Mr. Chairman, I kindly request the privilege of the half hour.

Before discussing this Vote, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries as well as the hon. member for Ermelo on his appointment as Chairman of the governing party’s study group concerning environment affairs.

This is a fine Vote and a fine cause and although it is at present a difficult one over which we might argue at times, I should like to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that we in the PFP want to co-operate with him on a constructive and positive basis.

†Mr. Chairman, I believe the appropriate point from which to launch this particular debate is the report of the President Council’s Scientific Committee which serves a very useful purpose in highlighting the situation regarding water as a critical factor in the future development of South Africa. It states a number of important points. It makes the point that water is the ultimate limitation to the growth of South Africa and that the total net volume of usable water in South Africa is about 32 000 million cubic meters per annum and it projects that the consumption of water on present assumptions is going to exceed the availability of water in South Africa by the year 2020. That is an extremely sobering projection. It also makes the point, based on present assumptions, that South Africa cannot sustain a population in excess of 90 million people. And that assumes that once the population reaches 90 million the population pressure at that stage will not pollute the available water.

Apart from this salutary report by the President’s Council the present drought has also served to forcibly highlight the realities of water in South Africa. I regret to say—and naturally I do not put it all at the hon. the Minister’s door—that the Government’s response to the management of water has over a long period of time been erratic, inadequate and often confused. Government policy has been characterized by neglect and an absolutely miserly allocation of funds, which money has in my view not been used in an optimum way.

Recently there has been a step forward in calling this Department the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Together with the change of name there have come new responsibilities. However, it is astonishing that although this has happened, this Department, this Vote, has been allocated less money than before. It has actually decreased by 7,8%. It is an extraordinary situation. The only other two budget votes which have gone backwards as this one has done, is the Vote of the Prime Minister, whose Department has shed responsibilities on a large scale to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, and the State President’s Vote, which is down by 1,6%. The overall budget is up 15,5% and yet the Government cannot find the funds to even keep this Department at the level at which it was operating last year. It is an amazing situation. This compounds the state of neglect which we have inherited for the last decade. On page 2 of the 1980-’81 annual report the point is made that since 1973-’74 South Africa has needed a compound growth in water investment of 6% per annum in real terms, but that during that period we had in fact had an actual compounded decline of 6%. The following statement was also made—

That was said two years ago.

Page 3 of the latest report says something similar, namely that—

There was a decline of some 10% in the past year. If one bases one’s calculations on the two items that apply to the storage of water, namely Programmes 4 and 5, taking into account the Department’s assertion that there has been a real reduction of R32 million in the money allocated for the establishment of Government water schemes, and one adjusts the other programme to account for inflation, one arrives at a figure of 9,8%, which is the reduction in real terms compared to last year. Now add this to the cumulative decline of 6% over the last decade! It is a shocking picture of a Government which has not allocated the resources where they should have been allocated.

I was once told by a wise man that if one wants to know a man’s character, one must look at his bank statement, which will tell one exactly with what sort of man one is dealing. Similarly one can look at a Government’s priorities and one will know with what sort of Government one is dealing. The Government has a lot to answer for when it comes to this Vote.

It seems to me that in a situation where South Africa has developed a dangerous backlog as a result of the Government’s shortsighted and drastic slashing of expenditure over many years, we must find the fastest way out of the bind. We must ask ourselves where the country can achieve the maximum benefit in the shortest time for the rands it can put into development in respect of water.

I believe the key to solving South Africa’s water crisis of the eighties lies in Natal. That is where the return on capital will yield the quickest and greatest benefit to the country as a whole. Money spent on water schemes in Natal will not only be a sound investment, but will also help, I believe, to correct the inequities of the past.

Although Natal accounts for only 7% of the land surface of South Africa, it is blessed with some 25% of the country’s total water run-off, and with up to 40% of the nation’s usable water resources. In spite of this abundance of water, there is at present a water crisis in Natal. The region is one of the worst hit by the current drought situation. How can this be? Of all the provinces Natal should be able to more than supply its own needs as well as to export to other parts of South Africa into the bargain. I do not refer to forced export. At present they are exporting what they need, but they should have been developed to the point where they have all they need and still be in a position to export. What has caused such a contradictory situation? I believe the answer is that both Natal and, as a secondary consequence, also the Transvaal are paying the price for a century of neglect in respect of capital expenditure on Government water schemes.

There is a very interesting schedule in the latest annual report. Table C on page 157 of this report is a schedule of capital expenditure on the establishment of Government water schemes for the 100 year period form 1882 to 1982. The total for the period of expenditure on works uncompleted at 31 March 1982, together with additional expenditure on works previously completed, a total of R1,282 million, which is heavily geared to recent decades—obviously, with inflation and rising costs—reflects an astonishing allocation of funds by provinces. Let me express a cautionary note; that may not be the whole story. I hope it is not and that the hon. the Minister will be able to flesh out the picture. However, if the true situation is anything like the picture reflected in Table C, the points I am going to make are valid. According to this schedule the Cape has during that period been allocated R590,4 million, 46,1% of the whole cake, whereas the Orange Free State was allocated 26,4%, the Transvaal 17,2% and Natal 10,4% of the cake. And that was after splitting the TUVA schemes fifty-fifty—Natal did not benefit from the TUVA schemes—and after splitting the Orange River scheme fifty-fifty between the OFS and the Cape.

As I have said, I hope that this picture can be fleshed out and even amended a bit by the hon. the Minister, but if it is anything like Table C, it is disgraceful.

In the light of these figures it is no wonder that the hon. the Minister was able to reply to my question on 18 March 1983 to the effect that the Eastern and Southern Transvaal regions, as well as Natal, are in the grip of a severe drought and that water supplies to Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Newcastle could be in a critical position by August 1983. At the end of the same statement he was able to say: “The urban areas of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage, East London and Bloemfontein have sufficient water supplies for the foreseeable future.” It seems to me that this is a classic case of pork barrel politics. As far as access to the pork barrel is concerned, Natal and kwaZulu have been bullied to the back of the queue particularly in the last 35 years.

I have no doubt that the present water crisis in Durban and Pietermaritzburg would have been averted if the Government had stuck to its own White Paper of 1961 which set out a programme of necessary works for Natal. The Government cannot say it was not warned either. A recent article in the Daily News by Mr. Bruce Cameron pointed out that five years ago a report by the firm Thorrington-Smith, Rossenberg and McCrystal warned that current resources would be sufficient only “until about 1985” provided re-use schemes came into operation. Moreover, they based their study on population projections which have proved to be too low.

But more that that: Way back in 1953 Mr. Thorrington-Smith pointed to the enormous potential of the Tugela River for the country as a whole, as well, of course, for Natal. I believe it is no more than pure political bias over the years which has prevented the Government form properly developing the Tugela. It is now a form of poetic justice—and I say this as a man from the Cape—that the Government is now also having to pay the price in its own backyard in the Transvaal for this short-sightedness.

In the light of this background I wish to make an urgent call on the Government to embark on a massive “harness the Tugela” project in this decade. If we harnessed the mighty Tugela along the fines that Mr. Thorrington-Smith envisaged and utilized the full potential of the Tugela basin, we would be embarking on one of the major positive development projects of this century in South Africa and we could be taking a giant stride quickly towards averting future water crises like the present one.

The proper development of the Tugela will have several benefits. I want to point to some which come to mind. It would be one of the world’s great hydro-electric schemes. Hydro-electricity is acknowledged as one of the cheapest forms of electricity. It would be capable of generating over 5 000 megawatts, some 40% more than Cabora Bassa. It would be bigger than Australia’s Snowy Mountain scheme. It would mean the creation of a major decentralized industrial region, something the NP should be pleased about. It would also bring about a huge injection of intensive agriculture in that region. Some 20 000 ha could be irrigated from that development. It would establish a source of non-agricultural water for the Durban-PWV axis which could cater to South Africa’s needs well into the next century. It could mean the establishment of a potential recreational and tourist attraction of inestimable value. Furthermore, it could be a huge stimulus to the development of kwaZulu. I believe this could command widespread support and inspire people.

In the fight of the President Council’s report and the current crisis situation I should also like to say that I believe it is high time that a master plan for water uses, the Republic’s future water needs, water development and conservation of water, should be drawn up. A comprehensive white paper is needed and should be activated immediately, if it has not already been done. In the immediate short term, however, I believe there is also a pressing need for the Government to take the public fully into its confidence with regard to contingency plans for the current crisis. What happens if the present crisis extends beyond September or October? What is the margin of safety available to South Africa if there is no rain at the start of the next expected rainy season? Do plans for the very worst contingencies exist? Is there an over-all co-ordinating committee to manage the crisis, and if so, which departments and people are represented on the committee? I believe all this relevant information should be made available to the public as far as possible and as soon as possible.

I should also like to say something about the Water Research Commission in the time that is available to me. I believe they have spent far too little money over the last ten years in regard to one of the major uses of water in South Africa. They could have done far more in regard to dry cooling technology and wet dry cooling technology. It seems inadequate for them to have spent only 4% of their budget over the last ten years on that matter. We need a vastly stepped-up programme with a view to phasing in dry cooling and wet dry cooling at as many power stations as possible. The potential savings of water are enormous.

I am afraid my time has run out but I should like to end by putting a number of general queries to the hon. the Minister. What is happening in regard to the Lesotho Highland water scheme? I hope that information will be given us in this debate. Secondly, has the Palmiet Environment Committee presented a final report and recommendations on the water supply project? Thirdly, what is happening about the Claassens Committee report on water tariffs and the White Paper which was promised by the previous hon. Minister last year? Fourthly, does the hon. the Minister have any plan of action to arrest the serious staff shortage in the Department? The net loss of 239 staff members reflected in this report is very disturbing. What is happening about implementing a meaningful programme for recycling water along the lines adopted in Windhoek? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for Constantia for his kind words in congratulating me on my new responsibilities.

*From this side of the House I would like to convey our heartiest congratulations to our new hon. Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries and also to our new hon. Deputy Minister. It is probably the first time in the history of this particular department and probably also of its component parts that it has a Deputy Minister, and this is an indication not only of the amount of work that the department will be required to do in the new phase ahead but also of the great importance that is attached to its work. At the same time we want to welcome the new Deputy Director-General, the head of the Directorate of Forestry, Mr. W. H. van der Merwe. We congratulate him on his promotion and express the hope that there will be many blessings on his work in this very important directorate. While I am handing out compliments, I also want to express a word of hearty congratulation and thanks to the Director-General, Mr. Otto, for an excellent annual report that has been laid upon the Table. It is always a great pleasure to page through such a neat report and see how much work has been put into it.

The discussion of this Vote comes at a time when we are experiencing a drought that has devastated and is still devastating our country. It is a drought of vast proportions. I see some people even say it is the worst drought in human memory. It is a drought that has affected most parts of the country very seriously indeed. It has had an effect on virtually every sector using water in our country. The primary sector, agriculture, finds itself at present in an absolute emergency situation in very large areas of our country. This also applies to the secondary sector. As far as domestic consumption is concerned, people in our cities and towns have to cope with water restrictions and the possibility of water rationing. In the tertiary sphere we have the same problem in that our industrial sector has been severely affected by water restrictions. One thinks of Escom, in particular, which is responsible for generating power. Water restrictions can have a very serious effect in this respect throughout our economy. The drought has also had a particular effect on the State and on this particular department and in this regard I want to refer to the emergency plans that have been announced such as the one that entails that the Vaal River flow be reversed, a scheme that will cost millions of rand and that will have to be ready within a few months otherwise we will experience further problems. I can refer to another example in my own constituency namely the acceleration of the fifth phase of the Usutu-Vaal River Government Water Scheme with the building of the Churchill weir in the Bonnie-brook River. One can continue in this vein to show what demands the drought has made of the department and its staff.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Constantia who expressed his concern about the backlog South Africa has built up as regards water supplies. The report as he quoted it is stated that owing to pressure on State funds in general, the expenditure on new water works was such that we could not achieve our goals. I agree with the hon. member that this is of great concern to us but there are certain explanations for it. I want to refer to only three obvious ones and I think he will agree with me. Because of the onslaught against South Africa, particularly over the past ten or fifteen years, the State has had to give preference to certain other priorities, and in this regard one thinks of Defence. There are also other priorities. In saying this I am not seeking to suggest that water affairs should necessarily have to suffer but these are extenuating circumstances. A second factor is the tremendous development of and demand for power and energy from organizations such as Escom that has compelled the department to place certain irrigation projects, for example, lower down on the list so that water can be supplied to Escom. I referred to a good example of this just now. In a drought situation such as we are experiencing at present—and it is not the first drought that we have had—the department is required to put emergency plans into operation which also takes a piece of the pie that could in normal circumstances be expended on irrigation schemes or other water supply projects. There are therefore reasons why the State has fallen behind in respect of the supply of water to South Africa.

The drought has nevertheless also had a salutary effect, if one can say that it can have a salutary effect at all. Because of the present drought I believe that the whole population—and in particular our city dwellers—has again come to the serious realization of the value of water. If the drought has had one good effect it is that this fact has been brought home to our population, namely that water in South Africa is a valuable commodity and must not be wasted. Secondly, I want to say that we as believers have once again come to realize our total dependence upon the Lord God.

