Questions & Replies: Water & Environmental Affairs

Share this page:
2011-05-05

THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.

SEARCH ON THE TOPIC/KEYWORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD

QUESTION NO 882

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 11 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

882. Mr L W Greyling (ID) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether a study has been done on the externality costs arising from the use of different energy generation technologies; if not, why not; if so,

(2) whether the document will be made available to the public; if not, why not; if so, when? NW963E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) This question falls outside the mandate of the Department and should be referred to the Department of Minerals and Energy.

(2) Falls away.

QUESTION NO 868

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 01 APRIL 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 09)

868. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs: (Interdepartmental transfer on 01 April 2011)

Whether her department has identified any urgent projects with regard to infrastructure upgrading within the water and environmental sector in the context of the R846bn government infrastructure upgrade plan over the next three years; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW948E

---00O00---

REPLY:

Yes, the Department has identified projects with regard to infrastructure upgrading within the water sector in the context of the R846bn government infrastructure upgrade plan over the next three years. The Department's infrastructure budget allocation forms part of the R846 billion. The relevant details as outlined in the Estimates of National Expenditure 2011, Vote 38 can be summarised as follows:

The spending focus over the medium term (MTEF 2011/12 to 2013/14) will be on bulk raw water resource infrastructure to meet sustainable demand for South Africa. Projected expenditure on water and waste water infrastructure projects is expected to increase from R2.7 billion in 2010/11 to R13.6 billion over the MTEF period.

Projects identified are categorised as:

A. Mega Infrastructure projects

B. Small Infrastructure projects

C. Regional Bulk Infrastructure

D. Water Services Projects

The table below indicates the budget allocation for the identified projects:

PROJECT

ESTIMATED BUDGET

R'000

SPENT UP TO 2010/11

R '000

MTEF ALLOCATION R'000

A. Mega Infrastructure projects

1.Olifants River Water Resource Development Project

16 175 000

2 561 795

2 778 733

- De Hoop Dam

3 075 00

2 170 766

858 408

- Distribution Systems

13 100 000

391 029

1 920 325

2. Clan Williams Dam

2 200 000

1 140

379804

3. Mokolo and Crocodile River (West) Augmentation Project, Phase 1

2 000 000

139 400

603 200

4. Greater Letaba River project (Tzaneen and Nwamitwa dams)

2 015 000

-

386 140

5. Nandoni WTW and Distribution

1 697 000

1 164 504

752 900

6. Nandoni Pipeline project

720 000

-

7500 000

B. Small Infrastructure projects

3 200 000

904 800

1 400 000

C. Regional Bulk Infrastructure

893

882 408

6 427 255

D. Water Services Projects

314 960

278 169

729 963

TOTAL

29 244 960

5 932 216

14 208 085

QUESTION NO. 855
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.6 NW 931E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 11 March 2011
Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:



(1) Whether any steps have been taken to bring the SA National Defence Force (SANDF) into the Kruger National Park to patrol the border with Mozambique in an effort to curb rhino poaching; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the expense for this deployment of SANDF personnel will be fully or partially paid for by (a) the Department of Environmental Affairs or (b) SAN Parks; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether there are any terms of agreement between SAN Parks and SANDF to govern the scope of their work in the park; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) how will the work of the SANDF in the park be coordinated with the park's own compliance and enforcement officials?



Mr G R Morgan (DA)
SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT
HANSARD
PAPERS OFFICE
PRESS
855. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:



1. As part of implementing a Cabinet decision, SANDF is expected to brevert to one of its mandates of border security control. This will potentially be of additional benefit to SAN Parks in curbing the current rhino poaching.

2. SANDF undertakes border security at their own expense, as per its mandate to conduct and maintain borderline security. Like in all previous instances where cooperative governance has been called for, where necessary; SANDF will be asked through the necessary country leadership structures to support SANParks, in that case, DEA will partially cover the expenses based on agreed terms.

3. A joint draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) guiding the relationship between SANParks and the SANDF is under consideration and still very much at initial stages of development.

4. All operations conducted within the KNP are the responsibility of conservation officials of SAN Parks and exercised within the broader government mandate.

QUESTION NO. 854 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 NW930E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 11 March 2011

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many environmental management inspectors (EMIs) are there currently and (b) what is the breakdown of this figure according to the organisations they work for;

(2) how many qualified EMIs are expected to be attached to organisations by the end of the 2011-12 financial year;

(3) whether any efforts are being made to train more EMIs who focus on compliance and enforcement of waste and air quality issues; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any special challenges are faced in (a) recruiting, (b) training and (c) retaining EMIs; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

854. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) As at March 2010, there were 1073 designated EMIs across all institutions.

(b) The breakdown per institution is as follows:

INSTITUTION

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-10

SANParks

630

634

782

National DEA

48

44

57

Isimangaliso Wetland Park Authority

1

1

1

Western Cape DEADP

23

39

40

Cape Nature

6

4

3

KwaZulu-Natal DAEARD

27

21

25

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

26

22

23

Gauteng DARD

32

38

32

Limpopo DEDET

20

16

15

Eastern Cape DEDEA

15

24

22

Free State DETEEA

10

15

15

Mpumalanga DEDET

10

14

14

Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency

11

11

Northern Cape DEANC

12

13

12

Northwest DACERD

6

7

21

TOTAL

866

903

=SUM(ABOVE) 1073

Updated national figures for the 2010/11 financial year will be gathered as part of the compilation of the National Compliance and Enforcement Report 2010/11 – a process that will be undertaken after the financial year end in March 2011. This report will also look at presenting the numbers of EMIs that are undertaking the different types of environmental compliance and enforcement work, such as those specifically undertaking their function in relation to biodiversity issues as opposed to those doing compliance and enforcement in respect of waste, pollution and EIA matters.

