Department of Environmental Affairs, SANParks, iSimangaliso Authority on their 2015/16 Annual Reports; with Auditor-General & FFC input

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson warned the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) that their presentation should not have been received on that day, as had been the case, as there should have been time for everyone to familiarise themselves with the content of the reports.

He referred to the recent CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Conference that had been held in Johannesburg from 24 September to 5 October. Members had attended for two days and in his view, South Africa had excelled in its hosting capabilities. He commended the Minister, the Department and the Director General. However, the Committee would have to engage with the report from that conference, and the decision making mechanism seemed to have been buried in CoP17 (Conference of the Parties). After listening to commentary about the conference, he felt that there was not enough emphasis on looking after animals, especially the elephant.  He also said that conservation had to benefit communities that were residing in parks and looking after animals as well.

A letter had been received from the Minister. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), who should have presented on 30 September, would now be allowed time up to no later than 31 December to present their report. The main reason was a dispute between the Department and the Auditor-General on the presentation of a particular programme (Programme 6, Environmental Programmes) and a mediation process should now start.

Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA): presentation

Mr Ritesh Ramnathan, Audit Manager, AGSA said that with the DEA report still outstanding, only the entities had been looked at. Three of them -- SANparks, iSimangaliso Wetland Park and the South African Weather Service (SAWS) – had received unqualified audits with no findings, and the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) had received an unqualified audit with findings. This entity’s status, together with iSimangaliso and SAWS status, was unchanged from the previous year, whereas SANparks had improved.

Problem areas were material misstatements in submitted annual financial statements, the slow response in improving key controls and addressing risk areas, as well as key officials lacking competencies in the case of SANBI. Adequate training was important to address risk areas.

The required action from the Portfolio Committee was that they should ensure that processes and controls were implemented at SANBI to sustain a controlled environment that supported reliable reporting.

The Committee were to meet with SANBI the following Thursday.

Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC): presentation

Dr Thembie Ntshakala, Manager: Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, FFC said the National Development Plan (NDP) outlined the Department’s key objectives, which were to:

• Protect the natural environment in all respects, leaving subsequent generations with an endowment of at least equal value.
• Extract mineral wealth to generate the resources to raise living standards, skills and infrastructure in a sustainable manner.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.
• Enhance the resilience of people and the economy to climate change.

According to recent FFC research, it was women-headed households and main staple crops that would be most affected by climate change.

Of the Department’s six programmes, environmental programmes took the largest share of the budget, and chemicals and waste management accounted for the smallest share.  The budget for environmental programmes had decreased in 2015/16 by 5.4%, and was expected to decline in next two years as well.

The iSimangaliso had been under-spending over the past two years – by 33% in this year.

As far as the Commission and the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) went, the FFC recommended that the focus should be on individuals who did not get grants when choosing participants for Public Employment Programmes (PEP’s).

The Chairperson asked Ms Ntshakala to elaborate on the part of the presentation where initiated environmental protection methods - such as the carbon tax, the general fuel levy, the plastic bag levy, the electricity levy, the incandescent bulb levy and the new motor vehicle emissions tax – had been discussed

Ms Ntsakala responded that they had included this in the presentation because it would be interesting to compare situations before and after these measures had been introduced.

The Chairperson said the Committee was also awaiting a presentation on a new tyre levy. He agreed that comparing the before and after situations was a good recommendation, as was investigating whether levies were being used for what they were intended.

Discussion

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) said that it was good that none of the entities had received a qualified audit or a disclaimer. He asked whether AGSA’s findings had been shared with the entities, and what their response had been.

The Chairperson said the Committee was meeting with SANBI on Thursday, and the feeling he got from AGSA was that it may “drop the ball,” for they had had findings in their audit for two years now.

Mr Makhubele also wanted to know how the Department was assisting the entities.

The Chairperson reminded the members of the respective boards of the entities of their responsibilities, also regarding communication with the Department.

