South Africa: Select Committee Engages With Stakeholders on Marine Oil Pollution Bill
The bill aims to incorporate the provisions of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) into South African law. As a party to the OPRC Convention, South Africa is required to adopt measures to prepare for and respond to potential oil spills in the country's maritime domain.
Committee Chairperson Mr Rikus Badenhorst said combatting marine oil pollution is not only an environmental concern, it is also an economic, social and legal imperative. The destruction of marine habitats, the violation of environmental rights and the significant threats to livelihoods, particularly those dependent on the ocean economy, demand decisive legislative action.
'As outlined in the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC), to which South Africa is a party, we have a duty to ensure that our legislative framework adequately provides for prevention, response and accountability in cases of marine oil pollution,' said Mr Badenhorst.
The committee was of the view that the presentations and submissions received reaffirmed the urgency of strengthening South Africa's legislative framework for marine oil pollution prevention and response.
Key insights were shared by organisations such as the Biodiversity Law Centre, SANCCOB [Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds], BirdLife South Africa, the Green Connection, and Natural Justice. The stakeholders raised issues around delays in coordination between agencies and government officials during oil spill incidents, which allow the pollution to continue unabated. They also stressed the importance of integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ensuring transparent and accessible compensation mechanisms for affected communities.
Members of the committee picked up on the issue raised by stakeholders about the importance of including traditional healers in the discussions. The committee said traditional healers have a deep connection to the ocean and as custodians of cultural heritage and environmental stewardship cannot be overlooked. Engaging these communities is essential for holistic and effective marine resource management. The bill is currently in the provinces for the public participation process.
The Department of Transport provided a detailed responses to the stakeholder submissions, highlighting existing mechanisms and measures in place to address marine pollution, including the standby tug vessels patrolling the coastline and the country's membership of international treaties, such as the OPRC.
Mr Badenhorst said that as the committee continues its oversight role, members will remain vigilant in monitoring the implementation of the bill once it is enacted. 'We are committed to ensuring that the necessary regulations are promulgated without delay and that our collective responsibility to safeguard our marine resources is upheld,' he said.
'The ongoing work to refine this bill must ensure that it is practical, enforceable and adequately resourced to fulfill its objectives effectively. We emphasise the importance of empowering relevant authorities, including the South African Maritime Safety Authority, and engaging coastal communities and small-scale fishers in decision-making and response efforts,' added Mr Badenhorst.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
16 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Elon Musk learns that bullies aren't your friends
Anita Chabria, Tribune News Service The thing about bullies is they don't have real friends. They have lieutenants, followers and victims — sometimes all three rolled into one. Most of us learn this by about third grade, when parents and hard knocks teach us how to figure out whom you can trust, and who will eat you for lunch. Elon Musk, at age 54 with $400 billion in the bank, just learned it this week — when his feud with our bully-in-chief devolved into threats that the president will have the South African native deported. Speaking about Musk losing government support for electric cars, Trump this week warned that Musk "could lose a lot more than that." "We might have had to put DOGE on Elon," Trump said, referencing Musk's cost-cutting effort called the Department of Government Efficiency. "DOGE is the monster that ... might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?" Yes, I know. Schadenfreude is real. It's hard not to sit back with a bit of "told ya" satisfaction as we watch Musk — who has nearly single-handedly demolished everything from hurricane tracking to international aid for starving children — realise that Trump doesn't love him. But because Musk is the richest man in the world, who also now understands he has the power to buy votes if not elections, and Trump is grabbing power at every opportunity, there's too much at stake to ignore the pitiful interpersonal dynamics of these two tantrumming titans. What does it have to do with you and me, you ask? Well, there's a potential fallout that is worrisome: The use of denaturalisation against political enemies. In case you've been blessedly ignorant of the Trump-Musk meltdown, let me recap. Once upon a time, nine months ago, Musk and Trump were so tight, it literally had Musk jumping for joy. During a surprise appearance at a Butler, Pennsylvania, political rally (the same place where Trump was nearly assassinated), Musk leaped into the air, arms raised, belly exposed, with the pure delight of simply being included as a follower, albeit one who funnelled $290 million into election coffers. Back then, Musk had no concern that it wasn't his own dazzling presence that got him invited places. By January, Musk had transitioned to lieutenant, making up DOGE, complete with cringey swag, like a lonely preteen dreaming up a secret club in his tree house. Only this club had the power to dismantle the federal government as we know it and create a level of social destruction whose effects won't be fully understood for generations. Serious villain energy. But then he got too full of himself, the No. 1 sin for a lieutenant. Somewhere along the line, Trump noticed (or perhaps someone whispered in the president's ear) that Musk was just as powerful as he is — maybe more. Cue the fallout, the big "see ya" from the White House (complete with a shoving match with another Trump lieutenant) and Musk's sad realisation that, like everyone else in a bully's orbit, he was being used like a Kleenex and was never going to wind up anyplace but the trash. So Musk took to his social media platform to start bashing on Trump and the "Big Beautiful Bill," which passed in the Senate on Tuesday, clearing the way for our national debt to skyrocket while the poor and middle class suffer. "If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE," Musk threatened, conjuring up a new political party the same way he ginned up DOGE. Musk even promised to bankroll more elections to back candidates to oust Trumpians who voted for the bill. "And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth," Musk wrote. Presumably before he leaves for Mars. It was those direct — and plausible — threats to Trump's power that caused the president to turn his eye of Sauron on Musk, flexing that he might consider deportation for this transgression of defiance. It might seem entertaining if Musk, who the Washington Post reported may have violated immigration rules, were booted from our borders, but it would set a chilling precedent that standing up to this president was punishable by a loss of citizenship.
