Questions & Replies: Water & Environmental affairs

Share this page:
2012-04-30

THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.

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

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION 474 FOR WRITTEN REPLY

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 02 March 2012
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

474. Dr 0 T George IDA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether she met with the internal audit committee in the (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12 financial years; if not, why not; if so, (i) on which dates did they meet and (ii) what are the further relevant details?

REPLY:


Yes. I have engaged and continue to engage regularly with the Head of the Department of Water Affairs, the Auditor-General and Internal Audit of the Department as per dates set and penciled by my diary committee. The recent meeting with the Auditor-General being on 2 March 2012. Our major and urgent task at hand has been to ensure that we work on improving our financial system and all accounting capacity that includes getting relevant and required resources to improve on our financial performance. There has not been a requirement for me to meet with the entire Internal Audit Committee. Therefore (i) and (ii) are not applicable and fall away.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 468
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 02 March 2012
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

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

(1) What (a) are the (i) names and (ii) locations of mines operating without a valid water licence since her reply to question 3327 on 22 November 2011 and (b) has been the progress of each specified mine that is operating without a water licence to apply for a water licence;

(2) whether she has taken any steps to ensure that mines operating without water licences obtain water licences; if not, why not; if so, what steps;

(3) whether, since her reply to question 3327 on 22 November 2011, any further (a) directives or (b) pre-directives have been issued against mines operating without water licences in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW616E

REPLY:
(l)(a) Refer to attached Annexure A, for the names and locations of mines that have been operating without valid water licences since the Department reply to question 3327 on 22 November 201 1. The list shows 53 mines operating without valid licences as opposed to 69 mines as at June 201 1. It must be noted that our licencing team has also dealt with many other sectors' water licence and not mining alone. The processes and procedures are very long, but dealt with thoroughly and that include reserve determinations.

(l)(b) Refer again to attached Annexure A, showing a list of mines who have submitted Water Use Licence Applications (WULAs) and the status of these applications.

(2) Yes, the Department has embarked on a special initiative, the Letsema Project, to expedite the process of issuing water use licences especially to mines that have been operating without a licence. The aim of this project is to eradicate backlog(s) in mining and all other water use licence application. To date, the project has processed 3250 WULAs leaving 521 still to be finalised as at 9 March 2012.

(3) Since the Department's reply to question 3327 on 22 November 201 1, a total of (a) three (3)

pre-directives and (b) two (2) directives have been issued to date.

Here is the table: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/questions/RNW468-120319.pdf

Reply received: March 2012

Question No 467

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

(1) What estimated number of people (a) nationwide and (b) in each province does not yet have access to potable water;

(2) (a) What estimated number of people gained access to potable water during the period 1 April 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) how does this figure compare with the goal that her department had set for the same period;

(3) When does she envisage that all citizens will have access to potable water? NW615E

REPLY:

1 (a) The estimated number of people nationwide that do not have access to a basic potable water supply as at December 2011 is 2,8 million which equal 5.6% of the national population.

Please note that this figure reflects people without access to an acceptable level of infrastructure.

(b) Provincial breakdown (in millions) is as follows:

Province

Total Population

Water Backlog April 2011

People Served April to Dec 2011

Water Backlog Dec 2011

Eastern Cape

6.1

0.54

0.12

0.42

Free State

2.8

0.02

0.01

0.01

Gauteng

12.4

0.10

0.004

0.09

KwaZulu-Natal

10.5

1.45

0.14

1.31

Limpopo

5.0

0.64

0.10

0.54

Mpumalanga

3.7

0.27

0.04

0.23

Northern Cape

1.1

0.05

0.01

0.04

North West

3.2

0.21

0.03

0.18

Western Cape

5.5

0.02

0.004

0.01

National

50

3.29

0.45

2.84

Please note these figures are based on STATSSA figures adjusted with reports from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Human Settlement. The Department is busy with a comprehensive validation process to confirm these figures.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that there are people with access to infrastructure who still cannot enjoy full benefits due to poor infrastructure. It is estimated that up to 25% of people have access to a tap but without an acceptable level of service and for this reason government will focus on the upgrading of dilapidated infrastructure.

