Reply:

 

1. (a) The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) initiated a criminal investigation in relation to the operations undertaken by Alexkor SOC (Ltd) (Alexkor), which is situated in Alexander Bay.

(a)(i) The criminal investigation against Alexkor commenced in 2020 and was registered with the South African Police Service (SAPS) under CAS Alexander Bay 19-09-2020. This investigation is complete and was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in

the Northern Cape for a decision to be made on whether or not to institute a prosecution. The DFFE is currently awaiting the decision from the office of the DPP.

(a)(ii) In addition to the criminal investigation, the DFFE issued Alexkor with a Compliance Notice, dated 29 July 2021. This Compliance Notice is aimed at instructing Alexkor to implement measures to address the harm that was caused to the environment during the construction of the cofferdams by using mafic rocks and to cease the use thereof.

(b)(i)(ii) According to the departmental records, there are no reports of non-compliance that bears reference to Koingnaas.

1. As explained in (a)(ii), a criminal case was registered by the DFFE with Alexander Bay CAS 19/09/2020 as reference against Alexkor. According to departmental records, there is currently no investigation in relation to any activities in Koingnaas.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 22 December 2021

Reply:

 

1. (a) The 2008 Elephant Norms and Standards (ENS) are very prescriptive in terms of what could be done to manage elephants and their use of space. One of the key challenges for SANParks is the restriction on the number of times an individual elephant can be translocated.

Parks outside of the Kruger National Park, such as Marakele, have had their elephant population seeded from other populations, which meant that these individuals could not be translocated a second time unless there were extraordinary circumstances necessitating such translocation. The same is true for responding to repeat offender damage-causing animals. SANParks’ proposal on translocating elephants a second time under extraordinary circumstances has been included in the revised ENS.

The revised ENS still considers the potential stressful impact of translocation on elephants. Therefore, the approach of the ENS to allow the repeat translocation of elephants only in extraordinary circumstances has, therefore, not been changed.

The NCOP has approved the final draft revised ENS. The process to obtain the Minister’s approval for the publication of the final draft ENS in the Government Gazette for implementation has been initiated and the document is currently undergoing legal vetting.

2. One of the important developments in the revised ENS was the inclusion of Chapter 28 on Research. This will allow for well-structured, repeatable research, meeting the criteria as listed in the revised ENS in order to improve the knowledge and understanding of elephants, their use of space and how to better manage their impacts at a local scale. The outcomes of such research, if and when undertaken, may have a bearing on future policy iterations, which is in keeping with a strategic adaptive management approach, as set out in the ENS specifically and in conservation policy more broadly.

Regards
MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 22 December 2021

Reply:

 

a. Zones of increased vigilance are areas identified for their increased elephant impact and where the intensity of use is influenced by various factors that may drive undesirable impacts on biodiversity at a local scale. Research conducted by SANParks indicates that the elephant impact is not directly related to elephant density, but rather to the places elephants use in a landscape, the time they spend in those areas, the demographics of the specific elephants and what they are doing when they are there (feeding, drinking, comfort and safety).

The implementation of elephant management in the Kruger National Park (KNP) focuses on maintaining resource gradients in elephant habitats through fire, water and fence management policies. The zones of increased vigilance are intended to monitor elephant behaviour and influence elephant use space. Access to water, fencing off certain areas, the net-fencing of large trees and fire management are used to influence elephants’ use of space. The outcome of the implementation of zones of increased vigilance is intended to ensure that elephants reduce the use of areas where they are impacting negatively on the local biodiversity.

2. a. The zones of increased vigilance are used to identify elephant impact areas (EIAs) where the intensity of use is influenced by various factors which may drive undesirable impacts on biodiversity at a local scale.

b) The new concept of “zones of increased vigilance” is under development and, at this stage, only elephant impact areas have been identified. The zones of increased vigilance and management therein, are under development in the KNP and are informed by the current Elephant Norms and Standards.

3. a. There is no specific final measure at this stage as the zones of increased vigilance relate to the impact of elephants on local zones and less on a large-scale shift of elephant densities. Progress will be assessed within an adaptive management approach. At this stage, local intensity of elephant use at the end of the dry season serves as a good index of disturbance and will be a useful indicator of elephant impact. Methods used to monitor intensity of use currently being validated include dung counts, mark recapture techniques using camera traps, and collared individual movement patterns.

b) As research and validation is under way, it is not clear how long it will take for the interventions to yield meaningful results and guide ongoing management interventions.

Regards
MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 22 December 2021

Reply:

 

1. The Knysna Elephant Park is privately owned and neither belongs to, nor is it managed by SANParks or the State. Therefore, the incident in question occurred in a private facility over which SANParks has no jurisdiction or control. SANParks manages the following parks in the Garden Route region: The Knysna National Park (with one remaining elephant), and the Tsitsikamma National Park and the Wilderness National Park – both Parks do not have any elephants.
2. SANParks has a mandate to manage national parks. However, the conservation management of private nature reserves resides with the provincial entities, which in this case is Cape Nature. SANParks, therefore, has no role to ensure compliance on private nature reserves.

I suggest the Honourable Member approach Cape Nature through the relevant legislature for details on this case.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 17 December 2021

Reply:

 

1. (i) Leopards are generally considered uncommon in South Africa, however, estimates of the size of the national population vary widely from 2 185 to 23 400 leopards (Friedmann & Traylor-Holzer, 2005; Martin & De Meulenaer, 1988; Swanepoel et al., 2014b). None of these estimates are based on rigorous population counts at regional scales and their confidence intervals are so wide,

indicating the need for more information (for example, 2 813 to 11 632 leopards estimated by Swanepoel et at., 2014b).

ii) Leopards are very difficult to survey accurately, especially in the dense bush found in the Kruger National Park (KNP). A mark-recapture survey using camera traps gave an estimate of between 1 630 and 2 860 leopards in the KNP in 2011. SANParks is confident that there has not been much fluctuation in respect of leopard numbers in the KNP year on year since the survey was conducted.

1. Given the concerns around the current state of conservation of leopards, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) is of the view that all options for the conservation and sustainable use of leopards should be explored. The use of artificial skin is an option that was introduced by NGOs in an effort to reduce the poaching of leopards for their skin. To date, it has not yet been promoted by the DFFE and may be considered by the Leopard Forum (a forum to coordinate the work of leopard management from various role players towards the development of the Leopard Biodiversity Management Plan) if it is deemed a viable option for the promotion of the conservation and sustainable use of leopards. The DFFE, however, continues to educate and raise awareness throughout the country on the threats to the survival of the species and the impact of the illegal and unsustainable use of leopards, including the unsustainable harvesting of skin and other derivatives from leopards. More importantly, the DFFE is engaging with rural and urban communities on legal ways to source skins to ensure compliance with the legislation.

SANParks has engaged with the Panthera Foundation on sourcing artificial leopard skins to be used by traditional leaders for ceremonial purposes. The Panthera Foundation has committed to providing SANParks with 20 artificial leopard skins. Upon receipt of these skins, SANParks will engage with the traditional leaders to map a way forward.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 19/11/2021

Reply:

(1) (a) Minutes of joint safety and security meetings are confidential and cannot be shared, as these documents contain sensitive security-related content, including details about anti-poaching campaigns.

(b) The South African National Parks (SANParks) engages with the Republic of Mozambique through a number of forums established in accordance with the International Treaty signed in 2002 between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This includes the Greater Lebombo Conservancy (GLC) Security Forum which consists of:

a. Kruger National Park(KNP);

b. Mozambique — Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC);

c. Mozambique — Environmental Police; and

d. Mozambique — Private Concessions (Karangani, Ferreira, Masintonto and Sabie Game Park).

Before the COVID-19 Pandemic, meetings were held quarterly in Xinavane, but have since been held virtually or along the South Africa/Mozambique Boundary. Various high-level visits have taken place between South Africa (SA) and Mozambique, and this includes a Mozambican delegation visit to KNP in October 2019. The delegation consisted of ANAC and Park Managers from Mozambique. It is also important to understand that at an operational level, the relationship between KNP Rangers and their Mozambican Counterparts (whether government or neighbouring concessions) does not function on the basis of scheduled meetings, but rather on daily communication and co-ordination via telephone or radio. The success of the current relationship and the efficiency it brings to law enforcement efforts is based on the building of trustful relationships informed by a shared vision. This has developed over time. This partnership informed the development of a Joint Safety and Security Plan for the Greater Lebombo Conservancy, Kruger I ationaI Park and Limpopo National Park.

There are also structures in place to give effect to the 2002 Treaty to support the policing structures on combating crime, as well as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the department and ANAC signed in 2014 on Cooperation in the Field of Biodiversity Conservation and Management. These include the following:

a. GLTFCA Joint Management Board

b. Joint Management Committee (JMC)

c. Support to the structures aligned to the Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Coordinating Committee (SARPCCO)

d. Forum of SADC Chiefs of the Armies, South Africa and Mozambique in which SANParks participates through the department.

(2) SANParks’ Environmental Crime Investigations (ECI) Unit has, since 2013, had a working relationship with the Mozambique Police in Maputo and Gaza Provinces as well as ANAC in Maputo. Since the start of this collaboration, SANParks officials have visited Mozambique on a regular basis and vice versa. Information pertaining to wildlife crime, including rhino, elephant, lion and pangolin poaching is shared during these sessions. Members of the aforementioned Mozambican departments have, on many occasions, visited Nelspruit and Skukuza Police Stations to obtain details or statements from arrested Mozambican suspects to better understand wildlife crime networks in Mozambique. This co-operation has led to a number of successes in the fight against wildlife crime.

In addition to the ongoing collaboration that is taking place with the Mozambique Police, both with SANParks ECI (as indicated above) and SAPS (through the police co-operation structures that are in place), the depa#ment also works very closely with ANAC to ensure that information on wildlife crimes is shared timeously; linkages between the countries are understood and support in relation to investigations is provided. Where confiscations of rhino horn take place in Mozambique, samples of these horns are transported to the SAPS Forensic Science Laboratory in Pretoria so that analysis can be undertaken and linkages can be determined to poaching scenes, stockpiles or live animals in South Africa.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF F RESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:19/11/2021

Reply:

 

1. (a) The Depa#ment developed a National Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in 2019, a decision support tool to assist coastal planning and response to physical hazards attributable to climate change, such as sea level rise, flooding, erosion, or storm events. The National Coastal Climate Change Assessment Report and the Geo-Spatial Index for coastal climate change vulnerability of South Africa's coastline and estuaries are available. http://mapservice.environment.oov.za/CoastaI%20Viewer/

(b) The Department has been rolling out training and capacity building for municipalities and has completed seven (7) sessions with coastal municipalities (Metropolitans and Districts) on the use of the data generated to support the decision making process of authorities. Both an on- line and offline tool have been developed and shared with all coastal municipalities and provinces. Coastal provinces have also been working with their respective municipalities to develop Coastal Management Lines (CMLs) for their coastline to deal precisely with coastal risk within their programmes, plans or strategies to address the sea level rise impact.

