Questions and Replies

Reply:

(1) I am aware the of the complaints related to the Shongweni landfill site, and the health related aspects have been brought to my attention.

(a) The Green Scorpions findings relate to breaches in terms of the conditions of the Waste Management Licence. These findings were reported to the Chemicals and Waste Management that subsequently decided, on 02 February 2017, to issue a notice of intention to suspend and/or revoke the Waste Management Licence.

(b) EnviroServ provided an initial response to this notice of intention on 09 February 2017. Further representations have been received from Enviroserv, as well as representatives of the community and members of the community. In line with the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, EnviroServ had a final opportunity to make representations to the officials at Chemical and Waste Management on/before 27 March 2017.

(c) EnviroServ will be held accountable for any health related impacts that the community are experiencing as a result of the impacts from this site. As honourable Member should know, the process of determining negative impact caused by such, do take particular procedures prescribed by law and regulator.

(2) The decision whether or not to close and rehabilitate the site will be made by the Department as part of the decision making process related to whether or not to suspend and/or revoke the Waste Management Licence after evaluation of the representations made.

(3) (a) The Department envisions all landfill sites, not just Shongweni, operating in a manner that does not pose a risk or a nuisance to any of the people that reside in the vicinity of landfills or impact negatively on the environment.

(b) The matter was raised and dicussed with community members, and all the members of the Enviornmental Monitoring Commitee are aware of the matter. Several meetings have been held in this regard.

(c) Lime on its own will not resolve the issue. A combination of treatment and physical construction interventions will be required to resolve the problem.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a) No.

    b) No.

2. (a) No

     (i) No.

     (ii) No.

(aa) No items purchased.

(bb) Not applicable.

(b) No

    (iii) No.

     (iv) No.

(aa) No items purchased.

(bb) Not applicable.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a)

(i) In 2015 a total of nine rhinos (8 white and 1 black) were sent to rhino orphanages outside the Kruger National Park. Six of the white rhino calves and 1 black rhino calf are currently still alive.

(ii) In 2016 a total of 21 white rhino orphans were rescued in 2016 of which 19 are still alive.

(b) The rhino orphans are currently kept at rhino holding facilities in the Kruger National Park and an external rhino rehabilitation centre.

(c) We cannot share locations of these rhino holding facilities for security reasons.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) The Department multiplies the number of lion hunts by the average price for a lion.

(b) Yes. The number of hunts are derived from professional hunting registers that have to be completed by the professional hunter subsequent to each hunt, and submitted to the relevant provincial conservation authority. The average price for a lion is obtained from the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa that updates this information on an annual basis. The Department consolidates reports from provincial conservation departments relating to trophy hunting on an annual basis.

(c) This will vary between provinces. Provincial conservation departments determine whether a species fee is charged for a lion hunt based on their legal requirements and provincial treasury approval processes.

(d) Public benefits include income tax paid by beneficiaries in the sector; the creation of hunting opportunities for members of the public interested in hunting lion; job opportunities in rural areas where lion hunting takes place; value-added multipliers in terms of associated industries (taxidermy, fire-arms and ammunition, accommodation and tourism opportunities to name a few) that creates economic opportunities; and the use of the income generated through hunting to manage the habitat and area where lion occur, addressing one of the main threats to lions, namely habitat loss.

(e) The Department does not have information relating to the job creation due to lion hunting. It does, however, have information relating to the jobs created by the lion captive breeding industry, and since the majority of lions hunted in South Africa originate from captive breeding facilities, the information is relevant. Based on a study commissioned by the Department and conducted by the University of Free State in 2009, it was concluded that a total of 379 full time job opportunities (direct (225), indirect (49) and induced (105)) are created by the captive lion breeding industry. A recent study conducted by Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society of the North-West University, regarding the economic significance of the private lion industry in South Africa; found that the lion farmers that participated in the study employ 369 people. The study concluded that an average farmer sustain 4 employees in the economy, and the extrapolated (number of farms 297) total number of 1 680 jobs are sustained in the economy due to lion breeding. This is mainly in rural provinces such as Free State and North West Provinces.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) No private security company is employed by the Department of Environmental Affairs for anti-poaching purposes.

(b) (i) and (ii) Within SANParks, no private company is employed for anti-poaching purposes. The internal capability that was established over the past few years, complemented by the support from the government security agencies, is sufficient to provide the specialist nature of operations in the mission area. It also ensures the command and control required to conduct such operations.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) and (b)

Yes, an Integrity Testing Policy for the management of the integrity of officials and Standard Operating Procedures guide the implementation of the monitoring of the integrity of officials. The policy accounts for labour relations as well as law enforcement requirements. The guideline includes processes for scheduled as well as ad hoc assessments, with the appropriate follow-ups as required by investigations and subsequent decisions on how to handle individual cases.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. It is applicable to both privately owned rhino horn stocks as well as government owned stocks.

2. Yes, the proposed regulations also apply to government-owned stock. The same requirements that apply to private rhino horn owners who intend to sell their rhino horns, will also apply to organs of state who have rhino horn and intend to sell the horn, e.g.:

• Proof of legal acquisition must be proven by means of a possession permit;
• Each horn must be marked by means of both a microchip and a ZA-serial number;
• A genetic profiling report for each rhino horn must be available;
• The detail of each rhino horn must be recorded on the national database and must be verified;
• The relevant organ of state must be in possession of a selling permit, issued in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), in order to sell its rhino horns, and it may only sell the rhino horns to a person who is in possession of a purchasing permit issued in terms of NEMBA; and
• Organs of state may not intentionally shave or powder its rhino horns, or cause powder, shavings, drill bits, slivers etc. to form, except in the circumstances specified in the proposed prohibition Notice (Notice No. 77).

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a), (b), (c) and (d)

High Cost Increase

		2016/17 R’000	2017/18 R’000	Reason for Increased allocation
A	Computer Services	29 447	67 010	The allocation for computer services were corrected over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework as the allocation for the 2016/17 financial year was too low (R29.447m). 2015/16 financial year audited figure was at R75.549m. Therefore the increased allocation is expected to cover the cost for data lines, servers for the main offices in Pretoria and Cape Town and Regional Offices for the Expanded Public Works Projects projects, as well as enforcement at the OR Thambo.
B	Consultants	215 311	207 521	The services under consultants include Communication, Research and Project Management consultants in the specialised fields of Oceans and Research, Biodiversity and Conservation, Climate Change and Air Quality, Strategic Infrastructure Projects, Internal Auditors. National Treasury implemented reduction in compensation of employee’s allocations, resulting in not filling posts that are becoming vacant. The additional allocation received with regards to the Waste Tyre projects was also allocated under this line.
C	Travel	155 145	154 700	The travel allocation were cut from 2016/17 due to the implementation of cost containment measures. Travel include domestic travel to cover inspections in compliance, enforcement, and 750 Expanded Public Works Projects. They also include foreign travel to attend environmental, heritage, climate change, biodiversity and protected areas forums and platforms.
D	Venue	33 575	44 965	Venues and facilities allocation was corrected to cover the cost for venues to host the World Oceans Day, World Wetlands Day, Environmental month, Waste Khoro, Waste Phakisa Labs, National Parks Congress, as well as Oceans Economy Labs.

2. (a) and (b)

Cost-effective options

Cost containment measures were considered in line with National Treasury cost containment instruction received.

3. Why rely on the services of Consultants

The expertise and capacity does not exist in-house to undertake some of the complex work done in the Department. The Department attempted to attract and retain these type of expertise in the past, but failed due to lower salaries paid to civil servants. Such services under consultants include Research and Project Management consultants in the specialised fields of Oceans and Research, Biodiversity and Conservation, Climate Change and Air Quality, Strategic Infrastructure Projects, as well as Internal Auditors. National Treasury implemented reduction in compensation of employee’s allocations, resulting in not filling posts becoming vacant. The additional allocation received with regards to the Waste Tyre projects were also allocated under this line.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a, b, c, d, and e)

No payments were made to (a) Mr Mzwanele Manyi, (b) the Progressive Professionals Forum, (c) the Decolonisation Fund and/or (d) the Black Business Council due to no services being requested from, or rendered by them.

(i, ii, iii, iv and v)

Not applicable.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(1)

(a) The draft regulations propose that a person may export only two rhino horns for personal purposes. The intention was that two horns would be the total allowed as a once-off export provided an import permit is obtained and the importing country has legislation in place to ensure compliance with the Convention. This aspect will however be finalised after the closing date for the submission of comments, and will depend on the nature of comments received.

(b) The possession and trade in rhino horn requires that permits and various checks are build into the permit system to address concerns relating to fraud and forgery, including the DNA profiling and marking of each horn. To ensure uniformity and strict control the Minister of Environmental Affairs proposed to the Members of Executive Council (MECs) responsible for the environment that the issuance of these permits take place at a national level, with the Minister as the issuing authority. This option is possible in terms of section 87A(3) of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004), and with the written agreement of the MECs responsible for the conservation of biodiversity in the respective provinces. This is proposed as a mechanism is intended to reduce a number of authorisation and therefore be able to curb any potential gap in the system.

(2)

(a) and (b)(i) No.

An application for a permit will not trigger a criminal investigation unless there is information linked to the application that raises the reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. A query, however, will be made in relation to such applications to determine whether the parties involved in the application fall foul of section 92A of the NEMBA which enables the issuing authority to refuse a permit in the following circumstances:

• If the carrying out of the restricted activity is likely to have a negative impact on the survival of the listed threatened or protected species;
• if the applicant has been convicted of an offence in terms of this Act; or
• in accordance with a ground for refusal contemplated in any regulation.

However, criminal investigations may be conducted by both the Environmental Management Inspectors and members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in the event that there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed within South Africa related to failure to comply with biodiversity-related legislation which would include these regulations once they are finalised and promulgated.

In relation to international investigations, the South African authorities do not have mandate to conduct criminal investigations outside of South Africa; however, where a criminal investigation may have been initiated either in South Africa or in another country based on reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed, the authorities have mechanisms to share information and co-operate, for example, through International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).

(b)(ii)

Where necessary, the CITES Management Authorities of importing countries can be requested to verify whether rhino horns that have been exported for personal purposes, are still in the possession of the persons who have imported the horns. If it is found not to be the case, South Africa may consider refusing export permits for persons from those countries (as has previously been done in respect of the refusal of rhino hunting permits in similar circumstances). If a person is found guilty within the Republic of South Africa of an offence in terms of NEMBA, for instance in respect of the domestic trade in rhino horn, a permit in this regard may be refused in terms of section 92A.

(3)

(a) No. Section 98(2) of NEMBA makes provision for the maximum penalties that may be imposed in terms of regulations, which is:

• imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years;
• a fine not exceeding R5 million, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding R10 million or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years or in both instances to both a fine and such imprisonment; or
• both a fine and such imprisonment.

However, a process involving the substantial amendment of NEMBA has been initiated which will include a proposed adjustment of the maximum penalties that may be imposed in terms of NEMBA for the carrying out of, among others, a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species without a permit.

The Department of Environmental Affairs has held previous engagements with representatives from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the legislative development section of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD) to discuss proposals for legislative amendments related to minimum sentences and bail proceedings for contraveners of biodiversity legislation. All of the role-players agreed that the current maximum penalty provided for in NEMBA of a fine not exceeding R10 million and/or imprisonment for a period exceeding 10 years is sufficiently high to obtain sentences that are in accordance with the gravity of these types of offences. In this respect, the NPA, SAPS, DOJ&CD and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) agreed that the ongoing sensitising of magistrates and prosecutors to the nature, extent and impacts of environmental crimes should continue as a key awareness-raising mechanism in supporting the handing down of appropriate sentences.

A critical initiative that did emanate from the above-mentioned discussion, was the bringing into effect of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act, 2015 (Act No. 18 of 2015) that included several new offences for which there is now a ‘reverse onus’ on the accused to show that they are entitled to bail. Of specific relevance for the illegal trade or export of rhino horn is the inclusion of specific offences in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (Chapter 2, 3, 4) into schedule 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), as these crimes are executed by criminal syndicates for which charges such as racketeering and money laundering would be appropriate. Where these charges are being investigated, the onus will be on the accused to demonstrate why s/he is entitled to bail, rather than the onus being on the State to show why the accused should not be released on bail.

(b) During the course of 2009 and 2010, the Department of Environmental Affairs collaborated with the Department of Water Affairs (DWA), as it was then known, and the DOJ&CD to undertake a feasibility study into the establishment of dedicated environmental courts. While the results of the study highlighted the highly complex legal and scientific considerations required in the proper investigation, prosecution and adjudication of these types of offences, the statistics showed that the volume of cases being handed down to the NPA for prosecution, at that particular time, did not warrant the establishment of a dedicated environmental court. Subsequent to this and based on the number of rhino related cases linked to the Kruger National Park, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has recently decided to open the Skukuza Regional Court with effect from 7 March 2017. In addition to the ongoing awareness-raising initiatives of the department in relation to magistrates and prosecutors, it has also recently presented a round of advanced training for Environmental Management Inspectors focusing on criminal investigation techniques and procedures.

