Department of Environmental Affairs on its 2015/16 Annual Report

Meeting report

Audit outcomes of the DEA for 2015/16
Ms Jolene Pillay, Senior Manager: AGSA, said the Department received an unqualified audit opinion. She explained the delay in finalisation of audit was because the DEA provided funds to a large number of agents responsible for implementing projects under EPWP. DEA had accounted for these funds as transfers while Treasury said it should be accounted for as expenditure. DEA had subsequently amended the annual financial statements in order to comply. SANBI was unqualified with audit findings, while the other four entities were unqualified with no findings. SANParks improved while DEA, Isimangaliso Wetland Park as well as South African Weather Services (SAWS) were unchanged. In the first as well as second level of assurance, there was stagnant or little progress. The top root causes for audit findings were the slow response in improving key controls and addressing risk areas. In order to improve audit outcomes management should act on recommendations made by AGSA while DEA should focus on improving systems and internal controls. The Portfolio Committee should monitor the processes at SANBI as well as the progress of DEA in implementing controls to report on funds provided to implementing agents.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted there were corrections on the root causes of the challenges in the SANBI financial statements He asked how often AGSA changed the audit report.

Ms Pillay replied that the audit report was never changed. It remained the same. When the AG presented to the Portfolio Committee, it assessed the reasons certain challenges happened. That was where the subjectivity came in terms of interpretation.

The Chairperson said the point made in the earlier presentation by the AGSA was that the reason there were material changes to the financial statement was that there was insufficient competency in the financial unit as it could not answer basic questions put to it. The Committee agreed with that point. Now the AG was changing that point. How did the AG justify its present position?

Ms Pillay said she was not sure how the issue of competency was arrived at.

The Chairperson said AGSA was making the Committee view its report with a bit of suspicion. The AG cannot change its point because someone has raised a query. This was not acceptable.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) asked if the AG implied that the DEA had amended the way it accounted for the transfer of funds to the agents so it was in line with the new standards or had it reverted to its initial accounting method agreed to by all parties concerned.

Ms Pillay replied that the AG, DEA as well as National Treasury had had several discussions since the initial audit opinion. There was agreement on the way forward and the DEA had made adjustments.

Mr T Hadebe (DA) asked if DEA and the AG had reached common ground on implementation of the MCS as the Committee did not want to have the same discrepancy problem again that resulted in an audit delay.

Ms Pillay replied that DEA understood the way it should continue going forward. There was no anticipation of delays.

The Chairperson said the Committee hoped that when the DEA prepared the financial statements, it would do so in compliance with the AG’s requirement in order to avoid delays.

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, DEA Director General, replied that there was correspondence in March 2016 with Treasury that talked about exemption. The AG did not accept that exemption. It said Treasury made the law and could only modify it and not exempt. DEA was still awaiting a letter from Treasury. The AG said DEA was too involved in controlling project implementation and should be hands off when it transferred payments. The DEA understood the concerns of the AG, however there had to be clarification that there were adequate controls when transfers were made.

The Chairperson said there were fundamental differences: DEA would like to account under transfer payments whilst the AG was comfortable to have it under goods and services. The DEA had made the changes but the Department was not happy.

Mr Ritesh Ramnathan, Audit Manager: AGSA, said there were 22 targets in the Annual Performance Plan and they were linked to the transfer payments that DEA had made. The DEA was delivering on the mandate and also receiving benefits. The AG had said the way DEA was accounting for this was incorrect. The Department had disagreed with the AG on this and this had caused the delay.

The Chairperson said a meeting would be scheduled during the term to address the matter with the relevant stakeholders to see how to go forward as well as to forestall any delay. If there were delays on the Annual Report, it also impacted on the Committee programme of the Committee in terms of the Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR). He added that he was disappointed in the AG. Parliament relied heavily on the AG reports. When changes were made without proper explanation, it resulted in problems and this would not go well for the reliability of the report and the reputation of the AG.

DEA 2015/16 Annual Report briefing
Ms Limpho Makotoko, DEA Chief Operating Officer, reported on the programme performance of Programme 1: Administration. There was 100% compliance with key governance requirements and set timeframes. DEA received an unqualified audit opinion for the 2015/16 FY. $88 million was raised from international donors to support SA and African Environment programmes. The Songimvelo Nature Reserve 4X4 trail project was funded. 90% of the security risk assessment recommendations were implemented. Six funded Master System Plan (MSP) initiatives were implemented out of a target of seven. A total of 19 public participation events were hosted. 284 municipal officials were trained on waste management out of an annual target of 200. The Action Plan for hosting of CITES CoP17 was finalised. Overall, 87% of the targets were achieved, 12% partially achieved and1% was off target.

Mr Ishaam Abader, DDG: Legal Authorisations and Compliance Inspectorate, said 75% of the targets for improved compliance with environmental legislation was achieved out of an annual target of 80%. 245 enforcement actions were issued out of a target of 180. Studies on the impacts of rhino poaching and wildlife economies were conducted. He said 88% of targets were 88% achieved and 12% partially achieved.

Dr Monde Mayekiso, DDG: Oceans and Coasts, said stakeholder consultations for three identified priority areas for coastal access land had been finalised. The national review of coastal effluent disposal was completed. A water quality monitoring programme had been developed and piloted in Port St Johns. 95% of the targets were achieved and 5% was partially achieved.

Ms Judy Beaumont, DDG: Climate Change, spoke on climate change and air quality. The discussion document for the National Climate Change Response Bill was in place but not yet published. The National Framework for Climate Services had been finalised while a draft National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy had been developed. Under this programme, 86% of the targets were achieved and 14% were partially achieved.

Mr Shonisani Munzhedzi, DDG: Biodiversity and Conservation, said the annual target for the establishment of additional biodiversity sites was not achieved. The National Biodiversity Economy Development Strategy was approved. Eight sustainable natural resource based enterprises were established against a target of 10. An additional world heritage site was nominated. Overall, 75% of the targets were achieved while 25% was partially achieved.

