Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism 2006/7 Annual Report: briefing

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
21 November 2007
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS & TOURISM 2006/7 ANNUAL REPORT: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Rev P Moatshe (ANC, North West)

Documents handed out:
Overview of Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT’s) Performance for the 2006/7 Financial Year

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism briefed the Committee on its annual report, covering the achievements and challenges in the various programme. The Department’s audit report was unqualified and there were no matters of emphasis. The Department undertook to complete a risk assessment regularly to ensure compliance with legislation. It noted the spending of 99,9 % of the budget. Specific features of the Report discussed tourism and safety strategies, particularly around the 2010 World Cup, the need to ensure sustainable development, and the necessity for Environmental Impact Assessments to ensure that there was continued access to and good quality of water in the country. The provisions of the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill were briefly outlined.

Members complained that the Audit Report supplied broad policy statements but no specific details of what the Department achieved, and was too generic to enable Members to do specific follow up and oversight in their own provinces.  A number of concerns were raised that the Environmental Impact Assessments were blocking development, specifically with regard to housing, and questions were asked around who was responsible, why there was a necessity to involve private consultants, whether municipalities, provinces or national departments bore responsibility, and the changes envisaged by the proposed legislation.

Further questions were asked on why the Annual Report had made no mention of the State of the Nation address, the lack of reporting on statutory bodies, the correlation of strategic objectives,  support given by the Department to the provinces, the grading procedures and what was included in the number of rooms, security issues, the need for a further briefing on the second economy strategy and the challenges facing marine stocks, the need for interdepartmental discussions with the South African National Roads Agency, aquaculture issues, and the environmental management inspectors, and their safety. The Department was asked to give answers to some of the questions in writing.

MINUTES
Introductory remarks
Delegates from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) present at the meeting were introduced as Ms Nosipho Jezile, Chief Operating Officer (COO), Dr Johann Augustyn , Chief Director: Research, Antarctica, and Islands (CD), Mr Ralph Ackerman, Director of Financial Management (FM), and Mr Peter Lukey, Chief Director, Air quality management and Climate Change.

Ms Nosipho Jezile apologised for the absence of the Director-General (DG) of the Department, who could not getting a flight to Cape Town.

Mr C van Rooyen (ANC, Free State) objected to the absence of the Director General. This had happened before, and he felt that this Committee was being treated shabbily in Parliament. To demonstrate his point he noted that the Department’s website featured the Portfolio Committee, but the Select Committee was nowhere mentioned on it.

The Chairperson agreed with him. He said that the Committee wanted to co-operate with the Department, but if the Department did not do the same then that would strain their relationship. There seemed to be a total disregard of the Select Committee. He thought that they had had a good relationship in the past but it seemed to be deteriorating. This was a serious concern. The two committees should be treated the same.

The COO replied that the intention was not to undermine the Committee. She said that she was not aware of what was on the website but would immediately attend to correcting it. It was true that the DG was not present the previous year, as she was overseas. The COO suggested a meeting with the DG and Minister might be in order to discuss this issue. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) Annual Report Briefing  
Ms Jezile then briefed the Committee, tabling a presentation document and noting that it detailed results for the 2007 financial year.

She discussed DEAT’s performance in the six programmes. These programmes were tourism, marine coastal management, biodiversity and conservation, environmental quality and protection, international co-operation and resources, and administration.

The main challenge in tourism was that local tourism remained biased towards the Western Cape, KZN, Gauteng, and Mpumalanga, and had not expanded to other provinces such as Eastern Cape, and Northern Cape. It was not easy to attract the private sector to places where the Department wanted to grow tourism. However, DEAT had achieved the conducting of welcome training for ports of entry officials, who were now interacting favourably with visitors and tourists. The number of graded rooms in the country was at 87281 and should rise. In terms of the agreements for 2010 World Cup, DEAT had already considered non-hotel rooms for accommodation, as long as these were graded. However, a further challenge was that many establishments, particularly small, micro and medium enterprises (SMMEs) allowed their graded status to lapse after one year. Grading was still voluntary and owners of products had to be willing to participate and incur costs.

The tourism industry had adopted a tourism safety and security strategy and implementation plan, which was now being used by various provinces as a framework. Safety and security forums were established in five provinces, and safety tips and pamphlets were distributed to all provinces. Although safety and security were the responsibility of another Department, DEAT still had to ensure that tourists felt comfortable and safe, and had taken steps such as call centres to report incidents.

DEAT had accomplished improvements on visas, cutting down the time taken for a South African visa for India and China. DEAT was attempting to maintain a balance between tourism growth and security requirements.

Under Programme 2, Marine coastal management, achievements were listed as rights allocation, improved regulatory environment, scientific research completed, and improved monitoring and compliance. There had also been full implementation of the new financial system. About R106 million was recovered from the industry for services rendered, an improvement on non-payment of levies in the past. There had been continuing challenges with regard to the depletion of marine stocks. The Minister had to close abalone fishing. In certain areas, there was still poor industry compliance.

