2. RIEFINGS AT THE OFFICES OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Acting Chairperson of the Committee, Hon Mr Solomon Mabilo invited the Chief Director for Air Quality Management, Dr Thuli Mdluli to open the meeting with the civil society organisations and companies whose activities have very important implications for the South African air quality, particularly in air pollution hotspots. Dr Mdluli welcomed the members of the Committee as well as representatives of civil society organisations and companies to the green departmental offices. She indicated upfront that the industries were at different levels of compliance and were by and large compliant to the minimum emission standards, although there were specific cases where they needed a bit more time to reach compliance.The Acting Chairperson made opening remarks after introductions, highlighting South Africa's significant role in global environmental governance, citing the hosting of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 and COP17/CMP7 in 2011, and drew the attention of the stakeholders to the fast- approaching COP20/CMP10 in Lima, Peru, where there is an expectation on South Africa to play a meaningful role. Thereafter, Hon Mr Mabilo invited the representative of the Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance, Mr Thomas Mnguni to make his input.

2.1 Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance

Mr Mnguni fervently maintained that many power stations and the international integrated energy and chemicals company Sasol's well as coal mining and steel manufacturing companies exert negative impact on the nation's air quality, especially in the Highveld. Pollution from these industries severely impact the natural environment, water and the coal dust problem in the area impinges on human health. Land contamination in the area leads to fish and crocodile death, with equally negative impacts on tourism and agriculture. Similarly, abandoned mines burn hampering visibility and adding to the already stressed air quality. These burning sinkholes pose a serious health danger to the local inhabitants who as well as the livestock also run the risk of falling into some of those disused, uncovered sinkholes. Indoor air pollution due to indoor burning of coal poses another significant risk to human health in the area. Mr Mnguni wanted polluters to pay for their health and wondered as for whom Eskom produces electricity when the very people who live in the vicinity of power stations in the Highveld do not have access to electricity.

Hon Ms Terri Stander asked what the Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance would like the industry or government to do legislation-wise. Conversely, Hon Mr Zondi Makhubele asked whether the civil society organisations have been able to interact with the polluting industries. The Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance indicated that they would like the issue of energy mix to be considered very seriously; they would also like to see polluters penalised and assuming more responsibility for their actions; and would like the government to become tougher with emitters. They further stated that polluting industries were reluctant to engage with local communities. Dr Mdluli, speaking on behalf of the Department, indicated that plans were underway to deal with the issue of indoor air pollution due to coal burning.

2.2 Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance

Mr Samson Mokoena, presenting on behalf of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance, stated that the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act of 2004 (Act No 39 of 2004) had not effectively addressed air pollution in the Vaal Triangle Hotspot, stressing that government interventions were not working. He lamented the non-existence of air quality management plans at the Local Government level. He stated that industries had their own air quality management plans, but that they did not see those plans and could not know whether those plans were being implemented and monitored, or not.

Hon Mr Trevor Bonhomme asked about what underpinned the statement that air quality management in the Vaal Triangle Hotspot was not working effectively or was not being implemented. Hon Mr Makhubele asked whether all polluting companies were not cooperating with local communities or just some. Mr Mokoena responded that lack of resources inhibited the participation of local communities. Local communities had been trying to engage with ArcelorMittal South Africa, but to no avail, and it was precisely for this reason that the community took ArcelorMittal to court. Instead of addressing the pollution problem, ArcelorMittal and other polluters indicated that pollutants in the area of their operation actually comes from Johannesburg. Consequently, local communities in the Vaal Triangle would like the Department to undertake studies that point out who is responsible for what. In this respect, Dr Mdluli stated that the Vaal Health Study was due for completion in July 2015, and would share the report once it is available.

2.3 Groundwork

Groundwork's presentation focused on two reports: Health Impact of Coal and Slow Poison: Air pollution, public health and failing governance. The presentation on the Health Impact of Coal featured the health burden of coal-related emissions; health impacts due to poor ambient air quality on the Mpumalanga Highveld; cardiovascular impacts; life expectancy; health and wellbeing; mercury; and water impacts. Groundwork also offered solutions to reducing the health burden and associated socio-economic impacts. On Slow Poison: Air pollution, public health and failing governance, Groundwork presented a sad story of air pollution and political failure to implement the Air Quality Act to protect South Africans from the incidents of air pollution in hotspot areas. As a result, Groundwork suggested the need for a comprehensive study to fully assess the impact of Eskom on air pollution.

Dr Mdluli challenged the portrayal of DEA officials as ineffective implementers and enforcers of relevant legislation, pertaining to air quality; and indicated that the Department works with competent people, authorising and enforcing the Air Quality Act. Concerning the lack of interaction between polluters and local communities, she indicated that certain people from the concerned industries and even herself were threatened by local communities. Mr Samson Mokoena contended that no one was threatened.

2.4 Eskom

Eskom's presentation focused on the organisation's response to minimum emission standards, highlighting its emission reduction achievements; emission reduction plan; retrofit schedule; technology options for reducing particulate matter and nitrogen and sulphur oxides; full compliance vs postponement application; compliance before and after retrofits; health impacts of its operations; and also made reference to Eskom's Household Emission Offset Pilot Study. Eskom indicated that it had a comprehensive framework and plan to execute emission reductions, and appeared optimistic, in this instance. However, notwithstanding the organisation's optimism, the presentation raised many questions from the members of the Committee and also from members of the civil society organisations. For example, Hon Ms Terri Stander asked whether Eskom had done an externality study to determine the potential impact of its operations on the natural environment and human health, particularly in pollution hotspots. Eskom was also asked to clarify how it aimed to address emissions that pose serious human health problems, particularly particulate matter. There were further concerns that the poor and the vulnerable had no access to electricity, but they continued to bear the social costs of electricity generation. A member of civil society specifically wanted to know whether Eskom had the statistics of those poor households, which were previously connected, but had come off the grid due to their inability to afford increasingly expensive electricity tariffs. Concerns were also raised about the fate of power stations that had exceeded their lifespan, and the lack of transparency and access to Eskom's pollution reduction plans.

