Paris COP 21 Agreement; Alien and invasive species list; Environmental Assessment Practitioners / Professional Hunters regulations

Meeting report

Brieifng on Paris COP21 Agreement report
Mr Maesela Kekana, Chief Director of International Climate Change Relations and Negotiations, stated that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - an international environmental treaty – had reached a milestone agreement in 2015 at the conference held in Paris, France. He reminded the Committee that South Africa had hosted the 17th Convention (COP17) in 2011, which had mandated the negotiation of the Paris COP21 Agreement. 196 countries had adopted the Paris COP21 Agreement, which now required ratification by participating member countries, in accordance with their relevant legal processes.  The Agreement would function as a legal instrument to guide the universal action to address climate change, with the primary objective of slowing the yearly increase in global average temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the Agreement seeks to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Mr Kekana stated that without these limitations, “…we [the global community] are going to enter a different world altogether”.

As it is still currently a broad legal framework, the COP21 agreement requires the development of rules and procedures in preparation for its scheduled entry into force by 2020. For this purpose, the convening parties launched an Ad Hoc Working Group for further technical deliberation. The Agreement to enter into force, required the ratification, approval and acceptance of at least 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2016, this threshold was achieved, with 79 parties having already ratified the agreement, accounting for around 60 percent of global emissions. These 79 countries include high-volume carbon emitters such as the United States of America (USA), China, Brazil, as well as 13 other African nations. Mr Kekana informed the Committee that ratification will maintain the political momentum within the international community, streamlining the multilateral effort to achieve the Global Adaptation Goals. Article 16 of the COP21 states that only parties that have ratified the agreement shall have decision-making powers at conferences, while those that have not done so will be awarded observer status. Moreover, all conforming parties are required to determine and communicate the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) every five years.

On the ratification process in South Africa, the Minister had signed the Paris Agreement on 21 April 2016 in New York, acting on behalf of the President. It was also noted that the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) had obtained the legal opinion of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. All provincial executive councils were consulted regarding the stipulations of the Paris Agreement, as well as South Africa’s position regarding the upcoming COP22, to be held in Marrakech in 2016. The implications for South Africa include the submission of NDC reports every five years; developing policies and measures to implement NDC’s; the submission of biennial reports to the UNFCCC on national circumstances, emissions and adaptation; and the implementation of a long-term low-carbon development strategy by 2020.

Mr Kekana argued that considering the political momentum and legal benefits of ratification, fast-tracking the implementation of the COP21 Agreement is within the national interest. Although substantial progress has thus far been made, upscaling of investments in renewable energy, public transport, energy efficiency, waste management and land restoration initiatives are required. On behalf of the DEA, Mr Kekana recommended that the ratification of the COP21 Agreement on Climate Change is approved by Parliament.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the DEA for the briefing, stating that climate change was a reality, posing serious consequences to not only humanity, but all living beings.

Mr Jacques Julius (DA, Gauteng) requested clarification on the implications the COP21 Agreement may have for South Africa’s fossil fuel extraction sector, stating that this was not exclusively an environmental issue, but also an economic and developmental issue. Furthermore, he asked the delegation how far South Africa was from the 55 countries required for the Agreement to enter into force.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) followed up on Mr Julius’ previous question regarding the implications of the long-term low-carbon development strategy on the South African economy. What is the time frame for this long-term strategy? She also requested a progress report on the implementation of South Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), asking what issues were being faced in this regard.

Ms Z Ncitha (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked the delegation if South Africa had made any progress in realising the goal of reducing the average global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius.

Mr Alfred Wills, Deputy Director-General: Chief Negotiator and Specialist Advisor, DEA, began by responding to the second question posed by Mr Julius. On the 22 April 2016, 175 countries signed the Paris agreement, making it the single largest signing in United Nations’ (UN) history. Earlier in the year, it was expected that due to long-winded legal processes among signatory countries, the agreement would only come into effect by 2019. However, recent developments in global geopolitics – specifically the Presidential elections in the USA - have accelerated the process dramatically, as outgoing US President Barrack Obama seeks to make the Paris agreement part of his legacy. By October 2016, countries contributing to over 55 percent of global carbon emissions had ratified the agreement, while nations that have not yet done so are following suit. Although Mr Kekana had stated that a total of 79 countries had thus far ratified the agreement, since the creation of the presentation, that figure has increased to 85 countries. The rapid acceleration of the ratification process was accredited to the fact that signatory countries do not want to go to COP22 – taking place in November 2016 – with merely observer status.