Mr Ramnathan said that AGSA followed the normal processes, which included a management report detailing the findings, an audit report and audit steering committee meetings. He assured the Committee that there was a lot of dialogue before even putting the findings in a report. The entities were warned up front of potential problems, and there was such a thing as a “Dashboard Report.” The standing issue -- SANBI’s financial statements – had been carried over from a previous year. He added that the entities had agreed that the findings were valid before they were presented, and that the specific entity had agreed to enhance asset control.   

The Chairperson was satisfied that there was interaction taking place. The picture looked good. The entity with findings should be helped to avoid getting a qualification. He was pleased with SANparks’ improvement and the fact that they had over-performed.

Ms Esther Makau, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DEA said: “If you don’t do well they klap you, and if you do well they klap you,” whereupon laughs were shared.

The Chairperson said it communicated a good message, and commended the FFC for a nice overview. He liked the fact that they had used the three previous years and the three following years in their presentation. He stressed that the environment should not receive a reduced budget allocation because of wrong thinking regarding its impact, because the world had come to realise the importance of environmental issues.

South African National Parks (SANParks): presentation

Dr Matlotleng Matlou, SANParks Board member) apologised for the absence of their CEO, Mr Fundisile Mketeni, who was unwell, and said that the Chief Operating Officer (COO), Ms Liz McCourt, would make the presentation.

Ms McCourt said major highlights included:

• SANParks’ tourism revenue was higher than projected - but this was because there were two Easter seasons in the past financial year. There would be no Easter in the next financial year.
• The occupancy rate of SANParks’ units was 73% -- 10% higher than the general occupancy rate of guest houses, hotels, etc, in the country.
• SANParks also had an increase in black visitors -- an important objective for them.
• 980 Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises (SMMEs) had been supported – R213 million had been spent on them.
• 52 547 people had accessed national parks for free. This had included two major presidential visits to the Kruger National Park.

Other highlights were that more than 13 200 people got up to go and work at a national park daily. 55% of them were women, and 70% were youths.

Targets that were not achieved included the percentage of performance appraisals completed. The target had been 100%, but SANParks had achieved only 98%. This had been due to the delay in the roll-out of the new performance system to include Change Management Committees (CMCs) and manual reporting systems. The corrective measure had been that performance management training had been conducted to ensure implementation.

SANParks had also not met its target of a 100% success rate at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). They had had a 100% target, but because of a previous employee at the Mokala National Park, the entity managed to achieve only 96.5%. In the case of this employee, the CCMA had found that SANParks had been substantially fair, but procedurally unfair.

The target of creating 196 full-time jobs had not been met. This had been due to the ending of the Groen Sebenza programme, and many of those interns being absorbed into permanent jobs, making this good news as well. Only three of the five contractual agreements which SANParks had hoped to sign with communities surrounding them, had been finalised.

Other areas where SANParks was still struggling, were to have enough women in management positions and to employ enough people with disabilities. Regarding the last matter, they had approached Council for the Blind and other such organisations to help them with the recruitment process. The entity was also 0.4% away from the targeted percentage of black people in management.

Although the matter of rhino poaching was not an official target for SANParks, it had reported on the matter as usual. The situation had stabilised, and that the incident rate was 70% lower. Progress included 317 arrests, including some of SANParks’ own people, 188 firearms being seized, and the recruitment of 150 new rangers. Going forward, the Kruger National Park planned to use modern technologies, actively involve neighbouring communities, continue joint law enforcement operations and operate closely with neighbouring countries such as Mozambique.

Ms McCourt mentioned that SANPark’s Howard Buffet funding had come to an end and that the entity would need an additional R15 million a year to maintain the Howard Buffet fund.

Mr Rajesh Mahabeer, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), SANParks, explained that the surplus recorded had been an accounting surplus, and not a cash surplus. This would balance itself out after a year, and therefore SANParks had applied to the Department for the surplus to be retained.