2. (a)(b)

Less risk - west coast

• • A general decrease in rainfall in the western and southern part will reduce the risk of flooding in river catchments (apart from the Orange River with its far inland reaching catchment).
  • The expected decrease of storm frequency and intensity will reduce the likelihood and intensity of sea storms. This means that the risk of coastal flooding and erosion on the west coast might be decreasing.

More risk - east coast

• • In contrast, the east coast is likely to become more affected by climate related weather events. The expected increase in the occurrence of storms and cyclones in northern KwaZuIu- Natal can increase the damage through direct wind impacts.
  • The department is currently partnering with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) on the green book, and part of the implementation will include identifying possible areas that require long-term adaptation measures to facilitate and achieve sustainable coastal development in South Africa.

1. In 2021 the department published three reports which deal with climate change and fisheries in South Africa. These three reports are the results of national workshops that were held as part of a larger project under the umbrella of the Benguela Current Commission. The first of these evaluated the sensitivity of different fishing sectors to climate change, the likely impact that climate change would have on these sectors, how adaptable the sectors are likely to be, and how vulnerable they are. The second report evaluated possible adaptation measures for the different fishing sectors, indicating the likely threats to each sector and detailing possible adaptation measures and evaluating these in terms of their feasibility, priority and timescales. The third report

evaluated existing research for fisheries adaptation to climate change and identified areas where additional research is required going forwards. The reports can be made available on request to the communications unit of the Department.

1. The science observations on temperature and other key features can be accessed at https://www.environment.oov.za/documents/research#oceans The findings are available in three reports, and copies of these can be provided.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 19/11/2021

Reply:

1)

• 1. The Kruger National Park (KNP) no longer conducts culling operations to control animal population numbers to a predetermined stable state, as was done historically with many species including elephants, hippo and buffalo.
  2. The following table provides a list of animals that were lethally managed in the KNP in the past three years. It must be noted that the table below excludes offtake numbers that were processed through the Skukuza Abattoir. These animals are euthanised for a range of reasons such as for bait, being alien species or the animal being injured. The carcases are either left in the veld or used for research and scientific purposes.

Table 1: Lethal Animal Management numbers in the KNP from 2019-2021, excluding offtakes that were processed through the Skukuza GPP

	2019	2020	2021
Alien species	33	45	8
Bait for predator capture	7	23	25
Animal Welfare	30	56	14
Problem Animals	310	329	127
Self Defence	23	22	8
Internal events eg Anti- poaching success, long-service,	30	5	4
TOTAL	433	480	186

• 1. SANParks does not use the “landscape of fear” as a management concept.

2)

1. Our management decisions are based on the carrying capacity of land in different biomes and related animal censuses to ensure sustainable species conservation.

1. The following species and numbers were processed through the Skukuza Game Processing Plant (GPP) for the past three years:

Table 2. Animals Processed through the Skukuza GPP (2019-2021)

	2019 offtake	2020 offtake	2021 offtake
Warthog	56	0	0
Impala	236	888	0
Elephant	7	3	8
Buffalo	90	0	0
Hippo	0	13	0

It is important to note that the elephants in the table were euthanised because they were classified as damage causing or problem animals who regularly caused damage to infrastructure and showed signs of aggressive behaviour which posed a danger to human life. In line with SANParks Wildlife Management Policy, lethal management was recommended in order to mitigate risk to human life.

3)

1. To offset costs, some animal products were sold to staff, 90% of which come from the neighbouring communities adjacent to the KNP.

1. Animal products that become available as a result of animal offtakes in the KNP include meat, hides and bones. Of these, a portion of the meat is donated to communities living adjacent to the KNP. This is done in the spirit of sharing the benefits of biodiversity within the context of moral obligation, historical redress, relationship building and in the longer term, building protected area relevance – an important component of overall sustainability. However, it is important to acknowledge that meat donations are merely one of many tools in the large benefit sharing basket.

• 1. Beneficiaries from meat products vary, but broadly include the following:
     • Local schools (there are more than 400 local schools adjacent to the KNP);
     • Local traditional council community events (Ummemo days, chief inaugurations and certain annual meetings);
     • Issue-based community campaigns (such as those linked to rhino anti-poaching); and
     • Community forum meetings (there are seven community forums adjacent to the KNP, namely the Nkomazi Forum, Lubambiswano Forum, Ntirhisano Forum, Mahlamba Ndlopfu Forum, BaPhalaborwa Forum, Hlanganani Forum and the Makuya Forum. Each forum represents in the region of between 20 and 50 villages, each with at least one school, but in some cases more than four schools per village).

Donations to local schools form the bulk of the donations. SANParks utilises the existing government feeding schemes as a vehicle to implement the donations as there are already structured setups at the schools to handle the safe cooking and serving of the protein.

• 1. The schools are primarily selected by the relevant community forums, where possible, together with the social outreach officers from the KNP. This is done on a rotational basis with the objective that no school receives a “second” donation until all other schools in the forum have received their first donation. Records of these donations are kept, including the names of the recipients, the amount of the donations and details of the contact persons in each case. This is done specifically to ensure fairness, transparency and to enable an adaptive management approach to the strategy.

Owing to legislative prescriptions, such as the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (Act No. 4 of 2013) on privacy, SANParks is not at liberty to share personal details of the individuals who receive these donations, as consent will have to be requested from individuals.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 23 September 2021

Reply:

 

• 1. In 2019, the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), through the Waste Research Development and Innovation Roadmap, undertook a project aimed at reviewing the state of South Africa’s current knowledge base on marine litter. The objective of the study was to consolidate the existing scientific evidence and to assess the current gaps in knowledge. The study led to five papers published in the South African Journal of Science in May 2020, covering such topics as the sources and pathways of marine plastic litter, the transport and fate of plastic litter and its ecological impacts.

Several of the studies that have been conducted have recommended the strengthening of efforts to help reduce the leakage of plastic waste into the environment. Government aims to achieve this through a number of initiatives, some of which are summarized below.

• In September 2020, Cabinet approved the National Waste Management Strategy, 2020 (NWMS) in terms of Section 6 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA), which updated the 2011 strategy. The Strategy strongly advocates the notion of a circular economy in which plastics are kept within the economy as far as possible through the application of waste avoidance, recovery,” recycling and reuse to minimise waste generated. Unlike the 2011 strategy, the 2020 strategy places a stronger emphasis on supporting innovation and partnerships with the private sector, collaboration with other departments on the beneficiation of waste and supporting the provincial and local spheres of government to build their capacity in respect of waste management.

The implementation of the 2020 strategy is centred around three strategic pillars of action, namely waste minimisation, waste service provisioning, and compliance and enforcement. For each of these strategic pillars, specific objectives, actions and targets have been formulated and are being monitored in terms of performance indicators within the waste management sector.

• In April 2021 the Department published amendments to the Plastic Carrier Bags and Plastic Flat Bags Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) and the NEM:WA. The amendments focus on promoting the circular economy and to increase the amount of recycled content or “post-consumer recyclate" material being used in the manufacturing process of plastic bags. These amendments aim to enhance the demand-side of waste management and to secure the necessary demand to drive the diversion of plastic waste from landfill.
  • In November 2020 the Department published the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Regulations in Government Gazette 43879 (Notice No. 1184) on 5 November 2020 for implementation. These regulations make it compulsory for producers and importers of plastic packaging to belong to an EPR scheme. In doing so, such producers and importers must demonstrate how the environmental impacts of their products are being managed throughout the products’ life-cycle, from design to the post-consumer phase.

The department is also supporting several other initiatives that are led by various other organisations (private and civil society) in the country, aimed at addressing plastic waste in
South Africa. These initiatives include, amongst others, the SA Initiative to End Plastic Waste, the National Plastics Pact and the Plastics Master Plan (led by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC).

The steps taken to reduce the impact of discarded nets on the Cape fur seals along the coast of the Republic are as follows:

Most fisheries sectors are required (through permit conditions) to report gear loss (including the GPS co-ordinates) to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). Marking of fishing gear is not a requirement of fishing permits; however, all buoys and ropes are marked according to vessels, and traps are colour-coded specific to operators / vessels.

• There are mitigation measures in place for many fisheries as well, e.g. for the gillnet, octopus trap, and rock-lobster trap fisheries. A well-established disentanglement network of government and non-government organisations exist to deal with cetacean, shark, bird, and other entanglements, mostly due to ghost gear.
  • The department and stakeholders have been monitoring trends of plastic pollutants that entangle Cape fur seals at the Cape Town docks since 1990. The effort is integrated into disentanglement efforts where role players conduct daily visits to known hotspots to remove plastic items from seals. The Benguela Current Commission will be funding analysis and the write-up of these data in 2021/22.
  • Fishing gear may be deliberately abandoned or discarded to disguise Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing activities. South Africa has acceded to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing, including conditions in relation to the marking of the fishing gear. The agreement on Port State Measures is seen to be a cost effective and potent tool to combat IUU fishing.

• 1. The last comprehensive pup count was conducted in 2017. Based on these pup production estimates, there are at least 600 000 seals in South Africa.

The population is generally stable; however, scientists have noticed, through research and monitoring, that there are colony specific level fluctuations. A notable decrease was at Kleinsee (Northern Cape) where pup production declined by up to 50 000 between the years 2000 and 2017. Conversely, since 2006, there has been a rapid and exponential increase in the number of seals at Vondeling Island, south of Saldanha (which has now stabilised) and Robberg on the south east coast. This was not a biologically plausible increase and, as such, it is suspected that it was a result of immigration from northern colonies, most likely from Kleinsee. The increase in the south and the decrease in the north is consistent with the direction of shift in distribution of their preferred prey resources (sardines and anchovy).