Our forestry industry has also felt the effects of the drought. Reports that one receives from those parts of the country where the forestry industry is situated—and quite a few hon. members represent such constituencies—are to the effect that thousands of trees have died in the plantations and that the loss in respect of accretion in existing plantations has been particularly serious. This has also contributed to the fact that the afforestation objectives have fallen behind the planning. For example, the report of the department states that its objective is 8 000 ha per annum and in the year under discussion they could only afforest 2 233 ha. The private sector is not planting enough trees to meet our future needs either. The whole country is therefore in arrears as far as the national afforestation objective is concerned, and this is not a good sign as far as our future timber requirements are concerned. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the department—and probably all of us—should give serious consideration to incentives to growers in order to catch up on the backlog that has been built up in so far as afforestation is concerned. Economic conditions have, however, also taken their toll of the growers. Domestic market conditions have been unfavourable because of the resession situation in which we find ourselves. The prices of round wood have not been favourable and the demand for certain types of roundwood has weakened considerably. The recession has also affected the world market abroad and our exports of wood and wood products have suffered as a result. They only ray of light in this dark picture… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for his friendly gesture. The one ray of light, particularly in regard to the smaller grower, is that his own co-operative effort through the medium of the Central Timber Corporation, has given him a steady market, chiefly for the export of shavings to Japan. This proves once again that the producer should not ask the State for assistance so often but that he should roll up his sleeves and do something himself about his situation.

Another source of disappointment to the smaller producer of timber and wood products in the past year was that the dispute procedure laid down in the Forestry Act and its regulations had failed him, and this caused serious concern in the smaller growers’ industry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his department as well as the Directorate and interested organizations urgently to investigate the shortcomings that have become apparent in the regulations with a view to rectifying them, and perhaps also to examine the whole bargaining procedure and the composition of the Federation of Timber Growers’ Associations because there are conflicting interests within that federation. This institution is the one that has to negotiate timber prices.

Another bottleneck for the small grower is the question of rail tariffs. In April 1982 rail tariffs for timber products were increased by 19% and these were again increased in January 1983 by 16%. Rail tariffs have a tremendous influence on the price that the grower eventually receives for his timber. Some experts say that from 30% to 50% of the for roundwood delivered price is paid in rail tariffs. One could almost say that every tree grower in this country was actually working for the Railways. These factors to which I have referred, have hit the smaller grower harder than the bigger men, and the price increases that were granted, were not adequate to cover their increased input costs. The result has been that larger companies, in comformity with a tendency that has been apparent for many years, have continued to take over the undertakings of smaller growers and processors, and I believe that this is a very unhealthy state of affairs in the industry as a whole. In saying this one does not seek to disregard the vitally important role of the larger companies and organizations in the forestry industry because by erecting large processing installations, paper factories etc. they create important and valuable markets for the smaller grower specifically.

We have also taken note of the interdepartmental committee that has to investigate the transfer to the private sector of the commercial affairs of the Directorate. There is no objection to this in principle provided—and this is a condition I would want to set—that the State is not ultimately going to dispose of its land and fixed assets. One will have to ask whether it will promote competition in the industry and especially how it is going to influence the smaller grower.

A last issue I want to touch on is to point out that the draft of a new Forestry Amendment Bill has been published and circulated. One can only hope that interested persons will study this draft Bill carefully and that they will meet their obligations by commenting on it to the department so that we will be able to have a model law on the Statute Book—it will most probably be next year—in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I also find it a particular honour and privilege to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Deputy on behalf of the CP on their promotion to the positions now held by them. It seems to me they will make an excellent pair of coach-horses. This in fact reminds me of my boyhood days. The best pair of coach-horses my father had then, were called Champagne and Robyn. I hope the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister and their department will fare as well as those two coach-horses did.

We also congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo. When I had the privilege of being the chairman of this study group on that side of the House, he was the secretary, and a very good and hard-working secretary he was too. We also want to wish this hon. member every success in his new position as chairman of this study group of his Party. I also which to extend my congratulations to the chairman of the study group of the official Opposition. I think today is the first time that he is acting in this capacity and we wish him success. I also want to wish my namesake in the department, Mr. Van der Merwe, a very successful career and a happy time in the department.

It is so, and it is probably right that it is so, that if life every person thinks and believes that the task entrusted to him is the most important task in all the world. The same is probably true of every Minister and his department. It is right and it is good that they should believe that their task, as well as their department’s task, is the finest and the best there is. When I say that I find the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries the most important department for two reasons, I do so because environment affairs are not only a matter and a concern of the hon. the Minister and his department, but because the environment concerns all of us. I find the proof for this statement I am making to be a very profound one. I find the irrefutable proof for it in the first book of the Bible, Gen. 1:11, in which an injunction was given. This injunction read as follows—

In Gen. 1:12 and 13 the earth responded to this command. These verses read as follows—

This is what we find happened on the third day of the week of creation, i.e. that then already attention was paid to that which each of us have to deal with every day, and that it was brought into being then, namely environment affairs. When discussing environment affairs we talk about the world around us, the world in which we have our abode, the world in which we live, the world in which we work, the world we have inherited, therefore also the world we shall leave to posterity.

What does the environment in which we live, the environment over which we reign, the environment which we are going to leave to posterity, look like? The overriding impression we have had in South Africa over the past year and longer is the realization that our environment, our country, has been in the grip of an unprecedented drought, a drought of such enormous proportions that it has shocked us into the clear realization that no greater catastrophe than a complete and utter drought can befall South Africa. It destroys both plant and animal. It causes unemployment. In extreme cases it causes famine and can bring people and nations to their knees. That is why it is the intention, the standpoint and the policy of our Party that water conservation must be given priority in future. This can be done in two ways, i.e. by the careful utilization of the existing water resources and using water sparingly, and by having more dams built, not only by the Government, but also by private enterprise, because this is a matter that concerns all of us.

It has been established that a human being can live without food for 90 days, but only for 7 days without water. Food production requires water, water and more water. A German scientist, Dr. F. Kahn, asserts in his book Das Leben des Menschen that a man who lives for 70 years eats 6 000 loaves of bread in his lifetime. He also asserts that 1 350 litres of water are necessary to produce sufficient wheat to make one loaf of bread. It therefore takes 8 100 000 000 litres of water to produce 6 000 loaves of bread. This scientist makes the further assertion that this same man will eat 4 000 kg of beef in his 70 years. It takes 1 600 litres of water to produce 1 kg of beef. That is to say, it takes 6 400 000 000 litres of water to produce enough beef for one human being during a lifetime of 70 years. Our people do not realize how totally dependent we are on water. South Africa will have a hard time without its gold, but we shall survive if we have water, because water enables the power stations to operate and the wheels of industry to turn, water creates employment, water is food, water makes food.

I have here a report from Die Burger of today under the heading “Vaaldam ‘kan in 1984 leeg wees’”. It points out the extremely important fact that water must be used sparingly. The report reads—

The report continues—

One comes to the conclusion that if all the users of water from the Vaal Dam, large and small, industrialists and domestic consumers, had all used water sparingly, the problem would not have assumed its present alarming proportions.

I now come to the comprehensive annual report of the Department of Environment Affairs. The report inter alia paints a rather sombre picture. It deals with the people who have to man this department. Paragraph 2 on page 3 of the report reads—

Then it shows that in 1978-’79 there were 44 resignations and that, over against this, in 1981-’82, i.e. four years later, there were 96 resignations. The resignations therefore more than doubled. As regards technicians, there were 42 vacancies in 1978-79. In 1981-’82 this figure increased fivefold to 217. The report continues and paints a more rosy picture as regards the staff of the Department of Forestry. Forestry is as important. In regard to forestry the memorandum issued by the department reads as follows—

According to the report the present rate is 22 700 hectares per annum. We are therefore falling behind, the world is falling behind, as far as timber is concerned.

I have here in my hand a book written by Prof. Dr. J. Douma entitled Christelijke Ethiek. In regard to his concern about the timber position in the world, I quote as follows from page 16, paragraph 2 (a)—

Continuing, he says that one New York newspaper requires 15 000 trees for one Sunday edition.

I am concerned about the fact that the funds of this department have been cut, because life-giving water is absolutely essential to the further development of South Africa. Likewise, timber is necessary for the further development of South Africa. May we, together with the Minister and his department, live in such a way in South Africa, now and in the future, that we shall say that environment affairs do not belong to a Minister or a department, but to everybody in South Africa, because it forms part of the week of creation, of what was brought into being on the third day of creation.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of this Party, I wish to express our congratulations to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on their appointment to this very important portfolio. Those of us who have worked with these gentlemen know that they are fully equipped to meet the responsibilities that are attached to this important portfolio. We wish them well in their terms of office in this capacity which we hope will be long.

I should also like to express our congratulations to Mr. Wilson van der Merwe on his new appointment.

I should also like to express my appreciation to the officials of the department with whom I have had the pleasure of working very closely during the past year. I have always found the officials freely available whenever wanted and that they endeavour to give one as much precise information as is available to them.

Finally, while I am in the throes of expressing appreciation and thanks, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for arranging that very interesting tour to the Tugela-Vaal Water Pumping Station and the forestry areas in Northern Natal. Those of us who partook in the visit, found it to be most interesting. It was extremely well hosted by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

It is inevitable that considerable discussion on this year’s Vote will centre around the drought conditions that have been experienced not only in Natal, but in the summer rainfall areas of the country, and the shortage of water that has resulted from this. I do not think that any of us, a year or two ago, could have contemplated the magnitude of the crisis with which we are confronted at the present time. One cannot but sympathize with the hon. the Minister that he has in herited a crisis situation of such magnitude in this his first year as Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. I think it is quite safe to say that if he survives this lot, he will survive any further crises that may arise.

For my part, I wish to concentrate a large portion of my speech on aspects of the water crisis in Natal directly affecting Pietermaritzburg and the Durban metropolitan area. The Umgeni catchment area is situated in the heart of my constituency and it is significant that its source is not found in the catchment area of the Drakensberg mountains from which so much of Natal’s water emanates. The first question that comes to mind, is whether the present water crisis could have been avoided. I wish to make it clear that I do not feel that adequate provision can ever be made or justified for a one in 200 years drought, but it is quite clear that the department has been shortsighted in its planning of supplementary water requirements for Pietermaritzburg and the Durban metropolitan area which encompasses one of the fastest industrial growth points in South Africa. It is incomprehensible, therefore, that no provision has been made up to now for additional water supplies to augment either the Midmar Dam or the Albert Falls in times of drought, bearing in mind that the drought periods are normally experience over a cycle of years.

Natal is blessed with numerous rivers which find their source in the Drakensberg Mountains. Most of these rivers flow all year and eventually find their way to the sea. It seems ridiculous that there should be a water shortage in Natal’s two largest towns while so much water flows undisturbed into the Indian Ocean.

It is significant that more than half of Natal’s water resources are to be found in Southern Natal where little attempt has been made to harness these water supplies, which in turn could have gone a long way to solving the water problems of many of the smaller rural towns.

The people of Durban and Pietermaritzburg deserve high praise for the manner in which they have responded to the appeals of the authorities to reduce water consumption. Effecting a saving of some 50 percent since water restrictions were imposed is a significant achievement and one for which industry must also take due credit.

One of the more sombre lessons to be learnt from the present crisis is that water can no longer be regarded as an inexhaustible commodity. It must be preserved and it must be used with greater discretion. While accepting the fact that the present water shortage is of a temporary nature, the authorities must bear in mind that the present drought conditions could continue for some considerable time—heaven forbid that they do—and one must not be blind to the calamitous situation that could arise if the present impoundments were to virtually run dry.

There is no doubt that the time has come for a re-appraisal of Government thinking in regard to its policy of water conservation in catchment areas. I wish to call on the hon. the Minister to give attention to the construction of more and possibly smaller impoundments in the headwaters of the catchment areas of this country, from which water could be released in times of need. The Drakensberg area of Natal would be ideally suited to this form of water conservation. I must point out as well that aquatic life in many of our rivers is being seriously threatened as a result of inconsistent river flow and it is essential that steps be taken to obviate the disturbance of the ecology that is incurring in many of these rivers. The hon. the Minister must ensure that mistakes of the past in regard to the siting of impoundments are not repeated.

I cannot refrain from referring, of course, to the Josini Dam, the embarrassing white elephant of the department. The vast sums of money that have been sunk into this futile project could have been put to better use if it had been earmarked for contingencies which are so desperately needed today. What we must avoid today, is a repetition of the present situation in the years to come. The estimated 6 percent annual growth requirements for agriculture, industry and domestic use of water will mean that there will be increasing competition between agriculture and industry for available water supplies in the future. This gives rise to several important issues. One of these is the need for achieving maximum efficiency in regard to the utilization of water resources for irrigation by the agricultural sector in order to attain optimal production per unit volume of water irrigated.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. whip for this opportunity.

It is for this reason that I welcome the work being carried out by the Co-ordinating Committee for Irrigation Research.