Employee-related costs had grown by R37 million, and post-retirement medical funding was a serious issue and obligation for the entity. Currently there was a R30 million year-on-year growth that may render SANParks’ financial statements technically, and even factually, insolvent. A strategy was still being developed, guidance was being sought from attorneys and SANParks had consulted with entities within the cluster to share information.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked SANParks to elaborate on the decrease in rhino funding.

Mr Mketeni responded that the money it received from government was never enough. Therefore SANParks fundraised, but fundraising had come to an end. Fences that had been erected were now needing to be maintained, and therefore SANParks wanted to approach Treasury.

The Chairperson asked if they were not going to fundraise again.

Mr Mketeni respond that SANParks would fundraise again, and that the Committee would see the target in their new annual performance plan (APP).

Mr T Hadebe (DA) asked what had caused the delay in the strategy approval for fundraising. He also asked why there had been a delay in the approval of full-time jobs, taking into account South Africa’s high unemployment rate.

Ms J Edwards (DA) asked for clarity regarding the absence of corrective measures for the job creation target that had not been achieved. Had corrective measures been budgeted for? She wanted SANParks to elaborate on the challenges they experienced regarding contracts with communities around them. In which parks had the contracts been finalised, and how would SANParks catch up?

How had it obtained the figure of the increase of black visitors?  

Ms H Kekana (ANC) asked why the 2% target for disabled employees had not been achieved. How would it address this weakness?

Mr S Mabilo (ANC) congratulated SANParks for the turn-around they had made since the mess they had been in in 2013. The good work must be sustained. He asked if it was possible to see a footprint of the SMME support in the different provinces. He confirmed that this time they were not confused about a profit being a surplus. Regarding intricacies about the appointment of a board, he asked for the reasons for this, so that the Committee did not make assumptions, for example, regarding deficiencies in strategies.

He commented that Operation Phakisa was not only confined to the oceans, but that it referred to hurrying up and doing things faster.  He was concerned over the delay in the approval of business plans, and said that there had to be a reason, such as poor planning, behind it. He wanted to know how that was being addressed. What were the profiles of the rangers that had been arrested, and how had they been arrested? What were the working conditions of an ordinary ranger, what was their basic salary and what benefits did they get?

Mr Z Makhubele (ANC) recognised that a lot of work had been done. He asked how many bank accounts SANParks had. He mentioned a bank account that had gone through the tender process, as well as other bank accounts. Why was the internal audit outsourced, and why was that capacity not brought in-house? Why were professional women not attracted to SANParks? What was the progress in co-operating with neighbouring countries, such as Mozambique, regarding rhino poaching?

The Chairperson mentioned the successful previous three-day People and Parks Conference, and said there was a feeling that resolutions made at such conferences were not being followed up. How quickly did SANParks respond to such resolutions? Was there a community component on the Board? How successful was the protection of species programme, and what species needed special intervention? He commended the anti-rhino poaching efforts in the Kruger National Park, but was concerned that the problem may now move to areas without the kind of protection that existed in Kruger. Had the crisis been receiving enough support from legislation? Were legislative amendments needed to treat this type of crime as very serious, with heavy minimum sentences? After discussions with the National Prosecuting Authority, he held the view that there were a number of loopholes in existing legislation. What was the view of SANParks?

Dr Matlou replied on the issue of the fundraising strategy, saying that what had been brought to the board had various weaknesses, such as a misunderstanding of the SANParks business. It had therefore been sent back. Community representation on the board was difficult because of the parks being all over the country, but appointing members from communities where they were close to parks should be considered.

The Chairperson asked if SANParks was aware that communities had a national body that represented all of them.

Mr Mketeni said that if there was a vacancy in the board, that issue would be handled. He also said that SANParks had been fundraising all year without a document, but with what they had developed and called “An Approach” This had been a four-pager.

As far as the delay in finalising community projects went, he said that the dynamics they came across created a very slow process, as there were different community structures and leadership may change. A new division, Social Economic Development, had been established.