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: '

Reply:

 

1. The South African National Parks (SANParks) Integrity Testing Policy was first approved in January 2017. Organised labour did not support the introduction of compulsory polygraph testing. The Integrity Testing Policy was subsequently revised by SANParks management for consultation with organised labour in September 2021.

It is recognised that were this policy to be implemented it would require a change to employees' conditions of employment.

2.

• 1. During 2016 and 2017, seventy-one (71) employees from the Ranger Services Leader Group and Kruger National Park MANCO underwent voluntary polygraph testing.
  2. If the policy is agreed to and approved, staff can be subject to random testing.

3.

1. The current Human Resource (HR) constraints result from severe declines associated with the Covid-19 Pandemic. Until revenues increase SANParks can only fill critical vacancies
2. SANParks uses the VIP Premier system and is in the process of upgrading to SAGE VIP 300 People.

4. Employees are qualified for the roles they are appointed to perform within the organisation.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MlNISTER OF FORESTRY,FISHERlES AND THE ENVlRONMENT
DATE:

Reply:

1)

• 1. SANParks does not set rhino poaching targets. SANParks sets annual targets to systematically reduce poaching at Kruger National Park (KNP). The setting of the target to reduce poaching takes into account current poaching trends, the poaching compound effect, birth disruptions, diseases and droughts. Ultimately, we aim to eliminate rhino poaching in KNP and other national parks.

Yes, the target to reduce poaching is considered acceptable given the current realities and has helped to direct and better coordinate our anti-poaching efforts.

1. There is no target for criminal activity. There is a target to reduce criminal activity.

Yes, the targets are continuously reviewed and revised and using new information to adapt management responses for improved performance outcomes. See attached annexure A, detailing the decline in rhino poaching in South Africa between 2014 and 2020.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 23/09/2021

Reply:

 

1. (a) SANParks and/or Kruger National Park (KNP) receives no benefit (financial or otherwise) from the hunting at the Association of Private Nature Reserves (APNR). The APNR are responsible for costs pertaining to the safety and security functions, fence infrastructure maintenance costs, conservation management and their own socio-economic development programmes which they implement on the western boundary of the KNP.

1. The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area Cooperative Agreement (2018) and the workplan are currently being reviewed, and a report will be submitted to the relevant Members of the Executive Committees of Mpumalanga and Limpopo Provinces, as well as the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment. The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA); Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) are being consulted as part of the review process.

The APNR Hunting Protocol is an operational protocol, and is annually reviewed by the APNR Executive structures — with representation by the provincial conservation authorities: the MTPA, LEDET and SANParks.

1. The management functions within the protected areas are governed by the National Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA), including the associated Regulations, as well as Norms and Standards. The APNR structures are not contractual national parks, and SANParks is not the Management Authority of these protected areas. The provincial conservation authorities, the MTPA and LEDET are the regulatory authorities mandated with the regularisation and compliance oversight of these protected areas. The MTPA and LEDET are also the issuing authorities of the permits, and the oversight of the hunting.

The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area Cooperative Agreement (2018) provides the umbrella mechanism for SANParks to submit recommendations for resource use on open protected areas not managed or owned by SANParks-KNP.

1. The following scientific information is presented to the APNR Joint Operational Committee, submitted to SANParks for recommendations and to the MTPA and LEDET for final approvals:
   1. Census information: demographics and animal counts for the game species within the respective reserves;
   2. Specialist studies pertaining to key species; and
   3. Post-off-take reports from the previous off-take season, including demographics.

The off-take requests are submitted annually during the last quarter of the calendar year, following post-off take committee discussions, specialist study submissions and approvals by the APNR EXCO and APNR Joint Operational Committees.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:

Reply:

1. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) was not aware of the storage of the chemicals in close proximity to the natural area prior to the fire incident that took place in July 2021. The DFFE is not the competent authority for issuing environmental authorizations in respect of such an activity as this function lies with the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs. As a result of the fire incident, the DFFE received a notification in terms of section 30 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) and has subsequently therefore become aware of the storage facility.

2. On the 25* of August 2021 the Minister in the National Assembly committed to release the findings of the investigation by a multi-departmental investigative team in relation to the compliance profile of United Phosphorus Limited (UPL) by the end of September 2021. The drafting of that report is at an advanced stage and the department remains on track to disclose this to the public as the Minister committed to do.

3. The DFFE received 12 (twelve) complaints from the public through the departments Environmental Crime and Incidents Hotline at the time when the fire was not fully extinguished. It should, however, be noted that the majority of the complaints were reported to the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: .10/09/2021

Reply:

 

(1) (a)

We hope to publish phase two of the Social-Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) by mid-September.

(ii)The SEIAS Phase 2 documents, which will be made available to stakeholders for comment during the public participation process on draft policies in mid September.

(b) Yes consultation will conform with Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) requirements .

(2) Yes.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 10/09/2021

Reply:

 

1. South Africa is aware of the global discussions around a potential new international treaty on marine litter and plastic pollution and has been participating actively in the United Nations Environment Assembly’s Ad Hoc Open-Ended Expert Group on Marine Litter and Microplastics, where the matter has been considered. South Africa has not finalised the due process to inform any pronouncement on a position concerning the global treaty for plastic pollution. This will only be done after a position paper is taken through the Cabinet Cluster process.
2. South Africa is a party to the Basel Convention on the control of the trans-boundary movement of waste. The 2019 amendments of Annexes to the Basel Convention addresses plastic waste in guiding member countries on the management of import and export of plastic waste. Using the guidance from the Basel Convention, the department has set up systems to handle applications for the importation of plastic waste. The applicants that intend to bring plastic waste into the country are obliged to indicate the intended use of the plastics and evidence of scarcity of the type of plastic waste they intend to import into South Africa.
3. South Africa’s current systems and processes are effective in significantly reducing the amount of plastic waste, in particular the amount of waste going into the ocean. The department has introduced the following to address the potential leakages of plastic into the ocean:

a). The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Regulations were published in Government Gazette 43879 (Notice No. 1184) on 05 November 2020 for implementation and apply to the following sectors: electrical and electronic equipment, lighting and paper, packaging and some single use products. These EPR Regulations outline a new approach to waste management in South Africa and will contribute significantly to the diversion of plastic waste from landfill.

b). In September 2020, Cabinet approved the National Waste Management Strategy, 2020 in terms of section 6 of NEM: WA. The strategy is based on the update and revision of the 2011 version and built on the success and lessons learnt from the previous version. Waste Minimisation forms part of the focus areas in the latest version of the strategy.

c). The amended regulations to Plastic Carrier Bags and Plastic Flat Bags Regulations were gazetted on 07 April 2021 in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA) and NEM:WA. The amendments focus on promoting a circular economy and ensuring circularity by prescribing the design through setting minimum recycled content in a phased manner starting in the year 2023 until 2027. The amended regulations create a demand for plastic waste to be used as a recyclate.

d). The department is also supporting other initiatives that are led by numerous organisations (private and civil society) in the country that are aimed at generating valuable information to support policy making for the management of plastic waste in South Africa. These initiatives include, amongst others, the initiative to end plastic waste, the Plastic Pact and the Plastics Master Plan (led by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC)).

e). The department implements various Environmental Programmes that are aimed at cleaning waste in the environment. The department's Source to Sea initiative aimed at stemming the flow of litter from upstream sources and catchments on land into the ocean environment is one such programme. Under this project, the department is working with municipalities to deploy litter interception devices in priority rivers and to collect litter from these rivers systems.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 10/09/2021

Reply:

1. There are only two municipalities in South Africa that applied in terms of section 45 of the National Environment Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008), namely:

- Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality applied for and received a Waste Management Licence for the disposal of both General and Hazardous Waste.

- Eden District Municipality applied for and received a waste management licence for the Disposal of both General and Hazardous Waste.

2. All licences issued in terms of waste listed activities can be found on the South African Waste Information Centre website on http://sawic.environment.gov.za/?menu=88

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 10/09/2021

Reply:

 

1. (a) What is the duration of training for recruits on the Working on Fire (WOF) programme prior to them being stationed in a base and (b) how does this compare with the training provided to a firefighter;
2. what is the (a) stipend paid to a WOF participant and (b) average salary paid to a firefighter;
3. what are the working hours of a (a) WOF participant and (b) firefighter on a monthly basis?

1844. THE MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT REPLIES:

1(a)

The Working on Fire (WoF) Programme is one of the initiatives of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). It contributes to maintaining ecologically acceptable fire regimes within fire-prone biomes of the country and protection for the country’s economy from the damages caused by veld & forest (wildland) fires. The DFFE implements the WoF Programme based on the Government’s Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) model. The WoF Programme recruits EPWP participants who undergo a vigorous 24 day training programme, consisting of:

Basic Fire Fighting skills.

• • Advance Fire Fighting skills (yellow card).
  • Skills training such as Brushcutter Operator, Chainsaw Operator, Herbicide application, SHE Representative, First Aid.

1. The Structural Firefighter training is for a 3-month fire-fighting period. The training differs in that it is aimed at fighting structural fires for example fires in buildings, shacks and houses. WoF Programme Fire Fighters are trained only in the suppression of wildfires according to the National Veld and Fire Act, 1998 (Act No. 101 of 1998)

2(a)

WoF Programme Fire Fighters are employed under the conditions of the EPWP, and stipends are accordingly determined.

The Minister of Labour in consultation with NEDLAC issued an amended Code of Good Practice for EPWP in terms of the Ministerial Determination. In this Determination, it is agreed upon to reduce unemployment, which is one of the greatest challenges facing South Africa. The government has undertaken several initiatives to address unemployment and poverty, including the labour-intensive EPWP, funded by the government. The programme includes the acquisition of skills either through accredited or experiential training, which forms an integral part of the EPWP. The Code provides guidelines for the protection of workers engaged in EPWP, taking into account the need for workers to have basic rights, the objectives of the programmes and the resources implications for the government.

Employers must pay workers at least the minimum rate as stipulated in the Ministerial Determination on EPWP. Workers are paid for the number of tasks completed. Fire-fighters are paid at a daily rate. The fire fighters are also paid a training allowance in the event they are required to attend agreed training programmes. The training allowance should be equal to 100% of the daily rate. The EPWP wage is approved by the Department of Public Works, annually.

The current approved rate for 2021/2022 financial year is R122.05 per day per 8 hours worked. This can change depending on the skills and range of job types that form part of the WoF Programme EPWP participants., e.g. a Fire Fighter that is required to have a chainsaw operating qualification is paid R136.85 per day for 8 hours of work.

