Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon members, the world is lurching towards a climate disaster. Last week at the climate negotiations in Bonn, the developed countries of the world frustrated the process and showed a clear lack of ambition towards cutting emissions. A close analysis of pledges by developed countries indicates that, if implemented, they would result in a negligible cut in emissions compared to the levels in 1990. Countries like Japan and Canada are deaf to the warnings of sciencists, and just do not want to understand that without ambitious cuts we will severely overshoot the 2C rise that sciencists suggest we can tolerate.
It is true that the world is in recession and that jobs are being lost, but we will escape this recession in time. In essence, a recession is reversible, but an environmental disaster is not, at least not for several generations.
I am happy to hear that the South African negotiating team in Bonn led a proposal by 37 developing countries for an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that calls on Annex 1 countries - developed countries - to take on an emissions reduction target of at least 40% on the 1990 levels by the year 2020. I would like to congratulate the South African negotiator, Alf Wills, for his role in this proposal. What will come of it going forward is unclear, but South Africa's primary role in the ongoing climate negotiations is to pressurise developed countries into doing what is right for our collective future as a planet. I urge President Zuma, who regrettably did not mention climate change once during his recent state of the nation address, to place climate change high on the agenda of the upcoming African Union Heads of State meeting in Libya.
While South Africa may be performing reasonably well on climate change on the international negotiating front, when it comes to responding to climate change at home, we are acting with far less purpose and urgency. It is true that we now have long-term mitigation scenarios, we have an emissions reporting project, and earlier this year there was a climate change summit that allowed for stakeholder consultation. But I do not believe that government has come to grips with the magnitude of what South Africa needs to do. Responding to climate change is not simply a line item in a budget. Madam Minister, it is about remaking an economy.
We cannot respond to climate change without having an honest debate about coal. Our abundance of this resource may seem like a blessing, but it is not. Over 90% of our electricity is generated by coal, which results in South Africa being one of the biggest carbon polluters in the world. The fact that it is cheap and abundant, and we have 200 years of reserves left at current production rates seems to mean that we will not only rely on this dirty source of energy for a long time to come but, according to Eskom's expansion plans, we are going to increase our reliance on the resource. Where our so-called blessing of abundant coal becomes a curse is that it crowds out a real commitment to diversifying energy production. It crowds out the debate we so need to have. What makes it even worse is that there is now a low-scale war against our environment by the proliferation of new mining applications across South Africa. Before I proceed further with this point, allow me to say that mining is an important contributor to South African GDP and over 400 000 workers are employed in the sector. This sector already has enough challenges that need to be dealt with, but what has to happen is that we have to start saying that certain areas are off-limits to mining.
We have the ridiculous situation of a coal mining application on the border of Mapungubwe, a World Heritage site in which the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs has invested so much time and energy to make a success. The Department of Minerals and Energy seems to be single-minded in its determination to grant the application. The problem is that once you have allowed one mine in a sensitive area, and the area is disturbed, it becomes so much easier for another adjacent application to be approved.
Mining applications are popping up all over the place. There is a mining application in the Cederberg that will lay waste to the valley from Piketberg to Elands Bay. Proposed coal mining in the Wakkerstroom area, a habitat for over 300 bird species, will strike a severe blow against the already precarious ecosystem there. A similar situation seems likely to play itself out in the Wild Coast and in the Mpumalanga Lake District, where mining poses a threat to agriculture. The sad thing is that mining can cause irreparable damage to local environments, and when one thinks of it, the coal extracted in any one place over the lifespan of a small mine would not be able to generate electricity for much more than a few days at a coal power station.
Madam Minister, don't be afraid to keep the coal in the hole. Just because we have abundant mineral resources does not mean that we have to extract it all. In fact, when it comes to responding to climate change, we are going to have draw a line in the sand at some point in the future.
It is time that this debate on the effects of mining on the environment, and also how coal mining traps us into a particular energy future, is brought to the table. Environmental NGOs, farming associations and ratepayers' organisations are crying out for the discussion. It is with this in mind, Madam Minister, that I ask you to invoke section 3(a) of the amendments to the National Environmental Management Act, which were included in the National Environmental Laws Amendment Act that was passed by this House earlier this year. This section allows you as Minister, by notice in the Gazette, to establish a forum or advisory committee on any special issue. I ask you, Madam Minister, to please establish a forum on mining and the environment. Open a structured dialogue on this matter with all the relevant stakeholders. Let us find a way to manage mining in a way that does not make us pay for its effects for generations to come.
I would also like to bring the matter of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, NSSD, to the attention of this House. The actual strategy exists, but implementation has yet to begin. Let me remind the House that this strategy was a major outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, WSSD, that South Africa hosted in 2002. Protecting our environment and managing our economy in a sustainable way is everyone's business, and it is every government department's business. The question of what entity should take responsibility for implementing this strategy needs urgent debate. I do not believe that the Department of Environmental Affairs is the appropriate home for it. It is difficult for the Minister to police her Cabinet colleagues on how they are performing with regard to sustainable development. Apparently Minister Manuel in the National Planning Commission is still determining exactly what his commission will be doing. I would like to suggest that the NSSD be housed with Minister Manuel or somewhere else in the Presidency. It makes sense that the NSSD is co-ordinated at a level above Cabinet Ministers.
Madam Minister, the functioning of Marine and Coastal Management, MCM, remains a massive problem. Government is simply not winning the war against poachers who act with impunity every day of the year. Let me read from an e- mail sent to Dr Monde Mayekiso yesterday from a concerned citizen, Michael Clark: There is no end in sight to the decimation of our once pristine Sardinia Bay reserve which appears to have been proclaimed for the exclusive use of the abalone poaching fraternity.
Poaching continues on a daily basis and the MCM have little success in arresting the criminal element and clearly the MCM has no plan of action to curb this illegal activity.
The few arrests that the MCM or police have made of late is simply a drop in the ocean. Many officials sit in their ivory towers and are definitely not aware of what is happening at grass-roots level.
I could not have said it better. Let it be known that Mr Clark has been writing similar e-mails to MCM for over a year now.
Madam Minister, our fish stocks are under threat. The compliance budget is entirely insufficient, especially when one considers that the majority of the budget goes to the running costs of MCM's large vessels. And let it be said that these vessels are almost impotent when it comes to protecting our inshore fisheries.
Lastly, Madam Minister, it is time to reach out to the legal abalone fishers who have lost their income due to your predecessor's decision to close the entire fishery. The promised social plan to alleviate their plight never materialised. Please act on this. Hon members, let us together increase the profile of the various environmental debates. We have to have oversight over our children's future. Let it not be forgotten that the last State of the Environment report pointed to a general decline in South Africa's environment. The next report will almost certainly point to a continuation of that trend. Our work is massive. [Time expired.]