He said a report on SMMEs could be made available.

Rrangers were paid different allowances. About 23 of SANParks’ own rangers had been involved in poaching. Because salaries could not overcome this problem, there was now a wellness programme to develop integrity. Even with that, more arrests were expected.

Mozambique had to be commended for the work they did together with SANParks. Since fundraising with the Peace Parks Foundation two years ago, an amount of R30 million had been allocated to the Mozambicans. There was now radio communication and a small plane. A new minister in Mozambique had established a special force to deal with rhino poaching, and an improvement had been seen.

On top of rhinos, elephants had also been identified as a species to protect. There were also cycads, which were often stolen, and penguins and abalone, although agriculture was also involved with abalone.

Besides the Kruger National Park, there were six rhino parks. SANParks was already aware of more incidents in KZN and the Eastern Cape. The Chairperson was correct in saying that rhino poachers faced a lot of different charges, such as money laundering, gun smuggling and human trafficking. Therefore, even though a lot had been done in the last five years, there was a need to look at consolidating legislation. 

Ms McCourt referred to the problem they faced with the outstanding strategy in fundraising, and said SANParks had erred in outsourcing to develop such a strategy, as the product they had got back had not understood their business. It was now developing such a strategy internally. On the day of the meeting, a court battle with a previous fundraiser had been reported in newspapers. In the past an incentive was commission paid on funds raised, but this had had an adverse impact on the credibility of SANParks. Even in the absence of a strategy, they had still managed to raise more than R30 million in the past financial year.

She explained the difference between full-time equivalent and full-time jobs by saying that a full-time equivalent still remained a temporary job. The Groen Sebenza interns that received full-time employment, either within SANParks or in the industry, were more desirable than a full-time equivalent. The Groen Sebenza Programme had ended because the jobs fund was no more. Now the entity was left with only a percentage of their compensation of employees’ budget for their annual intern programme.

With regard to community contracts, the issue related to all of the areas. What made it take longer was that there were certain processes that needed to go through legislation -- contractual agreements had to be proclaimed in Parliament before the process was concluded. Also, there were often competing chieftainships in the same area. It was therefore over-ambitious to think they would start and finish a contractual agreement in one financial year.  

The number of black visitors had been based on observation, and there was a margin of error.

Already there were agreements with bodies such as the Council for the Disabled and the Council for the Blind to source suitable candidates to improve the number of disabled employees. Professional women were attracted to SANParks, and 75% of the top positions had been filled by females in the last two years. Still, there was a legacy problem and current positions were not being vacated for woman to move in.

The Chairperson asked if that meant that there were men sitting in positions that should be occupied by women.

Ms McCourt answered in the affirmative.

The Chairperson said that meant that men were an endangered species, which caused laughter.

Ms McCourt said the Women’s Forum had been an absolute success.  Also, young scientists had been encouraged to publish sooner rather than later in their career.

Rangers had received a recent increase.

Other species that were also being protected were wild dogs, lions and pangolins (although they were very hard to monitor).

SANParks had responded drastically to the findings of problems with information technology (IT) governance. A Chief Information Technology Officer had been appointed, who had to provide the board with a turnaround strategy in three months.

Internal audits had been outsourced because this was more affordable. Currently it cost SANParks R3 million for the 6 000 hours of auditing, whereas salaries and equipment for in-sourcing would cost R12 million. SANParks was moving towards an in-sourced model by creating positions each year.

Mr Rayesh Mahabeer (CFO for SANParks) said through a tender process SANParks’ account was with FNB. Some donors, though, want to use a different bank and they were accommodated such as the Howard Buffet foundation. Short term investments were made with FNB, Investec, Absa and Standard Bank as the respective quotations were best at the time investments were made.

Mr Shonisani Munzhedzi, Deputy Director General, DEA, said that the national integration strategy for wildlife crime was in the process of being approved, and that may take rhino poaching to priority crime status. He confirmed that the relationship with Mozambique was going very well and that Mozambicans had from their side also institutionalised certain matters.