2(a) It is estimated that 450 000 (0.45million) people were served with a basic water supply during the period April 2011 to December 2011.

2(b) This is below the goal set due to several impacting factors such as scheme extent (size of schemes to be built), as well as the lack of sufficient water resources close to some communities and the fact that available funds are not fully directed at targets by all municipalities.

(3) Although we have reached the target of the 2015 MDG, the target as stated in Outcome 9 is 100% of people to have access to a basic water supply by 2014. Based on excisting delivery or infrastructure in poor condition this may not be achieved in all provinces especially those provinces with large rural areas such asKwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo and Eastern Cape.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 466

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 NW614E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2 March 2012

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

(1) (a) What is the name of the entity that currently has the white shark cage diving permit to operate within the Mossel Bay area and (b) when was it first awarded;

(2) whether the current holder is operating on an exemption basis; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, how is this justified;

(3) why, following the recent national round of new applications for the white shark cage diving permits, was the permit for Mossel Bay not awarded;

(4) how many applicants applied for the permit to operate in Mossel Bay during the recent national round of applications for the new permits and (b) what are the names of these entities;

(5) when will the new permit for Mossel Bay be announced?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

466. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1. (a) There is currently no entity with a permit for white shark cage diving (WSCD) to operate in the Mossel Bay area.

(b) Not applicable.

2. Yes, the entity Sea Spirit/Shark Africa is currently operating on an exemption basis in the Mossel Bay area as the permit allocation process for the area has not been finalised yet.

3. An independent committee has been appointed to investigate the WSCD permit allocation process in Mossel Bay. After the committee conclude its findings, the permit allocation process will be finalised.

4. Two applicants applied for the WSCD permit to operate in Mossel Bay.

(b) The names of the entities are Sea Spirit/Shark Africa, and Evening Star Trading 661.

5. The new WSCD permit for Mossel Bay will be announced as soon as the findings of the independent committee, appointed to investigate the WSCD permit allocation process in Mossel Bay, has been concluded.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 430
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 02 March 2012
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 06)

Mr A Watson (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:


(1) Whether, with reference to the flooding in Mpumalanga in January 2012, the management of dams in the province during the floods by the officials of the Department of Water was in line with the policies and prescriptions of her department; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(2) (a) which dams upstream of the Thaba Chweu municipality were subjected to flood management procedures during the flood and (b) what were the relevant details of the steps taken in each case;

(3) whether warnings were provided to communities likely to be affected downstream of actions to be taken to manage dams upstream of the Thaba Chweu municipality during the flood; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any lessons were learnt during the recent flood that can be used to lessen flood damage in future; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:

(1) The dams operating rules were adhered to and all other precautionary measures were undertaken in anticipation of the forecast storm. Major dams in the affected Mpumalanga-Limpopo regions are the lnjaka and Da Gama Dams along the Sabie River; Kwena Dam across the Crocodile River; and the Blyderivierpoort- and Klaserie Dams on relevant tributaries of the Olifants River. All these dams are designed to have ungated or uncontrolled spillways. After filling up to 100%, their effect in flood control becomes minimal. As it can be seen on the table below, all but the Kwena Dam were full and they were spilling already. They were then operating on a free flow mode and they had limited flood attenuating effect.