(c) The department already works with those authorities handling enforcement in relation to corruption, fraud and forgery. Once these aspects are identified to be present in a particular matter, the department engages with the relevant SAPS units and refers the matter for further investigation by these authorities. NW486E

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a)In terms of Article III 3. (c) of the text of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) a Management Authority of the State of import can grant an import permit if it is satisfied that the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes. The permit issued then reflects that it’s for personal purposes. Further guidance on the interpretation of the term “primarily commercial purposes” is provided in a Resolution, i.e. Resolution Conf. 5.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Definition of ‘primarily commercial purposes’. The following strict provisions in the text of the Convention are important to note in this regard:

A CITES import permit must be issued first by the CITES Management Authority of the importing country (import permit is required before an export permit can be issued). Before an import permit can be issued:

a) a Scientific Authority of the country of import must have advised that the import of the rhino horn will be for purposes which are not detrimental to the survival of the species involved; and

b) the Management Authority of the country of import must be satisfied that the rhino horn is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.

When satisfied that such a CITES import permit has been issued, the exporting country (South Africa) can then issue an export permit in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), provided that:

c) a Scientific Authority of South Africa has advised that such export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species; and

d) the Management Authority of South Africa is satisfied that the rhino horn was not obtained in contravention of South Africa’s biodiversity legislation.

It should be noted that the above provisions are legally binding on all Parties to the Convention and non-compliance with provisions result in a Party being subjected to compliance procedures, which could lead to trade suspensions. These provisions are included in the provisions of the CITES Regulations promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No 10 of 2004) and the proposed regulations introduce further restrictions provided for in terms of Article XIV 1. (a) of the Convention that gives Parties the right to adopt stricter domestic measures.

(b) The draft regulations propose that, before a CITES export permit will be issued, the CITES Management Authority of the importing country must first confirm in writing that it has adequate domestic legislation in place to ensure that the rhino horn, once imported, will not be used in a manner that would be in conravention with the provisions of CITES as far as it relates to the importation of Appendix I specimens.

(c) Yes. A person is required to obtain a permit in terms of NEMBA to import or export a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species. These draft regulations pertaining to the domestic trade in rhino horns require that all export permits must be endorsed at the port of exit (this is already a requirement in terms of the CITES Regulations, 2010). The draft regulations further propose that rhino horns may only be exported via OR Tambo International Airport, and only by a freight agent who is authorised to do so in terms of an export permit. The endorsement of the permit at OR Tambo International Airport upon exportation of the rhino horn is the means to ensure that the freight agent is duly authorised to export the rhino horns. This restriction will ensure that all exports are directed through a specific process and will facilitate monitoring and enforcement without disrupting detection activities at OR Tambo and all other ports of entry and exit.

(d) Yes. Black rhino is listed as an endangered species in terms of section 56 of NEMBA, and white rhino is listed as a protected species and therefore permits area required in terms of section 57 of NEMBA to carry out restricted activities (including export) involving rhino specimens. The procedure to obtain permits in terms of NEMBA, is prescribed in the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, 2007; this procedure also applies for the application of a permit to export rhino horn. Freight agents must follow this procedure to submit their applications for the exportation of rhino horn to the relevant issuing authority. The latter is determined in terms of section 87A of NEMBA.

2. (a)Yes. The NEMBA does not prevent a person who is not a citizen of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) or a permanent resident within the RSA, to own a live rhino, provided that such a person has a permit issued in terms of NEMBA, for the possession of live rhino. However, to obtain a possession permit, such person must prove legal acquisition of the live rhino; e.g. provide a copy of a permit to purchase/ receive live rhino.

(b) Yes. A person referred to in Paragraph (2)(a) will be legally in possession of a dead rhino, if the live rhino he/ she has purchased/ received legally, dies, whether the mortality is due to natural causes or as a result of poaching.

3. (a)The provisions of CITES do not impose a restriction as to who may export rhino horn, provided that the appropriate permit procedure referred to in Paragraph (1)(a) is followed. The draft regulations do not intend to impose a restriction in this regard, and clarifies that persons who are not citizens of the Republic of South Africa or permanent residents within the RSA, and who legally own rhino or who have obtained rhino horn legally within the RSA, may also export rhino horn, provided that the CITES provisions referred to above and the requirements contained in the draft regulations are met.

(b)& (c) The need for a CITES import or export permit is not a new requirement in terms of these draft regulations; this permit requirement has previously been in place in terms of provincial conservation legislation, and since 2010 in terms of the national CITES Regulations. As a result, Environmental Management Inspectors have already been trained in the ability to verify the authenticity of CITES permits. Additional training will be provided prior to the implementation of the final set of regulations to ensure EMI’s are aware of the restrictions relating to export. It should also be borne in mind that these trained EMI’s are already deployed and are working at OR Tambo, endorsing permits, monitoring exports and imports and undertaking detection.

 

Reply:

The Environmental Management Inspectors from the Department of Environmental Affairs did not undertake an inspection at this site. We have been informed however, that Inspectors from the North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development (NW READ), which is the department responsible for issuing the Environmental Authorisation in respect of the facility, did carry out such an inspection.

A. The matter was investigated and it appeared that the facility is undertaking certain processes and using equipment which are not included in the Environmental Authorisation. Accordingly, an administrative enforcement process was initiated by the North West READ and a pre-compliance notice was served on Microlife on 2 March 2017. This notice provides the facility with an opportunity to provide representations (as required by administrative law) in response to the allegations against them and to provide reasons why a final compliance notice should not be issued. We are advised that the representation from Microlife was received on 6 March 2017 and is currently being evaluated by the provincial officials. Thereafter, a decision will then be made as to whether or not a compliance notice with corrective instructions will be issued.

B. As mentioned above, although an administrative enforcement action has been initiated, further investigation and review of information is required prior to making a decision on any final instructions.

 

Reply:

Kindly note that the vehicles of the Minister and Deputy Minister were purchased in 2014 and therefore the response to this question is still the same as that we gave to question no 259 in July 2014 which reads as follows:

The New Executive was announced in May 2014 and is setting up departments according the proclamation by the President dated the 3 July 2014.

Government is committed to apply austerity measures as spelt out by Cabinet and each Ministry is expected to inherit existing infrastructure. However, should there be none the normal government procurement process will be followed.While Government seeks value for money, it will source purchases from the local market in line with a commitment to support local industry and producers of goods and services.

Official vehicles are the property of the state and are used on official duty for direct interaction with communities and stakeholders as part of the Public Participation programmes and Parliamentary programmes of Ministers. These enable Ministers to fulfil their duties which may call for their presence in different parts of the country.

When official vehicles are purchased for Ministerial use, procurement is done according to an existing framework and guidelines that stipulate that new purchases of vehicles may take place when the currently provided official vehicle for that office has reached 120 000 km or 5 years, whichever comes first. 

Official vehicles may (sometimes) experience serious mechanical problems or could be in a poor condition.  In such cases, the respective Department may approve the replacements of such a vehicle, subject to obtaining a detailed mechanical report by the vehicle manufacturer or approved dealer.

The total purchase price of the vehicle chosen by the Member may not exceed in respect of a prescribed percentage of the inclusive annual remuneration package of an Executive Member.

 

Reply:

(a) The media conference was postponed because the date that it was scheduled for clashed with the press briefings of other Government programmes such as the Budget and others, all of which was happening on the same day hence only two journalists had confirmed attendance and this was not going to help. The other reason was that the other Ministers within the Security Cluster were also unavailable.

(b) In light of the fact that the press conference had to be postponed, the department took a decision to release the comprehensive media statement outlining the success of the Integrated Strategic Management of Rhinoceros, and including the rhino poaching and arrest statistics on 27 February 2017. The statement is attached, for ease of reference.

Minister Molewa highlights progress on Integrated Strategic Management of Rhinoceros

node

27 February 2017

This statement covers the period January through December 2016, which is inclusive of the period September to December 2016.  

As you will all know, rhino poaching is a National Priority Crime, and we as government continue to work as a team in the implementation of the Integrated Strategic Management of Rhinoceros.

This is our multi-sectoral, interdisciplinary approach involving Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and the South African National Parks (SANParks), the Department of Defence (as a leader of the SANDF) the South African Police Service (SAPS) and its Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) also known as the Hawks, the State Security Agency (SSA), the South African Revenue Service (SARS), the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the provincial conservation authorities.

Our respective government departments continue to work in unison with the private sector, communities and civil society in ensuring that our integrated approach yields success.

We have stated on numerous occasions that the media has an important role to play in raising awareness about the issue of rhino poaching.

A number of media houses have therefore been instrumental in mobilizing the South African public at large around our approach to conserving our country’s rhino and I want to encourage you to keep up the good work.

The Integrated Strategic Management Approach comprises four pillars, namely:

• Compulsory Interventions
• Managing Rhino Populations
• Long-term sustainability Interventions, and
• New interventions

All of the four pillars are implemented in the context of:

• Regional and International cooperation.

These have delivered a number of satisfying results that we will address during this briefing.

1.        Compulsory Interventions 

1.1    Arrests, investigations and prosecutions

As you are aware, enforcement operations related to rhino are led by the South African Police Service (SAPS) supported by the afore-mentioned departments and State Agencies.

These enforcement operations form a firm base from which SANParks, KZN Ezemvelo Wildlife, and our provincial parks authorities and agencies execute their well-planned anti-poaching operations.  Amongst these are enforcement operations that are implemented in KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Limpopo and are also coordinated by the Mission Area Joint Operations Command (MAJOC) which is based in Skukuza. The Kruger National Park experiences relatively higher levels of rhino poaching, where due focus is given.

The Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) approach in the KNP is working well and ensures more tailored solutions to the different protection zones, including for the protection of elephant. Key to this success has been the development of a world class anti–poaching unit like an Air wing, a Canine Unit, a Special Ranger capability, Protection Services and an Environmental Crime Investigation unit.

In addition to the existing interventions, we continue to identify and use game-changing technological interventions as critical to winning our battle against poaching. These include customized technology systems primarily aimed at situational awareness, such as early warning, detection and tracking systems. We appreciate the support of the donor community and the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for their innovation and partnership in this regard.

We are pleased to announce that in the period under review, there has been an increase in the number of arrests for poaching-related offences inside the Kruger National Park, the area hardest hit by poaching.

During 2016, the SAPS reported that a total of 680 poachers and traffickers were arrested for rhino-related poaching offences nationally. This is a marked increase in arrests from  317 in 2015. Of this number, 417 were arrested both within and outside the Kruger National Park.

A total of 148 firearms were seized inside the Park in 2016, and 6 just outside the Park.

The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation continues with its efforts towards disrupting and combating wildlife traffickers during 2016 and participated in several national and international initiatives in combating wildlife trafficking with national and international partners.

The Hawks currently have other projects under investigation.

We herewith provide an update on a number of high-profile cases.

• In the matter of State v Groenewald and 11 others the next court date: trial ready is scheduled for the 15th of June 2017. The accused face 1 840 charges of racketeering.
• In the matter of State v Ras and 10 Others, the accused face 318 charges of racketeering. The case has been provisionally postponed to the 15th of September 2017.
• In the matter of State v Big Joe Nyalunga and 9 others the accused face 73 charges of racketeering. The next court date is on the 14th of March 2017.
• In the matter of State v Sithole and 21 others the accused face charges of racketeering. The case went to trial on the 25th of January 2017.
• In the matter of State vs Gwala and two others the next court date is 17 March 2017.  It is envisaged that the trial in this case will proceed in the second part of 2017.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development recognizes that to ensure   success on rhino anti-poaching, initiatives need to be adequately measured, cases have to be investigated and successfully prosecuted,  and those found guilty of rhino poaching convicted.

In the period under review a number of rhino poaching related offences went to trial.

The following are the highlights of some of the successful convictions.

• In the matter of State v Rodger and 2 others, the accused faced charges of illegal hunting of rhino, possession of rhino horn and the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. They were convicted on the 08th of March 2016. Accused number one was found guilty and sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment. Accused number two was found guilty and sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment. Accused number three was found guilty and sentenced to nine (9) years imprisonment.
• In the matter of State v Tlou and 5 others, the accused were charged with illegal dealing in rhino horn and the illegal hunting of rhino. On the 11th of March 2016 five of the accused were found guilty and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The sixth accused was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
• In the matter of State v Pahmbudzirai, the accused was charged with the illegal hunting of rhino and the possession of rhino horn. On the 11th of August 2016 the accused was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
• In the matter of State v Kubai and 1 other the accused were charged with the illegal hunting of rhino and the possession of rhino horn. On the 15th of August 2016 both accused were found guilty and sentenced to eleven (11) years imprisonment.

In order to successfully tackle the illicit trade in rhino horn, it is key that we detect and prevent incidents of smuggling, working with our colleagues in neighbouring countries.

We are pleased to inform you that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has decided to open the Skukuza Regional Court with effect from 7th March 2017.

Currently, high profile cases are being transferred to the Skukuza Regional Court. The decision to open this as a Regional Court will ensure that case turnaround times are expedited. 

