Rhino Poaching and Climate Change: briefing by Minister of Environmental Affairs

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

19 August 2014
Chairperson: Mr J Mthembu (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Minister of Environmental Affairs gave a briefing on rhino poaching and on climate change in relation to the 2012 Doha Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Committee was also expecting a briefing on  the crafting of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) post the 2015 Millennium Development Goals but there was not enough time for this. The briefing was to be used as a basis for discussion given that the Committee would be embarking on provincial public hearings on these three matters. These issues were topical, important and under the media’s spotlight. There would be continual engagement between the Committee and Department as a few hours would not give justice to these matters.

The Minister gave a broad overview of conservation efforts, South Africa's obligations as a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) member, policies subscribed to, the nature of the crime faced, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and initiatives moving forward.

The briefing on rhino poaching covered successful rhino conservation, global challenges, arrests and convictions, the changing context and complexity and interventions implemented over a number of areas including policy and legislation, cooperation and collaboration, international interventions and operational initiatives. The presentation addressed future operational interventions and the mitigation of current challenges, a closer look at the Kruger National Park, lessons learnt and integrated strategic management and interventions.

Discussion covered the political instability in neighbouring countries, funding that could be used by guerrillas in this case through poaching and plans to deal with this, natural attrition and the lifespan of rhino and plans to protect rangers. Debate was held on the role of private owners in conservation, translocation, the termination of specific contracts, MOUs, hot pursuit and information on the panel of experts. A topical point of discussion was the governance and integrity of the SANParks Board given rumours of infighting and corruption as well as custodianship versus. community involvement and the need for a massive paradigm shift in relation to socioeconomic problems.

The Committee was then briefed on the Doha Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with covered its legal framework, rules of the game, the Kyoto Protocol, the current context, emergence of the two competing paradigms, the Durban deal, central issues for the future and South African priorities. The Department also looked at future outcomes, SA expectations of the 2015 agreement, the “ambition” outcomes, the way forward for negotiations and the national climate change response policy.
 

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted the important issues of rhino poaching and climate change would be addressed. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) would also be discussed. Arrangements had been made to hold public hearings on these three issues next week starting with two days in KZN, then Mpumalanga and the North West. This would take place each week Friday and Saturday. He hoped there would be ample opportunity to engage with other provinces.

The Chairperson had read all sorts of stories about the South African National Parks (SANParks) fighting amongst themselves, moving some rhinos away, thoughts of selling rhino horn stockpiles as there was a market out there whether one liked it or not. Since 2006, rhino were being killed with no abatement but in increased numbers. This was a crime. Apart from rhino being killed, the lives of those meant to safeguard the rhinos were at risk as well because the poachers would stop at nothing, including killing rangers, to get the horn. He wanted to know what was being done to safeguard rhino stocks. He would not like future generations to see both black and white rhino only in pictures and never actually experience seeing them in any of the parks.

The Minister of Environmental Affairs, Ms Edna Molewa, said half a day or a few hours was an injustice to this topic given that a full discussion took place with the previous Committee over four days. She hoped such a discussion would take place overall a full day at the Kruger National Park (KNP) for Members to experience the real practical operations at close range and first hand. Rhino existed worldwide because of the track record and conservation measures by SA. SA was a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) member and was obliged to participate in CITES conventions with rhino as one of the endangered species listed under Appendix Two of CITES. According to Appendix Two, five black rhino could be hunted per annum while around 100 white rhino could be hunted per annum. SA subscribed to a policy on the Sustainable Utilisation of Our national Resources which meant resources were used in a sustainable manner including rhino. This policy was not changed and it was important to remember. Sustainable use of natural resources, however, was distinctly different from wildlife crime. Rhino poaching was first experienced at a heightened level around 2008 and this could be attributed to it being the year in which a national moratorium was placed on trading in rhino horn. At the time an onslaught was experienced by SANParks, the Department, the community and private sector as well.

Well-organised global crime syndicates were being dealt with and the Minister liked to think the country had acted in a befitting manner through security, legislative and regulatory measures as part of its response. An example of the legislative measures was closing loopholes for pseudo-hunters and that every legal hunt had to be accompanied by a hunter. This saw a drop in the number of applications from over 200 to just three. The Department also introduced security initiatives specifically in the Kruger, looking at user or transit countries with the Department already signing an MOU with Mozambique, the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam with preparations in place for MOUs with Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. In October, Laos and Cambodia would be coming to do the signing in SA while the government of Thailand remained in a troubled state. Post-signing of these MOUs came detailed implementation plans for action. From the security side, there was reinforcement of borders between SA and Mozambique, investigations into technologies which should and could be utilised, engaging communities through radio, information and discussions. Initiatives were not really impactful given that a world-wide organised crime syndicate was being targeted which moved as the Department did. There was great improvement in the security side and the criminal justice system where magistrates understood the key part they played. This was seen through hefty sentences handed down which served as a deterrent. Responses, efforts and actions needed to be integrated and the Committee would be receiving an integrated approach briefing pulling all the actions together.

