Operations in Antarctica: DFFE briefing

Meeting report

SA operations in Antarctica

Dr Lisolomzi Fikizolo, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Oceans and Coasts, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), said South Africa had been an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty in December 1959. The Treaty was a multilateral agreement to ensure the continent was used exclusively for peace and science. It prohibits new claims for territorial sovereignty. Antarctica was a continent of extremes which, together with the Southern Ocean, had the largest contained ecosystem on the planet.

The South African National Antarctic Expedition (SANAE) was comprised of five elements handled by four different departments. Research was the purview of the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), while long-term monitoring, logistical support and research infrastructure, medical, driver services and food were the purviews of the DFFE. Infrastructure and maintenance were under the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI). Search and rescue was under the Department of Transport (DOT) and the DFFE.

Dr Fikizolo said that Article 7 of the Antarctic Treaty prohibited any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research. The Protocol on Environmental Protection, with specific emphasis on the protection of the environment, was signed in 1991 in Madrid, Spain, by the signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, banning mining. South Africa supports Article 7 and was committed to strengthening it in cooperation with fellow members of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM).

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms H Winkler (DA) asked what kind of evidence the government was looking for to substantiate the allegations that Russia was conducting illegal mining in Antarctica, and whether they intended to launch their own investigations into the alleged prospecting, or had the Department already decided, in conjunction with the Minister, that the allegations were false?

Ms A Weber (DA) said that with all the allegations of Russian prospecting discussed in Helsinki, and if the prospecting in Antarctica was indeed taking place, the parties responsible should be held accountable in the sense that prospecting was covered by a lot of laws that exist in South Africa. Creating an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and management planning were prerequisites to prospecting; prospecting could not happen without those documents.

She said that on the islands and in Antarctica itself, there were a lot of declarations of protected areas with unique animal species as well as protected natural reserves. She therefore wanted to know what the Department was doing to protect the protected nature reserves and animal species to ensure that the environment was not being damaged. Had the Minister, or any officials, asked about South Africa's involvement in hosting the Russian prospecting ship?

She asked whether Russia was adamant about adhering to Article 7 of the Antarctic Treaty, and whether that would protect the environment. She wondered whether a perception had been created that South Africa was helping the Russians to adhere to illegal activities in Antarctica.

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) said a treaty was signed between South Africa, New Zealand, Chile, and Australia, but wondered who had the ultimate authority over Antarctica in terms of the operations over there. Who was responsible for ensuring that the laws were adhered to and that there was no prospecting? What sort of funding was being put into the explorations in Antarctica?

Mr D Bryant (DA) asked where the funding came from for the maintenance facilities on Gough and Marion Islands. He asked the DDG to expound on the gateway proposal that was mentioned in terms of how they envisaged driving tourism from an environmental perspective.

He asked what the protocol would be for a South African scientific delegation if they were made aware of the alleged illegal prospecting taking place. Were they obligated to disclose such activities? What would such a process look like?

He asked whether certain countries owned land in Antarctica. Was the Department referring to Gough, Marion island, or Antarctica itself?

How did one differentiate between research and prospecting in terms of ships? Why did South Africa not support the draft put forward by the United States that failed to garner support from a number of countries?

He asked whether or not South Africa had ratified the Madrid Protocol. and if the country had any other outstanding responsibilities. Were any of the other consultative states going to be ratifying the annexure? What was the percentage of clean energy of the facilities there, and did the South African installation still burn diesel as it did in the past?

Mr N Singh (IFP) asked whether a cost benefit analysis of the expedition had been done. What were the selection criteria for picking learners to go to Antarctica, and had they chosen any other learners to join the expeditions? Were all the members of the Treaty contributing and upholding the terms and conditions of the Treaty in the way that South Africa was? What was being found on the ice cap -- melting and glacier retreat and pollution in the area? He asked whether there were any fatalities or serious illness of South Africans who had been posted to that area, and what had been done about it.

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) asked what was happening in terms of waste management in Antarctica. She asked what the plan was in dealing with the old oils and metals in the workshop to ensure that such waste was managed. What was the status of the occupational health and safety of the workers there? Were these standards being implemented to protect the employees and tourists? How was food safety managed? She was happy that research was being done, and asked where the research report/papers could be accessed.