1.2 Ports of Entry and Exit

In 2016, the Green Scorpions trained 905 border officials on initiatives focused on the Illicit International Cross Border Movement of Endangered Species.

In December 2016, 90 judicial officers from four different countries participated in a Judicial Colloquium related to the adjudication of crimes relating to biodiversity, the result of a partnership between DEA, the GEF-UNEP Rhino Programme and the South African Judicial Education Institute.

The GEF-UNEP Programme has also enabled the renovation of a new laboratory at the  Veterinary Genetics Laboratory of the University of Pretoria where the rhino DNA samples are analysed. This additional capacity has also enabled us to analyse some of the backlog of routine rhino horn samples.  During 2016, we also received rhino DNA samples from seizures in Mozambique and Vietnam. This  has enabled us to link these seizures to illegal activities in South Africa relating to rhino and providing investigators with critical information to guide further investigations.

1.3 Poaching Statistics

We are pleased to report that our Integrated Strategic Management Approach is yielding the desired results. The 2016 statistics indicate that we registered a decline in the number of rhino poached, both for the country as a whole and for KNP. A total of 1 054 rhino were poached in 2016, compared to 1 175 in the same period for 2015, representing a decline of 10.3%.

Specifically for the KNP, a total of 662 rhino carcasses were found in 2016 compared to 826 in 2015. This represents a reduction of 19.85% in 2016. This is despite a continued increase in the number of illegal incursions into the Kruger National Park. 

For 2016 there were a staggering 2883 instances of poaching-related activities (such as poaching camps, contacts, crossings, sightings, tracks and shots fired) in the Park, compared to 2 466 recorded in the same period in 2015. This is an increase of 16.9%.These criminal gangs are armed to the teeth, well-funded and part of transnational syndicates who will stop at nothing to get their hands on rhino horn. This decrease can be attributed to the efforts of our men and women on the ground, especially our rangers.

While there has been a decrease in the number of rhino killed for their horns in the Kruger National Park and Mpumalanga, the number of rhino poached unfortunately increased in some other provinces. This indicates that syndicates are feeling the pressure from the interventions being employed in the KNP. We are therefore prioritising these pressure points through enforcement operations.

It is with concern that we report that in 2016, 46 elephants were poached in the Kruger National Park. The interventions being implemented to counter rhino poaching are also used to respond to this emerging threat.

It is clear that more financial resources are required to address this challenge that we are experiencing in terms of both rhino and elephant poaching.

2. Managing Rhino Populations

2.1 Translocations

SANParks continues with the translocation of rhino from high risk poaching areas to safer and better suited, secure localities.

This has enabled us to evaluate the progress of our conservation management approach and sets out key actions and strategies needed to ensure the long-term survival and growth of the rhino species in the wild. 

During 2016 eleven rhino were internally translocated away from boundaries in the KNP for security reasons, thereby complimenting the internal movements that started during 2014.

We stated in our last briefing that we were in the process of conducting an evaluation of internal translocations. The evaluation will be formally completed by March this year. 

It is important to state that the moving of these animals always carries with it inherent risks, especially in respect of old cows and territorial bulls. But what is encouraging is that young cows and sub-adult males integrate easily into existing rhino populations.

2.2 Biological Management

Our Rhino Stronghold Initiative continues, though the drought has affected our operations as it did for most of last year. Translocation has proven a viable biological management tool to ensure the long-term sustainability and safety of South Africa’s rhino population.  During 2016, a total of 106 rhino were translocated to private rhino strongholds, following suitability assessments conducted by SANParks late last year.Overall, our translocations have been successful and no trans-located rhino were poached.

We are all aware of the damaging effect this drought continues to have on our country, and the KNP has not been immune.  We have found that the deaths of rhino in the KNP, as a result of the drought of drought condition, has risen.

During September 2016, a rhino survey using the scientifically accepted block count method recorded that a total of 6 649 - 7 830 white rhino lived in Kruger National Park.

This is lower than the 8 365 - 9 337 that lived in the Kruger National Park during 2015. It must be noted that the natural deaths of white rhino increased due to the unprecedented drought conditions.

A total of 349 – 465 black rhino lived in Kruger National Park in 2016 compared to 313 – 453 in 2015.  The drought effect was not as noticeable on the black rhinos.

2.4 Rhino Orphans 

Adding to the impact of rhino management strategies, are ongoing efforts to recover and rear young rhino calves left orphaned through poaching incidents. The Peace Parks Foundation, through the Rhino Protection Programme, continues to provide crucial operational support to the rescue, care and rehabilitation of rhino orphans and currently there are approximately 28 orphans under the care of Kruger National Park and partners, with a 10 being cared for by Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.

3. Long-term Sustainability Interventions

3.1 Amendment of Norms and Standards

We have finalised the amendments to the Norms and Standards for the marking of rhinoceros and rhinoceros horn, and the hunting of rhinoceros for trophy hunting purposes. These amendments are now subject to the approval processes for implementation.

3.2 The Moratorium on the sale of rhino horn; the proposed regulations for the Domestic Trade in Rhino Horn; and the Proposed Prohibition on Powdering and Shaving of Rhino Horn

On 8 February 2017, we published three notices for public participation.

The first notice contains provisions relating to proposed regulations for the domestic trade in rhino horn, the second one proposes prohibitions on the powdering and shaving of rhino horn, and the third notice contains a proposal to remove the Eastern black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis michaeli) from the list of invasive species and to include it in the list of threatened or protected species (as a protected species). The latter ensures that all rhino sub-species are covered by the proposed legislative provisions.

By way of a brief background, a moratorium or prohibition on the domestic trade in rhino horn was implemented in 2009 as one of the measures to address the illegal killing of rhino and the illegal trade in rhino horn.

This prohibition  was implemented to enable government to develop and implement compliance, regulatory, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure domestic trade is well managed and regulated; while illegal activities are prosecuted.

We are convinced that the implementation of the 2009 moratorium  was a rational and reasonable measure that contributed positively to the conservation and protection of the rhino in South Africa.

In November 2015 the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division ordered that the moratorium be set aside with retrospective effect. This followed an application brought by Johan Kruger and Another against the Department.

We have subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal this judgement to the Constitutional Court and we await the outcome of the court process. Until then the moratorium remains in place.

In considering actions to be taken relating to the moratorium and in response to the ongoing litigation, we developed a  set of regulations that are in compliance with the Integrated Strategic Management  of Rhino Approach adopted by Cabinet in 2014, Sections 56 and 57(2) of theNational Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (NEMBA), the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations, existing CITES Regulations relating to the import, export or re-export of rhino specimens, as well as applicable provincial and national legislation.

This set of proposed regulations will ensure that there is no gap in regulatory provisions, thus ensuring the strict regulation of a prospective domestic trade in rhino horn. The commercial international trade in rhino horn is prohibited in terms of the CITES.

3.3 Communities

Community involvement in conservation is critical to the success of the Integrated Strategic Management approach. The Department, working closely with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform with strategic partners from government, conservation agencies, NGOs and private sector is implementing detailed initiatives to actively facilitate transformation of the sector through land access and support programmes for new entrants.

The Biodiversity Economy provides a unique opportunity to enhance the livelihoods of communities based on the natural resources that they have at their disposal. Through the Biodiversity Economy Strategy, a number of initiatives aimed at unlocking the economic potential of biological resources have emerged.

These support programmes include basic infrastructure development, capacity building, game donation, business plan compilation, feasibility studies and facilitate market access. The wildlife economy component has to date provided support to community owned conservation enterprises in Mayibuye in KwaZulu-Natal, Double drift in the Eastern Cape, Balyepe, Leshiba and Mabaleng in Limpopo Province, Sepelong in the Free State, Nkambeni and Gidjana Bevhula around the KNP. The expected impact will be job creation, skills development and entrepreneurship. The average financial spending from the Department on these community intervention is R8m per project, excluding game donations and private sector investment.

In addition, as part of the implementation of the Biodiversity Economy Strategy, I am pleased to announce that we are in the process of consulting with provincial conservation authorities on a ground-breaking new initiative around game donation to previously disadvantaged communities. This is part of our efforts to transform the sector and ensure that we create opportunities for previously disadvantaged communities.

Making communities owners of wildlife remains key to our strategy. In this regard, as part of the implementation,  SANParks has called for public expressions of interest that will create opportunities for emerging game farmers around national parks to provide mechanisms for the transparent and equitable supply of founder herds of game to applicants and raise awareness for conservation, protected area management and sustainable utilisation principles in the wildlife industry.

The People and Parks flagship programme continues to be a key component of our community support strategy. We continue to engage with communities surrounding our parks and jointly planning with them on issues of mutual interest. The Department is currently implementing 30 support projects around the country in the various protected areas with a total budget of R1 334 098 200.  An additional 14 projects across all provinces are in the pipeline with an anticipated budget of R352 685 216. Through the People and Parks Window of the Environment Programme, we have created 1 585 408 job opportunities.

Through the implementation of the programme, facilitation of various pertinent aspects of communities related to protected areas management is diligently facilitated. In the eighth conference, which was hosted in September last year, significant strides were made,  where eight tittle deeds  were awarded and accompanying R1.2 million compensation each for North West claimed protected areas were transferred to the local communities.

At the recent conference, we endorsed the establishment of the Youth in Conservation Programme which seeks to mobilize for youth participation in matters of conservation. The inaugural youth workshop that conceptualized the action plan was held last month.

Furthermore, as part of the long-term sustainability measures, the DEA embarked on a capacity building programmes targeting rhino poaching hotspot provinces, and to date we have trained 120 young people in Mpumalanga, Limpopo and North West. Plans are in place to roll out this youth programme in the remaining provinces (40 per province = 240).

The Kids in Parks programme  continues to target a minimum of 5000 youth across the country. This programme involves young people at an early age, thus creating a sense of ownership towards conservation.

SANParks is in the process of conducting land suitability assessments on several properties owned by communities and entrepreneurs so that we can transfer animals to them, in line with the objectives of our Biodiversity Economy Strategy.

4.  International and regional cooperation 

4.1 Southern African Development Community (SADC)

The implementation of the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching Strategy (LEAP) remains a priority. During a recent extraordinary joint meeting of the South African Development Community (SADC) Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources and of the Organ on Defence, Peace and Security Co-operation which took place in Swaziland (from 1 to 3 February 2017), it was agreed that the implementation of the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching Strategy must be fast-tracked.

This means that at the highest level within both the SADC security and environmental structures there is commitment to establish National Wildlife Crime Prevention Task Forces in order to facilitate the implementation of this Strategy:

• To fast-track the implementation of the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching Strategy (LEAP), including the establishment and operationalization of the Wildlife Crime Prevention Coordination Unit (WCPCU);
• To put in place harmonized regional mechanisms for dealing with wildlife crime effectively, improve inter-agency cooperation and coordination between law enforcement officers to further align and harmonize law enforcement efforts; and
• Consider creating a window for wildlife under the SADC Regional Development Fund to support conservation and law enforcement as part of resource mobilization.

The Joint Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources and of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation further:  

• Considered and adopted the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching (LEAP) Strategy;
• Urged SADC Member States which have not established multi-agency National Wildlife Crime Prevention Task Forces yet, to do so in order to facilitate the implementation of the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching (LEAP) Strategy;
• Urged Member States to prioritize and integrate activities in the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching (LEAP) Strategy into their national plans;
• Recommended to Council to approve the establishment of a coordination, assessment and monitoring mechanism in the form of a Joint Committee of Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources, the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation and other relevant authorities to oversee implementation of the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching (LEAP) Strategy. The Committee will also serve as a platform for sharing of information and best practices, and meet annually;
• Recommended to Council to approve the establishment of a Wildlife Crime Prevention and Coordination Unit to coordinate implementation of the crime and law enforcement component of the SADC LEAP Strategy as part of the Secretariat structure review process and that it be placed in the Directorate of the Organ; and
• Directed the Secretariat to enhance synergies and linkages with all relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching (LEAP) Strategy.

4.2 Mozambique 

Collaboration with the Government of Mozambique continues to improve and the partnership has been greatly successful in the past year.

Significant progress has been made in terms of constructing new houses and relocating families. Over 30% of the families from eight villages have been relocated. With the remaining 70% of families still to be relocated, this project is now expected to be completed in 2018. It has been impressed upon us that the government of Mozambique puts priority on quality and humanity within this resettlement process.

An agreement between the government of Mozambique and its Private Concessionaires located on the Eastern boundary of the Kruger National Park was signed on 22 February in Maputo. The essence of this agreement is to formalize the involvement of Private Sector on enhanced protection of Wildlife as well as improvement of livelihoods of adjacent communities. This is a replication of what we in South Africa have done with our concessionaires on the Western side of the Kruger national Park and thus a direct result of our collaboration.

Specific interventions focused on the youth of the two countries were agreed upon. As a result, a youth awareness programme was developed as part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Areas (GLTFCA) initiative.  The aim of this programme would be to develop interventions which are specifically designed to createawareness amongst the youth on the value of the natural heritage of the two countries.