2(b) Structural Fire Fighters are remunerated according to the Municipal grading and can start from

+/-R10 000.00 per month excluding benefits such as:

• • Medical aid

Pension

• • Group Life insurance, etc.

3(a) Normal working hours Out of Fire Season is 40 hours per week (8 hours per day for 5 days a week). During Fire Season, the working hours remain at 40 hours per week, although the working days are extended to 7 days a week. Fire Fighters get days off to ensure that they do not exceed working more than 40 hours a week.

1. Structural Fire Fighters (Municipal) operate on a dayshift/nightshift system with alternative days off in between shifts. The shift system is subject to change from Municipality to Municipality.

Shifts are as follows:

• • 8 hours x 5 days a week
  • 12-hour shifts (2 x dayshifts and 2 x nightshifts per week)
  • 24-hour shifts (ranging from 2 on duty and 1 day off duty)

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: .

Reply:

1.Yes, the Environmental Authorisation (EA), dated 27 March 2015, makes provision for the construction and operation of a bulk terminal for the handling of manganese ore. This manganese ore terminal includes a stockyard, conveyor systems that will link the stockyard to the tippler and the ship loader. The stockyard covers an area of approximately 40 ha in Zone 9 of the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) with a volume of approximately 1.8 million tons of manganese ore. The manganese ore stockyard and handling facility is located in Zones 8 and 9 of the Coega IDZ, which forms part of the Port of Ngqura. Therefore, the Port of Ngqura is authorised to upload and handle manganese ore.

In relation to the Record of Decision (ROD) that was issued in 2002, several inspections were conducted with the last inspection being conducted in 2010. No significant non-compliances were detected. The Environmental Management Committee (EMC) was established for the Coega Special Economic Zone (SEZ), as a requirement of this ROD, to oversee the overall compliance and environmental management performance of individual tenants, including Transnet (Port of Ngqura). The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) participates in the EMC.

2.With regard to the authorisation that was issued to the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) in 2015, the DFFE wrote to the TNPA to enquire whether they had commenced with the project, as per the authorisation. In a letter, dated 10 April 2019, the TNPA advised the DFFE that they have not commenced with the project. To date, the TNPA has not submitted any notification of commencement to the DFFE. Therefore, with regard to the authorisation that was issued to the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) in 2015, the DFFE has not yet conducted an inspection.

However, the DFFE has an already scheduled site inspection in September 2021 to check compliance of the TNPA with regard to the environmental legislation and conditions of their issued authorisations.

3.The Minister will only be in a position to make a statement once the planned inspection has been conducted to verify the compliance status.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE:

Reply:

The information requested on repeat offenders resides with the South African Police Service (SAPS). The SAPS is the custodian of the Crime Administration System (CAS), which captures all the criminal cases across the country and reflects the “repeat offended’ status.

The increase in rhino poaching and rhino horn trafficking is being addressed through a multidisciplinary Integrated Strategic Management approach and in line with the National Integrated Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking (NISCWT).

Furthermore, the introduction of the seven integrated wildlife zones across the country has strengthened the coordination between the public and private partners operating in these areas. The necessary resources are being redirected to areas most in need of support and lessons learnt are being shared, including those related to the use of appropriate technologies to ensure surveillance, early warning and detection. The sharing of real-time information between these partners is resulting in the ability to proactively deploy in specific areas and to react quickly to report in a coordinated manner.

An additional step is being taken by SANParks, provincial nature reserves and private rhino owners who are dehorning rhinos in an effort to deter poachers, and protect the iconic animals from being killed for their horn.

SANParks is also investing in guarding rhinos through planned intensive monitoring which complements anti-poaching initiatives that focus on apprehending poachers. The Kruger National Park is currently investing in a layered approach to protect rhinos in the core rhino areas using integrated technologies and establishing a programme to improve staff integrity and morale.

Through the Environmental Enforcement Fusion Centre, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) has increased analysis capability to provide support at a tactical level, as well as in relation to investigations. This has boosted anti-poaching at a tactical level and introduced integrated information-led enforcement. This work further strengthens the essential collaboration with the SAPS, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (HAWKS), the Department of Justice and other sectors of the security cluster to gather, analyse and share intelligence on wildlife traficking so that international syndicate-related crimes can be dealt with effectively.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE

Reply:

1(a)(i) Crew Leader Type 2: the incumbent must have Fire Fighter training, one (1) year experience, completed and passed a Crew Leader Type 2 training programme.

(a)(ii) Crew Leader Type 1: the incumbent must have Fire Fighter training, two (2) years of experience, Crew Leader Type 2 training, completed and passed Crew Leader Type 1 training programme.

b). Base Manager: they are normally recruited from Crew Leader Type 1 group, dependent on the needs of the Working on Fire (WoF) Programme and Partner (A partner can be an Entity, namely South African National Parks (SANParks), Municipality, or Landowner).

c) Regional Manager: all Type 1 Crew Leaders are eligible to apply for a Regional Manager position if and when required, through normal transparent recruitment processes.

2(a)(i) Crew Leader Type 2 = R246.95 per day

(a)(ii) Crew Leader Type 1 = R303.65 per day

b) Base Manager = R385.00 per day

c) Regional Manager= R16 500.00 per month

3(a) The WoF Programme has an annual turnover of approximately 100/ of Fire Fighters, so roughly 450 of the current 4 500 on average employed per year. The average length of service ranges from 2-5 years.

(b) The total number of new recruits trained every year is dependent on turnover as well as budget availability.

4. The number of Fire Fighters recruited is dependent on budget availability. An increased budget can cater for more Fire Fighters. Presently, the WoF Programme has around 4 500 Fire fighters.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: .31/08/2021

Reply:

1.(a) Teams made up of participants of the Government’s Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) have been employed to manually remove Salvinia minima on the Hartbeespoort, Roodeplaat, Roodekopjes and Bon Accord dams.

2. Tenders have been awarded to small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) to complete the work:

a. Hartbeespoort Dam — 7 SMMEs
b. Roodeplaat Dam —4 SMMEs
c. Roodekopjes Dam —6 SMMEs
d. Bon Accord Dam -1 SMME

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) is finalising the contracting process for these tenders.

3. The DFFE supported the Centre for Biological Control to import biocontrol agents into quarantine in early 2021 for testing. The scientific process is long and together with obtaining the necessray approvals, the process may take a while. These agents will have to go through rigorous tests to ensure that they are host specific to Salvinia minima before they can be released into South Africa. Therefore, these agents will not be ready for release by Spring 2021.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 3/09/2021

Reply:

Although SANParks has no legal obligation to provide general medical services to the residents or visitors of the Kruger National Park, it is in SANParks interest to retain the provision of such essential services that include, but not limited to, emergency and occupational health services. In addition to the medical services provided by General Practitioners (at the Skukuza Medical Centre), a Clinic in Skukuza is open five days a week and available to the public. The Clinic provides a range of services including primary health care, and is able to provide support for emergencies.

The relationship of the doctor to patients at the Skukuza Medical Centre is a private relationship and is not a service provided by SANParks. However, as the service is provided on SANParks properly it has to be treated like other commercial ventures and is subject to public procurement processes.

The provision of medical services at KNP was impacted by the termination of services of the previous doctor at very short notice due to non-fulfilment of contractual obligations. As a result, despite SANParks efforts, there was not a smooth hand over between the previous and current doctors.

SANParks secured the services of Dr L Masithi Incorporated (Practice No. 0578169) - effective 01 June 2021 for a three month period ending on 31 August 2021 on an emergency procurement as per National Treasury SCM Practice note no. 3 of 2016/2017.

SANParks is redefining the scope of occupational and general medical services required in the Kruger National Park. This is with a view to the procurement of a long term (minimum five years) service provider more relevant to the emergency and occupational health needs of the Park. A RFQ is in the interim being finalised for a three month appointment (1 September — 30 November) whilst the longer term procurement is being completed.

The Medical practice at Kruger National Park (KNP) was not permanently closed, there has been a continuous medical service provided in the Kruger National Park by private doctors who are appointed through a tender process.

Dr L Masithi Incorporated was appointed; and

Dr L Masithi started working on 01 June 2021.

The Medical practice is offering a full spectrum of medical services on Weekdays (7am — 12 noon and 1pm — 4pm) and Saturdays (7am — 12 noon) and after hours emergency services.

KNP has a budget of approximately R1 million per annum for the newly appointed doctor to provide specified services. The budget includes monthly retainer payment and costs for equipment and operations. In addtion, all equipment needed for a doctor to run a practice is available and the equipment is owned by SANParks.

Files have been requested from the previous doctor and to date there has been no response as

per KNPs request. Several attempts were made to retrieve the files from the previous doctor without success. The newly appointed doctor has initiated a process of opening a new file for every patient that comes for consultation.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE:

Reply:

1(a)(b); 2; 3; 4 and 5

The initial EA for the proposed development was granted on 4 February 2019.

On 26 February 2019, the Directorate: Appeals and Legal Review within the Department received an appeal from Grassridge Wind Power (Pty) Ltd, challenging the granting of the above EA (2019 EA). The grounds of the appeal were broadly premised on procedural and substantive irregularities, with specific reference to the absence of a Wake Effect Assessment and commercial agreement as relevant considerations.

On 14 October 2019, Minister issued an appeal decision as follows:

1. uphold the appeal relating to the absence of a Wake Effect Assessment and consideration of the report thereof.
2. dismiss the ground of appeal relating to commercial agreement as a relevant consideration.
3. set aside the decision of the CD: IEA to grant the 2019 EA to the applicant; and

îv. remit the matter to the CD: IEA for further consideration and reconsideration as alluded in paragraphs 1.44 and 1.45 of the appeal decision.

Following the abovementioned appeal decision, the competent authority, after taking into consideration the Wake Effect Assessment, reissued the EA on 23 March 2021. Thereafter two appeals were received against this EA. These appeals were received from Wilderness Foundation Africa and Indalo Private Nature Reserve Association on 15 April 2021 and 24 May 2021, respectively.

The appeals are currently being considered by the Appeals Unit.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE:

Reply:

(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) maintains a register of all monetary claims made against it. Please see the register, attached hereto as Annexure A, with all information as requested.

