Status of Air Quality in South Africa: briefing by Department and civil society, with Minister present

Meeting report

Election of Acting Chairperson
Ms Tyhileka Madubela, Committee Secretary, opened the meeting by asking for nominations to appoint an Acting Chairpersonm in terms of Rule 130 of the National Assembly.

Mr Z Makhubele (ANC) nominated Mr P Mabilo (ANC).

This was seconded by X Mabasa (ANC).

The nomination was accepted, and there were no further nominations or objections.

The Acting Chairperson indicated that the Minister would be joining the meeting later. He was deeply heartened that the Chairperson, Mr Jackson Mthembu, was out of the ICU and in a general ward and was recovering very well. He was saddened by the fatal shooting of the SA football captain, Senzo Meyiwa. The Committee extended its heartfelt condolences to the family.

A moment of silence was observed by the Committee.

The Chairperson read out a notice highlighting the oversight visit on air quality to Zamdela, Sasolburg, Vaal Triangle and Tshwane, scheduled for 24-28 November 2014.

National Status of Air Quality and Air Quality Standards
Ms Judy Beaumont, DDG: Climate Change and Air Quality, DEA, said the presentation would take Members comprehensively through the legal framework around air quality and its key provisions. Section 21, Minimum Emission Standards, would be focused on, along with the listed activities and processes for dealing with postponement applications. The critical issue was one of health, and the matter of air quality sharply brought sustainable development to the fore, as people were directly affected. There was a careful balance between development and peoples’ right to air quality for health and wellbeing. 

Dr Thuli Mdluli, DEA Chief Director: Air Quality Management, said that from 1965 to 2005, the approach to air quality management in SA had been informed and driven by the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act (Act No. 45 of 1965) (APPA). APPA was regarded as ineffective, as it had not defended SA’s air quality from the emergence of various air pollution “hotspots” around the country. APPA was broadly regarded as being outdated and not conforming to the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act (1998), the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (2000) and the Promotion of Access to Information Act (2000).

The National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (39), “AQA”, was established in 2004. The legislation represented a distinct shift from exclusively source-based air pollution control to holistic and integrated effects-based air quality management, focused on adverse impacts of air pollution on the ambient environment, set standards for pollutant levels in ambient air and set emission standards to minimise the amount of pollution that entered the atmosphere. On 30 March 2010, APPA was effectively laid to rest by the Minister.  

Dr Mdluli explained that the objective of NEMA: AQA was generally to give effect to Section 24 (b) of the Constitution in order to enhance the quality of ambient air for the sake of securing an environment that was not harmful to the health and well-being of people, to protect the environment by providing reasonable measures for the protection and enhancement of the quality of air in SA, prevent air pollution and ecological degradation and secure ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and social development.  

The National Framework that this legislation set included, among others, mechanisms, systems and procedures to attain compliance with ambient air quality standards, national norms and standards for the control of emissions from point and non-point sources, national norms and standards for air quality monitoring and any other matter which the Minister considered necessary for achieving the object of the Act. This framework served as a blueprint for air quality management and aimed to achieve the air quality objectives as described in the preamble of the NEMA: AQA.

The Minister must, in the national framework, establish national standards for municipalities and provinces to monitor ambient air quality, among other requirements, in order to report compliance with ambient air quality standards. Different spheres of government had invested in continuous air pollution monitoring hardware across the country to meet this objective. The NEMA: AQA defined air quality that was not harmful to health and well-being through national ambient air quality standards. In essence, this represented acceptable levels of pollution beyond which the people were deprived of their Section 24 right to air that was safe and not harmful to their health and well-being, and reflected the continuous improvement approach of the NEMA: AQA

Dr Mdluli spoke to the appointment of air quality officers, noting that the Minister, MEC and each municipality must designate an official within their jurisdictions and such persons must be responsible for co-ordinating air quality management in their respective spheres. Air Quality Officers’ functions were further stipulated in the national framework. Development of air quality management plans (AQMPs) was also required of provinces and municipalities and for the latter to include their AQMPs in their integrated development plans (IDPs).

The NEMA: AQA declared priority areas where ambient standards were being exceeded or the Minister or MEC reasonably believed that such may be the case. To date, three priority areas had been declared and action was under way to address the problems. These areas included the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area (VTAPA), the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) and the Waterberg-Bojanala Priority Area (WBPA). The main sources of pollution in these priority areas included domestic burning of dirty fuels in highly populated areas, dust and gaseous emissions from mining operations, industrial emissions (various industrial complexes) and vehicle tail-pipe emissions.  

