Global Protected Areas & Operation Phakisa Programmes: follow-up briefing; with Minister

Meeting report

Minister's overview

Ms Barbara Creecy, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environmental Affairs, said there had been a number of coalitions established between different countries to promote the global goal of protecting 30% of the land and the sea by 2030. The South African government’s position on this was that it would not join this coalition outside of any formal negotiating processes. However, government was concerned with biodiversity loss, the threat of losing thousands of species as a result of climate change, as well as the impact of wildfires, as the country had experienced.

The Department had done its own extensive work to assess its ability to reach this target and had calculated by when this target would be reached. As a country, this target would not be reached by 2030. South Africa currently was moving at 0.5% per annum in terms of enhancing the protected areas. The calculation was that the country might reach the target in the late 2030s.

Minister Creecy outlined the three constraints that deterred government from achieving this target. The first constraint was financial sustainability. She pointed out that it was pointless to declare a protected area if there was no funding to protect the area. The negative impact of Covid on the revenue stream was attributed to having a detrimental impact on those protected areas, as those areas were also closely aligned to tourism.

Secondly, it was about the land rights of those protected areas, to which a number of communities in the country had laid claims. If the Department insisted on proceeding in an unsophisticated manner to achieve the target by 2030, it would undermine the land rights of those affected communities and would not solve the existing problem.

Thirdly, she raised the issue of how communities were going to benefit from those protected areas. One of the key issues was adhering to the three aspects of the biodiversity convention, which included increasing protected areas globally, community beneficiation, and intellectual property.

South Africa was a latecomer to marine protected areas. In May 2019, 20 marine protected areas had been introduced by the government, and these accounted for 5% of the country’s marine environment. At this stage, the government was moving more slowly on increasing marine protection due to the significant fishing industry in the country.

Progress on increasing global protected areas

Ms Flora Mokgohloa, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Biodiversity and Conservation, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), briefed the Committee on the scientific recommendation of increasing global protected areas to 30% by 2030, the Department's progress in this regard, and the draft Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Agreement titled the ‘New Global Framework for Managing Nature Through 2030.'

Enabling legislation and policies

The relevant national legislation and policies and their objectives were provided and outlined to the Committee. The legislation included the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Amendment Act, 2004 (Act No 31 of 2004), the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004), the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 (Act No. 49 of 1999), the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008), the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No. 84 of 1998) and the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2016 to 2036.

Protected areas profile

South Africa currently had 1 161 protected areas covering 8.63% of the total land. Those protected areas included 3.7 million hectares of SANParks, 1.9 million hectares of land in the provinces, 3.7 million hectares of land which was privately owned, as well as 0.5 million hectares of land which was communally owned.

The Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were also outlined to the Committee.

The cumulative increased rates of protected areas from the years of 2016 to 2021 were provided, involving the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2020 and the Global Biodiversity Framework and SA approach.

The Global Biodiversity Framework required member states to adopt general measures to achieve goals in relevant national and sub-national strategies, plans and programmes. In South Africa, it could be implemented through the implementation of its domestic legislation:.

• Section 24 of the Constitution of South Africa and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No.10 of 2004): Environmental protection, effective conservation management and the sustainable use of natural resources;
• National Protected Areas Act, Biodiversity Act and other relevant legislation and regulations;
• National Development Plan 2030 on ensuring environmental sustainability;
• National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) 2015-2025, supported by the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) and the National Biodiversity Framework (NBF); and
• The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and High-Level Panel (HLP) recommendations.

The Draft White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use, which was in the process of being developed in response to the HLP recommendations was aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in that it:

• Provides policy certainty and a stable base for conservation, growth and development;
• Has the objective to end irresponsible, unethical and unsustainable practices that greatly harm the reputation of South Africa;
• Repositions SA as a leader in conservation and promotes Africa’s coherence and unity;
• Better balances economic, social, cultural and natural heritage needs;
• Re-imagines the role of protected areas, both state and other, in contributing to an ecologically sustainable rural development; and
• Promotes transformation of the sector, with real traction in nature-based access and benefit flows to marginalised communities, with growth and transformation of the industry

Discussion

Ms C Philips (DA) referred to slide 19 of the presentation and asked the Department if there was a timeline for the draft White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use to be finalised.

She expressed her concern on the game donations mentioned in slide 20 of the presentation. Her concern emanated from the fact that a lot of those game donations would eventually end up in those well-established game farmers’ pockets, despite the fact that they were already well off. She wanted to know whether there was a certain criterion, such as a means test, to select the candidates who were eligible for the game donation.