Another of the issues is the need for greater attention to be given to the recycling of water. Great strides have been made in this regard over recent years. Advances in desalination techniques must be encouraged at every level as this could assist in providing additional water supplies for both industrial and domestic use.

One notes with considerable alarm the reference in the annual report to a further deterioration in the senior staff position of the engineering section of the department. I can fully appreciate the hon. the Minister’s concern in this regard. That a similar trend is evident in the administrative and clerical division is also a matter of concern, particularly bearing in mind that this is taking place at a time when the economy is in recession and when one would expect the staff position in Government service to improve. It bodes ill for the future staff position of the department when the economy improves, as this will herald a market of greater competition for qualified and professional staff. It is therefore of the utmost importance that salaries of qualified staff be brought more into line with those of the private sector if the present drain on the staff resources of the department is to be stemmed.

It is inevitable that considerable discussion will yet take place in regard to the best means of obviating any situation that could give rise to a crisis similar to the one we are experiencing at the present time.

I should like to refer one other aspect to the hon. the Minister in the limited time at my disposal. It is in regard to bore-hole drilling operations that are carried out by the department. It is quite clear that these are now completely inadequate. Private contractors are being called in to meet the present demand. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to removing the disparities that exist in the subsidy paid for work carried out by Government contractors and the work carried out by private contractors. The hon. the Minister knows that the disparity is in the vicinity of R9 per metre. My request to the hon. the Minister is that the subsidy for private contractors be increased to the same as that paid to Government contractors. At the same time, I wish to recommend to the hon. the Minister that cognizance be taken of findings available from countries such as the United States regarding the effects of the heavy utilization of underground water resources. Has the time not arrived for the department to make an in-depth study of the whole question of underground water utilization?

I do not have any more time at my disposal and I want to end by saying that I would be pleased to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to these final two points that I mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, firstly you must allow me at the commencement of my speech to convey my heartfelt thanks to the hon. member for Contantia, Ermelo, Meyerton and Mooi River for the kind words of congratulation they expressed to me as well as for the fact that there is general consensus that I am the right man in the right position. Time will tell whether this is indeed the care. I can, however, give all those hon. members who so kindly congratulated me the assurance that I have put everything I have into accomplishing my task and that I will do everything in my power to make a success of my job in this department. I know I have many shortcomings. I do not think there is any doubt about that, but fortunately I am old enough to realize that I have shortcomings, but at the same time I am also young enough to be able to rectify them if I am reprimanded across the floor of the House. I undertake always to give full attention to all hon. members’ representations. I also undertake at this stage to give hon. members who have been elected to Parliament all the attention they deserve. I will not draw any distinction between a member of the Opposition and a member of my own party. I think that one should keep politics out of the matter, especially in this department.

In addition I should very much like to congratulate the relevant hon. members of the Opposition parties on their appointment as chairmen of their respective study groups. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo on his election as chairman of the National Party’s study group on these matters. I also undertake to work very closely with the chairmen and other people in charge of the various groups and always to offer them my and my department’s assistance should this be found necessary.

I should also like to take this opportunity to react to a word of thanks expressed by the hon. member for Mooi River in connection with last year’s tour. I want to tell hon. members now to take out their diaries and keep the first week of November open, more or less from the first Wednesday in November, since we plan to organize another nice tour for hon. members. We shall extend proper invitations to them on a subsequent occasion. Today I should like to ask hon. members to attend as many of these study tours as possible. We promise that the latest envisaged tour will once again be a very interesting tour. Many thanks to the hon. member for Mooi River for his kind words in this regard.

Will that be before or after the referendum?

Well, that is the million dollar question, to which I am not prepared to reply at this stage.

*Mr. Chairman, since this is the first time I am dealing with this vote, you must allow me to say at once that I would not be human and that I would be overestimating my own ability if I said that I was not nervous. Since this is the first occasion on which I am dealing with this Vote, hon. members will just have to put up with it if I make mistakes. However, I ask hon. members to point out any mistakes I might make. I shall try to deal with this vote to the best of my ability and shall also try to maintain the dignity of this Place in the process.

At the outset I should like to say that a Vote is discussed in order to evaluate the activities of the department over a period of a year or longer. Furthermore, a Vote is discussed to highlight the activities of the department. In the third instance a Vote is discussed in order to evoke criticism, should it be necessary and justified. In particular it should be constructive criticism, because one learns from that and can then arrange one’s affairs in such a way that one can try to bring about a better dispensation. Therefore, hon. members, even hon. members on this side of the House, should not hesitate, if they find it necessary, to express criticism about matters in their constituencies or matters in generally, so that my department and I will have the opportunity to look into the situation properly and furnish a reply if we find that it was perhaps not justified. In fact, the hon. members for Constantia and Mooi River have already done this. Hon. members should therefore pardon me if I prefer to reply to individual speeches tomorrow afternoon so that I will have an opportunity of studying these speeches in depth. I now want to take this opportunity to say something of a more general nature.

Firstly, I should like to thank my department, and especially Mr. Otto, the director-General, and Messrs. Du Plessis and Van der Merwe, the Deputy Directors-General, and their staff very sincerely for the way in which we have been received in this department. I include all members of our department in this. It was indeed an experience that I will not easily forget and on this occasion I should like to pay tribute to them for being such humane people that they make one feel at home immediately, as I indeed felt at home when I walked into that office for the first time. I also want to convey my thanks to my office staff. For all of us it was a new experience, except perhaps for Mr. Van Rensburg, who had had previous experience in the department, and also, perhaps, to a lesser extent, Mr. Goosen. In addition I want to thank my office staff for the great support they are giving me in this regard. I therefore say thank you in general for all the goodwill that has developed. I did everything and tried my best to expand that goodwill. The goodwill which exists in this department is perhaps the reason for it having been able to attain such great heights. I was impressed with what I found in this department. I want to pay tribute to my predecessors who built up this fine department and its officials over the years. If ever there was a department which is accomplishing a fine task in the interests of South Africa, it is this one. This also became apparent in the speeches of several hon. members.

I want to start by saying something about the Directorate of Water Affairs. The oppressive drought over large parts of our country, which in some parts assumed critical proportions, once again proved our dependence on sufficient water storage facilities. Increasing utilization of soil and water, both in the RSA and in the adjoining national or self-governing States, forces us to give urgent attention to joint water schemes in order to safeguard existing development in the RSA and in order to make orderly development possible in future. I want to make a comment for which hon. members will have to have great understanding. As a result of the irrigation development in the national and in the self-governing States the normal flow in the rivers has in many cases diminished. This inevitably affected the irrigators in the lower reaches of these rivers to a great extent and certainly much to their detriment. We are compelled not only to ensure that as regards the development of irrigation in the national States and the self-governing States we take a look at future storage in order to meet their needs, but also to look after the existing irrigators and to recognize their vested rights. We must also try to bring about stability in those areas through greater storage. I can mention numerous examples to you such as the Komati River, where great needs are arising within the self-governing States, as well as Swaziland, for example, where we have to recognize international rivers and make an apportionment with regard to water and where the established irrigators, who have been there for years, are suffering losses as a result. The department is being compelled to consider greater storage in those areas. Perhaps I can mention more examples tomorrow.

This inevitably causes much greater pressure on the department’s funds. The proper utilization of water resources obviously requires sufficient funding. I cannot but agree with the hon. members for Constantia and Mooi River; it requires sufficient funding to be able to meet the needs of the country in future.

During the past year an extensive study of the development possibilities of the Komati River basin was undertaken in conjunction with Swaziland. Furthermore, a joint scheme in the case of Ciskei is also being investigated. It is trusted that the joint schemes that will flow from the studies will not only contribute to the solution of the water problems of the countries concerned, but will also serve as an example to our other neighbouring States. In this respect I also want to say that the development strategy of the Government most certainly comes into the picture here. The various regional development advisory committees, as well as the Regional Development Advisory Board, will in future have to make a very important input in regard to these activities and especially in regard to water development in this country, and I shall also come to forestry later. Hon. members should take note of this.

I now come back to the hon. member for Constantia. My contention is that for the first time in a very long while we now have a Department of Constitutional Development and Planning that can co-ordinate within one department all these inputs with regard to regional development, as well as a complete development plan for the country including our water development. In the determining of priorities for the future one can have a feedback from the regional development committees all the way to the ministry. It is extremely important that hon. members should take note of this. It is of cardinal importance in our regional development, but also in our water development in this country, that we take note of the fact that these committees, as well as the board, can make a very important input in future. I would advise hon. members to develop very close liaison with these regional development advisory committees because they will inevitably make a very important input in future. With the establishment of the Development Bank it will also be necessary for this department, in regard to its water development and together with the various national and self-governing States, to apply for assistance in good time in order to develop joint schemes in particular. It will also be to the advantage of these countries. I think it will also be necessary for us to take a penetrating look at the position in regard to the provision of funds by the Development Bank for joint schemes.

From time to time delegations from various Government water schemes are given a hearing and those who make representations usually advance quite a few suggestions in order to improve their position. Aspects such as availability of water, distribution losses and drainage problems are often quoted as reasons why some farmers are in such a poor position. Careful studies of the cases—I had numerous over the past few months—were made in order to establish why some farmers were in such a poor position. However, careful study of such cases often reveal that the basic cause of the predicament of these farmers is the fact that their farming units are uneconomic. I do not like the word “uneconomic”; I would rather say that they are not viable. If some way of creating viable units could be found, the position for the remaining farmers on numerous water schemes would improve radically. Interdepartmental investigations carried out by the Interdepartmental Committee for Irrigation Planning on a number of our Government water schemes repeatedly arrived at this conclusion. The problem is, however, finding a method of adding impetus to the consolidation process of economic units. Funds for this purpose, i.e. to enable the State to buy out the small units and then resell them to certain remaining farmers in order to create economic units only are just not available. The answer might be for the State to create a revolving fund for this purpose out of which money can be made available on reasonable terms to farmers who, of their own accord, wish to buy the land of other owners and so create economic irrigation units. We are working in this direction, but of course the funds and control over such funds and when they will become available, will inevitably lie with the Department of Agriculture.

I do not want to be accused one day of having been instrumental in the depopulation of the rural areas. I want to say that at once here today, but I think it is expected of me as head of this department to face up to realities. I can give you the figure of the number of non-viable units on many of our water schemes. There are people who as a result of the rising cost of living just cannot make ends meet any more because their units are too small. We will simply have to bring about a restructuring in regard to our water schemes because we cannot allow people to become impoverished in the process. We had a practical example at the Sterk River scheme in the Northern Transvaal. At the time when I was still with the Department of Agriculture we moved a certain group of farmers from that scheme to the Loskop scheme and in the process we tried to make the few remaining farmers economic. This is a different direction in which one can work. When we release new areas, one can try and move the best farmers who have small units to proper, fine large units to enable them to make a decent living. Those remaining on such a scheme will then also have to be made viable. As a result of the speeches that will be made here I will probably react further on this matter tomorrow.

I also want to refer to the very gratifying phenomenon that more and more farmers, on Government water schemes and elsewhere, are making their irrigation more effective by changing to mechanized systems. This undoubtedly promotes saving and is therefore directly to the benefit of the farmer. In this process organizations such as the Water Research Commission which purposefully encourages research in this field and supports it financially and otherwise, as well as the work of the suppliers of irrigation equipment, play a vital role and they must be praised for their sustained effort to improve.

The annual report of the Water Research Commission, which was tabled some time ago, gives a concise review of the more important work carried out through the mediation of the commission in the fulfilment of its objectives. This includes inter alia: To cause the undertaking of research in respect of the occurrence, conservation, storage, utilization, control, provision, distribution, purification, pollution or reclamation of water supplies and water. I should like to single out a few of the numerous projects that have been completed and that are presently in progress. Important research has been done in connection with water reclamation. A guide entitled “A Guide for the Planning, Design and Implementation of a Water Reclamation Scheme” was published during the course of the year. I want to advise hon. members to obtain that document. It is an extremely informative document relating to this aspect. The guide offers practical guidelines for the planning, construction and operation of water reclamation schemes with a view to the possible direct re-utilization of such water for both domestic and industrial purposes. Apart from this much attention has been given to industrial effluents. Two aspects have been accentuated, namely the re-utilization of water which is coupled with reduced utilization and the reclamation of chemical substances used in manufacturing processes. In the sphere of agricultural water the commission is engaged in various important projects aimed at the most effective utilization of irrigation water. The aim always is optimal crop production per unit volume of irrigation water in contrast with the old idea of maximum yield per land unit. These are only a few examples of the work being done and the recognition of the fact that our water is a dwindling commodity that will have to be used with increasing circumspection. The present drought emphasizes once again the importance of the acceptance of this absolute fact. On this occasion I also want to pay tribute to and thank the Water Research Commission which has performed an enormous task in this regard under the guidance of Dr. Hensen, the executive chairman. Tomorrow I shall return to a few of the points made by the hon. member for Constantia in this regard.