There are currently twenty-four claims with a value greater than R100 000.00 against DFFE. One claim has recently been settled and the remainder of the claims are defended. In three of the claims, DFFE is not the competent authority, and has been misjoined as a party to the proceedings.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: ..

Reply:

(a)(b) Section 87A(1)(a) of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), “the Minister is the issuing authority responsible for deciding an application for a permit for the carrying of a restricted activity involving specimen of a listed threatened or protected species—(i) in a national protected area; (ii) that is a marine species; or (iii) applied for by an official, on behalf of—(aa) a provincial department or provincial organ of state responsible for the conservation of biodiversity in a province; (bb) a national protected area; (cc) the South African National Biodiversity Institute; or (dd) an organ of state in the national sphere of government".

In terms of section 87A(2) of NEMBA, the relevant MEC is the issuing authority responsible for deciding an application for any permit not listed in section 87A(1)(a) and for species not listed in terms of section 56 of NEMBA. This means that all applications from private individuals are lodged with the provincial conservation authorities, except as indicated in section 87A(1).

In accordance with the above provisions and application of the above legislation, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) has neither issued any permits, nor has the DFFE received any permit applications in terms of section 87A(1) of NEMBA relating to the euthanasia of species listed in terms of secfio0 56 of NEMBA in the 2020/202a financial year. This function falls within the purview of the provincial issuing authorities.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:

Reply:

a)(b)(c)

The SANParks 2020/21 financial statements are not available because they are in the process of being audited. The only available audited information is from the 2019/20 financial year, on page 191 of the SANParks 2019/20 Annual report.

The attached Excel document (Annexure A) provides a breakdown of the Audited 2019/20 Annual Financial reports indicating financial performance of each National Park, Regional Office and National Corporate Business Unit (Head Once) in terms of:

(i) income;

(ii) operating and capital expenditure; and

(iii) the number of staff in each National Park and Regional Office is provided in the table below.

PARK NAME	TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT	Grand Total
	PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT	TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT	INTERSHIP PROGRAM	LEARNERSHIP PROGRAM
Addo Elephant National Park	162	10	0	2	174
Agulhas National Park	25	0	0	0	25
Augrabies National Park	37	4	0	0	41
Biodiversity and Special Projects	0	1419	2	0	1421
Bontebok National Park	17	0	0	4	21
Camdeboo National Park	29	3	1	1	34
Cape Town Office	9	0	0	0	9
Golden Gate Highlands National Park	196	2	1	0	199
Groenkloof National Park	Head Office		273	18	2	0	293
Karoo National Park	45	1	0	2	48
Kgaiagadi National Park	118	7	0	1	126
Kimberly Game Capture Office	28	1	0	0	29
Knysna National Park	65	0	0	1	66
Kn/sna Regional Office	14	0	0	0	14
Kruger National Park	2258	167	2	0	2427
Mapungubwe National Park	82	0	1	0	83
Marakele National Park	60	0	0	2	62
Meerkat National Park	7	2	0	0	9
Mokala National Park	48	5	0	0	53
Mountain Zebra National Park	34	2	1	2	39
Namaqua National Park	21	0	0	0	21
Port Elizabeth Regional Office	7	3	0	0	10
Richterveld National Park	33	4	0	0	37
Rondevlei Research Office	19	1	1	0	21
Table Mountain National Park	209	3	2	4	218
Tankwa Karoo National Park	15	0	0	0	15
Tsitsikamma National Park	130	27	1	2	160
Up	ington Regional Office	3	2	0	0	5
West Coast National Park	31	0	0	0	31
Wilderness National Park	82	0	0	1	83
Grand Total	4057	1681	14	22	5774

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE:

Reply:

Questions relating to energy security should be addressed to the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 4/6/2021

Reply:

1. No, the department does not have any agreement with any agency of the Republic of Cuba in regards to exchange programmes.

(a) (i) Not applicable.

(ii) Not applicable.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable.

© Not applicable.

2. Not applicable.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 4/6/2021

Reply:

(1) The plan to establish a command centre for Table Mountain National Park originated in 2019.. The command centre was officially established on 1 October 2020 and it is located at Newlands fire base in Cape Town. Although the Command Centre is still in the process of establishment, specifically with regards to the specialized technical infrastructure and specialized training of staff, it is already partially operational and in use by SANParks and other key security cluster stakeholders. Once completed the capacitated Command Centre will be resourced with capabilities to take action based on the intelligence it collects.
The implementation plan for the Command Centre will be divided into Phases. Phase 1 has been implemented effective from 1 April 2021 and Phase 2 implemented from 1 June 2021.
Despite the fact that the Command Centre was not fully functional during the December 2020 festive season, a successful special operation, which included aerial observation support, was conducted. A similar operation was conducted during the April 2021 festive season, with similar positive effects.
(b) The Command Centre will be complimented with a special taskforce/response team which is anticipated to be operational by November 2021. The Command Centre control room is already 60 percent functional and manned by SANParks officials.
(2) Operational plans from the security cluster are not normally placed in the public domain.
(3) SANParks wishes to clarify that a Command Centre is established, not a Joint Operations Centre.
(a)(i) Approximately R500 000 has been set aside for Operational Expenditure while an amount of R1.5 million has been budgeted for Capital Expenditure under Phase 1. To date an amount of R24,899.15 has been spent on operations and R76,569.85 has been spent on capital related expenditure.
(ii) The Command Centre aims to integrate the Ranger staff with the special taskforce/response team as well as external role players in the security cluster, namely SAPS, Metro Police, City Law Enforcement and others. This integrated approach will streamline and facilitate a more focussed response to area integrity.
b) The Command centre will be complemented by external resources such as SAPS, Metro Police, Environmental monitors and other relevant City Law Enforcement officials. It will ensure those whose primary responsibility is law enforcement also focus on safety of user in the Table Mountain National Park.
(4) The Table Mountain National Park has a total of 112 Rangers, 14 Environmental Monitors and 59 Tourism Monitors. The command centre is manned by a dedicated team who come from a Conservation and Tourism background and thus have the knowledge and experience to ensure effective and efficient deployment.
Twenty of these staff members will be trained to operate as a tactical response team, to respond to any sea, mountain and other incidents reported through the Command Centre.
(5) At this stage, SANParks is testing appropriate technologies. The organisation will select those technologies which are most feasible and deliver the intended outcomes. SANParks will also pursue partnerships, where appropriate, to further enhance safety and security and share technology, such as the existing partnership with the Table Mountain Arial Cable Company.
Helicopters will also be deployed from time to time on joint planned operations, especially during festive seasons as was done during the December 2020 festive season.

A Canine Unit for the Table Mountain National Park will be in place by August 2021.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 4/6/2021

Reply:

(1) The capital expenditure for the Table Mountain National Park’s (TMNP) Hoerikwaggo trail was approximately R15 million.
(2) No consequence management needed to be implemented because the trail is still functional and no staff member acted negligently. As a result, SANParks did not incur any fruitless or wasteful expenditure. Currently, there are two tented camps which are not operational: the Silvermine Tented Camp was destroyed in the devastating 2015 fires and the Orangekloof tented camp was closed due to persistent crime incidents and security challenges in the area. SANParks will establish a feasible commercial opportunity at the Silvermine camp. The Orangekloof tented camp is harder to secure as it is situated in close proximity to human settlements and is easily accessible through various non-controlled access points as Table Mountain is an open access national park.
(3) The trail is still functional, and the organisation derives value from the use of the trail for Tourism purposes. Guests still book into the Wash houses, Overseers Cottage, Slangkop and Smitwinkel tented camps for overnight stays and to hike sections of the trail. Therefore, the amount spent on the trail does not qualify to be declared fruitless and wasteful expenditure in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (No. 1 of 1999).
(4) The skills development of employees is an ongoing exercise and staff have been trained on various courses or skills as part of the program outputs.
(5) Employees who had been employed at the tented camps that were closed down were redeployed in other areas of the Park and are all still employed at TMNP. Therefore, there were no job losses as a result of the closure of the two camps.

Regards
MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:4/6/2021

Reply:

 

1. The Department has drafted the regulations prohibiting fishing at night in estuaries in terms of subsections 2(e) and 2(n) of section 77 of the Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 (Act 18 of 1998). The draft regulations will be published in due course for public comment as part of Phase 2 of the socio-economic impact assessment system (SEIAS). SEIAS aims to minimise unintended consequences from regulations and legislation, including unnecessary costs from implementation and compliance as well as from unanticipated outcomes and to anticipate implementation risks and encourage measures to mitigate them.
2. (i) Departmental Fishery Control Officers, the Department's patrol vessels, Law Enforcement Agencies forming part of Phakisa Initiative 5 and SAPS will police the night fishing ban.

(ii) The Branch: Fisheries Management and the Branch: Oceans and Coasts through its Chief Directorate: Integrated Coastal Management will be responsible for the management of the night fishing ban in estuaries.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:

Reply:

(1) a) The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE) is leading a number of the initiatives to address the problem of plastic waste pollution, some of which are executive in collaboration with civil society and the plastics industry. The initiatives that are led by the DFFE to recover or remove waste and litter from land and aquaic systems include, but are no limited to :

i. National Working for the Coast programme: a job creation initiative targeting women youth and persons with disabilities, focussing on promoting responsible coastal management through, among others, regular collection of litter along South Africa’s beaches and waterways;

ii. Good Green Deeds programme: a nation-wide programme aimed at mobilising the public to clean local communities and raise awareness around illegal dumping and management;
iii. Source to Sea programme: a programme aimed at reducing litter flows into the marine environment by targeting and recovering litter at source (in river catchments and human settlement along rivers) and promoting improved waste management. This project is currently being expanded to all coastal district municipalities as part of a Presidential Employment Stimulus initiative to counter the negative economic impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic;
iv. Operational Clean Sweep; an industry led initiative aimed at reducing the accidental loss of pellets, flakes and powder from processing facilities into the environment;
v. Municipal Cleaning and Green programme (Presidential Economic Stimulus); the aim of this programme is to fight environmental degradation and ensure that our country is free from litter and illegal dumps. This will be done through mass public employment, with a special prioritisations of women, youth and persons living with disabilities;
vi. Provision of Institutional support through:
assisting municipalities to develop 5 year integrated waste management plans (IWMP) to ensure sustainable planning for waste management and to leverage funding;
assisting with the development of municipal by-laws to ensure compliance and enforcement on waste management matters, and
building capacity through training of municipal officials and councillors on Waste Management matters such as waste planning, collecting, collecting, recycling, landfill compliance, etc.
vii. Provision of financial support through assisting municipalities to access the Municipal Infrastructure Grant to improve waste collection, recycling/diversion and landfill compliance; and
viii. Conducting the National Consumer Awareness campaign ( by the Department) on plastic waste, food waste, construction and demolition waste, and waste declaimer integration.
b) The initiative above are targeted at the general public, including Matzikama Local Municipality residents, to reduce plastic waste pollution.

