Chairperson, Madam Minister and hon members, more than two years ago this Parliament passed two progressive pieces of legislation that were aimed at entirely reforming the environmental considerations of mining. Legislators from all parties worked tirelessly to bring mining authorisations in line with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Act and the National Environmental Management Amendment Act.
Essentially we wrote into law that 36 months after the commencement of the latter of the two Acts the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs would be the competent authority for the authorisation of mines. As we stand here today in this hallowed Chamber, we are confronted with a situation where the Minister of Mineral Resources has not kept to her side of the deal. While the National Environmental Management Act has been commenced with, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Act has not been commenced with. It is a serious challenge to the legitimacy of this institution. The problem that we face, those of us that care about sustainability and the environment, is that the vast majority of new order mining rights that will exist over the next 30 years will be granted in the next five years. Mining is an important part of our economy. It creates jobs and provides foreign exchange. But it is also a highly invasive activity, and requires strong environmental regulations.
The Minister of Economic Development has highlighted that the mining sector is a major component of the New Growth Path, but he is not thoughtful about ecological limits, water constraints and biodiversity constraints. Yes, we must mine but we must not mine without limits. The costs of mining are never fully covered by miners. The externalities of mining and the cumulative effects of mining are carried by ordinary South Africans.
Let me pay tribute to the many officials in this department who are working tirelessly to improve the environmental considerations around mining. I know that many of you share my own frustrations. While the Department of Mineral Resources is receiving kudos at the moment for its recently completed moratorium on prospecting rights, it remains arrogant and treats the environment with contempt.
Last year, when I asked the Minister of Mineral Resources for the names of all mines against which her department had taken action for deviating from the environmental management plans, she refused to do so, saying it would affect their share prices. Well, Madam Mining Minister, I think it should affect their share prices. That is why I trust your department, Madam Minister, to do a better job of monitoring compliance in the mining sector, if given the opportunity to do so. You are more than prepared to announce the actions with regard to compliance that your department takes.
In the current legislative context, the Department of Environmental Affairs must, in the best interests of co-operative governance, work with the Department of Mineral Resources on a number of matters. Minister, please encourage your colleague, the Minister of Mineral Resources, to make a substantial declaration of areas around South Africa that are off limits to mining, which is in the power of the Minister of Mineral Resources to do.
Your department has spatial planning tools which could be integrated with the Department of Mineral Resources. We need to integrate data on the ranges of red data species, protected areas, Ramsar sites, sensitive ecosystems and critical water courses, so that we can determine where mining should be permitted and where it should not be permitted. And we need to expand protected areas, declaring areas like the Verlorenvlei in the Western Cape to have a special status.
There are a number of environmental management plans from applicants for onshore gas exploration before the Petroleum Agency of South Africa, which is obliged to consult with the relevant government entities about the environmental considerations in regard to these applications.
Minister, I know that you are reluctant to make comments about the subject of fracking, as you could end up being the appeal authority for environmental impact assessments, EIAs, on drill sites, if we get to that stage. But then let me address your officials. The extent of these applications in size, on average 30 000 km each, is absurd. Even if an applicant only draws eight wells in the exploration area, there are unintended consequences for land owners in the area, who could live in limbo for up to nine years while they wonder whether their farm will be fracked next. The awarding of one exploration right has major consequences for land values for people who may not even be directly affected by fracking.
Furthermore, while I spoke about the water considerations in last week's debate, let me mention now that each drill site will require a constant stream of trucks, possibly thousands of truck journeys per site, carrying water or toxic chemicals and removing waste. This traffic is highly invasive and is a heavy burden on the infrastructure of the Karoo municipalities.
Furthermore, shale gas is not the wonder solution to a low-carbon future that the applicants say it is. Compared to coal, shale gas is as bad if not worse as a source of climate change-inducing green house gas emissions. Minister, for these reasons, and because there is no policy in South Africa on fracking, no fracking should be permitted.
The DA is supportive of one Minister's being responsible for the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Environmental Affairs. The Minister needs to strive for further coherence between these departments, especially with regard to integrating permitting, but I am not sure these departments are even regularly talking to each other.
There is a need to drastically increase the number of environmental management inspectors, especially those working on pollution issues. This Parliament, through the National Environmental Laws Amendment Act, allows for compliance officers in each of the water and environmental departments to be accredited as environmental management inspectors, EMIs, and to be able to enforce the full suite of water and environmental legislation. However, the Department of Water Affairs is resisting this, and it is a department most in need of compliance and enforcement.
