iSimangaliso on 2015/16 2nd & 3rd Quarter performance

Meeting report

Ms Tyhileka Madubela, Committee Secretary, said that the Committee Chairperson, Mr J Mthembu (ANC), could not be present due to commitments in Johannesburg. Members would have to nominate an acting chairperson in terms of Rule 130 of the National Assembly. 

Ms H Kekana (ANC) nominated Mr S Makhubele (ANC).

The nomination was seconded by Mr P Mabilo (ANC).

There were no further nominations or objections.

The Acting Chairperson relayed apologies for the meeting beginning late – Fridays were often a challenging day for Members, added to which was the fact that most provinces were delivering their State of the Province Addresses.  The agenda for the day must be taken seriously. Part of the challenge was that many Committee Members were off ill.

iSimangaliso Wetland Park: Second and Third Quarter Report

The Chairperson, by way of introduction, noted that the entity was doing fairly well and did not have major challenges in terms of managing resources and many other aspects. It could not be taken for granted that everything was well without the Committee interacting with iSimangaliso through the function of oversight. This remained the responsibility of Members as public representatives, to verify and check from time to time what was happening, to keep a hand on the heart beat or pulse of the Department of Environmental Affairs and its entities.

Ms Terri Castis, iSimangaliso Business Director, began the presentation by saying the vision of iSimangaliso was to create Africa’s greatest conservation-based tourism destination driven by community empowerment. The mission of the Wetland Park was to protect, conserve and present the park and its world heritage values for current and future generations, in line with the standards laid down by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Heritage Act, and to deliver benefits to communities living in and adjacent to the Park by facilitating optimal tourism and related development. In terms of high-level structure, iSimangaliso had a flat organisation with a board accountable to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. Looking briefly at a synopsis of the results of the second quarter, the Park had two targets which were work in progress, but it was on target for the other 22 targets.

Ms Castis turned to programme one: conservation and park operations. The strategic objective was to ensure the world heritage values were conserved. Within the programme, the first performance indicator on target was the detection of poaching incidents within two weeks – the environmental monitors’ programme had been initiated, which meant 30 new monitors had been deployed to various sections of the Park. The performance indicator of detection of illegal developments within 48 hours had been exceeded along with the hectares of land rehabilitated as a result of additional funding. Other indicators on target and exceeded in the programme included:

• completion of the annual game management programme;
• applications in the buffer actioned;
• initiation of the implementation of the hydrological solution for St. Lucia Estuary;
• completing the annual infrastructure programme.

In programme two – transformation -- the strategic objective was to optimise empowerment in all activities of the Park in a way that would improve the livelihoods of the previously disadvantaged. Targets met and exceeded included:

• permanent jobs from park-related activities (two internal posts had been created; a decision had been made to retain all the interns under the Groen Sebenza programme for a further year as part of the board-approved human resource development strategy);
• Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs), through the iSimangaliso programme (the programme was revised to reduce the costs of participation per SMME, enabling the inclusion of more participants);
• BEE procurement (additional budgets for land care)
• Training (the training programme was accelerated to coincide with revised project roll-out; additional/unplanned contractors were retained under the additional funding for land care)

Ms Castis then discussed programme three: tourism/commercial. One of the indicators not on target was the maintenance of visitor numbers at the prior year levels – the Park was primarily a domestic tourism destination, and recessionary factors could be playing a role in visitor numbers. There had been some challenges with the international tourism market due to, inter alia, visa requirements. Targets met in this programme included:

• implementation of an annual environmental education programme (the increase was due to a rhino education drive in conjunction with various partners such as the Kingsley Holgate Foundation, which invited iSimangaliso to participate. School awards were linked to the rhino awareness drive, resulting in a greater number of completion entries);
• implementation of annual an communication programme with claimants and traditional councils (an internal decision was taken to step-up communication with land claimants and traditional councils);
• implementation of an annual communication programme with groups other than the local community.

Ms Castis said that in programme four -- corporate governance -- targets met included:

• achievement of an unqualified audit;
• tabling of the annual report on due date;
• staff were at the retention rate;
• reports were tabled quarterly.

In terms of the financial overview, accounting revenue for the period 31 December 2015 was 0.5% below budget. This was due to recognition of principles of Generally Recognised Accounting Practice (GRAP) 23. Park revenue had increased by 18.6% due to the introduction of an overnight levy. Expenditure was 18.2% below budget. This was attributable to cost containment strategies.  The accounting surplus for the period ended 31 December 2015 was R10.6m. This was a non-cash surplus and was the result of accounting policies, such as those relating to grants (GRAP23).

