The negotiations that will plot the world’s new climate change framework are less than six months away. But you wouldn’t think so if you listened to President Jacob Zuma’s first “State of the Nation” address. This subject matter, on the mind of every President or Prime Minister worth his or her salt, did not feature in the President’s programme of action.

The closest he came to the topic was acknowledging that South Africa was a dry country and that it required urgent action “to mitigate adverse environmental changes and to ensure the provision of water to citizens.” He also said that the government would work to improve energy efficiency and the uptake of renewable energy. But where was the detail and how do these programmes relate to rejuvenating an economy that is in recession?

If this was an attempt by the President to introduce climate change into his address, he could have at least mentioned this human-induced phenomenon that has the potential to wreak disaster on Southern Africa by its name.

Climate change is not going to go away, hence President Zuma would do well not to cast himself as a denialist. . South Africa cannot afford to wait in responding to the challenges of climate change. The science suggests that Southern Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world. Localised decreased run-off from rainfall, increased frequency of droughts and the change in the ranges of biodiversity all have the potential to undermine our economic growth and undermine this country’s attempts at poverty alleviation.

Much of the warming that will occur is already locked into the system meaning that adaptation to climate change is the initial priority. However, South Africa has one of the highest per capita CO2 emissions ratios in the world and therefore mitigation action is a necessity if South Africa is to be a responsible global player in stabilising the world’s climate and keeping global warming to no more than 2 °C.

There will be no binding emission reduction targets for South Africa at the Copenhagen Climate negotiations, but the developed world will expect some mitigation action from the likes of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and India. But what does President Zuma have to say about this?

It is not as if the previous administration did nothing to prepare South Africa for the response to the climate change challenge. The Long Term Mitigation Scenarios for South Africa clearly outline the various paths that South Africa can choose to follow. We know the dangers of the business-as-usual scenario and we understand what is required by science. The previous Minister of Environmental Affairs also started a gases inventory project and the biggest emitters are now encouraged to voluntarily report on their emissions. And the Climate Change Summit began the process of outlining the action steps that will need to be taken by various stakeholders in the economy and in government.  We have to move to the introduction of climate change legislation at some point in the term of this government.

President Zuma has inherited an economy that is in recession and it is his task to lead us out of it in way that makes us more resilient and better prepared to capitalize on long term growth. The response to climate change is an economic response and therefore it must be fully integrated into economic policy.

Like many other governments in the world it is clear that the South African government aims to stimulate demand by spending. Notwithstanding the likelihood that tax revenues will fall in the immediate period going forward and that government needs to act responsibly, President Zuma should consider spending in areas that will stimulate new green industries. Projects that promote energy efficiency appear to be on the agenda. But large capital projects like concentrated solar thermal deserve thorough consideration as well.

When investing in rural infrastructure and social relief programmes, President Zuma needs to make it clear that such spending will take into account the need to adapt to climate change. The promotion of small-scale agriculture, improving access to water, and “climate proofing” human settlements all need to take into account that the climate of today will not necessarily be the climate of tomorrow.

President Zuma also needs to take us into his confidence about how his government intends to approach the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. We face the prospect of a new lead Minister, Buyelwa Sonjica, who has no history in these negotiations and is unlikely to understand the dynamics. I have been told by one senior civil servant of a G8 country that there is considerable consternation that Minister Van Schalkwyk will not be at Copenhagen. Despite his numerous faults, Van Schalkwyk knew the negotiation process well. He had established a rapport with other Ministers and he was regarded by many G8 countries as a bridge between the developed economies and the major emerging economies.

Minister Sonjica deserves her chance to show what she can do, and she has no doubt inherited the majority of the negotiating team that Van Schalkwyk had at his disposal, but I cannot shake the feeling that Sonjica’s explicit focus as Minister is going to be on water. It is obviously not a case of “either or”. Climate change and water are both important.

Will South Africa push the developed world to take up ambitious emission reduction targets? We don’t know because President Zuma does not think climate change is an important topic for State of the Nation address.

It is now the responsibility of Parliament to hold President Zuma to account for what he has said and what he has not said. I will certainly be asking questions on what his government will do tackle climate change. I hope other MPs will join me.

Gareth Morgan is the DA shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.

BY GARETH MORGAN

The decision by the ANC to combine the management of water affairs and environmental affairs (sans fisheries) into one Ministry has generally been welcomed by most commentators. I also believe it is a positive move. In fact, I suggested such a move in the Democratic Alliance’s latest environment policy which I authored last year.

Combining these two departments should theoretically allow for improved efficiencies and greater economies of scale. It will also allow the Environmental Management Inspectorate, otherwise known as the Green Scorpions, to move against water polluters.