Controlled emitters were also declared where there were significant sources in terms of cumulative impacts, but single pollution units did not cause major problems. These emitters did not require an Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) to operate.

Plans for the future included continued implementation of the NEMA: AQA and its national framework, establishment of an asset management system to ensure efficiencies in air quality monitoring and live reporting of the State of Air, with health messages on bill boards in highly populated areas. There was also the win-win solution offered by the Emissions Offset Guidelines for Air Quality Management.

Discussion
Ms T Stander (DA) was glad to see such strong civic action on the issue of air quality and would support the role of the Committee. She wanted to find out about the progress of how many provinces were complying with the legal framework as well as the capacity of provinces and municipalities to comply.  She wanted to know when each national priority area had been declared, what corrective steps had been taken to intervene in these areas, and the progress in those interventions. For each priority area, she wanted the main contributors named. She wanted to know the Department’s view on the “polluter pays” principle, and if there was any move to charge tariffs on manufacturing processes on companies. 

Dr Mdluli said two areas, the Vaal and Highveld, had been declared in 2007 and Waterberg had been declared in 2010/11. Once priority areas were declared, the air quality manager in the area (appointed by the Minister) would begin with the baseline report on the current status of air before establishing what the aim was, and put interventions in place to meet those targets. Some plans were industry specific and the progress of implementation would be monitored against those plans. There were also targets for each sphere of government to reduce emissions. The significant emitters included Eskom, Sasol, steel manufacturers and other big industries, but the Committee would be provided a list of industries, along with their targets for compliance. The Department was considering the “polluter pays” principle, but it needed to come with a comprehensive understanding of how much was emitted by each polluter in order to be sure if charges should be introduced. The introduction of the atmospheric emissions inventory would assist the Department to understand the exact contribution of each emitter in the country before the next step was investigated. Currently, the cost of health effects was borne by the state and there was no mechanism for polluters themselves to pay the heath costs. Investing in curbing air pollution would amount to investing in decreasing the health budget for the country. 

Mr Makhubele asked if all municipalities had by-laws. For those that did not have by-laws, what was the deadline for when these by-laws were to be in place? The main issue was to ensure that municipalities had the capacity to enforce by-laws. He did not believe there was a lack of alternative sources, but rather that there was not readiness to roll-out such sources to communities. He questioned if the Department’s data collection was reliable at all times. 

Dr Mdluli answered that municipalities had by-laws, and the progress on how many municipalities had adopted the by-laws could be provided to Members. Some municipalities were in the process of adopting by-laws, while others had already implemented them very effectively to control local sources of air pollution. For example, Johannesburg and Cape Town had by-laws, and the latter city even had diesel emitting vehicle by-laws which were being implemented.

She agreed with the comment on the lack of alternative energy sources. In her view, SA needed unique solutions. Other countries had ease of controlling air pollution through command and control. For example, in the London city centre, coal could not be burnt. In SA, such an approach would be problematic, as many people would be negatively affected. 

She said the data collected was very reliable and the Committee would be able to see the specific monitoring stations on the oversight visit. Of course there were challenges here and there -- for example, with maintenance -- but the data recorded and collected was state of the art. The station was measuring the average air quality every five minutes and in this way, SA was leading the rest of the world with air quality monitoring.  

Mr T Bonhomme (ANC) questioned what action was taken when there was non-compliance, and asked about educational programmes in rural areas. 

Dr Mdluli replied that there was a suite of problems in SA contributing to bad air quality, and all air problems needed to be addressed collectively. This included domestic and industry problems. A huge problem was the scarcity of skills, which was being dealt with.

The Chairperson noted a formal apology from the Deputy Minister due to prior commitments in Bombela, Mpumalanga.

Mr T Hadebe (DA) noted that not all provinces and municipalities had air quality officers – why was this? He also questioned the timelines around which air quality offices were to report on ambient air quality in their respective areas – was reporting done quarterly, monthly, weekly or daily? He was very worried about the hotspots and non-functional stations - what was being done to resolve the problem and collect the critical data needed?

Dr Mdluli explained there were different levels of capacity in the municipalities, but most officials responsible for air quality had other duties over and above that. For example, one official could deal with waste, air quality and other environmental aspects. There were challenges in all spheres of government and the issue then became about adequate resources available for municipalities to carry out their mandated functions.  