Zawya
18 hours ago
- Zawya
South Africa: Select Committee on Public Infrastructure Welcomes the Department's Bold Reform Agenda for Infrastructure and Job Creation
The Select Committee on Public Infrastructure and Minister in the Presidency has welcomed the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure's strategic and annual performance plans for the 2025/26 financial year. The Chairperson of the committee, Mr Rikus Badenhorst, described the plans as a clear and credible turning point for infrastructure-led development in South Africa. He said: "This is not a mere tweak of the department, but a fundamental shift in how it understands and executes its core mandate. Minister Macpherson agenda marks a critical departure towards a department that is a catalyst for infrastructure-led growth, a partner in job creation, and a driver of economic recovery." Following a detailed presentation by the Minister of the department, Mr Dean Macpherson, the committee affirmed its support for the department's renewed vision to serve as a catalyst for economic recovery, job creation, and inclusive growth. The plans are strongly aligned to the National Development Plan and Medium-Term Strategic Framework, and reflect an earnest commitment to reform, delivery and measurable impact. At the centre of this renewed vision is the repositioning of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) from a temporary job relief measure to a structured, skills-based employment pipeline. With a R7.2 billion allocation over the MTEF period, this reform aims to transform the EPWP into a credible contributor to long-term, dignified employment. Mr Badenhorst said the shift from welfare to workforce is one of the most important interventions in restoring both human dignity and economic resilience, remarked. 'We will monitor its implementation with keen interest,' emphasised Mr Badenhorst. The committee also welcomed the department's strategic focus on urban regeneration, repurposing hijacked and underutilised buildings, and optimising state assets for greater public value, particularly within inner-city precincts. This renewed developmental posture is essential to reversing years of stagnation, inefficiency and fiscal wastage. Minister Macpherson was frank in his assessment of the department's historic shortcomings, including systemic inefficiencies, audit deficiencies, and skills shortages. The committee commended the Minister's openness, and noted the department's new risk management framework as a strong response, particularly its intention to clamping down on tender irregularities, tighten controls on lease agreements, and combat collusion in the supply chain. Committee members posed rigorous questions during the session, including queries about the R589 million allocation for infrastructure support, the need to strengthen capacity in the EPWP, and concerns about the alignment of budget allocations with strategic intent. Particular attention was given to the transition to digital systems and its impact on job security, as well as the Department's plans to reduce its lease portfolio and address the long-standing maintenance backlog across government buildings. In response, the department indicated its commitment to prudent asset management, exploring alternative ownership models, and ensuring that modernisation does not come at the expense of employment or service continuity. Mr Badenhorst said to Minister Macpherson: 'It is clear that you bring political will to the table. This committee will match it with rigorous oversight, constructive engagement, and institutional support. Together, we can turn this department, and indeed South Africa, into a construction site of progress.' The committee reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the department's reform trajectory, underscoring the centrality of infrastructure to the nation's economic and social recovery. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
If Starmer's Labour proscribes Palestine Action, none of us will be safe
This week, Sir Keir Starmer's government is set to launch an attack on civil liberties of a kind not seen in the UK in the modern era by proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group. In so doing, Starmer's government will almost certainly invite the routine surveillance of swathes of the politically engaged public and even the political opponents of Starmer's party. It may, in the worst-case scenario, provide the tools to criminalise a new generation of anti-genocide, anti-war and anti-austerity political candidates who are on track to seriously threaten the most senior members of Starmer's cabinet – and Starmer himself. This is the politics of Vladimir Putin's Russia or Viktor Orban's Hungary. It stains the progressive history of the Labour Party. I know about that progressive history because it was fundamental to the struggle against South African apartheid. I was recruited to the ANC in the 1980s, becoming, in the eyes of the South African government, a terrorist sympathiser. I went into exile because an authoritarian regime was using the law to smash a global anti-racist movement for peace and justice. If Palestine Action is proscribed, will I, and the global movement that supports it, be called terrorist sympathisers yet again? New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Back then, when Margaret Thatcher was declaring Nelson Mandela a terrorist (see how well the UK establishment's idea of terrorism ages?), we in the ANC knew that the Labour Party's rank-and-file had our back. It was precisely this solidarity that destroyed the despicable apartheid regime, which was