What remains uncertain is whether President Zuma’s choice of MP to hold the position of Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Buyelwa Sonjica, is a good one. Tony Carnie, writing in the Mercury (13 May 2009) rightly pointed to the fact that it was Minister Sonjica, in her previous position as Minister of Minerals and Energy, who approved the application to mine the sensitive Xolobeni area in the Wild Coast, despite considerable opposition from both local residents and the environmental lobby. Similarly, Sonjica seems to have been in support of the controversial application by Coal of Africa, an Australian mining company, to mine in an area adjacent to the Mapungubwe World Heritage site (see Sowetan, 2 June 2008). The application has yet to be approved, and it will be Minister Sonjica’s successor in the Minerals portfolio who will make this call.

Minister Sonjica now finds herself in a watchdog portfolio. Like every new Minister in President Zuma’s cabinet she deserves a chance to act on the imperatives in her portfolio, but as the newly appointed shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs I intend to place particular attention on how the Minister responds to the effects of mining on the environment, both in terms of the damage that has already been done and the future damage that needs to be avoided.

The mining sector, at 6% of GDP, is an important contributor to the South African economy, and is directly responsible for over 400 000 jobs. It is important that this sector thrives, but the environmental management of mines in terms of authorisations, monitoring and rehabilitation needs urgent attention. The sector continues to externalise many of its costs to the detriment of both human and environmental health.

South Africa’s already stressed water resources are coming under considerable pressure from acid mine drainage (AMD), a process where acidic water flows out of (usually abandoned) metal or coal mines. There is no figure yet for the current or expected future AMD flows. One leading water expert suggests that the daily decant from the Witwatersrand mining complex alone is at least 350 Mld (that’s 350 million litres per day). Such a decant is flowing directly into various water systems, poisoning our environment.

It would cost around R10 to restore a cubic litre (one thousand litres) of such water back to its pre-mining condition. If we were to understand the actual total AMD decants around South Africa, and then if we did the maths, it would become clear that we are dealing with a problem that will cost several billions of rand to deal with each year. Minister Sonjica needs to face up to this problem as a matter of urgency. It will be during her five year term as Minister that the full effects of AMD will be felt.

Having some understanding of the historical costs of mining we now need to learn from past mistakes. There are hundreds of new coal mining applications in Mpumalanga that will almost certainly pollute local water systems, damage local agriculture, and undermine efforts to alleviate poverty in rural areas. There are similar situations playing out in other parts of South Africa. (See what’s happening in Limpopo here). It is important therefore that the spirit of co-operative governance prevails. The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mining are going to need to talk to each other about appropriate mining development that takes into account the health of the environment.

For at least the next three years the Minister of Mining will have the power to authorize new mining applications, a function that will move to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs thereafter. This is an outcome of the most recent amendments to the National Environmental Management Act. These amendments are a victory considering both the historical and more recent disdain that the Department of Minerals and Energy has showed towards our environment. But as I said in the National Assembly on 29 May 2008, “the vast majority of new mining applications that will exist for the next 30 years will be approved in the next three years”. This means that the majority of new mining applications will be approved before the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs receives the power to grant or deny these applications.

Interestingly, in approximately 18 months time the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs will become the Minister to which appeals against mining authorisations can be brought. This is an interim arranged until this Ministry receives the power to authorise the applications. So, the Minister will have an opportunity soon enough to show whether she has the best interests of the environment at heart.

I am of course making the assumption that the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs would do a better job of taking into account the actual effects of mining on the environment than the Minister of Minerals would do. But as noted earlier the new Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs did not show particular concern for the environment when she was Minister of Minerals and Energy. It is true that any Minister is bound by the legislation that governs his or her portfolio. One the hand it limits the powers of Ministers but on the other hand it empowers Ministers to do certain things. We expect Ministers to use their executive authority responsibly. While all Ministers should be guardians of the environment, the incumbent in the Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs must be held to the highest standards.

I hope that until the time when Minister Sonjica obtains the power to authorise or deny mining applications, she uses all mechanisms available to her to engage with the new Minister of Mining on the appropriateness of the merits of particular mining applications. Perhaps Minister Manuel and the National Planning Commission that he heads can assist in this regard. Minister Manuel enjoys the unique position of working in the Presidency and overseeing implementation of government policy. He can theoretically knock some Ministerial heads together.

Once Minister Sonjica has the power to authorise mines I hope that she uses that power responsibly in a way that enhances the protection of the environment in general, and our water sources in particular.

With coal reserves of more than 50 billion tones, South Africa has almost two hundred years of coal available at the current extraction rate. Inevitably much of it will be mined to fuel our electricity generation needs or for export to other energy hungry economies. But the time is coming when as country we are going to need to reduce our extraction of coal. Besides the effects of mining on the environment, there is a need to reduce our reliance on the burning of coal for electricity generation in order to mitigate climate change (another major issue that the new Minister will be responsible for coordinating).

Minister Sonjica will increasingly need to live by the mantra of being prepared to keep the “coal in the hole”. Just because we have massive reserves of coal should not mean that it all needs to be extracted. In fact, it is clear that our environment cannot afford for it all to be extracted. Minister Sonjica will need to show some restraint.

Gareth Morgan is the DA shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.