Mr Riaan Aucamp, Chief Director: Administration and Strategic Support, DEA responded on the delays in business plans. He referred to the decrease of 5.4% in the budget for the Department’s environmental programmes, and said this had a knock-on effect for the entities. During the year, Treasury had come and had taken away some of the Department’s money again. Also, all contractors had had to re-register on a central supplier database and that had taken time to finalise. Some business plans had been deliberately delayed because there was no money for them. He said iSimangaliso’s rehabilitation of wetlands had also been affected because of these issues.

The Chairperson said the Committee would find time to engage with the Department on wildlife crime, for not only should it be treated as priority crime but it should also be prosecuted with ease.

He echoed the sentiment of his colleagues in congratulating SANParks on their improvement, and asked them not to become complacent. They should look at the contingent liabilities that the CFO had raised.

After the lunch break, the Chairperson said the Committee should have had something for the guests to eat between the sessions.  He also said the Committee had been without a researcher for months now. This was due to Parliament’s efforts to save money.

iSimangaliso Wetland Park: presentation

Mr Buyani Zwane, Chairperson, iSimangaliso, asked Ms Terri Castis, Business Director, to make the presentation.

Ms Castis said that in the past financial year, iSimangaliso achieved all of their indicators except for one – to do an initial clearing of 500ha. In a follow-up operation, however, they had rehabilitated 41 618 ha after setting out to do only 15 000ha. This had been done after a windfall in funding, but that money was now finished.

A big challenge iSimangaliso faced was the drought, although it had only moderate cost implications. The entity’s water bill was actually R2 million lower, because they used borehole water.

Another big challenge was the implementation of a hydrological solution for the St Lucia estuary. Ms Castis was proud to share that they had been able to conclude the tender and award it. The Department had also been able to help with additional funding of R30 million, and there had also been a foreign exchange windfall for this project.

As far as the objective regarding transformation went, due to the clearance of alien plants in the rehabilitation projects, the park had been able to train over 1 000 people more than its target of 400.

The rehabilitation projects had also had a positive effect on the park’s objectives of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) procurement and BEE enterprises.

For iSimangaliso’s Tourism/Commercial Programme, the Kingsley Holgate Foundation had played a big part when they had approached the park and said they wanted to launch a rhino campaign in the area. One of the activities had involved children walking from school to school with big banners that were passed on.

A contingent liability included a legal battle between the park and Siyaqhubeka Forestry over a veld fire that had damaged plantations. Ms Castis said that if this partner of Mondi did have a claim, it was certainly not of the magnitude that they were presenting – an amount of R35.1 million.

Regarding the AG’s report that had raised IT governance as an issue, it was challenging to fit a small entiity, such as iSimangaliso, into the Department of Public Service and Administration’s (DPSA’s) standards regarding these matters. They had appointed a new employee to help them iron out the problems.

Regarding the FFC report – that iSimangaliso had been under-spending over the past two years – she said the mistake that had been made was that the FFC had taken the surplus and expressed it as a percentage of revenue. She had managed to find their report from last year in the break and assured the Committee that – unlike what the FFC had stated in their report that day – they had not under-spent. They had exchanged contact details with the FFC, and would discuss the discrepancy.

The Chairperson wanted her to elaborate.

Ms Castis said the only thing that they could find that made sense was that the FFC had taken their GRAP (Generally Recognised Accounting Practice) surplus – an artificial surplus – and expressed it as a percentage of turnover. They believed this had been done by taking the surplus of around R62 million, dividing it by the revenue and coming to a percentage of 33%, and then saying that iSimangaliso had under-spent by 33%. In the view of iSimangaliso, there had been no under-expenditure.

Mr Andrew Zaloumis, CEO of iSimangaliso, said this misunderstanding could have been avoided if they had seen the FFC report before the presentation.