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Ms Edna Molewa, who he noted was consistent in attending all Committee meetings. He asked Members if any of their questions had not been adequately responded to. 

Mr Hadebe noted that his question on monitoring stations not currently being operational had not been answered – what was currently being done to resolve this problem?

Dr Mdluli explained there were different reasons why stations were not operational. In most cases, it was the lack of resources and competing demands on the budgets of municipalities. It was found budgets were allocated to pressing service delivery issues. Monitoring stations were machinery and required maintenance. Going forward, it would be ensured there were proper maintenance plans in place and proper resource allocation for each station, even before it had been purchased. The SA Weather Service was working with some municipalities to revive some of the stations, so there were interventions. The Minister had instructed the establishment of an asset management system to deal with the situation proactively.

Dr B Holomisa (UDM) suggested that in future the Department should provide the Committee with a breakdown of companies improving their technology after inspectors/monitors visited the plants and premises physically and found non-compliance. This would do the matter justice. Talking about legislation would not take the issue any further – action needed to be seen. He had been in Parliament since 1994, and there had always been talk about legislation, but no talk of action, and as a result companies were not complying. This was seen in companies taking the Department to court. In today’s Business Day newspaper, he had read that Sasol was investing R88 billion to build a plant similar to Sekunda in the USA. He was interested to find out if the technology used would be the same, or money would be spent on improving the technology, seeing as it was an overseas investment. He thought the problem lay in the old technology companies were using – given the sanctions against SA, the country was about 20 years behind in its technology. Had the country caught up? It was important to zoom into where the problem was, because Members knew the legislation. However, was it being implemented or complied with?

Dr Mdluli said that she could provide a list of companies improving their technology to the Committee. There were already companies complying with 2020 emission standards, where significant investments had been made. With the Sasol investment in clean air, the Department looked forward to such investments. 

Minister Molewa said the Member was right, that NEMA had been formulated a long time ago and at the time, SA did not really have respectable environmental laws. It took four and half years just to formulate the policy, because Members and Ministers at the time engaged with people for consultation and empowerment. Gradually, the Department was working on the building blocks of compliance, especially on keeping individuals accountable for pollution. There had been an attempt to take the Department backward, and if this was achieved it would be a big problem and meant there needed to be a review of certain aspects of the law. It was within the rights of SA as a democracy to turn to the courts if this was needed. The Department needed to ensure its own case was in order and continue with the implementation of the law for the good of all South Africans without fear or favour. This was exactly what would be done. The information pertaining to companies would be provided.

Ms Stander asked why controlled emitters did not require AEL/EIA. She thought SA was in a unique position to balance people, the environment and the economy very carefully. These pillars were intrinsically linked, but what was the Department doing to influence government to promote legislation inviting investment in green technology? For example, Eskom was a state-owned enterprise which was not complying with environmental legislation, Effectively, these two departments were working against each other’s efforts. DEA’s mandate was to prevent air pollution and enhance air quality and it was the responsibility of DEA to ensure that processes in other departments were moving in a more environmentally friendly direction through proactive guidance and intelligence. She asked where the process of Eskom’s application for an exemption was currently at, and how this process would affect another major contributor like Sasol.    

Ms Mdluli clarified that for EIAs, companies had to produce mitigation plans and meet a number of compliance standards. The controlled emitters were much smaller companies in size, and the cost for them would be much higher, but their emissions still needed to be controlled. These controlled emitters operated within certain set limits. With the applications for exemption, the legislation was put in place after most industries were already operational. There were transitional arrangements to allow time for industries already in operation to comply with the legislation at the time. Some of the polluters had never been regulated, prior to the legislation commencing in 2010. Some industries could apply for postponement of compliance timelines in terms of the transitional arrangements, but this was not to say that industries should never comply. There was nothing in the legislation allowing industries to be exempt from ever complying with legislation. Some applicants had abused the legislation, constantly asking for exemptions. If Sasol won the case, this would mean the legislation would be set aside. This was why everything was being done so that this did not occur. Such a judgment would affect the whole industry.

Minister Molewa said the three pillars of sustainable development were the environment, people and the economy. None was elevated above another – each was equally important. The Department’s emission standards were in the legislation, climate change response strategy and the green development strategy, and these three pillars were driven together. The Department had looked into offsets as another mechanism, but not the only one, in working toward compliance. Offsets, she emphasized, were in addition to compliance. The Department had no such thing as exemptions – if the Department wanted exemptions, it would be written in the law.