(2) The Constitution places the responsibility on municipalities for refuse removal, landfill site management and waste management. The National Environment Management; Waste Act 2008 (ACT No. 59 of 2008) (NEMWA) requires a municipality to deliver waste management services, including waste removal, waste storage and waste disposal service; in addition, integrating its waste management plans with its integrated development plans and ensuring access to residents for such services. NEMWA requires municipalities, amongst others, to minimise the generation of waste through implementation of the Waste Management Hierarchy. The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations require municipalities, where applicable, to co-operate with the relevant industry (producers and producer responsibility scheme, to increase the recovery of identified products from municipal waste.

Regards
MS BD CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 28/05/2021


 

Reply:

1. The following agencies have been involved in the busts/confiscation of rhino horn at the 0:R. Tambo International Airport between July 2020 and February 2021, which have been widely reported in the media: Private security companies employed by Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) and the warehouse operators I cargo handers who are responsible for manning the x-ray machines.
South African Revenue Service (SARS) Customs.
South African Police Service (SAPS): Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI).
Environmental Management Inspectors from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE).
2. The seized rhino horns are handled as per the prescribed crime scene standard operating procedures. A chain of custody principle is followed and the seized horns are bagged, sealed and entered into the SAPS evidence register (SAPS 13). From thee, the horns are taken fbr forensic examination and DNA sampling in order to be compared to the DNA samples in. the national database. The hams are then kept in a secure location until the relevant court case is finalised. Thereafter, the horns are moved to another central secure location for storage.
3. Confiscated rhino from stockpiles have not been destroyed. They are stored in a secure location.
4. Yes, there are other seized rhino horn stockpiles, and these are all kept under lock in secure locations.

The High Level Panel (HLP) set up to review existing policies, legislation and practices on matters elated to the management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros recommended the Department develop a stockpile management and disposal policy. This recommendation is currently under consideration.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 28/05/2021

Reply:

 

a) b) The Department has not instituted a forensic investigation nor disciplinary action. The official that was responsible for the execution of this task and who took all the final decisions has left the Department.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES ACID THE ENVIRONMENT
Date: 28/05/2021

Reply:

a) b) The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) is currently in the process of facilitating the movement of the mercury containing waste materials from Cato Ridge, KwaZuIu- Natal to Switzerland where it is being treated prior to its safe disposal. Since April 2020, 1082 (one thousand and eighty-two) tonnes of this waste has been removed from the Cato Ridge site in 57 (fifty-seven) sea freight containers.

In order to ensure strict regulatory oversight during the extraction, repackaging and transporting of this material, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, with the support of the political heads of the Department of Water and Sanitation; the Department of Labour; KwaZulu- Natal: Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs and the Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality formed an Intergovernmental Task Team in order to ensure strict compliance with, amongst others, the following:

On site health and safety by evaluating the outcomes of the biomonitoring that is done on all the employees involved in the extraction and repackaging of this material. Furthermore, and to the extent that it relates to onsite health and safety, a detailed Environmental Monitoring Programme was designed to identify the risks associated with each aspect of the removal process;

Ensure compliance to road transport regulations; and Monitor compliance with the Basel Convention which regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

There is also further work being undertaken to build a water-related inventory which will enable the authorities to make objective findings relative to the analysis done by the land owner. This information will be used to inform the Terms of Reference for the appointment of the services of an independent specialist to provide an independent recommendation around whether further remediation work is required after the waste is removed from this property.

There is an ongoing risk of theft of this material from the property, despite the many security measures that are being implemented. These incidents are reported to the South African Police Service as and when they occur, and have been elevated to the Minister of Police in order to request additional assistance, given the inherent risks associated with this material. It is anticipated that the removal of this waste will be finalised by June 2022.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Reply:

 

1. and (b)

Please draw your attention to the Department’s response to parliamentary question 2298, dated 30 October 2020. The Department’s position in this regard has not changed.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 17/03/2021

Reply:

 

There are a total of one hundred and thirty-five (135) Air Quality Monitoring Stations (AQMS) owned by provinces, municipalities and the South African Weather Service (SAWS). While the department provides support to provinces and municipalities on AQMS operations and maintenance, the department does not own the AQMS.

1. The conditions of AQMS are inspected in line with established standard operating procedures for AQMS operations and management. For routine services, the stations are inspected every two weeks by AQMS technicians. These inspections are guided by checklists which contain a list of activities that should be undertaken by the technicians. The checklist includes physical inspection of the AQMS environmental conditions, the general conditions of all instruments, power supply and air conditioner status, as well as detailed instrument diagnostic checks. The station inspections are documented and reported in line with standard operating procedures. During these inspections, if instruments failures are identified, the instruments are repaired onsite by technicians, where possible. Otherwise, if the technicians cannot repair the instruments because of major faults, the equipment is removed from the AQMS for further repair and maintenance.

In addition to the biweekly visits, every three months, comprehensive inspections are conducted to ensure that data collected from all instruments are credible and accurate. In these visits, the technicians undertake the general inspection and also calibrate and assess the performance of instruments. These visits are regarded as separate quarterly AQMS visits, and there are four visits per station per year.

There are also those situations when the AQMS might stop operating due to unforeseen circumstances such as power failure disruptions on instruments. In these situations, the AQMS are inspected as soon as is possible whenever an incident is identified on the South African Air Quality Information System (SAAQIS) as a disruption in data.

1. Information from the AQMS is a major driver in air quality management decision making. When adverse measurements are observed at the AQMS, different jurisdictions have tailor-made interventions designed in air quality management plans or other strategic government programs to identify sources contributing to adverse measurements, and to implement necessary air pollution reduction measures. With the regulated air pollution sources such as industries, these interventions include enhanced compliance monitoring and enforcement through the atmospheric emission licencing command and control regime. For non-regulated pollution sources, such as veld-fires, transport, waste burning or residential fuel burning and others, air quality management interventions are designed to target those pollution sources, towards progressive realisation of air that is not harmful to the health and well-being of the public.

 

Reply:

 

The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) calculates the fair value of biological assets on a quarterly and annual basis in terms of the Accounting Policy. The Chief Financial Officer of the DEFF discloses an input of the calculated biological asset report in the Financial Statements (interim Financial Statements and Annual Financial Statements) of the Department quarterly and annually as per the requirements of the Modified Cash Standards. The biological asset valuation report is not published, however, it is submitted to the office of the Auditor-General at the end of each financial year for auditing purposes. For the 2019/20 financial year, the value of the Biological Assets was R775,694,044.00. The Department is in a process of calculating the value for the 2020/21 year for disclosure in the Annual Financial Statements.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF, FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: .18/03/2021

Reply:

 

1. A recruitment and interview process was followed in accordance with the recruitment policy of the South African National Parks (SANParks).
2. The Minister has written to the SANParks Chairperson to ascertain whether the recruitment process followed was in line with the SANParks recruitment policy.
3. a) The position was advertised nationally, with a closing date of 18 February 2014
   b)There were four applicants who attended interviews: Mr J. De Ru, Ms S. Bokwe, Ms. M. Bokaba and Ms. V.N. Malematsa.
   c) The formal process was duly approved on 3 July 2014, with the panel indicating that the candidate (name furnished) had received the best scores during the interview process and displayed the sufficient, knowledge, experience and competency for the position

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FOSTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE:: 18/03/2021

Reply:

The total number of applications in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000, (PAIA) received:

THE DEPARTMENT:

TOTAL PAIA APPLICATIONS RECEIVED	FINANCIAL YEAR
53	2015/2016
50	2016/2017
58	2017/2018
68	2018/2019
67	2019/2020
89	2020/2021

Find here: Entities

Reply:

(a). ISimangaliso has been using prefabricated containers as administration offices since 2004. In 2019/20, approval to build an administration block was granted and funds were allocated. Construction started on 09 January 2020 and is anticipated to be completed in August 2021.

(b). The size of the building constitutes 840 square meters of the ground floor, 600 square meters of the second floor, 120 square meters of the archives room and 75 square meters of the ablution block. There is no parking or garages at the building and parking will be in the existing carports, outside the building.

The total budgeted cost of the building is R35 000 000.

©. The building will accommodate 46 staff members of isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority.

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 18/03/2021

Reply:

 

(i) (aa) In the 2019/20 financial year, the Table Mountain National Park generated R371657 366 in revenue.

(bb) Since the start of the 2020/21 financial year, the Table Mountain National Park

generated R23 531114 in revenue.

(ii) The detailed breakdown of each section of income is provided on the table below:

Table 1. Table Mountain National Park Revenue streams

Question	Income Description	2019-20	2020 - 21
		Apr 2019 • Mar 2020 (12 months)	Apr 2020 – Feb 2021 (11 months)
(a)(ii)(aa)	Cape Point	R216 960 043	R 7 496 115
	Boulders	R90 502 407	R 2498 787
(a)(ii)(bb)	Table Mountain Aerial Cableway Concession	R39 795 627	R 5 217 361
(a)(ii)(cc)	My Green - and My Activity Card	R3 374 628	R 2 643 888
(a)(ii)(dd)	Picnic Sites	R2 757 167	R 1 251 262
(a)(ii)(ee)	Tourism Income	R7 588 972	R 2 868 400
	Other	R10 678 522	R 1 555 301
Tourism income includes Accommodation, Recreational Permits, Trail Fees, etc.
Other includes the other Filming, Rent Received, etc.
Total Revenue	R371657 366	R 23 531 114

1. The amount re-invested in operations for the 2019/20 financial year was R99 481 040. In the 2020/21 financial year, R74498 832 has been reinvested into operations.

