Sekela Somlomo, ingathi ingxaki noko ikhona kancinci ngokuba namhlanje size kuthetha ngemikhumbi nezinto ezenzekayo kumalwandle ethu. Siza kuthetha njani ngoku ngeencwadi ezikrazuliweyo ngathi sithetha ngezeSebe lezeMfundo? AbeSebe lezeMfundo sebeza kuthetha ngantoni? Hayi, Sekela Somlomo, mna ndibona ngathi sinokulahlekana okuthile, kodwa ke ethubeni siza kuhlangana. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Mrs N J NGELE: Deputy Speaker, I think there is a slight problem, because today we are here to talk about ships and what is happening in our oceans. How can we talk about textbooks that are been destroyed as if we are dealing with the Department of Education? What will the Department of Education talk about? No, Deputy Speaker, I think we are losing track in a way, but we will be in tune as the time goes on. [Applause.]]
The South African coastline is home to some of the most pristine areas and biodiversity. At 2 798 kilometres, it is the second longest coastline in Africa after Somalia, with 3 025 km, and one of the longest coastlines in the world. The area of confluence of the warm Indian Ocean and the cold Atlantic Ocean produces a rare marine biodiversity. It also produces the most violent sea conditions of a busy shipping route, making the Cape of Storms the most sensitive of the busiest shipping routes in the world.
South Africa, at the southernmost tip of Africa, is especially disadvantaged in that there is minimal capacity and marine equipment available in the region to intervene in cases of marine incidents. We thus have to ensure that there is adequate capacity to monitor the coastline as well as to intervene in and manage cases of incidents.
The variety of ships that round the Cape varies from very large crude carriers, VLCCs, large container vessels carrying a variety of dangerous goods and substances, chemical tankers with dangerous substances, bulk carriers with large quantities of bunker fuels to scrap vessels on the way to the breakers, etc. Each of these vessels has a particular risk profile and requires a particular approach in dealing with it.
Now I want you to listen very carefully to the following. This is complicated by the fact that these vessels are ordinarily in transit in our waters. Even the ships that call at our ports are foreign-owned and largely manned by foreign crews. The ships of the companies purporting to be South African are all registered in foreign lands, where they pay their taxes.
The exposure to the country is huge, considering the fact that there is very little economic benefit normally realised from these activities. There is no employment or tax income, only a huge risk should an incident occur. This is the story of this country and this is the case for the entire African continent.
Over the past few years we have seen ships that had nothing to do with our country or our economy foundering on our shores. Just as a demonstration of this, in 2009 a vessel carrying coal from Durban to Gibraltar in the Mediterranean Sea ran aground in Cape Town due to the failure of its engines in heavy seas. As it turned out, it was not insured and the owners ran away, leaving the country with a bill of over R70 million.
In 2011 the barge Margaret, sailing from China to Holland, encountered heavy seas and ran aground outside Saldanha Bay. Again, it turned out not to have been insured as its insurance was valid only if the barge used the Suez Canal. The shipowner soon ran out of money and the state had to pick up a R15 million bill in wreck reduction costs.
In 2011, again, the vessel Olivia, sailing from Brazil to China, collided head-on with a mountain cliff off Tristan da Cunha Island, breaking into two and spilling thousands of tons of fuel oil and closing the South African fishing grounds in the southern oceans at a big cost to the fishing companies operating in that area as well as to the economy. Also in 2011 the MT Phoenix, a scrap ship from West Africa on the way to India, encountered engine problems, was uninsured, and was abandoned by its owners. It subsequently ran aground off Durban.
UMzantsi Afrika kwafuneka ukhuphe amashumi amathathu avayo ezigidi zeerandi ukuphipha loo mosharha. Sekela Somlomo, imeko yezi nqanawe kuqoqosho lwethu inzima injalo kwaye ayiqali ngoku. Kudala yaqala. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[South Africa was compelled to fork out a whopping R30 million to clean up that damage. Deputy Speaker, the situation of these ships affects our economy and it dates back from time immemorial.]
In 1983 the Castillo de Bellver, carrying about 252 000 tons of light crude oil, caught fire about 70 miles northwest of Cape Town. This ship drifted offshore and broke in two and sank 24 miles off the coast. This remains the second biggest tanker oil spills in the history of pollution from a tanker vessel.
In 2000 another bulk carrier, the Treasure, also sank in heavy seas off Cape Town, spilling at least 200 tons of heavy fuel oil. The incident severely affected two large breeding grounds of African penguins on Robben and Dassen Islands and resulted in the evacuation of 21 000 birds.
