements; the concept of benefit sharing for the nation; provision for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and provision for, among other things, the protection of species listed as threatened or protected, so as to ensure that the utilisation of biodiversity is managed in an ecologically sustainable way.
A particularly interesting aspect for me in relation to the international agreements is the way in which the Nagoya Protocol skilfully shifts from the global to national and local levels. Whereas the Nagoya Protocol is mainly concerned with benefit sharing between the states, it includes two potential safeguards for protecting the rights of indigenous people and local communities which link economic, social and ecological objectives, while supporting marginalised communities as they defend their rights to land and resources.
The Bill has to provide the department with a legal mandate to ensure proper regulation of bioprospecting involving indigenous genetic and biological resources, as well as to ensure the application of Chapter 6 to genetic resources.
In conclusion, there is a need to do constant monitoring of South Africa's biodiversity and life support systems, which are increasingly threatened by our consumption-driven lifestyles, high population growth, pollution and inefficient technologies. Ironically, the people who feel the impact of this degradation are likely to be the rural and marginalised communities who depend more directly on natural systems for food, water, medicines and energy. It would be interesting to oversee this process of the way in which national and provincial departments mandated with environmental management of biodiversity will extend a particularly significant approach of public participation, as well as giving a voice to communities through community protocol. The ANC supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members and distinguished guests, first and foremost let me thank all parties that participated in this presentation of the Bill. There's no contrary view, and therefore my work as the last speaker is very simple.
Chairperson, I just want to correct two things so that we do not set any precedents among the public out there. The statement uttered by the member of Cope, which says that they will hold our executive accountable to Cope, is not a correct statement. The executive is not accountable to any minority party, including Cope. Our executive is accountable to Parliament, and not to Cope.
Secondly, it is true that we have a rhino poaching problem, as has been highlighted by hon Morgan. We all have this problem, and it's not only the DA. But we are so thankful that you support the Bill.
The Bill we are debating today talks to government's priority number two - that is, dealing with enhancement of the health of the people - and government's outcome number 10, which deals with ensuring that environmental assets and natural resources are well protected and continually enhanced.
One of the objectives of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act is to provide for the use of the indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner, and the purpose of the amendment is to make provision for, among other things, the protection of species listed as threatened or protected. This amendment Bill will clarify that the intention is to ensure that the threatened or protected species are utilised in an ecologically sustainable way.
As I conclude, other amendments are designed to address some of the challenges of the permit system with respect to the hunting of listed threatened and protected species, alien species or listed invasive species. One example that comes to mind is the ruthless virtual extermination of South Africa's rhinoceros population. Currently, the permit system is being abused by ruthless individuals or syndicates to obtain protected and vulnerable species.
Although there are many amendments of a deserving nature, I've only referred to the more important ones. The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon House Chair, first of all I would like to appreciate the support given by the portfolio committee under the leadership of our very highly skilled Advocate De Lange, who always helps us with legal issues, and the House. All hon members supported the Bill, and we are really grateful.
I would like to assure hon members of one or two things. Indeed, hon member Morgan, the House at large and South Africans as a whole, we are going to deal with this issue of pseudo hunters. We will not let it go. Let's not increase cases on the Public Protector's roll. We'll definitely deal with it, you must know that.
We are also going to look at the marine living resources. We assure you that the amendments that we are intending to make will actually be considered at the appropriate time, because they have to do with the issues that concern marine living resources, and not with where certain aspects of the Bills or the Acts are. We will wait patiently, but at the right time we'll deal with that, as the chairperson has said.
We are dealing with the issues raised about pseudo hunters in relation to the weaknesses in the system, especially in the North West and Limpopo provinces. All members of the portfolio committee know that we will make a real follow-up on those issues, and this is the reason why we are making these amendments here today. Hon member from Cope, I think that before one of you could also walk out and follow the DA, let's not make a hype of these things, of holding the executive responsible, and so on. Yes, we want to be held responsible and accountable, but not where it is not necessary. We are always really acting on all these things, and you know that very well.
I just want to appreciate hon Zikalala's comments. Unfortunately, we'll also be listening to the issues about environmental impact assessments, EIAs, and so on, as we deal with the remaining aspects of the Bill next year.
Hon Holomisa, the issues about bioprospecting are real. Let me assure you that when we went to Komaggas, in the Northern Cape, we had already left the people - the ordinary community members - with R5 million upfront for bioprospecting permits. Therefore, this is actually the intention, and that's why we are dealing so with this issue.
Overall, we appreciate all the support, even if we didn't touch on the other issues raised by other members. The member from the ANC, Mr Skosana, thanks also for helping in responding and touching on some of the issues. I therefore appreciate it and would also like to move that the Bill be supported by the House. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.