Table 1. Table Mountain National Park Revenue streams

Question	2019•20 Apr 2019 - Mar 2020 Income Description	2020-21
(a)(ii)(aa)	Cape Point
	Boulders

(a)(ii)(bb)	Table Mountain Aerial Cableway Concession	R39 795 627	R 5 217 361
(a)(ii)(cc)	My Green - and My Activity Card	R3 374 628	R 2 643 888
(a)(ii)(dd)	Picnic Sites	R2 757 167	R 1 251 262
(a)(ii)(ee)	Tourism Income	R7 588 972	R 2 868 400
	Other	R10 678 522	R 1 555 301
Tourism Income includes Accommodation, Recreational Permits, Trail Fees, etc.
Other includes the other Filming, Rent Received, etc.
Total Revenue	R371657 366	R23 531 114

b) The amount re-invested in operations for the 2019/20 financial year was R99 481 040. In the 2020/21 financial year, R74 498 832 has been reinvested into operations.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: .18/03/2021

Reply:

 

1. Yes, the table below lists the security contracts by which the Department makes use private security firms:

(i) Name of Firm	(ii) Purpose	(iii) Contract Value	(iv) Duration Contract
SBU and SBO Protection Services	Guarding Services to protect departmental assets and personnel at 110 Hamilton Building Pretoria	R2 919 633.12	36 months
National Security and Fire (Port Elizabeth	Guarding Services to protect the departmental assets and personnel at Port Alfred Office	R10, 050.00	10 months
ADT Security	Guarding Services to protect the departmental assets and personnel at Port Elizabeth Office	R9, 132.00	36 months

(i) Name of Firm	(ii) Purpose	(iii) Contract Value	(iv) Duration of each Contract
Trident Security	Guarding services to protect the departmental assets and personnel at the Sea Point Aquarium	R187, 500.00	3 months
Royal Security	Guarding services to protect the departmental assets and personnel at Gariep ATDC offices	R272, 300.17	3 months
Bihlale Risk Protection	Guarding services to protect the departmental assets and personnel at Gariep ATDC offices	R435, 968.88	4 months

1. Yes, the Entities (isimangaliso, SAWS, SANBI, SANParks) makes use of private security firms, and they are listed in the table below:

(i)Name of Firm	(ii)Purpose	(iii)Contract Value	(iv)Duration of Contract
ISIMANGALISO
Sizisizwe Security	To protect isimangaliso including its assets in different parts of the Park.	R17 251488	36 months
Nkalavasi Security	To protect isimangaliso including its assets in different parts of the Park.	R17 013 888	36 months
Let2Kuphepha	To protect isimangaliso including its assets in different parts of the Park.	R13 809 888	36 months
SOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICES (SAWS)
(i)Name of Firm	(ii)Purpose	(iii)Contract Value	(iv)Duration of Contract
Maemo Security Services	Security services to protect SAWS’ assets and personnel at the Eco-Glades Head Office in Eco Park, Centurion.	R2 219 634.28	31 months
	Security services to protect SAWS’ assets and personnel at the Irene Weather Office situated in the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Campus.	R2315 351.91	36 months
	Security services to protect SAWS' vacant land at Part 264 of Garsfontein 374 JR (Waterkloof Heights); Pretoria.	R2 925 287.03	36 months

Fidelity ADT and Technical	Video alarm monitoring system at Three Rivers Air Quality Monitoring Station	R36 505.80	24 Months
	24hrs Monitoring and Armed Response on Radar Sites at: East London, Mthatha, Durban, Ottosdal, Bethlehem and Polokwane.	R767 893.01	36 Months
Astron Alarms	24hrs Monitoring and Reaction for De Aar weather Office	R4 560.00	12 Months
BAI Security Services	24hrs Monitoring and Reaction for Calvinia Weather Office	R2 052.00	12 Months
Suidekruis Security Services	24 Hour Monitoring and Reaction for George Weather Of ce	R5 070.00	12 Months
RQ Alarms	24 Hour Monitoring and Reaction for Springbok Weather Office	R3 900.00	12 Months
Highbury Community Development Trust	MoU concluded 5* July 2006 with the Highbury Community in Mthatha to provide security at Mthatha Radarsite	R159 313.30 for 2020/21 FY, with annual CPIX escalation.	5th July 2005 till either party terminates the MoU
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE (SANBI)
(i)Name of Firm	(ii)Purpose	(iii)Contract Value	(iv)Duration of Contract
G4S Secure Solutions	Renter security services and cashier services through alarm monitoring, access control, guarding, patrolling, armed response, cashier and customer services at Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden	R2,226,287	5 Years
Selkirk Security Services	Security guarding, patrol duties and access control at Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden	R7,777,879	5 Years
Gobizazi Security	Security and cashier services at the KwaZulu-Natal National Botanical Gardens	R3,379,059	5 Years
Selkirk Security Company	Campus security, access control, customer and cashier services, patrolling, alarm monitoring and response at the Pretoria National Botanical Garden	R12,707,681	5 Years

GnG Security Services		Guarding services at the Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden	R12,038,026	5 Years
Mmaketse Project Management Services		Guarding and cashier services at Thohoyandou Botanical Garden	R2,902,395	5 Years
Afri-Guard		Security and cashier services which includes guarding, access and exit control and cash management for the Free State National Botanical Garden	R2,444,279	5 Years
Metro Security		Security, access and armed response services at the Harold Porter National Botanical Garden	R2,528,772	5 Years
Phepha MV Security Services		Guarding, cashier services and armed response at Lowveld National Botanical Garden	R6,460 255	5 Years
ELDNA Security Services	Guarding Services to protect SANBI’s asserts, animals and personnel at SANBI’s National Zoological Gardens, Pretoria.	13 448 572.36	36 months
Sun Rise Security	Guarding Services to protect SANBI’s asserts, animals and personnel at SANBI’s Mokopane Biodiversity Centre.	154 907,27	6 months
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS (SANParks)
(i)Name of Firm	(ii)Purpose	(iii)Contract Value	(iv)Duration of Contract
Tyeks Security Services	Guarding services to protect SANParks assets and personnel at Addo Elephant National Park	R990, 553.37	6 months
Raite Security Services and Consulting	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Augrabies Falls National Park	R182, 413.44	4 months
Tyeks Security Services	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Camdeboo National Park	R4, 068, 092.00	60 months
South Cape Security	Armed Response and CCTV cameras at Garden Route Scientific Services	R28, 060.00	36 months

RRA Trading CC	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Groenkloof National Park	RS, 269, 714.20	36 months
Jen Foods	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Karoo National Parks	R470, 744.44	18 months
All Sound Security	Armed Response and CCTV cameras at Knysna Lakes	R30,728.05	36 months
Bangilizwe Security and T. Centre	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Mountain Zebra National Parks	R336, 000.00	12 months
SmhaRSecuity	Armed Response and CCTV cameras at Tsitsikamma National Park	R33, 200.00	4 months
Bamogale Security Solutions	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Tsitsikamma National Park	R1, 250 334.00	36 months
Shelfplett 40	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Tsitsikamma National Parks	R382, 800.00	12 months
Darling Security Service	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at West Coast National Parks — Langebaan Gate and R27 Gate	R461,725.00	12 months
AR 24	Armed Response and CCTV cameras at West Coast National Parks — Langebaan Offices and Mooimaa/r Facilities	R139, 566.00	36 months
Bamogale Security Solutions	Guarding services to protect assets and personnel at Wilderness National Parks	R3, 162, 000.00	5 years
M-Sec Security	Armed Response and CCTV cameras at Wilderness National Parks	R52, 653.57	36 months

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 18/03/2021

Reply:

 

1. No research has been undertaken into the correlation between the Tyre levy and the dumping of tyres.
   1. There has not been evidence to suggest that an in-depth study on correlation of the tyre levy and waste tyre dumping can assist with managing waste tyre environmental pollution. However, some of the funds collected from the tyre levy by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) are made available to the Waste Management Bureau through the Department of Environment, Forestry, and Fisheries for the management of waste tyres.
   2. The Waste Management Bureau supplies waste tyres to processors to facilitate the reuse, recycling and energy recovery.

The Department has appointed the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in terms of Section 29 of the National Environment Management: Waste Act, No. 59 of 2008 to prepare an Industry Waste Management Plan (IndWMP) for tyres. The IndWMP’s intention seeks to address the current challenges that are being experienced with regard to collection, storage and processing.

One of the key objectives of the IndWMP aims to support the establishment of a viable waste tyre processing sector in South Africa which will reduce the negative environmental impacts of waste tyres. The specified actions that would be undertaken as part of the implementation of the IndWMP is to ensure that the following objectives are achieved:

• • 1. providing surety of supply contracts to processors to support investment in the sector;
    2. supporting investment in pollution abatement technologies and equipment through

incentives on a cost sharing basis;

• • 1. creating pre-processing capacity at depots;
    2. free delivery of feedstock to processors including the cement and brick-making facilities;
    3. payment of a subsidy in the form of a processing fee to all waste tyre processors, including the cement and brick-making facilities and
    4. development of markets including but not limited to:
       1. Road-building;
       2. Applications in public open spaces; and
       3. Tyre-derived fuels.

At present, the tyre levy goes into the fiscus and the Waste Management Bureau gets an allocation through the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries from National Treasury. The Waste Management Bureau uses the budget that has been allocated to collect waste tyres and promote recycling.

Storage facilities in a number of areas are full. As a temporary measure while awaiting the finalisation of the Section 29 lndWMP, the department is focusing on the following for 2021/22:

1. To expand storage on a short-term basis through engagement with cement manufacturers, provinces and municipalities.

1. To increase the number of processing plants that want to use waste tyres for fuel or recycling purposes.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 18/03/2021

Reply:

​

1. An interview process was followed in accordance with the Recruitment Policy of the South African National Parks (SANParks).
2. I have written to the SANParks Chairperson to ascertain whether the recruitment process followed was in line with the SANParks recruitment policy.
3. a) The position was advertised nationally, with a closing date of 2 June 2015.
   b) There were five aplicants who attended interviews: Ms B. Mabandla, Ms. T. Kunene, Mr D. Erasmus, Ms. H. Sello and Mr B. Mhlongo
4. The formal process was duly approved on 6 October 2015, with the panel indicating that the candidate (name furnished) had received the best scores during the interview process and displayed the sufficient, knowledge, experience and competency for the position

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 18/03/2021

Reply:

Section 21 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (Act No. 36 of 2005) provides that the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies has the authority to, in consultation with the Ministers of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Rural Development and Land Reform; Water and Environmental Affairs [Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation]; Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and other relevant institutions, develop a policy and policy directions for !he rapid deployment and provisioning of electronic communications facilities, following which, the Authority must prescribe regulations.

