Questions and Replies

Filter by year

10 September 2021 - NW1978

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1. (a) On what date will (i) phase two of the Social-Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIS) be concluded and (ii) the draft policies be published and (b) how will they take into account the outstanding SEIAS phase two process; 2. whether she will ensure that all stakeholders in the fishing industry have been adequately and comprehensively consulted by her department to ensure that the process is fair and thorough?

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

10 September 2021 - NW1977

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1. Whether her department is opposed to the global treaty on multilateral environmental agreement dealing with non-plastic pollution (details furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details; 2. whether her department is considering to import more plastic waste; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details; 3. whether she has found that the current systems and processes of the Republic are effective in significantly reducing the amount of plastic waste, in particular the amount of waste going into the ocean; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

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

10 September 2021 - NW1976

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1.Whether she has been informed of the storage of dangerous chemicals close to an important Natural area (details furnished); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; 2. what ate the full relevant details of the chemicals that wee stored at the facility before it burnt down; 3. what number of complaints were received by her department from members of the public regarding the impact of the acrid fumes on their health?

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

10 September 2021 - NW1964

Profile picture: Groenewald, Mr IM

Groenewald, Mr IM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1. What total number of municipalities in each province have applied for and received waste licences for hazardous waste activities in terms of section 45 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, Act59 of 2008, from her department; 2. whether she will make a statement on the matter?

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

04 June 2021 - NW1433

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether she will furnish Mr D W Bryant with the information relating to the latest issued and audited annual financial reports indicating the financial performance of each (a) national park, (b) regional office business unit and (c) national corporate business unit of the SA National Parks (SANParks) in terms of income, (ii) operating and capital expenditure and (iii) staffing number of staff; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

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:

04 June 2021 - NW1434

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) What was the capital expenditure on the Table Mountain National Park’s (TMNP) Hoerikwaggo Trail which was meant to be the TMNP flagship overnight trail intended to stimulate tourism and create much-needed jobs; (2) whether there has been any consequence management for the TMNP management who have allowed the Hoerikwaggo Trail to fall into disrepair; if not, why not; if so, (3) whether the issue of falling into disrepair of the Hoerikwaggo Trail has been raised as fruitless and wasteful expenditure in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) what has happened to the skills upliftment programme associated with the specified trail; (5) whether the affected individuals and/or employees have been offered alternative opportunities at the Hoerikwaggo Trail; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

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

04 June 2021 - NW1503

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether the newly implemented Post-Lockdown Economic Recovery Stimulus Package clearly stipulates the trade-offs associated by the proposal to transition to cleaner energy; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, how does it differ from previous policies on climate change and cleaner energy?

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

04 June 2021 - NW1473

Profile picture: Sharif, Ms NK

Sharif, Ms NK to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) Whether her department has concluded any work exchange and/or employment agreements with any entity of the Republic of Cuba from the 2010-11 financial year up to the 2020-21 financial year; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what (a) total number of Cuban nationals (i) have been employed in each of the specified financial years and/or (ii) are due to be employed in the 2021-23 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework period, (b) are the details of the work that each of the specified Cuban nationals was and/or will be employed to perform, (c) are the details of the specific skills sets that each of the specified Cuban nationals possessed and/or will possess that South African nationals did or will not possess and (d) are the details of the total cost of employing each of the specified Cuban nationals in each case; (2) whether her department took any steps to ensure that the specific skills set of the specified Cuban nationals were and/or will not be available in the Republic amongst South African citizens; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the (a) steps taken and (b) outcomes of the steps taken in this regard?

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

04 June 2021 - NW1435

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) In view of a certain undertaking by the SA National Parks that the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) would soon establish a Mission Area Command, Control and Communications Centre for the execution of Sustainable Asset Protection, Safety and Security in TMNP in accordance with the 2020 Area Integrity Management Plan, which has been planned for two years with no tangible results yet, on what date will the Joint Operations Centre be (a) completed and (b) operational; (2) whether she will furnish Mr D W Bryant with the project plan for fundraising, planning, planning approvals, specification compilation, commercial tender process, tender evaluation, implementation and/or construction and final commissioning of the planned Joint Operations Centre; (3)(a) what is the budget breakdown for the (i) new Joint Operations Centre and (ii) associated security improvements for TMNP and (b) how will the Joint Operations Centre be complemented by adequate resources on the ground; (4) does SANParks intend to recruit additional rangers to prevent and react to crime; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details; (5) what are the details of the various security solutions such as cameras, drones, helicopters, tactical response units, canine unit and rangers?

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

28 May 2021 - NW1296

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) In light of the perceived inability of local authorities to manage plastic waste and its impact on the surrounding environment which remains a huge challenge across the Republic, what steps (a) are being taken by her department to ensure that the Matzikama Local Municipality reduces the amount of plastic waste generated in its jurisdiction and (b) will be taken by local residents to assist in reducing the amount of plastic waste; (2) what statutory obligations are currently placed on municipalities to reduce and manage plastic waste?

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


 

28 May 2021 - NW1329

Profile picture: Joseph, Mr D

Joseph, Mr D to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether (a) a forensic investigation and (b) a disciplinary action have been instituted against officials responsible for the p‹:nr management and adjudication of small-scale fisheries tenders in the Western Caps which led to her decision to intervene by filing an application at the Western Cape Division of the High Court; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

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

28 May 2021 - NW1297

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1. What are the relevant details of the agencies that have been invoked in the busts confiscation of the significant amount of rhino from at the O.R. Tambo International Airport between July 2020 and February 2021 (details furnished), which have been widely reported in the media; 2. What has happened to the confiscated rhino horn stockpiles; 3.whether the confiscated rhino from stockpiles have been destroyed; if not, what will be done with it if so, what are the relevant details; 4. whether there are any other confiscated chino horn stockpiles; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the plans for the stockpiles?