choked by the dual hands of ungovernability at home – purposeful, defiant criminality –and sanctions and boycott abroad. If Palestine Action is proscribed, will I, and the global movement that supports it, be called terrorist sympathisers yet again? The decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been slammed by every major human rights and civil liberties organisation in the country, from Liberty to Amnesty International, as a direct attack on basic political freedoms. The Home Office's own civil servants, hardly a bevy of radicals, are reportedly astonished by the decision and its plainly political character. Anybody with any foresight knows that it will create a dangerous precedent that could be used by this country's insurgent far-right to criminalise resistance to authoritarianism, racism and environmental despoliation. For the first time in the UK's history, a domestic non-violent direct action group, and anyone who supports them, will be recast as a terrorist. A handful of committed activists, wielding little more than cans of red paint, bolt cutters and electric scooters, will be considered to be the same as groups like Islamic State, which ritually beheaded prisoners on camera, or Boko Haram, which used its reign of terror to abduct 2,000 women and girls, whom they raped, abused or sold into sexual slavery. It is obscene. Opposing Israel's genocide And what is Palestine Action protesting? Israel's genocide of Gaza. An honest to god, live-streamed genocide, shown daily and in high fidelity on our phones, where we can see the viscera of children carried in plastic bags and people severed in two by falling buildings. A genocide that has created the largest cohort of child amputees in history. A genocide that drops bombs on refugee tents and burns the sick and wounded alive. A genocide that has killed tens of thousands of children. A genocide that, in a single year, reduced Gaza's life expectancy from 75 to 40 - the lowest in the world. A genocide enabled by the weapons of war that our government continues to sell and the surveillance flights we continue to fly. A Met Police officer scuffles with a protestor during a rally in support of Palestine Action after British government announced the group's ban, in Trafalgar Square (AFP) Starmer's government has the temerity to claim that in proscribing Palestine Action they are acting in the interests of national security, including assisting Ukraine. But this is the inversion of the truth. Nobody's national security – and certainly not Ukraine's - is enhanced by Israel's genocide that is destroying the credibility of international law. Despite the desperate smears, Palestine Action does not disdain the law – they are the law's most fervent defenders. Palestine Action activists do not resist arrest. They do not seek mistrials or hide behind technicalities. They undertake their actions knowing that they will have to answer to a jury of their peers. They make the conscious decision to risk their liberty in solidarity with the people of Gaza. They do so, not because they reject the law, but because they desperately want it to be applied – to the representatives of a genocidal government who fly secretly to meet with our foreign secretary, to the weapons companies that aid and abet war crimes, and to our politicians who allow mass slaughter. Again and again, Palestine Action's activists have been found not guilty by their fellow citizens, for the plain and obvious reason that it offends natural justice to jail individuals using non-violent methods to disrupt the annihilation of an entire people. Threat to democracy What of the consequences for British democracy? It is no secret that Palestine Action has huge support amongst the British public. It is no secret that they are held in high esteem by a large number of progressives, including young voters, prominent Green Party figures and many journalists. It is no secret that progressives, who strive to fight injustice through solidarity, will be infuriated, horrified and outraged by a plainly unjust proscription. It is no secret that they will be tempted to speak out. All of these individuals and groups, having previously defended Palestine Action against proscription, will now be primary targets for surveillance by counter-terror police, who will no doubt be under pressure to enforce this new proscription. 'Like a kidnapping': How UK police are hunting pro-Palestine activists Read More » So when George Monbiot addresses a literary festival, will there be a plainclothes policeman taking notes of what was said? When Owen Jones livestreams on Youtube, will police resources be dedicated to monitoring the comment section? When Sally Rooney flies to the UK, will she be held up and interrogated at the airport by counter-terror police because of what she wrote in pages of the Guardian? When Zarah Sultana meets with her constituents, will she have to wonder whether she is speaking to a resident of Coventry South or an agent provocateur? When Green Party candidates like Zack Polanski hold party meetings, will everyone be looking over their shoulder in fear and suspicion? When you walk alongside the hundreds of thousands of other protestors who march peacefully through the streets of London to demand an end to genocide, will you be surveilled? Will all of us opposing genocide and this unjust proscription have to worry about getting that knock on the door in the middle of the night? It is shameful that these questions even need to be asked. Who will be targeted next? But there is another ugly dimension to this whole affair. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action will undoubtedly invite the surveillance of the sort of anti-war, anti-austerity and pro-Gaza candidates who now threaten many of Starmer's most senior Cabinet ministers. Look at Wes Streeting, Starmer's mooted heir-apparent, sitting on a 500-vote majority threatened by Leanne Mohammed – a twenty-something independent who is unshakeable in her commitment to opposing crimes in Gaza, to fighting imperialism and defeating austerity. Or look at Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor, who barely held onto what used to be one of Labour's five safest seats in the country in Birmingham. Recent polling suggests that a mere 5 percent (yes, 5 percent!) of voters in Birmingham are likely to vote for the Labour Party in next year's local election. UK election 2024: British-Palestinian Leanne Mohamad narrowly loses to Labour's Wes Streeting Read More » Then look at Sir Keir Starmer, whom I challenged at the last election, and whose majority was slashed in half. I do not presume to assume that the progressive community in Holborn & St Pancras will choose me to run at the next general election, but I know for certain that they will choose a candidate that will push Starmer to the brink. Walk around Camden and talk to ordinary people and you will soon discover their genuine outrage that their own MP fails to properly stand up to Israel's genocide while taking away benefits from the elderly and disabled. What will happen in the lead-up to the next election, when dozens of Labour MPs are threatened by a newly emerging cohort of progressives to their left, some independent and some in the Green Party? Will the party face them fair and square? Or will the party do what it did to the likes of Faiza Shaheen and innumerable other left-wingers: go through their social media to find anything that might even resemble an infraction and use it against them? Forgive me for being alarmist, but we've been here before. In 2022, the Labour Party under the control of Starmer's faction proscribed a series of groups. Anybody who expressed support for the groups would be immediately expelled. Incredibly, proscription was applied retrospectively. People could be expelled for having liked a tweet from an organisation years before doing so was an offence. It obviously offended natural justice. So the party changed its rule book. Previously, the rule book had said the principles of natural justice would apply to cases like proscription. Now that was deleted. Yes, read that again: the Labour Party literally deleted natural justice from its rule book. Maybe I'm being an alarmist. Maybe this government struggling in the polls won't use the state to go after their political opponents Back then, the Labour Party claimed it was proscribing groups to tackle antisemitism. In reality, proscription was used as a tool to expel people the leadership found politically unpalatable but who could not be brought up on other offences. It was through this mechanism that the party expelled renowned filmmaker Ken Loach. It was also through this mechanism that the party expelled a raft of left-wing and anti-Zionist Jews. In fact, the Labour Party disproportionately used proscription to expel Jews – in the name of fighting antisemitism! Now, the Labour government is proscribing a non-violent direct action group opposing the war crimes of Israel – in defence of the law. Maybe I'm being an alarmist. Maybe this government struggling in the polls won't use the state to go after their political opponents. Maybe they won't do exactly what they did to destroy their opposition in the Labour Party. But we can all agree that in a functioning democracy, this shouldn't even be conceivable. Labour MPs: Do not go quietly In 1996, Nelson Mandela called me into his office and told me that I was being "deployed" to South Africa's first post-apartheid parliament. As a proud Jew, the son of a Holocaust survivor, it was the honour of my life to introduce the first ever motion in South Africa's parliament to recognise and lament the Holocaust. I know what it is like to stand in parliament and make decisions about the future of your country. So as a fellow legislator, let me take this opportunity to address the Labour Party's 411 MPs who will vote on proscription this week. In the near future, there will be museums and memorials to this genocide. Soon, everyone will acknowledge this once-in-a-lifetime horror. Soon, your friends, your family, your children and your grandchildren, will ask: what did you do when Israel was bombing the children of Gaza? Did you have the guts to defend the innocents of Gaza, to protect British democracy, and to stand up to your own leaders? How do you think they will respond when you tell them that, instead of standing up for the Palestinian people, you voted to make it a terrorist offense to spray-paint an airplane flying surveillance flights over Gaza, or mildly vandalise Donald Trump's golf course, or disrupt the Israeli war machine with some hammers and no shortage of personal bravery? In the dead of night, when you can't sleep, as you turn over your life's choices, you will have to answer to yourself for what you do this week. What will your answer be? In this moment of crisis, did you stand on the side of genocide? Or did you have the guts to defend the innocents of Gaza, to protect British democracy, and to stand up to your own leaders? Did you say, aye, Palestine Action and everyone who supports them are terrorists? Or did you instead say, no. No more. Never again. Not in my name. Choose wisely. The world, and your constituents, are watching. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