Ithini ke impendulo yethu? Ndiyakuxelela! [What is our solution to this? That is a story for another day!]
The 1967 oil spill from the Torrey Canyon, which ran aground near the Scilly Isles, Italy, exposed a number of serious shortcomings, in particular the absence of an international regime on liability and compensation in the event of oil spills from tankers. That incident led the International Maritime Organization to establish a legal framework for compensation for victims of oil pollution from tankers. This framework was called the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and was adopted in 1969.
In 1971 an International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution, the 1971 Fund Convention, was adopted in order to provide a mechanism for raising funds for the Civil Liability Convention. These conventions were for compensation for damage caused by oil spills from laden tankers, which are the tankers carrying oil as cargo. Both conventions were amended by the 1992 protocols, that is the 1992 CLC and the 1992 Fund Protocol, respectively.
The amendments were effected in order to increase the amounts of compensation payable to claimants. This is due to the fact that the 1969 convention had a limit of R180 million, which has become too little to cater for today's risks. Because of the South African geographic location, there are many VLCCs passing by the coastline, and the 1969 limit of R180 million proved to be minimal and could barely cover oil spills from those tankers.
Our government has acceded to the amended convention, which is the 1992 protocol, in order to gain access to the higher insurance fund in cases of incidents. This amounts to R2,5 billion per incident. The Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability Convention) Bill, which is the CLC Bill, is meant to get South Africa to participate in the benefits of the higher insurance.
One is going to ask: Why did it take so long to get these Bills in place? The answer lies in the historical context. South Africa was kicked out of the international multilateral organisations and, as such, could only apply a range of laws modelled on the international instruments, but not the actual instruments. This has invariably led to a concoction of Acts that we have to be careful do not present a conflict of what are we trying to do now. This specifically affects all laws linked to international obligations.
What we are undertaking is for the government risk to be properly managed, and to ensure that all these incidents that have nothing to do with our economy do not end up costing this economy and thus directing resources away from well-deserving causes. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]
TONA YA DIPALANGWA: Motlatsammusakgotla, jaaka ke ne ke tlhagisitse gore ngwaga ono, go ya ka Lefapha la Dipalangwa, ke ngwaga wa go tsamaisa dithoto ka metsi, le gore re rometse baithuti ba le 30 kwa Sweden go ya go ithuta ka tsa Molao wa Lewatle, poloko ya tikologo le go aga dikepe.
Ke batla go tlhagisa gape gore Moporesitente Zuma o tlhamile ANC e e lebaneng le ekonomi e e tlisang kgwebo ya tsa lewatle e bile e tlhama ditiro go lwantsha botlhoka tiro le go fedisa lehuma. Batho ba rona ba tshwanetse go itse gore lewatle le rwele eng, kago ya dikepe le lefelo la go tsamaisa dithoto ka metsi. Dikepe tse re buang ka tsona gompieno ke dikepe tsa mafelo a kwa ntle, e seng tsa batho ba Aforika Borwa.
Ke batla go tlhagisa gape gore mo ngwageng ono ... (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Deputy Speaker, as I have indicated, this year, according to the Department of Transport, is the year to transport goods on sea, and we have sent 30 students to Sweden to learn about marine law, environmental conservation and ship design.
I would also like to indicate that President Zuma, who leads the ANC, has sound economic policies that promote marine business, create jobs to fight unemployment and eradicate poverty. Our people need to know what is being transported on the sea, how ships are designed and what harbours is like - where goods are transported. The ships that we are talking about today are importing products which are not manufactured by South Africans.
I would also like to indicate that this year ...]
... the South African Maritime Safety Authority, Samsa, bid to host the regional co-ordination centre under the Western Indian Ocean Marine Highway Project. As the Department of Transport we are obliged to support Samsa to make this project a reality. Samsa wants to host the centre at the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre, which is paid for by the Department of Transport. Therefore, we need to look for additional resources, and I believe that the department will get the support of the portfolio committee to make this centre a success.
At the same time, I've taken note of the issues raised by the chairperson of the portfolio committee. I want to say to you, Chair, that it is not the intention of the Department or the Ministry of Transport to undermine the portfolio committee. I want to say to you today that we are addressing the challenges that you came to raise with me.
I would also like to convey my appreciation for the effort that the portfolio committee made to send a multiparty committee to meet with me to raise the particular challenges that you experienced in the process of dealing with these pieces of legislation. We will not undermine the role and task of Parliament and we want to work together with you. But, I also would like to say to hon Krumbock that it is... [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.