In response to the questions raised by Mr Julius and Ms Labuschagne regarding the implications of the long-term low-carbon development strategy for the South African economy, a trajectory range between 2025 and 2030 has been formulated, wherein carbon emissions will peak, plateau, and subsequently decline. This strategy is based on the 2010 Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP), considering the Energy sector is the largest contributor to carbon emissions in South Africa. The IRP envisions a broad restructuring of the energy sector. The coal industry in particular is already in decline, largely due to outdated and inefficient extraction plants. Eskom’s construction of new coal plants such as the Medupi and Kusile Power Stations may improve the efficiency of the extraction path, however emphasis is shifting towards Independent Power Producers (IPPs) within the wind, solar, hydroelectric and gas (domestic and imported) sub-sectors. He argued that diversification of the energy sector not only provided greater energy security, but would also improve developmental prospects. Considering the global shift away from hydrocarbon industries, Mr Wills argued that non-conforming nations may face technical trade barriers in the near future if their economies are too hydrocarbon intensive.

In response to Ms Labuschagne’s second question regarding the progress of the implementation of South Africa’s NDC’s, a second biennial update report was available to the Committee, including the public responses to the project.

Addressing Ms Ncitha’s earlier question, the reduction of the annual global temperature increase was not a domestic but rather a global goal; however South Africa has a responsibility to make a fair contribution towards this objective. Furthermore, as a developing nation, policies and measures must necessarily be considered in the context of the national priority of addressing poverty, inequality and unemployment. He reassured the Committee that these national priorities are still salient within the long-term low-carbon development strategy. The average global temperature increase is currently around 0.84 degrees, and increasing year-on-year. Moreover, the past decade has been the hottest on record, while this past year has seen the greatest frequency of extreme weather events recorded globally. Lastly, he stated that the South Africa stood in solidarity with the vulnerable countries on the African continent with regard to climate change, and that the DEA was committed to reducing the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius – less than the 2 degrees Celsius stipulated in the COP21 agreement.

Mr Kekana stated that South Africa was currently in the process of negotiations with the USA to fund the long-term low-carbon development strategy; however these negotiations are contingent on the finalisation of IRP processes by the Department of Energy. Therefore, it is anticipated that the development of this strategy will be underway by early 2017, once all the relevant facts have been presented. He restated the point made earlier by Mr Wills, that trends within the global community leave South Africa no choice but to engage in collective action, starting with the ratification of the COP21 agreement. Quoting figures from the biennial report, South Africa currently contributed 640 megatons of carbon emissions to the atmosphere, if the land sector is excluded. This figure is expected to increase by around 10 megatons following the completion of new coal extraction facilities; however Mr Kekana reassured the Committee that the necessary steps to reducing this figure were underway.

The Chairperson noted that the trends in climate change were practically manifested in South Africa’s rural provinces, where rainfall has declined considerably due to the ‘El Niño’ drought.

Ms Ncitha asked whether the DEA had established a fund to mitigate the effects of the drought. If so, has the fund been effective in this regard?

Ms E Prins (ANC, Western Cape) noted that there had been a 3.4 magnitude tremor in Oudtshoorn in the previous week. Was this also an effect of climate change?

In response to the question raised by Ms Ncitha, Mr Wills noted that there was a National Green Fund, which is currently being managed by the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). Furthermore, the functions of this fund were not only focused on climate change, but also biodiversity and sustainable development initiatives.

Regarding Ms Prins’ question on the earthquake, Mr Wills expressed doubt that the tremor was a direct result of climate change, and advised Ms Prins to correspond with the Council for Geoscience (CGS) in this regard.

The Chairperson suggested that the question be brought to the Department of Mineral Resources, where an expert opinion could be procured. He stressed the urgency and importance of ratifying the COP21 agreement, and subsequently requested the Committee Secretary to read the report so the Committee may vote on the matter as provincial delegates.

All Provincial delegates agreed to the adoption of the report, with the exception of the Free State Province, which did not have a provincial delegate present.

Briefing on the amended alien and invasive species listing notices
Dr Guy Preston, Deputy Director-General: Environmental Programmes, DEA, said the submission of the amended alien and invasive species notices was a requirement of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act of 2004. He highlighted the fact that alien and invasive species pose a threat to not only wildlife, but more broadly have an impact on biodiversity, agriculture and human health in certain cases. One of the challenges South Africa is facing is the spread of Parthenium hysterophorus, also known as Famine Weed, which originates from the Central America and the Caribbean. There are currently Famine Weed infestations in the Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Kwazulu-Natal (KZN) provinces. The species has had drastic effects in other parts of the world: in India, up to 90 percent of forestation has been lost in some areas.