Looking at Auditor-General issues, one issue was the information technology (IT) framework. iSimangaliso had an IT framework but it was contained in multiple documents. This had to be consolidated into one document consistent with the Treasury framework – this was in process.  

Mr Andrew Zaloumis, iSimangaliso CEO, added that it was critical to manage perceptions. iSimangaliso had intensified communication processes and had formed a task team, with other affected departments, to flesh out any issues, respond to them and, where necessary, make improvements because there was always room for improvement.  In the new financial year, iSimangaliso would redevelop and negotiate its integration management plan, which was a very important process for interventions for the next five years. Another big issue was related to economic benefits - areas around iSimangaliso were the second poorest in South Africa, with the second greatest development backlogs. In these areas outside the Park, 15% of people were formally employed out of the more than 640 000 who lived there. iSimangaliso had delivered significantly in terms of tourism jobs and contribution to the tourism GDP of the country and KZN province, although there was never enough when it came to economic beneficiation.

Greatest backlogs were specifically experienced in the north of the Park. iSimangaliso, while receiving an adequate budget from the Department, struggled but there was no opportunity to develop into the north of the Park. Critical would be the need for funding for equity lodges or tourism plants grounded in local empowerment. Economic beneficiation was a difficult area. because it involved money and money was getting tight.  The issue of access was also being looked at very carefully and there were plans for improvement.  

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, Director General, DEA, thought the report had been presented very well. The Department conducted quarterly reviews and analysis of the reports of the entities and the state of the iSimangaliso report was acceptable in terms of the standards of performance. The entity also had an acceptable level of compliance as reflected in the report of the AG. More could be done to mitigate areas of challenge, but this depended on resources available – currently there were revised allocations to iSimangaliso and other entities. Along with the Department, the entities had been asked to do more with less, so resources were stretched as far as possible. The Board of iSimangaliso was still fairly new and still due to meet formally with the Minister, where proposals around governance would be discussed.

iSimangaliso, from a conservation point of view, was a Park and heritage site the country could be proud of and, from a liquidity point of view, was an entity the Department was not worried about due to good management controlling limited resources.

Mr Shonisani Munzhedzi, Deputy Director General: Biodiversity and Conservation,  confirmed that the DEA was part of the task team Mr Zaloumis had alluded to and was playing an active role in the process along with other key role players to resolve key issues related to perceptions, improved communication, access, beneficiation and other infrastructure-related matters. Some challenges required short term interventions while others required medium and long term intervention, but he was confident the process in place would address these issues. He highlighted that iSimangaliso was a world heritage site and certain tenants would have to be maintained for the entity to comply with its inscription. He was happy with the support provided by management in ensuring these key tenants were not compromised. Drought was a current challenge but plans were in place and updated. 

Discussion

Ms Kekana wanted to further understand the challenges of drought and whether it was only the rhino affected among the Big Five.

Mr Zaloumis said the drought affected most of the country, but iSimangaliso had experienced its lowest rainfall in 65 years. The last drought was from 2002 to 2012 – a drought did not mean no rain, but less rain and, critically, how many years in row there was low rain. Outside the Park there was a catastrophe because water delivery, i.e. potable water for communities, was already stretched and under-stress. There were huge issues of water in the communities outside the Park as displayed in the significant service delivery protests which had been widely reported in the media. This impacted on management of the Park, which was a big neighbour but where iSimangaliso could assist, it did so.

Inside the Park, a lot had been learnt from the last drought so there was a significant improvement in auxiliary boreholes for tourism facilities, etc. Browsers in the Park were largely affected in a drought and this included buffalo, elephant and other bulk grazers. Drought was not necessarily a bad thing in terms of conservation, because it was part of the natural cycle to kill the young, sick and old. When the rain came back, species also returned more aggressively and more healthy. In a drought, it was important to ensure there was not over-grazing because this also meant the vegetation would be negatively impacted. iSimangaliso did game off-takes early, including rhino where there were water and grass problems, to other sections of the Park where there was place for rhino. This year in various parks, the mortality of rhino from the drought would be picked up, and this was part of the natural system. Hippos were also badly affected.     

Mr Mabilo highlighted the issue of transformation, noting it was not a static event but an ongoing process. He sought elaboration on transformation, and what the current status of transformation was. He also sought more elaboration around the indicator of detection of poaching within 48 hours – while the Park was on target, he wanted to know if in fact any attempts at poaching had been made or not, strange movements and whether any attempts had been thwarted, to add more substance to what had been outlined in the presentation. This also applied to the indicator around illegal developments, to provide a narrative sense of matters further than the numbers presented. He questioned whether students could access the Park for free. What was the ratio of personnel to non-personnel staff?  What was the figure of natural attrition vis-a-vis staff retention? 