Mr Guy Preston, DDG: Environmental Programmes, said 12 recycling facilities plus 38 community parks were created and 12 were rehabilitated, 90% of wildfires were suppressed, 118 wetlands were under rehabilitation. Programme 6 targets were 88% achieved and 14% partially achieved.

Mr Mark Gordon, DDG: Chemicals and Waste Management, said 42% of waste tyres had been diverted from landfill sites, three industrial waste management plans were reviewed and inputs made. 685 jobs and 35 SMMEs were created. Programme 7 targets were 82% achieved and 18% partially achieved.

DEA Audited Financial Statements: briefing
Ms Esther Makau, DEA CFO, said expenditure for the year was 99.9%. She gave the expenditure figures for line items including consultants, contractors and agency services, air charter services, and voyages to islands. Allocations and transfers to DEA entities as well as other agencies was 100%. Modified cash standard (MCS) transfers to EPWP projects were reclassified as goods and services. The unqualified audit opinion was received on 16 November 2016.

Discussion
Mr Hadebe asked what strategy had been put in place by the DEA to ensure that the quality of financial statements submitted to the Auditor-General was of the required standard.

Ms J Edwards (DA) noted the corrective measures for the Chemicals and Waste Management programme were targeted to be implemented in first quarter 2016/17 and asked if it should rather state first quarter 2017/18. The DEA should elaborate on plans to increase the percentage of waste diverted from landfill sites. She said she struggled to understand the funding issues as regards asbestos. Why did DEA not set a target based on its budget as this had currently resulted in a crisis in KZN?

Mr R Purdon (DA) asked from where the funding of $88m mobilised for the year under Programme 1 (Administration) came. Public participation events were very low as well as number of councillors trained on waste management. The Committee had been told the National Ocean and Coastal information management system was finalised. When would the report be made public? Had the report on the recommendation on trade on rhino which had been finalised and approved by cabinet been made public and at what stage was it? Was the South Africa preparation for CoP17 finalised. When and where would the event be and what was the cost?

Mr Purdon asked if the study on the impact of rhino poaching had been made public. He welcomed the streamlining of authorisation as quicker decisions were needed all round. Nothing was as frustrating as investors having to wait endlessly for decisions to be made. In terms of Programme 3, as regards the setback lines, the final draft was causing a lot frustration for coastal municipalities as this was hampering development. The Committee needed clarity on this. The Committee would like to see an ocean monitoring and evaluation programme as monitoring was found wanting. Fishing amateurs had to be relied on when illegal fishing was being tracked down and this was embarrassing. On environmental programmes, the presentation was quick with percentages. In what provinces were these happening and who were the beneficiaries? Who was following up? Which provinces were doing a good job? On Programme 7, the unlicensed waste disposal was a serious matter and there were many municipalities in breach of this. If they did not comply, they would face legal action. The municipalities will lose and this will test the funds.

Mr Makhubele asked what agreement governed the Songivelo Nature Reserve and was there a provincial board. He noted the transformation targets at senior managerial level yet those positions were occupied. Did DEA hope the current officials would die or resign? There was 90% target on security risk so 10% was unattended to which was dangerous. There should be a 100% target so all security loopholes could be closed. On Programme1, where service providers were terminated, it did raise the question whether the service providers were capable. Where there replacements? Were procedures followed? On Legal Authorisation, as regards stakeholders who were consulted, this was known to be a controversial area. Was it going smoothly now or were the challenges ongoing? On Climate Change and Air Quality, he said there was training and DEA should consider that those trained receive a real qualification since a certificate of attendance generally meant nothing. On Biodiversity, the target was 10 sustainable natural resource based enterprises and eight were achieved. He asked if land was easily available for these enterprises as there were challenges relating to land claims. Were they based on state land? Where were these happening? The Chemicals and Waste Management DDG noted that there were asbestos challenges in three provinces. Which were these provinces? There was delay in tabling this matter. There might be no funding but the DEA must start doing something so that it did not end up as a big challenge. Chemicals and waste management were under one programme. There was bias towards waste management which might result in less attention being given to chemicals. Measures must be taken to ensure adequate attention was given to both.

The Chairperson asked if there could be a briefing on the National Framework on Marine Special Planning (MSP) under Ocean and Coast as soon as possible. The National Climate Change Response Bill had been developed but not yet published. It should have been published by this time so that the Committee could make comments on it. Legislation was required to tackle climate change. On Biodiversity, Conservation and Administration, he said it was the duty of the Department to deal with rhino poaching which had now reached endemic levels. The Committee had called for legislation on rhino poaching which was not emphasised in the presentation. He asked DEA to comment on this. On chemicals and waste, he asked what informed the identification of waste streams. Why was plastic not part of the industry waste management plan? On the unlicensed waste disposal facilities, he said this was unacceptable. With the experience in the Department, the targets set should be achievable.

Mr Hadebe asked if the DEA was willing to extend the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Secondly, why would DEA roll out only 40 air quality monitoring stations when there were 278 municipalities? The Committee wanted to have a strategy as soon as possible on the Biodiversity Management Plan as well as air monitoring stations.

The Chairperson said Dr Scott had prepared some questions for the Department. The Chairperson read out the questions. What was the magnitude of coastal effluent discharges in the SA coastal environment? Which coastal areas were mostly affected by the discharges? Who were the culprits in this case? What was DEA doing to reduce coastal pollution?

Responses by Ms Ngcaba
The DG said in response to Ms Edwards that the present report was the Annual Report for 2015/16 and not 2016/17.

On Mr Hadebe’s question on the quality of financial statements, the DG replied that it was a difficult matter in respect of public entities as there were legal issues. She said DEA appointed a CEO as well as sat on the audit committee. Beyond that the DEA had no direct responsibility as it did not sit with the AG. In the main, the principal was the Minister. The AG provided time in the course of the year to test whether the Department could adequately deal with the challenges. DEA could not take full responsibility for the quality of the preparation of financial statements.