(2) It is difficult to provide projected figures for the end of 2011-2012 without being in a position yet to understand the figures at the end of March 2011. It is envisaged, however, that by the end of 2011-2012 many of the local authority officials would have been designated as EMIs (there are currently about 65 local officials that have attended the EMI training and can be designated this coming financial year).

A more accurate projection can be provided to this question once the Department has had an opportunity to update the figures for the 2010-2011 financial year.

(3) The development of EMI capacity at local authority level has been identified as a key priority in terms of the Delivery Agreement for Outcome 10; as well as for the 2011/12 workplan for MINTECH WGIV. In this respect, DEA has developed a national guideline and template of an Implementation Protocol, in terms of which MEC's will be the interim designating authorities for local authority EMIs. After approval by WGIV, MINTECH and MINMEC, these documents have now been forwarded to the respective MEC's for implementation. The mandate of these local authority EMIs will primarily be in compliance and enforcement with national air quality and waste legislation; and to a lesser extent coastal management, biodiversity and protected areas subsectors.

In order to facilitate this process, DEA has entered into a collaborative project with the Health Professions Council of South Africa; the SA Institute of Environmental Health, the Department of Health's Environmental Health Directorate; as well as 7 tertiary education institutions with a view to developing an EMI bridging training programme for qualified and practicing Environmental Health Practitioners (EHPs). This project was initiated due to the fact that many of the EHPs will also become the local authority EMIs responsible for undertaking compliance and enforcement with relevant provisions of NEM:AQA and NEM:WA. The outcome of this project should mean a significant increase in the EMI capacity to enforce and monitor compliance with waste and air quality issues, at least in relation to the local government mandate as set out in terms of Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution.

Finally, DEA plans to deliver a short specialized training course aimed at capacitating existing EMIs, specifically on waste, EIA and air quality legislation in the new financial year.

(4) (a) The sector needs to assess how many designated EMIs are required at each sphere of government (national, provincial and local level) in order to ensure effective implementation of NEMA and the specific environmental management Acts. The distribution of this capacity needs to be in accordance with the compliance and enforcement mandate of each sphere of government in terms of Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution, which is a complex issue not widely understood by environmental authorities. This exercise will guide the recruitment drive of the Inspectorate in a strategic manner to place EMI resources where they are mostly required. It will then be necessary for sufficient funding to be provided at all levels of government in order for the various institutions to create the necessary capacity.

A range of different skills are also required in order to effectively undertake the functions of the Inspectorate, including legal, technical and investigative skills. It is often difficult to compete with the private sector (due to salary constraints) to attract these skills and then retain them.

(b) In the past 4 years, DEA has presented the EMI basic training programme through a collaborative partnership with tertiary education institutions. This model has proven to have its own advantages and disadvantages; and the Inspectorate, through MINTECH WGIV is currently under a process to assess the success of this model over the past 4 years – this may potentially result in a change to the current structure of the programme as it is currently presented.

There is a clear need within the current Inspectorate for more refresher or specialized training courses, the provision of which is currently constrained by the limited capacity and in-depth involvement of DEA officials in other capacity-building programmes (for example, EMI Basic Training, Prosecutors, Magistrates etc.)

Ultimately, the EMI Basic Training Course can only deliver the basic theoretical knowledge to the official – the ultimate effectiveness of the individual is large dependent on whether they find themselves in a work environment where they are able to practice what they have learnt, while being mentored by more senior/experienced officials.

(c) Retention of experienced and trained staff can be challenging. Although the national Department is succeeding in retaining staff within the Inspectorate at present, it would appear that many of the provinces are not as fortunate and there does appear to be high turnover in certain provinces. This appears to be as a result of individuals looking for higher paid positions despite only being in a position for a short period of time as well as various private employers recognising and actively seeking the skills and experience gained by the inspectors.

QUESTION NO. 853 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 NW929E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 11 March 2011

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in favour of the appellants in the matter SA Predator Breeders Association v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2010 ZASCA 151, her department has had any engagement with SA Predator Breeders Association since the judgment with regard to her department's efforts to strengthen regulations pertaining to the breeding of captive predators; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether she has taken any steps to end canned lion hunting; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether she intends introducing any new regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004, that will prohibit canned hunting; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

853. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes. A meeting was held on 09 March 2011 between the Department's Biodiversity and Conservation officials and representatives of the South African Predator Breeders Association. The meeting discussed areas of possible collaboration between the Department and the Association with regard to legislative amendments and implementation.

(2) No. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs does not have a legal mandate in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 to regulate canned lion hunting.

(3) No. I have however instructed the Department's Biodiversity and Conservation officials to engage with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries around the issue of whether canned lion hunting could be regulated in terms of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries legislation.