Following this, community members from the villages of Mavodze, Chibotane, Macavene and Mahlaule living in, and adjacent to, the Limpopo National Park in Mozambique were taken across the border into Kruger National Park (KNP) from 22 to 27 August 2016 on a Youth Programme Pilot Project.  The main aim of the pilot was to empower local communities, create awareness and promote wise use of natural resources and was developed under the guidance of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park Joint Management Board and its implementing agencies in Mozambique and South Africa (SANParks). This pilot was implemented by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation (Laureus) in collaboration with the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF).

The Joint Management Board is in the process of evaluating the pilot youth project, after which a framework to guide the development and implementation of a longitudinal programme will be designed. The longer term programme will also be extended to include the Zimbabwean component of the TFCA.

4.3 Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Vietnam

Our work with Lao is part of the strategic collaboration with rhino range and consumer states, aimed at neutralising the threat of organised transnational criminal syndicates involved in the illegal wildlife trade.

A Memorandum of Understanding in the field of Biodiversity Conservation and Management was signed with the Lao People’s Democratic Republic during the 17th Conference of the Parties to CITES in September 2016.

The second phase of a Vietnamese Youth Education Project, implemented in partnership with Peace Parks Foundation and Wilderness Foundation, was launched in schools throughout Ho Chi Minh City in May 2016.

The campaign utilizes print, social and entertainment media integrated into the school, to educate and empower youth as ambassadors for rhino protection and conservation. 

4.4. International Cooperation

During 2016 South Africa participated in the Hanoi Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade in Vietnam, a follow-up from conferences in London in 2014 and Kasane in Botswana in 2015.

Recognizing the significant scale and detrimental economic, environmental, security, and social impacts of the illegal trade in wildlife, much of the focus was on implementation of actions following the commitments made at the previous events.

In 2016 South Africa also successfully hosted the 17th Conference of the Parties to CITES and adopted a number of decisions relating to the illegal international trade in wildlife; combating wildlife cybercrime and strengthening wildlife forensic capacity.

All Parties were urged to review the implementation of the Resolution on the conservation and trade in rhino. The resolution urges all parties to adopt and implement comprehensive legislation and enforcement controls aimed at reducing illegal trade in rhino parts and derivatives, and that make provision for strong penalties, (including custodial sentences) to deter illegal killing of rhinoceros and illegal possession of and trade in rhino horn.

Other resolutions of importance include the Resolution aimed at prohibiting, preventing, detecting and countering corruption which facilitates activities conducted in violation of the Convention.

The Resolution on enforcement further strengthens international cooperation, the sharing of best practice and the mobilization of funds for sustainable interventions to combat wildlife trafficking in general.

The COP also adopted decisions directed at the CITES Secretariat to conduct missions to Vietnam and Mozambique and to report to the CITES Standing Committee.

4.5 International Law Enforcement Engagements

In a bid to improve coordination and communication between law enforcement agencies from different countries we continue to support and engage with the International Consortium to Combat Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) and in particular the CITES Secretariat, INTERPOL and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), that brings together law enforcement officials in African and South East Asian countries.

The Hawks have further strengthened their priority actions through engagement with international agencies, partnering with the Asset Recovery Inter Agency Network Southern Africa (ARINSA), the Wildlife Inter-Regional Enforcement (WIRE) group harnessing the support of international partners for those priorities that involve transnational syndicates. This addresses wildlife trafficking, combining resources and efforts and facilitating training opportunities and technology development.

The management of rhino populations aimed at optimising birth rates is one of the focus areas of the Rhino Lab that was held in August 2016 as part of the broader Operation Phakisa programme. Guided by the outcomes of the Cabinet endorsed Committee of Inquiry report, the lab resulted in the establishment of a number of initiatives with detailed action plans. They will further strengthen the integrated approach to Rhino protection and conservation in South Africa.

The groundwork has been laid and excellent progress has been made in the past two years.

The successes we have achieved are because of, inter alia, our dedicated law-enforcement authorities, dedicated prosecutors, customs and excise officials and the Department of Environmental Affairs’ Green Scorpions. They are to be commended for the great work they have been doing in this space.

All South Africans are urged to report any wildlife crime so that we, as an integrated law enforcement effort team, can continue to successfully act against organised criminal enterprises fostering rhino poaching.

For media inquiries contact:

Albi Modise

Cell: +27 83 490 2871

 

Reply:

1. A complaint was received by the Presidential Hotline on 20 November 2016 relating to Performance Management at theSouth African Weather Service (SAWS) specifically relating to the 2014/15 performance assessment period. The allegations included the following:

a) Unlawful powers of the Executive Committee to change moderated performance scores;

b) Unilateral correction of scores

c) Implementation of performance-based salary increases.

The allegations were referred to the Board of SAWS for further investigation on 28 January 2016.

OMA Chartered Accountants Incorporated (OMA) was appointed to conduct an investigation into allegations made by the complainant. No Board members were involved in the appointment of OMA. The recommendations in the OMA report have been implemented.

2. A senior manager of SAWS brought allegations to the Board, on the matter of the guarantee for the radars. A preliminary analysis has revealed no irregularity. Further investigation is underway.

 

Reply:

1.  The Department of Environmental Affairs has put various measures in place for monitoring, regulating and enforcement in the traditional healers industry as further expanded upon below:

The Department of Environmental Affairs has promulgated the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004(Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulations, as well as the Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS) regulations. In terms of Section 57(1) of NEMBA, a person may not carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species without a permit issued in terms of Chapter 7 of NEMBA. Therefore, a permit would be required each time a traditional healer carry out a restricted activities. Restricted activity is defined in NEMBA, and includes, but not limited to; possession, transporting selling, buying, damaging, and cutting of a specimen of listed threatened or protected species. Carrying out of any restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species without a permit is an offence which is punishable by either a fine not exceeding R10 million or an imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or both such a fine and imprisonment. Monitoring of compliance and enforcement of the above legislations is conducted by Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs)

(a). Not applicable.

(b). The Minister has, in terms of the provisions of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 (NEMA), appointed officials within the Department of Environmental Affairs and duly designated them as Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs). The EMIs are part of the National Environmental Management Inspectorate. The EMIs (also known as the “green scorpions”) are mandated to monitor compliance with environmental legislation and to take enforcement action in cases where non-compliance with environmental legislation has been detected. It should be noted that there are also green scorpions at the provincial environmental and conservation departments.

In 2014, the National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Strategy (NECES) was developed for the Inspectorate. In line with the strategic objectives of the NECES, specific sectors are prioritised for compliance and enforcement activities; and during the 2016/17 financial year, the “Traditional healers”, “Muti traders” and “Muti Collectors” industry was a focus area for compliance promotion and awareness initiatives as a precursor to more targeted compliance monitoring and enforcement planned for the 2017/18 financial year.

The project thus far has focused on compliance promotion and awareness campaigns for the “Traditional Healers”, “Muti-Traders” and “Muti-Collectors” operating at the “muti-markets” in order to assist them to come into compliance with national environmental legislations, such as the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004, (NEMBA), with regard to buying and selling species listed on the Threatened or Protected Species List at the “muti-markets”.

On 19 January 2017, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), together with Gauteng Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD), hosted the first biodiversity compliance awareness workshop in Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. The main purpose of the workshop was to bring together all traditional healers and “muti-traders” operating at the Faraday and Mai Mai markets. Further events in other provinces and additional meetings are planned for the latter part of the financial year, ahead of the more targeted compliance and enforcement work that will take place as part of this project in the 2017/18 financial year.

(2) Yes, the Environmental Management Inspectors (Green Scorpions) from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have visited Faraday Muti Market situated at the Faraday Taxi Rank in Johannesburg.

(b) The reason for this particular visit was not to conduct inspections and identify endangered species yet. The purpose for the attendance at the market was to meet with the management of the Muti Markets with regard to the compliance promotion and awareness campaign being conducted by the Department. This type of campaign is critical to ensure that those working at the market are aware of the legal requirements for trade, as well as what trade is permitted. It was also to ensure that the trade that is conducted at the market is sustainable, as well as also to assist in enabling the trade at these markets to continue in line with what is legally permitted. The effectiveness and ultimate success of our monitoring and enforcement activities are strengthened if they are preceded by these types of campaigns.

(b) (i) No individuals were penalised.

(ii) No individuals were arrested.

It must be noted that there will be further compliance and enforcement work that will be carried out to ensure that there is no trade in endangered species in line with the NECES and that appropriate penalties and arrests will be made should any infractions be found.

 

Reply:

(1) Yes, (a) (b) (i) and (ii) the department has found that some members of the local communities have been influenced to participate in the illegal trade in wildlife and poaching in and around the Kruger National Park. There have been instances where some of the community members are used by syndicates to pouch and support those pouchers.

Clarity needs to be given that the approach by the department and the South African National Parks is to combat, root out and stop both illegal trade and poaching, and therefore not to regulate such. Our mandate is to ensure that legal trade is well regulated hence the numerous regulations including Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS) of 2007, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Regulations of 2010, associated norms and standards, and such complemented by the permitting system adjudicated according to provincial ordinances. The Integrated Rhino Management Approach, being implemented for an example, provides a focused prioritisation of law enforcement, community engagement, biological management, and responsive legislation as its tenants. The implementation of the environmental monitors programme provides an effective interface with the local community. This complemented by the implantation of the People and Parks Programme contributes in the fight against illegal trade and poaching.

Additional Information

1. Department of Environmental Affairs

• The National Biodiversity Economy Strategy:

The National Biodiversity Economy Strategy is a 14 year strategy which is aimed at addressing developmental and growth constrains of the Biodiversity Economy in South Africa, focusing on the Bioprospecting/biotrade and wildlife subsectors, in particular. The National Biodiversity Economy Strategy serves as a suitable strategic tool to achieve this anticipated sustainable advancement for these subsectors. The strategy also recognises the significance of sustainability of these sectors through ensuring that the ecological infrastructure is safeguarded, as well as that various stakeholders play significant roles, especially the rural communities in and around areas with high biological resources, and the protected areas being one of these. The vision of the National Biodiversity Economy Strategy is to optimise economic benefits from the sustainable use of the country’s biodiversity, and provide an enabling environment for communities and entrepreneurs to participate in the biodiversity economy while contributing to poverty alleviation, sustainable development and conservation of the country’s rich biodiversity and ecosystem services. To address the issue on the illegal trade of wildlife and poaching, which also came to light during the development of the National Biodiversity Economy Strategy, the department identified and adopted principles that will ensure the sustainable growth of the sector, these include, inter alia, ensure fair and equitable beneficiation; identify incentive driven compliance to regulation and ensure ethical practices.

In light of the above, the strategy also identified a few Transformative Enabling Interventions to speak to these efforts of ensuring sustainable growth of these two subsectors and these include:

• Streamlining the Regulatory Environment: To address a range of regulatory gaps, overly complicated permitting requirements, inefficiencies and capacity constraints that limit the sector, as well as create a legislative enabling environment for business, and build confidence in the regulatory system.
• Enhancing Education, Skills and Capacity: To promote Small Micro and Medium Enterprises, to ensure that communities understand the economic value of the wildlife around them and that the young generation understands the value of protecting and sustainably utilising the wildlife.
• An economic transformation initiative: Provides an environment where the sector comprises of different players, where rural communities, women, youth and people with disability are also able to engage in economic activities that make a difference in their lives and communities.
• Advocacy for the Wildlife sector: To address the negative perceptions in the wildlife sector which will enable the growth and increased participation in the sector. Furthermore, advocacy for sustainable utilisation of genetic and biological resources which is essential to support the growth of local and international markets, and to encourage participation of communities in these markets.

• The department is implementing the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA): Integrated Livelihood Diversification Strategy.

The aim is that such a strategy would serve to:

• develop a collective vision and integrated approach to enhancing livelihood options in the project area;
• agree on a set of strategic priorities as well as management nodes for priority attention in the first iteration of implementing the strategy (that is from 2016 to 2030);
• identify appropriate, viable and strategic livelihood initiatives that could be applied to the GLTFCA area, including where existing initiatives are working and can be scaled and shared to a wider audience;
• identify and address prevailing constraints to the success of livelihood initiatives; and
• ensure that current and future threats and risks from climate change and other anthropogenic activities (such as land uses) have been considered when identifying livelihood interventions for resilience.

This will be achieved by:

• providing a mechanism or platform to support networking between actors across the GLTFCA;
• agreeing on a common approach to monitoring and research that will support improved data-driven management, comparative analysis and enhanced impact;
• supporting good cooperative governance through coordinating existing strategies, priorities, investments and efforts to achieve synergies, avoid duplication and identify gaps;
• empowering communities to actively participate in resource management decisions;
• supporting the sharing of lessons learnt across the groups and regions, including shared information management;
• defining responsibilities to ensure that all actors are working towards their competitive advantage while also ensuring that activities are being delivered at each scale (household, community, regional levels) and time horizon (short term, medium term and long term);
• providing inputs to support proactive fundraising that is designed to demonstrate to investors and donors how their interests can be achieved by supporting our defined priorities; and
• promoting a regular review cycle to ensure plans are adjusted to changing contexts and new learnings.