In response to the above, the then Minister of Telecommunication and Postal Services [now Communications and Digital Technologies] wrote to the then Minister of Environmental Affairs (Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment) requesting that an official from the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) be nominated to be part of an Interim Rapid Deployment Steering Committee and Co-ordination Centre (Rapid Deployment and Coordination Center). The Minister's request was acceded to, and a DEFF official was nominated. The nominated ofcial attended meetings scheduled by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) wherein discussions were held with regard to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations requirements and possible listed activities that may be triggered by the proposed Rapid Deployment of Electronic Communication Facilities. The nominated official also facilitated engagements between the DCDT and other units within the DEFF that were identified as critical to the process.

The Department also provided written comments on Government Notice No. 43537 published by the DCDT with regard to their proposed Policy and Policy Direction on Rapid Deployment of Electronic Communications Networks and Facilities. The Department remains committed to assisting and providing guidance to the DCDT as and when required.

In relation to reference to ‘the proposed amendments to the Environment Conservation Act, Act 73 of f989’, it should be noted that the Department is not considering any related amendments to the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) or the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 106 of 1998) which is the current legislation guiding the management of environmental impact.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 26/02/2021

Reply:

Mpumalanga (MP) and the Western Cape Provinces (WC) are currently not implementing the TOPS Regulations. In the case of MP, the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) which is the conservation management authority in Mpumalanga responsible for the function of biodiversity conservation has indicated serious capacity challenges that have impacted on the ability of the institution to implement the TOPS Regulations. In respect of the WC, Cape Nature

considers the implementation of the TOPS Regulations as an unfunded mandate, given that additional funds are not allocated to Cape Nature for the implementation function.

In 2016, the Department conducted an audit of the capacity requirements for the provincial conservation authorities to implement the revised TOPS Regulations, in particular, personnel to issue permits and conduct inspections in terms of provincial legislation, TOPS and CITES (Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species) Regulations. Capacity challenges were considered when the draft revised TOPS Regulations were finalised; e.g. the impact of provisions that could lead to unnecessary regulatory requirements. The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (the Department) has since amended the TOPS Regulations and species lists.

The revised TOPS Regulations, whilst still ensuring that conservation and regulation of species are not compromised, will be less onerous in respect of the requirements for permits, (e.g. except for a few species such as lion, rhino, leopard and elephant) a person will no longer require a permit for dead specimens. Furthermore, the movement of species between registered game farms does not require a permit.

These amendments are currently in the Parliamentary approval processes following which they will be published for implementation. Mpumalanga and Western Cape povinces have since, through MINMEC, expessed their willingness to implement the amended TOPS Regulations when published for implementation.

?he Department, working with all provinces invested considerable amount of efforts and time in addressing conflict in legislation (i.e. alignment, addressing overlaps and duplications) through the existing sectoral cooperative governance system or intergovernmental processes(Working Groups, MINTECH and MINMEC). A project in this regard is ongoing and wifi intensify once the capacité is enhanced. However, the role of bath National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. °0 of 2004) (NEMBA) and National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA) as the principal framework legislation for protected areas, Biodiversity conservation cannot be overlooked in this regard. It must be noted that provinces are also in different stages of aligning their provincial legislation with national biodiversity legislation.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Date: 22/02/2021

Reply:

(1)and (2)

The Minister has noted the widespread public interest in this matter as well as differing scientific views on the most ideal management strategy for the conservation and preservation of this significant World Heritage Site. The Minister has decided to appoint an independent scientifc panel to advise on among others:

    To assess the significance/impacf of the artificial breach and how this impact to the implementation of the Global Environment Facility GEF 5 project interventions and the St Lucia estuary management plan;

1. To determine the exceptional circumstances, as defined in the estuarine management plan, that lead to the decision to open the mouth, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature;
2. To establish the impact of the artificial breach on 6 January 2021 on the functioning of the Estuarine Functional Zone(EFZ), as well as the associated environmental, social and economic implications; and
3. To develop Guidelines for the immediate and ongoing management of the system.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 25/2/2021

Reply:

In terms of the Bill of Rights, included in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, everyone has a right to an environment that is protected and that is also not harmful to health or well- being. The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (the Department) has developed !egal instruments to ensure that this right is given effect to, which include, inter alia, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) promulgated in terms of the National Envionmental Management Act, 1988 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA).

Although the EIA Regulations do not address health aspects directly, other impacts associated with masts and/or towers on the eceiving environment are considered, in line with the Department's

constitutional mandate. However, in developing the 3 Listing Notices of the EIA Regulations, the Department was guided by the informed views of the Department of Health (DOH), in relation to the effects of electromagnetic fields. The directorate responsible for Radiation Control in the Department of Health is, in turn, guided by the international Commission on Non-lonising Radiation Control’s (ICNIRP) guidelines insofar as it relates to the regulation of electronic products producing non-ionising electromagnetic fields (EMF), especially from the perspective of human health.

Following an engagement with the DOH, confirmation was obtained that there is no confirmed scientific evidence that points to any health hazard associated with the very low levels of exposure that the general public would typically experience in the vicinity of a cellular base station. DOH further confirmed that it is satisfied that the health of the general public is not being compromised by their exposure to the microwave emissions of cellular base stations (which includes 5G infrastructure). The DOH deems the ICNIRP guidelines to be appropriate to manage potential radiation risks and cautioned that local and other authorities, in considering the environmental impact of any particular base station, do not need to, and should not attempt, fern a public health point of view, set any restrictions with respect to parameters such as the height of the mast, distance to the mast, and duration of exposure.

Since 2 August 2010, the development of masts or towers used for telecommunication broadcasting or radio transmission purposes has been identified as an activity requiring environmental authorisation. In the case where masts or towers exceed IS metres in height, such masts or towers are placed on a site not previously used for this purpose and are to be developed within certain identified geographical areas. Should the mast or tower not meet these criteria or fall outside any one or more identified geographical areas, environmental authorisation is not required, as the potential impact of such developments are not deemed to be significant. Environmental authorisation is also not required if they are attached to existing buildings, masts or rooftops.

?he EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), through the 3 Listing Notices, identify activities that may result in substantial negative impacts on the environment, and it requires that an environmental authorisation must be obtained prior to commencement with any such identified activities. The EIA Regulations further requires that an environmental impact assessment process is followed in respect of these identified activities and that applications are submitted to the Competent Authority for consideration and decision prior to the commencing with any of such identified activities that may result in substantial negative impacts on the environment. ?his means that an environmental impact

assessment process must be followed in respect of these identified activities, and applications must be submitted to the Competent Authority for consideration.

In line with Section 24(2)(a) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), the Department has considered all the potential significant impacts associated with cellular masts on the receiving environment. Currently the development of masts or towers used for telecommunication broadcasting or radio transmission purposes has been identified as an activity requiring environmental authorisation, but only where such masts or towers:

exceed 15 metres in height;

are placed on a site not previously used for this purpose;

are to be developed within certain specified geographical areas; and

will not be attached to existing buildings, masts or rooftops.

Should the mast or tower not meet the above criteria, environmental authorisation is not required, as the potential impact of such developments are not deemed to be significant.

The Department, in developing the current enacted Listing Notices (Listing Notices 1, 2 and 3 of the EIA Regulations) was guided by the views of the Department of Health (amongst others) regarding the effects of electromagnetic fields.

The Department of Health, through its Directorate: Radiation Control, considers the World Heath Organisation and the International Commission on Non-lonising Radiation Control (ICNIRP) guidelines to be appropriate to manage potential radiation risks. The Department of Health has indicated that measurement surveys conducted in South Africa and elsewhere have shown that the actual levels of public exposure, as a result of base station emissions, are only a fraction of that of (he ICNIRP guidelines.

In a letter, dated 13 June 2020 (attached as Annexure A), on the health effects of cellular base stations and handsets, the Department of Health (DOH) confirms that presently them is no confirmed scientific evidence that points to any health hazard associated with the very low levels of exposure that the general public would typically experience in the vicinity of a cellular base station, DOH further confirmed it is satisfied that the health of the general public is not being compromised by their exposure to the microwave emissions of cellular base stations. It also clarified that local and other authorities, in considering the environmental impact of any particular base station, do not need to, and should not

akempt, from a public health point of view, set any restrictions with respect to parameters such as the height of the mast, distance to the mast, and duration of exposure.

Therefore, it is implicitly assumed that the normal engineering and security measures, which ae routinely implemented by cellular network providers at base stations, will effectively prevent reasonable members of the public from gaining close access to the actual antennas situated on any mast structue.

The Department may, should the DOH change its position in this regard, or if indeed requested by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to do so, reconsider the relevant listing of cellular masts and base stations.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND 7HE ENVIRONMENT

DATE:

Reply:

(a) Whales are fully protected in South African waters. Legal instruments are in place to ensure the long-term survival of whales, including the following:

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). In the Threatened or Protected Marine Species Regulations, whales are listed as a threatened or protected species. In terms of these regulations, certain aMvitl99 are prohibited, such as hunting, catching, killing, capturing, importing or exporting of a listed species. Human activities around whales are also regulated.

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Amendment Act, 2014 (Act No. 21 of 2014) which enables the establishment of marine protected areas to provide sanctuaries for all marine species.

South Africa is also a signatory or party to various international treaties that promote the protection of whales, including Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCMALR) and the International Whaling Commission.

These legal instrument provide optimum conditions for all whale species to recover from past unsustainable whaling practices. In addition, South African re9earcheo play a leading role in international science forums aimed at determining the food requirements of top predators such as whales and setting measures to ensure adequate access to their prey.

(b) Whales eat a variety of prey within South African marine waters and at traditional feeding grounds in the Southern Ocean. In general, whales feed in the polar waters and breed in warmer waters. Feeding time is therefore typically spent away from South Africa in Antarctic and sub-Antarctic waters. The Southern Ocean is managed by agreement, including the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). South Africa is an active member and contributes to deliberations on conservation of the Southern Ocean.

1. (a) The South African policy and legal framework protects all whale species. The Department plays a meaningful role in International Conventions and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to ensure that all fisheries are sustainable and that the environment is protected.

(b) The existing policy and legal framework to protect whales is currently being implemented and compliance and enforcement initiatives are in place to aid protection of our marine species.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 6/11/2020