Responding to some of the Chairperson’s comments, the Minister noted the Department was not yet in panic mode with the translocation of animals. It had been happening from Kruger for quite a number of years as a management tool. This was not a way of making money as the public purported, but it was a security measure to conserve this iconic species. She stressed the trade of rhino horn was possible with a panel appointed to really investigate what could be done with possible trade. This had been done with ivory stockpiles and although the two were not equated, lessons could be drawn from the former. The Department did not have a pre-determined view but would like the panel to do thorough research after the Cabinet goes ahead. The emphasis was on making a live rhino more valuable than a dead rhino. The media had been asked to report responsibly and this was a plea to the media from the Department.

The Chairperson said the Committee planned to go to SANParks and this briefing would provide a basis for such a discussion. There was also a plan to visit wetlands and polluted areas.  The Committee would be with the Department in almost every area of its work.

Rhino Poaching presentation
Mr Sam Ferreira, SANParks: Large Mammal Ecologist, began by noting the majority of the world’s rhino were found in SA – roughly 21 000 of the world’s 25 000 rhino. The world had rhino because of South Africa. Turning to conservation, it was during the 1960s when capture tools were developed. With the status of rhinos in KNP, in 1960, 350 rhino were introduced to the Park from KZN which then grew to 1000 rhino in the 1990s, 2000 rhino in the 2000’s and between 8 700-12 200 rhino in 2010. If the poaching scourge was contained, there could be breeding of many rhinos. Stabilisation was a combination of poaching effects, management and ecology or rhinos controlling themselves naturally. Management removals of 1 450 rhino over a 15- year period was why about 25% of SA’s white rhino were sitting on private land. This was similar with black rhinos.

For successful rhino conservation, conservationists applied best practice management. Pioneers saw value in what they were doing while large protected areas provided recovery, innovative approaches provided expansion and legal incentives provided more areas. All in all, most values of rhinos were recognised.

Mr Fundisile Mketeni, DEA Deputy DG: Biodiversity and Conservation, spoke about the global challenge of syndicated crime with the end-user sitting in the Asian bloc. The threat started in 2006. To date, this year up to 13 August 2014, 658 rhino were poached with 418 in KNP. Provincially, Limpopo was mostly affected followed by KZN, North West and only one rhino was lost in the Northern Cape since the start of the scourge.

SA had many borders which made the problem difficult. With arrests and convictions, there were different levels from poacher to receiver/courier, courier/buyer, exporter and buyer/driver. At level 1, 198 arrests were made but this was the level at which there was easy replacement so not much impact was made at other levels. Looking at the period 2011/12 to 2013/14, the number of cases, accused and convicted were increasing. Foreign nationals were involved from Vietnam, Mozambique, Thailand, China, Malawi, Zimbabwe and the Congo.

Mr Mketeni discussed the changing context and complexity noting there was a definite increase in demand, that organised and syndicated crime was involved, there were new, non-traditional uses of rhino horn, there was an abuse of permit systems and sophisticated techniques and it was an unconventional policing environment. Furthermore there were resource challenges in range states, coordination and cooperation was needed, efforts were reactive rather than pro-active, emphasis needed to be placed on intelligence gathering capabilities, there was exploitation of vulnerable communities, the demand was persistent and there was an increase in disposal capital in Asian countries. Looking at what changed and how to deal with the problem systemically, traditionally measures were focused in protected areas but measures now had to move beyond protected areas.


Interventions were implemented over a number of areas like legislative and policy initiatives through a national strategy, moratorium and norms and standards. Cooperation and collaboration occurred through national units in DEA, training, National Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure (Natjoints) and Provincial Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure (Provjoints) and dedicated prosecutors. International initiatives were led through the Southern African Development Community (SADC) anti-poaching strategy, Interpol, MOUs with range, consumer and transit states and range expansion. Operational interventions included cooperative approaches, intelligence, investigations, pre-emptive and reactive plans and South African Defence Force (SANDF) operations.