Under Programme 3, Biodiversity and Conservation, regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act on threatened or protected species were gazetted. This included the list of threatened and protected species. The Department also developed a draft National Biodiversity framework.  There had been positive results in respect of conservation and sustainability, as well as expansion of protected areas. A total of six genetically modified organisms (GMO) were assessed and recommended.

Richertsveld was declared as a world heritage site. They went through an internationally acclaimed process to accomplish this. In addition, DEAT was involved in trans-boundary conservation. In this regard, the United Nations praised a joint initiative between Angola, Namibia, and South Africa as the flagship of international waters programme (the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem).

Under Programme 4, Environmental quality and protection, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) came into effect on 1 July 2006. Also, the Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Amendment Bill was published for public comment. NEMA sought to align and ensure an effective system on EIA management. The EIA was not a sensitive tool, and the NEMA Bill was seeking to amend that and better align procedures. The backlog with EIA applications was reduced from 5300 down to 3200. During the audit DEAT had looked at capacity issues as they were concerned that EIA was blocking development, with all the procedures that had to be followed. There has been provincial training on the new EIA regulations and DEAT had developed and started implementation of an electronic EIA reporting and tracking system. It had also developed compliance with environmental management systems.

The Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) or the “Green Scorpions” had been involved in capacity building. They had been given specialised training in Forensics and rolled out the EMI brand countrywide. The NEMA Amendment Bill was expanding the mandate of EMIs to the Environment Conservation Act (ECA), and Air Pollution Prevention Act (APPA).

Under the programme for Administration, the Department participated in the negotiation of South Africa’s position in various key global engagements. Notably, the Department had undertaken negotiations around the sale of ivory, seeking a moratorium. The Department was in the process of developing a balanced scorecard based performance management system. It had improved service delivery. A forum with NGOs met twice a year, chaired by the Director-General. The Department also completed its Master Systems Plan, which was aimed at improvement and automation of DEAT’s internal and external business process. It had reduced the vacancy rate from 30,9% to 25%. There was reduction of staff turnover, down to 15%. The main challenge was that senior managers were leaving the Department and the Department had to compete with the private sector. It seemed that the private sector viewed the Department as the main training ground for environmental professionals.

Mr Ackerman noted that the Department’s audit report was unqualified by the Auditor General and there were no matters of emphasis. The Department had undertaken to do a risk assessment regularly to ensure compliance with legislation.

Ms Jezile noted that 99,9 % of the Department’s budget was spent.

Discussion
Mr van Rooyen congratulated the Department on its unqualified audit report. However, he complained about the technical quality of the Annual Report, saying it was difficult to read in terms of strategic objectives, output, and budget. He said the difference between plans and performance was not clearly documented. It supplied broad policy statements but no specific details of what had been achieved, and he cited various examples. He pointed out that there was no reference to the state of the nation address by the President, which was very important.  Statutory bodies were mentioned in the report but their effectiveness could not be seen.  Although these bodies may have their own Annual Reports, they still had to be reflected in this Report as the Department gave them money.

Mr van Rooyen added that there were also some contradictions between the presentation and the Annual Report but because of time constraints he could not go into details now, and said he would submit questions to which the Department should supply written answers.

Ms Jezile noted that the comments on strategic objectives had to be corrected on the next Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE), and not on the Annual Report. The Department worked on that with National Treasury and Treasury gave them the format. It was also submitted to MinMEC. Treasury would have to change that format and DEAT was currently discussing this issue with them. Treasury provided this format to Departments.

Ms Jezile noted that the Department always tried to improve things and some information was not easy to capture. In this regard a performance management system was being developed that would give a balance scorecard.

Ms Jezile reported that all the relevant statutory bodies submitted their audit reports on time, but it was quite correct that the oversight function was not recorded in the Annual Report. The Department could correct this, or the bodies could account to Parliament themselves.

Mr R Tau (ANC, Northern Cape) said that the Committee was not suggesting that the Department must not listen to Treasury. However, the Select Committee Members wanted to know what was happening in their provinces. The Annual Report was too generic if Members wanted to do follow-up and oversight in respect of their provinces. He also wanted to know to what extent DEAT was supporting the provinces.

Mr van Rooyen said that he could not accept that the Annual Report format was cast in stone. It must refer to the State of the Nation address. He suggested that the Department look again at how it was put together.

Ms B Dlulane (ANC, Eastern Cape) referred to the Department’s statement in respect of their achievements in tourism, specifically referring to the grading of 87 281 rooms in the country. She asked if the Kruger National Park was included in this figure.

Ms Jezile replied that it included all Parks, as all National Parks went through the grading system.

Ms Dlulane said she was worried about tourism safety issues for 2010, as only five provinces were covered by safety budgeting during this time. She asked what would happen if the Department of Safety and Security did not provide security.

Ms Jezile replied that this was not a function of DEAT. There had been complaints that there was insufficient money given by the provinces to fulfil the function, and some MECs were not willing to fund safety specifically for tourists under the tourism budgets. The Western Cape provincial budget had provided for this function.

Ms Dlulane asked the Department to detail further the issue of small and medium enterprises’ support and to clarify what the presentation had meant in relation to the development of a tourism second economy strategy. 

Ms Jezile replied that she could arrange a briefing on how this worked.