On the targets that were not met as raised by the Chairperson and Ms Edwards, the DG replied that unlicensed landfill sites were a provincial competency and not a national one as they were municipal assets. In terms of Outcome 9, DEA analysed the state of all landfill sites in the country which painted a really bad picture. Treasury did not provide funds for this so DEA relied on donor funds. DEA did not give the permits but the provinces did. There were numbers that were prioritised and that was how DEA arrived at the targets set. It was not fully in the control of DEA.

On asbestos, the DG replied that the Department was pressured by the Portfolio Committee to do this. There was a target set as a result of the pressure but no funds for the implementation. This new financial year was the only year in which DEA was getting funding for dealing with asbestos.

On the $88m, the DG replied that this comprised of donor funding from the governments of Germany and Australia, USAID, and GEF (Global Environment Fund). Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) was the implementing agency as well as SANBI. Quarterly reports were published and were available on DEA website. The conference of the parties concerned took place in Sandton.

On the setback lines, Dr Mayekiso replied that what the Department was doing was to help the provinces with best practices as well as help the provinces to work in uniformity. National government had the responsibility for setback lines in areas where there was marine protection.

On the Marine Special Planning (MSP) framework, DEA would do as the Chairperson had said and provide the Committee with a briefing.

The DG added that the MSP framework was already on the Cabinet meeting agenda. As soon as Cabinet met on that in February, it would be available for discussion. In 2015/16 work was done on the framework and in 2016/17 the Bill was drafted as the framework was used to arrive at the Bill.

Responses by Mr Abader
On marine protection from pollution, he replied that various government departments had responsibility such as DAFF which was responsible to monitor fishing laws. The Department of Transport was also involved. The DEA handled chemical or marine pollution.

On the EEZ extension, there were three areas: firstly, where USA agreed with SA on the extension; secondly, where work had not started; and thirdly, areas on the East Coast where there were doubts as to the continuity of EEZ.

On the question of effluent discharges, Mr Abader requested more time to process the question as DEA was reviewing what had been happening as well as if the 1996 guidelines were still adequate. The written response would be provided to the Committee as soon as it was ready.

Responses by Mr Gordon
Mr Gordon replied that waste plastic was part of the packaging plan.

On Ms Edwards’ question on how to increase waste diverted from landfill, he replied that it came back to National Waste Management Strategy. The whole notion was to discourage landfill disposal. DEA did not usually licence land for that until there was pressure. DEA had begun drafting a waste minimisation plan this year. With the new plan, there were efforts to discourage landfills in the country. The recycling rate was increasing and plans were in place to recycle more.

Responses by Ms Beaumont
On the Climate Change regulatory framework, Ms Beaumont replied that the target was to present a discussion document outlining the conceptualisation of the Bill. During the process there had been strong comments around the fact that DEA had gone into a Bill instead of broadening its focus on what the legal options could be. Hence there was a discussion document that presented the legal options. There was progress along that that line and DEA recognised as high priority the need to have legislation on the table.

The Chairperson said climate change was always contested by industries and people. Did DEA retreat from the original intention of introducing a Bill from the workshop?

Ms Beaumont replied that there was no retreat. DEA was asked to broaden its consideration of instruments. There was a Bill that looked at the amendment of the National Environment Act as well as a bearing on climate change and it had a schedule that made recommendations. There were three options on the table. It would remain a Bill but would look at ways to have the best possible impact.

The Chairperson reiterated that the best way to move forward on climate change was to have legislation

The Chairperson requested a follow up discussion on climate change.

On the selection of municipalities for the roll out of air quality monitoring stations, Ms Beaumont replied that the municipalities that were selected were those that were rated very high in respect of social and environmental vulnerabilities.

[Mr Makhubele took over as acting Chairperson as the Chairperson had to leave for another engagement].

Responses Mr Munzhedzi
Mr Munzhedzi replied that there had been associated study on rhino economics as well as a review on the relationship between protected areas and neighbouring communities. As regards Songmvelo Nature Reserve between SA and Swazi, there were trilateral commission between the two countries which meant that there were programmes and activities that were joined and there others that were not joined. The 4 by 4 trades and hiking was one area that investors had revealed interest. There were normal challenges in respect of funding. There was the Ministerial level where the political intervention got activated through the Minister in SA as well as Swaziland.

 On why only 8 natural resource based enterprises established, he replied that DEA was guided by rural development and land claims Commission processes. Lands owned by individual were much easier to work with. Operations of these areas will require these interventions to deal with the sat up processes.

On Biodiversity Management Plan (BMPs), he replied that it was an international intervention. A management authority was assigned to monitor and ensure that there were no problems. There were things triggered by the DEA and there were things which were triggered by others.

Responses by Ms Makotoko
On external evaluation study that was to be done by a service provider, she replied that the project was R9. 4m. Work done was R200 000. DEA terminated the contract because the company was not delivering. A formal process was followed in the contract termination. DEA had discovered that the best service provider was the Human Sciences Research Council.

On the Senior Management Staff (SMS) target, she replied that it was a mandatory target on employment equity.

On councillors that were trained on waste management, she replied that DEA worked on the basis of needs that the Department had.

On the low target for public participation events, she replied that DEA was guided by its available budget.

On security risk, she replied that the intention was 100% of implementation of the recommendations. This was a rolling target over a two year period

On the air quality monitoring network and the strategy for strengthening it, Ms Beaumont replied that it was still going through the metric process and afterwards the provincial consultation and discussion process.

Mr Preston said DEA did have training which was in line with the South African Qualification Authority standards. Everything that was reported to the Portfolio Committee on training was qualified training.

On Mr Purdon’s question on streamlining environmental authorisation, the DG replied that the target was informed by need for quicker quality decision making. In the past DEA used the EIA system as a catch all instrument. There were new instruments such as the Environmental Management Framework which enabled quicker decision making.

The Acting Chairperson said there were frameworks and developed strategies that would still be coming from the DEA. The questions that were not answered could be answered at a later time.

The DG said the MSP Bill, once it was through Cabinet, as well as the MSP framework, plus a report on rhino poaching would be presented to the Committee.

On the question of when the report on the National Ocean and Coastal Information Management System would be made public, the DG asked if the acting Chairperson would prefer a submission.

Acting Chairperson replied that there should be a submission.