With reference to the ever-increasing mechanization it is gratifying that the department, in spite of the very stringent fiscal policy, still succeeds in making considerable amounts available annually for subsidies on the water works of farmers and for loans and subsidies to irrigation boards. The purpose of these subsidies is to encourage the effective utilization of water by subsidizing only well-designed schemes. This will remain an important factor in the future. It is to be hoped that we will be able to obtain generous funds from the Treasury for this purpose as well in future. I want to invite hon. members to express their opinions, especially on these farmers’ works which I know are of great importance in each constituency.

There is an ongoing programme of assistance to various water boards in the form of subsidies, particulars of which are reflected in the printed estimates. However, what can be mentioned in particular is the recent change in policy. Water boards which provide water almost exclusively for stock-watering purposes will from now on qualify for 33⅓% subsidy instead of the normal 20% subsidy. This is a particularly generous concession because water is of absolutely cardinal importance for future food production in this country in areas where stock farming is carried on. There are numerous schemes that are already making use of this new concession, for example the Kalahari stock-watering scheme and the schemes in the Bredasdorp area up to Riviersonderend. The Government has decided to allocate an additional statutory subsidy of 66⅔% instead of the normal 33⅓% subsidy to the Kalahari stock-watering scheme as a result of the particular circumstances prevailing there.

The Committee of Inquiry for the Supply of Water in Water Deficient Areas, under chairmanship of Mr. Dawid Keyser, Managing Engineer: Works, has held its first meeting. I look forward keenly to the findings and recommendations of this committee. This committee is extremely important. The committee was established by my predecessor in order to investigate the position with regard to water deficient areas, especially in our smaller rural towns, and to make recommendations on how we can improve the position.

The pollution of our rivers and water resources is and remains an immense source of concern. Much progress has been made in various spheres such as research, the application of standards to sewerage effluents, the co-operation of industries in purifying their effluents, the efforts of the mines to combat pollution as well as the application of acts and regulations, but in spite of all this it is clear that we shall have to increase our efforts to combat pollution considerably. It has therefore been decided to elevate the Pollution Control Division of the Water Affairs Directorate to a full branch of the Directorate and the expansion of the staff establishment of the branch is presently being investigated and has reached an advanced stage.

I want to tell hon. members what I heard last week. Hon. members know that the sewerage effluents of industries are monitored strictly since they have to comply with certain standards in terms of the law. A man on the Rand told me last week that what they as household consumers simply could not accept was the following—I do not like to use the word “accept” because it has the wrong connotations for certain people. The man said he visited an industry whose effluent flows back to the sewerage works where it is monitored by the department. There is a large hose in that effluent furrow which is running permanently in order to mix the effluent with clean water so as to comply with the standards. I do not think we can allow this kind of thing any more. It cries to heaven that there are people who try to circumvent the Act in such a way in this time of water scarcity. We just cannot afford this any more. I want to say to hon. members here and now that it immediately causes a commotion amongst consumers if they adhere strictly to the restrictions that have been imposed and then see water being wasted in such a way.

I was in Durban last week-end and I was impressed with the way in which the consumers of Durban responded to the appeals to conserve water. They receive 400 litres of water per household per day. Have you ever seen how much water 400 litres are? The first thing a man checks when he gets home in the evening is his water meter because he has to pay R10 per kilolitre for any water he uses in excess of 400 litres. We can learn how to conserve water from Durban and its people. It truly was an eye-opener for me to be able to experience this.

It is hoped that—I hope to give notice thereof on Thursday—legislation will be during the present session introduced to extend control measures over pollution to smaller consumers of water and to simplify the application of the relevant legislation. Furthermore, important regulations will be published which will add to the effective control of pollution. I am referring to regulations on the disposal of solid waste and regulations on the classification and registration of water-purification works and operating staff.

The Environment Committee appointed by my predecessor to evaluate the impact of the envisaged development of the Palmiet River on the environment has already submitted an interim report to me which bears testimony of thorough work. I want to repeat that it is very thorough work and a fine study. It is an environment impact study that was done in regard to that relevant dam in the Palmiet River. The construction of the first phase of the Palmiet River project, about which a White Paper was tabled last year, is now in rapid progress. This project is further proof of the good co-operation with the Electricity Supply Commission that was established with the Drakensberg project. Today I want to mention the fine co-operation that exists between this department and the Electricity Supply Commission. Perhaps I shall, in reply to the hon. members for Constantia and Mooi River, say a little more tomorrow about the co-operation projects of the Electricity Supply Commission and the department. As a result of the positive findings of the Environment Committee it has been decided to go ahead with this part of the project.

†The Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters (1970) recommended that in the utilization of our water resources, provision be made for the reasonable needs of nature conservation areas, but that in each case a thorough investigation be undertaken to ensure that waste of water is avoided. Two particular nature conservation areas were identified by the commission and it was estimated that the Kruger National Park and the Lake St. Lucia nature conservation area would require about 220 million cubic metres water per annum. It was considered that the total quantity of water for nature conservation would not exceed 1% of the total estimated water consumption of 29 000 million cubic metres by the turn of the century.

The increasing awareness of environmental issues in the last five years has led the Department to reassessing the ecological water needs of the country. In addition to those examples already mentioned, many others also arise if one considers particularly estuaries and wetlands. Estuaries form a vital part in the ecology of the sea in providing nursery areas for juvenile fish. I consider it essential that environmental water demands be taken into account in water resources development in order to achieve the golden mean between dynamic development and environmental conservation. It will be necessary to establish these environmental water needs as accurately as possible and a start has already been made on the necessary research. Consideration should however, be given to accelerating the research programme.

Following one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters, a record has been kept of water consumption according to consumer class. The Department relies on the consumer to make the necessary measurements and to provide the information. The urban sector shows the greatest demand growth of all water use sectors and it is particularly important that accurate records be obtained of this consumption. It has been found in most cases that the record-keeping of local authorities is geared more to financial aspects rather than consumption and differentiation of sectors such as domestic or industrial use. In these days of the computer it will be a relatively simple matter to differentiate between the consumer classes and I appeal to all local authorities to bear this aspect in mind as it is in their interests to maintain adequate records. Irrigation water consumption is more difficult to measure, particularly direct abstractions from rivers.

*The award by the S.A. Institute of Civil Engineers for the outstanding engineering work of the 1981 year to the Theewaterskloof-Jonkershoek scheme is something my department and I are very proud of. On this occasion I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to our department and the engineers involved in the planning and execution of this project. It was truly a great achievement. At this stage I already know that next year in this Vote I shall again be able to congratulate my department on a further award that will have been conferred upon the department. This emphasizes once again the high quality of our engineers on construction works. Some of them are still relatively young, but they bear their responsibilities just as well as the more experienced people. I think members have now seen something of the abilities of our young engineers and tomorrow I will say more about the position with regard to engineers in the department. I am particularly impressed with our young men in the field and the way they do their work on those projects. They are often out in all kinds of weather. When we sit and do our work in offices they have to do theirs in all kinds of weather. I want to thank them and pay tribute to them, because they are performing a particularly important task for us.

Last year I attended a symposium on dam safety that was organized by the S.A. National Committee on Large Dams, which was followed by a study visit to some large dams. I was impressed by the quality of the papers that were delivered, and I became thoroughly aware that legislation in this connection was essential. The department takes the lead in this regard and consultation takes place by means of the above-mentioned committee. I hope that this will lead to good draft legislation that will protect the citizens of the country against the danger which the large masses of water behind our dams do in fact pose. Those who are aware of the great disaster that struck France when one of its large dams burst, know how important this aspect of our department activities is. In this respect, too, I was particularly impressed with the way in which this committee, of which Mr. Du Plessis is the chairman, tackles its work with regard to making our dams safe. Hon. members should take the trouble to go and look at what is being done at the Vaal Dam. It is unbelievable that men can explode dynamite underground while there is a mass of water above them. This is being done to safeguard the dam for the future.

I should now like to come to Forestry. I want to say immediately that in my opinion it is actually a pity that as a result of our water problems in this country we have given so little attention to the Forestry Branch of the department. We should have no illusions about it being a strategic section of our department. It is also one of the finest conservation departments I have ever had to deal with. Just go and look at the hiking trails, and see how beautiful they are. These are all things which the department created for us through its Directorate of Forestry. I only have to refer to our indigenous forests. If it were not for this department our indigenous forests would not have existed today. This department took action at a stage when our indigenous forests were already being threatened with total extinction. I therefore want to pay tribute to these people today. I apologize to them for the fact that there is so little opportunity to give attention to them. It is, however, mainly as a result of our water problems. I hope, especially as a result of the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo, to give more attention to this section of our department in future, because it is such a fine section of our department.

Although there are about 1,16 million hectares of commercial timber plantations in South Africa at present and it is estimated that these plantations can produce a potential yield of 17 million cubic metres of timber annually, the total intake of roundwood by timber processing plants during 1980-’81, the latest year for which statistics are available, was about 12,5 million cubic metres. On the face of it therefore appears that South Africa is self-sufficient as regards its timber requirements, but because insufficient quantities of certain varieties of timber and products with timber as a basic raw material are produced locally and excessive quantities of others, timber and timber products to the value of R342 million were imported during 1981 as against the export of timber and timber products to the value of R238 million. For the healthy development of the forest and timber industry it is necessary that we concentrate on increased export of products with the highest possible added value, and a reduction of imports. In the timber industry we should also try to export our know-how. We should try to export as little of the raw product as possible. We should rather process the raw product and export processed products. In this way we will then be exporting our know-how. This could also—I shall come to this later—mean that we shall be able to stabilize the provision of employment in this industry. This industry is, of course, a major provider of employment. This objective will be attained, if not fully, then partly, when the new pulping plants at present under construction come into production during 1984. As for the future production of timber to meet the country’s timber needs as far as possible, the latest prognosis indicates that the area under commercial plantations has to be extended by 39 000 hectares annually. It has to expand by 39 000 hectares annually just to meet our commercial needs. Although this information has already been passed on to the industry it appears that during 1981-’82 only 10 200 hectares of new plantations were established. This extension is all the more disturbing as a result of the fact that it does not represent a net extension in plantation area as certain parts of existing plantations were for various reasons permanently withdrawn from timber production, and others will be withdrawn in the future. Therefore, hon. members who expressed concern about this may rest assured that I share their concern wholeheartedly. All three hon. members who spoke about the forest industry expressed concern about the forest industry and I definitely share their concern. However, I accept that just as in the case of the State the private sector also found it difficult to make sufficient financial means available for an increased rate of afforestation, because of limited funds in a declining economy. It is trusted that as the economy revives a higher rate of afforestation will be achieved.

†In its endeavours to contribute to the combating of inflation, the forest and timber industry has decided to accept a price increase of only 12% in respect of softwood sawlogs for 1983 despite cost increases of between 16% and 19%. As the prices of softwood sawlogs significantly affect the prices of other roundwood categories, it could be expected that price increases in respect of other categories of roundwood would also be below the rate of inflation. Although the aforementioned policy is commendable as far as the campaign to combat inflation is concerned, it could well be one of the reasons why new afforestation does not progress satisfactorily, because where products other than timber compete for the same land and capital a decrease instead of an increase in plantation areas will inevitably occur in the event of timber prices developing an increasing backlog against the other products. Having regard to the indications of an impending world shortage of timber, incentives will have to be devised to effect the desired increase in local timber resources. The hon. member for Ermelo also mentioned that incentives will have to be devised. A committee of the Forestry Council is already attending to the measures, including financial incentives, that may be necessary to attain the afforestation goal and in the process the committee is also investigating schemes for financial incentives in operation in some overseas countries.

The forest and timber industry plays an important role in the provision of employment and according to the most recent statistics approximately 96 000 non-Whites and 2 900 Whites are actively employed in the plantation industry. Related to an area/unit basis it comes to 86,5 non-Whites and 2,7 Whites per 1 000 hectares. Approximately 42 500 non-Whites and 4 000 Whites are employed by the timber-processing industry. Expressed in 1 000 cubic metres of round-wood processed, this comes to 3,4 non-Whites and 0,4 Whites. I think hon. members will agree with me that because this a labour-intensive industry we will just have to see that it survives. If one looks at the number of people that is employed in this industry, one realizes that its survival is of the utmost importance. The downward phase in the economy has not left the forest and timber industry intact and a weaker demand for sawn timber, pulp and paper, as well as mining timber, has been experienced. The industry has, however, succeeded with an efficient marketing effort to such an extent that the detrimental effects are estimated to be smaller than during the slump in the economy during the second half of the seventies.

As already announced in the Press an interdepartmental committee has been appointed to investigate the possible transfer of the commercial activities of the Department of Forestry to a utility company/corporation. The committee has already commenced its work and I trust that the assignment will be completed within reasonable time. The hon. member for Ermelo also made mention of this fact.

Mention has already been made of the fact that the extension of the country’s timber resources is not at a satisfactory level. One method to counter this trend is to embark on active measures to increase the timber production per unit of area by the efficient application of research results. The impression is gained that available research results are not generally known or that they are not applied if they are known. In order to rectify this aspect, special attention will be devoted to the extension action in the years ahead with a view to persuading timber growers to plan, manage and utilize their plantation areas according to the best available scientific information.

In the field of environmental conservation the department through its Directorate of Forestry will proceed with conservation research aimed at the management of natural ecosystems in mountain catchment areas, indigenous forest and coastal dunes with a view to the supply of water and the conservation of indigenous biomes.