QUESTION NO. 805 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 NW876E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 11 March 2011

Mrs D A Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether (a) her departments or (b) any of its affiliated entities have purchased any tickets for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011; if not, why not; if so, (i) what process has been followed to purchase these tickets, (ii) how many tickets have been purchased, (iii) for which matches, (iv) what has been the total cost of these tickets, (v) what are the reasons for purchasing these tickets, (vi) to whom will each of these tickets be allocated and (vii) on what was the decision for the allocation of these tickets based?

Mrs D A Schäfer (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

805. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Entity Name

(i) what process has been followed to purchase these tickets

(ii) how many tickets have been purchased

(iii) for which matches

(iv) what has been the total cost of these tickets

(v) what are the reasons for purchasing these tickets

(vi) to whom will each of these tickets be allocated and

vii) On what was the decision for the allocation of these tickets based?

DEA

None

None

None

None

None

None

The Department of Environmental Affairs did not purchase tickets.

SANBI

None

None

None

None

None

None

SANBI has not purchased any tickets for the ICC World Cup 2011

SANPARKS

None

None

None

None

None

None

South African National Parks did not buy any tickets for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.

SAWS

None

None

None

None

None

None

SAWS did not purchase any tickets for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.

iSimangaliso

None

None

None

None

None

None

Isimangaliso did not purchase tickets for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.

QUESTION NO 793

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 11 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

793. Mr J.M Ellies (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her department has (a) been informed of and (b) investigated mine water pollution in the Wilge River affecting the Ezemvelo Nature Reserve; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,

(2) whether the cause of the pollution has been determined; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any (a) pre-notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges have been issued against any transgressor responsible for this pollution in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether there are any plans in place to rehabilitate this (a) river and (b) affected areas in the nature reserve; if not, why not; if so, what plans? NW864E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) No, the Department was not informed of the alleged pollution.

(1)(b) Yes, upon learning about this allegation during early March, the Department's Regional Office: Mpumalanga conducted an investigation on 14 March 2011 into the alleged mine water pollution.

(2) No, the investigation conducted did not reveal any source of pollution as the sample taken did not indicate any elevated levels of concentration than the baseline concentrations in the Wilge River. The Regional Office: Mpumalanga will however continue with its monitoring programme to ensure that any future pollution/deviation can be timeously detected.

(3)(a) No notice was issued as the investigation did not reveal pollution of the river and/or nature reserve.

(3)(b) Falls away.

(3)(c) Falls away.

(4) Falls away.

QUESTION NO 786

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 11 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

786. Mr M J Ellis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 1170 on 3 May 2010, her department has established the ownership of the sewerage infrastructure within Ba-Phalaborwa local municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether, since her reply, a (a) pre-directive, (b) directive or (c) criminal charge has been instituted against the responsible municipality for any transgressions of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether there have been any pollution events from sewerage infrastructure in the municipality since her reply; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the Kruger National Park authorities are being informed when pollution events from sewerage infrastructure occur; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether her department is assisting in any way in the refurbishment of sewerage infrastructure in the municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW857E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Yes, the Department has established that the sewerage infrastructure is owned by the Mopani District Municipality.

(2)(a) Yes, on 7 May 2010, a pre-directive [in terms of section 19 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998)] was issued to the Mopani District Municipality due to the failure of the pump station.

(2)(b) No directive has been issued to the Mopani District Municipality as the pollution contravention has been rectified.

(2)(c) No criminal charges have been laid against the Mopani District Municipality since the pollution contravention has been rectified.

(3) There has been no pollution incidences linked to the Ba-Phalaborwa Main Pump Station that were reported to the Department after 26 April 2010. This conclusion is based on the standard operating procedure that pollution incidences that have the potential to pollute resources are reported to the relevant Regional Office and no "new" pollution reports linked to this pump station were received. The only report that was escalated by SAVE Chairperson on 18 February 2011 emanates from the complaint that was already lodged with this Department on 28 March 2010.

(4) Yes, the Department informs the authorities of the Kruger National Park if there are pollution events which will affect the Kruger National Park. Such interaction takes place through various fora.

(5) Yes, the Department continues to provide support to the Mopani District Municipality as a water services authority responsible for the local municipalities in its area of jurisdiction. With regard to the Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality, the Department has provided support in the refurbishment of the Lulekani and Namakgale Sewage Treatment Works from 2003 till 2011. In addition, the Department provides support for the operation and maintenance of schemes which were previously owned by the Department but have since been transferred to the Mopani District Municipality.

QUESTION NO 752

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 11 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

752. Dr H C van Schalkwyk (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to a certain report (details furnished), how much brine, which is a by-product of short term treatment, is envisaged will be collected from the daily treatment of water in the (a) Western, (b) Eastern and (c) Central basins;

(2) (a) where will the brine be stored and (b) what will be the cost of this storage;

(3) (a) what is the expected chemical content of this brine and (b) what will be the inherent risks of this brine be? NW739E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The engineering solution that is being prepared for implementation addresses the recommendations from the report by the team of experts which include pumping, neutralisations and the disposal of sludge. The full details of the engineering solutions are not yet available for circulation.

(2) The storing and cost details will form part of the engineering solution, currently being developed.

(3) Refer to (1).