Brig. David Garnett, NatJoints, explained current operational initiatives included national and provincial inter-departmental committees in 2011 which comprised all relevant departments and institutions to manage all cases of wildlife crime within SA and provinces. The special focus of these committees was on rhino poaching with specialised inter-departmental investigative responses to cases. Interaction was held between game parks and private owners through regular meetings with reporting delivered to Natjoints and Provjoints. The emphasis was that the country as a whole should be looked at and not just KNP. With interventions, operations were undertaken in KNP on numerous occasions and the Park was a focus area due to the prevalence of incidents. Operations were intelligence-driven and pre-emptive. With border security, all ports of entry were alerted to the modus operandi of smugglers of commodities including rhino horn and there was now training programmes at border posts to identify trading in natural commodities. There was also specialised canine searching capabilities deployed at key ports with border patrols implemented to conduct crime prevention operations. This went alongside SANDF operations including Operation Corona after Operation Rhino and Operation Horizon were terminated. There were however a number of extremely difficult challenges in this environment seeing that it was not a normal policing environment. These challenges included that it was an extremely difficult crime to police, intelligence and information gathering was challenging, foreign nationals and syndicates were heavily involved and it was extremely costly to police successfully. Improvements in relations with local role players were underway with industry organisations and individual parties and entities with reference to private owners of rhino.

For future operational interventions and the mitigation of current challenges, KNP was still the centre of the majority of rhino poaching in SA from an operational perspective so the focus remained on the whole KNP game park. A joint operational centre would be re-established at KNP with immediate effect with the intention of coordination of operations, centralisation of information and the verification of intelligence which was the main focus in this fight to combat the scourge of poaching. There were also proactive and reactive measures, crime scene management, tracing and arresting of suspects and a dedicated investigations team within and outside the KNP.

Brig. Garnett turned to future operational interventions noting the reintroduction of operational principles through joint operations, intelligence-driven operations, way-lay operations and hot pursuit. There would also be deployment of joint resources and dedicated investigations including crime scenes, forensics, case linkages and dedicated prosecutions with senior state advocates.

Mr Johan Jooste, SANParks: Commanding Officer, Special Operations, discussed the Kruger National Park, noting this was a vast and harsh environment. It received 1.4 million visitors a year and was the biggest rhino stronghold in the world. 35% of the rhino was found in the centre of the Park, South of the Oliphants River with an emphasis on surveillance and early detection. The emphasis was on cleaning the Park from the outside. Importantly, looking at if a difference was made, it was clear the activities of poachers were increasing along with the activity of rhino poached. However, there was still a difference in actual numbers between the two sets of activities.

Mr Markus Hofmeyr, SANParks: General Manager: Veterinary Wildlife Services, said that with interventions to increase rhinos and maximise rhino productivity, this included strategically removing rhinos which he stressed was a function performed for many decades beginning in KZN. It was a management tool and a common conservation strategy to remove rhinos from threat and high-density areas where the rhino population began regulating itself. These rhinos were taken to strongholds to breed and thereby maximising rhino growth. This was a management tool to use the rhino itself.

Mr Mketeni looked at some of the lessons learnt which included the sound conservation and sustainable use principles played a key role, illicit wildlife trade was a transnational organised crime, high level political support made a difference, joint and integrated efforts had more impact and active community participation was essential although, admittedly, the Department needed to work more on this area. Other lessons included that costs of interventions were under-estimated and needed lots of resources, a diversity of legislation should be used to charge offenders, legislation should be current and relevant and Parliament was urged to help in this area through amendments. Penalties should align with the severity of offences and international collaboration should be strengthened.

Integrated strategic management and interventions to increase rhino numbers included strategic removals, conservancies, strongholds and conservation husbandry. New interventions included the disruption of organised crime beyond borders and alternative economic choices for communities to look at what people needed. With long-term sustainability interventions, creating sustainable demand supply options was important with the consideration of trade in horn in the long-term. With compulsory interventions, there was pro-active anti-poaching, actionable intelligence and a responsive legislative framework.

In conclusion, Mr Mketeni said the demand for illegal rhino horn needed to be decreased, the price for rhino horn, which was high due to the illegal trade, needed to be reduced, there were growing rhino numbers and ranges, the beneficiation around rhinos was increasing and the economic value of rhino for the benefit of all South Africans was increasing.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that more engagement was needed on this matter.

Mr B Holomisa (UDM) did not hear any reference to the political instability in Mozambique which might exacerbate the situation around KNP. If the Department interacted only with the formal structures of the Mozambique government, there was a possibility the guerrillas could use the rhino as a funding resource.

Mr Abe Sibiya, SANParks Acting CEO, explained there was a Joint Permanent Commission on Defence and Security for the Ministers of both countries with reports generated from these meetings presented to both parliaments. The issue of rhino poaching always occupied centre stage. There was also engagement with the High Commissioner of Mozambique with even the previous president of Mozambique discouraging citizens from rhino poaching. There were also bilateral engagements and SADC sub-committees.