One of the critical health implications of the spread of Famine Weed is the exacerbation of the symptoms of tuberculosis, however it has been scientifically concluded that the plant does not cause the disease itself. Famine weed reduces the seed concentration of the soil drastically, also consuming large amounts of water. A direct consequence of this is the displacement of grass, leaving livestock in some areas with little/no food. Therefore, Famine Weed undermines the productive potential of land for both cultivation and game. It is spread by cars and heavy machinery; therefore, many infestations begin near roads and highways. The Ndumo Nature Reserve in KZN has experienced a substantial famine weed infestation which has proven difficult to control due to the multitude of vehicles entering the reserve, carrying the species along with them.

The 2014 listing of alien and invasive species featured 659 species, divided into four categories. Dr Preston notes that the list must necessarily be updated yearly, as new species are constantly entering the country. Greater coordination is required among provincial MEC’s to address the dynamic nature of invasions, as well as agree to the appropriate categorisations for alien and invasive species. The Committee were reminded that natural borders do not necessarily conform to man-made borders, therefore extralimital species such as Nyala which are indigenous to Northern South Africa must be prevented from spreading South, where they may have a negative impact on other ecosystems. Species such as the Himalayan Tahr – endangered in its native Nepal – and the Mallard duck present threats to South Africa’s ecosystems through overgrazing and cross-breeding; however there is sustentative public resistance in eradicating these species. Considering the current drought, alien species present considerable fire risks, threats to biodiversity and water supplies. For this reason, regulations should be continuously modified and updated in order to control and mitigate the spread of alien species.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked Dr Preston for the presentation, and expressed appreciation for the late arrival of Minister Edna Bolewa. The Committee was invited to pose questions to the delegation.

Mr A Singh (ANC, Kwazulu-Natal) requested information on any research done into the effect of human consumption of meat from livestock that grazed famine weed. Should this infestation be considered a public health risk?

Dr Preston stated that there has not yet been a conclusive study on the effect of Famine Weed on the quality of meat for human consumption, however the infestation does present a threat to the availability of food to these animals, arguably compromising the quality of meat harvested from livestock in these areas. Furthermore, he notes that the genome of the species can vary; therefore research on the species from other parts of the world may be misleading.

All provincial delegates agreed to adopting the report, with the exception of the Free State, which did not have a delegate present.

Regulations pertaining to the appointment of a registering authority for the registration of Environmental Assessment Practitioners

Mr Wills informed the Committee that the briefing would concern the Section 24H regulations within the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998. The updated regulations were a response to concerns about the conduct of Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAP’s) in provincial, national and private positions. These concerns pertained to the professionalism, ethnics, objectivity and independence of these officials, as there is a lack of guiding mechanisms to regulate their functioning. Therefore, the creation of a registration authority would stipulate tasks and rules for EAP’s, the procedures for registration and re-registration, and the criteria for legitimate practice.

The objectives of the registration authority include the promotion of quality assurance regarding environmental assessment practice; upholding the best interests of the environment, sustainable development and the public good; facilitate the transformation and restructuring of the environmental assessment profession; and to ensure the professionalisation of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner. The minimum requirements of the registration authority include the keeping of financial records, producing an annual report to the Minister regarding financial and transformative progress, maintaining a register of EAP’s; establish disciplinary, sanctioning and appeal procedures; and to develop and administer a code of conduct for these professionals. Foreign candidates may also be registered with the registration authority, provided his/her qualifications correspond with those required for South African residents. Lastly, Mr Wills recommended that the Committee consider Section 24H regulations of the NEMA 1998.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Wills on his presentation of the report, and proceeded to allow the Committee secretary to read the report before voting on its adoption by the Committee.

Discussion
Ms Labuschagne said she did not have a problem with the establishment of a registration authority, however she argued that there was a lack of qualified EAP’s based on information provided in previous reports. Would there be competition between employment in the registration authority and the private sector? Secondly, would professionals involved in more specific sectors such as mining, water, waste management and air quality be able to register as EAP’s? Thirdly, she asked whether the introduction of a registration authority would attract more practitioners to the field overall.