Here is the table: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/questions/QRNW430-2012.pdf

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 410

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 NW547E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2 March 2012

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and EnvironmentalAffairs:

Whether her department intends to monitor the effect of mining and infrastructure development on the environment in (a) Limpopo and (b) Mpumalanga, especially in the areas affecting the greater Kruger National Park and its catchment areas; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

410. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) and (b): No. There are several legislative requirements that the department must adhere to before any development can take place:

· The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (GN No R 543) published in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) trigger the need for applicants to undertake either a Basic Assessment or Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment if the proposed activity is included in one or more of the three listing notices. Mining activities are not listed for an EIA under the EIA Regulations. However, several of the infrastructural developments such as the access roads, water and power supply, bulk storage facilities, airstrips, and pipelines as part of the mining area might be listed under the EIA Regulations in Listing Notice 1, 2 and/or 3. Should it be above the threshold values and therefore listed, this department or a provincial department will assess the environmental impact assessments and decide on whether or not to authorise the activity.

· Any mining application or activity also requires an Environmental Management Plan in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002). However, the department is merely the commenting authority in this process.

· Threatened ecosystems listed in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) have protection under law and any activities within critically endangered or endangered ecosystems require authorisation as a listed activity in Listing Notice 3 of the NEMA EIA Regulations.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 387

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 24 FEBRUARY 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

387. Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether, since her reply to question 3118 on 22 November 2011, she has been informed of the litigation at the Voëlvlei Dam; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what is the status of the litigation? NW474E

---00O00--

REPLY:

Yes, I am provided with quarterly reports on all litigation matters in the Department, that is inclusive of Voelvlei dam.. The latest report is for the period up to 31 December 2011.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 386
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 24 FEBRUARY 2012
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

386. Mr. G G Hill-Lewis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her department has responded to the request of the land claimants regarding VoelvleiDam for certain information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), Act 2 of 2000, as early as 14 February 2011; if not, when does she intend to provide the requested (a) purchase agreements of farms 200, 207 and 252, known as Voelvlei, (b) expropriation notice from 1948 and (c) copy of lease agreement between her department and the Voelvlei yacht club; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) whether her department is in possession of the specified documents; if so, what are the reasons for the delayed response; if not, (3) whether her department intends to respond to the land claimants in writing; if not, why not; if so, when

REPLY:


(1) No the Department has not as yet responded to the claimants. (2) Given the fact that the expropriation and purchase of land took place in 1948 we haveto carry out a manual search of our archives, which is not yet complete. (3) Yes, the Department will respond once the

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 385

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 24 FEBRUARY 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

385. Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 3112 on 12 December 2011, she has been informed that the cattle at Voëvlei dam were removed on 30 January 2012; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether she intends to investigate whether Mr J Barnes was indeed the owner of the cattle, considering that the cattle were not removed by Mr J Barnes but by another party; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW472E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Department investigated the matter further during December 2011. The agreement reached between the Department and the official Mr J Barnes is that he will either decrease the amount of cattle on the land to the agreed number or get rid of all the cattle in the given time. The cattle were indeed removed on 30 January 2012 as agreed by with the official.

(2) Yes, I am in the process of investigating this matter directly from my office in order to get to the bottom of the occurrences in this area.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 383 FOR WRITTEN REPLY:
A draft reply to Mr. GR Morgan (DA) to the above ·mentioned question is enclosed for your consideration

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.4 NW470E
DATE OF PUBLICATION:
24 February 2012

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

(1) (a) How many shark attacks on bathers at Port St Johns have been recorded since 1January2006 and (b) how do the number of shark attacks at this location compare with shark attacks at other locations around the coast for the same period; (2) whether her department has investigated the reasons for the high incidences of shark attacks at this location; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether her department met with the local municipality about measures that need to be taken to prevent shark attacks at this location; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) whether she has found that the (a) discharge of effluent from local infrastructure and (b) presence of a buried whale carcass on the beach at Port St Johns are the cause for the increase in the number of shark attacks at Port St Johns; if not, what is the position in this regard, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details, in each case?


383. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) Six (6) b) From 2006 to 2011 inclusive, there were nine (9) attacks in Kwazulu-Natal (KZN), 15 in the Eastern Cape (including Port St. Johns) and 15 in the Western Cape. (2) Yes, the study is currently under way. (3) Yes. The Department met with the Port St. Johns Municipality and the KZN Sharks Board staff. (4) (a) No. Effluent discharge could not be directly linked to the shark attacks. (b) No. A whole carcass stranded on the beach approximately 10 years ago and its remains were buried on the beach after significant amounts of meat and blubber had been removed. Given that the attacks only started in 2007 (5 years ago), it is unlikely that the whale stranding incident can be correlated with the shark attacks.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 382 FOR WRITTEN REPLY

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
A draft reply to Mr. GR Morgan (DA) to the above-mentionedquestion is enclosed for your consideration.
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.4 NW469E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 February 2012

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

(1) Whether she has been informed of the findings of the 2012 Environmental Performance Index produced by the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy and the Centre for International Earth Science Information Network; if so, what steps she intends taking; if not, (2) whether she intends reviewing the report; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) when is the Department of Environmental Affairs' latest State of the Environment report expected to be concluded?

382. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:


(1) The release of the 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and the Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index report produced by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network were noted. The
Department reviewed the content of the report and took note of the results. Analysis, data gaps and deficiencies. It is imperative to acknowledge the fact that the issues of weighing and aggregation are mostly subjective and do not take into account unique national circumstances. The 2012 EPI report also indicates that the weighting used for aggregation represent only one view and that there may be legitimate difference of opinion regarding the relative importance of policy categories listed in the report. This one-sided view therefore renders it unusable for policy decisions and processes. (2) The process of updating the 2006 South Africa Environment Outlook, previously known as the State of the Environment report, is currently underway. (3) It is anticipated that the report will be released in June 2013. The second draft main chapters of the report were presented and discussed at national stakeholder consultation workshop during February 2012 and key stakeholders including government; academia; non-governmental and civic organisations; business and industry were part of that process. It is important to note at this point that the South African Environment Outlook is prepared every 5 years to effectively assess the changes and trends in the state of the environment.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 381

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 24 FEBRUARY 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 04)

381. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether there have recently been any occurrences of mine water entering the drinking water of Carolina town in Mpumalanga; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether her department has investigated the quality of drinking water in the town; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether her department is providing the local municipality with any assistance to improve the quality of drinking water in Carolina; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any (a)(i) notices and (ii) directives have been issued to, or (b) criminal charges have been laid against, any party for polluting the drinking water in Carolina; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW468E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) There has been no occurrence of acid mine drainage directly entering the drinking water reticulation system of Carolina. However, the Boesmanspruit dam has been impacted upon by alleged acid mine drainage contribution based on the preliminary results of the catchment investigation. Boesmanspruit dam is the abstraction point that feeds the Carolina Water Treatment Works (WTW). The reticulated water of Carolina goes through Carolina WTW before entering the drinking water reticulation system. The quality of the water in Boesmanspruit dam posed a challenge for the conventional treatment process at the Carolina WTW Works and thus difficulties were experienced in the treatment of this raw water to acceptable standards. However, at this stage the treatment process is undergoing modification and optimization to be able to produce water of acceptable standards.

(2) The Department availed specialists to assess the situation and provide assistance to the municipal Process Controllers with the optimisation of water treatment. The investigation revealed that due to a drastic decline in pH levels of the raw water, the acidity of water increased thus creating a conducive environment for increased levels of heavy metals i.e. Aluminium, Iron and Manganese. Subsequently, corrective measures have been implemented (i.e. dosing of the water with lime to stabilise the
pH level) in order to improve/optimise the water treatment.

(3) As indicated in (2) above, the Department availed specialists to assist with improving the drinking water quality in Carolina. Such assistance included detailed monitoring (which remains ongoing) of the microbiological and chemical quality of the water. The corrective measures which have been implemented by the specialists in conjunction with the Municipality's Process Controllers have yielded positive outcomes, i.e. at present, the pH of the water has stabilised and all heavy metals are within the acceptable limits of the South African National Standards (SANS 241).