*Bearing in mind that the obtaining of land for the extension of our national parks is becoming increasingly difficult and that, in my opinion, it is essential that all land for this purpose, if it is not obtained before the end of the decade, should at least be identified, the National Parks Board and I are in close contact to devise our future plans in this regard. It is of cardinal importance that this planning be done. Hon. members in previous debates already mentioned that we did not set aside sufficient land for nature conservation areas and parks. If we are unable to purchase all this land we should at least get so far as to identify the land before the end of this decade, that land which we must preserve so that we, as the hon. member for Constantia said, can also have a plan, it is then the intention within the foreseeable future to declare and manage the Wilderness lake area as a national park. The Physical Planning Branch of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning is investigating the desirability of declaring the adjacent areas as nature areas in terms of the Physical Planning Act. It will then be possible to process this land, according to the availability of funds, for the purposes of parks and add it to the national park concerned.

In addition it is hoped that the national park envisaged in the Langebaan area will be established during the financial year by the declaration, as a first phase, of State-owned land in the area as a national park. Furthermore, consideration is being given to the declaration of the lake complex as a lake area to be controlled and managed by the National Parks Board, and the delimitation of the remaning land in the identified park area as a nature area in terms of the Physical Planning Act.

Negotiations are already under way—my information is that negotiations are proceeding in a reasonably positive way—in regard to the declaration in terms of the latest national Parks Amendment Act of a Schedule 5 park on the north-west coast, namely the so-called Green River Park. The successful conclusion of the negotiations will determine whether, and when, a park will be declared there.

I want to appeal to hon. members to exert whatever influence they may have in this regard. Obtaining of land for parks is extremely sensitive, just as the obtaining of land for any other purpose is. Never in the history of the Parks Board has land been expropriated for the purpose of parks. The reason for this is that when you establish a park you at least want the man living in the immediate vicinity of that park to develop an affection for that park. In order to have him develop an affection for that park you should not resort to the final step of expropriation. These negotiations are therefore extremely sensitive. I really find it very irritating that as soon as there is talk of a park newspapers start speculating about which land is going to be acquired and which land is not going to be acquired. In this process they only bedevil the negotiations. That is all they do. I want to refer specifically to the park at Barkly West that was announced, the possible acquisition of the Pniel land and the possible extension of that land in terms of the new Parks Act. A newspaper in Kimberley persistently speculated about the matter and instigated people against the acquisition of land there. I think it is extremely irresponsible and I want to appeal to our Press and to all hon. members today that we should leave these matters until negotiations have been finalized, because they are extremely sensitive. I conclude with this in so far as the stating of the general policy of our department is concerned. I do not think I can conclude with a better citation than the one I received from good friends only this morning. It reads—

I do not think there can be a finer slogan for our department and especially for the Directorate Forestry than this one.

Mr. Chairman, what a privilege can sometimes befall an ordinary mortal! I am talking now of the great honour that has befallen me to be able to speak just after the maiden speech of the hon. the Minister in his new portfolio. We were struck by a few outstanding characteristics in the hon. the Minister’s maiden speech. The first was the wonderful measure of humility which is reflected in his attitude towards the great task and responsibility he is now accepting as Minister of this department. We were also all struck by the idealism that was apparent from what he said. We were struck by his sympathetic insight into and comprehension of the problems surrounding the activities of this department. We were struck particularly by his enthusiasm regarding everything that has to be done and that is now the responsibility of this very fine department he now controls. Thank you for a fine speech. We will remember it with pleasure.

I want now to refer to a problem in my part of the world. The Spitskop Dam in the Harts River forms the boundary between Bophuthatswana and the Republic of South Africa. The dam basin is fenced off on the Republic side but on Bophuthatswana’s side the basin is not fenced off. One can understand that because the White farmers’ animals are not allowed to graze on the greenery at the water’s edge it is with some jealousy that they view the privilege that is enjoyed on the other side where the Black farmers’ cattle have access to the water. The farmers are aware that the dam basin was fenced off to prevent erosion taking place as a result of cattle paths, which in turn results in silting. One can understand that the question must of necessity be asked: If my sheep and my goat and my ox will cause silting if they go near the water, why do the sheep and the goat and the ox of the Black farmers on the other side not cause silting as well? I want to ask that in-depth negotiations take place with the Government of Bophuthatswana to ensure that the dam on that side will also be fenced off as this is causing unnecessary grievances and unnecessary friction.

I also want to refer to another question which is of the utmost importance to me. I want to start with a statement that is generally accepted, namely that the water resources of the Republic of South Africa are very limited. Every effort possible has to be made to utilize these scarce resources as efficiently as possible. Irrigation farmers are very closely involved in this efficient utilization of water. It is important to remember that from the earliest times flood irrigation was virtually the only form of irrigation. The beds were dug and watered by means of furrows or canals. Research regarding the bed slope, bed width, bed length and stream strength has led to better water utilization as far as this method of irrigation is concerned. We must, however, bear in mind that flood irrigation is labour intensive while the use of the water is difficult to control. What is important is that the times when the water is used cannot always coincide with the stage at which the plants need the water the most. In this regard the Americans have a lovely saying. They say: “It is more important to know when to apply water than to know how much water to apply”. This is one of the biggest drawbacks of flood irrigation.

As a result of technological progress we have over the years had the development of mechanized irrigation systems. It is interesting to know that the system of drip irrigation was discovered by chance in Israel by an engineer who noticed that there was one tree in an orchard that was particularly big and more luxuriant than the other trees. He investigated and found that the tree stood near a dripping water tap. Drip irrigation started there. From the nature of the case these mechanized forms of irrigation are labour saving and labour is a problem these days. However, the most important of all is that these mechanized irrigation systems ensure larger crops using the same volume of water. I want to repeat that it ensures large crops with the same or a smaller volume of water. It is interesting to know that although the amount or irrigation water in Israel has not changed in the past 18 years, farmers have succeeded in more than doubling their production by using modern mechanized irrigation systems and computers on a large scale.

The irrigation farmer seeks to obtain the largest harvests with the smallest quantity of water. As the hon. the Minister put it so well, the ideal is now to determine one’s harvest per unit of water and not per unit of land.

Specifically in regard to these mechanized irrigation installations we have the praiseworthy service which the department renders by granting subsidies to farmers to install these systems. I am referring here to the various sprinkler irrigation systems such as the pivot point system, the conventional pipe and spray system, the drop system and other micro systems. For the installation of these systems and with a view to water conservation and crop increase, the department has the subsidy scheme of R7 500 per scheme. This subsidy has remained constant since 1980 but on the other hand the cost of these installations has increased by approximately 100%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by congratulating the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on their appointments. I want to wish them everything of the best in the handling of their first vote in this capacity. I think that with the present composition of the Ministry which includes the components Water Affairs, Forestry, Environment Protection and Fisheries, it is hard to imagine a better combination of political heads for this Ministry. Over the past nine months we have witnessed the allocation of functions and responsibilities in this Ministry and we can testify that it is operating excellently. We can look forward with confidence to the fact that it will continue to do a very good job in future.

I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the interest he began to reveal immediately after his assumption of duty and the sympathy with which he heard our representations about the one big and important problem in his area of responsibility in the Eastern Cape in regard to which I want to take the liberty to exchange a few words with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I am, of course, referring to the burning question for the Eastern Cape, and particularly for my constituency, of more Orange River water via Lake Mentz for irrigation purposes in the Sundays River valley. Before I come to that, I want to refer briefly to another question of a more parochial nature and domestic concern to my own constituency. On page 36 of the annual report of the department this matter is referred to under the heading “Glenconnor Plains”. It refers to the proposed cattle drinking scheme in the area between Steytlerville and Kirkwood. I am certain that it is not necessary for me to spell out the importance of this scheme to those farming communities to the hon. the Minister. For many years, until April 1981, those people were the hon. the Minister’s own voters. In the first place, therefore, he has an intermate knowledge of the need for this scheme and, in the second place, of what has preceded it. I want to ask if the hon. the Minister can tell us anything to supplement the information that appears in the annual report.

Now, to come back to the important question of water for the Sundays River valley, I noticed from the annual report that this issue was only referred to and very cryptically on page 58. I refer here to paragraphs 27.5 and 27.6 in which it is stated, inter alia—

Although these matters are only referred to very briefly, it is of great importance to us in that area. It is also not necessary for me to provide the hon. the Minister with any details in this regard. He is thoroughly conversant with the whole matter. On this occasion, therefore, I want to content myself with a short summary of the various factors which collectively ensure that it is a scheme with a very high earning capacity and that the greatest possible priority should be accorded it. I want to say something to the hon. the Minister in passing—perhaps he already knows of it—and that is that there has been unfavourable reaction from the valley in regard to the announcement of the Riet River scheme. I do not know what the hon. the Minister has heard about it but I want to ask him not to take it too seriously to heart. In regard to the fact that there has been such a reaction on the par of people who were indignant about the announcement that R60 million had been voted for that scheme and wanted to know why they could not get R10 million or R15 million for this important scheme, I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is understandable that these people would react in this way. I am, however, of the opinion that this is not justified because I can judge the whole matter in perspective.

At this stage it only concerns the planned weir at Wellington Grove, the estimated cost of which is at present R16 million and by means of which the supply of Orange River water to the Sundays River Valley will be increased from the present 4 cumecs to about 26 cumecs. This holds a two-fold advantage for the valley. In the first place more and better quality water will be made available to properties that have already been scheduled. In the second place, the scheduling and irrigation of 1 200 to 2 000 additional hectares of good agricultural land will be made possible. This land can be irrigated by the present canal system. The merits of this scheme can be summarized briefly by referring to a few factors which, seen from the point of view of agricultural economics will make it a highly advantageous scheme. It will ensure the continuation of the citrus industry in the valley. As the hon. the Minister knows, this valley is already responsible for 13% of the total citrus production in the country. In 1977 it already had a gross value of R22 million. It is also recognized as a scientific fact that the citrus production of the valley, particularly navel oranges, is of excellent quality. The marketing time of the citrus production of the valley is six weeks later than that of the production in the Transvaal and Natal. This extension of the season is particularly of great importance for the purposes of the overseas market. Of the whole country’s citrus production, only that of the valley can be exported to Japan. This is as a result of the absence in the valley, and only in the valley, of the so-called black spot disease. This is a fungus which attacks the fruit.

Mr. Chairman, the fruit in the valley is also free of the so-called greening and that is because of strict scientific precautions by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the form of strict import regulations regarding vegetative material from any part of the country to the Cape. According to the Citrus Exchange there is a reserve demand on the overseas market for as many navel oranges as can be grown on 3 000 to 4 000 hectares.

This scheme is not only of great importance—and I want to stress this—to the valley itself but also to the whole of the Eastern Cape, particularly the metropolitan area of PE-Despatch-Uitenhage. This is seen as one of the possible methods—and there are only a few of them—of stimulating the economy of Port Elizabeth and its environs and impeding new life into it. Especially from the point of view of the creation of job opportunities and the combating of the unemployment problem, the implementing of this scheme can make a big contribution. The availability of more and especially better quality water to the valley is vital for the viability of the citrus industry in the valley. It is a known and accepted fact that the lifespan of citrus trees in this valley is very much shorter than that of citrus trees elsewhere in the country. This is linked to the fact that this poor quality water has to be used. At present it is accepted that the lifespan of a tree there is from 10 to 20 years at the most while, as the hon. the Minister knows, the viability of trees elsewhere in the country can sometimes reach 80 years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sundays River made a speech pleading for a matter of great concern to his constituency. He will forgive me if I do not respond directly to it. The hon. member for Kimberley North raised certain matters of importance concerning the saving of water and the more efficient use of water, and I would like to return to these points during the course of my speech.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has taken over his portfolio at a time when South Africa is experiencing one of the worst droughts in its history. Although very welcome rains have fallen, the drought is anything but broken and it is at times such as these that the hon. the Minister will find his administration coming increasingly under critical scrutiny. For example, is he making sufficient provision for water for the country’s growing needs? Has he perhaps favoured one sector of the economy at the expense of the others? Has he favoured one region of the country at the expense of another? Some Natalians seem to think that their water is being stolen by the Transvaal. Farmers claim that their precious water for irrigation is being stolen by the cities. The cities claim that their needs are not being met either, and so it goes on. Nothing can cause neighbours to become bad friends quicker than a dispute over water during a drought.