Mr Wills responded that the proposed regulations provide for a self-regulatory approach, rather than excessive government over-regulation on the sector. In this regard, government employees that are assessing and reviewing the work of an EAP are required to be registered EAP’s themselves. Furthermore, the regulations reflect the desire for South Africans to embrace transformation. On Ms Labuschagne’s second question, currently registration would only apply to EAP professionals specifically, however the Ministers of Mineral Resources, Water and Sanitation, and Environmental Affairs have introduced the ‘One Environment’ system, which will require professionals from more specific sectors to register under the One Environment system. Other practitioners involved in hunting, for example, will not be required to register, as they are considered part of the resource-use process.

The Chairperson noted that despite these regulations, the movement of people to competing professions was a reality. Considering the increasing number of trained EAP professionals, this movement of people cannot be controlled. Instead, the regulations pertained more to facilitating professionalism and ethics in the field.

Draft regulations for the registration of professional hunters, hunting outfitters and trainers

Ms Thea Carrol, Chief Director: Biodiversity Planning and Management, DEA, began by familiarising the Committee with the business of professional hunters, hunting outfitters and trainers within the industry. She requested that the Committee approve the draft regulations for approval by the NCOP. The contribution of the hunting industry towards the South African economy was estimated to be around R1.2 Billion as of 2012, reflecting the importance of the industry within the SADC region. The professional hunting industry is regulated by the provincial conservation legislation, which requires a permit to practice hunting within a specific province. However, one of the primary challenges for the registration of professional hunters, outfitters and trainers is the phenomenon of “province-hopping”, wherein hunters are noncompliant in one province, yet still continue to operate other provinces. The lack of provincial coordination in this regard is one of the issues addressed by the draft regulations.

The draft regulations will require hunting professionals, outfitters and trainers to obtain both a provincial permit as well as be registered on a national level, therefore the administration of the provincial and national authorities will be aligned. The regulations require continuous reporting from the national department and the provincial authorities to ensure that registration lists are coherent. In drafting these regulations, the DEA undertook two public participation sessions as well as a socio-economic impact assessment, the results of which were generally favourable. Non-compliance with the Biodiversity Act 2004 will result in the permit being withdrawn, preventing the practice of hunting in the rest of the country. The minimum age for the procurement of a hunting permit will be 18 years, as individuals will be required to sign contracts upon registration. Registration is also non-transferrable; however, permits are valid for a lifetime and will therefore not require renewal unless they are either refused or cancelled. In such an instance, the individual whose permit is refused or cancelled will be allowed to make representation with the Minister before the decision is enacted. Before the draft regulations take effect, there will be a six-month period wherein professional hunters, hunting outfitters and trainers will be able to operate before registering.  Ms Carrol recommended that the Committee take note of the need for revised regulations, and that they are approved and adopted by the NCOP.

Discussion

Mr C Smit (DA, Limpopo) requested information on the public participation sessions, specifically if there was any notable input from industrial players. Secondly, he asked what the cost implications for registration would be for individuals applying for permits. He also inquired into how equipped the department was to handle the registration process.

Ms Carrol noted that the cost implication for registration was about R100. On whether the Department was sufficiently equipped to handle the registration, the Committee was assured that the bulk of the process will still take place on a provincial level. Unless provincial officials are neglecting their duties, there is no reason for intervention from the national level. Moreover, the Department has appointed a sub-director to handle implementation of the new regulations and the application process.                                   

Ms Magdel Boshoff, Deputy Director: Biodiversity Policy Development, DEA, responded to Mr Smit’s first question regarding feedback from the industrial players. There was no opposition from the industry or provincial MEC’s. However, there was resistance from an industrial grouping regarding the mandate for regulating trainers. They argued that the Department could not prescribe training courses, however, the draft regulations do not specify as such, as the content of the training courses was already being regulated by provincial authorities.

Mr Smit raised another question regarding the timeframe for applicants to receive confirmation of registration.

Ms Boshoff responded by stating that the timeframe for registration is 10 days, however the Department had the power to evaluate the application and determine whether additional information is required. Once this additional information is received, the Department will approve or refuse the application within another 10-day period.

The Chairperson requested the Committee Secretary read the report on the draft regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act of 2004. The provincial delegates were then requested to vote on the approval of the draft regulations.
All provinces approved the draft regulations, with the exception of the Free State, which did not have a delegate present.

Adoption of minutes
The finalisation of minutes was deferred upon the request of Mr Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) so Committee Members could attend the memorial service of a resting parliamentarian.

The chairperson thanked the DEA delegation and the meeting was adjourned.