(4) Pre-directives were given to four mines on 9 March 2012 and the relevant procedures are being followed to get compliance in terms of section 19 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998). No criminal charges have been laid against any party (since January 2012) for the pollution challenges being experienced in the Carolina area. However, the Department together with the Department of Mineral Resources are busy conducting investigations in the area.

The Department of Mineral Resources has also been requested to support the DWA with any information relating to the defunct mining operations in the area. The investigations are continuing.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 336 FOR WRITTEN REPLY

A draft reply to Mrs. SV Kalyan (DA) to the above-mentioned question is enclosed for your consideration.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.4 NW417E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 February 2012

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

(1) Whether a certain community is involved in decisions on future plans for The Employment Bureau of Africa (TEBA) camp on the Kruger National Park boarder with Mozambique; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) whether she has any plans in place for how the TEBA camp will be utilized in future; if not, why not; i{so, (3) whether ownership of the TEBA camp has been transferred to the South African National Parks; if not, why not; if so, (a) what was the cost of the purchase and (b) why did SANParks purchase the property?

THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:


(1) No. There is no (requirement) to involve the community under question and therefore there are no relevant details. (2) The TEBA camp will be used for cultural tourism and environmental education in the same way as it is currently used by TEBA. (3) Not yet; negotiations have just been completed after a protracted process. (a) R5 million including outstanding rentals over 5years.(b) TEBA had entered into an agreement with the then National Parks Board (NPB) in 1926 to transfer the property to the NPB or its successor in the event that the premises were no longer required for Labour recruitment from neighbouring Mozambique. According to Kusel (2001) the recruitment activity ceased on 27 February 1976 when Frelimo closed the Pafuri border post. From 1976 to 2012 (for 36 years) TEBA ran the camp as a successful tourism business instead of handing it over as per the 1926 agreement hence SANParks took legal steps against TEBA to honour the said agreement.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 332 FOR WRITTEN REPLY: NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

A draft reply to Mrs. SV Kalyan (DA) to the above-mentioned question is enclosed for your consideration.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
QUESTION NO. 332
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.4 NW413E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 February 2012

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


(1) (a) What are the details of tenders won by a certain company (name furnished) since 1 March 2010 for goods delivered at Kruger National Park and (b) how much money has been paid to this entity during this time; (2) whether the San parks had published an invitation for tenders in an open tender process with regard to each of the tenders won by the said company; if not, what are the relevant details; if so, how was this conclusion reached; (3) whether (a) a certain person (name and details furnished) and (b) a certain other person (name and details also furnished) who are employed at the Kruger National Park have any personal connection to the (i) owners, (ii) directors or (iii) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) whether any action has been taken against the said persons for matters related to the awarding of any tender to the said company; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?


332. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:


(1) (a) Tumicroc Trading was awarded a bid for the supply and delivery of a concrete garden set and wooden furniture. (b) The total amount paid for the two separate bids - R521 571, 17
(2) No, the bid for the supply of a concrete garden set was requested through quotations in June/July 2010 and was less than R500 0000, and the second bid for the supply of wooden furniture was requested through quotations in January 2011 and was also less than R500 000.
(3) (a) No, the said incumbent has denied any personal connection to the said company; a comparison was conducted against the CIPRO of the company and his personnel file and no evidence could be found to confirm the allegations. (b) No, the said incumbent denied any personal connection to the said company; a comparison between the CIPRO of the company and the personal file of the alleged was conducted and no evidence could be found to confirm the allegations.(4) No, there is no basis for any action.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 331 FOR WRITTEN REPLY:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
A draft reply to Mrs. SV Kalyan (DA) to the above-mentioned question is enclosed for your consideration.
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.4 NW412E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 February 2012

Mrs. SV Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether, in light of the free flow of animals between the Mabunda Game Reserve and the Kruger
National Park, the said reserve is abiding by its allocated hunting quota; if not, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details?


331. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:


There is no reserve called the "Mabunda Game Reserve" on the boundaries of the Kruger National