QUESTION NO 737

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

737. Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has been informed that 100% of the Vaal River's upper catchment has an underlying reserve of coal strata which is being mined, resulting in contamination of the water at its source; if so,

(2) whether strategies have been put in place to ensure that abandoned mines do not cause acid mine drainage; if not, why not; if so, what strategies;

(3) whether she has taken any steps in cooperation with the Department of Mineral Resources to minimise the risk of coal contamination of water sources; if not, why not; if so, what steps? NW806E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Department is aware that the upper catchment of the Vaal River has substantial underlying coal reserves and therefore all applications for water use authorisations by mining companies are carefully considered.

(2) The strategy is currently being developed by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR). The Department provides inputs towards development of the strategy to rehabilitate abandoned mines in order to prevent acid mine drainage.

(3) Yes, in terms of cooperative governance the Department provides inputs on environmental management plans for mines in order to ensure prevention and minimisation of contamination to water resources.

QUESTION NO 691

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

691. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to a certain report (details furnished) with special emphasis on acid mine drainage, (a) what is the expected total cost to the State of pumping and limestone treatment for each year and (b) how many years is it expected that this treatment will need to be pursued;

(2) whether the mines in the Western, Central and Eastern Basins will be required to pay for any costs associated with the pumping and treatment of mine water; if not, how is this justified; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the State intends paying any costs for the pumping and treatment of mine water in any other mining areas; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW742E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The engineering solution that is being prepared for implementation addresses the recommendations from the report of the team of experts. While the report included preliminary cost estimates for both capital and operation these costs are being refined. The full details of the engineering solution and the final cost estimates are not yet available for circulation.

(2) The Department is currently engaging with the Chamber of Mines and existing mines in the 3 basins to determine a basis for the possible apportionment of cost.

(3) The report by the panel of experts deals specifically with the Witwatersrand Gold Fields and very specifically the Eastern, Central and western Basins.

QUESTION NO 690

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

690. Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to a certain report (details furnished) and in particular the sections dealing with the removal of salt loads from the river systems, affected communities will be compensated for the pollution; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether, with reference to the Zwartkrans Compartment which hosts the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site (CHWHS) and which is the area currently receiving the decant of acid mine water from the Western Basin, there are any potential impacts on the CHWHS from treatment options that will be pursued; if so, (a) what impacts and (b) how were these impacts determined;

(3) whether, noting that there is a significant area of land under irrigation using borehole water in the Zwartkrans Compartment, there will be any impact on these users; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details? NW741E

REPLY:

(1) No, none of the affected communities will be compensated for the pollution as the State is not responsible for causing the pollution. However, part of the solution will include rehabilitation of impacted water resources and where necessary, sections 19 and 20 of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998 will be invoked.

(2) Yes, whilst the current decant of Acid Mine Drainage has not produced an adverse impact on the CHKWHS (Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site) the engineering solution being developed is nevertheless expected to have a positive impact on the CHKWHS

(2)(a) The treatment options that will be pursued will essentially improve the pH of the decanting water as well as remove heavy metals.

(2)(b) The Team of Experts (who prepared the Report on acid mine drainage) concurred that neutralisation of mine water was the most favourable option for the protection of the Zwartkrans Compartment. Neutralisation will also protect ground- and surface water as this process simultaneously removes heavy metals.

(3) No, the present decant has not produced a decline in the water quality of borehole water in the Zwartkrans Compartment. The quality of borehole water in this Compartment remains within the parameters for drinking class water. This was established through the routine monitoring of borehole water sampled from various locations within the Zwartkrans Compartment.

QUESTION NO 689

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

689. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to a certain report (details furnished), (a) what is envisaged in length of time as the medium to long term for the removal of salt loads from river system, (b) into which river system will the water containing the high salt loads be deposited, (c) how will salt loads be removed from the river systems if it is deposited over long distances and (d) what will the impact of these increased salt loads be on the river systems;

(2) whether there is capacity within the river system to absorb these salt loads; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW740E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) The Department's medium-term target to start with the removal of salt loads from the Vaal River System is 2014.

(b) In the short-term, partially treated underground mine water with a high salinity content will be released into the Blesbokspruit (East Rand Mining Basin), Klipspruit (Central Rand Mining Basin) and the Tweelopiespruit (West Rand Mining Basin).

(c) The medium to long-term solution aims to remove all contaminants from the underground mine water through employing best available desalination technology.

In the short-term, the Department maintains fitness-for-use through dilution releases from the Vaal Dam. Local impacts due to salinity will be temporary in nature and will not warrant removal from the river system over long distances.

(d) The Department plans to remove the entire salt load from the underground mine water in the medium to long-term, implying that there will be no salinity impact beyond 2014 originating from the three basins.

In the short-term, the saline discharges may result in local impacts, until the tributaries join the Vaal River main stem where dilution with good quality water ensures fitness-for-use below the Vaal Barrage.

(2) The Vaal River System is close to reaching its assimilative capacity in certain reaches of the river thus the need to remove salt loads by 2014.

There are various sources of salinity in the Vaal River Basin, such as underground mine water, diffuse pollution, atmospheric fall-out and treated sewage water.

A Vaal River Strategy Steering Committee is overseeing the implementation of various strategies in the Vaal River System. These include an Integrated Water Quality Management Strategy that must ensure long term fitness-for-use of the Vaal River water.