What all this means, is that we do need assurances from the hon. the Minister that sufficient long-term planning is being conducted by his department with a view to satisfying the demands of all sectors of the economy over the entire country. This is a tall order, but it is one which has to be faced. It is when we start looking at long-term planning that we start uncovering problems of frightening proportions. The current drought has simply served to highlight the fact that the mean average rainfall in this country is well below that of the rest of the world. Not only is it highly seasonal, but it is also poorly distributed and the major supplies of water are situated long distances from the metropoles where the water is most needed. When we look at the consumption of water, we see the start of a very disturbing trend. The hon. member for Constantia mentioned the fact that there is a given potential of water resources in this country and that, in an alarmingly short period of time, some 30 to 40 years, this country is going to start running out of water. The fact that there is a given amount of water available and that there is only a given area available for the storage of this water, means that a crisis situation will arise in the middle-to long-term future.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to this trend, I want to say that it has been aggravated by the rate of consumption by domestic and industrial users, in relation to the consumption by irrigation and forestry. In 1960, this ratio was seven to one. For every seven litres of water used by farmers, only one was being used by cities. Today the ratio is four to one. At the turn of the century, it will be 2,8 to one, and in the year 2020 it will be one to one. In other words, in less than 40 years from now the cities will be consuming as much water as agriculture. What is alarming, is that it is just about at this time when parity is reached between the consumption of water by the cities and the consumption of water by agriculture, that we are going to start running out of available water resources. Therefore, if we are hit by another drought of the magnitude of this one at that stage, the implications for the country will be very serious indeed.

The implications for long-term growth planning are no less serious. Unless long-term schemes to augment our water supply, together with further schemes to improve the efficiency of our water utilization, are set in motion now, the following results can be expected: Firstly, the cost of water to all competitors will rise steeply. Secondly, industrial and commercial growth will be severely handicapped and agricultural production will be curtailed. Self-sufficiency will be destroyed. Thirdly, there will be a lowering of the standard of living of the entire population and fourthly, the degradation of the environment will be accelerated. Somehow, somewhere, funds for the erection of massive water storage facilities will just have be found. At the same time, an imaginative programme to ensure maximum efficiency in the use of water, will have to be launched.

The hon. member for Kimberley North mentioned the wasteful usage of water by certain schemes and certain systems of irrigation in agriculture and this is just one area in which the efficiency of water utilization can be improved. The drought has served to emphasize the need for better and longer term planning, not only in the agricultural industry, but also in the public water supply services as well. We have been warned and I trust that the hon. the Minister will heed the warning, because our future depends on it in a very real way.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to say a few words about forestry in the time that is left to me. It must obviously be the aim of the Department of Forestry to make the country self-sufficient in so far as our timber and pulp-wood requirements are concerned. However, this is easier said than done and when one considers all the disabilities associated with climate, topography and land usage under which this department has to operate, the fact that we can be self-sufficient at all is a great credit to the industry. Given realistic assessments of growth, we have to look to an area of something like 40 000 hectares annually—as the hon. the Minister mentioned—that will have to be afforested if the needs for the future are to be met. As the hon. the Minister pointed out, this need for afforestation is still far from having been met. We will need to double up the planting by both private and State sectors if we are to get anywhere near that target.

It is interesting to note that the private sector is responsible for roughly 75% of the forestation of the country. This means that the private sector is going to have to acquire something like 30 000 hectares of land annually. Put in another way, it will mean that an area of over half a million hectares will have to be afforested by the private sector by the turn of the century. A further 150 000 hectares will have to be afforested by the State. It is accepted that the State will be able to take the lead of afforesting marginal areas, but it is the private sector which could find itself involved in a difficult conflict situation. It will obviously need to acquire land which will give a good return for its investment, and which is conveniently situated near the major timber processing installations. Therefore, there is a very real danger that it will be competing with agriculturalists for prime land. Because the high rainfall areas are limited in the country and because these areas offer the greatest potential for both agriculture and the production of timber, it is hoped that a satisfactory and sensible compromise will be reached between these two sectors. The loss of something like half a million hectares of prime agricultural land to forestry over the next 17 years would be a tragedy, particularly if this were avoidable.

Mr. Chairman, the inter-departmental committee, which was set up to investigate the question of the availability of land for afforestation in 1971, was to indicate those areas in which forestry had priority, with due regard to the demands of agriculture, road-building, housing, etc. The Department of Forestry has since undertaken a further survey of the areas still available and suitable for commercial afforestation. If the private sector and the State accept these reports and abide by these findings, then clashing interests between forestry and agriculture should be kept to a minimum. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to monitor the situation carefully. While we are all aware of the need to make and keep ourselves self-sufficient in respect of our timber requirements, it would be a thousand pities if this were to be at the expense of what could possibly be our most productive farmland.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot follow the hon. member for Albany directly because he spoke mainly about water shortages. What I want to say actually concerns an area where there is not a water shortage but perhaps rather a surplus. I also want to add quickly: With regard to what the hon. member for Kimberley North said of the hon. the Minister and his approach to the department, I want to say that I support it wholeheartedly. It is my experience that it really is so.

Mr. Chairman, the Government’s decision to continue with the further development of the Orange River project at this stage, fits in completely with the extremely necessary policy of the decentralization of economic activity in South Africa. This policy will help to stimulate concentration points that have already been identified in the central region of South Africa which has, relatively speaking, been rather neglected. With regard to the share that the hon. the Minister and his department had in this decision, we want to congratulate them and cordially thank them. From the original White Papers that dealt with the Orange River project it is clear that the goals that were set with regard to an assured water supply to industrial points, mostly in the Eastern Cape, goals such as the control of the flow of the Orange River, the stabilization of accessible irrigation schemes and the generation of hydro-electric power, have already been achieved. For the further optimum utilization of the large Orange River dams, it will be necessary to concentrate chiefly upon the development of new irrigation land. It is therefore also necessary at this stage during the construction of the Orange River-Riet River junction canal that new irrigation lands should be established and that basic guidelines be examined afresh in regard to the line of action to be followed in relation to this type of development.

On the laying out of new irrigation areas it can always be expected that various interest groups and even individuals will for reasons of their own seek to influence planning to the greatest possible advantage to themselves. This can lead to the continual representations that are made to the hon. the Minister, public representatives and the department. It is necessary for all interest groups and individuals who are affected by new developments to have every opportunity to liaise with the planners themselves before the finalization—and I want to stress this—of the planning. However, if individual groups liaise separately with the hon. the Minister or departmental planners, it can lead to suspicions on the part of others that improper influencing is taking place. For this reason I asked that the hon. the Minister allow a liaison committee to be formed consisting of the elected representatives of all interest groups. This liaison committee could then co-ordinate all the inputs which it deems necessary from the community concerned. Planners would have the opportunity to transmit the correct and newest information with regard to this planning.

Mr. Chairman, I think that by following this course of action the public will be given the necessary assurance that nobody will interfere in an improper way so as to direct canals unnecessarily along a specific course to the advantage or disadvantage of any individual or group. I am sure that neither the hon. the Minister nor myself has used any influence in the past or will seek to use any influence in the future to influence the courses that canals will follow to the advantage or disadvantage of any person or interest group for any reason. I regard action of this nature as objectionable and I consider it as a breach of the trust that the public should be able to have in public representatives. It is necessary that this viewpoint be put timeously and promptly so that any person who may feel aggrieved now or in the future, will have the opportunity before the finalization of a scheme to settle the issue with the hon. the Minister, with the department or with me. For this reason, namely the absolute impartial planning of new irrigation schemes, provisional plans should be made known to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. the Minister should make the map of the provisional planning of the Orange River-Riet River junction canal available—as far as I know it has at this stage not been finalized but is available—as soon as possible for public cognizance. Land speculation is usually one of the most undesirable features concomitant with the development of new irrigation areas. The indications are already there that this is taking place in the area through which the planned junction canal may possibly run. Speculation takes place when suspicion arises that there may be landowners who will be benefited by the new development. In this regard I believe that it is necessary for the hon. the Minister already at this early stage to give an indication of precisely how farmers, whose land will partly or wholly be bought by the state for irrigation purposes, will be affected. He should also give an indication of how farmers over whose farms the canal will run but who will not be bought out for the purpose of the resale by the State of irrigation sites will be affected.

Mr. Chairman, my personal feeling on this matter is that, where because exclusively of the presently non-existing action of the State possibilities for individual landowners are created, these owners will on the one hand be treated fairly in all aspects but that on the other hand the State must guard against action that can result in accusations of the unjustified enrichment of individuals.

I think that further aspects that have to be considered afresh in the development of new irrigation land are the following: Where new irrigation land has to be made available, this has to be done by means of the establishment of completely economic—the hon. the Minister used another good word but I cannot now remember what is was…

Viable.

Yes, viable. It must be done by establishing completely viable irrigation units. When Orange River water, as is the objective, is used to stabilize existing irrigation schemes, those irrigation schemes have also to be looked at and care taken that completely viable economic units are also established there. In this regard I want to mention specifically the Riet River Government Water Scheme. I think that 60 ha is the largest that one should try to establish in that area.

A second guideline in the planning of a canal system should be that the carrying capacity of canals should be sufficient to provide the needs at peak consumer periods. Some of the older schemes were planned in such a way—and here I want once again to mention the Riet River Government Water Scheme—that less than half of the irrigation needs of certain summer crops could be provided during high evapo-transpiration periods. In the planning of an irrigation scheme there is no factor that contributes more to the uneconomic and ineffective use of water than our inadequate water supply during peak consumer periods. It must be taken into account that, with the development of new plant varieties, new irrigation techniques and more sophisticated fertilization programmes, a higher production per ha of irrigation land is still possible. This increasing production potential will in the future make increasingly higher demands of a canal system and this has to be taken into account. I think that we can at this stage state that the results of research have shown that a canal system has to make provision for the supply of 10 millimetres of water per day per scheduled surface area.

Mr. Chairman, a further approach to the development of new Government water schemes that has also to hold good for existing schemes, is that the development of a Government scheme has to be regarded as the creation by the State of economic infrastructure and that capital expenditure will not be recovered from individual irrigation farmers. This viewpoint seems to me to be justified when one looks at the provision of housing for certain workers the cost of which is not recovered directly from the industrial sector. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to associate myself with the hon. member for Fauresmith since he talked about irrigation water. I should like to come back later to a few remarks of that hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about irrigation water tariffs especially in pursuance of the idea that full interest and redemption should be paid on the capital structure; in other words, by and large the dam and the main conduit. In the RSA a particular pattern has been followed in the development of irrigation schemes over the years. Broadly speaking, this development was possibly concentrated on undeveloped parts in the first place in order to give those people a livelihood. In the second place it was to provide a more viable living for farmers and in regions. The important result of this approach was that the already developed areas were left mainly to feud for themselves with the aid of private dams and possibly a few joint larger schemes. Precisely because such regions developed dynamically, the irrigation schemes, the places for such dams and the water itself were soon not adequate. Accordingly the natural answer to this problem was to build bigger schemes, namely Government Water Schemes.

It is true that schemes that were built earlier, are inevitably the cheapest. The result has been that the water tariffs for those schemes have been low and in some cases have been particularly low. In fact, the truth is that water tariffs do not even cover the full operating costs of such schemes at present. I think it was as little as approximately 20% a few years ago.

However, it will in due course be rectified and it will be rectified progressively, but perhaps one should nevertheless already utter a word of warning in this connection that there may be cases in which it cannot be applied for socio-economic reasons. It is not only the dynamically developing regions that have now to do with possibly higher water tariffs. Any development in the future—and this was what the hon. member for Fauresmith was speaking about—can, especially as a result of socio-economic circumstances, be handicapped or even totally frustrated by wrong policy. As a result of representations some years ago by the Western Cape Agricultural Union, a committee of inquiry on water tariffs was established, the so-called Claassen Committee. I am pleased to see Mr. Claassen present here.

I believe that the most important evidence that was submitted to the committee and on which a decision had to be made, was the principle of whether interest and redemption had to be levied on the capital structure. I want to tell hon. members that, from an agricultural point of view, this principle that it has to be levied is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, basically agriculture does two things. In the first place the people are fed and in the second place welcome foreign exchange is earned. Costs rise faster than product prices and, to neutralize that, identification is necessary, in other words, vertical growth is necessary instead of horizontal growth. To earn more overseas it is logical that much more has to be exported. In fact, to compensate for falling foreign prices and higher local input costs, so much more has to be exported. In this regard one can say in passing that there may possibly this year have to be an inpayment on Harry Pickstone export prunes. Therefore each little fact of input costs has to be looked at carefully.

Mr. Chairman, South Africa exports products that are cultivated under irrigation, to an amount of approximately R480 million. In no person’s money terms can that be ignored. In any case these are industries which, as a result of their intensification, provide a large number of job opportunities. To summarily wish to write off a dam over 20 or 40 years is to my mind not right because in most of these cases the dam will in any case not silt up. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister as a matter of urgency to abandon the principle of levying interest and redemption, or a part thereof, on the capital expenditure. Even a part thereof is unacceptable to us because we argue that a dam and its main conduits are national assets. At the very least, it is still a regional asset and this asset affords many people an income. It generates taxation, it earns foreign exchange and in any case, at least for that smaller region, it provides a stability that is to the advantage of the country as a whole.

A dam is in point of fact a permanent asset. It is correct to say that it is built with taxpayers money but that money source is precisely the one to which the farmers concerned and that community have already contributed. As a result of the development of this scheme I believe, that more money is being earned by the Exchequer. To levy further taxes on this irrigation community then is in our view not correct. On behalf of the farmers I want to make an urgent appeal that we do away with this idea that interest and redemption, or even a part thereof, be levied on the capital structure.