Ms Makotoko added that the architectural design of the National Ocean and Coastal Information Management System had been finalised but the actual system was not yet finalised.

On the question of coastal effluent discharges, Dr Mayekiso replied that DEA would provide answers but not immediately.

The DG added that the DEA would give a briefing on land based sources of pollution.

Mr Purdon asked which provinces had contractors for the eradication of alien vegetation. Where were people flying to that warranted air charter services?

The DG replied that DEA would provide the provinces. On air charter, she said people were moved by helicopters between the SA Agulhas vessel to where they stayed in Antarctica.

Mr Hadebe said he was concerned by the use of consultants. Fund should be used for service delivery as well as the programmes of the DEA entities.

The DG pleaded with the Committee to understand the need for consultants because there was a cut back of 86 positions that could not be filled. The Department would come back with an update on the areas that DEA required consultants and would be more transparent.

The acting Chairperson asked if the transfers to EPWP projects would continue to be classified as goods and services

The DG replied that this was agreed to by the AG as well as National Treasury. DEA was told that it would get the new agreement in writing but there had been no correspondence to date.

Mr Hadebe said the Department should go green to reduce its overheads by using electronic devices in the production of documents.

The Acting Chairperson thanked everyone for their cooperation and said the question on consultants was more about reduction and not about totally leaving them out.




Follow up briefing by the Northwest Department of Rural Environment and Agricultural Development (READ) on the donation of high value species to private individuals.

Documents Handed Out:
Responses to follow-up Parliamentary questions asked by the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs regarding Game Donation of high value wildlife animals to private individuals.

Summary:
The meeting was convened by the Committee to consider the responses to follow-up Parliamentary questions asked by the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs regarding Game Donation of high value wildlife animals to private individuals The Committee also frowned at the role of the spokesperson from the Department who had presented an erroneous report that had misrepresented the facts of the previous meeting and asked the Member of the provincial Executive Council (MEC) in the Northwest (NW) to reprimand the spokesperson involved. The Chairperson stated that the matter had been investigated and the records of the previous meeting showed that the NW parks Board PB had not followed Government prescripts in the Game donation transaction as reported by the Committee. The meeting was also attended by invited members from the portfolio committee on Agriculture to meeting.

The questions posed by the Committee bothered on providing details of the available species per park, per male or female before and after Game donation commenced; stating the impact on the viability of the breeding potential of the remaining population; providing details of deaths experienced per park, per male or female during translocation and include a report by the veterinary Surgeon present during translocation; providing details of birth from Game donated; providing the Old and New Game donation policy and include the signed resolutions of the relevant authorities that adopted the policies. Further questions bothered on giving the status of births and mortalities of animals during the first and second quarter monitoring and evaluation; providing all correspondence exchanged between the Department and provincial Treasury regarding compliance with the provisions of Public Finance Management Act (PFMA); details of any animal sale after the Game donation transaction; all information pertaining to other organizations or persons that approached Department with request for Game donation and responses given by the Department and all veterinary reports on the project.

The Committee was not satisfied with the responses given by the Department so the Committee engaged the Department in a robust discussion. Some of the probing questions that the Department demanded answers were; what was the rationale of leaving only male Buffaloes behind, details of the approval of the old game donation policy and clarification on whether Annexure three or four was the Old game donation policy, how did the Department arrive at the conclusion that the translocation did not have a negative impact on the viability of the breeding potential of all remaining animals when only male Buffaloes remained in Borakalo and Molemane Eye, provide the correspondence and approval from provincial Treasury regarding compliance with the provisions of Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Other questions bothered on how the game donation practiced by NW Parks could conserve the environment for the future generation, why animals died from broken jaw during translocation when this could be prevented by darting, why the veterinary permits showed that Nyala’s and Sable Antelopes were trans-located to the same address which was the farm of Mr H De Kock, why there were inconsistencies in the statements on population of captured buffaloes, why did the Veterinary officers not follow ethical procedure and explain why the Game donation transaction did not address of animal welfare. In addition, the Committee asked the Department to clarify the memo from SARGBA on Madikwe concerning surveillance and salvage of animals which stated that Buffalo population dropped from 242 to 69 as a result of tuberculosis.

The Department reported that although it was not proper to leave male Buffaloes behind at the Molemane Eye natural reserve however, the female Buffaloes were trans-located first because there were feeding challenges. The challenges were due to reduced nitrogen levels in the feed during the late dry season which was insufficient to sustain the females especially lactating females and thus the animal’s body condition declined during the dry season (Please find attached the memo on ecological implication of the excerpt from Annexure one). The Department agreed that the trans-location of only female Buffaloes would affect the viability of Buffalo stocks and committed that the NW Parks would move the male buffaloes in due course The Department reported that tuberculosis was diagnosed on the Bufalloes and further testing revealed some other diseases such as brucellosis and this resulted in the shocking amount of Buffaloes culled. In addition some of the animals died due to stress complications that arose from broken jaw during translocation, permits were approved for different farmers under South African Rare Games Breeders holding (SARGBH) but because the project was domiciled on the De Koch’s farm the Game donated to these farmers was trans-located to Mr H De Koch’s land and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) approved the Game donation transaction at the time but used the Old Game donation policy.

The Committee remarked that it was strange for the officers of NWPB to have used the Old policy when the officers of the NWPB were not aware of the date of approval, the committee also asked, who approved the Old policy and on whose authority it was approved. Consequently, the Committee mandated the Department to state the approving authority and date of approval of the Old policy because the Old policy was completely inconsistent with Game donation policies. Based on the responses of the Department the Committee established that the old policy was non-existent. The Committee also observed that based on the deliberations NWPB appeared to have flouted Section 24 of the South African constitution Number 108 of 1996 by acting against the principles of conservation and preservation of the environment in implementing the Game donation transaction under review. Based on this he asked the Department to state the way forward.

Other questions bothered on why the application for Game donation by other organizations was not approved, clarify if the 14 Buffaloes rescued were the only Buffaloes in the Surveillance and Salvage program (SSP) at the Madikwe Park, state if veterinary specialists (VS) were used in the program, state the criteria used to decide the VS to be used and also state there profiles of the VS used by the Department in the NW.