She was often asked why exemption applications were granted to industries, but there was no such thing. Companies asked for exemption but the answer was simple – there was exemption in the law. She asked that this issue not be discussed again. Postponement could be discussed going forward, but it would have to be very tightly monitored. Certain industries were identified which, at some stage, may have to close down because their emissions would not be able to be curbed. Through the proactive Green Growth Strategy, the Department worked with all other departments on emission reductions and pollution control. One of the studies recently released by the Department for public consultation, called the mitigation potential scenario, looked at short-term measures with a low or zero cost. She had received a parliamentary question on what the Department was doing to make Parliament “green,” but this was a question for Members themselves. DEA had a green building itself.

The Chairperson noted the Committee would be visiting this green building. 

Mr Hadebe wanted to know when the critical monitoring stations would be fully operational. 

Dr Mdluli explained the stations were measuring air quality, but the data was just not meeting the requirements of the state of air. The Department would provide the Committee with the plans for dealing with these stations, together with the SA Weather Service. 

Compliance Presentation
Mr Ishaam Abader, DEA DDG: Compliance, Inspections, Monitoring and Enforcement, said that historically, the challenges included outdated legislation and permits, low penalties and poorly drafted permits, and no effective monitoring. New legislation had been introduced in 2004, with an appropriate penalty system, but various sections had commenced later. There were staggered time periods for compliance with standards and lengthy processes when non-compliance detected related to old, dirty technologies requiring significant monetary resources to correct. The capacity of local authorities to monitor compliance and enforce was also a challenge. 

Mr Grant Walters, DEA Director: Enforcement, explained that for joint strategic projects, initial baseline inspections were very comprehensive and detailed. The inspection report was issued to the facility and it was provided with an opportunity to come into compliance. Follow-up inspections were then conducted after a specific period, identifying the need for enforcement action. A number of facilities had not made progress, and the Department was in various stages of enforcement action. Some positive results of enforcement action taken in previous years included ArcelorMittal in Vereeniging. In response to an enforcement notice, it had commissioned a secondary extraction system to address the significant fugitive emissions at a cost of R220 million.  Assmang Cato Ridge had spent R100 million to commission its extraction system in response to enforcement action taken by the DEA.  

Discussion
Ms J Maluleke (ANC) asked which major SA companies contributed significantly to greenhouse emissions. Was the Department satisfied with the level of voluntary commitment? What was the magnitude of air pollution in terms of human health? 

Dr Mdluli explained there were many effects on human health from air pollution, ranging from respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular problems and people being more susceptible to TB and other infections, compared to someone who was not exposed to air pollution. The Department had begun a study in the Vaal area to understand the profile of people, especially the children, living in the area. In time, the study would be rolled out to other priority areas. 

Minister Molewa emphasised there had to be a link between the spending on health and ill health/death. This was why the study was being conducted to look at the effects on people over time.

Mr M Shelembe (IFP) questioned enforcement at the municipal level. He was concerned about the cost implication for municipalities needing to hire air quality officers. He wanted to know how confident the Department was that municipalities were able to appoint air quality officers and incorporate enforcement into their management and integrated development plans.    

Mr Abader explained this was a concurrent mandate between the national Department and local authorities. If local authorities were found to be lacking the capacity to carry out the mandate in enforcing compliance and taking the relevant action, the Department would assist. Municipalities were obliged to enforce compliance, but the Department would assist if they could not. Because it was a concurrent mandate, the Department could not answer on what was done by municipalities with their budgets, but allowance should be made for enforcement in the budgetary process.

Minister Molewa added concurrent functions needed to be budgeted. Treasury was working on empowering municipalities on concurrent functions through budgets.   

Mr Makhubele wanted to know which companies were reluctant to comply with administrative enforcement actions by the Department. This information was important for when Members conducted oversight.

Mr Abader indicated the Department conducted baseline studies in companies not complying. Those companies refusing to comply were then issued with pre-compliance notices. If there was still no compliance, companies were issued with a final compliance notice. The step following this was criminal prosecution, which was a slightly longer and tedious process.

Mr Hadebe was concerned about water used by Eskom, which was using sprinklers to wash away ash pollution. Did this water pollute water streams?  There was already Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) polluting water streams. He saw the Department had received R1.5 million from fines issued against companies – how was this money dispersed, or what would it be used for?