QUESTION NO 688

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

688. Dr H C van Schalkwyk (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to a certain report (details furnished) and to the sections in the report dealing with neutralisation and metal removal from mine water in the short term, lime will be used to treat mine water; if not, why not; if so; (a) how will lime be applied to this large volume of water, (b) how much lime will be required and (c) which entity will apply the lime;

(2) whether there is sufficient capacity to apply the lime; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) what amount does her department intend to spend on lime treatment in the 2011-2012 financial year;

(4) whether her department has considered that the use of lime in large quantities may affect the market price of lime; if not, when will this matter be considered; if so,

(5) whether the agricultural sector, which also makes extensive use of lime for soil treatment, will be negatively affected; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details? NW738E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The engineering solution that is being prepared for implementation addresses recommendations from the report by the team of experts and includes pumping and neutralisation. The full details of the engineering solutions are not yet available for circulation

(1)(a) Details of the neutralisation that could include liming will form part of the engineering solution.

(1)(b) Refer to (1)(a).

(1)(c) Details of institutional arrangements and the project execution plan form part of the engineering solution.

(2) Refer to (1)(a).

(3) Cost details of the project implementation will form part of the engineering solution.

(4) No, refer to (1)(a).

(5) The Department is not in a position to speculate on the effect of lime availability to the agricultural sector.

QUESTION NO 686

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

686. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to a certain report (name furnished), to what extent has ingress control of water into the Western, Eastern and Central Basins already been implemented prior to the publication of this report;

(2) whether any consideration was given to using the existing water treatment plant that was erected by Mintails on the West Rand and which is currently idle, to treat mine water; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) how does her department intend to reduce the costs of dealing with acid mine drainage;

(4) whether, in the response to the acid mine drainage problem, the principle of polluter pays will be adhered to, as enshrined in the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW736E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) In accordance with the hierarchy of water management actions contained in the Department's Best Practice Guidelines, the reduction of water ingress into mines are given a high priority. Measures currently implemented by existing mines which contribute to the prevention of ingress include: on-site storm water management, lined dams that prevent seepage and ingress into mine voids, runoff containment from tailings storage facilities and deposition of tailings into abandoned pits to minimise ingress. The latter is currently practised in the Western Basin and other abandoned pits are being considered. The Florida Canal project that is currently in progress will significantly reduce water ingress into the Central Basin.

(2) Yes, the Department will consider the use of existing infrastructure when implementing the engineering solutions for dealing with the Acid Mine Drainage (AMD).

(3) In implementing an engineering solution for dealing with the AMD the Department will implement the most cost effective solution (including capital cost and operations and maintenance costs). Steps will also be taken to reduce the ingress of surface water and groundwater into the underground mine voids. This will reduce the volumes of water which need to be pumped and treated and consequently reduce the operational cost of AMD management.

(4) Yes, the Department will be implementing the provision of Section 19 and 20 of the National Water Act.

QUESTION NO 685

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

685. Dr H C van Schalkwyk (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether there have been any recent cases of pollution at the Rustenburg waste water treatment works (WWTW) or from sewerage infrastructure leading to or from this WWTW; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether any (a) pre-notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges have been brought against the Rustenburg Local Municipality for transgressions in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) what is the current (a) risk assessment of each of the WWTWs in the Rustenburg local municipality and (b) state of the sedimentation dams in each of these WWTWs;

(4) whether her department is currently assisting in the rehabilitation of any of the WWTWs in this municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW735E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)Yes,the Department has recently received complaints regarding spillages from sewerage infrastructure leading to the Rustenburg Industrial Site (along the Northam Road). Subsequent to such complaints, the Department conducted an inspection on
3 March 2011 and noted that the spillage has been attended to; however, there was still a minor leakage. The Rustenburg Local Municipality was instructed to attend to the leakage as well as to rehabilitate the affected area.

(2)No, the Department did not issue any pre-notices, directives or laid criminal charges against the Rustenburg Local Municipality. The Rustenburg Local Municipality has a water use license for the WWTW which was issued in June 2010 and the Department monitors compliance into their license conditions.

(3)(a)The risk assessment of each of the WWTW was conducted on 1 and 2 November 2010 as part of the Department's annual Green Drop Assessment. The Department is awaiting the Green Drop Assessment Report which will be published by July 2011.

(3)(b)The Department does not currently have information available on the state of sedimentation dams in the Rustenburg area. However, the information will be contained in the 2011 Green Drop Assessment Report.

(4) No. No funds were set aside by the Department for rehabilitating WWTW in the Rustenburg Local Municipality.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
(For written reply)
QUESTION NO. 664
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 40
CW827E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2 December 2011

Mr V M Manzini (DA-Mpumalanga) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether wattle is posing a risk to water courses in South Africa; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) (a) how does the Working for Water Programme determine which infestations outside of plantation areas should be removed, (b) what is the estimated amount of wattle that was removed by this programme in the current financial year and (c) how is this figure broken down according to each province;

(3) whether there are any bio-control products available to manage wattle growth outside of plantation areas; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether wattle growers have lobbied against the application of any bio-control products; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:

Yes, the negative impacts associated with wattle species are increases in the height and biomass of vegetation, resulting in increased rainfall interception and transpiration resulting in decreases stream flow. Also, invasion of riverbanks (especially by the black wattle, Acacia mearnsii) causes deep channelling followed by slumping during floods (De Wit et al., 2001). Damage to structures from trees swept down rivers is a further impact that can occur. The fire-prone nature of the trees also can lead to riparian instability, erosion and siltation. There are also impacts on water quality and thermal pollution that have been associated with the potential extinction of over half of South Africa's endemic damselflies and dragonflies (research by Professor Michael Samways of Stellenbosch University).