A peculiar situation has now emerged with regard to the Vele Colliery, near the ecologically sensitive Mapungubwe site, where, while the Department of Environmental Affairs is still conducting an investigation into alleged transgressions in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, NEMA, the Department of Water Affairs has given that mine its water use licence. We are now only weeks away from the mining Minister's announcing whether the mining right awarded to a company to mine the sand dunes of Xolobeni on the Wild Coast can proceed. The application for this right was seriously flawed. It must be noted that the Department of Environmental Affairs, in its report on the proposed mining, said:
The department has grave concerns with regard to the proposed mining developments in the area and objects to it.
Mining, if allowed in this area, would seriously undermine excellent opportunities for sustained job creation through ecotourism. I call on the mining Minister not to allow mining to proceed in Xolobeni.
Health care waste, or medical waste, requires improved oversight by the department, in conjunction with various health departments. The department likes to trumpet that there is sufficient capacity in South Africa to treat all generated medical waste. This may be true if all treatment capacity is on line, but considering that treatment capacity is not evenly spread throughout the country, when some of the facilities are off line, or are permanently taken out of operation, as was the case in late February, there is a crisis.
I regret today that we find ourselves in a similar situation and the Minister's urgent intervention is again required, as she did in early March this year. We simply cannot have anatomical waste overflowing from storage facilities. Not all service providers in this industry are entirely ethical, and unless the capacity pressures are alleviated, we are going to have illegal dumping.
Biodiversity and conservation need greater consideration in South Africa. It is unconscionable that the government can spend R100 million on the National Youth Development Agency, NYDAs, debacle of a world youth festival last December, while cutting transfers to conservation.
South African National Parks, Sanparks, is now having its budget reduced year on year and it has to rely on its commercialisation strategy to bring in revenue. Only four of its parks are profitable and they subsidise the running of other parks. But conservation is a public good, and ecosystems have inherent value.
Emotions are running high about Sanparks' proposed two new hotel developments in the Kruger National Park. It is debatable whether these hotels are necessary, and opponents are strident in their opposition. What is clear though, is that there needs to be a more structured and ongoing discussion about national parks. The management plans of Sanparks afford it opportunities every three to five years to engage the public about park policies and programmes. This needs to be done more effectively.
Furthermore, it is time that government institutes a commission, much like the US Congress did when it commissioned the report entitled "Advancing the National Park Idea: National Parks Second Century Commission Report", so that we can address the issues of public ownership of parks, and allow stakeholders from all communities to contribute to planning the future of these parks, and what developments should be permissible.
It is regrettable and deeply sad that as figures stand now we are on track to having at least as many rhinos poached this year as there were last year, and we urge the Minister, as she has said, to further fight against rhino poaching.
The new Oceans and Coasts branch of the department has important work ahead in enforcing the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act. It has, however, immediately been challenged by the Minister of Transport's announcement last week of his intention to lease the sea shore and sea bed around Vetch's Pier. The Sea-shore Act does not supersede the provisions of the Integrated Coastal Management Act, which commenced on 1 December 2009.
Flowing from the Integrated Coastal Management Act, the state is the trustee of all coastal public property and must ensure that it is managed and protected in the interests of the whole community. So the question is why the Minister of Transport made this announcement when you, Madam Minister, have not excluded the land in question from coastal public property? Because eThekwini wants to use this land for a small craft harbour. Even if you do exclude the land from coastal public property, this Parliament would have to ratify your decision.
Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed Vetch's development is deeply problematic for a number of reasons and should not proceed, please engage with your Cabinet counterpart, Madam Minister, on this matter. If you have been approached to exclude the land in terms of the Integrated Coastal Management Act, please inform us.
In conclusion, this department is mostly very well run, and it has a long history of unqualified audit opinions, but it must fight for its place at the planning table. Environmental considerations must be at the forefront of development and sustainable development.
The stakes are high. The 2007 State of the Environment report points to a general decline in our environment, and the trend has not changed. Let us enforce our excellent legislation to the greatest degree, and let us ensure that our economy grows and creates opportunities, while being more efficient in its use of resources, and with consideration of the ecological barriers to growth. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]