Mr M Dlamini (ANC) said that if the temperature was -49 degrees, how was climate change affecting the environment there? Was the -49 degrees stable, or was it changing? How was the Department quantifying the investment with the maintenance budget annually? He asked for an analysis of the companies in Antarctica offering services based on race, so one could determine if it impacted the poorest of the poor. He asked whether the Department had done an analysis of who the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were that were complaining about prospecting.

DFFE's response

Dr Fikizolo responded to Ms Winkler that the Antarctic Treaty operated outside the United Nations framework. When it came to the Antarctic Treaty, it was the consultative parties that would discuss a particular matter. When it came to environmental issues, the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), which was the product of the Madrid Protocol, was the advisory body on environmental matters. There was also the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) which also coordinates extensive research on Antarctica, and their findings also find their way into the ATCM for advice.

The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes focused on logistical issues within the borders or Antarctica. They also advise the ATCM as an independent body. The International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) mainly facilitates tourism in Antarctica, utilising ships particularly from North America to Antarctica.

Regarding the United Nations and the role that South Africa plays in respect of the delineation of the marine environment, according to the law of the sea convention, when it comes to a vessel that would be calling into a commercial port in South Africa, they would have to report through the Department of Transport 72 hours before they get to the South African economic zone, which was at the 200 nautical mile mark. The DFFE did not play any role in this regard -- that responsibility lies with the Departments of Transport and Public Enterprises. When a ship enters the economic zone, it becomes a business transaction, and an official from South Africa would act as a go-between the Ports Authority and the Department of Transport.

As to what would be done by any other country which was a consultative party, obviously, the matter would be tabled in one of the two working groups of the ATCM, and there would be a discussion on it. As it stands, there is no research plan and no prospecting plan that has been tabled before the ATCM. It was a matter that South Africa, as part of the ACTM, was not aware of precisely because it had not been presented at the platform where it was supposed to be presented, and that gives South Africa plausible deniability.

Dr Fikizolo said that no research had been tabled specifically targeted by any of the consultative parties. They were unsure where the narrative that there was illegal prospecting had originated, and as far as he was concerned, with the facts that had been presented to the Department of the agenda and discussions that took place, that did not happen. Innocent passage was allowed for vessels from the UN's point of view, and South Africa -- as a signatory -- was bound to allow that. Economic activities were not the responsibility of the DFFE.

In response to Ms Weber, the DDG said that the issue of prospecting had not been discussed or tabled by Russia. The countries at that summit were more concerned about the politicisation of the organisation. When it came to EIAs, a framework had been adopted and all the consultative parties were bound by it.

He said that it was not the Minister of the DFFE who was responsible for obtaining EIAs in Antarctica. That was driven at the ATCM level, and not at the country level.

He said that France, Australia, and South Africa had their own sub-Antarctic islands. The national laws of the respective countries applied to those islands because they belonged to those countries. Beyond that, South Africa's laws did not apply to the neighbouring islands owned by different countries.

Dr Fikizolo said that South Africa continued to encourage consultative party members, when dealing with a matter of concern raised at the ATCM, to always strive for the founding principles, which were science and cooperation to use the area for peaceful means.

There had been no opposition to reaffirming Article 7, even from the Russian delegation. Decisions at the ATCM were taken with unanimous agreement by all parties concerned. The Helsinki declaration was definitely a reflection of what all the parties, inclusive of the Russian Federation, were saying about it. He admitted that there were areas or parts of the declaration to which they were not agreeable to, but these had nothing to do with Article 7 -- they were more to do with the processes involved in accepting a new member, which was a different discussion. When it came to Article 7, Russia was in full agreement.

In response to Ms Weber on the flow of traffic to and from South Africa, he said that as a signatory to the United Nations, they were bound by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but there was also a Maritime Zones Act, which was the domestication of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. All the consultative party members, as countries that were doing work in Antarctica by means of aircraft or ships, would go through South Africa as their last port of call. This was helping South Africa, as they purchase their needs in Cape Town before proceeding to Antarctica.

In response to Mr Paulsen, he said that the ATCM set up the generally acceptable research practices through its secretariat. Any matter that was happening on the island was reported to the secretariat. The secretariat would compile a report that would be circulated to members, and if there were matters of concern, they would be raised at the annual ATCM meeting. The same applied to transgressions. The ACTM had an internal structure that dealt with all those issues, but it was not centrally controlled as different bodies looked into the various aspects of work on the island.