The Chairperson heard this but said the point of the Member’s question was that there were other non-governmental players involved and were these players included in discussions?

Mr Sibiya was aware of these actors but they were not included as they were outside the formal structures.

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, DEA Director General, added that the Chair of SADC, which was currently Zimbabwe, needed to take the lead on any peace negotiations.

Mr S Mabilo (ANC) did not pick up on the natural attrition of rhino and asked what the life span of a rhino was. He noted there was risk involved in retaining rangers and questioned what plans would be put in place to mitigate these risks. Were private owners up to the task of protecting their rhino stocks? With translocation, where were the rhino taken after being moved from Kruger. If this was confidential, was the keeping place safe and secure?

Mr Hofmeyr responded that typically a rhino could live, depending on the environment, between 25 and 35 years with those in a rougher, free-ranging environment not making 35 years. There was a difference between black and white rhinos given the amount of time between a cow having a calf. Overall the natural death rate was about 2% a year in a large park like KPN but with the poaching, it sitting at around 6 to 7%. There was usually a typical birth-rate of 8 to 10% a year.

Mr Jooste said poaching had a great physical and psychological effect on rangers and the rule of engagement was not favourable in SA given that rangers could not just shoot to kill. Discipline was needed and there was a high survival rate amongst rangers given that they were well- trained and equipped for what they faced. Psychologically and mentally there was a great effect on the families of rangers but steps were in place to deal with this. There were allowances for rangers although it could never compete with what was offered by poaching syndicates.

Mr Mketeni stated the initial relationship between private owners and government had been a bit hostile given the balance between private assets and national security along with the assumption that government was not doing enough. A three day workshop was held after which an action plan was developed. Each rhino owner needed a security plan which was aligned to SAPS guidelines.

Ms T Stander (DA) noted that the issue of governance and integrity of the SANParks Board and Trustees needed to be investigated along with allegations of infighting. She knew from talks with a number of people over the past two months that no one trusted DEA, SANParks or government. Although she did not think this was a fair assumption as there were a number of people genuinely committed, she wanted to know what the plan was to deal with this element of corruption and ensure good governance – she did not want to hear about strategies but precisely what was going to happen. She thought a major problem was the lack of people because personnel were needed to handle the technology used. Human resources, technology and intelligence were needed to overcome the crime syndicates and she believed SA had the capacity for this. SA was known for its intelligence capacity and this together with SANParks, the Department and political will, the problem can be tackled. Political endorsement could be provided by the Committee if they let Members know exactly what was needed. If the problem was treated as a war which was defined as a widespread armed conflict, it could be won. The Committee needed to be informed as to exactly what was needed. She wanted to know why the Path-finder contract was terminated 10 days after the arrest of level-three people on 23 May 2014. She sought clarity on hot pursuit and if this was in fact happening. She asked if an extradition treaty would assist in the implementation plans which came with the very vague MOUs. Along with this, informant networks were important. What were the plans to increase community involvement and awareness? How would value be attached to the whole live animal?

Lt. Gen. Vineshkumar Moonoo, SAPS: Divisional Commissioner of Detective Services, responding that hot pursuit was part of a gentleman’s agreement with SADC member states which would be formalised. Currently hot pursuit was a verbal agreement.

The Chairperson said the protocol between countries could then mean a criminal might not be able to be pursued in another country and this could create a problem. This showed more work was needed on hot pursuit.

Lt. Gen. Moonoo agreed and said this was why the matter had been escalated amongst the member states.

Mr Jooste explained hot pursuit was also used in an operational context to mean immediately active teams to track down suspects in the various levels before the suspect had the time to abscond. This was limited to within South Africa.

Mr Mketeni said there was an issue of trust because the rhino issue brought about polarisation. Some would never be satisfied with government’s actions but if there was a serious threat someone could not be trusted, this should be made known. With the resources required, this depended on the type of threat, typography and community awareness. MOUs were vague as they were about biodiversity conservation and the protection of wildlife and just because something like extradition was not discussed in the MOU did not mean it was not addressed somewhere else.

Mr R Mavunda (ANC) came from Limpopo and was very concerned about the high numbers of rhino poached. He asked how much poor people got paid for the work they did to lure animals into a trap given that they placed themselves in grave danger doing such a job. What was the market value of horns such that a comparison could be made between profit and what was paid to poachers? How much involvement of community members in the parks were there as these people needed to be part of the anti-poaching initiative.

Mr Mketeni said a lot was done with communities but the issue was complex and new ways of informing communities needed to be found. A deeper understanding of community issues was also needed. Mentioning what was needed in terms of recruitment figures was cautioned against as it could attract poachers – these figures were known but it would be provided to Members at a closed session.