The Chairperson clarified for Mr Hadebe, that the Committee had invited the FFC to come and give an analysis of the budget and growths of expenditure of the entities, and that the FFC had come directly to the presentation without interacting with the entities.

Before closing, Ms Castis shared with the Committee that 59% of management positions were held by women in iSimangaliso.

The Chairperson thanked iSimangaliso for a clean and concise report.

Discussion

Mr Hadebe wanted to know who had started the veld fire which had resulted in the legal battle between the park and Siyaqhubeka Forestry.

Ms H Nyambi (ANC) commented that wetlands were attractive for children, and asked how school campaigns were managed.

Ms Kekana was missing the figure on employees with disabilities. She also asked how the entity had decided on a 5% increase in the figure of visitors to the park. Who had been invited to the 12 workshops that had been held, and what substantive park-related issues would be discussed in those workshops? 

Mr Mabilo commended iSimangaliso for their work and presentation. He was interested to know the quantified fees used for legal matters. Why were existing resources not utilised? He had always been concerned about the two week period for detecting poaching. Why did it take so long? He also wanted clarification on why the target for creating permanent jobs was down from the previous year. Regarding the People and Parks conferences, he wanted to know if resolutions from the previous conference had been implemented yet.

Mr Makubela asked if iSimangaliso had achieved a clean audit because of its expertise or because it was small? Seeing that it was bordering Mozambique, do it use the same relationships as SANParks or did it use its own? Seeing that the Kruger National Park was the largest and iSimangaliso the third largest, which was the second largest protected park in South Africa? He also sought clarity on the signage contract that had been put on hold.

Mr Zaloumis clarified that point immediately by saying that it was on hold because the contract had not been performed.

The Chairperson stopped Mr Zaloumis, saying he should not be tempted to respond before all the questions had been asked, and Mr Makhubele should not be tempted to hear the response.

Mr Makhubele said the information that he had was that there had been problems with the quality of the signs. He used to be convinced that iSimangaliso had the best model in terms of managing relations with communities outside.

After Mr Zaloumis had delegated the response to questions to the Ms Castis, the Chairperson asked to hear about the park’s rhinos as well.

Ms Castis explained the law regarding veld fires. It did not matter where the point of origin was, if it crossed one’s land and caused damage, one was still held liable. She said they believed the big fire had started in the plantation, and even that it was most likely arson.

iSimangaliso’s legal fees had been R4.5 million last year, and they were shown in the detailed income statements. Most of the money was paid to advocates, but costs had been contained by working with the Department. Last year had been an unusually bad litigation year, with many cases against iSimangaliso, but right now there was only the fire case.

The signage contract being on hold was not a matter of tender, for the factory had been inspected during the process and the problem had occurred when the signage manufacturer, somewhere midstream, had changed the compound. The signs would be replaced at the manufacturer’s cost. 

Mr Zaloumis said iSimangaliso had an equitable access policy. This meant that on application, any disadvantaged school got free access to the park on weekdays, and they had a park bus to use for that. There were 22 schools adjacent to the park. Currently there was no budget to ensure that each child would get to the park at least once during their school curriculum. 

The two week period for detecting poaching was derived from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) best practice standards.

He said it was quite difficult for a park to maintain jobs at the same level each year because it depended on what happened -- for example, contracts, concessions, projects and what the economy was doing during the year.

Regarding surrounding communities, Mr Zaloumis reminded the Committee that “People and Parks” had started with the Cape Vidal Accord at iSimangaliso. The park was in the second poorest part of South Africa, surrounded by 13 municipalities and six Amakhosi ,and was plagued by poor service delivery. Because iSimangaliso delivered, the board had recently referred to it as a “lightning stick,” and they were highly contrasted against the rest of the area where many people never had water. Some of the issues raised at the recent People and Parks conference had been light weight compared to the past. iSimangaliso had a strong drive to have economic empowerment through fixed assets such as tourism facilities. He assured the Committee that the People and Parks conference resolutions had been implemented, and used a resolution in Umtata (two board members per entity) as an example. Some of the things that needed to be implemented had stayed put in the legislation process, however.