The Department reported that the Madikwe SSP was conducted by the Parks Board who had their own specialists and they also used their own criteria to employ and the senior VS had a Master’s degree. The Department stated that the management relied on the outcome of tests from the VS in the parks to make decisions and the Game donation transaction was not a disposal of assets. In addition, the decision to cull Game was taken as a result of stress, predators, disease, poachers and security. Furthermore donations were meant to preserve species and the NWPB and the department was in the process of revising the Game donation policy.

The Committee established that the Game donation done in this transaction were very high and conservation principles were not followed, the retention of only male buffaloes at Molemane Eye NR was against conservation principles and two of the beneficiaries were white and they were previously privileged persons

The MEC accepted that the animal welfare of the male Buffaloes had been affected but stated that the Department was currently re-enforcing security at the Botsalano NR. On the way forward the MEC stated that on the National level operation PHAKISA had been launched and result driven approaches are been put in place for environmental conservation and preservation. She also stated that in earlier discussions with the Committee the Department had indicated that the SARGBH consortium had more resources and would serve as mentors. Based on the presentation of SARGBH as mentors the EXCO approved the Game donation transaction because there was no Board and the Department hopes to leverage on the success of this Game donation to empower PDP. She stated further that the Department was implementing an EXCO resolution so that the communities in the NW province would benefit from the natural resources of the country. In addition she remarked that it was unfortunate that there were no Black Game breeders to mentor PDP’s hence the decision to use white farmers to empower PDP’s. Furthermore, she stated that her office did not have the mandate to stop the Game donation transaction but she would convey the resolution of the Committee and report the resolutions of the Committee to the EXCO.

The Committee stated that it was not opposed to a program of transformation that empowered PDP but it would not support a program that was anti-transformation but resolved to craft the way forward because the MEC was not able to assist the Committee. However, he stated that the Game donation was not to be interpreted as a donation because the Parks would recover the animals back after breeding. In addition, the Committee established that, the old policy used for the transaction could not be relied on because the approval date and approval authority was in doubt and the officers of NWPB had not advised the EXCO that the Old policy was inconsistent with NWPB mandate as the approval of the Game donation proposal of SARGBH by the EXCO did not make the transaction right. Furthermore, the Committee established that the handling of the project did not comply with conservation principles and observed that the Department had given the Committee all the information needed to make a decision. Consequently, the Chairperson resolved that a joint Committee meeting with Members invited from the portfolio committees on Agriculture would be constituted to handle the matter in line with legislation and conservation policy and the decision made would be communicated through the MEC to the Department.

Minutes:
The Chairperson, after opening the meeting with a moment of silent prayer welcomed all present and outlined that the Committee will be briefed by the Member of the provincial Executive Council (MEC) in the Northwest province Ms M Tlhape and the dignitaries from the Department of Rural Environment and Agricultural Development (READ) on follow-up questions that arose as a result of the meeting of 30th November, 2016. He also stated that members on the Portfolio Committee (PC) on Agriculture had also been invited to the meeting and would be joining the Committee. The Chairperson further stated that, the meeting was convened because the Committee observed that, South African National Parks (SANParks) did follow due process in donating Game to some individuals in the Northwest province, had earlier asked SANParks questions but was not satisfied therefore, SANParks had been mandated to provide written responses to some questions. In addition, when the Committee issued a summary of its deliberations that showed that the Department had not followed the due process in the game donation process a spokesperson from the Department stated that the summary was not a true reflection of the deliberations. However, when the matter was investigated, the Committee was found to have presented the correct events based on records and the spokesperson of the Department was found to have misrepresented the events. The Committee therefore mandated the MEC to reprimand the spokesperson of the Department. The Chairperson also introduced a new member of the Committee Mr R Purdon (ANC).

Apologies
The Chairperson appreciated the Department for promptly giving responses to the questions and invited Ms M Tlhape NW MEC to introduce her team and take the committee through the presentation.

The NW provincial MEC introduced her team which consisted of Mr P Mokaila Head of Department ((HOD) READ, Mr J Denga Director Bio-diversity Management (DBM) NW Read, and the Chief Executive Officer NW Parks Board Mr E Mothobi. She apologized on behalf of the Department on the misrepresented facts of the deliberation and promised to reprimand the Department’s spokesperson.

The MEC in her introduction stated that, READ was asked to provide written responses to nine questions. The questions bothered on providing details of the available species per park, per male or female before and after Game donation commenced; stating the impact on the viability of the breeding potential of the remaining population; providing details of deaths experienced per park, per male or female during translocation and include a report by the veterinary Surgeon present during translocation; providing details of birth from Game donated; providing the Old and New Game donation policy and include the signed resolutions of the relevant authorities that adopted the policies. Further questions bothered on giving the status of births and mortalities of animals during the first and second quarter monitoring and evaluation; providing all correspondence exchanged between the Department and provincial Treasury regarding compliance with the provisions of Public Finance Management Act (PFMA); details of any animal sale after the Game donation transaction; all information pertaining to other organizations or persons that approached Department with request for Game donation and responses given by the Department and all veterinary reports on the project. She stated that the Department would reprimand the spokesperson and invited her team to give responses on the questions asked.

Mr Denga stated that, the NWPB managed populations of high value species such as Buffaloes, White rhino, Sable Antelope and Nyala in several of its parks in Madikwe, Planesberg, Mafikeng, Botsalano, Borakalalo, Molemane Eye Nature Reserve (NRs) and Kgaswane Mountain Reserve (MR) (response attached as Annexure one). He further stated that, Buffaloes were present in all NRs however, White rhino populations were originally present in all NRs but were removed from Borakalalo and Molemane Eye NRs due to poaching pressure. In addition Sable Antelope was present in Planesberg, Borakalo NRs and Kgaswane MR while Nyala’s were only present in Borakalo NR. He also stated, the male and female population of animals before and after game donation (see Annexure one). In addition, he stated that after animals were translocation, the buffalo remaining in Molemane Eye and Borakalo were 11 and 18 males, three male and one female Sable Antelope in Borakalalo and eight sexless Nyala’s in Borakalalo respectively, He further stated that presently White rhino’s had not been trans-located and buffaloes had not been trans-located yet from Planesberg, Mafikeng or Botsalano as planned within the project.