Mr. Chairman, I want finally to make just one appeal for my constituency. I have mentioned before that the west bank of the Berg River is an area which from a climatology and soil point of view and according to whatever norms at all, is eminently suitable for the establishment of a nut industry in South Africa. We import nuts to South Africa to the value of millions of rands annually while we could grow them here. We have the expertise, climate and soil as well as the organization that can arrange the marketing. All that I ask is that this part of my constituency be favourably considered.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. the Minister on his first speech in his position as Minister of this particular Department. I found that he has adopted a very refreshing attitude and I found his approach both modest and intriguing. I, for one, would like to see more Ministers with that sort of approach. I would like to congratulate him on it and I would like to say that for my part I will respect his approach as I would like him to respect ours.

I want to talk about a subject which has already, strangely enough, been talked about this afternoon. The hon. member for Sunday’s River spoke about the Orange River scheme as it affects Lake Mentz. As it happens, I spoke on the identical subject last year in the debate on this Vote and I am going to repeat that because today, as we know, we have a new Minister and there are some additional facts and figures which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I would like to second the plea which the hon. member for Sunday’s River made this afternoon because I believe that not only is it necessary for that hon. member’s constituents but I believe that it is in the greater interests of the whole Eastern Cape that this plea be put before the hon. the Minister.

In the Vote last year I spoke on two subjects, namely the Orange River scheme and the Addo Elephant National Park. Nothing particularly satisfactory has, to my knowledge, happened in the meantime. I want to repeat my requests and I want to start with the Orange River scheme. As a general background I want to quote some Eastern Cape unemployment figures because this is to me the key to the whole question. I believe these figures demonstrate the serious long-term unemployment problems of the area. Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage is one of only four metropolitan areas in South Africa, yet manufacturing employment as a source of employment only increased by 2,6% annually from 1972 to 1976. The other metropolitan areas had increases of 3,8%, 5,5% and 5,8% respectively. From 1970 to 1975 the area’s share of the gross domestic product dropped from 4% to 3,6%. Industrial employment in this particular metropole is less than one-half of the next smallest metropole in South Africa. In recent months unemployment has risen sharply. In January 1982 there were less than 3 000 unemployed Whites, Coloureds and Asians. By January 1983 this figure was in excess of 5 000—it was in fact 5 115. This is an increase of no less than 16,4% over the month of December 1982. I must draw it to the hon. the Minister’s attention that these figures do not include Blacks, who have of course a much higher figure. I believe I have thus established that there is a great need for employment in the area. In terms of the original Orange River scheme which was begun many, many years ago, there was to be a canal at Klipfontein and this was to carry 350 cusecs of water to Lake Mentz, but this was not completed. Other areas affected by this were the Bushman’s River and Little and Great Fish River areas. As I have stated, the scheme was not completed. Instead, water is being pumped to Lake Mentz at a rate of only 100 cusecs. Yet we know that vast sums of money are being spent on other irrigation schemes and as an example I would like to mention the Riet River scheme which is going ahead while, regrettably, the Eastern Cape suffers for the want of some R12 million. The hon. member for Sunday’s River mentioned a figure of R16 million. Whatever it is, it is more or less of that order. I should like to quote from a recent article in the Weekend Post—

I believe that is incredibly important. The cost would be some R3 000 to R4 000 per job and that is remarkably inexpensive. One must compart this with the R17 890 per job which is given in the latest report of the Corporation for Economic Development. That is what they say it has cost them to establish jobs. It seems almost criminal not to spend this comparatively small amount of money on the creation of these 4 000 jobs. Apart from those 4 000 jobs there would obviously be additional subsidiary employment. In all, one would probably be supporting some 20 000 people. There are also additional benefits. Firstly, one hectare brings in something in the order of R2 500 in foreign exchange if it is planted with citrus. It follows that 4 000 ha would bring in something like R10 million per annum in foreign exchange. That is important for the country and particularly important for the Eastern Cape. Secondly, rural areas of the Eastern Cape have become depopulated and the hon. the Minister himself has referred to that this afternoon. This has happened over a long period of time for many reasons. This type of scheme could help to stem the tide of depopulation. Thirdly, the Greater Algoa Bay Development Committee commissioned, as I have said, a study and they also had a study done by Louis Heyl and Associates of the area. That study identified the fact that the Port Elizabeth hinterland is economically very undeveloped which had a debilitating effect on the whole area. They recommended—and I want to quote from the documents which were published in January 1982—

The very first one—bearing in mind that they are in order of priority—is the development of the lower Sunday’s River irrigation potential. I do not think I can overstress the importance of this to the whole area. This development further has the full support of the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce. They have in fact submitted a memorandum on the subject to the Regional Development Association. Last year, in response to my plea, the then Minister said the following (Hansard, 6504)—

I submit that it should be our highest priority and I want to ask some specific questions. Is it intended, at any stage, to improve the supply from the Orange River project to Lake Mentz? If so, how many cusecs is it intended to supply? Secondly, is this to be done in stages and if so, how many stages? Thirdly, what amount of ground will be able to be scheduled as a result of each stage? Fourthly, when will the money be available to begin implementing each stage? Fifthly, when is it anticipated that each stage will be completed? I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us further information on this matter tomorrow

In the time remaining to me I would like to go back to the speech I made last year concerning the Addo Elephant National Park. In that speech I mentioned a few crucial points and I quote from column 6499 in Hansard—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his maiden speech and tell him that for me that speech bears the stamp of someone who has grown up in close proximity to the land, who was born and bred in the ranks of agriculturists.

I want to link up with a general and almost consistent theme that has run through the debate that has taken place here today. The devastating droughts that ravaged large parts of our country have harshly and mercilessly taught us two basic lessons. The two obvious lessons involve the judicious utilization of all possible water resources in our country and the judicious use of all storage water. Speaking of the utilization of all water resources, let me tell the Committee a story. It is the story of a river which flows through one of the loveliest valleys in our country, but which, during the rainy season, unfortunately flows virtually unutilized into the salty waters of the sea. Nowhere has this story been told with greater persuasiveness than in the leading article in Die Burger of 29 May 1982. The article was entitled “Moe-derrivier”. It is a very significant title, and I should like to quote a few extracts from it—

The article continues, metaphorically and poetically, to sketch a picture of the river as a mother figure. It goes on to say—

Then the article concludes with the significant remark, actually a veiled attack—

The Breede River, which has its origins in one of the highest rainfall areas in the Western Cape, is therefore, to large extent, an unutilized water source. It is calculated that only 8% of the downflow is, at present, stored up in the Breede River Valley. On the one hand one is comforted by the fact that there are still unutilized water resources left, whilst on the other hand one is given cause for concern by the injudicious planning of the past. We must not, however, confine our attention today to the water that has literally already flowed under the bridge. Today we must direct our attention towards future planning.

Before I come to that, however, I first want to tell you another story arising out of the judicious utilization of storage water. In August 1981 a White Paper was tabled in Parliament for a R40 million dam on the Elands River, a branch of the Molenaars River, known further downstream as the Smalblaar River, which empties into the Breede River. The dam will push 27 million cubic metres of Elands River water annually via a pipeline through the pilot tunnel in the Du Toitskloof to Cape Town and its environs. The announcement of this project was greeted by an unprecedented spate of opposition in the Breede River valley. It led to the drawing-up and distribution of petitions, since November 1982, throughout the entire Breede River valley by the United Breede River Development Association. The petition is introduced by the following passage—

That is clear and unambiguous language, but in a certain sense I find the attitude natural and understandable. For me the actions of the inhabitants of the Breede River valley underline one basic rule in life—that of fighting for one’s own rights. The people in the Breede River valley have the utmost confidence in their own future. The valley has definite possibilities. This is supported by the fact that it has strong natural resources in the agricultural and industrial spheres. It has a strong and well-developed infrastructure and knowledgeable people who, for generations now, have left their children in this valley a fine legacy. These people now fear that one of their resources, possibly the most important resource, that of water, will be flowing away to other regions, thereby restricting the growth possibilities and the potential of the Breede River Valley. That is why there is nothing strange in the fact that 2 210 inhabitants of the Breede River Valley signed this petition. Even though this petition may create the impression of confrontation, of heading for a stalemate, I know that basically these people have a level-headed and balanced outlook on life. They are prepared to co-operate, in a larger team, for the sake of the development of a larger region that could also favourably influence their smaller region. Although there have, in the past, been negotiations between the Department of Environment Affairs and the relative bodies in the Breede River valley, I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that the negotiations continue and that they be conducted with a view to reaching agreement on the basis of the fact that with the diversion of a specific volume of water from the Breede River valley, the valley be given the assurance that further long-term water schemes will be planned for the valley by the Department of Environment Affairs. I therefore want to advocate that a compromise be reached between the inhabitants of the Breede River valley and the existing needs in the larger Cape Town area. It goes without saying that these negotiations will not succeed if only vague and veiled assurances are given. I have the utmost confidence that the hon. the Minister does know the background history to this problem and has the negotiating ability to cut this Gordian knot.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on the speech of the hon. member for Ceres, and I want to follow the trend of his argument in my speech. It is indeed an experience to observe the calm and reasoned way in which this debate has unfolded, and I think that one of the most important reasons for this is that the hon. the Minister, who is handling this post for the first time today, is doing so in such a calm and composed manner. The first fruits of such an approach has been the calm manner in which this debate has been conducted and definitely, I think, the fact that we have each been able to make a positive contribution to the debate.

I also want to make a contribution to what has thus far been said in the debate about water, and particularly the important role that water is going to play in the future economic development in South Africa. Here I am specifically referring to the role that it is going to play in future regional development. The hon. the Minister and his department have, as far as this is concerned—in particular as far as the decentralization policy is concerned—an extremely important function to fulfil. All of us know that water is one of the primary resources underlying economic development, whether agricultural development, industrial development or whatever economic development may be involved. Water is one of the important factors, but also one of the restricting factors. It is an extremely important restricting factor that can determine what the degree of economic development of a particular area will be. Once such a region has reached the point of developmental over-concentration—I am referring specifically to the PWV area—certain problems develop. The availability of such a source is then outstripped, and immediately there are certain avenues that must be explored.

The solutions in such cases—and the department is considering them—involve the economical and optimal utilization of the available water. Secondly, a close look is taken at the re-utilization of water, whether in purified form or in less purified form. Thirdly it is essential for optimal use to be made of the water available in such a region and for dams to be built for the necessary storage and distribution of that water. If one has already covered all those aspects and has been driven into a corner, problems begin to develop. One then starts peering over the fence at the water of other regions and other water sources that can and will have to be brought to one’s own area to bring about further economic development. Here I want to link up with the hon. member for Ceres—and also other members earlier in this debate—who referred to this. I do, however, want to ask a question. We so glibly say that it is in the country’s interests to have water brought from somewhere else to so important an area. If it is in the country’s interest, such an assessment is correct, and if there is excess water—as the hon. member for Constantia has said—are we able to export it to other areas? If there is excess water, it is not needed in that area, but I want to attach a very important condition, and that is that the water brought from other regions to a region such as this should not jeopardize the development potential of the region from which the water comes. That is very important. We may not undermine the economic potential that exists in other regions, whether industrial or agricultural, by taking away the water of such regions.

Obviously I also have certain local interests that I could hold a brief for. There is, for example, the water of the Caledon and the development of the Free State, particularly Bloemfontein, Onverwacht, Qwa Qwa and ThabaNchu. That source is important to all the population groups sharing that area. We have been greatly blessed with such a fine source. We shall be keeping a jealous watch on what happens to our water and really look closely at what the Department does with it. We shall assuredly—I am sure you expect as much—be looking at our future development potential and seeing to it that those decisions that have to be taken at this stage do not detrimentally affect the potential for future development. That does not, however, only apply to a specific region, but also to many other regions in the country, and I think it is vital for the hon. the Minister and his Department to take a thorough look at this whole matter. In his speech the hon. the Minister said—and we have confidence in this—that he and his Department will be taking a thorough look at this and will be playing a very important role in the successful implementation of the Government’s economic decentralization plan, particularly in ensuring—and this is now a negative view—that water which is abundantly available in other regions at the moment will not be taken away to existing regions where there is already an overconcentration, thus adversely affecting the development of those other regions.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that makes one more aware of where one stands than the moment when one finds oneself in an emergency situation. We could also say that the emergency of the disastrous drought that has prevailed over the past years and months has our country in its grip and has brought home to the South African farmer the nature of his struggle to survive. To us who are from the platteland, who are farmers and whose existence and survival is intimately bound up with the climate of our country, with the destructive consequences of flood damage and droughts, as we are again experiencing at the moment, the term “water emergency” has indeed gained a terrible double meaning. To us, a water emergency means either too much or too little water. If we just take a brief look at the tasks and responsibilities of the rural MP we find that virtually all of us have one or more files in our possession containing a whole history of severe damage, damage caused by disastrous floods and droughts.