The timeframe for the strategy is 15 years - from 2016 to 2030.

The Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Park (GLTP) and its implementing agencies in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe namely; Administracao Nation das Areas de Conservacao (ANAC), the South African National Parks and the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) are mandated through the treaty to support the livelihoods of communities in the GLTFCA. They, through the protected areas, also have a vested interest to share benefits and create value for the local communities in conservation and associated activities. The parks (both public and private) also have a responsibility to communities to (i) mitigate negative impacts and (ii) deliver effective corporate social investment. This, notwithstanding the formal mandate for socio-economic development outside protected areas, falls under government. Civil society organisations, private sector partnerships and donors are able to support this official mandate through augmenting the resources and capacities of government. As much as possible, decision-making should be devolved to community level to ensure greatest likelihood of success and the skills and assets owned by communities themselves are recognised and strengthened. The view is that if all of these players work together on a joint and agreed upon plan, the likelihood of achieving sustainable and meaningful impacts is significantly enhanced. While elements of this strategy are framed from the perspective of the conservation authorities, we recognise that no one party on its own will be able to drive this process without the buy-in and support of others. It is proposed that the GLTFCA stakeholders and the protected areas authorities play an important role in catalysing and sustaining momentum around the establishment of such partnerships. By identifying all the existing ‘engines’ of delivery and agreeing on how they can be positioned relative to one another under the infrastructure of a shared strategy, we believe our vision can achieve a lift off.

• The department continues to implement the resolutions of the People and Parks Conferences we have hosted recently which are the culmination of the discussions in the commissions by communities, officials and interested stakeholders. One of the focuses to this is that communities are put in the centre of our efforts to combat wildlife crime, thereby ensuring that a sense of ownership is instilled in order for them to protect and value their natural heritage. Recently the department embarked on a lab activity where details of activities were determined regarding which would be executed/implemented with the view to ensuring that the communities see value in wildlife. Through these, projects earmarked to elevate the value of biodiversity are are being packaged and implemented across the sector.

• Recently the department had embarked on a Rhino Lab process which entails a stream focusing on community empowerment to prevent them from getting involved in illegal trade in wildlife and poaching. The department has also developed a 14 year National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES) which will serve as a suitable strategic tool to achieve the anticipated sustainable advancement for the wildlife and bioprospecting/biotrade industries of South Africa.

To ensure successful implementation of the National Biodiversity Economy Strategy, the department recently co-hosted with the Department of Tourism a Biodiversity Delivery Lab which took place from 11 April to 13 May 2016, primarily to develop an implementation plan for the National Biodiversity Economy Strategy. The Biodiversity Economy Delivery Lab adopted the Big Fast Results (BFR) methodology which is a similar approach adopted for the country’s Operation Phakisa for Oceans Economy. The Lab brought together a team of government, industry, academics and civil society to work in an iterative manner to develop detailed implementation plans that can fast track delivery for solving complex problems/issues and unlock our biodiversity economy.

The Department of Environmental Affairs hosted two work streams in the Biodiversity Delivery Lab namely, the Wildlife, and Bioprospecting. Overall, the Lab aspirations were centred on transformation, sector sustainability and economic growth. In the process, the respective work streams were able to prioritise issues that would move the respective sectors forward within the next three years. Consequently, initiatives addressing each of the prioritised issues were developed and further unpacked in a “3-feet plan (a detailed, line by line implementation plan with assigned owners and timelines) consisting of the budget and legislative requirements to implement the identified initiatives. The initiatives developed during the Lab processes were presented through syndications with relevant Heads of National and Provincial Government Departments and Entities. This saw the adoption of the initiatives by the mentioned stakeholders and also the Heads of Department of provincial departments. The Biodiversity Economy Strategy focuses on supporting community entities that manages or own land suitable for wildlife, such as Communal Property Associations (CPAs), Traditional Authorities and Community Trusts, this work is done in partnership with other departments such as the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and the Land Claims Commission as well as the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries where applicable.

• In addition, the department relies on and supports all Security Clusters partners operating in these communities.

1. South African National Parks

• Community park forums intended to improve interaction between the South African National Parks and the surrounding communities and other stakeholders adjacent to national parks. These involve regular engagements around issues related to combating wildlife crime, land claims, beneficiation and other relevant matters.
• Implementation of awareness campaigns, environmental education programmes, social legacy projects around the national parks.
• Socio-economic projects designed to ensure that communities adjacent to the national parks benefit directly from the South African National Parks conservation efforts and get them involved in protection of South Africa’s biodiversity assets.

(2) Yes, the South African National Parks works with other government departments to combat poaching both inside and outside the Kruger National Park. The South African National Parks is part of the environmental cooperative governance mechanism of Government that seeks to foster cooperation and harmonisation of approaches. The Kruger National Park in particular, is the hub of anti-poaching operations aimed at combating, particularly rhino poaching. This cooperative approach involves the Security Cluster in the South African Police Service, the South African National Defence Force, as well as the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and the South African Revenue Services. The same lessons learnt from the implementation of this anti- rhino poaching approaches are beneficial to other wildlife species crime combating.

Additional Information

In 2014 the South African National Parks developed a National Rhino Management Strategy that places emphasis on cooperation with other government departments in respect to combating wildlife crime both inside and outside the Kruger National Park. At the core of the strategy is also the intention to relocate rhinos from high risk areas in the Kruger National Park to other low risk areas inside the park and other parks to combact poaching and to ensure continued growth of the rhino population. The aim is to stimulate growth in large protected areas while creating new rhino strongholds to offset the effects of poaching and smultaneously improving the population size.

In addition, the formal cooperation with all relevant government departments and other role-players/stakeholders is guided by the National Joint Structures and implemented from a Mission Area Joint Operations Centre. Joint planning and execution is the norm and plans are tailored to align with the national strategy that addresses four focus areas namely:

• joint anti-poaching law enforcement operations,
• biological management of the rhino population,
• the creation of long term sustainable economic and other alternatives, and
• the constant exploration of game changers such as technology appropriate solutions and the collapsing crime networks.

 

Reply:

 

(1) Yes.

(a) The South African National Parks does have plans in place, and processes are also underway to finalise the sale of rhino that will be sourced from outside the Kruger National Park’s proposed intensive protection zone. The rhinos will be sold to buyers who meet the requirements drawn in terms of the Rhino Integrated Management Approach. The approach calls for animals to be sold to buyers who will keep them in safe areas, grow numbers and who will utilise them to generate an economy that will be to the benefit of local communities as per the Biodiversity Economy Strategy of the Department of Environmental Affairs.

(b) The South African National Parks has plans in place to relocate rhinos that fall outside of the Kruger National Park’s proposed intensive protection zone. The South African National Parks has a custodianship agreement in place that guides the relocation of animals and its management. This custodianship agreement is a tool to govern the shared custody of animals, allows for the loan of a limited number of rhinos and other animals into the custody of communities who are in possession of reinstituted land as a donation to cultivate breeding and use of land for wildlife management. The custodianship agreement also allows for the relocation of animals to emerging game farmers for the same reasons, to grow the numbers while growing the tourism estate and to contribute to the empowerment of these new entrants in the wildlife sector.

(2) Yes the custodianship programmes will continue to be linked to community empowerment projects that facilitate entry into the wildlife ranching sector as well as consistent with the Biodiversity Economy imperatives. These programmes entail a thorough assessment process that identifies suitable rhino sanctuaries through site inspections, and appropriate incentives are built into the programme. These incentives include support for operations and management, as well as capacity development. Furthermore, direct incentives will be derived from the benefits that will be generated from the enhanced operations of the participating entities and resultant income.

 

Reply:

The Department is aware that the muti traders operating next to Faraday Taxi Rank are selling various anaimal remains and that there have been reports that some of these activities are illegal.

a) Not applicable.

(b) These types of markets are typically monitored and investigated by officials from the provincial conservation departments, both in terms of the requirements set out in provincial and national legislation. However, a decision was made at the beginning of 2016 that muti trade should be elevated to a national priority; and through MINTECH Working Group IV, the project should initially focus on compliance promotion and awareness campaigns for the “Traditional Healers”, “Muti-Traders” and “Muti-Collectors” operating at the “muti-markets” ahead of targeted compliance and enforcement activities.

The Environmental Management Inspectors (Green Scorpions) from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have visited Faraday Muti Market situated in Faraday Taxi Rank in Johannesburg. The reason of this particular visit was not to conduct inspections and identify endangered species yet. The purpose for the attendance at the market was to meet with the management of the Muti Markets with regard to the compliance promotion and awareness campaign being conducted by the Department. This type of campaign is critical to ensure that those working at the market are aware of the legal requirements for trade, as well as what trade is permitted. The effectiveness and ultimate success of our monitoring and enforcement activities are strengthened if they are preceded by these types of campaigns.

On 19 January 2017, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), together with Gauteng Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD), hosted the first biodiversity compliance awareness workshop in Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. The main purpose of the workshop was to bring together all traditional healers and “muti-traders” operating at the Faraday and Mai Mai markets. Further events in other provinces and additional meetings are planned for the latter part of the financial year, ahead of the more targeted compliance and enforcement work that will take place as part of this project in the 2017/18 financial year.

 

Reply:

1. (a- b – ii)

The Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) has been implemented by the end of 2016. As it is a partial solution due the cost of the equipment and technologies involved, outstanding priorities were determined carefully to serve as inputs into next phases of the project as and when donor money becomes available. The project contributed significantly to the Kruger National Park’s (KNP) reduction in Rhino poaching, about twenty percent reduction in rhino’s poached last year. In the Operational Control Cell, all high value assets are measured for performance to ensure the continuous improvement. This is applicable to the perimeter detection systems, stand-alone sensor arrays, area surveillance systems, canine deployment, reaction force interventions and air wing operations.

2. (a – b)

The IPZ project to address the abovementioned costs about one hundred and sixty million rand (R160 million) and will require about ten million rand per year to maintain.

(c) There are management and monitoring systems in place to ensure continuous evaluation of effectiveness of interventions in the IPZ. In addition, there are forensic facilities and laboratories that provides scientific based support for investigations.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

The results of forensic related investigations are often detailed in a forensic report.

These reports are often used for several purposes. It is important to take note of the legally privileged and confidential information contained in forensic reports. Due process and protocols of releasing such information should be followed especially if such reports have not been released to the public domain.

It is advisable that a note which reads: “this document is intended only for the use of the person named herein and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this document, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this document is strictly prohibited”.

The member should therefore be aware that Government departments and its entities accounts for such related information by tabling annual reports every year and this document, inclusive of this line item (i.e. Disciplinary action/termination) are audited by the Auditor General, who makes recommendations on any findings. Annual Reports are widely available to the public.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

Please note that neither the Department of Environmental Affairs nor I can provide evidence that can assist in the trial of the person referred to in the question. However, the South African Police Service’s Directorate: Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) arrested the said person and associates on 18 December 2014 and the investigation was successfully finalised. The syndicate members were consequently brought before the Hluhluwe magistrates court after their arrest. Although bail was formally opposed by the prosecutor, the magistrate ruled in favour of the accused and they were subsequently released on R10 000,00 bail each. The matter is currently on the court roll at the Ngwelezane Regional Court. The matter has been postponed on numerous occasions due to change of legal representation on the part of the accused. We are advised that a final court date will be determined within the next month and that the investigation and prosecution team have gathered sufficient evidence and have been ready to proceed with the trial since the arrest of the syndicate members.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

Nature conservation is a concurrent competence between national and provincial government and any investigation into illegal trade in endangered species allegedly taking place at the Faraday Muthi Market, in Selby, Johannesburg will have to be done by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) which is the conservation authority responsible for law enforcement in the Gauteng Province.

However, due to increasing reports of the illegal activities occurring at various muthi markets, a national project has been included in the 2016/17 workplan of the Technical Committee of Minister and Members of Executive Council (MINTECH) Working Group IV, the national coordinating forum on environmental compliance and enforcement that is aimed at raising the awareness of traditional healers on the duties and obligations applicable to their activities in terms of the national biodiversity legislation.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

During these media briefings, law enforcement matters are usually covered by my colleagues from the Security Cluster, particularly as it is the mandate of the South African Police Service to investigate and disrupt syndicates. Where law enforcement aspects are included in the briefings, this information is provided by the Security Cluster and there may be various reasons why sensitive information is not included.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

Currently the department’s above-the-line advertising campaigns are placed through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), in compliance with the Cabinet Memorandum No. 1 of 2011 which was adopted on 8 June 2011.

GCIS uses an independent tool to assist in determining the best mediums to procure from for any specific media campaign request. The mediums chosen are based on the Telmar software tools which guide on the best option to propose to a department making the request. This tool is supported by Independent media research analysis based on South African Advertising Research Foundation, TAMS and RAMS complemented by Audit Bureau of circulation data.

From the time the GCIS brought the in-house media buying, it has reaped considerable savings and discounts for Government.

