Environmental rights are critical for South Africa to develop sustainably in the 21st century. But how well are we doing in terms of implementation? Increasingly we see that this appears to be just so much public relations.
Last month the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkyk, issued the authorisation for a new 4 800MW coal-fired power station in Limpopo, which reportedly will increase our C02 emissions by about 25%. On the same day, he issued a press statement outlining his speech to be made at the Commission for Sustainable Development in New York citing the need for “urgent changes in policy and action”.
Where then are our urgent changes in policy and action? Where is the investment in tapping solar energy, the one truly “green” and limitless renewable energy resource available to us, especially in a climate such as ours?
Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs Rejoice Mabhudafasi is also contemplating opening up one of our oldest and most important marine protected areas (MPA), the Tsitsikamma, to “recreational” fishing by local communities — this at a time when 148 of our 150 line-fish species are collapsed, threatened or over-exploited. Surely rational judgement demands that our MPAs are critical for the recovery of these stocks — for everyone’s benefit.
In May, Minister of Land Affairs Lulu Xingwane announced that government has approved a strategy for biofuels that will be rolled out in about three-million hectares of “underutilised land”, mostly in the former homelands.
Yet key questions have yet to be answered, for example, who uses this “underutilised” land and are they aware that it is about to be turned over to industrial crop production? Where will the water for irrigation come from? And once the energy burned in clearing, cultivating and harvesting, converting to fuels and transporting the fuels to the market has been calculated, what net energy gains remain?
Mining is another area of controversy — the department of minerals and energy seems unbound by adherence to sustainability principles in exploiting our non-renewable mineral wealth. On the one hand, we have developed world-class policies to protect South Africa’s environment through protective legislation; on the other, the government is capitulating to all mining applications.
Fingers are pointed consistently at the minerals department for approving such activities and then not policing them properly, if at all, especially because the department is not governed by the environmental laws that apply to other developments. Rather, it is relatively free to grant mining rights as it sees fit and then does not apply the protective powers given to it under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Act to force miners not to harm the environment or the wellÂÂbeing of communities.
A landmark case is being brought by a citizens’ group in the Pretoria High Court to stop a proposed opencast coal mine in wetlands in the Lake District in Mpumalanga, in contravention of almost all our environmental legislation and sustainability policies.
It is likely that the proposed mining on the Wild Coast, where human rights complaints have been formally submitted to the Human Rights Commission, is similarly going to end in the courts, when in reality the departments concerned should be enforcing the law. In addition, this application concerns a foreign mining company that will remove the majority of the wealth from the country.
In her budget speech Minister of Water Affairs Lindiwe Hendricks reportedly told the media that she has seen no scientific reports pointing to negative environmental impacts from large dams, and that her department will launch a massive dam building programme. But the World Commission on Dams (WCD) provides ample evidence that large dams have failed to yield as much electricity, provide as much water, or control as much flood damage as their supporters originally predicted.
The WCD found that large dams have had profound and irreversible environmental impacts.
Further the UN’s triennial World Water Development report, issued last year, warns of the “huge” negative changes humanity has wrought on the world’s rivers “mainly through giant dams” and recommends that no dams should be built on the few remaining undammed systems.
The announcement last month by the Eastern Cape Premier, Nosimo Balindlela, of plans for a large dam to be constructed “centred on the former Transkei and South Africa’s largest undammed river, the Mzimvubu” indicates that we are paying no heed to sustainability principles.
The proposed Soweto monorail is another example. The residents of Soweto and suburbs between the township and the Johannesburg city centre are in dire need of improved transport options and, from a sustainability perspective, mass public transport is the way to go. But provincial minister Paul Mashatile has stated that construction will begin in September, “we just need to get the environmental impact assessment [EIA] done”.
This epitomises current development planning in South Africa, where the decisions are taken first and then the EIA invoked. EIAs are sustainability planning tools, designed to assist in making the right development decisions by providing an objective assessment of the social, environmental and economic consequences of alternative options once a need has been identified.