Ms Dlulane asked if DEAT could explain the reasons for challenges faced regarding marine stocks. She was worried about the abalone, and were also worried about the statements made by the Minister, which people had apparently questioned and challenged.

Ms Jezile replied that Dr Augustyn could respond further on this issue.

Ms Dlulane commented that in the Eastern Cape the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was a challenge in that it blocked development. This was especially so in Port Elizabeth, regarding housing. She said that the EIAs could be very problematic, and asked what could be done. Where EIAs were blocking development in various municipalities she asked whether this was the Department’s problem or the province’s problem.

The Chairperson also noted concerns on the issue of the EIA, agreeing that it was posing problems. He noted that 5300 applications were made but only 3200 were complied with.

The Chairperson noted that when the EIA had to be done people had to go to private consultants. This was a very expensive exercise for what was essentially only paperwork, and was of concern to him. He also wanted to know which applications were dealt with by provinces, and which were dealt with on a national level. Specifically, he asked if only a consultant must submit an application. He cited an example of someone who had to pay R20 000 for a gravesite alone, and this cost related only to the paperwork.

Ms Jezile noted that the number of applications completed as mentioned in the presentation related to the figures from the 2006/07 financial year. She could provide the current financial year’s statistics. There had been a drastic improvement since last year.

Mr Peter Lukey added that DEAT was still dealing with backlogs but the figures had improved.

Ms Jezile noted that the new EIA regulations allowed DEAT to do broad planning with the provinces. However, the EIA was based on matters being done by an independent consultant. The consultant, in the case cited by the Chairperson, would have to determine if this grave would contaminate water and cause problems for society generally. It was necessary, for this reason, to use a specialist who was independent. She said the Committee could debate such matters further if they had not been considered previously when doing the amendments.

Mr Lukey confirmed that the assessment had to be independent. This was to ensure impartiality and to get a fair result. However, the Department wanted to provide support to pay for a consultant if the assessment was needed from a poor developer.

Mr Lukey noted that South Africa’s rivers, wetlands, and bio-diversity were not improving. DEAT had to ensure that South Africa would not lose its rivers, which essentially meant a loss of water, and a loss of life. This was the reason for the Environmental Impact Assessment. It was the only way to ensure sustainable development and was a vital tool in the process. Naturally, if the EIAs were taken to extremes, this would result in bureaucracy gone wild. The new changes proposed in the new legislation dealt with this. If there was a minor matter, there were special provisions, and these could be seen from the time of the first application. He emphasised that the EIA should not be used as a scapegoat for lack of development. The real causes lay elsewhere.

Mr Lukey responded that only 0,5% of EIAs were done at national level, and the national level would handle around 35 large assessments per year. The provincial authority did the bulk, estimated at around 500 per year. He added that the provincial authority did set up the system autonomously.

Mr Tau said that South African National Roads Agency had commented that they could not build shoulders on a particular road because of EIAs. This made the road dangerous, especially when it rained. He added that he personally had had a scary experience on that road. In this regard he said that there should be an investigation of interdepartmental issues.

Mr F Adams (ANC, Western Cape) asked about aquaculture to address the depletion of marine resources. He said the Committee raised this issue in the past but the Department brushed it off. He asked if this was a problem that could have been foreseen. Previously they shifted the problem around to other departments such as Department of Water Affairs, but now they were taking the lead. He asked why there was a sudden about-turn.

Ms Jezile replied that DEAT was investigating the prospect of aquaculture. The problem was that it was not a clear function of DEAT. Investing in aquaculture was done early in 2003. This was donor-funded and undertaken by universities. It was still unclear what DEAT’s role was. A draft policy came out last year. In June there was a workshop in Port Alfred with all fishing communities. A researcher also came and reported on countries such as Norway in terms of trends and problems in the industry. She said DEAT would be making a briefing to the Committee on what was in the aquaculture policy, as well as the dangers, which may be present, such as the spread of diseases and possible pollution. She said that she could not answer this in terms of the Annual Report.

Mr Adams referred to the “green scorpions” who patrolled fisheries. He had heard that for one incident they had been forced to borrow a boat. In this regard he noted a concern about funding for their operations. He also asked about the green scorpions possibly carrying firearms to protect themselves if they found themselves in a dangerous situation.

Mr Lukey replied that the green scorpions were going from strength to strength. The results were impressive. They had taken on industrial giants. This progress would be seen in next year’s report.

On the question of firearms, Mr Lukey noted that firearm training was very specialised. Giving firearms would open them to a potentially violent response. The Parks Board officials, for example, did carry firearms but they received weapons training. The EMIs did not have firearms so as not to endanger them. If they perceived a threat then they must approach the South African Police Service (SAPS) and go with them to deal with the situation.
 
The Chairperson noted that it was not possible to deal with every question and asked that written responses be sent for those questions that could not be addressed in this session. He also noted that the EIA had serious implications and the Committee would come back to that issue.

Adoption of minutes
The Committee adopted the Minutes of its meetings on 23 October, 25 October, and 6 November.

The Chairperson thanked the members for their co-operation for the year.

The meeting was adjourned.