On whether Game donation had a negative impact on the viability of the breeding potential of the remaining population, Mr Denga stated that because the natural distribution range of the Nyala’s was North Eastern low-veld they could not do well in NW and therefore the objective was to translocate the remaining eight sexless Nyala’s in Borakalalo. Mr Denga stated that although the remaining Sable Antelopes located in Borakalalo was a viable specie they were under threat from poachers. Concerning the remaining male Buffaloes in Molemane Eye as a result of the dry season nitrogen levels were reduced and the animals had to be given supplementary feeds while Buffaloes in Borakalalo were viable but they were under threat from poaching therefore intervention is required as a result of their value. In addition he stated that, the translocation did not have a negative impact on the viability of the breeding potential of all remaining animals (response attached as Annexure one).

Mr Denga stated that some of the game experienced mortalities during the translocation as a result injuries such as broken jaw and gave the statistics (response attached as Annexure two). He also stated that six Sable Antelope, three Buffaloes and five Nyala’s were given birth to in the South African Rare Games Breeders holding (SARGBH) facilities however, one Sable Antelope was introduced to the herd at the SARGBH facilities (response attached as Annexure two). In addition he stated that the Veterinary Surgeon’s reports were attached (response attached as Annexure two).

Mr Denga reported that the Old Game donation policy included the purpose and provisions used for all donations, the guidelines for project implementations, screening of applicants, criteria used and limitations (response attached as Annexure three). He also reported that, the New Game donation policy was approved by the Accounting authority in the absence of the board however the old policy was used for the South African Rare Games Breeders Association (SARGBA) transaction because decision had been made before the new game policy was developed (response attached as Annexure four).

Mr Denga reported that the strategic objectives of the first and second quarter monitoring and evaluation (M and E) were reported under institution and governance, regulatory compliance, breeding success, transformation and empowerment and financials (response attached as Annexure five and six). He reported that READ achieved more two key activities in quarter one but achieved quarter two 12 key activities out of 15 in quarter two. They were; convening of SARGBH shareholders (12th September, 2016) and monitoring meetings (17th November, 2016) under institution and governance, updating of legal compliance register(regulatory compliance), started to monitor and evaluate animal health (breeding success), compiled half yearly report of equity ownership performance indicators which showed no changes in the shareholders agreement, completed status report with no changes in terms of ownership equity, held SARGBH shareholders half yearly meeting (12th September, 2016), established project review committee and implemented review objectives of all signed documents (25th July, 2016), held a capacity building workshop for black employment equity BEE partners and community ( 12th -14th September, 2016), developed and implemented a five year equity plan for employees, developed a corporate social investment strategy and undertook specific corporate social responsibility initiatives in neighboring communities were SARGBH properties were located under transformation and empowerment. He attributed lower achievements of key activities in quarter one to challenges which were overcome with more meetings and re-evaluation of set key activities which led to compilation of more reports in quarter two (see Annexure five and six).

Mr Denga reported that all correspondence exchanged between the Department and provincial Treasury regarding compliance with the provisions of the PFMA were provided in Annexure seven and eight. He stated that responses to animal sale after game donation transaction were attached in Annexure one). Furthermore, he reported that in addition to applications received by SARGBA applications were also received from Sunshine Game Breeding Program (SGBP) for buffaloes, roan and Sable so that as to establish and breed rare disease free game in NW province, Eagle Quest Game Farm (EQGF) for Sable Antelope and White rhino, Wildlife on the Move for Tawny and White lions age six months to adulthood and Baphiring traditional community for Sable Antelope, Hartebeest, Blue Wildebeest, Impala, Kudu, Blesbok, Nyala, Eland and Waterbuck two (see Annexure nine). He reported that the responses of the Department were attached in Annexure nine and stated that the responses on all veterinary reports were attached in Annexure two.

Discussion
After the brief by the Ms Tlhape and her team, the Chairperson noted that only two dignitaries were present from PC Agriculture and welcomed them they were; the Chairperson of the PC on Agriculture Ms R Semenya (ANC) and Mr P Maloyi (ANC).

On the presentation by READ the Chairperson noted that, although he had read the submission earlier he did not understand the criteria used in trans-locating animals in the Game donation plan because only male Buffaloes were yet to be trans-located. He asked questions bothering on the rationale of leaving only male Buffaloes behind, details of the approval of the old game donation policy and clarification on whether Annexure three or four was the Old game donation policy. He also asked how the Department arrived at the conclusion that the translocation did not have a negative impact on the viability of the breeding potential of all remaining animals because only male Buffaloes remained in Borakalo and Molemane Eye since the animal would not be able to mate and would attack each other. He also asked the Department to provide the correspondence and approval from provincial Treasury regarding compliance with the provisions of Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). In addition the Chairperson then invited Members of the Committee and members of PC Agriculture to question the Department and then also ask follow-up questions based on the responses given.

Mr T Hadebe (ANC) observed that the responses submitted did not include SARGBA’s application for Game donation. He also observed that the department had earlier stated that, no animals were donated to SARGBA but the veterinary reports attached showed that SARGBA received some animals. In addition he noted that, the Nyala’s from Borakalo park reduced from 27 to eight, Sable Antelopes from Borakalo and Planesberg reduced from 48 to four and from four to zero in Planesberg. Based on this observations Mr Hadebe asked the Department to provide the application from SARGBA and also explain how the game donation practiced by NW Parks could conserve the environment for the future generation.