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

28 May 2021 - NW1295

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (For written reply) QUESTION NO. 1295 {NW1488E} INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 13 of 2021 DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 May 2021 Mr D W Bryant (DA) to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment: Whether, in view of the unpoliced night fishing which remains a concern across the country and has been banned in the Breede Estuary, and in light of the purported Ministerial approval for the ban of night fishing across the Republic, which has not yet been gazetted, she has approved a ban on night fishing for implementation across the Republic; if not, why not; if so, (a) how far along is the process of gazetting the ban on night fishing and (b) what agencies will be involved in the (i) policing and (ii) management of a night fishing ban?

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:

19 March 2021 - NW722

Profile picture: Weber, Ms AMM

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1.What criteria and process was followed to appoint a certain person (name and details furnished); 2. whether she has found that the correct procedures were followed in order to fill the vacancy; if not, why not; if so, 3.whether the position was advertised; if not, why not; if so, will she furnish Ms A M M Weber with the (a) actual advertisement of the position, (b) list of names of the applicants attending the interviews and (c) minutes of when the process was completed?

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

19 March 2021 - NW615

Profile picture: Paulsen, Mr N M

Paulsen, Mr N M to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Given that during the term of the 5th Parliament the forestry branch undertook to provide evidence of the value of our forests, by what date will the specified report be published?

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

19 March 2021 - NW616

Profile picture: Paulsen, Mr N M

Paulsen, Mr N M to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Given that air quality monitoring stations (AQMS) are essential for a country like South Africa that relies heavily on fossil fuels, (a) how often does her department inspect the condition of the AQMS and (b) what measures are in place for her department to react to any adverse measurements at the AQMS?

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.

 

19 March 2021 - NW643

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether she will provide a status update with regard to the Republic's signature and endorsement of the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, recently adopted at the United Nations Summit on Biodiversity in September 2020; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the (a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of South Africa's signature and endorsement thereof?

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

19 March 2021 - NW644

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether any recent (a) interventions and/or (b) oversight activities have been actioned by her department in order to facilitate the safe removal of toxic mercury waste substances from the shutdown of a certain chemical factory (name and details furnished); if not, what (i) interventions and/or (ii) oversight processes will immediately be put in place in order to ensure that such substances do no further harm to the surrounding environment; if so, what are the relevant details?

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

19 March 2021 - NW669

Profile picture: Faber, Mr WF

Faber, Mr WF to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether (a) her department and/or (b) any entity reporting to her makes use of private security firms; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, what is the (i) name of each firm, (ii) purpose, (iii) value and (iv) duration of each specified contract?

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

19 March 2021 - NW700

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What (a) was the (i) annual income of the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) (aa) in the 2019-20 financial year and (bb) since 1 April 2020 and (ii) breakdown of each sector of income from (aa) access fees at Cape Point and Boulders Beach, (bb) the Aerial Cableway company, (cc) permits and Wild Cards, (dd) picnic sites, and/or (ee) any other specified forms of income and (b) total amount of this income is reinvested into the TMNP?

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

19 March 2021 - NW712

Profile picture: Phillips, Ms C

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

1.What is the total number of applications in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act2 of 2000, (PAIA), that (a) her department and (b) the entities reporting to her have received since 1 January 2015; 2.what number of the PAIA applications that were received (a) have not been replied to at all,(b) were replied to, but without answering the questions and (c) were replied to comprehensively with all the information required by the PAIA?

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

19 March 2021 - NW713

Profile picture: Phillips, Ms C

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(a) What is the size of the administration building at the isimangaliso Wetland Park, including all outbuildings, garages and/or carports, (b) what is the total budgeted cost of the building and (c) what number of staff members will be accommodated in this building on a daily basis?

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

19 March 2021 - NW724

Profile picture: Weber, Ms AMM

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What criteria and process was followed to appoint a certain person (name and details furnished);whether she has found that the correct procedures were followed in order to fill the vacancy; if not, why not; if so, whether the position was advertised; if not, why not; if so, will she furnish Ms A M M Weber with the (a) actual advertisement of the position, (b) list of names of the applicants attending the interviews and (c) minutes of when the process was completed?

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

19 March 2021 - NW737

Profile picture: Bryant, Mr D W

Bryant, Mr D W to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether, in light of the fact that the dumping of used tyres appears to have increased across the Republic over the past few years with a significant negative impact on the environment, particularly in parts of Durban as well as in stormwater drains in Cape Town and elsewhere, her department has undertaken any research into the correlation between the tyre levy which was instituted in 2017 and dumping of tyres that could otherwise be reused; if not, (a) why not and (b) what systems are currently in place to address the recycling of used tyres; if so, what are the relevant details;

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

26 February 2021 - NW78

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What are the full relevant details of the steps that she has taken with her counterpart in the Communications and Digital Technologies, to ensure that SG technology can be rolled out in the Republic without harming human health and/or causing environmental degradation, particularly in light of the significantly intrusive provisions regarding the installation and deployment of electronic communication networks contemplated by the proposed amendments to the Environment Conservation Act, Act 73 of 1989, and given the precautionary principle embodied in the National Environmental Management Act, Act 108 of 1998?

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

26 February 2021 - NW240

Profile picture: Hendricks, Mr MGE

Hendricks, Mr MGE to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) Whether her department has investigated recent reports of artificial breaching and/or the opening of the Lake St Lucia mouth to carve an artificial link to the beach, despite concerns by several ecologists against such moves and several estuarine experts having recommended that 50 years of artificial manipulation of the mouth should be halted; if not, why not, if so, what are the relevant details; (2) whether she will investigate claims by the isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority that it was merely carting out work to restore functionality of the estuary and not to break open the mouth; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details

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

26 February 2021 - NW80

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether, given that certain provinces are allegedly not complying with the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations, her department has conducted an audit to determine which provinces are noncompliant; if not, why not; if so, which provinces are noncompliant; What are the full relevant details of the progress of her department in standardising all environmental legislation and regulations, including bringing all provinces in line with TOPS regulations?

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

26 February 2021 - NW79

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

In light of section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic, 1996, which guarantees the right to every person to an environment that is not hamful to their health or wellbeing and therefore do not subject any person to pollution or ecological degradation, what are the full relevant details of the steps that her department has taken in the Republic to ensure that the roll-out of 5G technology is not harmful to humans and the environment?

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:

06 November 2020 - NW2487

Profile picture: Lorimer, Mr JR

Lorimer, Mr JR to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) Whether, with reference to the Fishing Rights Allocation Process 2015-16 (FRAP), the provisional allocation included a process to inspect the Deputy Director-General’s (DDG) allocations and submit comments to Whistle Blowers (Pty) Ltd, she will furnish Mr J R B Lorimer with the details of the comments submitted; if not, why not; if so, what (a) verification process was followed on the basis of the comments and (b) are the details of how the provisional allocations changed as a result of the comments; (2) whether there was an effective verification process; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) (a) how will the FRAP 2020-21 process differ from the process used previously, (b) what steps will be taken during the FRAP 2020-21 to ensure that there are no paper quotas to persons from non-coastal communities; and (c) what will be the role of the Fisheries DDG in the FRAP 2020-21 process?

Reply:

 

  1. The Department received over one thousand (1000) comments, with the majority (876) being submitted in the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery. These comments are available for inspection at the premises of the Fisheries Branch.

    1. The comments were assessed and analysed by members of the Assessment Panel in each fishery.

    2. The details of how the provisional allocations changed as a result of the comments received can be determined by studying the difference between the Provisonal GPR and the Final GPR.

 

 

 

(2) and (3) a,b,c
It is common knowledge that the FRAP process 2015/16 has been the subject of lengthy litigation some of which continues to this day.

In our view one of the reasons for this was the decision to centralise decision-making in the hands of the Deputy Director-General of the Fisheries Branch, who was subsequently dismissed, by the then Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

In an effort to ensure a fair, transparent and accountable process of FRAP 2020/21 the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries is doing the following:

appointing a number of Delegated Authorities, rather than just one;
augmenting the capacity of the Department via the appointment of external service providers to assist with the various phases of the FRAP process; appointing a Process Observer/Auditing Firm to oversee and audit the process;
the appointment of an independent Legal Team to advise and ensure a legally defensible process;
developing an online application process in order to reduce data-capturing errors.

 


MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT DATE: 05 NOVEMBER 2020

 

06 November 2020 - NW2406

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) In view of a recent letter, dated 9 October 2020, and signed by more than 350 scientists and conservationists from 40 countries, which calls for global action to protect whales, dolphins and porpoises from extinction and specifically calls on countries like South Africa where there are whales, to take precautionary measures to ensure that these species are being protected from human activities, and to work with regional fishing bodies to ensure that overfishing does not impact whales, what precautionary measures does her department intend b take to ensure(a) the long-term survival of whales and (b) that whales have sufficient access to food during their migration to their breeding grounds; (2) how will her department work together with local fishing authorities to ensure that (a) there is a framework for sustainability and (b) the specified policy framework is adhered to?

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

06 November 2020 - NW2455

Profile picture: Weber, Ms AMM

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) Whether, with reference to the 2017 decision by Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs that the game animals, which were the subject of the R183million irregular donation of game animals through the SA Rare Game Breeders Association to so-called politically connected private game farm owners, be returned to the North West Province and the repatriation costs be funded by certain person (name and details furnished), the game animals with their progeny have been returned in full; if not, (a) what number of animals have in fact been returned and (b) on what date are the remaining animals expected to be returned; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) whether the specified person refunded the cost of the repatriation as instructed; if not, what action has been taken to ensure the recovery of the costs; (3) whether the SA Police Service and/or any other judicial body have been requested to investigate the matter; if not, why not; if so, what are the results of the investigation in each case?

Reply:

(1),(2) and (3) The management of the environment and protection of natural resources is a concurrent function between the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries and Provincial Departments responsible for matters related to the environment, Therefore, the issues raised in this question fall within the jurisdiction of the North West Provincial Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism. In View of this it is recommended that the matter be referred to the relevant Member of Executive Council (MEC) responsible for environmental affairs in the North West Province.

Regards
MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 6/11/2020
 

06 November 2020 - NW2457

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) With reference to her reply to question 1995 on 11 September 2020 in relation to the setting of the 2020 trophy hunting quota of 50 elephant, what are the scientific reasons and/or scientific evidence to support the trophy hunting quota of 50 elephant; (2) whether she, when approving the quota, considered the scientific data that shows that removing older male elephant, parlicula8y through trophy hunting has a disastrous impact on the species as a whole; if not, why not; if so, (a) how and (b) on what basis is the 2020 quota of 50 elephants allocated for each province; (3) what (a) is the 2020 elephant trophy hunting quota for each province and (b) are the 9cientific masons and/or scientific evidence for the specific provinces b be allocated with an elephant hunting quota?

Reply:

(1)  The 2020 trophy hunting quota for elephants was set at 106 elephants. However, on average only 50 bulls are hunted annually. Globally, elephant as listed on the IUCN Red List as "Vulnerable“. In South Attica, the species is listed on the regional Red List as “Least Concern"

The national elephant population for South Africa is increasing, and estimated at approximately 30,000 individuals, of which an estimated 24,000 individuals occur within national and provincial reserves collectively, in seven of the nine provinces of South Africa.

The elephant population of South Africa is well managed and activities related to elephants are regulated through the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA), specifically the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS Regulations), the National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa (Government Gazette no. 30833), and respective provincial conservation legislation. In addition, local protocols managing elephant trophy hunting, taking into consideration the role of mature bulls, are in place in many areas were t trophy hunting of elephants take place in South Africa. South Africa has an annual national Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) trophy hunting quota of 150 elephants (300 tusks). In managing this quota, provinces are required to conduct calculations of their annual provincial level off-takes. These provincial off-takes are then collated to provide for a national quota.

On a provincial level, the quota is calculated by estimating the total elephant population within the province, multiplied by 19› to obtain the off-take quota for the specific province. Trophy hunting of elephants within South Africa is limited and the allocated annual quota is often not fully utilised. Therefore, trophy hunting is considered as having a negligible impact on elephant populations in South Africa. The 1% trophy hunting off-take is much lower than the average growth rate of the national elephant population.

(2) The study by Elephants for Africa and the University of Exeter, on "The Importance of Old Bulls: Leaders and Followers In Collective Movement of All-Male Groups In African Savannah Elephant", was recently published in September 2020, whereas the determination of the 2020 quota was made prior to the results of the said study. The department and the Provincial Scientific Authority will consider the key findings of the study in making determination of hunting quota for elephant in the future.

However, given the population numbers and the low number of elephant bulls' trophy hunted per annum the impact on populations is likely to be negligible. The Allen e/ at. (2020) study highlights that the off take (trophy hunting) of older mature bulls (considered bulls over 26 years of age) not only removes the prime breeders, but also removes individuals with a central ‹ale in the male society.

In South Africa the majority of bulls hunted are over the age of 50 years and nearing senescence, thus no longer bleeding. It is acknowledged that mature older bulls do play an important role in bull society. However, where low numbers of mature bulls and specifically those nearing senescence are hunted the impact on the population aa a whole and the bull society is likely to be negligible. In addition, elephant have evolved to cope with natural mortalities taking place, with the natural mortality rate of older mature bulls at approximately 1% per annum.

A study conducted by Burke et al, (2008) evaluating the risk and ethical concerns of hunting male elephant has indicated that all responses measured were minor and that the hunting of male elephant in South Africa is ethically acceptable when considering effects on the remaining elephant population. The authors recommended that bulls should be hunted when alone. This recommendation has been captured in the Norms and Standards for Management of Elephant in South Africa

(3) (a) The table below indicates the 2020 elephant trophy hunting quota for each province:
 

Province

Quota No.

Eastern Cape Province

3 Elephants (06 Tusks)

Free State Provinc

0

Gauteng Province

0

KwaZulu-Natal Provinc

15 Elephant(30 Tusks)

Limpopo Province

50 Elephant (100 Tusks)

Mpumalanga Province

40 Elephants (80 Tusks)

North West Province

0

Northern Cape Province

0

Western Cape Province

0

TOTAL

108 Elephants (216 Tusks)


b. See the response to question 1 above

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 6/11/2020

(#)

06 November 2020 - NW2472

Profile picture: Lorimer, Mr JR

Lorimer, Mr JR to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(a) What are the reasons that the fisheries offices of her department are still closed and (b) on what date will they re-open?

Reply:

(a) The Fisheries Offices are closed

The Fishing Sector was identified as an essential service in the provision of food during the National Covid-19 Lockdown. Office-based fisheries staff have been working on rotation since Alert 4 of the Lockdown, but have all returned to office with the commencement of Alert Level 1.

(b) Not applicable

Regards
MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 6/11/2020

06 November 2020 - NW2484

Profile picture: Lorimer, Mr JR

Lorimer, Mr JR to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) (a) What are the reasons that parts of the fishing industry which were given exemption from permits until September have been unable to get their permits renewed and (b)(i) why has the online system been down and (ii) on what date is it envisaged to operate again; (2) Whether she has been informed that the lack of permits has stopped he catching, import and export of fish; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what is she doing to remedy the situation and (b) by what date will the situation be remedied?

Reply:

(1) (a) Despite being given a one and half months notice B apply for new permits, the majority of the industry operators submitted their applications for new permits on the eve of the expiration of the exemption given to them until the end of Alert Level 2 of the National Covid-19 Pandemic Lockdown. Furthermore, a number of fishing seasons also commence in the 9ummer months and right holders are therefore applying for new permits which have ‹exulted in the current backlog. The Department is currently working on clearing a backlog of Permit Applications that have been submitted by the industry.

(b) (i) The Electronic Application System is not down, it is currently operational. The Department is experiencing a slight backlog in processing permits for the reasons explained above.

(ii) The Electronic Application System is currently operational.

  1. A large number of applications that have been submitted to the Department do not meet the minimum application requirements, and have been returned to applicants for resubmission with full and up-to-date documentation æ that the applications can be processed. This causes delays in the Department being able B issue new permits. The Department has also received a large number of new applications since the start of Alert Level 1 Lockdown and is working to clear the backlog.
  2. The Department has engaged with Industry Associations as well as individual applicants to prioritise the processing and issuing of the outstanding permits and licences that meet the requirements and have been submitted to the Department timeously. Staff in the relevant permitting sections will also be working overtime to assist in clearing the backlog.
  3. It is envisaged that the existing backlog should be cleared by mid November 2020.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Date: 6/11/2020

05 November 2020 - NW2456

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) With reference to her reply to question 1995, on 11 September 2020, in relation to the setting of the trophy hunting quota of eleven leopards for 2020, what is (a) the total number of wild leopards in the Republic and (b) their distribution in each province; (2) what (a) is the total number of male Leopards in the age range of seven years and above and (b) is the distribution of male leopards in each province; and (3) (a) chat are the scientific reasons and/or scientific evidence for the decision to set the 2020 national trophy hunting quota at eleven leopards, (b)(i) how and (ii) on what basis is the 2020 quota of eleven leopards allocated per province, (c) what (i) is the 2020 leopard hunting quota for each province and (ii) are the scientific reasons and/or scientific evidence for the specific provinces to be allocated with a leopard hunting quota?

Reply:

(1)(a)(b), (2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)

Subsequent to the publication of the non-detriment finding for leopard in 2015, the Department, in liaison with the Scientific Authority, adopted an adaptive approach to determine the annual leopard hunting quota. Population trend data generated through the South African Leopard
Monitoring Project is used to inform decision making on the annual leopard hunting quota. South Africa ensures that leopard hunting is consistent with the sustainable use principles and that it does not have a detrimental impact on the survival of the leopard in the wild. Hunting of leopards in South Africa is therefore managed through:

Restrictions to designated hunting zones where trends in leopard density indicate that populations are stable or increasing, and

Limits to males older than 7 years, which is likely to have a minimal impact on population trends. This is used as an additional precautionary safeguard.

It is again emphasised that only hunting zones where leopard populations are stable and increasing have been designated as eligible for hunting of leopard. Trends in leopard populations were determined by multi state models fitted to leopard density data that wee collected through the Leopard Monitoring Project at 17 monitoring sites between 2013 and 2019. Data from these sites were used to designate hunting zones. As a precautionary measure, only one leopard can be hunted per eligible hunting zone.

(b)(i)(ii)

The 2020 quote of eleven leopards is a country wide quota and not a quota per province. In other words, the total number of leopards that may be hunted in South Africa in 2020 is eleven (11) and not ninety-nine (99) as inferred by be question. The basis for the allocation of the quota is provided in question 3(a) above.

The table below indicates the allocation of the 2020 leopard hunting quota for each province:

Province

Allocated quota

Eastern Cape Province

0

Free State Province

O

Gauteng Province

0

KwaZulu-Natal Province

0

Limpopo Province

nine (9) male leopards of seven years or older

Mpumalanga Province

O

North West Province

No (2) male leopards of seven years or older

Northern Cape Province

0

Western Cape Province

0

(c)(ii)

The basis for the allocation of the quota is provided in question 1-3 above.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 6/11/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2352

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What(a) pollutants require mandatory monitoring and reporting in all air quality monitoring stations, (b) are acceptable levels of the specified pollutants and (c) steps are taken once a station reports on excessive levels of pollution at a station of the SA Air Quality Information Systems or a municipal station?

Reply:

 

  1. In terms of Section 9 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 20 of 2014 (NEMAQA), the Minister is empowered to identify ambient air pollutants which present a threat to human health and well-being of the environment, and to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the identified pollutants. In this regard, the Minister established national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter (PM10. articles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometres (10-6 m) and PM2.5, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres), sulphur dioxide (SO2). nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), ozone (O3) and benzene (CsH6). The NAAQS include averaging periods, limit values or concentrations, permitted frequency of exceedance per year, and compliance dates.
  2. The table below shows the ambient standards for the criteria pollutant.
  3. Where excessive levels of pollution at a station are reported by the South African Air Quality Information System or a municipal station, the information is shared with the public to empower them about the possible impacts their human health, as well as to guide them on how to carry out their daily activities to minimise the effects. In addition, tailor-made interventions are designed in air quality management plans or other strategic government programs to identify sources contributing to the pollution levels, and to implement necessary emission reduction measures. Within the regulated pollution sources such as industries, these interventions include enhanced compliance monitoring and enforcements through the atmospheric emission licencing command and control regime. For non-regulated pollution sources, air quality management interventions are designed to target those pollutants with reported excessive levels, towards progressive realisation of air that is not harmful to the health and wellbeing of the public.

Regards

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

DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2359

Profile picture: Weber, Ms AMM

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether she will furnish Ms A M M Weber with the (a) hunting offtakes recommended by SA National Packs (SANParks) for the individual private nature reserves that form part of the Associated Private Nature Reserves for 2020, (b) latest census information on which the decision was based and (c) copies of the letters of recommendation from SANParks to (i) Timbavati Private Nature Reserve, (ii) Balule Nature Reserve, (iii) Umbabat Nature Reserve and (iv) Klaserie Private Nature Reserve regarding 2020 hunting offtakes, noting that the previous Managing Executive of SANParks promised to make the hunting offtake figures public; if not, in each case, why not; if so, chat are the further relevant details in each case?

Reply:

(a) SANParks does not recommend hunting off-takes to the Private, Community and State managed reserves open to Kruger National Park (KNP). SANParks comment on the scientific- based animal off-take reque9B reC9ÏVed from such entities, in 00n9Ultation with the provincial regulatory authorities overseeing the allocation of such quotas; namely Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) and Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environment (LEDET).

(b) Census and scientific reports are submitted by the neighbouring Private, Community and State managed areas, which inform and support the off-take requests. The reports are then considered, and if supported, they are approved by the MTPA and LEDET, as the regulatory authorities. The MTPA and LEDET are the custodians of the Census information.

© SANParks comment on the hunting off-take request (See Addendum 1). The allocation of quotas is approved by the MTPA and LEDET, as the regulatory authorities. Approved quotas can be obtained Atom the aforementioned provincial regulatory authorities. However, some of the reserves publish the off-takes quotas on their websites and within their annual reports.

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE
: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2376

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

In light of the fact that eight environment ministry officials have been suspended in relation to a R2 billion tender fraud (details furnished), and her department's undertaking that it would, in due course, implement system recommendations that were outlined in the forensic investigation report, what(a) are the recommendations and (b) is the expected timeline for the implementation of the recommendations?

Reply:

A The forensic investigation report made the following recommendations with regard to improvement to supply chain management processes:

  1. The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) should revise its functionality criteria for tenders such that these is compliance with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000: Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017.
  2. The DEFF should revise its practice of appointing the same officials to serve on the Bid Specification Committee (BSC) and Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC). The functions of bid specification and evaluation should be segregated in order b minimise the risk of allusion between officials.
  3. The DEFF should implement a system whereby all BSC, BEC and Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) meetings are mechanically bearded. Such recordings should be filed for reference.
  4. The Supply Chain Management (SCM) Directorate should ensue that all minutes of BSC, BEC and BAC meetings are prepared within a reasonable period and filed. Such minutes should be signed by the relevant officials present at such meetings.
  5. The DEFF should cancel all contracts and/or negotiations with bidders who did not meet the mandakry and functional requirement of the bid.

B The following recommendations have been implemented to date:

    1. Criteria far evaluation of tenders have been amended b ensure objectivity and transparency. All Terms of Reference are reviewed by a quality assurer and are approved by the BAC.
    2. BAC meetings are recorded and minutes are prepared timeously. The BAC will only consider tenders for adjudication of the BSC and BEC minutes are included in submission.

The following recommendations will be implemented in due course:

iii. Amendments to the SCM with regard B the BSC and BEC composition

lv. Contracts as currently being reviewed by Counsel to consider any legal risks and to advise regarding the due process that must be followed when contracts are cancelled.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISIJERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
27/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2298

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether she will explain why South Africa has not yet signed the Leaders' Pledge for Nature, which has already been signed by 70 countries, and which will commit South Africa B implement immediately actionable policy in order to ‹averse biodiversity loss over the next decade; if not, why not; if so, what are the full, relevant details?

Reply:

The Leaders' Pledge for Nature deals with a number of issues that are currently the subject of multilateral negotiations within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), amongst others.

Given the fact that this Leaders' Pledge for Nature is not a multilaterally agreed document, nor did not form part of any multilateral negotiations and that it contains element which are the subject of ongoing negotiations as well as its requirements for a commitment to act and take accountability, it is prudent for any responsible Government to study the actions required and it implications on the country, prior to committing. The Leaders' Pledge for Nature is still open for endorsement and therefore, South Africa may still sign it after careful study of its content and the implications thereof on its biodiversity policy.

Our country remains committed to the implementation of its goals and objectives, and are committed to working towards an adoption of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework at the COP15 of the CBD in Kunming, China next year.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF F0RE8TRY, FISHERES AND THE ENVIRONNENT

DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2353

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

On what data will her Department set up a meeting to discuss shark fishing quotas, considering that shark numbers are dwindling and that catch-and-release has shown B cause slow and painful death by drowning according to studies?

Reply:

There has been no date set by this Department to specifically discuss 6hark quotas or allocations as yet. Previously, rights in the Demersal Shark Longline sector were allocated by the then Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fi9henes in 2013 and will be expiring at the end of 2020. A Total Applied Effort(TAE) of 5 vessels was allocated in the sector previously.

In May 2020, the Minister appointed an Expert Panel to formally review South Africa's National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA-Sharks). The Panel was mandated to, among other things, focus on alignment with the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (lPOA-Sharks) of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), as well as to advise regarding progress on the current plan. The Expert Panel must also make recommendations on the plan generally with a view to improving it and ensuring its proper implementation so as to ensure the Department’s commitment to the long-term sustainable consumptive and non-consumptive use of the species. The Panel is expected to provide the Minister with a report by mid-November 2020

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER 0F FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 30/10/2020

 

30 October 2020 - NW2351

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) (a) What is the reasoning behind the Kruger National Park dropping fences to areas bordering members of the Associated Private Nature Reserves (ANPRs) B allow movement of animals that are meant to be safeguarded in protected areas, allowing for trophy hunting of these protected animals, (b) what are the reasons that the decision to drop the fences to surrounding APNRs was not bought before the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries when it undermines the purpo9e of protecting wildlife in national parks, and (c) whether she will furnish Ms H S Winkler with the concept document for the dropping of fences to the APNRs; (2) what are the terms of the agreement on trophy hunting with the APNRs and (b) who provide oversight; and (3) whether she has been informed of the hunting of a young bull elephant that was shot 18 times in a Kruger National Park APNR in December 2016 in an unethical hunt in front of tourists; if not, chat is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what are the relevant details and (b) what steps has she taken to hold those responsible for the unethical hunt accountable?

Reply:

 

1. (a) The western boundary fence was dropped alongside fourteen (14) Private, Community and State managed conservation areas and was not limited B the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR). The reason this include, but are not limited to, support for integrated ecological management, with ecosystem processes, e.g. catchment processes, ecological corridor, climate change processes, natural species migration routes, following a west-east landscape gradient(from the mountain catchment west of the KNP).

The fence dropping is also in fulfillment of the international Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Treaty (GLTFCA, 2002), promoting integrated land use approaches, including the inclusion of Private, Community and State conservation areas into the open conservation estate within South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This promotes ecological and socio- economic outcomes, as per Treaty objectives. In addition, the inclusion of these areas is also aligned to South Africa's international commitment to expand the conservation estate in the country.

The fence dropping with Private, Community and State area look place in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as per the above explanation. The GLTFCA Cooperative Agreement (2018), its objectives, associated legislative requirements and workplan were presented to the Portfolio Committee during 2019.

The GLTFCA Cooperative Agreement is the first Agreement that provides a consistent framework for the regularisation of all 14 reserves open to KNP, as guided by the legal framework. The Agreement provides a uniform and consistent management framework based on the protected area and associated legislation. Please find attached a copy of the Agreement(Addendum 1c1-2).

2. (a) Approved protocols need to be formalised within reserves that conduct hunting, as per legislative requirements (NEMPA, NEMBA). Please refer attached Addendum 2 for requirement that need to be met.

(b) The Provincial Conservation authorities; Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) and the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) are responsible for the regulation of the hunting within these reserves, together with the management structures of such reserves overseeing the management plans and associated practices, such as hunting, in the reserves (NEMPAA Act, 2003{Act No. 57 of 2003)).

3. (a) and (b) SANParks does not allow hunting within the Kruger National Park.

According to information at my disposal, the said elephant bull was hunted in a reserve within the APNR, in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and the APNR Hunting protocol. Such hunts are overseen by the management structures of the reserves, together with the Provincial Conservation Authorities, they being the regulatory authorities tasked with monitoring compliance with the Protocol. I am advised that during the particular hunt being referred to, no "tourist' besides the hunting party were witness to the hunt. I am also advised that the LEDET provided the documentation to substantiate that the permit were legally issued and that no laws were contravened.

According to information at my disposal, the hunt was legal and took place in accordance with the APNR Hunting Protocol. The APNR off-take committee furthermore reviewed the incident and provided a ruling that the hunt was in accordance with the Protocol. The provincial environmental authority (LEDET) conducted a full investigation into this matter.

Regards

MS BD CREECY, MP

MINISTER 0F FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 30/10/2020

25 September 2020 - NW2141

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) With reference to the Government Gazette No.43601, what is the Nationale behind the phased-out approach to banning (a) single-use plastic carriers and (b) plastic flat bags as opposed to a stricter timeframe for an outright ban; and

Reply:

 

  1. (a) and (b)

The rationale behind the phasing out (or banning) of plastic carrier bags and plastic flat bags that are not manufactured from recyclate is to promote resource efficiency (that is, the use of recyclate as opposed to virgin material); improve waste management and create a demand for waste materials; increase circularity, recycling and recovery and to improve the design of environmentally sound bags and mitigate the economic impact of an outright ban of plastic carrier and flat bags.

This rationale is the result of extensive research and consultation with relevant stakeholders as well as consideration of international research and best practice.

 

(2). The Department has to consider the implications of any proposed policy interventions and the costs attached thereto as well as transitional measures. One of the critical stages of the Socio- Economic Impact Assessment System procedure is the identification of options, alternative, the implications (social and other) and the costs thereof. À policy recommendation needs B be guided by inter alia, evidence, B avoid unintended consequences. The Department is thereof e currently pursuing a study on single-use plastic products that would inform the policy direction. However, in the interim, the Extended Producer Responsibility is being put in place to manage items such as straws and cutlery. In this regard, the Department has been engaging industry and continues to do so. In addition:


(a).the Department has included straws as part of products to be controlled under Extended Producer Responsibility.

(b). the Department has included plastic cutlery as part of products to be controlled under the Extended Producer Responsibility.

©. The Department has also engaged the Department of Health b amend the Cosmetic Regulations b ban the use of plastic microbeads in cosmetics.

25 September 2020 - NW2142

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What (a) are the reasons that KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) has not submitted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), (b) is the deadline for submission of KZN’s AQMP, (c) is de air quality management plan being used in KZN in the absence of an AQMP and (d) are the reasons that (i) many of the air quality monitoring stations are in KZN and (ii) then is no monitoring for PM2.5 and PM10 in other province, as per regulations in accordance with the National Environment Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004)?

Reply:

a). To address capacity challenges in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province, the Air Quality Management Office was re-established in July 2020, with the appointment of a Director who will be responsible for Air Quality Management. In addition, an official was transferred horn the national Department B work in the Province. The process to develop the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) has been initiated by the Province.

(b). The Act does not explicitly state a deadline for the submis9ion of an AQMP. However, it was expected that when the Act was promulgated, all spheres of government would develop or initiate the process B draft their AQMPs.


©. In the absence of an AQMP, KZN is implementing the current air quality national legislation, i.e. Air Quality Act and the associated regulations.


(d)(i) Ambient monitoring is conducted by all sphere of government and there are a fair number of monitoring stations that are located in KZN. Of the 136 government-owned ambient air quality monitoring stations across the country, 25 of these are located in KZN province (the province has 5 stations under its control, eThekwini Metropolitan has 14 stations, the City of uMhlathuze has 3 stations and Msunduzi local municipality has 3 stations).


(ii). All spheres of government have comprehensive air quality monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 across the country, as per regulations in accordance with the National Environment Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004). Of the 136 government-owned monitoring stations, nearly all of them monitor PM10. The monitoring of PM2.5 is still confined to the national priority areas and metropolitan municipalities, as the ambient monitoring standard for the pollutant was promulgated years after stations had been commissioned. However, the number of stations monitoring PM2.5 was significantly increased in 2016 through a national project initiated by the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries. As part of this initiative, 20 dual PM10PM2.5 monitors were rolled out into the national monitoring network to support municipal stations that were missing such Pm10/PM2.5 monitors, or had old monitors that needed to be replaced.

 

25 September 2020 - NW2140

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What is the (a) compliance status of landfill sites in the Republic, (b)(i) total number and (ii) list of names of landfill sites that are (aa) licensed and (bb) unlicensed in each province and (c)(i) name and (ii) total number of landfill sites that are not compliant with their permits in each province?

Reply:

 

  1. The compliance status of landfill sites in the Republic, according to the Department’s currently

available information, is as contained in the table below:

 

 

PROVINCE

Non-Compliant 0% to 49%

Partially Compliant

50% to 74%

Compliant 75% to 100%

Eastern Cape

7

3

2

Mpumalanga

17

4

4

Gauteng

7

5

5

 

Northern

Cape

9

0

0

North West

11

7

0

KwaZulu

Natal

12

3

9

Western Cape

41

26

24

Limpopo

14

6

16

Free State

6

1

1

TOTAL

124

55

61

 

  1. (i) and (ii) The required information can be sourced from the relevant provincial authorities. (aa), (bb) See (b) above
  2. (i) and (ii) See (b) above.

11 September 2020 - NW1963

Profile picture: Whitfield, Mr AG

Whitfield, Mr AG to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What was the total number of live (a) black rhino and (b) white rhino in the Republic (i) in each of the past six financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2020 up to the latest specified date for which information is

Reply:

Rhino numbers are informed by a variety of sources, and complied in report submitted to institutions responsible for the implementation of conservation treaties such æ the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES). Specific complementary reports are the following:
Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland for bath white and black rhino;
the Non Detriment findings for both white and black chino;
a report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups; and
TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP17)

Ms BD CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE:11/09/2020

11 September 2020 - NW2039

Profile picture: De Freitas, Mr MS

De Freitas, Mr MS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What (a) plans does her Department have in place for providing preferential pricing structures for South Africans, as opposed B non-South Africans, which will provide access to South African National Parks (SANParks) properties, (b) research has been done in this regard and (c) are the (i) timeframes, (ii) milestones and (iii) deadlines regarding preferential pricing structures?

Reply:

 

  1. SANParks already implements a differential pricing and fee structure for South Africans and international guests. This differentials system was introduced in 2003, and the effect thereof is that South Africana receive preferential rates as compared to international guests. This was done to improve and expand access to National Parks by South Africans.
  2. Research had been conducted prior b the implementation of the preferential pricing system. SANParks embarked on a benchmarking exercise, comparing our fee structure with similar conservation authorities on the African continent.
  3. SANParks started implementing the Preferential Pricing mechanism in November 2003, and this pricing structure is being implemented currently

i Not applicable as the system is already being implemented

ii Not applicable as the system is already being implemented

iii. Not applicable as the system is already being implemented

Regards

MS BD CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 11/09/2020

11 September 2020 - NW1994

Profile picture: Winkler, Ms HS

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether an export quota for lion bone is being considered for 2020; if not, why not; Neo, what are the reasons?

Reply:

The judgment of National Council of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Environ mental Affairs and Others on the lion bone export quota determination process requested the Minister to give consideration to welfare issues relating to lions in captivity when determining the quota. The Department was, therefore, not able b determine the 2019 lion bone export quota and such determination process was thus deferred.

 

Regards

MS BD CREECY, MP
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment:

Date: 11/09/2020

11 September 2020 - NW1950

Profile picture: Paulsen, Mr N M

Paulsen, Mr N M to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether, in terms of the allocation of fishing rights to small-scale fishermen, her Department has an indication as b what number of the rights holder (a) are paper quota holders and (b) harvest their own quotas; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Reply:

Small-scale fishing rights are allocated to community-based legal entities in the form of co-operatives. These cooperatives as made up of verified and declared small-scale fishers in teas of the Marine Living Resources Act, 2014 (Act No. 5 of 2014). These fishers have met the relevant criteria and proved their historical involvement in fi9hing, as well as deriving a major part of their livelihood from traditional fishing operations. As such, there are no 'Paper Quota Holders' in the Small-scale Fishing Sector.

All fishes that form part of the small-scale fisheries cooperatives are involved in either one of the many fishing operations that include, amongst others, catching, processing and/or marketing of fish.

Regards

Ms BD CREECY, MP

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 11/09/2020

16 July 2020 - NW1393

Profile picture: Weber, Ms AMM

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) Whether the Department found that the 12+ roan antelope that died in 2019 had been purchased; if so, (a) from which location(s) were they purchased, (b) from whom were they purchased, (c) on what date(s) were the antelope purchased, (d) what was the cost of each specified antelope and (e) what number of breeding pairs were purchased; (2) whether the Department found that the 12+ roan antelope that died in 2019 had been captured; so, were they captured in the Kruger National Park and moved b the Nwaxitsumbe Breeding Camp; and (3) whether the Department found that the 12+ roan antelope that died in 2019 were donated; if so, (a) why were they donated and (b) what was the value of the donation?

Reply:

 

  1. None of the roan antelope that died in the Nwaxitsumbe Bleeding Camp had been purchased.

They were not captured, nor were they donated and none of them were planned for donation.

a) Not applicable.

b) Not applicable.

c) Not applicable.

d) Not applicable.

e) Not applicable.

(2) None of the roan antelope that died were captured anywhere prior to their death. These particular antelopes were the offspring of roan antelope in the camp. They were originally captured in Malawi as part of a breeding programme and subsequently moved to the Nwaxitsumbe Breeding Camp. They are the result of several generations of breeding in the Kruger National Park.

(3) None of the roan antelope that died had been donated and none were they planned for donation

a) Not applicable.

b) Not applicable.

Regards

MS B CREECY

MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 17/7/2020

16 July 2020 - NW1394

Profile picture: Weber, Ms AMM

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) What number of other breeding and preservation facilities are currently in the Kruger National Park; (2) whether any of the other bleeding and preservation facilities suffered similar losses as the roan antelope breeding programme; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case; (3) whether the Senior Ranger from the roan antelope breeding programme who was dismissed had any verbal and/or written warnings; if so, what (a) number of warnings and (b) were the changes in each case; and (4) whether the specified ranger had a previous disciplinary record; if so, what controls were put in place by the Department in order for him not to regress again?

Reply:

(1) Currently, there are no other animal breeding camps in the Kruger National Park other than the Nwaxitsumbe Roan Bleeding Facility.

(2) In 2012, a total of 45 roan antelope died of Anthrax disease in the Capricorn Breeding Camp during August of that year. The breeding camp was subsequently dismantled in 2014.

(3) Yes, the Senior Ranger from the roan antelope breeding programme was dismissed on 25 April 2014 but challenged his dismissal at the CCMA, and as a result thereof, a Settlement Agreement was reached at the CCMA in terms of which he was re-instated on the 17th of November 2014.

(4) See (3) above

(5) After his reinstatement, the ranger was transferred from Nwanetsi Section to Shangoni Section. There were no further incidents that have been brought to my attention until the incident in 2020