He said that the "blue sky" research projects were funded through the Department of Science and Innovation through the National Research Foundation (NRF), where there would be principal investigations. For long term data series monitoring, the DFFE did budget for this, including the logistics aspects, which was for the vessel. The Department of Transport was responsible for the helicopter and vehicles used to get to Antarctica.

He added that what was globally acceptable was that when it comes to Antarctica and sub-Antarctic waters, the currency that was used there was scientific research. South Africa had continued to produce scientific papers that were utilised internationally. Funding for maintenance usually emanates from the DPWI. There would be monthly meetings to discuss issues that were of concern as far as the functioning of the base was concerned. The reports that emanate from those meetings find their way to the DPWI, where they would develop their maintenance plan encompassing the following year's budget.

Dr Fikizolo said that the "gateway" was a concept that had existed since 2009. There were agreements signed between cities, but the models adopted by the cities were different. In Hobart, for instance, the municipality had control of the port, but South African ports were not owned by the cities -- they were managed by Transnet. The function of supporting the Antarctic programme was dealt with by the port consultative committee at a lower level than would be expected. However, the private sector worked with the ports to ensure everyone did their part. The missing part at the moment may be the tariff, which the ports regulator determined.

He said it was the responsibility of all members to report any transgression they saw or witnessed. This could be reported through an electronic reporting system that the secretariat of the ATCM had put together. Other than that, there were inspections whereby different countries would put together teams which would go to various bases and sites and compile a report that would be presented at the ATCM. South Africa had been inspected and found to have certain issues that needed to be addressed. Inspections happened to every country participating.

In response to Mr Bryant, he said Australia owned Antarctica's biggest chunk of land. What had been suspended was the making of new claims. Those who had made claims prior to the ban remained the owners of those lands.

He explained that the decisions of the ATCM and all the organisations or committees under the Antarctic Treaty, were by consensus. Hydrocarbons and minerals in Antarctica should remain in the ground and if there was anyone who would want to lift them come 2048 -- which did not seem likely -- all the members must be in agreement.

On the US draft proposal that was not supported by other states, he said it was because the proposal was outside the Paris Agreement.

He said that the bases were still being run on diesel as they did not have any technology that would be useful in reducing their carbon footprint, but they were looking into the matter.

Dr Fikizolo said that, at the moment, there was no cost benefit analysis of South Africa’s presence in Antarctica. They also did not have a programme for selecting students to go to Antarctica. Students that the DFFE normally worked with were those who would be nominated by the universities through funding of projects by the NRF.

SCAR had reported a glacial retreat in their lecture during the ATCM meeting. SCAR painted a picture of what was happening regarding global warming and its impact on ice caps melting. That paper was available on the SCAR website.

Regarding waste management, he said they had installed base sewerage systems where they compress and compact the waste, which was brought back to South Africa. Two of the experts that they took from the branch were waste technicians, whose work was to sort out all the waste material that had been generated, pack it accordingly, and bring it back.

On food security, he said that they had begun a process of employing chefs to look after food stocks and the diet of the expedition members. On essential occupational health and safety, he invited all the Committee Members to visit the South African base to see what they did out there.

Further discussion

Ms Winkler asked if the Department had received any evidence of alleged Russian prospecting in Antarctica. Had the Department received any evidence from NGOs, and as a signatory to the ATCM, was there an onus of responsibility on the Department to present any evidence that was received to the other signatory countries at the meeting? If it was found that Russia had indeed transgressed in terms of Article 7, would South Africa then actively not permit or allow any more docking of Russian research vessels, and would they be consulting with the other departments?

Mr Bryant asked how one distinguished between researching and prospecting. Had South Africa ratified the Madrid Protocol, and did it have any responsibility regarding that? He asked for an explanation of why South Africa had declined to support the US draft proposal.

Mr Singh asked if there had been any fatalities or serious illnesses of South Africans on the island.

Ms Mbatha said that her questions had not been responded to sufficiently. Where could the written research papers be found? What happened to the waste that was shipped back to the country? What happened to the vessels that were abandoned by owners in the ports?

Department's response

Dr Fikizolo said the NGOs had presented no evidence supporting their allegations that Russia was conducting illegal prospecting. The ATCM definitely was a body that would be concerned with transgressions, and would act on any transgression. There had not been any evidence forwarded to South Africa or the secretariat for it to be tabled before the ATCM for discussion.