Mr A Mngxitama (EFF) felt there should be an avoidance of creating the impression that there was more care for rhino than for people. A massive paradigm shift was needed as this was a socioeconomic problem more so than a policy one but the socioeconomic basis of the problem was not being addressed. Who actually owned the rhino and what did private custodianship mean? It seemed there was externalisation of the cost to the state as well as private benefits. Who paid for rhinos when they were moved to private entities and how did private owners benefit from such custodianship? He was concerned because it appeared the state carried the immediate cost of protection but the rhino were then placed under the custodianship of private individuals. He thought the information provided on arrests was a bit xenophobic as it did not highlight how many South Africans were involved or arrested. He emphasised the implications for people as the foot soldiers evolved from poverty.

Mr Mketeni said the information included on foreigners involved and arrested was done to show that not only South Africans were involved and this was not xenophobia. The numbers would be provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson noted that when information was not included, the presentation was misleading and created the impression that only foreigners were involved.

Mr Ferreira explained the conservation of black and white rhino followed different approaches. For black rhino, state ownership was maintained but the animals were kept on private land - this was custodianship. With white rhino, if the animal was bought, the owner had complete ownership of the rhino and although a contribution was made, the majority of rhino, 75%, were on formal state protected areas.

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) wanted to know the process for selection and who the people on the panel were who were involved in investigating the trade in rhino horn mentioned by the Minister.

Mr Mketeni said the composition of the panel of experts was based on a set of terms of reference for the inclusion of expertise from a variety of sectors such as science, economy, community and governance. The Minister recently broadened the range of this to bring in more expertise.

The Chairperson felt everyone needed to focus on the solution and problem at hand as no one wanted the rhino to be continued to be killed. A uniform basis for this was needed. There was an important relationship between the people on the ground and the animals so that people were not used because of socioeconomic difficulties. It was important for the Committee to see firsthand the problems experienced by park officials and those living in the parks. He knew that if security could not be received from South Africans themselves to protect this threatened species, this would be a problem.

Mr Alf Wills, DEA DDG: Environmental Advisory Services, responding about trade, explained the problem was that the CITES approach no longer worked. This was linked to a changing global dynamic specifically to South East Asia and a whole new demand dynamic entering the world market. It should be remembered rhino poaching had been going on minimally for decades but since the 2008 explosion in poaching, the reality was that the traditional approach was not sufficient. SA wanted to open a rational, evidence-based debate on the traditional CITES approach, on if it was applicable and if not, what could then be done given the new global circumstances. The panel was beginning this evidence base including intelligence and wide research in market economies.

Ms Lize McCourt, DEA: COO, stated the board of SANParks was not of one trustees but a board that was the accounting authority in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The function was similar to that of a DG in a government department. This was not the case in all public entities but was the case with SANParks. The board of SANParks had to react to the strategies and plans of the executive i.e. the Minister. With rumours of infighting, it was fair to say there would always be differences in opinion and the board was responsible in debating these issues robustly and then making decision in accordance with the national or executive authority. Any instances of corruption would need to be investigated by the board.

The Chairperson interjected that rhino poaching was the matter at hand now and other issues like those relating to management could be discussed at another time. The question of corruption was specifically in relation to rhino poaching so answers should keep that focus.

Ms McCourt continued that there was support and a mutual relationship between the board and management in the governance of SANParks in terms of rhino poaching efforts. This was outlined in the overall national strategy.

Ms Ngcaba concluded by saying governance in SANParks, like any organisation, experienced challenges but they were all dealt with that according to the letter and spirit of the law. Discipline did not equate to infighting. On issues of corruption, all DEA staff and officials involved with rhino conservation and management were vetted at a national level. The Minister and herself had engaged with the State Security Agency (SSA) who conducted the vetting. The rhino reaction unit comprised of provincial staff that were also vetted along with the entities. Cases of suspected corruption needed to be investigated before conclusions were reached. MOUs were signed within the context of diplomatic relations. They were high level and not specific in nature even with conservation. Broad talks were held at a high level while more detail was contained in the action plan. There was still some resistance to even the naming of certain activities so this was where diplomatic language was needed. This was something the media did not understand much like identifying areas of safe keeping which put the rhino at risk so it was best that such information was not released. The country had covered itself in terms of extradition through the Department of Justice. The Path-Finder contract was terminated which was allowed for because of the involvement of intelligence activities which was not cleared with the security cluster. It was unknown whether this institution could be worked with when the vetting was completed. As DG of the Department, she accepted that environmental stewardship and custodianship was not commonly owned by SA communities and there was a history behind this. There was a long way to go in dealing with socioeconomic challenges and competing with what illegal activities could offer monetary wise. She urged the Members to champion this cause as the Department could only use extended mechanisms to ensure communities understood conservation efforts.