Ms Castis replied that there were improvements in the percentage of African employees at iSimangaliso, but a slight drop in the percentage of females and a drop in the percentage of females in management, while there had been an improvement in the percentage of people with disabilities. iSimangaliso spent 15% of its budget on personnel costs, while the rest went to operations. There were five posts the entity would like to fill that would significantly improve delivery, but they had made do with the resources available for three. Incidents were reported under the indicator “poaching detected in 48 hours” in the third quarter, of which all had proceeded to criminal action. There had been two illegal developments in the third quarter and six for the year – an increased level of voluntary compliance had been found with the unauthorised/illegal developments because of increased awareness. People often also did not understand where the boundary of the Park was.

iSimangaliso had a big equitable access programme – if the school had poor or inadequate resources, on motivation from the headmaster, there was free entry and a guide was always provided so the children received interpretation. If the school had sufficient resources, there was an automatic 50% school discount.

In terms of natural attrition, the entity had two resignations this year but also had two appointments, so it would reflect as a net zero. 

The Acting Chairperson was pleased that iSimangaliso was 92% to target, while the other 8% was a work in progress and that many issues raised by the Committee during its last visit to the Park had been addressed. The Committee owed the Park another visit. He hoped the entity lived up to its vision of “community empowerment” which was an ideal one – it should be ringing in the minds of iSimangaliso all the time in terms of issues of transformation. What were the reasons for the tender failing, where the indicator alluded to the completion of the annual infrastructure programme? In terms of the staff complement, he asked about the vacancy rate of the Park and if critical posts had been filled.

Ms Castis said the entity had issued a big tender across the whole Park for a contractor. The project was big, so this made the pool of possible contractors small.  The project had subsequently been split into smaller clusters to expand the number of potential bidders, but she believed the entity had attended to the factors that had caused the tender to fail.

Mr Mabilo was interested in the funding from the World Bank and what other international agencies were assisting the Park, given that it was a UNESCO-declared heritage site. 

Ms Castis responded that the World Bank grant was $9 million – it was the first grant issued that had a capacity-building component. This was the only international funding that iSimangaliso had at this stage.  

Ms Ngcaba added that the Global Environmental Facility used agencies to facilitate the transfer of funds and the World Bank was one of these executing agencies i.e. the funds were not directly from the World Bank.

The Acting Chairperson said alien invasive species were aggressive and stubborn – if only one third of the species was treated, the backlog would remain forever. This was not just a challenge to the Park but to the Department and the country, and solutions must be found. A lot could be learnt from iSimangaliso in terms of how other parks in the country were managed with regard to community, equity, economic benefit and issues of transformation, etc. Other parks and facilities should learn from the best practice set by iSimangaliso. He was pleased to hear the Department was looking into short and long term interventions to deal with the drought and other challenges – from time to time, the Committee should be kept up to date in terms of these interventions. Interactions such as today assisted the Members in being informed of the types of challenges faced by the entity on a day-to-day basis and it empowered Members with knowledge of what was happening on the ground which allowed for informed decisions, including where the money should go, especially ahead of the budget votes.   

Ms Castis thanked the Committee for their input and guidance.  

Ms Ngcaba appreciated the reflections of the Acting Chairperson. Alien invasives could be aggressive mainly because the species did not have natural enemies in the ecosystems in SA and they therefore tended to out-compete indigenous plants and, in some instances, fish. Acknowledging infestations which already existed, the rate of spread per annum and budget, the DEA opted to look also at mechanical means and other scientific methods, like biological control, to introduce natural enemies to the plant to alleviate by slowing the growth of the alien and eventually eating the alien species away over time. In some instances, some alien species were needed, especially the woody ones, for commercial activity like commercial forestry. Invasives regulations passed through the biodiversity legislation, meant that where aliens were planted they were controlled, i.e. to be away from river courses and limited sensitive areas. This was, for instance, why Jacaranda trees had not been cleared from the roads of Pretoria because they were not in water courses.

iSimangaliso was doing fairly well compared to a number of other protected areas – there was a lot of best practice which could be shared. A protected areas management effectiveness assessment had been undertaken by which all protected areas were assessed, whether managed by provinces or nationally. The study concluded greater effectiveness through the methodologies adopted by iSimangaliso. The model of the entity was always to take into account some of the needs of the communities around the Park – there were challenges, but the approach employed was yielding positive results.

The meeting was adjourned.