Regarding allowing vessels to transit through South Africa, if there was a sanction against an ATCM party, then it was incumbent upon them to see to it that all parties involved were informed and the sanction was applied.

He said that there was no easy way to distinguish between scientific research and prospecting, as both processes used the same equipment and processes.

He said that South Africa had ratified the Madrid Protocol in 1995. Their responsibility was to safeguard the pristine environment, and to carry out all its responsibilities under the Antarctic Treaty.

The US draft proposal had failed to make mention of a special dispensation for developing nations. It had been difficult to agree to the proposal because they were of the opinion that without mention of a dispensation for developing countries, the proposal was incomplete. This was especially relevant if one talked about the targets related to the pre-industrial and post-industrial figures in the Paris Agreement, which were missing from their proposal. The countries that opposed the proposal were on the basis that it was incomplete. This had been rectified, which was why the Helsinki Declaration was ultimately adopted.

In response to Mr Singh he confirmed that there had been illnesses, but the environment did not cause these. There had also been accidental fatalities, but none due to equipment.

He would provide a written response to Ms Mbatha, as he was unable to confirm if the certificates of compliance on food safety had been obtained. Studies had been done on occupational health and safety (OHS), and a document was given as advice to the Department on what they needed to be focused on. They had established an OHS department, which was a service in the programme in Antarctica. The research papers could be accessed at the universities' repositories, but the DFFE did have some they had produced. He would give a written response on where they could get all the research papers that had been published covering the different areas of interest.

Concerning vessels that had been abandoned at the docks, he said that was a national ports issue and was outside the ambit of the DFFE.

Further discussion

Mr Bryant asked whether South Africa recognised all the claims on Antarctica made by the different countries.

Ms Winkler asked if it was so difficult to discern between research and prospecting; obviously, numerous allegations would be put forth and investigations would need to occur. Who would propose the investigations?

DFFE's response

DDG Fikizolo said that the claims made before the ban, regardless of whether they were recognised or not, stand and South Africa recognises them.

He said investigations would happen only when evidence supported an allegation. It would be very difficult for an allegation alone to warrant an investigation. It would be the secretariat that would launch the investigation, and not a party. The allegations would not happen within the borders of South Africa or within the exclusive economic zone. The fact that South Africa was a member of the ATCM did not put it in a position where it should receive evidence and carry out the investigation. The proper channel would be to submit all the evidence to the secretariat, who would compile a report and table it before the ATCM.

 In response to Mr Dlamini, he said that the companies operating in Antarctica were foreign companies in the main, and operated from South Africa. They would apply for certain permits to conduct business from South Africa.

The NGOs that were making the allegations of illegal prospecting were Greenpeace and the Antarctic Scientific Coalition. He was unaware of any other NGOs, but assured the Committee that the Department would follow up closely.

The Department had a budget of R160 million for the Antarctic operations, and the biggest tranche went to the management and operation of the vessel. When it was at the quayside, it cost about R280 000 a day, and out at sea, it costs R750 000 a day.

The Chairperson asked the Members to forward any other burning issues in writing to the Department, who would then provide written responses.

Ms Nomfundo Tshabalala, Director0General, DFFE, said that the Department would respond in writing to any question that the Members felt had not been answered sufficiently.

Adoption of minutes

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting of 18 April page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Mr Dlamini moved the adoption of the minutes, and Ms T Mchunu (ANC) seconded.

The Chairperson declared the minutes adopted.

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting of 19 April page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Mr Bryant moved the adoption of the minutes. Ms Mbatha seconded.

The Chairperson declared the minutes adopted.

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting of 2 May page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Ms Weber said that the Committee had resolved to put the target set for poaching at zero, and not more than that for elephants and rhinoceros. She said that the report needed to correct this.

Ms Weber moved the adoption of the amended minutes. Mr Bryant seconded.

The amended minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting dated 9 May page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Mr Bryant moved the adoption of the minutes. Ms Weber seconded.

The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting dated 16 May page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Ms Winkler moved the adoption of the minutes. Ms Mchunu seconded.

The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting dated 23 May page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Ms Mchunu moved the adoption of the minutes, and Ms Weber seconded.

The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting dated 30 May page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Ms Mbatha moved for the adoption of the minutes. Mr Dlamini seconded.

The meeting was adjourned.