The Chairperson felt everyone should bear in mind that practical solutions to the problems at hand were needed. Members asked questions to understand the Department’s thinking on the issues raised. The Committee were South African public representatives and it was in their interest that the rhino stock was not depleted for the advantage of future generations. It was thus important to meet again and to include communities to get their views on all pertinent issues.

Ms Stander noted two questions were not responded to – the names of the panel of experts and the sales. She did not mind if the Department provided her with the information.

The Chairperson asked that the list of names be provided to him in writing.

Ms Ngcaba explained this information was not public knowledge as the individuals were not vetted yet as the Minister indicated she was not yet ready. The names of the panel would be published as soon as vetting processes were completed. On the sale, there were private owners which indicated an interest in the sale of rhino.

Mr Hofmeyr said SANParks and provincial parks had a very long history of selling wildlife through auctions or a tender process. The whole process of sale was under review to correct certain governance practices. After bids were received, a process of vetting and security took place with visiting areas in the future if more than 20 rhino were sold. There was a fairly strict process which would be followed with the involvement from both the provinces and DEA.

The Chairperson noted this was basically an open process although it was still within the ambit of conservation. He asked who ownership resided with after a sale occurred following a tender process.

Mr Hofmeyr answered that animals were either donated or exchanged for land or for other animal species. More recently, custodianship was engaged with where people kept animals but did not own them as the province was actually charged with overseeing the relevant legislation. With the current security situation and where a large number of rhino were involved, the relationship needed to be improved through a joint agreement with government and private owners. The critical component was to get rhino out and breeding in secure locations.

Ms Ngcaba said the key issue was not for owners to start trophy hunts immediately so that the rhino population numbers stabilised. This caused a delay in the delivery of rhino, as portrayed in the media, to ensure agreements were watertight. This was called “put and take” in conservation language.

Mr Mxgitama said the area remained unclarified and he would like to see the documents governing translocation to gain an idea on what actually happened. He thought there was subsidisation by the state to private owners without benefit to society. The EFF did not believe rhino could be protected under colonialism or neoliberalism which was a broader political issue and a problem of the Chairperson and his party and not the Department.

The Chairperson asked that engagement on ideological perspectives be held another time as the political perspective was worth engaging. It was important to look at whether conservation only occurred under state ownership or if it occurred with communities and private owners. Policy would be discussed at another time but the agreement was that rhino should not be poached no matter where they were held.

Doha Amendment of Kyoto Protocol to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Ms Judy Beaumont, DEA, DDG: Climate Change and Air Quality Management, began by providing an overview of what the briefing would address. The UNFCCC came into force in 1994 to set global objectives for the reduction of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The Framework focused on emission reduction, adaptation and response measures between developed (Annex. 2) and developing (Annex. 1) countries.

Looking at the rules of the game, for the longest time there had been a distinction between the responses, responsibilities and capabilities of developed and developing countries with the historical responsibility lying with developed countries being responsible for emissions in the past. The overriding responsibility, historically, for developing countries was poverty eradication, economic development and growth.

The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 which set legally binding timeframes and targets for industrialised countries for the six main GHG emissions at 5% below 1990 levels. This was the first commitment period which concluded in 2012.

Ms Beaumont turned to the current context noting that it was informed by a change in the global world order and a rise of emerging developing countries like China, India, Brazil and SA. A big point was that the USA did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol and therefore was not legally bound to commitments and this created economic competitiveness. In 2007 there was the almost two-track Bali road map following tough negotiations. Bali set up a new negotiating framework and a balance between the groupings of countries for comparable binding emission reduction commitments. This was the start of a more comprehensive system. This was meant to be fully negotiated at COP15 in Copenhagen but this COP did not have a multi-lateral outcome and the negotiations continued into COP16, 17 and 18 in 2012.

It was at this point that an emergence of two competing negotiating paradigms was being seen. The competing paradigms were (1) the top-down, Kyoto style, paradigm of a legally binding multilateral framework and conclusive international commitments involving all countries for fair and equitable participation informed by science and, (2) a bottom-up, pledge and review style, with a unilateral system with domestic targets informed by domestic economies and policies and domestically legal commitments. Overall, the bottom-up approach was advocated for quite strongly by, what was called in negotiating terms, the umbrella group of countries including the USA, Australia, Russia, Japan and New Zealand while the top-down approach was advocated by a fairly mixed grouping of countries mostly in the developing world.