2 (a) Working for Water prioritises the control of satellites (low density or isolated trees) before the core populations, because they contribute most to range expansion. In riparian systems in general, Working for Water tackles upstream populations first and then works downstream. The programme may work on other stands of wattles, such as where they pose a fire risk; where the length of time that a stand has been invading in an area might affect the viability of the indigenous seed banks, and where the biomass is utilized through harvesting. Also very important is to tackle invasions in difficult-to-access areas, as further invasions in such areas are disproportionately expensive to clear. The programme is of the view that the responsibility for seed pollution from plantations should reside with the plantation owners, including the responsibility to ascertain whether invading wattles have originated from seed from the plantations.


2 (b-c)

Condensed Hectares

Western Cape

1,002

Eastern Cape

1,940

KZN

3,860

Gauteng

1,279

North West

881

Mpumalanga

678

Limpopo

153

Free State

232

SANPARKS

289

Total

10,313

Condensed hectares represent the area that will be covered by the black wattle in the landscape if they are "packed" into a 100% canopy cover. The numbers in the table above are for the 2010/11 financial year. Working for Water analyses and verifies the spatial information at the end of the financial year, so the current year's numbers will be verified during April 2012.

3) In the case of invasive alien Acacia species with economic benefits (of which black wattle is one), only biological control agents that do not damage vegetative plant parts have been considered (Dennill & Donnelly, 1991). Five species of seed weevils in the genus Melanterius (which feed on ripening seed pods) and two species of cecidomyiid flies that form flower-galls have been released. While the large seed production and large existing seed banks mean that extremely high and consistent damage rates over many seasons are required before the densities of these species will be affected in the absence of other control measures, reductions in seed production can reduce spread rates and also the costs of follow-up control. (e.g. see Higgins et al., 2001 and Rouget & Richardson, 2003 for A. cyclops). Research done by the CSIR (De Wit et al, 2001) suggested that the benefits associated with black wattles was significantly outweighed by the costs of the invasions, and that biological control agents that attack the plant should be introduced, and the responsibility for protecting the plants against these agents rest with the plantation owners. Further analysis of the trade-offs of such an approach is necessary.

4) Commercial producers have agreed to the release of biological control agents that limit seed production (Carruthers et al., 2011), but they have been opposed to biological control agents that attack the trees.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

(For written reply)

QUESTION NO. 663 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 40 CW826E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2 December 2011

Mr M J R de Villiers (DA-WC) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Why are the citizens or business entities paying for historical weather and climate data which was gathered before the commercialisation occurred;

(2) whether the SA Weather Service will reconsider its policy of making clients pay for data that was gathered before commercialisation occurred; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY

(1) The South African Weather Service (SAWS), in fulfilment of its obligation as the long-term custodian of the National Climatological Databank as is stipulated in the SAWS Act, Act No 8 of 2001, maintains a database comprising a reliable national climatological record of South Africa. For some stations this database contains continuous data records starting as early as April 1878.

In order to maintain, extend and improve both the quality and quantity of the national climatological record, it is imperative that the historical weather and climate data, which was gathered before the enactment of the SAWS Act, Act No 8 of 2001, be included for commercial service delivery as stipulated in Schedule 2 of the SAWS Act, and more specifically:

· Stipulation 1: The provision of specialised weather forecasting and climate information services.

· Stipulation 8: The dissemination of weather and climate information.

(2) Yes it is possible to reconsider the policy of charging clients for all data gathered before commercialisation occurred.

Without the relevant funding, SAWS will need to continue to provide products and services and charge for data appropriately, especially if the data is used for economic gain or benefit, as stipulated in Schedule 2 of the SAWS Act. However SAWS only recovers administration fees if the data is intended for use in research.

QUESTION NO 649

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

649. Mrs S P Kopane (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the status of the effluent discharge from the Villiers waste water treatment works (WWTW) in Mafube Municipality and (b) to what extent does the flow into the Villiers WWTW comply with the design specifications of the plant as at the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) whether any (a) pre-notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges have been issued against the Mafube Municipality for transgressions of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the municipality is making any effort to rehabilitate the Villiers WWTW; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether her department is assisting Mafube Municipality in any way to improve its sewerage infrastructure; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW694E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The effluent discharged from the Villiers Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) is generally compliant. There are however instances when the chemical and bacteriological parameters of the final effluent is non-compliant. These may be attributed to excessive volumes of raw waste received by the plant and operational constraints.

(1)(b) The Villiers WWTW is currently operating in excess of the capacity it was intended for.

(2)(a) Yes, a notice was issued to the Mafube Local Municipality (the Municipality) regarding the operation of the Villiers WWTW. The Municipality subsequently responded and provided the requested information (e.g. the Waste Discharge Charge System documents) excluding a water use license application (WULA) for the Villiers WWTW. The Municipality has since indicated that the (WULA) will be submitted.

(2)(b) No, a directive was not issued as the Municipality responded to the pre-notice.
The Department does however intend to issue a directive that will require the Municipality to expedite submission of the WULA.

(2)(c) No, criminal charges have not been laid against the Municipality. The process of criminal charges will only become applicable if the Municipality fails to respond to any directive and subject to due adherence to the Department's Enforcement Protocol.