This statement evoked a question from the Chairperson about how many board members iSimangaliso had.

Mr Zaloumis said they were allowed seven to nine members.

The Chairperson asked how many they were, and Mr Zaloumis said they were 11. Two were from the communities.

The issue were clarified by the DDG, Mr Munzhedzi, who said the maximum should be nine and that iSimangaliso complied. The problem came in when the CEO also counted the departmental representative and an ex-officio member.

The Chairperson said this was something that should be clarified. Was the person from the Department voting or not?

Mr Munzhedzi agreed that this should be clarified.

Mr Makhubele said that when board members were appointed, an advert should specify how many members were needed for the Minister to make the appointments. Then no other person could come later.  It should be clear who could exercise votes and who could not.

The Chairperson added that, like in many other organisations, years may be spent without voting. He emphasised that even though the board was not a permanent one, they did take decisions and accounted to the Minister. They had an important role to play. 

Mr Zaloumis elaborated on the iSimangaliso working relationship with Mozambique. Through a committee specifically dealing with Ponta do Oura/Kosi Bay, Ponta do Oura was now Mozambique’s first marine park. They had put in on their tentative list to become an extended world heritage site and they were preparing their dossier at the moment. It was important that Mozambique should look after their turtles and fish, for this was where iSimangaliso’s fish and turtles were from. He mentioned the new deep water Ponta Techobanine Harbour that was planned in Ponta do Oura, and may even be built in the reserve, but said that that was clearly a Mozambique issue.

iSimangaliso had the fourth largest rhino population in South Africa. Since it had been declared a World Heritage site, the population had expanded year on year. The park was home to one of the only two black rhino populations in the world. Because this was the smaller population, it was considered the more genetically valuable population.

The Richtersveld was the second largest park. If the proposed marine expansion went ahead, the park would be almost the same size as the Kruger National Park. This expansion would also put 80% of the leatherback turtles’ (an even more endangered species than black rhino) breeding area in a protected area. 150 turtles come on to the beach to lay eggs in iSimangaliso. Research had shown it might be an isolated population.

Ms Castis said that iSimangaliso had met the 2% disability target, also through stating it in their service provider contracts. About the 5% increase in the entity’s tourism growth target, this had been set up by looking at different factors, and because of the tightening fiscal climate, the target was lower than might have been expected.

Mr Zaloumis answered the question about their continuous clean audits, saying it was both because they were a small entity as well as their expertise. Financial controls had been set up very clearly by the Department when they were established. Staff members working their way through the organisation had also helped. He assured the Committee that they were never blasé about an audit and that every year was a challenge. A curveball the entity had had to face in the past was when they had to account for their biological assets.

Ms Abeeda Kadir (CFO) acknowledged the strong support the entity had had from their audit committee members.

Mr Zwane acknowledged the previous board’s work that had been carried through to the current reports. The chairperson who had retired last August had also been with them for a very long time. Tribute was paid to people doing pro bono work for the park and who had extensive working relationships with community. Competency within the board was strong enough to help the executive do the work in a responsible and sustainable manner. Adding to that, the DEA was also very supportive of the work that they did. 

He said a report had been provided about People and Parks. This covered land claims, core management agreements and the verification model. iSimangaliso had noted the shortfall in the clarification on the composition of the board, and they would iron that out adequately.

The Chairperson said that was important and it should be clarified if someone had not been appointed properly. He also re-iterated that the Committee took matters regarding communities very seriously, and it was an issue that they would continue to raise.

He urged iSimangaliso to remain in the high performance category. The Committee would express its disappointment that it could not hear the Department’s report before hearing the report of the entity, although they understood that there were reasons. It would have been more ideal to start with the parent before going to the children.

The meeting was adjourned.