Ms J Edwards (ALT) observed that only male Buffaloes where yet to be trans-located, that animals died from broken jaw during translocation when this could be prevented by darting, the veterinary permits showed that Nyala’s and Sable Antelopes were trans-located to the same address (i. e. the farm of Mr H De Kock), inconsistencies in the statements on population of captured buffaloes and the Veterinary officers did not follow ethical procedure. Ms Edwards asked the department to give more information on why animals died, state why the Nyala’s and Sable Antelopes were trans-located to Mr De Kock’s address and state the new trans-location address of the Buffaloes. She also asked READ to clarify whether 23 or 22 Buffaloes were captured, explain why four Buffaloes died during capturing when death could have been prevented by darting.

Ms H Nyambi (ANC) asked READ to clarify the inconsistencies on the total number of Nyala’s and Buffaloes.

The Chairperson interjected and agreed with Ms Edwards observation that the deaths during translocation was high. He asked the Department to explain why there was a significant drop in the population of Buffaloes from 235 to 69 as stated in Annexure two page four under the Madikwe Surveillance and Salvage Program. He further asked the Department to state if the deaths occurred as a result of disease and explain why the deaths were high.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) observed that some of the responses were confusing because slide 33 indicated that animals were not sold after Game donation transaction, the old policy stated that Game donations below one million Rand was supposed to be approved by the accounting officer and those above one million Rand were supposed to be approved by the Board therefore the Department must have used the New Game donation policy. Based on this, he asked the Department to explain why transformation had not been achieved, state when the new policy was developed and explain why the new policy was developed. He also asked READ to state whether at the point of Game donation whether the value of the species were determined, clarify who approved the Game donation because there was no proof of Board approval.

The Chairperson interjected and asked the Department to state who approved the Game donation transaction.

Mr Denga reported that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) approved the Game donation transaction at the time but used the Old Game donation policy.

Mr Makhubele further asked the Department to explain why the NWPB contravened the approval authority based on the value of the species.

The Chairperson interjected and asked the Ms Tlhape (MEC) to clarify how donation of Game resulted in achieving the mandate of preservation and conservation as reflected in transformation policy.

The MEC reported that NW Park Game donation was done so as to take advantage of breeding agreements with SARGBA and benefit from the offspring after the breeding period. She also stated that the Department had presented all correspondence that the Committee had asked for based on the question.

Mr Denga reported that the Game donated were the animals that had security issues and this was the basis of stating viability of the breeding potential of all remaining animals.

The Chairperson interjected and asked Mr. Denga to give information on each question and not give general statements.

Mr Denga reported that, 11 male Buffaloes were still remaining in Molemane Eye NR however due to security threats the 11 male Buffaloes would still be trans-located.

The Chairperson interjected and observed that this security challenges were not indicated in the report submitted.

Mr Denga stated that, the slides only indicated feeding challenges but security challenges as a result of poaching was also another factor considered before Game donation was done.

The Chairperson interjected and observed that if feeding challenges occurred both male and female buffaloes should have been trans-located because this had a negative impact on nature conservation.

Mr Mokaila HOD READ stated that although it was not proper to leave male Buffaloes behind at the Molemane Eye natural reserve however, the female Buffaloes were trans-located first because there were feeding challenges. The challenges were due to reduced nitrogen levels in the feed during the late dry season which was insufficient to sustain the females especially lactating females and thus the animal’s body condition declined during the dry season. Furthermore, he reported that leaving the males buffaloes behind was not because of the SARGBH trans-location but the NWPB considered this measure to preserve the females. (Please find attached the memo on ecological implication of the excerpt from Annexure one).

The Chairperson interjected and observed that the question was asked because the viability of the breeding potential of the remaining male buffaloes could not be maintained because this had a negative impact on nature conservation.

The MEC stated that she fully agreed that the trans-location of only female Buffaloes would affect the viability of Buffalo stocks and committed that the NW Parks would move the male buffaloes.

Ms Semenya observed that the welfare of the male Buffaloes had been affected as a result of the translocation of only female Buffaloes therefore she asked the MEC to address the issue.

Mr Mokaila reported that the New game donation policy was the one that was dated June, 2015 Annexure four and the Old Game policy was the one in Annexure three that did not come with a date. Furthermore, he stated that the Department was asked to provide all correspondences between the Department and Treasury and this was submitted in Annexure seven and eight. Mr Mokaila reported that the NW provincial Treasury was notified but there was no response he however remarked that the Game policy was implemented based on the executive committee (EXCO) resolution.

The MEC stated that on the question asked by Mr Hadebe on inconsistences of animals donated to SARGBA the Department in its earlier discuss on 29th November, 2016 had stated that the Department was still in the process hence the new answer.

Mr Mokaila also reported that the Department had proposed the change the clause Game donated to Game to be donated to the Committee.

The Chairperson remarked that the Department should clarify the memo from SARGBA on Madikwe concerning surveillance and salvage of animals which stated that Buffalo population dropped from 242 to 69 as a result of tuberculosis. In addition he suggested that, the memo should have read culled as a result of tuberculosis.

Mr Mokaila reported that tuberculosis was diagnosed on the Bufalloes and further testing revealed some other diseases such as brucellosis and this resulted in the shocking amount of Buffaloes culled.

Mr Denga reported that, the Department was still in the process of trans-locating the eight sexless Nyala’s remaining at the Borakalalo NR because they were not supposed to be kept as viable species. Furthermore, he stated that the four Sable Antelope at Planesberg were moved into a breeding program. On animals that died as a result of broken jaw he state that, some of the animals died due to stress as some other issues occur during translocation. He also stated that permits were approved for different farmers but because the project was domiciled on the De Koch’s farm the Game donated to these farmers was trans-located to the De Koch’s land.

Mr Mokaila also reported that although the beneficiaries of Game donation were different because the permit was issued to SARGBH the animals were trans-located to the De Koch’s farm hence, the address of the trans-located Game was the same. Mr Mokaila also reported that the old policy was used because the application of SARGBH was received during the period of the old policy (2014). In addition, the application of SARGBH had been approved by the EXCO before the new policy was developed. Furthermore, Mr Mokaila stated that, the NWPB used a theoretical system to value donated Game and in this instance the chief executive officer approved the transaction because the NWPB had been dissolved although, based on the value the transaction should have been approved by the NWPB.