The Durban deal was absolutely critical and groundbreaking in the sense that it was the framework which brought together these two competing paradigms focusing on urgent implementation up to 2020, maintaining the legal commitments of the Kyoto Protocol by negotiating a second commitment period post-2012 and comparable emission reduction targets for developed countries which did not join the Kyoto Protocol.

Ms Beaumont said the central issues for future negotiations continued to be the distinction between the top-down and bottom-up models although the Durban platform balanced both models. Another question was whether the platform would include a third commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol as the second commitment period ended in 2020. There was unfinished business in terms of equity, comparability and symmetry of commitments between developed and developing countries, transparency and accountability vs. compliance and mandates which fell under other conventions such as intellectual property rights, trade in terms of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), bunker fuels and agriculture. There were also questions around urgency and operating structures.

SA’s priorities included emphasising urgency and taking action now, providing support to developing countries that experienced loss and damage from droughts and floods etc which Minister Molewa negotiated in Doha (2012) and Warsaw (2013) and capitalisation of the Green Climate Fund. For the future, SA needed to ensure adaptation was at the heart of the 2015 agreement, push mitigation and laying the foundation for emission reduction pledges for all countries in the lead up to Paris (2015). Ambition would also be discussed in that there were ways to incentivise and recognising additional action.

In terms of future outcomes under the Ad-Hoc Working Group of the Durban Platform (ADP), Ms Beaumont said a decision was needed to set out the key components of the 2015 outcome to be adopted as the basis of a negotiating text. This was in preparation for Lima (2014) along with intended national commitments to address mitigation, adaptation, technology, finance and capacity building from both a South African and African group perspective. Developed countries were arguing for a sole focus on emission reduction and that adaptation could come on a voluntary basis. For this SA was engaging with stakeholders to determine our national intended contribution and this was a confirmation of the 2009 commitment made by President Zuma at the Copenhagen negotiation that SA would implement nationally appropriate mitigation actions that would collectively result in 34% and 42% reduction against Business As Usual (BAU) by 2025.

SA expectations of the 2015 agreement, or what it saw as key elements of the 2015 new legal agreement inclusive of all parties, was to reinforce the multilateral rules base system, implement and contribute to the ultimate objectives of the convention to ensure sufficient global reductions for the adaptation of ecosystems and to ensure food security, inclusivity, equity and fair application to all parties, effectiveness based on the sound science of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees, enable and enhance the transition to lower emissions and sustainable pathways and to give equal priority to adaptation to enable developing countries transition to lower-carbon and climate resilient economies.

Looking at the way forward on actual negotiations, this year was quite an active one given that it was billed internationally as the “year of ambition” because under the Kyoto Protocol, parties under the second commitment period were expected to revisit their commitments to push up their mitigation ambitions. The UN Secretary-General was hosting a high-level climate summit on 23 September 2014 just before the UN General Assembly with the purpose of building the political momentum to ensure a successful outcome in Paris. President Zuma’s office had indicated he would be attending as there was very good attendance from other African countries given the pressure on developing countries to make announcements on the kind of ambitions they were committing to. From an SA perspective, the most important part of the climate change summit was to build the momentum to get a positive political agreement in Lima to enable us to secure an outcome and conclude the negotiations on a new legal agreement at the end of 2015 in Paris.

Ms Beaumont explained the national climate change response policy, adopted by Cabinet in 2011, underpinned the country’s national implementation process and was a very well consulted policy with extensive stakeholder participation informed by extensive research. The policy’s two objectives were (1) to focus on climate change impacts through interventions which built and sustained SA’s socioeconomic and environment resilience and emergency capacity and (2) to make a fair contribution to stabilising global GHG emissions. The vision of the policy was embedded in the National Development Plan (NDP) in terms of the transition to a lower-carbon economy, developmental, transformational, needs-driven, evidence-based and informed by good decision making. The developmental target was critical and the basis of SA’s international position.

The briefing concluded by noting that as SA entered into the negotiations, our intended national contributions needed to be determined and presented in the first quarter of 2015 along with the work done to reduce emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. A lot of this work could be done with SA’s own resources but assistance would be needed with negotiated technology agreements which was were the Department of Science and Technology came in, and assistance with the impact on jobs with help from the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked what was being done as a country when agreements were reached because there was a national responsibility as climate change impacts was already felt. Some of the heavy storms experienced currently were directly as a result of the change in the climate scenario in the North West, Mpumalanga and to a certain extent in KZN as well. There were also rising sea levels threatening many islands because of the changing weather and climate patterns. Current energy sources had also a negative impact. He thought there should be an easier way to communicate these issues to the people of SA.