Although the question asks for advertising costs incurred from financial years 2015/16 and from April 2016 to date, advertising is a standard line item in each department’s / entity’s budget, which is approved by Parliament annually.

Government departments and its entities accounts for expenditure by tabling annual reports every year and this document, inclusive of this line item (i.e. advertising) are audited by the Auditor-General, who makes recommendations on any findings. Annual Reports are widely available to the public.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) (i) (aa) and (bb) It should be noted that statistics related to rhino are reported in line with calendar years rather than financial years in order to align with international reporting mechanisms.

From April 2015 to March 2016, 1 131 rhinos were poached, with 35 Elephants in each province, as reflected below:

MONTH & YEAR	PROVINCE		TOTAL
	GP	LP	KZN	NW	WC	NC	MP	FS	EC	SANParks
Total for 2015/16 Elephant	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	35	35
Total for 2015/16 Rhino	2	87	118	50	1	2	59	13	17	782	1131

(b) From January 2015 to December 2015, a total of 432 arrests were made in relation to rhino poaching. From January 2016 to August 2016, a total of 414 arrests were made in relation to rhino poaching.

At this time we are working with the South African Police Service in relation to the SAPS CAS System and the related crime codes in order to enable more specific analysis of the cases and reporting over different periods for rhino and elephant poaching arrests and convictions as well as wildlife trafficking cases.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. Yes, the Head of Department (HOD) has signed performance agreements since her appointment.

(a) None

(b) Not applicable

(c) Not applicable

(d) (i & ii) Not applicable

2. (a & b) Not applicable

3.Yes. The HOD has only received performance bonus for the first three consecutive years since her appointment (2009-2011). Only pay progression was granted during the 2012-2015 financial years.

(a) The rates for the three relevant years were 7%, 9% and 9%.

(b) The rates were determined in accordance with the Handbook for the Senior Management Service after assessment by the Public Service Commision in terms of their criteria for HOD assessment.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) (i and ii) Senior Certificate; Bachelor of Commerce; and Master of Business Administration.

(b) (i and ii) Senior Certificate; Bachelor of Science; and Postgraduate Higher Diploma in Education.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

I have not recently visited the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve personally to assess the escalating incidence of rhino poaching. However, I am briefed on a regular basis by my staff regarding pertinent issues and am satisfied that all roleplayers, but more specifically the South African Police Service (SAPS) which has included the area in Operation Rhino 7 is focusing its efforts to intensify rhino protection in order to address the escalating security situation on site. The South African Police Service is also working closely with Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and other role players within the security structure to ensure that our protection efforts bear fruit.

My latest briefing in this regard highlighted that:

1. SAPS has already made extra capacity available and has undertaken the responsibility of patrolling the Corridor Road (R618);

2. a command and control facility has been initiated at Hluhluwe-IMfolozi Park, similar to the one at the Kruger National Park;

3. replacement of the Hluhluwe-IMfolozi Park boundary fence has commenced, with Smart Fencing Technology being piloted on certain sections;

4. observation towers have also been built and funding has been allocated via an external project to fund the capacity to carry out the monitoring and surveillance;

5. a helicopter is based at Mpila iMfolozi Game Reserve to ensure rapid response;

6. night operating equipment has been distributed to Hluhluwe-IMfolozi operations staff;

7. all Hluhluwe-IMfolozi gates have monitoring systems in place;

8. a human resource redeployment and recruitment plan has been developed and submitted for implementation and funding to address operational vacancies;

9. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife is in the process of dehorning identified, strategic small rhino populations in KwaZulu-Natal; and

10. the Provincial Cabinet has resolved to set up a task team via the KwaZulu-Natal Joint Crime Prevention Cluster, to investigate possible actions to combat and refocus efforts to tackle the increased poaching of rhino in KwaZulu-Natal. This task team has a six months mandate to come up with recommendations to the Provincial Cabinet.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(1) (a) and (b)

I am not informed about the company Chemtrail per se but I am provided with an insight that:

• Passenger and military jetliner manufacturers, jet fuel companies and the Aviation Industry uses geo-engineering techniques to seed metallic particles to the fuel of the jet airliners. In the process, aluminium (mainly aluminium oxide) is used along with barium and strontium. These chemicals when used in a spray form a Chemtrail (chemtrail are trails of condensation that can be seen in the sky when a jet airplane is travelling at above 30,000 feet altitude);
• Environmental concerns or damage on groundwater and soil are not fully known and the Department is researching the matter.
• There is no evidence of carcinogenic effect of these chemicals. The Department will engage with the Department of Health on this matter in view of the increase in global air transportation.

(2)

• No. We have not initiated investigations with the Aviation Industry nor with any other relevant Departments such as Defence, Transport and Energy;
• The reason for not initiating any investigation is that studies have not shown evidence of environmental concerns. It was concluded that the use of heavy metals injected into the stratosphere by exhausts of jets might scatter negligible amounts of sunlight and seemingly poses no significant environment problems. There have been no radioactive and ozone destroying properties in the stratosphere to warrant environmental interventions.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a) All objections received during the public participation process for the application for Environmental Authorisation (EA) were considered by the Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations of the Department prior to the issuing of the EA on 26 August 2015.

(b) Following the issuing of the aforementioned EA, 5 appeals were lodged, all of which were considered by me, the Minister of Environmental Affairs, as per the Appeal Decision of
15 April 2016.

2. (a-b) The record of information considered by me in the appeal process consisted of the following:

• Material information contained in the EIA project file (14/12/16/3/3/1/1/1280);
• the first appellant’s grounds of appeal, and annexures thereto, dated
  30 September 2015;
• the second appellants grounds of appeal, dated 15 October 2015;
• the third appellants grounds of appeal, dated 16 October 2015;
• the fourth appellants grounds of appeal, dated 26 February 2016;
• the fifth appellants grounds of appeal, dated 16 October 2015;
• the applicants response to the appellants’ grounds of appeal, dated
  14 November 2015;
• the site visit conducted by the Department of Environmental Affairs officials (DEA) with the applicant on 09 November 2015;
• the site visit and meeting conducted by DEA officials with the second appellant on
  10 November 2015;
• the follow-up meeting by DEA officials held with the appellants on 13 January 2016;
• the additional documents provided by the appellants at the meeting with DEA officials on 13 January 2016;
• the meeting by DEA officials held with Leopard Creek, on 08 February 2016;
• the meeting by DEA officials held with the South African National Parks management, on 09 February 2016; and
• the comments received from the Chief Directorate: IEA of the Department.

Access to any of the aforementioned documents will be allowed upon request.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) In 2015-16 financial year:

(i) The department has spent R2 621 268,44

(ii) iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority R 103 920,00

(iii) South African National Botanical Institute R 919 216,00

(iv) South African National Parks R6 552 099,12

(v) South African Weather Service R 604 241,60

(b) In the 2016-17 financial year:

(i) The department has budgeted for R 1 000 000,00

(ii) iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority R 116 000,00

(iii) South African National Botanical Institute R 1 086 396,00

(iv) South African National Parks R10 397 441,09

(v) South African Weather Service R 630 000,00

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a and b)

The Department of Environmental Affairs was never approached by any political party for funding in the following financial years since 1 April 2016:

1. 2013-2014,
2. 2014-2015, and
3. 2015-2016.

(2) (a and b)

No funding was provided by the Department of Environmental Affairs to any political party for the following financial years since 1 April 2016:

1. 2013-2014,
2. 2014-2015, and
3. 2015-2016.

Appropriated funds are meant for the execution of activities related to the mandate of the Department.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) Yes

(b) Yes, however, the participation of small business enterprises and cooperatives is advanced through public employment programmes.

(i) & (ii) The Department of Environmental Affairs provides opportunities through different programmes and entities, and is specifically responsible for the EPWP with it’s 14 different programmes through which it has provided opportunities for people through SMMEs and cooperatives.

The Programmes are listed as follow:

• Working for Water
• Working for Wetlands
• Working for Ecosystems
• Working for Forests
• Working for Energy (Biomass)
• Eco-Furniture Programme
• Working on Fire
• Working on Waste
• Working for the Coast
• Working for Land
• Greening & Open Space Management
• People & Parks
• Wildlife Economy
• Youth Environmental Service

All fourteen of the EP programmes are designed to secure outcomes that have high returns on investment, over and above the Full-Time Equivalent jobs and Work Opportunities. The contractors and participants are all trained, skilled and empowered to do this work.

South African National Parks (SANParks) is in part, part of the EPWP implementation, and implements a develpment programme for small contractors or businesses. It also supports additional small businesses as part of the Infrastructure Programme.

Further opportunities are being sought through the Chemical and Waste Branch on the Recycling Enterprise Support Programme (RESP).

(aa) Programmes target to support 2,369 SMMEs for 2016/17.

SANParks implements EPWP projects in all national parks, buffer zone areas and some provincial nature reserves. For the 2016/17, the projects will support 501 small contractors, including training and contractor development. As part of the Infrastructure Programme in Kruger National Park, 14 small construction contractors are mentored for civil, building and electrical works.

The iSimagaliso enterprise programme is in its 7th year. It supports 182 small businesses. Businesses receive formal training and ongoing mentoring via a virtual business hub. The small business also qualify to apply for grant funding from the programme. R6.8million has been paid on in grant funds to 88 small businesses.

(bb) The department has budgeted an estimated amount of R 1.2 billion for the 2016/17 financial year which will be procured using SMMEs.

The amount budgeted for the small contractors in the EPWP programme under SANParks is R166 million. An estimated amount of R58.8 million was budgeted for the small construction contactors in Kruger National Park.

Through the Waste Management Bureau, an approximate amount of 11 million is set aside for the Recycling Enterprise Support Programme (RESP) initiative.

For iSimangaliso, the amount that has been budgeted for this year is R1.2m.

(cc) Throught the 14 different programmes, a minimum of 1519 SMMEs, 46524 Work Opportunities and 23 467 Full Time Equivalents will be created in 2016/17, a further 140 temporary jobs will be created and supported in the Kruger construction programme.

It is also envisaged that a 150 jobs will be created through the Recycling Enterprise Support Programme.

For iSimangaliso, it is anticipated that the development programmes run by iSimangaliso will create approximately 2000 jobs in this financial year

---ooOoo---

Reply:

Costs relating to the hosting of the 17th Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) in Johannesburg, Gauteng from 24 September 2016 to 05 October 2016 include:

• Host Country Agreement with the CITES Secretariat (translation, interpretation, documentation, report writing, travel of CITES Staff) = USD647 234 .
• Costs associated with logistical arrangements associated with the CoP, including venue, professional conference organiser, technical requirements (voting system, microphone and audiovisual systems) opening and closing ceremonies = R34 280 547.
• Costs associated with communication, community empowerment and participation and legacy programme = R31 188 808.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a) First of all we need to remind the Honourable member that the mandate of managing landfill sites belongs to municipalities. This response relates only to our support work that we do. The Marselle waste disposal facility was identified to be licensed for closure because it is nearing its capacity. After rehabilitation one of the options for its alternative use was that the site be used as a transfer station. The site was licensed for closure on 16 March 2015. The license holder is required to commence the closure and rehabilitation activities under the supervision of a registered engineer and an Environmental Control Officer (ECO) within a period of three years from the date of issue.

(b) The site was inspected for compliance with the licence conditions on 10 June 2015, which is a routine monitoring function of the Provincial Department, and concerns were raised with the licence holder. Thereafter, concerns from local residents’ associations were received by the Department, and a meeting between the Ndlambe Local Municipality and the Chairpersons from Kenton-on-Sea Ratepayers Association (KOSRA) and Natures Landing Homeowners Association was convened on 14 September 2015 to try and address non-compliance issues associated with the site. It transpired that the Municipality has put aside a budget to appoint a service provider that will commence with the closure activities, but is overwhelmed with the quantities of waste still going to the site to enable the closure. The Department committed to assist the municipality to source funds for a project that will help with diverting waste away from going to landfill, and the project was approved and allocated a budget of R2, 026 million for the 2016/17 financial year. The project will employ a total of 46 people to assist with access control and security services at the landfill site, cleaning illegal dumps, door-to-door awareness campaigns in hotspot communities, promoting a culture of separation at source and recovery of materials.

2. The Department received this complaint in an e-mail sent to the office of the Chief Director: Regulatory Services on 08 February 2012. An inspection was conducted on 17 February 2012 at Marselle/Boesmansriviermond disposal site, and a meeting was held between the officials from the Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) and Ndlambe Municipality. On 23 February 2012, Ndlambe Municipality submitted a letter to the Department where they clearly indicated that there is currently no budget to render a 24-hour access control/security; however, staff members had been instructed not to start fires on site. Measures were also put in place as from
20 February 2012 to extend the working hours of the municipal employees to monitor the situation and ensure that fires were not lit.

It was also highlighted to the Department that, due to limited space for waste disposal, the Kenton-on-Sea garden waste site was closed, and more pressure was placed on Marselle disposal site as the garden waste was then brought to this site. The interim plan for the Municipality was to negotiate with the Kenton-on-Sea Ratepayers Association as they were keen to make available a chipper and ask garden services to drop off their garden refuse at a point where it could be chipped. This was to open up space for domestic refuse in the area that was to be used for garden refuse.

