The Democratic Alliance has scored an own goal: for the party, for South Africa’s international reputation, for wildlife and for young people who will be increasingly exposed to climate shocks.
Getting Dion George axed as the minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment in the middle of the world’s most important climate meeting in a decade is damaging, particularly for a party that claims to care about South Africa’s role on the global stage.
George, who was co-chairing one of three major streams (adaptation) at COP30 in Brazil from November 10-21, has been forced to withdraw after being removed on Wednesday. President Cyril Ramaphosa replaced him at the request of DA leader John Steenhuisen.
His leadership of the G20 environmental and climate sustainability ministerial meeting in October earned him respect of multilateral partners and secured declarations on combating wildlife crime and air quality. However senior the person who steps up as delegation head at COP30, that official would not carry the same authority.
DFFE media liaison officer Thobile Zulu-Molobi said in reply to a query, we remain committed to ensuring South Africa’s voice is heard."
George was driving an ambitious agenda on adaptation —building resilience to cope with climate shocks like heatwaves or floods — including the acceleration of funding to the Global South at COP30. Without a minister in the hot seat, the country’s influence is reduced.
And the agreements made by the 194 countries attending (the US pulled out) at COP30 have life and death consequences for the most vulnerable communities worldwide. Remember the 433 people who died and more than 40,000 people displaced in flooding in April 2022 in KwaZulu-Natal?
This, of course, doesn’t mean that George must be retained at all costs — but simply that the reason for his removal ought to be self-evident.
Citing “underperformance”, Steenhuisen sounds disingenuous about his reason for axing George. If the former minister has failed in his duties or acted wrongly, then the DA and Steenhuisen have a duty to explain this.
Whatever his faults or missteps, George’s work ethic and track record since July 2024 are impressive.
In his zeal to get things done, he has inevitably stirred up controversy. Environmental organisations criticised his decision (related to an appeal) to allow another nuclear power station to go ahead near Cape Town. DFFE reports show that 162 environmental appeals have been finalised and more than 3,000 renewable energy applications were processed under him.
Ten years from now, African penguins may be a symbol of what George and his team achieved in a single year.
What put a “target on his back” reportedly were his steps to halt captive lion breeding and the export of lion bone, ivory and elephant. Today’s Climate Diplomacy Briefing from Belem called his sacking “bad news for elephants”.
It is too soon to gauge the fallout, but it is likely that what George and his team achieved — senior officials are apparently threatening to resign — could benefit South Africa’s endangered species, not least the African penguins.
Under George, vital steps were finalised to protect the African penguin from extinction in the wild, forecast by 2035. Their food source near breeding colonies was protected from overfishing — George expedited the resolution of a legal challenge — and ship-to-ship fuel transfer, which posed a risk to marine species, was halted.
Ten years from now, African penguins may be a symbol of what George and his team achieved in a single year.
Even if George was under-performing, South Africans deserve to know what performance discussions were had with him, what guidance was given to him and his team and what targets they failed to meet.
Further, what targets is Steenhuisen meeting in the department of agriculture, where farmers endured a needlessly prolonged foot and mouth outbreak months ago? Ditto many other cabinet members regardless of which political parties they come from.
Were George’s purported underperformances so calamitous that his removal could not have been delayed until global issues at COP30 were behind us? Many questions, no responses.
Yet, without these the inescapable conclusion is that this Steenhuisen-sponsored quasi-reshuffle is merely a different shade of the sort the country experienced under former president Jacob Zuma during a very dark period in our country.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.