Mr D Bryant (DA) commended the positive intention behind the presentation. The biggest challenge lying ahead was to get it done faster, but as the country faced financial challenges, this goal might not be so easy to achieve.

Mr Bryant asked the Department about the role of provincial authorities in marine protected areas. Although he understood that the authority ultimately lay with the national Department, he wanted to know how provinces could get involved in the new marine protected areas to assist the national Department. He described his own constituency, which had been struggling a lot with abalone poaching.

Was there any evidence to support the view that the declaration of marine protected areas had significantly reduced the impact of poaching, or if law enforcement played a bigger role in it?  

He highlighted the importance of nearby communities getting involved to protect marine protected areas. He asked if there was any sort of association, and which sphere of government was responsible for overseeing such functions and maintaining and coordinating those relationships.

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) raised his grave concern on the inconsistency of standards when it came to the implementation of declaring sites protected areas in the provinces. He wanted to know whether those affected communities had been consulted prior to the declaration. For instance, in Hout Bay in the Western Cape, on the one side where the majority of the residents were the poor and working-class, people had been told that they could not build further up because there was a mountain fire line, whereas on the other side where there were luxurious houses building up there. Such situations were not unique in the Western Cape, as Cape Town and Knysna were both protecting more affluent suburbs. Mr Paulsen emphasised the Minister’s word “sophisticated means” and remarked that the sophistication should also take poor and working-class people into consideration. Also, he observed that the operators on the West Coast had blocked a black empowerment company from running a mussel farm in the area, whereas some seismic surveys had been done on the same site. He emphasised that the sophistication should not be done to deter the progress of black working-class people. He also wanted to know the recourse for communities who had historically legitimate claims to the areas where provinces claimed them as protected areas.

(Ms A Weber (DA) spoke for two minutes, but due to connectivity problems, her comments were inaudible.)

Mr N Singh (IFP) appreciated the Department’s approach in ensuring that government’s implementation of policies was underpinned by local dynamics. He encouraged the Department to keep up this trend.

He said that Members might have witnessed the unintended consequences of declaring Marine Protected Areas (MPA) on local communities. He concurred with Mr Paulsen’s point that he did not want certain groups of people to hide behind the MPAs to advance their own interests.

He asked if an area needed to be declared a marine protected area and whether government was providing compensation to those communities which were affected.

He highlighted the onerous conditions for some Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (Dmoss) areas that municipalities had declared. In some cases, some 80% of the privately-owned land was declared Dmoss. There should be a way of mitigating the risks to the environment, even if those were Dmoss areas.

The Chairperson commented on the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2016-36, and quoted one of its objectives, which stated that it was “to achieve cost-effective protected area expansion for improved ecosystem representation, ecological sustainability and resilience to climate change.” She wanted the Department to explain how it planned to achieve cost-effectiveness whilst expanding the protected areas.

The Chairperson asked the Department to give more information on the size of the budget which it received for implementing the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2016-36. She also wanted information on how much had been spent in the past five years. Were the targets contained in the strategy reflective of the aspirations of the global biodiversity framework?.

Mr Singh asked the Department what types of public consultation had taken place.

Department’s response

Minister Creecy reminded the Chairperson that she had indicated to her in their previous lengthy engagement that the White Paper would still have to be presented to the Cabinet, and the Department was trying to get the finalised version to the Committee by the second quarter of 2022.

The Minister responded to the question on game donations. She said this was a topic that was brought up repeatedly. South African National Parks (SANParks) advertises for expressions of interest, and those had criteria. The attempt was to strike a balance between those who would be brand new to game ranching and private protected areas, and those who had adequate capacity to care for the animals. Concern about game donations arose from the instances in the past when the capacity of emerging ranches had not been properly researched, which had resulted in a less than satisfactory outcome to game donations prior to 2019. After the issue was flagged, SANParks had become cautious in its support for the emerging farmers, as it also looked at those farmers’ ability to look after the animals appropriately. The Minister clarified that those donations were loans that emerging farmers would have to return in due course when animals thrived.

The Minister responded to Mr Bryant’s question on whether declaring an area as a protected area would alleviate the impact of poaching. She explained that in any protected area, the extent of poaching was determined by two factors. The number one factor was the relationship with surrounding communities, and the number two factor was law enforcement activities. It was that interface that would determine the extent of controlling poaching. There was an organisation called "People In Parks," which coordinated the relationship between communities on the outskirts of protected areas and those communities. She pointed out that although the organisation enjoyed an open-door relationship with SANParks and the national Department, the organisation had not been able to have a similar relationship with provincial departments. As a result, the Minister had invited the organisation to attend and present its credentials at their last meeting. The national Department encouraged provincial authorities to have relationships with the provincial chapters of the People in Parks organisation so that there would be good coordination and communication.

The Minister described Mr Paulsen’s question on Hout Bay as a complicated one. That area had already been a protected area prior to the land invasion. It was a long and complicated process, as the Department had wanted to do some land swaps in the beginning.

She could not comment on the Saldanha Bay issue in this meeting.

Minister Creecy confirmed that there was negotiation underway to look at the relationships between certain communities and marine protected areas because there was no optimal jurisdiction between communities and marine protected areas in some instances at this stage.

She assured the Committee that if expropriation took place for setting up protected areas, there would be compensation for those who were affected. For those communities that had a historical land claim, the Department would either maintain the land use for them or find alternative ways for communities to continue to benefit from those protected areas.

She assured Mr Singh that all administrative tasks required public consultation. She guaranteed Members that all policy changes had undergone a consultation process. She regularly received submissions from people who donated a piece of land to be declared a protected area, or to the SA National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) for an extension. She also regularly wrote letters to her counterparts at the provincial and national level, such as the Department of Water Sanitation (DWS), the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), as well as the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), for policy consultation.

The Minister elaborated on the Member's question on cost-effective expansion. She explained that the Department’s view was that there was not only one way to set up a protected area. The more common perception, which she believed that Members also shared, was for the state to declare a piece of land a protected area. However, in the Minister’s observation, there had been more cases of the private and non-governmental sector playing a more active role in land donation and declaring protected areas, as seen in the case of the Grasslands National Park in the Eastern Cape. What these cases demonstrated was the stewardship concept, with private landowners involving themselves in private protection or engaging in land use practices that were compatible with protected areas.

The Minister clarified that multi-lateral funding applied only to the financing of actual projects, but not to financing protected areas. For instance, in the Eastern Cape Grasslands Park, the funding may finance only the research of that park or specific pilot projects, etc. No fund would be available for a national park. Hence, she highlighted the significance of game donations.

Ms Mokgohloa said that game-related donations relied on the national guideline which the management authorities followed, which was biased towards previously disadvantaged individuals. Since environment was a concurrent function and the Department played an oversight role over SANParks, the Department aimed to ensure SANParks would be able to meet their own criteria in terms of game donations and related aspects.

Commenting on the budget issue, she said that the Department’s role to support expansion areas and community-based enterprises or communal land was limited to infrastructure capacity building. In other words, if a community entered into an agreement with a private investor, the Department would facilitate the agreement. It was currently also assisting several community-based enterprises on several business proposals to support their protected land.

She confirmed that the Department had received international support from donor programmes such as those supporting management effectiveness funded by the Global Environment Facility. Supporting management effectiveness was a tool to assess whether a protected area had met certain objectives in terms of governance, finance and operation. It also provided an overview on how the Department was doing in terms of the protection of those protected areas.

Mr Kallie Naude, Director: Protected Area Systems, DFFE, assured the Committee that the Department strictly adhered to the legislative process and always conducted extensive consultations before the declaration of a protected area. The Department’s consultation process usually included communities, municipalities and state entities. It had also more recently used community radio adverts to try to reach a wider range of stakeholders and constituencies. This was the first phase of the declaration. In the second phase, the Department would review whether there were any concerns that had been raised in the previous phase before making its declaration. He reaffirmed the Department’s stance that it tried to take into consideration all the inputs made by members and communities that would be affected by the declaration.

Mr Lisolomzi Fikizolo, Chief Director: Specialist Monitoring Services, confirmed that the Department received international funding for the marine protected area project. The value of the fund was R7 billion and was provided by the United Nations Development Programme. The current convention was that Angola, Namibia and South Africa shared the R7 billion.

When it came to enforcement, the Department was working with management agencies, SAN Parks and the Eastern Cape Provincial Tourism Agency and others, where the Department was implementing its management plans. Although coastal and offshore marine protected areas required a different approach to management and enforcement, the approach outlined in the presentation was applicable. In addition, the DFFE was also working with its sister branch in Pretoria as well as utilising the vessels in fisheries management to conduct enforcement.

Mr Fikizolo added that the Department had Prince Edward Islands declared as a marine protected area (MPA) before the other 20 MPAs were declared. The Department’s approach to deal with law enforcement was through South Africa’s membership of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). As the Prince Edward Islands were close to the French island of St Pierre et Miquelon, South Africa could share the 66 satellites in that space to monitor any illegal fishing activities. Information gathered by the satellites would be relayed to the CCAMLR and the Department. Although South Africa had attempted to pursue an agreement with France a few years ago on scientific research and monitoring surveillance in the area, the agreement eventually did not work out because of the modification on Article 111 of the agreement. However, he guaranteed that the Department and the country continued to get some form of support in the surveillance of that area.

Answering Mr Bryant on the DFFE's interaction with provincial authorities, he said the national Department was in contact with provincial authorities through the provincial coastal committees (PCCs). The declaration of MPAs, as well as consultation or public comments, usually had to undergo the PCC procedure. He highlighted a recent experience of a forum that was held in the Eastern Cape in 2021 and appreciated the fact that the local traditional leadership had been willing and enthusiastic to join the MPA process.  

Mr Bryant asked a follow-up question. He said that sometimes Members got proposals on the MPAs from a bottom-up approach, such as local constituencies submitting proposals on the topic. He also noted constituencies’ frustration at getting their messages heard because of the onerous process.

Minister Creecy said that if any Member of the Committee had a proposal, they should write to her and the Department would then forward the proposal to the relevant Department.

Follow-up briefings on Operation Phakisa programmes

Oceans Economy

Ms Ntsiki Mbono, Oceans Economy Advisor, DFFE, outlined the Department’s vision for growing the Oceans Economy. The emphasis was on South Africa’s investment return, as well as the jobs which had been and would be created by this sector.

The DFFE emphasised the important role of science and innovation in the development of this sector. As a government department, it funded related research through the National Research Foundation (NRF), and provided innovative solutions through the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The Department informed the Committee of the various partnerships it had cultivated in the offering of maritime-related qualifications.

The Oceans and Coastal Information Management System (OCIMS) was introduced to Members. It provides a number of decision support tools, two of which were highlighted:

• A vessel tracking system for intelligence gathering in respect of vessel movements within the RSA Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and its immediate surroundings waters; and
• The ability to provide early warning information regarding harmful algal blooms, which were extremely critical for fisheries and aquaculture as well as to the general public, as they may be toxic to sea life and humans.

The Department also highlighted its collaboration with universities such as the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) and Stellenbosch University in launching the ZA-Tube 2 nanosatellite on board a Russian rocket in December 2018.

Discussion

Mr Singh indicated he had to leave this meeting early due to another committee commitment on financial management. He requested the Chairperson to allow him to ask his questions for the Department.

The Chairperson granted Mr Singh’s request.

Mr Singh commented on the overall presentation and said that he was under the impression that it was too broad an overview of what the entire Department was doing. He was uncertain of the working relationship between directorates and how they communicated with each other.

He commented on the big figures to which reference had been made in the presentation, such as the R54 billion in 2010, as well as the R177 billion in 2033. Since 2033 was still eleven years from now, he wanted to understand how the target would be achieved, what specific programmes there were to gradually achieve this, and if there were monitoring and evaluations systems.

He asked about the Department’s plan on the old Durban airport site which Transnet had purchased about ten years ago, observing that the site was being used as a motor vehicle parking place. Did the Department have a medium-term plan on that being developed as a port, as this was the original purpose when the purchase was made?

What was the status of the Hibberdene development on the South Coast which was supposed to have been turned into a small harbour?

Mr Singh raised concern over the feasibility of the investment in aquaculture and scientific and seismic surveys on slide 34 of the presentation. He sought clarity on that and wondered how government could get money from companies doing surveys there.

He commended the Department’s partnership with universities on training seafarers but raised concern over the extent of the impact of the strikes taking place at those universities on the programme. He also wanted to know what had happened to the 140 qualified seafarers -- where were they employed?

He asked about the condition of the country’s vessels, and whether they were being used effectively.

The Chairperson assured Mr Singh that his questions would be responded to.

Chemicals and Waste Economy

Mr Surprise Zwane, Chief Director: Delivery Unit, DFFE, briefed the Committee on the Department’s plan and progress on waste management. The presentation included three parts -- overviews of Operation Phakisa on waste management, bulk industrial waste and municipal waste.

Waste management

Operation Phakisa aimed to reduce the negative environmental and health impact of waste and risks posed by chemicals, to increase commercialisation of the circular economy and create value from resources currently discarded as waste, as well as to foster inclusive growth through the positioning of South Africa as a globally competitive producer of sustainable products.

Four work streams were identified -- bulk industrial waste, municipal waste, product design and waste minimisation, as well as chemicals waste.

Bulk industrial waste

It was highlighted that high-impact initiatives for ash, gypsum, slag and biomass would divert 15.5 million tons of waste from landfills and create 28 000 direct jobs.

There were huge amounts of ash left over by Eskom that could be utilised for all local beneficiation options.

Work streams included ash for bricks; soil amelioration, acid mine drainage and mine backfilling; ash export; sewage sludge; and meat waste.

Details of ash initiative stakeholders could be found in the presentation slides.

Municipal waste

Three initiatives were proposed.  These were the introduction of an E-waste levy to increase the collection rate, separation at source and plastic recycling, and unlocking government information communication technology (ICT) legacy volumes.

The municipal waste workstream was outlined to the Committee.

The Department highlighted that the recycling of packaging would be increased by rethinking design and formalising the extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanisms.

The Department had introduced the concept of a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plant, which processes high calorific value municipal solid waste (MSW), including absorbent hygiene products (AHP).

DFFE's responses to December meeting questions

Ms Mokgohloa provided responses to questions raised by the Committee on 7 December 2021. All responses could be found in the presentation slides.

Discussion

Ms N Gantsho (ANC) referred to slide 34 of the Oceans Economy presentation, which indicated that this sector would create 8 383 jobs in total. She asked the Department to provide a detailed breakdown of how many permanent and temporary jobs would be created.

She found it shocking to hear that most of the 26 technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges were located in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and the Western Cape. She enquired about the specifics in which areas those TVET colleges were located, and whether the Department had any plan to introduce maritime training courses to other provinces along the coast, such as the Eastern Cape.

She sought more details on the selection process for the intake of 30 learners, as indicated by slide 36 of the presentation. In particular, she wanted to understand if children from disadvantaged areas and backgrounds were included in the process.

Was any system in place to trace whether the 4 598 people who had received training in different skills programmes had been absorbed in the workforce/ She emphasised the importance of the Department aiming to train skills that were relevant to the job market. 

Mr Bryant noted that the presentation had covered offshore oil and gas extensively, as well as the number and types of jobs which the sector would generate, but complained that it was lacking information around hydroelectric or offshore wind installations, given the global trend to deliver clean energy.

He commented on the under-achievement of apprenticeships and wanted to know how many of those apprenticeships were translated into full-time jobs.

The lack of training berths on vessels was disturbing, as the target of 720 officers and 1 200 ratings had not been met. Had Department known of the insufficient training berths, and what measures were in place to ensure that more berths would become available?

Mr Bryant referred to the recurrence of seafarer training and raised concern over the high cost -- about R80 000 -- for a regular fisherman to complete the training. He urged the Department to make the training more affordable for regular fishermen.

He agreed with Mr Singh’s remark that the Committee was merely given an overview of what had been happening in the Department. As Members of Parliament (MPs), the Committee executed its oversight role through knowing the number of key performance indicators (KPIs) which the Department needed to achieve, or its progress in achieving those targets. He found that information was lacking in the presentation.

Ms Phillips said that the jobs promised by the Oceans Economy had been stated as 316 000, so she wanted to know how many jobs were still there in 2022. The five-year target which had been set in 2014 was to take them to 2019, so she wanted to know if there was a new plan already in place to replace the old one.

She asked whether the vessel tracking system for intelligence gathering was operational, and enquired whether the ZA-Tube 2 nanosatellite satellite was orbiting independently, or relying on Russia.

She asked the Department to elaborate on what the planning stage of the waste management separation at source was, what had been done so far, and to provide the Committee with a timeline. How many households, and what percentage of households, already had separation at source?

Had the project to treat acid mine with ash had already been done? Where had it been done?

Which metros were using the different colour bags for separating at source?

The Chairperson enquired about the waste project under Operation Phakisa. She referred to the key objectives of Operation Phakisa, and reminded Members of the presentation which had been made by the South African Waste Pickers Association (SAWPA) a week earlier. She said it would appear as though waste pickers at the association were doing the work which the Department indicated that it would do in this presentation. She emphasised the importance of building alliances with the non-governmental sector. She therefore asked the Department whether it supported some of the initiatives of SAWPA. If the answer was affirmative, she wanted to know in what ways the Department had provided support.

She enquired about the status of the implementation of the e-waste levy and asked the Department for a timeframe for this project. She also wanted the DFFE to explain the difficulty of setting a levy.

She asked the Department to provide a percentage of the households separating waste at source. If the target had been set at 50%, what were the Department’s assurances on achieving this target? What would it plan to do differently up until 2023 in order to assist in achieving this target? She also asked the Department to give an indication of the time frame of this project, as well as the kinds of work which this project would create.

Commenting on bulk industrial waste, she asked the Department to indicate how much it anticipated increasing its uptake. Had an industrial forum to promote alternative building materials been established? If not, she questioned the Department’s seriousness in carrying out this project

The Chairperson highlighted the critical role of Operation Phakisa in delivering several of the key national priorities. In this case, it was about waste management. She asked the Deputy Director-General if the Department was really hurrying up the process of implementing Operation Phakisa.

She asked the Department about the waste economy master plan, as well as its completion date and whether it had followed a public consultation process. She had tried to Google this document, but could not find it in the public domain. She thus asked whether the consultation process had been limited to only the government and private sector. Had organised labour been a part of the consultation process?

She requested the Department to submit a progress monitoring report on the implementation of Operation Phakisa and the Ocean Economy. How often did it evaluate their impact, since regular evaluation could provide an objective assessment of the implementation, given that people were reluctant to speak about the tangible progress of this project?

Responses

Minister Creecy agreed with the Chairperson’s view on the Department’s evaluation of the implementation of the master plan. She explained that the state acted as a facilitator in Operation Phakisa. However, the key player in the operation had to be the private sector itself. Although there had been various discussions in the government, there had been less of a proactive strategy to get investors to invest in those different sectors of the economy. She dispelled the notion that the state should be the main player, as it would have otherwise resulted in several pieces of tiny projects depending on the fiscus, which would not have created many jobs. The Minister said the master plan approach differed from the Phakisa approach because it bought in participation by the private sector.

The Minister acknowledged that there were difficulties in implementing the master plan, given that it required working with multiple stakeholders. The interim plan which had been taken to the Cabinet identified the sectors where government would need more participation, such as transport. The master plan would then be finalised, following that process.

She clarified the monitoring and evaluation of the master plan. The Department was currently working on its provisional quarterly targets through its annual performance plan (APP) process. However, as government was getting more participants involved from the private sector, it did not have control over the private sector and how those participants operate, so the key underpinnings of the master plan were self-monitoring and self-accounting.

Minister Creecy highlighted the negative impact that the COVID pandemic and the country’s economic contraction had on the Oceans Economy and the waste economy. From mid-2020 towards the beginning of 2021, the Department had been working with the participants of the Oceans Economy in order to stabilise the sector. She reminded Members of the tremendous impact which COVID had on international trade and shipping, as well as on the waste sector in areas such as glass and plastics. She was uncertain whether this impact could be quantified.

Ms Mbono responded to the question on providing progress to achieving those big numbers, such as the R177 billion indicated in the presentation. She clarified that those figures were numbers guided by a study of which she had been part. She said the government’s goal was to push for 1.8% real growth, whilst it currently oscillates at around less than 2 to 4% of nominal growth if one removed the inflation factor on the gross domestic product (GDP). Some jobs would be derived not only from the primary interventions but also from the indirect impact once an activity was activated in the value chain. For instance, if the infrastructure project with the ports got started, it would also create jobs for the marine manufacturing sector. Conversely, if the global economy was not doing well, it would similarly result in a decrease in the amount of cargo and the number of vessels that needed to be repaired.

The whole process was being guided by the master plan which the Minister had mentioned. Its participation involved government agencies, organised labour, community constituents and industries. In terms of the implementation of the master plan, the DFFE had decided that it would take those targets that it had been using since the 2014 baselines. The first draft of the full master plan was about to be released by the Department. The document would be available to all government agencies, organised labour, community constituents and industries, for them to engage on before being finalised as the interim master plan. The Minister would then take it to Cabinet by the end of this financial year.

She confirmed that the development of the master plan was underway. Different working groups had been working in different sub-sectors. The prioritised sectors were marine transport, marine manufacturing and repairs, aquaculture, marine aquaculture, and small-scale and big commercial fisheries. All four partners were pulling together in their concerted effort to stabilise those sub-sectors in order to turn them into growth trajectories.

Ms Mbono responded to Mr Singh’s question about the relationship between the numbers indicated and the numbers by the end of the implementation period. When the projection was made, the Department had anticipated an annual GDP growth rate of between 6 to 7 percent. Unfortunately, the trajectory had been downwards due to global dynamics. For the oil and gas industry, the Department had managed the price of crude oil below US$20. It was only very recently those prices started to increase. The current US$105 per barrel, in her observation, was the very first time in a very long time that the price had gone up so much. The strategy to achieve those numbers was to look at the baseline of what the Department had already set against the anticipation of what was going to happen in the future. She emphasised the importance of working collaboratively with other stakeholders, including industry, which was the main implementing and main employment-creating body. Targets would not be decided by the Department, but rather by the sectors.

She explained how the Department would be tracking the investment return. The Petroleum Agency of South Africa was the authority that was responsible for tracking what investments there were, whether in pre-exploration, exploration, development, or the production phase. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) and the agency assisted the Department in tracking the investments.

Ms Mbono rectified a mistake in slide 34. which stated that the GDP was R153 billion -- it was actually the turnover estimate which was projected to be R153 billion. Of the government’s R41 billion investment, R9.2 billion came from marine transport and manufacturing, R29.85 billion from oil and gas, R1.2 billion from aquaculture, R500 million was from small harbours development, and R164.3 million was from coastal and marine tourism. The last two items were mainly government investment. Although marine protection and ocean governance was not the main job creator, it did function as a facilitator through optimising authorisation and making sure it reduced red tapes and delays.

She broke down the investment contributions:

• Of the marine transport and manufacturing sector, R7.6 billion investment came from government investment, R1.15 billion from the private sector, and R428.9 million from the Department of Trade, Industries and Competition (DTIC).
• Of the oil and gas investment, R15 billion was government investment and R14.85 billion was investment by industry.
• Of the aquaculture investment, R260 million was government investment and R940 million was from the private sector.

Responding to Mr Singh’s question on the old Durban airport, she asked the Committee to allow her and the Department to verify all the information so that they could get back to the Committee with the latest information in writing. The port was planned to accommodate the automotive industry, as well as to provide space for terminal operations for containers. Mr Singh’s observation was consistent with the Department’s original plan for the airport.

Regarding his enquiry on the project in Hibberdene, the project was related to small harbour development. There were three possible sites that the Department had identified to select from to do this project. Those three sites were Port St Johns, Port Nolloth and Hibberdene. Even though only one site would eventually be selected, the other two sites that were not selected would still have some small infrastructure programmes related to the Oceans Economy. The work process was supported by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), and the implementing Department was the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI). The DFFE was currently trying to secure funds to conduct a detailed feasibility study.

Ms Mbono commented on the question around seafarers and confirmed that universities were providing training for them. Regarding the hindrances and obstacles as a result of the ongoing strikes, she said there was a working group which was chaired by members from the universities, providers from the private sector or industry in maritime transport-related skills, to regularly review those issues. She would provide a report to the Committee in due course. Although the universities were still using the virtual learning platform, there were instances of a gradual shifting to full-time learning.

The Department would provide a written response about the whereabouts of those 145 qualified seafarers.

The 8 383 jobs that had been created were a combination of permanent and temporary jobs, given that some of the temporary jobs would be created during the construction phase. The Department would provide a more detailed response in writing to the Committee.

Ms Mbono responded to Ms Gantsho’s question about TVET colleges. There were currently four TVET colleges that provided maritime-related training courses and qualifications. Two of those colleges were in the Western Cape -- False Bay college and the college of Cape Town. In the latter TVET college, there was also a laboratory which they called a workshop, which provided training for marine engineering candidates. False Bay college provided yacht and boat-related training. In KwaZulu-Natal, there was the Umfolozi TVET college which provided seafaring qualifications in its maritime academy. The college had applied for funding to get the appropriate infrastructure, and the application process was currently under consideration. The last TVET college was the Motheo TVET college in the Free State, which offered marine transport and logistic qualifications. There were partnerships between the South African International Maritime Institute (SAIMI) and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) to review which TVET colleges were still interested in providing such training. TVET colleges interested in offering such training courses were being assisted in curriculum development. as well as their infrastructure.

Regarding the selection process of learners, she said that learners came from all of the different provinces. The working group had discovered that raising awareness of maritime subjects would generate more interest amongst the youth by partnering with industry and the private sector. It was the TVET colleges that released adverts that indicated the criteria for learners. However, the Department could provide a more detailed response to the Committee in a written response. The SAIMI had an internal system that tracked the employment of graduates. The second group of learners would be completing training in April.

She said there was a sizeable number of learners from the previously disadvantaged population. In the group of 30 learners in False Bay, 19 were coloured and 11 were black. Eight of them were females and 22 were males. Of the second group, four learners were coloured and six were black.

She would report back to the Committee on the question around the different skills programmes.