Since the matter focused on general waste management activities which fall within the mandate of the provincial sphere of government, the matter was then referred to the provincial DEDEAT on 29t February 2012.

Subsequently, the site was inspected for compliance with its licence conditions on 10 June 2015 by the DEDEAT as part of their routine monitoring function as indicated in question 1(b) above. Accordingly, the events following this inspection are outlined above.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) This needs to be responded by the Department of Water and Sanitation

(b) The situation described below and under (a) is not applicable to Durban or any specific city but is in general applicable to most cities. Given their population density and sheer intensity of economic activity, cities are a major source of overexploitation and depletion of natural resources. As was noted in the recent OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, the number of people living in cities will increase to around 6.4 billion by 2050, or approximately 70% of the total world population (OECD 2012).

Therefore all cities can be considered environmental hotspots– this shear density of humanity means that cities are huge sinks for food, water, energy and other natural resources as well as being significant sources of waste, effluent, heat and atmospheric emissions (often mostly vehicle emissions).

Loss of natural habitat is the biggest single cause of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the terrestrial environment. Outright loss of natural habitat takes place mainly as a result of conversion of natural vegetation for necessary infrastructure development and urban development, which means that patterns of land use have a great impact on the health and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems, resulting in impacts on their ecological functioning and viability, particularly in the context of climate change.

Furthermore, waste generated by urban settlements generates water pollution, soil pollution and air pollution, impacting on ecosystems, species and ecological processes (National Biodiversity Assessment, 2011).

Nothwithstanding the above, Durban like any other city in South Africa is subject to environmental laws of the country. This city has a dedicated environmental and planning institutional arrangement that is meant to mitigate and manage potential environmental impacts. Part of their environmental vision, the eThekwini Metropolitan city, advocates for conserving biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services.

Operation Phakisa led by the Department of Environmental Affairs has key focus areas on Marine Protection Services and Governance that include key initiatives addressing overexploitation and depletion of natural resources or marine living species. These include a network of Marine Protected Areas and Coordinated enforcement programs.

The monitoring and evaluation of local authorities’ performance is the mandate of COGTA.

(c) (i), (ii) and (iii)

The Department is in the process of conducting a National Coastal Assessment which will identify such hotspots.

(d) (i), (ii) and (iii)

Coastal cities by their nature are potential environmental hotspots with respect to water quality. As an example, some of recreational beaches in Durban had lost their Blue Flag status due to poor water quality but have since regained this Blue Flag Status.

The Department has tools that aim to assist municipalities to better manage water quality.

(e) (i), (ii) and (iii)

All cities contain highly prized ecosystems, but continue to face pressing needs of ever expanding need to provide for housing and other land uses. However, most of the more advanced metropolitan areas and bigger cities entertain these pressures through proper land use planning. Conservation plans and other tools are in place to indicate where the environmental hotspots are located. Planning of infrastructure takes these hotspots into consideration. Designing these cities consider environmental impacts and is dedicated to the minimization of the required inputs of energy, water and food, waste output and water pollution.

A number of conservation and legislative tools to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity have been developed.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

The Department of Environmental Affairs continues to have a contract with Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife and iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority. The Department of Environmental Affairs has structured monitoring plans and arrangements with Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife. These include monitoring the KwaZulu-Natal Marine Protected Areas and the New Proposed Marine Protected Areas included in the recently gazetted 22 Network of Marine Protected Areas (for public comments) under Operation Phakisa: Ocean Economy.

The plan in this financial year 2016/2017 from 15 to 19 August 2016 is for the Department of Environmental Affairs to host another training programme for officials of Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal on the management of the Marine Protected Areas.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) No

(b)

(i) The Department of Environmental Affairs received editorial, advertising and media coverage services from The New Age Media (TNA) Media related to the implementation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Rio+20 Summit Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy.

South African National Parks utilised the services of Comair Flight Services on 11 April 2014.

South African Biodiversity Institute, iSimangaliso, and South African Weather Service have not awarded any contracts to Sahara Holdings, Comair, Oakbay Investments, Islandsite Investments, Afripalm Horizons Stakes, The New Age Media, JIC Mining Services and Vusizwe Media in the specified period.

(ii) The payment amounts to TNA Media (The New Age Media) and Comair Flight Services are reflected in the relevant financial reports of the Department.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a)

This needs to be responded to by the Department of Water and Sanitation.

(b) (i), (ii) and (iii)

Yes.

All cities can be considered environmental hotspots simply due to the density of people – this shear density of humanity means that cities are huge sinks for food, water, energy and other natural resources as well as being significant sources of waste, effluent, heat and atmospheric emissions (often mostly vehicle emissions). Nevertheless, in the Western and Eastern coastal regions of the South African ocean space, abalone and rock lobster are currently over-exploited and showing signs of depletion.

With this, it is estimated that over 50% of the world’s population now lives in cities and urban areas. These large communities provide both challenges and opportunities for environmentally-conscious developers, and there are distinct advantages to further defining and working towards the goals of sustainable cities. Humans are social creatures and thrive in urban spaces that foster social connections. Because of this, a shift to denser, urban living provides an outlet for social interaction and conditions under which humans can prosper. Thus, contrary to popular belief cities can be more environmentally sustainable than rural or suburban living. With people and resource located so close to one another, it is possible to save energy for transportation and mass transit systems, and resources such as food.

Operation Phakisa led by the Department of Environmental Affairs has key focus areas on Marine Protection Services and Governance that include key initiatives addressing over-exploitation and depletion of natural resources or marine living species. These include a network of 22 of Marine Protected Areas and Coordinated enforcement programmes.

The monitoring and evaluation of local authorities’ performance is the mandate of the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA).

(c) (i), (ii) and (iii)

Yes

The South African coastline currently has areas that are prone to soil and beach erosion, and these include Glentana, Oyster Bay, St Francis Bay, Langebaan and Milnerton. The Department of Environmental Affairs however, is in the process of conducting a National Coastal Assessment which will identify such hotspots.

(d) (i), (ii) and (iii)

Yes

Coastal cities by their nature are potential environmental hotspots with respect to water quality. As an example, some of recreational beaches in Durban have lost their Blue Flag status due to poor water quality. The department has tools whose aim is to assist the municipalities to better manage water quality.

(e) (i), (ii) and (iii)

Yes

All cities contain highly prized ecosystems which are eroded on account of the pressing needs of ever expanding cities to provide for housing and other land uses. However, most of the more advanced metropolitan areas and bigger cities entertain these pressures through proper land use planning. Conservation plans and other tools are in place to indicate where the environmental hotspots are located. Planning of infrastructure is taking these hotspots into consideration. Designing these cities consider environmental impacts and is dedicated to the minimization of the required inputs of energy, water and food, waste output and water pollution.

A number of conservation and legislative tools to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity have been developed and these include:

• Bioregional Plans developed in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). Bioregional Plans provide for integrated and coordinated biodiversity planning to ensure the monitoring of the conservation status of various components of South Africa’s biodiversity and promote biodiversity research. A number of Bioregional Plans exist such as in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan (Eastern Cape Province), the City of Cape Town (Western Cape Province), the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan and the West Rand District Municipality (Gauteng Province), the City of Tshwane (Gauteng Province), the Gert Sibanda (Mpumalanga Province) as well as the draft Bioregional Plan for the Waterberg District (Limpopo Province).

• Biodiversity Management Plans for ecosystems are also made provision for in terms of the Biodiversity Act. These plans can be developed by any person, organisation or organ of state and are intended to ensure the long term persistence of an ecosystem that is of special concern. Management interventions put in place for landowners, resource users and other key stakeholders can impact positively on the functioning of the particular ecosystem. The department is in the process of developing the first Biodiversity Management Plan for an ecosystem which will be addressing threats to the Colbyn Valley Wetland and its associated sub-catchment (Hartebeesspruit River).

In addition to these biodiversity legislative tools, the government has taken steps towards local government support relating to the mainstreaming of environmental considerations into local government and such interventions undertaken include:

• The Environment Sector Local Government Support Strategy. The strategy which is being implemented mainstreams relevant environmental priorities into local government. This came about from a need for a more coordinated and structured mechanism of dealing with sustainable environmental management in local government. The objectives of the strategy are to:
  • clarify the environmental sector mandate for local government support;
  • clarify the local government mandate for environmental management;
  • identify opportunities for streamlining and integrating the support initiatives of the environment sector with the local government development agenda;
  • identify gaps in cooperation with the local government sector;
  • rationalise municipal reporting requirements;
  • promote consistency and synergy in approach with provinces on local government support programmes (LGSPs); and
  • maximise the environmental sector’s relations with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) the South African Cities Network (SACN) and COGTA as representative organs of local government.

The implementation of the strategy is done through the establishment and regular convening of the Local Government Task Team.

Government has also developed the National Framework for Biodiversity Mainstreaming in Local Authorities which sets out biodiversity specific considerations that should be mainstreamed into Local Authorities. The development of this framework was conducted through a series of Local Authority stakeholder workshops. Government recognises the need to implement this framework, an important intervention to strengthen support to Local Authorities towards mainstreaming biodiversity in Local Government.

In addition

The department has developed a proposed Strategic Integrated Project (SIP) known as
SIP 19: Ecological Infrastructure for Water Security. The proposed SIP 19 is the second water-related SIP and provides a framework for the integration of a number of impactful water-related ecological infrastructure investments and interventions into a coordinated, coherent and focused project specifically aimed at improving South Africa’s water resource quality and quantity. Thus, the purpose of SIP 19 is to make a significant contribution to the overall goal of ensuring a sustainable supply of fresh, healthy water to equitably meet South Africa’s social, economic and environmental water needs for current and future generations through the integrated implementation of projects within identified priority water catchments.

Although, the concept of ecological infrastructure is not very well known in traditional infrastructure sectors, the essential life-supporting and life-enhancing ecosystem goods and services that are generated by this infrastructure are universally experienced (for instance, nutrient dispersal and cycling; seed dispersal; food (such as seafood, fresh-water fish and game); crops; wild foods; spices; water; minerals; medicinal plants; pharmaceuticals; bio-chemicals; industrial products; energy (hydropower, biomass fuels); carbon sequestration and climate regulation; waste decomposition and detoxification; purification of water and air; crop pollination; pest and disease control; cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration; recreational experiences (including ecotourism) and scientific discovery).

Thus, as infrastructure is often broadly defined as the substructure or underlying foundation on which the continuance or growth of a community or state depends, similarly, ecological infrastructure is the networks of natural lands, working landscapes and other open spaces that are the substructure or underlying foundation on which the continuance or growth of ecosystem goods and services depends.

In terms of cities and the impact SIP 19 may have on cities like Durban, in recent years, a number of ecologists and economists have touted New York City's (NYC’s) efforts to preserve the Catskills watershed, one of three major basins from which the city obtains its water supply, as a key example of the benefits of effective watershed management.

New York City’s water supply system is still largely derived from surface water north of the metropolitan area with the Catskill and Delaware watersheds supplying 5.3 billion liters of safe, but unfiltered, drinking water to nearly half of the population. The reliable function and safety of this water supply was, and is, absolutely essential to the existence of NYC and is entirely based on the maintenance of ecological infrastructure. In terms of cost-effectiveness, although NYC invested $1.5 billion on watershed protection over 10 years they avoided at least $6 billion in capital costs and $300 million in annual operating costs if their ecological infrastructure was replaced by a traditional water treatment plant.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(1) One of the key performance indicators (KPI) and targets in SANBI’s approved Corporate Strategic Plan is the development of black biodiversity professionals. By the year 2019/2020, SANBI’s target is to develop 140 black biodiversity professionals which is on track and consistently monitored and reported on.

• Recently SANBI, together with partners in the biodiversity sector, has just included implementation of the Groen Sebenza Programme which is a pioneering and innovative initiative that has developed 854 young black biodiversity professionals.
• Career ladders for scientists and horticulturists were introduced in order to attract, develop and retain black biodiversity professionals.
• In addition, the following interventions are being implemented to ensure that our black scientists’ careers development paths are supported:

o Staff bursaries towards higher degrees;

o Scientific writing training courses;

o Studentships and Internships programmes;

o Mentorship/coaching; and

o Participation in workshops and conferences (local and international).

(2) The Board of Directors appointed by the Minister provides oversight to SANBI on all organisational matters including human related matters (NEMBA Section 13). The department through its governance protocol with its entities (including SANBI), provides support for the operationalisation of the business processes. In terms of the established governance practices, the current institutional arrangements suffice to enable SANBI to discharge its operational duties including the analysis of the outcomes of exit interviews. The specific matter of Mr Qwede is being addressed by SANBI Management and the department will address the same when it is raised through proper channels.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a) The South African delegation comprised of representatives of all key national departments, local and provincial government, Members of Parliament and other key stakeholder groupings – such as business, civil society, and youth. In total, there were 134 South African delegates, including the Presidency team which only attended the Head of State High Level Session, held on 30 November 2015.