(3) Yes, the Municipality has submitted a report outlining plans to increase the capacity of the Villiers WWTW and rehabilitate the plant's existing infrastructure.

(4) Yes, a forum dealing with water management in the Wilge catchment exists in which the Municipality partakes. During these meetings, technical aspects relating to water quality management are discussed and the Department provides support on matters raised. Additionally, officials from the Department's Regional Office: Gauteng made themselves available to support the Municipality on technical issues pertaining to the WULA.

QUESTION NO 648

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 MARCH 2011

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

648. Mrs S P Kopane (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the current level of functionality of the Springfontein waste water treatment works in the Kopanong Municipality;

(2) whether progress is being made in the rehabilitation of the (a) Jagersfontein, (b) Philipolis, (c) Reddersburg, (d) Trompsburg, (e) Edenburg and (f) Springfontein waste water treatment works; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(3) whether any further (a) pre-notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges for transgressions of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, have been brought against the Kopanong Municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW693E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) After receiving a complaint from the Springfontein Rate Payers Association about the condition of the Springfontein Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW), the Department investigated the matter and subsequently ensured that a Service Level Agreement (SLA) was signed between Bloem Water and the Kopanong Local Municipality (the Municipality) thus enabling Bloem Water to take over the management of the WWTWs.

(2)(a) The upgrading of the Jagersfontein WWTW was completed on July 2010.

(2)(b) The Philippolis WWTW has been registered by the Municipality as a Municipal Infrastructure Grant project amounting to R 1 758 630.00. Thus far, the Municipality has commenced with designs and tender documentations.

(2)(c) The upgrade of the Reddersburg WWTW was completed in September 2010.

(2)(d) The Trompsburg WWTW was completed and commissioned on February 2011.

(2)(e) The Edenburg WWTW was upgraded and rehabilitated in March 2010 and the oxidation ponds were cleaned and lined out with concrete.

(2)(f) The upgrading in Springfontein WWTW was completed in April 2008 and all ponds were rehabilitated and lined out.

(3)(a) No further prenotices were issued other than the one issued to the Municipality in March 2010 for the overflowing of raw sewage from the Trompsburg and Reddersburg WWTWs.

(3)(b) No directives have been issued to the Municipality. However, the rehabilitation work has commenced at Redderburg and Trompsburg WWTWs.

(3)(c) No criminal offence has been laid against the Municipality as the rehabilitation of the Redderburg and Trompsburg WWTWs has commenced.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
(For written reply)
QUESTION NO. 645
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39 CW794E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 November 2011
Mr W F Faber (DA-NC) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:


Whether her department will engage the private wine industry to (a) promote and (b) develop aspects of commercial wine farming such as certain wine awards (name furnished) which assesses wine farms on (i) water management, (ii) conservation of (aa) natural areas and (bb) ecosystems, (iii) energy efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions, (iv) soil management, (v) chemical control and (vi) other environmental initiatives such as (aa) education programmes, (bb) community involvement, (cc) eco-tourism and (dd) transport initiatives; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY

The Department responsible for this is Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

QUESTION NO. 644 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 NW689E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 07 March 2011

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What are the locations of the existing marine protected areas (MPAs), (b) what is the size of each of the MPAs and (c) which authority manages each of the MPAs;

(2) whether she intends to declare any new MPAs in the period leading up to 31 December 2012; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any challenges need to be met in any of the established MPAs to ensure that they achieve their conservation objectives; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details; .

(4) whether there has been a review of the effectiveness of the management of each MPA since its establishment; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

644. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1) The following table provides details as to a) locations, b) size and the c) the management authority for existing marine protected area (MPA)

MPA

PROVINCE

SIZE (shoreline in km unless stated)

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Langebaan Lagoon

Western Cape

66 km combined

SANParks

Sixteen Mile Beach

Western Cape

SANParks

Malgas, Jutten Island and Marcus Island

Western Cape

SANParks

Table Mountain National Park

Western Cape

956km²

SANParks

Helderberg

Western Cape

4

City of Cape Town Metro

Betty's Bay

Western Cape

3.2

CapeNature

De Hoop

Western Cape

51

CapeNature

Stilbaai

Western Cape

13.5km and15.7km of estuary

CapeNature

Goukamma

Western Cape

14

CapeNature

Robberg

Western Cape

9

CapeNature

Tsitsikamma National Park

Eastern Cape

57

SANParks

Sardinia Bay

Eastern Cape

7

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality.

Bird Island

Eastern Cape

19 hectares

SANParks

Dwesa-Cwebe

Eastern Cape

14

Eastern Cape Parks and

Tourism Agency (ECPTA)

Hluleka

Eastern Cape

4

ECPTA

Pondoland

Eastern Cape

90

ECPTA

Trafalgar

KwaZulu-Natal

4.8

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

Aliwal Shoal

KwaZulu-Natal

18.3

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

St. Lucia and Maputaland MPAs )

KwaZulu-Natal

145 (72 and 73 respectively)

iSimangaliso Wetland Park

2) The Department has commenced a consultation process for the declaration of the Amathole MPA (3 separate areas from south of East London to the Kei River).

3) The zonation within MPAs and management plans need to be reviewed.