The Chairperson observed that Annexure three contained the Old policy which had no date and did not show the authority that approved the policy. Based on this he asked the Department to state if there was any resolution on the Old policy.

Mr Mokaila reported that he was not aware of the resolution or approving authority of the old policy.

The Chairperson remarked that it was strange for the officers of NWPB to have used the Old policy when the officers of the NWPB were not aware of date of approval, who approved the Old policy and on whose authority it was approved. The Chairperson further mandated the Department to state the approving authority and date of approval of the Old policy because the Old policy was completely inconsistent with Game donation policies.

Mr Mokaila reported that when he was appointed as the acting HOD he identified that the Old policy was inconsistent.

The Chairperson observed that, the HOD had wrongly advised the NW Parks to use an Old policy that did not have a legal backing.

Mr Makhubele as a follow-up on his question remarked that, if the Game donation was based on the Old policy, due process was not followed because there was no provision on the Old policy for the Game donation transaction.

The Chairperson remarked that, the Committee had established that the old policy was non-existent.

Mr Mokaila reported that the NWPB agreed with the Committee that due process was not followed during the Game donation transaction. He however stated that, although he was not the acting authority at the time he had the mandate to advice the EXCO against the use of the Old policy.

Mr Hadebe observed that based on the deliberations NWPB appeared to have flouted Section 24 of the South African constitution Number 108 of 1996 by acting against the principles of conservation and preservation of the environment in implementing the Game donation transaction under review. Based on this he asked the Department to state the way forward.

Mr Maloyi asked questions bothering on why the application for Game donation by other organizations was not approved. He also asked the department to state if the applications by other organizations were received before the application made by SARGBH. In addition, he asked the Department to explain why the applications of other organizations were not approved if the Department received their applications before SARGBH’s applications.

Ms Edwards asked the Department to state location of the 14 Buffaloes that broke out of the NR.

The Chairperson remarked that, he observed from the discussions that the 14 Buffaloes were taken into the Madikwe Park under the Surveillance and Salvage program.

Ms Edwards asked the department to clarify if it was keeping only the 14 Buffaloes rescued back at the Madikwe Park or only the Buffaloes in the Surveillance and Salvage program (SSP) . She also asked the Department to state if veterinary specialists (VS) were used in the program, state the criteria used to decide the VS to be used and also state there profiles of the VS used by the Department in the NW.

The Chairperson stated that, the Department should answer the questions and the MEC should state the way forward.

Mr Mokaila reported that the Madikwe SSP was conducted by the Parks Board who had their own specialists and they also used their own criteria to employ hence the VS in the NW Department might not have been used during program. He further stated that the management relied on the outcome of tests from the VS in the parks to make decisions.

Mr Mothobi CEO NWPB stated that although he was not part of the initial EXCO meeting as he was inducted last year, the Game donation transaction was not a disposal of assts. In addition, the decision to cull Game was taken as a result of stress, predators, disease, poachers and security. He also stated that the Senior VS had a Master’s degree. Furthermore he reported that, donations were meant to preserve species and the NWPB and the department was in the process of revising the Game donation policy. He also stated that the average two year old Sable Antelope costs R250,000.

The Chairperson established that although, the contributions from the new NWPB CEO gave more information on the Game donation transaction however, the Game donation done in this transaction were very high and conservation principles were not followed. The retention of only male buffaloes at Molemane Eye NR was against conservation principles. He also observed that, two of the beneficiaries were white and they were previously privileged persons but the new NWPB CEO was inducted last year and the transaction had already being implemented.

Mr Mokaila reported that the response on other organizations that applied for Game donation apart from SARGBH stated the dates that the applications were receive however, the Parks had process and procedural issues. For instance, the application by Eagle Quest Company was not approved because the company had inadequate land size and also at the time the Parks had to quarantine some animals. Furthermore, he admitted that time line issues may have occurred in replying these organizations but the main issues were process and procedural.

Mr Maloyi remarked that the MEC should confirm if the Game donation transaction with SARGBH followed the principle of assisting previously disadvantaged people (PDP) or was inconsistent.

Ms Semenya agreed with Mr Maloyi but advised the MEC to address the issues of animal welfare in her response.

The MEC accepted that the animal welfare of the male Buffaloes had been affected but stated that the Department was currently re-enforcing security at the Botsalano NR. On the way forward the MEC stated that on the National level operation PHAKISA had been launched and result driven approaches are been put in place for environmental conservation and preservation. She also stated that in earlier discussions with the Committee the Department had indicated that the SARGBH consortium had more resources and would serve as mentors. Based on the presentation of SARGBH as mentors the EXCO approved the Game donation transaction because there was no Board and the Department hopes to leverage on the success of this Game donation to empower PDP. She stated further that the Department was implementing an EXCO resolution so that the communities in the NW province would benefit from the natural resources of the country. In addition she remarked that it was unfortunate that there were no Black Game breeders to mentor PDP’s hence the decision to use white farmers to empower PDP’s. Furthermore, she stated that her office did not have the mandate to stop the Game donation transaction but she would convey the resolution of the Committee and report the resolutions of the Committee to the EXCO.

The Chairperson remarked that the Committee was not opposed to a program of transformation that empowered PDP but it would not support a program that was anti-transformation. He stated that he had thought that the MEC would assist the Committee to craft the way forward as a result of the deviations of the mandate of NWPB and its agencies however, he stated that the Game donation was not to be interpreted as a donation because the Parks would recover the animals back after breeding. He observed that, the old policy used for the transaction could not be relied on because the approval date and approval authority was in doubt. He also observed that the HOD Mr Mokaila, had not advised the EXCO that the Old policy was inconsistent with NWPB mandate as the approval of the Game donation proposal of SARGBH by the EXCO did not make the transaction right. Furthermore, the Chairperson also stated that the handling of the project did not comply with conservation principles. The Chairperson observed that the Department had given the Committee all the information needed to make a decision. Consequently, the Chairperson resolved that a joint Committee meeting with Members invited from the portfolio committees on Agriculture would be constituted to handle the matter in line with legislation and conservation policy and the decision made would be communicated through the MEC to the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.