Accession to the Amended Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean (Nairobi Convention); with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson officially opened the meeting, requesting apologies from absent Members.

The Committee Secretariat indicated that it received apologies from Ms C Visser (DA, North West), and Mr M Nhanha (DA, Eastern Cape). Both Members ended up being present for the meeting, although Ms Visser departed early.

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) presented an apology from the Minister, Ms Barbara Creecy.

The Chairperson welcomed the Department, providing them with the platform to present their prepared briefing.

Ms Maggie Sotyu, Deputy Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, was present to lead the delegation from the Department. She welcomed Ms Nomfundo Tshabalala, Director-General (DG), DFFE, who was to present alongside Mr Lisolomzi Fikizolo, DDG: Oceans and Coasts, DFFE.

Mr Fikizolo led the presentation on the Nairobi Convention.

South Africa’s Proposed Ratification of the Amendment to the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean in Parliament for Approval

The purpose of the presentation was to request Parliament to approve South Africa’s ratification of the Amendment to the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean in Parliament for approval.

This Convention was developed in 1985 under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)’s Regional Seas Programme, which was established directly to address oceans and coastal issues as part of the 1972 Stockholm Agenda. The Convention was only enacted in 1996, with South Africa adopting it in 2003.

Its overall objective is to achieve sustainable management and use of the marine and coastal environment. The Convention covers over 15,000 km of coastline from Somalia to South Africa, including island states in the West Indian Ocean (WIO) region.

The current number of contracting parties amounted to 10 - Comoros; France; Kenya; Mauritius; Madagascar; Mozambique; Seychelles; Somalia; South Africa and Tanzania.

On 31 March 2010, the Contracting Parties of the Nairobi Convention amended the original text of the Convention in terms of Article 19 of the Convention. The parties correctly followed the procedure laid out in terms of Article 19 for amendment and adoption.

The overall amendment of the original Convention was based on the fact that the original Convention, which was developed in 1985. It did not cater for the new and emerging uses of the coastal and marine environment. Therefore, it needed to be updated to address the current challenges.

It further amended the preamble to refer to the parties of the West Indian Ocean region since the original Convention referred to the marine and coastal environment of the East African region, thus excluding South Africa in its geographical scope.

The obligations of the Convention were as follows:

- To implement measures to prevent, reduce, combat and control pollution of the Convention area (land-based and offshore sources);

- To ensure sound environmental management of natural resources;

- To prevent, reduce, combat and control coastal erosion;

- To protect and preserve rate or fragile ecosystems and endangered species, through the establishment of Marine Protected Areas;

- To co-operate in the field of scientific research, monitoring and assessment of pollution;

- To establish systems for environmental impact assessment;

- To co-operate in the formulation and adoption of rules and procedures for the determination of liability and compensation for damage resulting from pollution;

This provided a nationally integrated and centralised approach more than a segregated approach as was the case before. The only recommendation given was that Parliament approves South Africa’s ratification of the Amendment to the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean, which had been submitted.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Mr Nhanha asked where the western part of the Indian Ocean was, seeing as the ocean ran alongside the eastern part of Africa.

Ms L Bebee (ANC, KZN) asked if there were any corrective measures put in place to regulate the behaviour of contracting parties regarding the Convention. What were the consequences of failing to adhere to the key obligations outlined in the Convention? Had any contracting parties been punished?

She also asked about the withdrawal conditions from the Convention – had any contracting parties withdrawn from the Convention, who were they, and what were their reasons for withdrawal?

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) first questioned the long period between the initial amendment to the Convention, and it only passing now. She asked if such a convention existed for the other ocean (Atlantic Ocean) bordering South Africa.

Ms Labuschagne asked whether this Convention was also responsible for the monitoring and research of pollution in the South African marine. If it was, what were the regulations in place?

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC, Gauteng) asked why the Nairobi Convention took a whole year to be presented before the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), considering the National Assembly adopted it on 5 May 2022.

As per Article 17 of the Convention, who was the authority responsible for representing South Africa as a contracting party?

As per their right outlined in Article 20 of the Convention, which contracting parties had recommended the amendments to the Convention?

Ms M Mokause (EFF, Northern Cape) asked whether the South African government had been assessing and tracking the progress of the Convention, and asked for statistics if available.

She asked about the regulations put in place to protect South Africa’s marine, regarding economic activity, such as imports, seeing as there had recently been cases of importing counterfeit goods.

Mr Z Mkiva (ANC, Eastern Cape) expressed concern over naming the Indian Ocean – why was it called the Indian Ocean if it stretched predominantly over African territory?

He concluded by commenting that he accepted the amendment by the Department of the Convention.

Responses

Ms Tshabalala answered the question regarding compliance and enforcement by stating that Article 27 of the Convention obligated contracting parties to comply with the Convention, and to establish mechanisms and plans that were in line with the framework outlined by the Convention.

She explained the delay as being caused by South Africa not signing the amendment the first time, due to a lack of existing ocean governance at the time.

There were programmes implemented to develop the Convention and comply. An example of this was the Buffalo Estuary Project in the Eastern Cape which had been funded by government for water quality improvement purposes. The Department prides itself on the proper quality of water in estuaries.

Mr Fikizolo explained that the Western Indian Ocean was referred to as such due to the Convention covering the western part of the Indian Ocean, whereas the eastern part of the ocean bordered Asian countries.

To impart on progress, Mr Fikizolo mentioned the implementation of Operation Phakisa, the anti-pollution initiative that was in control of water quality samples in all coastal cities. This initiative was housed at Walter Sisulu University in Umtata, Eastern Cape, and was nearing the finalisation of its second phase.

There had been no records of contracting parties withdrawing from the Convention to date.

The Department of Transport (DoT) had the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) in place. This authority board was responsible for the regulation of all shipping activity.

The SAMSA was responsible for other initiatives which combatted the pollution of oceans.

The DFFE expressed support for the DoT’s delegation to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

Mr Fikizolo further addressed authority questions – the DFFE represented South Africa, and all amendments were a collective effort by concerned departments.

Other departments and entities were responsible for the issue of safety regarding imports and exports.

A precautionary measure to be noted was the requirement by SAMSA to have all vessels carrying cargo to report to SAMSA at a specified period before entering South African waters.

Other conventions of a similar nature, for other bodies of water bordering South Africa, included the Abidjan Convention, covering the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard, as well as the Benguela Current Convention, governing the bodies of water bordering southern African countries.

Mr Fikizolo concluded by taking note of Mr Mkiva’s comments, and stated that the renaming of the Indian Ocean would be considered.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the important presentation and the Deputy Minister for being present, unlike other departments.

Deputy Minister Sotyu expressed gratitude to the Select Committee for the opportunity and supporting the Convention. If there were further questions of clarity, it could be responded in writing.

Committee business

The Chairperson presented the minutes of 16 May 2023. They were adopted with minor amendments by Committee Members.

The meeting was adjourned