Mr Mngixtama did not believe a word of what was said in the presentation. The SA policy agreements and industrial strategy basically surrendered to private capital while the trajectory of economic development in SA, including the NPD, had nothing to do with averting the natural disasters faced. There were no means to deal with ecological debt or how these particular matters would be handled at a community level. His party did not believe there was a particular policy environment despite documentation and SA was one of the biggest emitters despite being a developing country. As a matter of urgency the earthquake recently experienced should be discussed as it was directly linked to mining and more such occurrences would be experienced. He could not trust the analysts and their spirited attempts to explain SA’s trajectory to avert ecological disasters. Other countries were doing much better, like Bolivia, while in SA there was no clear policy and business as usual continued. More work needed to be done.

The Chairperson said they would have to agree to disagree. The position of SA was one of all developing countries because the reality was that there were technologies for GHG emissions in the coal stations currently being built and the country had committed there would not be business as usual. SA, as a developing country, was different to those already developed.

Mr Mngxitama felt the Chairperson was abusing his position.

The Chairperson felt it was only correct to respond so that silence was not seen as agreement. He was a member of the ANC, the ruling party, and Mr Mngxitama was attacking its policies including the NDP. The NDP spoke of renewable energy and a putting a stop to fossil fuels as an energy source. All points needed to be considered.

Ms Ngcaba said it was true that the NDP had a chapter on the transition to a low carbon economy - but there may be contradictions in the way in which this happened between various policies. The emphasis was on reducing emissions for whatever energy source was used but nuclear energy was such way to do so. This did raise concerns of radioactive waste from a nuclear power station but in SA no such problems were experienced with the Koeberg power station. The concerns were more around safety than environmental emissions. SA’s policy was based on mixed energy sources, at this point, between fossil fuels, renewable energy and nuclear. The Department had also conducted a study on shale gas but benefits and emissions depended if the gas would be mostly exported or not. All these areas were being navigated.

Mr Mabilo fully agreed with the Chairperson’s views. He had the privilege to attend COP17 in Durban in 2011 in another capacity and he was impressed with the ground covered by SA on climate change as a developing country, even though there was still room for improvement. An ostrich approach to climate change was not useful but the reality needed to be faced with a pragmatic approach. He felt the country’s approach could not be criticised without properly looking into the policies. He also attended the negotiations in Warsaw and credit needed to be given because government was doing exceptionally well under the circumstances. He was concerned about companies and industry as the biggest emitters yet there was no timeframe for them to submit their mitigation plans. He did not want to be pessimistic approaching the next COP in Lima but what was the worst case scenario if the political agreement was not reached? Overall, he was satisfied with the presentation.

The Chairperson asked what the global implications would be if a political agreement was not reached in Lima or Paris.

Mr Wills said that the deadlines would then not be met for a system beyond 2020. There were a number of options thereafter: continue negotiating or it could start the collapsing of a multilateral system where groups of countries, like the umbrella group, would form partnerships with the USA or China so there would be a degeneration of common rules for a hostile unilateral world. This was already being seen with the so-called “green sanctions” being put up for trade agreements and markets. The fundamental point was to take a multilateral cooperative approach so all efforts needed to go into obtaining a political agreement as there were actually big interests in not reaching a multilateral agreement.

Ms Ngcaba explained that with industry deadlines, analysis on mitigation was being done. The plan was to mitigate for the best scenario but depending on how government set mitigation objectives would determine industry timeframes for submission of industry mitigation plans. It was therefore premature to outline expected timelines now.

Ms Beaumont added the target was 1 January 2016 for the first five year timeframe for emission reduction objectives or carbon budgets for industry.

The Chairperson would have liked more time for further engagement but he joked that engagement would continue until Mr Mngxitama understood there was no other options for a best possible scenario as a developing country. These best options must be proven by science so that there was no thumb-sucking.

Ms Beaumont stated that if SA ratified the second agreement of the Kyoto Protocol, or the Doha Agreement, it would serve as an additional instrument in SA’s toolkit of engagement so the Department recommended the ratification of this Amendment be tabled in the National Assembly.

The Chairperson knew the second amendment had been tabled before Parliament but it had not been sent to the Committee for consideration – this needed to happen but it could only come to the Committee from the House and not from the Department.

Ms Ngcaba proposed that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) could be discussed next week when the Department presented the Auditor-General (AG) Report to the Committee. This would also prepare the Members for the public hearings as it was on the agenda for these hearings.

The Chairperson thought a friendlier way of explaining negotiations needed to be sought for community engagement including SA’s role in the world system of climate change negotiations. He thanked the Department for the briefings - it was an important engagement. Such interactions would continue

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: