6th Parliament Committee Legacy Report

Meeting report

6^th Parliament Committee Legacy Report

Mr Nhlanhla Ginindza, Committee Researcher, presented a review of the activities and progress of the Portfolio Committee on Forestry, Fisheries, and Environment during the 6th Parliament (2019-2024). His presentation aimed to summarise the Committee's achievements and challenges, and provide recommendations for the incoming 7th Parliament. The primary purpose of the report was to evaluate the work done by the Committee in the past parliamentary term, identifying key issues for the new Parliament to address concerning the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE).

Mr Ginindza outlined the Committee’s mandate, which included reviewing and amending relevant legislation, holding public meetings for stakeholder input on environmental topics, considering international agreements, monitoring the performance of the DFFE and its entities, and ensuring adherence to policies and legislation.

He provided an overview of the departments and entities under the DFFE. The DFFE, a key regulatory player, focused on sustainable development through the management of forestry, fisheries, biodiversity, the circular economy, and environmental programmes. Entities such as the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority, the South African National Biodiversity Institute, South African National Parks, the South African Weather Service and the Marine Living Resources Fund, were highlighted for their roles in conservation, research, ecotourism and environmental services.

The achievements of the DFFE during the 6th Parliament included the development of the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity, ratification of international agreements, and alignment with the National Development Plan (NDP) for economic transformation and job creation. Significant programmes and master plans were established for various sectors, including wildlife, biodiversity, the circular economy, fisheries and forestry. Despite these accomplishments, the Department faced challenges such as budget constraints, climate change impacts, air pollution, land degradation, and delayed fishing rights allocations.

Mr Ginindza also detailed the Committee's focus areas from 2019 to 2024, which included improving departmental efficiency and economic contributions amidst budget cuts, protecting ecosystems, managing climate change and disasters, and enhancing waste management. Legislative engagements involved finalising key amendment bills and overseeing compliance with international environmental treaties. Emerging challenges, such as the need for improved public participation and clarity on climate change oversight, were also outlined.

He recounted several oversight trips conducted by the Committee, highlighting issues such as mismanagement at Hout Bay Harbour, financial and infrastructural challenges at iSimangaliso Wetland Park, pollution concerns at the Engen Refinery in Durban, and socio-economic factors influencing poaching in the Kruger National Park.

His presentation concluded with general Committee challenges, including limited funds for oversight visits, unfulfilled Committee-driven projects, unfinalised petitions, vacancies in research and advisory roles, and difficulties in securing joint committee briefings and visits. The impacts of climate change, air pollution and biodiversity threats were noted as ongoing concerns that exacerbated existing environmental and societal issues.

Finally, Mr Ginindza presented a set of outstanding issues and recommendations for the 7th Parliament. These included:

• Ensuring compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA);
• Providing detailed briefings on the national freshwater wild capture fisheries policy;
• Renewing interdepartmental cooperation for a unified environmental system;
• Resolving issues with wildlife beneficiation schemes;
• Reinstating "green courts" to combat wildlife crimes;
• Implementing the Climate Change Act, and
• Ensuring effective oversight and management plans for protected areas.

Emphasis was placed on public participation, disaster preparedness, stakeholder engagement, and collaboration with legislatures and councils to improve governance and environmental sustainability.

See attached for further details

Discussion

Ms R Nalumango (ANC) referred to the performance of the Department, and wanted to find out the kind of consequence management it had concerning the supply chain and the irregular reward that the Department was given. She wanted to know if the officials were held accountable for this.

Did the annual report come with the management report so that the Committee could understand the plans laid down by the Department, so it would be easier to know if set targets had been met?

Regarding the budget cuts, she said it was noticeable that the Department borrowed quite a substantial amount of money. What was being done to ensure that it could generate money to eliminate borrowing, thus ensuring its sustainability?

Ms Nalumango raised concern about the number of vacancies that were not filled in the DFFE, especially the critical vacancies. She wanted to know the specific crucial roles that had not been filled, and if those positions were funded.

She wanted to know if there were plans in place to decentralise the small-scale fishing sector outside of Cape Town. How far was the Department in terms of those plans?

What was the Department doing to force local municipalities to ensure that they capacitated themselves to address air pollution issues?

Regarding the reinstatement of "green courts," she asked for emphasis to be placed on this to ensure it was achieved.

Mr W Peach (DA) said most of his questions were already covered by Ms Nalumango, especially on the fiscal shortcomings of the Department. He indicated his interest in the report of the Auditor-General (AG) and the remedial actions. He was interested in policing, as it sounded as if the Committee had a regulatory function but lacked the ability to enforce and police the legislation and regulations. This was a great concern. It was important to get an understanding of some of the failures and challenges faced by the Department concerning enforcement and policing. He also wanted to understand the South African Navy's role, or its possible assistance in this regard.

He wanted to know what the Committee’s proposals were to mitigate some of the issues identified in the report, especially emerging issues identified from the oversight trips. He added that it would be important to ensure that there was more public participation in the processes of the Department, and the Committee had a role to play in that.

Dr L Managa (EFF) commended the team for the detailed report, which provided a good understanding of what had happened in the previous administration. Concerning the oversight visits, it was understandable that from 2019 to 2021, COVID-19 had affected oversight trips, so the total number of oversight trips undertaken was not impressive. She therefore reminded the Committee that its core mandate including lawmaking, public participation and oversight, and if oversight was not being done well, it would seem as though the mandate had been forgotten. She therefore suggested that in the 7^th administration, ensuring oversight visits and public participation took priority would be important.

Regarding the fishing rights, the presentation indicated that it took three days to process a fishing licence. She therefore wanted to know how many people were on the list to get a fishing licence. This was because many people complained that they had applied for the licence, but had not heard anything from the Department.

Ms N Gasa (MK) indicated that aquaculture was a fast-growing sector, but South Africa was being left behind. This was mainly because of various challenges, including the fact that entrepreneurs in the sector were not well supported in terms of skills. Another issue that arose was the issue of land, water and infrastructure. Were there any systems in place to ensure the upskilling of entrepreneurs, including financing them?

She said that there was a lack of waste collection and disposal infrastructure in rural areas, including townships. This resulted in serious environmental issues, including littering and illegal dumping. Although some communities were trying to recycle the waste, she suggested that it would also help to have awareness campaigns on this issue. This would also be a good time to engage with the public to understand the challenges that they were faced with.

Mr S Mkhize (MK) wanted to know what was being done by the Department to ensure that the South African Weather Service (SAWS) had modern and well-equipped infrastructure.

Regarding the delayed fishing rights allocation, what was the Department doing to upgrade its systems concerning issuing these rights?

The Department had put in place means to combat the poaching and trade in endangered plants and animals. How did communities benefit from the interventions the Department had put in place?

Ms N Makasi (ANC) referred to the bursaries offered by the Department, and asked if it ensured that those who had been offered these bursaries had work placements within the Department.

Regarding the issue of weed removal and the challenges around monitoring that process, was there a plan in place to ensure that the monitoring of the weed removal process was fulfilled?

Was the Department able to implement the programmes that had to be cut out because of the budget cuts?

Mr A de Blocq van Scheltinga (DA) recommended that the Committee take the opportunity to read section 12 of the recommendations and the key focus areas, as some items that were not covered in the presentation had been detailed there.

The Chairperson recommended that the Members' questions be consolidated, and said the Department would have to appear before the Committee to respond to them in the next term.

She added that the issue of waste management was important and the education of communities about it was key. This was something that must be practised at home, where people would learn about waste separation. In this way, the challenges of waste management in the communities would be managed better.

Referring to the Engen refinery, she suggested an oversight trip so that Members of the Committee could witness what had happened there. This was because the pollution that happened there was painful to see and shocking. There was also a school close to the refinery, as the area was a designated residential area.

Responses

Mr Ginindza said that some of the questions raised by the Members of the Committee would have to be answered by the Department. He urged the Members that when reading the report that had been circulated, they should highlight those key issues that they think should be included in the programmes of the Committee. Some issues would arise as the work of the Committee continued. However, the Committee should be aware that some issues were beyond its control, as they were high-level decision issues which had to be addressed by the Department.

Regarding consequence management, as far as the report of the Auditor-General (AG) was concerned, including the management report, this was an issue that the Department would address. However, what happened was that the management reports were also linked to the plan that the Department had put in place to respond to the findings of the AG. The Committee would come in to monitor the progress in implementing the concerns raised by the AG.

An experiment had been conducted on the decentralisation of the services of the Department, particularly the fisheries. There was a satellite office in Lambert’s Bay and East London, but the problem that had come up was that communities would go there expecting the full service of the Department, only to find that they did not have the full services available. Whether this was a meaningful decentralisation or not, this was something that the Department would respond to when appearing before the Committee.

The issue of the Department assisting municipalities in dealing with climate change, such as helping with plans, drafting, and applying for funds, has been addressed at a high level. However, at the end of the day, there was still pollution as there was no infrastructure. This was because setting up plans did not necessarily translate to service delivery. It would be great for the Department to focus on these plans, including their intended outcomes, to ensure that they were implemented. The Department would also respond to this when appearing before the Committee.

On the issue of law enforcement, although systems had been put in place, there were no uniform systems for all. For example, one would find that Cape Town had systems different from those in eThekwini. This difference was widely noticeable in inland municipalities with limited resources. These inconsistencies made it hard to ensure law enforcement in the fishery industry. This was one of the areas that the Committee should raise with the Department to ensure uniformity and consistency in implementing its policies.

Responding on fishing rights, Mr Ginindza clarified that the paperwork was different -- there was a fishing right, a fishing permit, and a fishing licence. One needed a fishing right to get authorisation to participate in the fishing sector, particularly for commercial fishing purposes. Fishing rights did not authorise one to start fishing immediately, as one was required to have a fishing permit, which had to be applied for every year. The permit sets out the limitations of fishing, including the number of people who can fish. The fishing licence mainly focuses on the vessel or equipment used for fishing, including the condition of the fishing equipment. The fishing right could not be exercised without the fishing permit. He indicated this process could be digitised to ensure a quicker turnaround rate. However, there was a limit to the number of people that could be allowed to fish at the same time.

The meeting was adjourned.