Mr Abader replied that unfortunately the R1.5 million went into the general fiscus. In Mpumalanga, the court ordered the offender to pay the Department’s coffers R4 million. This was quite nice, as the money had been used in enforcement operations which the National Treasury had been hesitant to fund. 

Minister Molewa added that she did not know of any hesitancy by Treasury for funding, but there was a bit of challenge. The Department could do better if it had some additional funding, and she would love it if the money from fines was ring fenced.  

With issues of water, Mr Abader said holistic audits were carried out, where an inspection team would go out on all related enforcement issues, including those of water. They were not limited to air quality compliance. If there were problems relating to water, compliance notices dealt with this as well.

Minister Molewa added other departments were also looking at compliance matters. The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) issued water licenses where the discharge of effluent was factored. DWS and the Blue Scorpions also conducted visits to check on aspects of water quality. AMD was not only coming from sprinklers, but also from unused mines. Government had intervened to draw the water out and remove the metals in it. AMD water then was not going through water steams. It was important to contextualise this so that people did not leave the meeting saying that AMD was flowing into rivers. 

Dr Holomisa thought that prosecution took a long time in SA. He wondered whether the Department should undertake a feasibility study or brief the Committee on administrative penalties to deter polluters, rather than prosecution. Administrative penalties could punish companies like the Competition Commission did through fines.

Mr Abader agreed that this was a good point. Prosecution was a long process and the ultimate decision of prosecution was up to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The Department had been approached to look at alternative means of enforcing compliance, and one of these tools was effective administrative means. The Department was currently looking at this. 

Minster Molewa added the Competition Commission was involved in much more elaborate investigative processes. Because of administrative justice, no one could institute punitive measures without process – administrative justice had to be applied anywhere and everywhere. Administrative justice meant there had to be some sort of enquiry, where persons could represent their cases. The SA Revenue Service (SARS) also investigated matters through their commissioners. 

The Chairperson noted the Committee was running out of time. Any further questions from Members should be submitted in writing.

Centre for Environmental Rights: Air Quality: Transparency, Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement
Ms Robyn Hugo,  Staff Attorney, Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) began the presentation by referring to the importance of section 24 of the Constitution, which outlined “reasonable legislative measures” to protect the environment and improve air quality. However, affected communities (and the general public) struggled to access information as basic as atmospheric emission licences (AELs) which contained the conditions set by authorities under which significant polluters may operate. For example, the CER requested refinery AELs and compliance reports from all refineries and municipal licensing authorities in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), which gave effect to the constitutional right of access to information. The CER received only one complete AEL -- from Chevron, in Cape Town. Every other response argued that the records contained commercial and/or confidential information. This was despite the fact that refineries emitted highly hazardous pollutants and many had a history of accidents with impacts on human health.  

Communities and the public had the right to know. The principle issue of transparency and public participation in environmental governance was expressly provided for in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). In the court case of Carstensen AJ, VEJA v AMSA (10/09/13) it was noted: “The participation in environmental governance, the assessment of compliance, the motivation of the public, the mobilisation of public, the dissemination of information does not usurp the role of the State but constitutes a vital collaboration between the State and private entities in order to ensure achievement of constitutional objectives.”

Strict compliance monitoring and enforcement was an effective and immediate way to change polluter behaviour. Despite significant emissions and ongoing exceeding of ambient air quality standards in priority areas, very limited enforcement action was under way and very few Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) were designated. As at June 2014, only two local authority EMIs were designated (with six trained) in the whole of Mpumalanga. It was essential to improve, given the spate of applications for new mines, coal-fired power stations and several applications to postpone compliance with minimum emission standards (MES), or to vary and appeal AELs to allow increased emissions. For example, Eskom had applied to postpone compliance for 16 stations, coupled with applications to vary licences to allow it to emit more than currently allowed. Subsequently, Eskom had also applied for immediate variations for four other stations.

Another serious threat to air quality was Sasol, with operations in both Secunda and Sasolburg, and Natref, who had taken the Minister and National Air Quality Officers to court, seeking to set aside MES. Until MES were set again, these industries had said they would comply with alternative emission standards that they had determined. These industries argued MES was unconstitutional, unreasonable and in breach of NEMA. This matter had extremely far-reaching implications, undoing many years of hard work to achieve air quality not harmful to health or wellbeing.