Ms Mbono responded to Mr Bryant’s question on cleaner energy and his suggestion on hydroelectric or offshore wind energy. She said those suggestions were not being prioritised because, at the time when the study had been conducted, it showed that those that had been prioritised had the most potential to create the most jobs. Renewable energy, desalination and those sub-sectors contained in slide 33 were part of phase one of Oceans master plan. The following phase would undergo a similar process for the prioritised sectors.

She acknowledged that apprenticeships were well below target due to the fact that some of the industries did not see an investment return, or did not meet certain requirements for funding. For instance, the shipbuilding project, did not have much volume. However, when there were jobs, those jobs would span from two to four years. She would consult with SAIMI and revert on the number of jobs derived from those apprenticeships.

She explained the lack of berths to the Committee. The expectation had been that there could be more berths on the privately-owned vessels, but some of the shipping lines that used to recruit South African seafarers and provide training berths deliberately no longer employed seafarers on their vessels. The one way to go forward would be if it could get more commercial ships to display South African flags. Having ships that were locally owned would change the dynamic. The Department was working on a solution, as its Oceans Economy working group was working with industry to come up with initiatives and improve its ratings.

Ms Mbono confirmed that the vessel tracking system was operational.

She asked to be allowed to provide answers to the following questions to the Committee in writing:

• The expensive cost for seafarers' training. They would apply their minds to respond with a holistic answer;
• Key Performance Indicators, and the extent of the achievements of Operation Phakisa. She stressed that this was dependent on the various implementing agencies;
• The satellite issue;
• How often the Department evaluates the performance of Operation Phakisa. She pointed out that it was the job of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) to do this evaluation every five years, and it was currently busy with the latest one through interviewing different implementing agencies.

Ms Mokgohloa responded to the question raised by Mr Bryant and Mr Singh on Waste Operation Phakisa. Within the Phakisa space, the Department aimed to create an enabling environment through some of the policies which she had mentioned in the week before, to increase the intake of waste and to shape the view that waste was being seen as a resource.

On waste minimisation, the Department had done the exclusions work, mainly focusing on ash. The primary focus on ash was because of its huge volume which could deliver a desirable impact. She acknowledged that the sector had not done very well in terms of job creation. 1 112 jobs had been created, of which 829 were youth and 780 were women.

In terms of waste diversion, she reported that the biggest volume that had been diverted so far was ash amounting to 3.1 million tons, biomass amounting to 114.271 tons, and gypsum of 4.225 tons.

Ms Mokgohloa said waste separation at source was the responsibility of municipalities, which were working with the DFFE through policy formulation and guidance on waste separation. Further, industry was also being involved in taking responsibility by including their own recycling targets.  

She said the quality of products made from waste such as ash was being closely monitored. The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) were responsible for regulating those products. Waste management, such as the ash takers, were already making progress.

She reported that data from StatsSA showed that 11.7% of households in South Africa separated their waste at source. Municipalities such as the cities of Johannesburg, Cape Town and eThekwini had all adopted or were progressing to adopt, the separation of waste at source. 

Ms Mokgohloa said the DFFE was working closely with waste pickers in order to provide support. The Department had prioritised budget for recycling enterprises. Support was provided through programmes such as the distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE) and certain relief funds, in line with the COVID relief programme which was run by the Department of Small Business Department. Waste pickers were also eligible for the recycling enterprise programme. She believed that the extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations would provide further support for those selling recyclables, as producer organisations would compensate for the service those selling recyclables provided for collection. The timeframe for the completion of this was estimated to be by November 2022.

She said the e-waste levy had undergone slight changes due to policy changes and was now referred to as the EPR fee. As a levy would go through the South African Revenue Service (SARS), the change avoided this, and it was now operating on an industry-managed model. Industries collect the EPR fee and the collected fee would not go to the fiscus. There had already been a proposal on standardised EPR fees which had now been sent to the Department for approval. She was hopeful that it would be approved by the National Treasury in due course.

On refuse-derived fuel plants, the Department was working with Infrastructure South Africa, as its intention was to attract investment funding from the private sector. The feasibility study and business case had been done. The DFFE's intention was to let the private sector pioneer this project.

The forum in the presentation slides referred to the South African Coal Ash Association, which was a forum that had been in existence. The Department was trying to work with existing forums to enhance the implementation of this initiative.

Ms Mokgohloa reported that the Waste Economy master plan process was still in its early stage. So far, the Department had secured the support of the DTIC to facilitate the process. It was anticipated that the initial analysis would be done by the end of the current financial year. In the next financial year, the actual consultation and review would take place.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.