Eskom responded by pointing out that there were no externality studies conducted to assess the impact of its power stations on the environment and human health. The organisation pointed to its multibillion rand solar power plant in the Northern Cape Province, as a viable initiative for dealing with its heavy dependency on coal in other parts of the country, and the associated particulate matter. Eskom affirmed that it would not altogether deal with the issue of particulate matter even if all of its older generation power stations were retrofitted. It further indicated that 2.5 million houses were electrified in the past 10 years, of which 2 500 houses took place in rural areas and 1 500 connections were done in the previous year alone. It had no data on the number of people who were disconnected due to increasing lack of affordability and did not answer the question relating to its power stations that had exceeded their lifespans.

2.5 Sasol

Sasol's presentation mainly outlined the company's air quality management initiatives. This generated questions from the members of the Committee and also comments from certain delegates. For example, Hon Mr Makhubele asked about the existence of a forum for community participation, and what Sasol had done since 2004, with meeting of the minimum emission standards. Hon Ms Stander asked whether Sasol had conducted an externality study. Another person commented that Sasol's emissions needed to be reduced further in the light of Sasol's statement that even if all Sasol's plants were retrofitted, it would not make a significant reduction, insofar as current level of pollution in the air is concerned. In response to some of these questions, Sasol spoke about its water programme with the Department of Water Affairs and its own energy efficiency initiatives. The company stated that it is fully compliant with local emission standards, and that it believes that South Africa has world class emission standards. A representative of civil society organisations then asked why Sasol was instituting legal challenge against the Department's air emission standards that it is expected to comply with.

2.6 BHP Billiton

BHP Billiton's presentation dealt with what BHP Billiton is all about; BHP Billiton demerger; and BHP Billiton Manganese South Africa, where it was stated that approximately 70 per cent of the Manganese ore is mined at mines in the Northern Cape Province, with approximately 25 per cent of production beneficiated at the company's alloy smelter at Metalloys Smelter at Meyerton. BHP Billiton's investment in beneficiation of Manganese is consistent with the government's beneficiation strategy and downstream investment goal. Ms Jenny Cronje outlined the company's Environmental Management Strategy, covering air quality, water quality and land management. Ms Cronje highlighted BHP Billiton's commitment, stating that BHP Billiton's decision-making is based on organisational values that seek to strike a balance between the three pillars of sustainable development, as shown by BHP Billiton's contributions to ensure community development and energy efficiency projects, including practices to reduce emission and carbon footprint, and broader demonstrations of environmental responsibility.

Members of the Committee as well as representatives of civil society organisations directed three questions at BHP Billiton, relating to whether it had conducted any externality studies to assess the likely impact of its operations; BHP Billiton uses the same type and standard of technology wherever it operates (e.g., developed vs developing countries); and whether the company supports local communities, particularly in its areas of operation. Members of civil society organisations challenged BHP Billiton to state how the company had supported local communities. BHP Billiton responded that it had not conducted an externality study, but is adapting its underground management in Australia to suit local conditions. The company stated that it met the conditions in its Atmospheric Emission License.

2.7 Chemicals and Allied Industries' Association (CAIA)

Dr Laurraine Lotter, the Chief Executive Officer of CAIA outlined the need to do more to achieve required emission standards and further sketched the existing legal framework for air quality management in the country. CAIA was of the opinion that emissions standards that its members are expected to comply with were determined without the involvement of industry. Members of the Committee asked CAIA to qualify this statement, as policy and law- making in South Africa is known to go through broader public participation to encourage the involvement of affected and connected stakeholders. The Committee wanted clarity from CAIA on why its views were not considered and further asked to determine whether CAIA members were already implementing the relevant legislation in terms of emission standards, and the specific challenges that they had encountered in the process.

CAIA responded that it had a number of engagements with the Department and raised many concerns during those many interactions, including the public hearings in Parliament. In respect to compliance, CAIA encourages its alliance members to adhere to legislation and monitor and/or audit their performance in this regard. Dr Lotter indicated that many companies were already complying with many aspects of the air quality management legislation. However, she was concerned that the issue of "responsible care" is rather vague in the legislation, as there is currently no target or standard that companies should adhere to.

2.8 ArcelorMittal South Africa (AMSA)

ArcelorMittal is an integrated steel-making and mining company, and hence has an impact on South Africa's air quality, particularly where the company operates. Thus, ArcelorMittal's presentation dealt with its nature of work and also what the company intended to do in realising compliance with relevant air quality management legislation. AMSA cited the impact of global economic crisis, which had affected their operations, resulting in decommissioning of several plants, particularly in the Vanderbijlpark. ArcelorMittal implemented several emission reduction interventions, namely, vegetation of open areas; removal of historical oil ramp at its metal recovery plant; installation of Dust Extract System for Blast Furnance stockhouse; and conducted air quality awareness campaigns with NGOs to educate communities.

The Portfolio Committee considered AMSA's input well-presented and also appreciated the frankness of the company in its presentation. There were no significant issues raised besides the concern raised by Samson Mokoena that sufficiently community participation in areas around ArcelorMittal's plants was not strengthened enough. He emphasised that existing engagements were only via formally established, distant nongovernmental organisations, such as World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (WWF-SA) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), among others. ArcelorMittal's presentation and the discussions that followed ended the oversight meeting with civil society organisations and the Committee proceeded to visit the Department's Hartbeespoort Weather Monitoring Station that provides real-time information on the state of air quality in Hartbeespoort and the surrounding areas.