Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the DA associates itself with the Minister's dedication of the speech to the father of our democracy, Mr Nelson Mandela.
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 science requires. The agreement would also have achieved 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 the Conference of the Parties 15, 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 road show 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 Cop 17 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. 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 2C. 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 will become.
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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, on 29 January 2010. But we also note that the devil is in 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.
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. The proliferation of new mining applications across South Africa, from Mpumalanga to Limpopo to the Cape winelands, is in effect a low-level 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 belongs to the Minister of Mineral Resources.
This may be the case, but the Department of Mineral Resources is, in fact, not acting in good faith. More than a year ago, the members of this House passed both the National Environmental Management Amendment Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Act with the purpose of beginning a timeline that would result in the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, 36 months after commencement of the last of the two Acts, becoming the competent authority for the authorisation of mines. That has not yet happened. This is an unfortunate situation, and I believe it is a slap in the face of your department.
The 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.
Madam Minister, in a statement you suggested your own disquiet with the new order mining right adjacent to Mapungubwe, seeing as the Department of Mineral Resources did not even have the courtesy to inform you before they went to the media. Your senior officials heard about it through the media. Now more than ever before you need to find a structured way of engaging with the Minister of Mineral Resources on the issues of mining and the environment.
What exactly is happening with the transfer of fisheries-related functions to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries? A presidential proclamation, which you mentioned in your speech, was signed earlier this year and provided for the transfer of approximately 80% of the functions under marine and coastal management to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Both during the presentation of the budget to our committee and during the strategic workshop which you attended, members participating were led to believe that the presidential proclamation would stand. But on Tuesday this week, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Minister Joemat-Pettersson, 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, Forestry and Fisheries?
It is worth noting that our committee was presented with a budget and a business plan for the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs - which we are debating here today - that reflect differently from what the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries says is going to happen. I'd like to say that the DA fully supports the retention of the enforcement of the Integrated Coastal Management Act and ocean functions that are within the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs. Just like we believe that the environmental functions of mining should revert to the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, so should the environmental functions of Marine and Coastal Management.
The last few months have been turbulent within MCM. The staff turned into politicians, vested interests were revealed and fisheries management suffered. Minister Joemat-Pettersson, whether you take 100% or 80% of the fisheries functions, I wish you the best of luck. It is a mess. The compliance and enforcement capacity of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs is steadily improving. I welcome the announcement that dedicated time will be allocated for environmental crimes in four courts 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 have credibility, they need to be enforced. 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 case of a R100 million boatyard being built by the military in Langebaan for the Department of Public Works.
The local community was misled about the size of the project and they commenced work last year without obtaining environmental authorisation. There was no scoping report, no involvement of interested and affected parties, and no environmental impact assessment. The Department of Public Works has apparently applied for a section 24(G) application for the rectification of this illegal activity. Nevertheless, work persists 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 KwaZulu-Natal, 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. 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 noted at the time that research indicated that low flying impacted negatively on the biology of some threatened species. He is taking environmental crime seriously, and the managers of other protected areas, most notably the Kruger National Park, would do well to rigorously enforce this law as well.
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 more than 100 rhinos killed last year. As it stands at the moment, in April 2010, the poaching figures for this year are going to be higher than last year's.
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, I admit, as well as apprehending dealers, but we are dealing with sophisticated criminals who are brazen enough to fly a helicopter into a protected area, kill an animal, cut off its horn and fly away in contempt of the law.
The war will not be won merely by rangers in the field. We need a commitment to boosting intelligence capabilities and strong, ongoing co- ordination with the police and the National Prosecuting Authority.
Another threat to biodiversity is the fate of the 4 000 lions that are currently housed in captive breeding facilities in South Africa. The department's promulgated regulations to end canned hunting, which you yourself in reply to a DA parliamentary question called "a reprehensible practice", are currently being challenged by the Predator Breeders Association. 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 Big Cat 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 in zoos in her country. It was a beautiful and emotional experience to see these great animals being released into freedom.
I urge the Minister to deal proactively with the fate of lions that are in captive breeding facilities in our country, 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.
There is confusion between the provisions of the South African Weather Service Act and the Public Finance Management Act as to who is the accounting authority. In correspondence with the Auditor-General, he informed me that despite the South African Weather Service Act saying that the CEO is the accounting authority, the Public Finance Management Act must prevail. In fact, the board is the accounting authority. He recommended as far back as three years ago that the South African Weather Service Act needed to be amended to reflect this, but nothing has happened. Madam Minister, please introduce the required amendments to this House this year. I thank you. [Applause.]