EIAs are not designed as approval and mitigation plans for projects already agreed to. It is precisely this misuse of EIAs that results in them getting a bad rap from the politicians, because a political decision is taken on a project in an information vacuum. The EIA is then invoked purely to comply with legislation, but turns up negative consequences and/or results in public objections. The EIA is then blamed for “holding up development”.
The ANC has such political capital that it has the scope not often afforded to democratic governments of being able to take a long-term view on development. Sadly it seems that the current crop of politicians is unable to do this, with everything focused on short-term results as if they were in danger of losing the next election. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is not going to be popular with future generations who will have to live off a rotting carcase.
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel that isn’t an oncoming train? Perhaps.
The department of minerals and energy’s announcement in May that it is investigating taxes on fuel-guzzling SUVs, a first for the government, is good news. Of course, the cynical will suggest that this is just another way to raise revenue. Punitive taxes rarely change behaviour in the way envisaged — they do, however, result in creative ways of circumvention and avoidance. If the government really wants to discourage SUV usage, it should ban their importation and manufacture — it’s that simple.
The other bright spot in a gloomy picture is the drafting of a National Framework for Sustainable Development — but this document has taken 18 months to draft. When it finally appears, the horse might have long bolted. What we need urgently in South Africa is visionary leadership willing to challenge the “business as usual” development model and to drive a dramatic change in policy implementation, where the heady sustainability rhetoric becomes the basis for national action. This requires recognition that the “economy” is something that emerges from society — it is neither immutable nor a necessity of life.
Nick King is the director of the Endangered Wildlife Trust
A forum for debate
The Mail & Guardian‘s Greening the Future Awards provide a platform each year for showcasing corporate environmental best practice. The awards have been running for five years and serve as a forum for debate about how to take sustainability forward.
The M&G hosts the awards to acknowledge and reward organisations and corporations that have realised that environmental sustainability is a necessary part of doing business today, while the accompanying supplement showcases the projects. The supplement also hosts analytical articles by people in the field of the environment and sustainability that encourages debate.
Last year we introduced the water care award, as an effort to conserve South Africa’s scarce water resources.
This year we are introducing the energy and carbon management award. Climate change is one of the most debated subjects in world politics and countries are debating how to bring down emissions without jeopardising their economies. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the world’s best-known international treaties, while Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, brought home the realities of climate change. It is in this environment that the M&G introduces the category for the first time. The newspaper believes that it will become one of the critical award categories over the years. It is sponsored by Eskom.
Another regular feature is the chemical safety award, which is sponsored by the Chemical and Allied Industries’ Association. The award serves to encourage responsible use of chemicals and toxins.
Also new this year is the category of environmental best practice in a not for profit organisation, which is sponsored by Nedbank.
A forum for debate
The Mail & Guardian‘s Greening the Future Awards provide a platform each year for showcasing corporate environmental best practice. The awards have been running for five years and serve as a forum for debate about how to take sustainability forward.
The M&G hosts the awards to acknowledge and reward organisations and corporations that have realised that environmental sustainability is a necessary part of doing business today, while the accompanying supplement showcases the projects. The supplement also hosts analytical articles by people in the field of the environment and sustainability that encourages debate.
Last year we introduced the water care award, as an effort to conserve South Africa’s scarce water resources.
This year we are introducing the energy and carbon management award. Climate change is one of the most debated subjects in world politics and countries are debating how to bring down emissions without jeopardising their economies. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the world’s best-known international treaties, while Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, brought home the realities of climate change. It is in this environment that the M&G introduces the category for the first time. The newspaper believes that it will become one of the critical award categories over the years. It is sponsored by Eskom.
Another regular feature is the chemical safety award, which is sponsored by the Chemical and Allied Industries’ Association. The award serves to encourage responsible use of chemicals and toxins.
Also new this year is the category of environmental best practice in a not for profit organisation, which is sponsored by Nedbank.