4) An assessment conducted 2003 highlighted challenges in the management of MPA's in South Africa, including the lack of mandates for adjacent conservation agencies to manage the MPAs. Two subsequent assessments on 2009 found that the co-ordination and formalization of MPA management has improved substantially through the development of agreements between the Department and conservation authorities for the management of MPAs. There was also progress with regard to the formulation of MPA management plans; however in several cases, it was indicated that the plans needed to be updated.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

(For written reply)

QUESTION NO. 644 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39 CW793E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 November 2011

Mr W F Faber (DA-NC) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether, with regard to plant and animal species that move from one ecosystem to another (details furnished), her department intends to revise the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004, (details furnished); if not, why not; if so, (a) which alien species will be implicated in this regard and (b) what are the further relevant details?

REPLY

No. In terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No 10 of 2004), an alien species means (a) a species that is not an indigenous species; or (b) an indigenous species translocated to a place outside its natural distribution range in nature, but not an indigenous species that has extended its natural distribution range by natural means of migration or dispersal without human intervention. Our regulations make provision for listing all alien species especially those proven to be invasive. Provisions are in place to control the movement of those species between ecosystems.

QUESTION NO. 643 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 NW688E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 07 March 2011

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many baboons were killed by SANParks authorities in each of its parks (a) in (i) 2009 and (ii) 2010 and (b) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) whether SANParks authorities have to apply for any permits from any other conservation authority for the killing of baboons; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) what are the principal reasons why authorities have killed baboons in each specified Park run by SANParks during the period 1 January 2009 up to the latest specified date for which information is available?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

643. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) Table Mountain National Park

i. 1 in 2009

ii. 2 in 2010

(b) None in 2011

(2) No. SANParks does not require a permit from any permitting authority to destroy baboons in national parks.

(3) In this case the baboons had to be killed because they became habituated to taking food from visitor facilities, lost their fear of humans and constituted a definite threat to visitors

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

(For written reply)

QUESTION NO. 640 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39 CW787E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 November 2011

Mrs E C van Lingen (DA-EC) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many applications for information in respect of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000, have been received by (a) her department, (b) the SA National Parks, (c) the SA Weather Service and (d) the SA National Botanical Institute during the period 1 December 2010 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) (a) on what date was each application received, (b) when did her department or the entity notify the applicants of the outcomes of the applications in each case and (c) how many applicants did not receive the outcomes after the 30-day response period had expired;

(3) whether any applications for which her department or the entity declined to provide (a) all the requested information or (b) part of the requested information were followed up by applicants by taking further action through the courts in order to access the information; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) how many in each case and (ii) what are the further relevant details in each case?

REPLY

Please see the Table here: http://www.pmg.org.za/questions/table-RCW640-2011.doc

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

(For written reply)

QUESTION NO. 636 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39 CW781E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 November 2011

Mr D A Worth (DA-FS) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has been informed that a certain person (name and details furnished) also co-owns a safari and hunting company (name furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the said person's being entrusted with the issuance of hunting permits while holding business interest in a hunting company constitutes a conflict of interest; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what action will her department take to address this matter;

(3) whether she has been informed that the said person in his capacity as a Deputy Director enjoys the authority to issue (a) hunting and (b) export permits for big game such as lion and rhino; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) how many (aa) hunting and (bb) exports permits have been issued by the said person since appointment up to the latest specified date for which information is available for (aaa) lion and (bbb) rhino and (ii) to which (aa) companies and (bb) persons?

REPLY

(1) No. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has been informed that the person no longer owns a business. DEA considers this matter to be of a provincial nature at the moment and as such should be dealt with internally within the Free State Department Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs. It is suggested that the question be referred to the MEC responsible for environment in the Free State province.

(2) No. The information at our disposal is that the said person is not responsible for the issuance of hunting permits. It must be noted that Government officials are allowed to receive remuneration generated through private businesses as long as such is done within the prescripts of the applicable rules including the necessary declarations and approvals by their respective department. Furthermore such should not be in conflict with their current job description. However, such issues of conduct of officials are dealt with by the MEC responsible for environment at provincial level.

(3) No. According to information received by the Department of Environmental Affairs, the said person is not authorised to issue permits relating to (a) hunting and (b) export of big game species. The Free State Department Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs has a Permit Evaluation Committee which collectively assesses all permit applications and make recommendations thereon. Such question should be referred to the MEC responsible for environment in the province.

QUESTION NO. 624 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 NW667E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 11 March 2011

Ms M R Shinn (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the status of the building of the ship that will replace the SA Agulhas;

(2) whether the vessel will be ready for service by February 2012; if not, why not;

(3) whether the cost of the new ship has remained at the initially indicated price of R1,649,825,000; if not, (a) why not and (b) what is the current indicated cost;

(4) whether the list of scientific equipment that will be installed on the new ship has been finalised; if not, why not; if so, what will the cost of this equipment be in addition to the abovementioned amount?

Ms M R Shinn (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

624. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) The current building process is at the keel-laying stage and on schedule.

(2) No. The contract between STX Europe (shipyard) and the Department of Environmental Affairs is for delivery in April 2012.

(3) a) No. The Original Contract Price is: Euro 116 265 000 -00. The Euro price is fixed. The

Rand price depends on the exchange rate.

b) At the current (strong) level of the Rand, the cost is R1 569 825 000 - 00.

(4) Yes, all scientific equipment to be installed has been finalised .Nil.