(b) (i) and (ii)

The list of names and official designation is attached as Annexure A.

(iii) South Africa negotiated in the UNFCCC COP21 meeting in its national capacity, played a role in the Africa Group and was the Chair of the Group of 77 and China. The formal negotiations had more than 76 agenda items, excluding those on the sub-agenda, which required South Africa’s engagement. African countries with smaller delegations cannot attend all the meetings, meaning that their needs and national interests are not adequately addressed. South Africa, as a member of the Africa Group, is therefore playing a larger role of also supporting the negotiation capacity of the Sothern African Developing Communities region and the broader Africa Group. In addition, South Africa was leading Africa in the negotiations under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) and numerous other issues. South Africa was also the chair of the Group of 77 and China, the negotiating group for 134 developing countries.

Dealing with the global challenge of climate change and securing a binding multilateral agreement that is ambitious, fair and effective in keeping global temperature increase to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius; that balances development and environmental imperatives; and that enables developing countries to transition to lower carbon and climate resilient economies and societies is extremely complex. Each and every delegate that attended the COP 21 meeting played their part in ensuring an outcome of a universal agreement that is ambitious, fair and effective legally binding outcome.

2. (a) As the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) it would be difficult to give an exact figure of how much the total cost for South African delegation’s attendance.

(i), (ii) and (iii)

COST ESTIMATES FOR COP21: DEA DELEGATION

ITEM	COST
Accommodation for DEA Officials	R2 578 935.00
Rental for SA Delegation Operational Room and Meeting Rooms	R992 642.00
Furniture and Equipment Rental	R359 186.40
Flights (R21 139.72 approx. per person)	R697 610.76
Ground Transport in SA (R1 000.00 approx. per person)	R33 000.00
Ground Transport in Paris	R32 756.81
TOTAL: R4 694 131.00

(b) The Department of Environmental Affairs paid only for its officials as it was not responsible for the cost of travel for the whole South African delegation. Each Department, Province, Local Government and other organisations were responsible for their travel cost, accommodation and other expenses.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

The application for leave to appeal was filed on 3 March 2016. As Minister, I am appealing the Court’s decision to set aside the moratorium retrospectively.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) (b) (c) (i) (ii)

The information requested in the format that appears in the aforementioned question is not available as only the particulars of companies are recorded within the financial systems in the Department and not the details of any directors.

 

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(a) Percentage of the total procurement of the Department of Environmental Affairs:

(i) SMMEs = 84% (Annual target is 65%)

(ii) co-operatives = 0%

(b) Percentage of the total procurement of the South African National Parks (SANParks):

(i) SMMEs = 46%

(ii) co-operatives = 0%

Percentage of the total procurement of the South African Weather Service (SAWS):

(i) SMMEs = 35%

(ii) co-operatives = 0%

Percentage of the total procurement of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI):

1. SMMEs = 29%

(ii) co-operatives = 0%

Percentage of the total procurement of iSimangaliso

(i) SMMEs = 31%

(ii) co-operatives = 0%

Percentage of the total procurement of Green Fund

(i) SMMEs = 100% (5 SMMEs for a total budget of R421.642,51 – for catering, marketing and stationery)

(ii) co-operatives = 0%

---ooOoo---

Reply:

Currently, the department’s above-the-line advertising campaigns are placed through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), in compliance with the Cabinet decision of 8 June 2011.

GCIS uses an independent tool to assist in determining the best mediums to procure from any specific media campaign request. The mediums chosen are based on the Telmar software tools which give guidance on the best option to propose to a department that is making the request. This tool is supported by Independent media research analysis based on South African Advertising Research Foundation, TAMS and RAMS complemented by Audit Bureau of circulation data.

From the time the GCIS brought the in-house media buying, it has reaped considerable savings and discounts for Government.

Although the question asks for advertising costs incurred from financial years 2012 to 2015, advertising is a standard line item in each department’s / entity’s budget, which is approved by Parliament annually.

Government departments and their entities account for expenditure by tabling annual reports every year, and this document, inclusive of this line item (i.e. Advertising) are audited by the Auditor-General, who makes recommendations on any findings. Annual Reports are widely available to the public.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(1) Various censors are currently being installed on some parts of the perimeter fence to ensure early warning. The detail of such is classified;

(2) (a) (i) and (ii) and (b) No, the employees in question are part of the Bargaining Unit and therefore do not receive bonuses. However they receive 13th cheques as part of their annual remuneration packages. They received their 13th cheques for 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years; and

(3) when one talks about “local communities” it is important to remember that the Kruger National Park perimeter is heterogeneous both in terms of land use as well as human densities, socio- economics and context. The Kruger National Park perimeter is over 1000 km long (1017km), approximately half of which is in South Africa. Sixty one percent of the boundary is bordered by conservation related land use (the remaining being agriculture, rural and urban settlements and a small amount of industry). On the South African side the park straddles two provinces (that is, Limpopo and Mpumalanga), three district municipalities and seven local municipalities. There are 37 Traditional Councils representing approximately 240 villages and towns in close proximity to the fence, comprising around 1 million people.

3.1 The 1.5 million tourists that visit the Kruger National Park annually contribute towards approximately 80% of the park’s operating budget, paying for the bulk of salaries of the 2243 staff, 90% of whom come from the villages and towns adjacent to it. Many of the staff is employed within the tourism sector. Although not employed directly by the Kruger National Park, over 12 000 conservation related jobs within the greater Kruger National Park are the direct result of employment through the Expanded Public Works Programme. The concessionaires operate in the park as well as in the adjacent private, communal and provincial reserves most of which focus on the high end tourism market.

3.2 Funding obtained from tourism contributes towards the implementation of various initiatives aimed at local capacity building through education and outreach, reaching on average 80 000 learners annually, most of which are from local schools.

3.3 In addition, tourists contribute directly to community development projects in areas adjacent to the Kruger National Park through a tourism fund of 1% that is ring fenced for community projects. To date this has been used for funding of local school infrastructure development including a state of the art school administration facility, a well-stocked computer centre and early childhood development play equipment.

3.4 Several small scale enterprise development initiatives enable local entrepreneurs to access the tourism market through various channels including five locally owned and run arts and crafts outlets (collectively turning over R3.1 million annually), community owned car wash facilities at major camps, community owned kiosks at day visitors picnic sites and local catering service providers for events (turns R328 289 annually). The community owned Park n Ride game drive business turns over approximately R250 000 annually.

3.5 The Kruger National Park contractor development programme builds capacity of local building contractors through both formal and practical training sessions, using the local contractors for new buildings and the maintenance of the existing tourism and other infrastructure facilities. To date the programme has successfully trained 29 contractors who have in turn employed 360 staff, and have collectively contributed towards an infrastructure spend on Small Micro and Medium Enterprises (SMMEs) of R628 million since 2006.

3.6 Focusing on high end five star tourism, the concessionaires in the Kruger National Park partner with the South African National Parks (SANParks) in community development, through using on average 200 local SMMEs for various service provision through the year, amounting to over R6 million annually in recent years.

3.7 In cases where land restitution has taken place inside the Kruger National Park, relevant communities work with private partners to unlock additional benefits from tourism operations such as Nkambeni in the south of the park as well as Makuleke in the north with community land owners receiving preferential employment and business opportunities, as well as both rent and concessionaire fees based on turn over.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

Yes, all Ministers are subject to performance agreements with the President.

(a) The Performance Management Framework for Ministers is the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) for 2014-2019 which is the first 5-year implementation plan of the National Development Plan (NDP) 2030. The performance targets and indicators are derived from the 14 Outcomes which government seeks to achieve.

These outcomes and targets constitute government’s Programme of Action (POA), against which performance is tracked and reported at least on a quarterly basis. POA reports are publicly available on the government’s website.

(b) to (e) Cabinet closely monitors the implementation of the NDP 2030/MTSF 2014-2019 through POA Reports. These reports are tabled before an Implementation Forum of a Cluster of Ministers collectively responsible for MTSF outcomes, and then submitted to Cabinet, where progress is noted, bottlenecks to implementations are discussed, and recommendations to address bottlenecks are considered and approved.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

The department was informed by the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism that an administrative enforcement notice was issued to the management of the Modimolle landfill site and that a criminal investigation was initiated, at the Thabazimbi landfill site, by Environmental Management Inspectors within the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism and this case is currently under investigation.

(ii) The Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism is the licensing authority for general landfill sites in the Limpopo Province. For this reason, the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism is also the competent authority for undertaking compliance and enforcement activities in relation to non-compliance that is detected at the landfills that the enquiry relates to. Given that the function is a constitutionally concurrent function, the Department of Environmental Affairs is mindful of the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism’s regulatory obligations in this regard. The Department of Environmental Affairs will provide the necessary assistance and support if this is required or requested, but will always first engage with the provincial authority (which in this case is the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism) before any form of enforcement action is taken in instances where the competence to undertake the necessary compliance and enforcement action lies with the provincial authority.

(ii)(aa) As indicated above, the Department of Environmental Affairs will not encroach into the regulatory space of various competent authorities which regulate the environment unless a specific request is received. However, and in response to the growing environmental concerns around general landfill sites across the country, Working Group IV included in its 2014/2015 work programme a national general landfill site compliance and enforcement blitz in order to understand what the exact compliance status is in relation to sites which were flagged as problematic; and

(bb) Upon request of the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism, the Department of Environmental Affairs will undertake the necessary enforcement action. However, and as indicated above, the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism is currently undertaking various actions at each of these landfills, and where no action is noted the Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism indicated that these facilities, namely, Vaalwater, Bela-Bela and Mookgophong will be included in their inspection programme for this financial year.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

(1) The owner is the Department of Environmental Affairs, the National Resource Management Cluster, and the Implementer (Implementing Agent) is Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd.

(2) All movable and immovable capital assets as well as equipment acquired or built with funds made available by the department to the implementing agent remain the property of the department. Fire fighting trucks and management vehicles – are provided on a full maintenance lease by FFA Assets (Pty) Ltd with ownership transfer to the Department of Environmental Affairs at the end of the lease period. Aviation resources – Turnkey solution, including aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance is contracted from Kishugu Aviation (Pty) Ltd.

(3) The implementing agent Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd was appointed by the Department of Environmental Affairs after a competitive request for proposals process was undertaken in terms of the Department’s Supply Chain Management Policy with the National Treasury providing oversight for the entire process.

a) FFA Operations (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of FFA Holdings (Pty) Ltd was appointed as the implementing agent. Subsequently, FFA Holdings (Pty) Ltd changed its name to Kishugu Holdings (Pty) Ltd and all of its subsidiaries were amended accordingly. FFA Operations (Pty) Ltd has recently been registered as Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd. It remains a subsidiary of Kishugu Holdings (Pty) Ltd;

b) the terms of engagement are that they have been appointed as an implementing agent in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd;

c) the value of the contract is determined annually in the budget vote allocation approved by Parliament, and dependent on the allocation of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). The allocated budget for the current MTEF cycle is:

2014/15: R521 388 000,00

2015/16: R532 791 000,00

2016/17: R580 275 000,00

These allocations are inclusive of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) incentives grants (The funds paid to public bodies to incentivize work creation. The incentive is paid per quantum of employment created for the EPWP target group and can be measured in person-days of work or full time equivalent jobs) of:

2014/15: R58 114 000,00

2015/16: R44 019 000,00

2016/17: R46 352 000,00;

d) the Memorandum of Agreement is for a duration of seven years which commenced on 01 April 2014;

e) demographics:

Only South African ID holders are employed throughout the programme. This includes management staff and participants.

Management: African 63%, Coloured 10%, Indian 2% and White 25% R5, 414, 581 paid to management

Participants (previously referred to as beneficiaries): African 91%, Coloured 9%.

Female: 31%, Disabled 3% and Youth 95% of R19, 580, 675 has been paid to participants,

The Kishugu Shareholding Structure is also represented by all South Africans i.e. African, Coloured, Indian and White

• Direct Cost Benefit (Wages, Management Salaries, UIF, Workmanship Compensation, Medicals and Personal Accident Policy) 43% till to date i.e.

R 19, 110, 321

• Indirect Cost Benefit (Personal Protective Equipment, Training, OHS, Management Transport, Operational Transport Standing fees and Operational Transport variables) 41% till to date i.e. R18 286,508
• Management fee : 9% which is R4,024, 649.00
• Other (Operational variable cost, IT): 7 %

f) the same implementing agent Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd (at that stage it was FFA Operations (Pty) Ltd) was appointed by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry after a competitive tender process (WP9191) undertaken in terms of the Department’s Supply Chain Management policy; and

g) there is a range of mechanisms in place for monitoring and evaluating the contract, and these include:

Department of Environmental Affairs National Resource Management Working on Fire Executive Committee (EXCO);

Department of Environmental Affairs National Resource Management Oversight Committee;

monthly and quarterly KPI Reporting to the Director-General; and

monthly and quarterly EPWP Reporting.

---oOo---