 
Incidents/Accidents and Failure of Government: South Durban Community Environmental Alliance
Mr Bongani Mthembu, South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA): Air Quality Officer, said that over the past years, the SDCEA had been working with the Ethekwini health department, offering its experience and knowledge in many strategic plans for the management of odours in EThekwini, hoping it would enhance the health and well-being of the communities of south Durban and the surrounding areas. The SDCEA did not consider both parties working in isolation, because the SDCEA knew they needed each other to improve living conditions for the communities of south Durban.

The SDCEA was an environmental justice and human rights organisation, made up of 16 affiliates. It had received a slap in the face from the Ethekwini health department with its refusal to provide the SDCEA with information regarding the air quality data from their air monitoring stations that informed the organisation about the level of pollution that communities were exposed too. The SDCEA, as the representatives of the communities of south Durban, was entitled to receive this information. Since 2011 to date, no data had been received from the department, regardless of having written emails and more than 24 letters to the department.

Mr Mthembu explained on 16 and 19 September 2014, stakeholder meetings had been held in Durban with DEA, Ethekwini health authorities, Ground Work, SDCEA and community members, where the local authorities agreed they would release the information. To SDCEA’s surprise, nothing had been forthcoming. This was a slap in the face of the organsiation, and was very disappointing.

SDCEA was concerned that the emission levels from industry were triggering health problems such as respiratory diseases, cancer, leukemia, skin and other related sicknesses. SDCEA was aware that the industrial fence-line neighbours, like the chemical and petro-chemical industries, had been protected for years with either minimum laws or in some cases no law at all. In south Durban, despite the installation of 14 monitoring stations, they had measured only five chemicals out of a total of 300 class one chemicals. There was a lack of political will to enforce the law, where serious violations of the permit conditions took place on a daily basis.

Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance Presentation
Ms Nomcebo Makhubelo, Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance: Coordinator, explained the Highveld was the home of coal mining and coal fired power stations. This resulted in people being displaced from farms and homes. Roads were highly unsafe due to coal transportation and caused a lot of dust and accidents. Abandoned mines were a huge problem, and caused major danger to the communities close by. People were falsely promised jobs and had to be moved to safer, inhabitable areas.

Air pollution was a major problem, with many health impacts that were not taken into consideration when mining developments were taking place. Government urged people to save water -- so that industries had enough to waste. She urged the Committee to consider the lives of people before profits and economic greed.

Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance Presentation
Mr Samson Mokoena, Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) Project Coordinator, began the presentation by indicating the big polluters in the Vaal were the Eskom power stations, agricultural activities and coal burning. The Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area (VTAPA) had been developed but it had not been fully implemented. There was a lack of participation by big industries to share its Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) and the air quality in the Vaal Triangle had not improved.

The main objective of the development of AQMPs for the VTAPA was to reduce the air pollution. This plan was to ensure that once implemented, the air quality of the area would effectively and efficiently be brought to acceptable levels, but this had not been achieved.

The health of people in the Vaal was being compromised, as it was eight years since the area had been declared and the air pollution had not decreased. The communities were still awaiting the results of the health study that was being carried out by the DEA’s consultants, and during this time, the health of communities continued to be compromised.
 

Mr Mokoena explained that with intervention strategies, industry had developed its plans – but nobody had seen them and/or monitored them. Government interventions were also not working, as they focused on the Basa-Njengo Magogo. Civil society was not participating fully as it lacked resources, especially to attend meetings, and it could not implement its own programmes.  

GroundWork Presentation
Mr Bobby Peek, GroundWork: Director, said GroundWork’s presentation would focus on two of its reports. These were “The Health Impact of Coal” -- the responsibility that coal-fired power stations bear for ambient air quality associated health impacts (20 May 2014); and “Slow Poison”: air pollution, public health and failing governance -- a story of air pollution and the political failure to protect South Africans from pollution (June 2014). The latter report documented the collapse of air quality regulation in SA. It had come out just as the country had gone to the elections, and it was hoped that the incoming politicians at all levels would understand the urgency of the situation.

The “Health Impact of Coal” report reviewed 36 peer studies, drawing on available academic peer reviewed literature, government statistics and other reports. The desktop study attempted to understand the contribution that the coal industry and Eskom made to the health risk of the people of the Mpumalanga Highveld. Eskom’s coal-fired electricity generation was responsible for 51% of hospital admissions and 51% of mortalities due to respiratory illnesses caused by outdoor air pollution. This was three times the impact from outdoor pollution due to domestic coal burning. 54% of deaths from air pollution-related cardio-vascular diseases could be attributed to Eskom’s electricity generation, compared to 16% attributed to domestic coal burning.

