Political ecology: IFP’s environmental policies

Q&A with the IFP on a few front-line issues regarding their environmental resource policies (political ecology). The questionnaire — sent to major political parties — interrogated a number of issues ranging from agriculture and the extractive industries to carbon trading, energy and sustainable economics. Due to limited space, only a handful of responses have been pasted below.

IFP’s environmental priorities:

Climate chaos must be averted. Ecology is the key to understanding the role of humans on earth. We must carefully balance human development with respect for all other living entities and measure our short-term financial gain against longer term personal, social and environmental health.

IFP’s thoughts on SA in relation to our biocapacity and footprint:

We are the 12th largest carbon polluter in the world with a footprint far beyond our land capacity and growth levels. We use energy and resources, such as coal, inefficiently and stain the environment with impunity.

IFP’s stance on democratic ownership of resources:

Industry, mining and progress are not incompatible with respect for life and diversity. Development can be carried out within the framework of strict requirements for environmental health. Hence, for example, the IFP opposed the building of dams which would displace communities, or of mines which would ruin marine ecosystems.

Diamond and gold beneficiation can be used to create employment. Chrome is a valuable export. In themselves these products are not a source of exploitation. If they are allowed to become the exclusive possessions of the select few who benefit out of all proportion to the many, the fault is in the way they are exploited in the absence of community partnerships and competition.

IFP on the issue of water as a finite resource; privatisation and public right of access; corporate use, cost and access; irrigation; protection from pollution; hydropolitics:

We would require mines and large farms to pay more for water thereby forcing them to be efficient in their use thereof

IFP on renewable energy:

The IFP would prioritise the growth of the RE sector though special tax incentives for solar water heater installations The current Eskom grant is cumbersome and unsatisfactory. We would mandate all new geysers installed to be solar. We would have a reasonable RFIT based on the German model with an independent office (not Eskom) entering into fair and transparent contracts with RE producers. We would increase our target for renewable energy to 15% by 2015.

IFP on supporting the development of renewable energy eg additional R&D funds, subsidisation:

We would multiply many times the investment in RE technologies and partner international universities in development of all current technologies with which the world is exploding.

We will also offer tax incentives for companies that invest in RE.

Has the government taken advantage of recent improvements in local technology concerning solar panels, specifically in terms of integrating panels and solar heating into low-cost housing? (eg reports state that South Africa could save R50 billion and reduce electricity demand by half if 4 million homes were fitted with solar heaters — reducing electricity bills by 40%.)

The SA government has done nothing in this regard, in fact the DME and Eskom did not support a private members’ bill, proposed by Dr Rabinowitz, requiring the contradictions in national provincial and local legislation to be ironed out so that local governments could legislate for mandatory solar water geysers and provide their own incentives for uptake of this technology. We also believe that the current bias of the Eskom subsidy towards SABS-approved models has enabled a form of price fixing in the local solar water market. We support the idea of approving equivalent standards between South African an international standards bodies so that keen competition in the solar water industry brings prices down. We also support the concept of reverse metering, whereby anyone who feeds PV power into the grid can benefit there from.

IFP on food sovereignty/security eg GMOs (patents, environmental risk, labelling … recent studies from the University of Michigan to the UNEP reveal that organic practices double yields, lead to greater water retention, healthier soils, and higher plant nutrient content, as well as accelerating development of infrastructure, increasing income, environmental and social health, self-reliance and skill):

We do not support this as seed ownership become the monopoly of large companies. We recognise this danger and therefore call for a moratorium on the use of GMOs in the local food chain. We support the idea of producer liability. Due to the expense, variability and complexity of labelling GMO foodstuffs we favour a tracking system from farm to fork. We also advocate an independent meaningful system of “organic” labelling

We believe that the benefit from GMOS is short-lived and is usually based on artificial support from the large corporate manufacturer that replaces government as a provider of education, training and support to GMO farmers. Into the third and fourth generation the crops begin to lose strength and are challenged by new super bugs and super weeds. We believe that government should pay far greater attention to research in organic farming. It should also provide support to small-scale farmers in the form of loans, transport, roads and education for organic farming

IFP on factory farming/cruelty to animals/hormones/animal by-products:

We feel that the mechanistic attitude toward flesh as farmed food is unconscionable. There would be strict laws about limits to the use of pesticides, hormones, chemicals and artificial additives to animal food. There should be minimum requirements of space and light/dark

IFP on chemically intensive farming (economic cost, ecological and social impacts):

We would definitely discourage cavalier use of chemicals and pesticides and require grater transparency with regard to substances used in farming appearing on food labels. At the same time we would promote research into less mechanistic, chemically intensive, unhealthy farming methods. We would spend more time energy and money on public education on healthy eating since the attitude of the consumer would be pivotal to changing the ways of farmers.

IFP on marine stocks (sustainability, corporate — foreign and domestic — access, conservation zones):

The rate at which we are allowing our seas to be fished out is appalling. Controls that should be in place are not monitored. Corruption is rife. Once again a culture of fairness and rule of law would be a priority of the IFP.

IFP on sustainable development in the context of sustainable economics:

Sustainable development is development that complies with the maintenance of an ecologically sound population of humans, animals and plants. It is based on the principles of give and take and self-sufficiency. It entails both economic and natural sustainability, progress and health without permanent reliance on hand-outs from donors or the state. It is impossible without education and ongoing support to maintain accountability and lawful behaviour. It requires some from of democratic framework.