It seems to me as if the file containing the estimate of the damage caused by droughts, and in which drought plays the chief role, is far more gripping than that containing the other damage that is caused. Nevertheless, it is ironic that we should have flood damage and excessive rain followed by the devastating drought, which, more than anything else, reflects the varying fortunes of the South African farmer. I recall that the hon. member for Brits and I approached Minister Hendrik Schoeman barely four or five years ago to provide assistance because the Crocodile River and the Marico River had burst their banks. The water destroyed bridges, flooded crops, mineralized lands and caused damage amounting to hundreds of thousands of rands. Now it is those same farmers who are approaching the hon. the Minister and Mr. Otto, our Director-General, for assistance because they are once again in an emergency situation due to the destructive drought. It is true that in the days when he was Deputy Minister of Agriculture, our hon. Minister became well acquainted with the people in that part of the world and had sympathy and understanding for the problems of those people. Due to the severe drought it is in particular those farmers whose farms are situated lower down the Marico River and below the Marico Bushveld dam and the Marico State water control area—where there is no longer water in the river—who are being hard hit. Those people are at present experiencing a severe emergency situation. Those farmers have an urgent need for water to be released from the Marico Bushveld dam, because this is one of the dams that does not have a river outlet. Due to the emergency situation prevailing lower down, it is requested that the water be released through the irrigation canals. I am not going to take the matter any further because the hon. the Minister and our esteemed Director are aware of the problem, and we know that they are attending to the matter. I do just want to say that it is not only those farmers who are in that emergency situation as far as water requirements are concerned, but also the well-known Derdepoort Mission Hospital which is situated approximately 150 kilometres below those dams. The hon. the Minister is well acquainted with the nature and achievements of this particular hospital. It is a hospital that provides wonderful services to the people in that region, to the citizens of Bophuthatswana and also to hundreds of citizens of Botswana. The emergency situation of those farmers and the hospital is truly a matter deserving of our very urgent attention. I am aware that the MPs of that region are also negotiating with the Minister at present. However, because I have had the closest contact with those people over the years, where they live and work in areas which, in many respects, can only be called our first line of defence, I am aware of one great truth that one must take into account there. It is that the severe drought and the shortage of water in those regions do not call for short-term solutions. Very urgent consideration must be given to finding more permanent solutions. When many millions of cubic metres of water run off to the sea, and subsequently the drought takes hold, one realizes time and again the imperative need for water conservation in those areas. We want to make an appeal to the Directorate of Water Affairs today to see to it that the water emergency that prevails from time to time in those border areas be considered afresh. A water conservation programme, not only for the border farmers, but for all farmers in the Republic, has become a very high priority or must become a very high priority with our department. However, this is not the task of the department alone. All the farmers of South Africa—cattle farmers, irrigation farmers, all farmers—must be involved. In the nature of the matter the department must provide aid, assistance and advice, but the farmer, too, must contribute positive water conservation planning. Not only must there be conservation and damming of water in streams and rivers; our ground water resources, too, must be preserved, nourished and supplemented. Nowadays we hear about boreholes drying up everywhere. That is why I say that every farmer in our country must build weirs and dams in the most practical manner in every stream and every river on his farm. Due specifically to the fact that for years many farmers have no longer been building earth dams or constructing weirs in their streams and rivers, but have for the most part only been making use of borehole water for their stock watering, etc., our ground water situation has weakened throughout the country. After all, it is a fact that the more earth dams and weirs there are on a farm, the greater is the opportunity to supplement the subterranean water. If the water in the rivers, the streams and the vleis flows by unchecked, we can be sure that our farmers can look forward to a dwindling supply of water from boreholes in the future. As far as all the rivers are concerned—rivers such as the Marico River, the Crocodile River, the Limpopo and Matlabas and the other rivers flowing through low rainfall areas—the department ought to concentrate on constructing and building more dams and in particular, far more weirs to prevent water from flowing passed unchecked. In times like these, when we realize that that water is so desperately needed, this is a fact that the department must face squarely. Moreover, our riparian farmers must keep the river beds clean. They must remove unnecessary shrubs, unnecessary bush and other obstacles so that the farmers further down the rivers can also obtain their rightful share of the water, and in order to reduce the impact of flood disasters.

Mr. Chairman, I find it a pleasure to follow the hon. member Mr. Theunissen in this debate, because when a practical farmer speaks about the distress of a farmer, I understand the language he speaks. I should also like to associate myself with what the hon. member Dr. Odendaal had to say about the calm tone of this debate. One enjoys the calm, because we are discussing a fountain of life, matters that cannot be discussed lightly. It is a pleasure to take part calmly in this debate this afternoon. I should also like to join other hon. members who congratulated the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister—unfortunately he is not here now—so sincerely on their appointments and on the extremely efficient way in which the Minister has handled not only his Department up to now, but also the debate so far. To the hon. officials, too, we should like to extend our sincere thanks.

I found it very interesting to go through the annual report of the Department regarding forestry. It was interesting to see what an enormous industry has been built up through the years and that the South African timber industry has to a large extent been able to keep pace with the domestic demand for timber. We are very proud of the fact that we needed to import only 29 630 cubic metres of timber whilst the volume of timber which could be supplied domestically amounted to 12 517 069 cubic metres. South Africa was, therefore, almost self-sufficient as regards timber. It is with great appreciation that we call to mind our predecessors who had the vision, decades ago, that South Africa should provide for her own needs and started these plantations at that early stage. The paper industry in South Africa has developed into a recognized gigantic enterprise at present. In recent years our mines and our building industry were, to my knowledge, at no stage restricted in any way in their activities as a result of timber shortages. Our sawmills and also our furniture industry have experienced a period of enormous growth. We can say without any hesitation that the forestry section of the Department of Environment Affairs is well-structured and well-organised. However, we cannot rest on our laurels and simply look back. It is imperative that we, as did our predecessors, should look far into the future. South Africa is a fast-growing country and our timber needs will definitely not decrease. We are grateful to read in the report that the Forestry Council recommended as far back as 1981 that very thorough consideration should be given to an afforestation policy for the future. Accordingly they assumed that our commercial timber plantations had to be extended at a rate of 39 000 ha per annum in order to meet our timber needs towards the end of the century. That is only 16 years from now. This decision was taken against the background of the fact that South Africa’s afforested area had increased by only 22 700 ha during the past 11 years. A red light blinks at us as regards the country’s needs in respect of roundwood in particular. Although it was decided in 1981 that the State’s share should be the afforestation of 8 000 ha per annum, only 1 000 ha was afforested in the financial year 1982-’83 as a result of the compulsory curtailment of State expenditure and many other factors. While I have the opportunity, I should like to break a lance for my constituency which is situated in the Eastern Cape. The total area afforested in the Amatola forestry district, is only 8 658 ha. As a result of the policy of decentralization and attractive concessions to the growth points in that area, the factories connected with the timber industry have shown a major upswing. New factories are being established all the time. By the way, just the demand for coffins in the two national states on either side of my constituency, has given rise to a formidable industry. This is over and above the other timber needs. I wish I had shares in it. Just think of the possibility of the provision of timber houses to alleviate the housing scarcity in the two Black states. Now, to the west of one of these towns, Stutterheim, there lies an area known as the Upper Kubusie. This is a high rainfall area and borders on existing State forests. The whole area of about 60 units covers, approximately 11 000 ha, of which an area of 5 284 ha is arable land. The rainfall in that area is between 750 and 1 000 millimetres per annum. This area consists by and large of small, uneconomical farming units which were divided before the subdivision of Agricultural Land Act came into force. Many of the owners do not live there any more and those who still live there, lead a precarious existence as a result of trespassing—over and above the fact that their land is small—and theft by the Black squatters who settled there. I continually receive representations from some of the owners who want to offer their land for the purpose of consolidation with Ciskei, but unfortunately we cannot consider such a step, because that would narrow the White corridor too drastically at that particular point. Another very important fact I must mention, is that this area falls within the catchment area of the proposed Wriggleswade Dam—or the Amatola Scheme, as we know it. The conditions prevailing there at present, promote denudation, and my suggestion that it should be afforested, will definitely protect the natural streams and their flow-off. Furthermore, such an afforestation project, specifically at that strategic spot, will, in view of the employment opportunities it will create, provide for the other departments concerned with the matter a convenient solution to a vexing problem, namely the provision of employment. Although the afforestation of the area concerned will bring about an ideal buffer strip between the White and Black areas, I do not want to cite it as motivation, because in that region we are able to maintain good relations without buffer strips. There are two snags I foresee in my representations. In the first place, the technical people could claim that the land is not suitable for afforestation. I can hardly accept that, because just on the other side of the fence State forests are flourishing. Secondly, the hon. the Minister, could tell me that he does not have funds for that at present. May I then ask the hon. the Minister whether the Department could, in conjunction with the owners, work out a scheme which would not now, in the short term, require a great deal of capital, but would at least provide a future for those people, who are rather despondent at the moment. There is an old adage that says that if one wants the impossible to be done, one should entrust the task to someone who does not know that it is impossible. The forestry industry in South Africa is not only economically important to us; it is also a fine industry adorning large parts of our country and making it attractive for tourism, etc. On behalf of this side of the Committee I wish the Ministry and the Department only the very best.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that one cannot plan for events that occur only once in every 200 years because then we would not be able to build half the bridges, water systems or dams required during normal times. While I say that better planning in the past would not necessarily have prevented the current problems of the people of Durban and Pietermaritzburg, I am not quite so sure that their future is safe. I will come back to that later. I wish to congratulate the people though for the very responsible manner in which they have co-operated in achieving those remarkable target savings. As the Minister suggested, nobody thought that it could be done but I think that the people of Natal really rose to the occasion.

This drought should also make people in South Africa reflect on the position of the people in the Third World part of South Africa, those who have been totally neglected by this Government over the past decades. Like many other departments this department also contributes in a big way to making the rapid urbanisation away from the rural areas of such great proportions. The member for Constantia has already referred to the biased expenditure of capital funds in the various provinces, but I should like to add that this department has no conception whatsoever of planning with the Third World part of South Africa in mind. It is no use thinking only in terms of gigantic schemes and concentrating on a few people in one or two locations. For example, one of the White Papers earlier this year announced a scheme of R13,8 million to supply water to 50 farms, that is R277 000 per farm. I refer to the drinking water scheme announced last night. This, like most of the other grandiose irrigation schemes, will not even repay the running cost or interest, never mind the capital. I think a similar amount could build perhaps 50 small dams and canals in kwaZulu serving several hundred times as many people. It is no use telling me that that is the kwaZulu government’s problem, because if the 3,2 million people in those rural areas come to the cities, it is not only their problem, it is our problem too whether we like it or not. I therefore urge the Minister and his department to start a special division in his department to look at those Third World needs of South Africa. If one thinks small one can still get progress even in times of economic difficulties. I think the Minister could perhaps have a look at a scheme like the Serfontein farm prison.

*He should compare notes with one of his colleagues in another department to see how one can utilise a small valley in Natal to supply food and employment to quite a number of people. Although we are at present, as I heard today, in a 200-year drought period, the dam in the upper reaches of that river is still 98% full.

†To get back to the planning for Natal that I mentioned earlier on, I want to talk about the Inanda dam. In the original White Paper of 1981 it was stated that this dam would cater for the needs of Durban till the year 2002. It further said the additional would only be required from that dam by 1988, but for safety precautions it would supply water from June 1983. This was because of the poor condition of some pipelines. It further stated that construction would start in the 1981-’82 financial year. Yet not a stone has been turned on that site. In May 1982 I asked the Minister’s predecessor what the starting date of construction would be, how many people would have to be resettled and where. The reply was that the department is negotiating with kwaZulu in this regard. I should like to get a progress report from the Minister on these negotiations with kwaZulu. I should also like to have the Minister tell us what kwaZulu’s negotiating position is in this regard. It raises further questions. Is the breakdown in those negotiations not because of the schizophrenic planning of this department of kwaZulu and Natal as if they consist of two completely separate geographic entities? What is more, kwaZulu may feel that just as they are excluded from the political processes, they are excluded from the planning processes and the allocation of the natural resources of this country. The White Paper defines the consumers as purely those of so called White Natal, including, of course, some of the formal Black townships in White Natal. On that basis the dam, the White Paper said, would cater for the needs until the year 2002. If the benefits are for the White Natal only I can quite understand kwaZulu’s negotiating position that says: If you want to move 4 000 people, you find them land in White Natal. Further the White Paper says that the projections will be wrong if the high density areas of kwaZulu will also be served from the Umgeni supply. If the Minister is suggesting that we can wait until the year 2002 before we seriously start looking at supplying those rapidly urbanising areas around Pietermaritzburg and Durban in kwaZulu, we have problems. We are talking of more than a million people around those two cities who actually live in kwaZulu. The supplying of water is not their problem only, it is also our problem. If the answer is no—and I hope that it is no—and that we are going to look to those people as well, then I think that the planning of water for the people in the Umgeni area is in real trouble. Then the target year of 2002, which is only 18 years away, is a total joke. I want to know what the Minister is going to do about that.

Lastly I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what his department will look like under the new constitutional dispensation. Water knows no artificial political boundaries. How can it be planned in such compartments? It is ridiculous and it is an insult to a technical department like his and to the engineers and staff of that department For its workings to be split along the same lines as the grand scheme of political apartheid.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 82J the Committee adjourned at 18h00.