The “Slow Poison” report highlighted non-compliance of industries (and weak governance), noting that “despite all of the legislation that has been promulgated to protect the environment, and the measures introduced to make it easier to prosecute environmental crime, the environment continues to be degraded at an alarming rate”. The report stated: “Sasol’s Secunda plant in Mpumalanga was in significant non-compliance with conditions of numerous authorizations,” along with other industries of note like Samancor, Highveld Steel, ArcelorMittal and Natal Portland Cement. Reasons for non-compliance included under-staffing and under-funding, while the criminal justice system was both overloaded and short on environmental expertise, and penalties were too light.

Mr Peek said the “Slow Poison” report focused on the exemption from MES with continuing impunity. The 1965 Air Pollution Prevention Act (an old British law of 1905) had been a licence to pollute. In 1995, Engen and Shell/BP (SAFREF) would reduce pollution of ambient air quality only if standards were exceeded. In 2001, the oil refinery and chemical industry had pushed for voluntary agreements in a ‘voluntary approach’ to environmental governance. The 2004 National Environmental Management Act: Air Quality Bill had no “mandatory national emission standards aimed at minimising air pollution from industrial sources”. Section 7(1)(c) of the Act stated that the Minister must establish “national norms and standards for the control of emissions from point and non-point sources.” In June 2013, Eskom was absent from new emission negotiations, and announced it would seek exemptions from the MES.

There was an external cost of the environmental and health burden from the use of coal for energy production during each stage of coal’s extraction, transportation, combustion and disposal. Two studies in the US and the European Union had proved that for every $1 invested in emission reduction, there would be a saving of $25 in the long run.

GroundWork was asking the Committee to consider that all listed industries should meet the most stringent emission standards, and there should be no exemptions. A transparent air quality information regime was promised when the Air Quality Act was promulgated. It was required by law, and must be implemented. Local ambient air monitoring systems must be developed or restored, together with the regulatory authorities’ capacity to operate them and use the data for effective enforcement. On this foundation of real knowledge and with the participation of local communities, regulatory authorities must develop and implement credible plans to reduce pollution levels.

There must be real penalties to deter violations.  DEA should therefore initiate a process to introduce significant civil and administrative penalties, including daily fines for exceeding the AEL. The Durban health study had corroborated community claims and the conclusions of that study must be taken seriously and its recommendations acted on. The lessons from that study were relevant to other pollution hotspots, as well as to Durban.

Discussion
Mr Bonhomme said he had not come across any fundamental examination of the effects on communities.

Mr Hadebe asked that the relevant NGOs brief the Committee before it conducted its oversight visits, to do justice to their concerns.

Dr Holomisa noted the President had committed SA to reducing emissions drastically at the COP15 in Copenhagen. It would therefore be important that all views involved be represented at the next COP in Lima, Peru, so as not just to paint a rosy picture. A comprehensive report was needed that restated government’s commitment to address these issues. 

Ms Stander thought it was fair that the Minister had asked Members what they were doing to reduce Parliament’s carbon footprint. The Committee should take note of how its actions contributed to the carbon footprint and emissions. The Committee should as far as possible try to keep printing and similar activities to a minimum.

The Chairperson would engage the NGOs on its oversight visits to the areas outlined.

Minister Molewa wished she had the whole day available, because discussion was necessary. She suggested a public hearing on this matter, in addition to the oversight visit. It was always important to remember everyone was in the matter together and it was an evolving issue in SA. Compliance needed to be enforced without fear or favour, with sustainable development always in mind.

She had heard the subtle statement in the presentation that government was not doing anything – she wanted this dispelled. People were now held personally liable, and government was really working hard. Progress in South Durban, for example, was significant, where before people could not even breathe. The same could be said for the Vaal Triangle, given the measuring tools. Work was still needed in Mpumalanga. She asked that exemption be expelled from the books of government and mouths of people, because it was not there. She trusted that postponement be investigated and minds applied to the matter. As far as she knew, the Department provided the information needed. With Sasol, she thought the Department should look at what technology it was using in its new investments. 
 

The meeting was adjourned.