Water & Environmental affairs

2012-12-31

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: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3428 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42 NW4347E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 November 2012

3428. Dr S M van Dyk (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether (a) her department and/or (b) any entity reporting to her sponsored any (i) event and (ii) promotion hosted by The New Age newspaper since its establishment; if so, in each case, (aa) what was the nature of the event or promotion, (bb) on which date was it held, (cc) what amount was paid, (dd) for what purpose, (ee) from which budget were the funds derived, (ff) what were the expected benefits to her department and (gg) what actual benefits were derived from the sponsorship?

Dr S M van Dyk (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3428.THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) (i) and (ii) No, the Department of Environmental Affairs and its entities have not sponsored any event or promotion hosted by the New Age newspaper since its establishment.

(aa) Not applicable

(bb) Not applicable

(cc) Not applicable

(dd) Not applicable

(ee) Not applicable

(ff) Not applicable

(gg) Not applicable

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3375

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42)

3375. Mr M W Rabotapi (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by (i) her departments and (ii) the entities reporting to her were commissioned for print in the 2011-12 financial year, (b) how many copies were actually printed and (c) what were the (i) total and (ii) individual costs of printing these reports;

(2) (a) who printed each specified report, (b) how was the specified printing services provider decided upon and (c) on what date did the specified printing services provider deliver the report to the specified entity;

(3) whether any of the specified reports that had been printed were found to be unsatisfactory; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, (a) which reports, (b) for which entity, (c) by which printing services provider, (d) what action was taken and (e) what were the costs? NW4277E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Refer to Table below:

Name	(1)(a)(i) Number of copies commissioned for 2011/12	(1)(b) Number of copies actually printed	(1)(c)(i) Total cost	(1)(c)(ii) Individual cost
The Department	400	400	R197 646.00	R494.11 per copy
Amatola Water Board	500	500	R56 896.00	R113.79
Bloem Water Board	340	240 printed & 100 CDs	R69 220	R278.00 per printed report & R25 per CD
Botshelo Water Board	Botshelo Water has not yet completed the process of printing its Annual Reports for the 2011/2012 financial year.	N/A
Bushbuckridge Water Board	300	300	R62 920.00	R209.73
Lepelle Water Board	200	200	R127 500.00	R625 per report (including design & photograph) R25 per CD
Magalies Water Board	300	300	R291 095.92	R970.00
Mhlathuze Water Board	300	300	R125 600.00	R418.66
Overberg Water Board	120	120	R19 140.00	R159.50
Pelladrift Water Board	75	75	R3000.00	R40.00 copy and R5.00 per CD
Rand Water	1500	1500	R431 800.00	R144.00
Sedibeng Water Board	500	500	R441 659.00	R883.32
Umgeni Water Board	500	500	R85 750.00	R172.00
Water Research Commission	250 copies and 250 CDs	250	The total cost for development, design and layout was R49 012.98 and thecost for printing wasR49 688.00.The cost for printing CDs was R 2 934.36.	The individual cost for printing the Annual Report was R196.05; and the individual cost for CDs was R11.74.
TCTA	600 copies and 650 CDs	600	The cost of printing the reports was R130,980 exc. VAT and for the CDs R11,220 exc. VAT	The individual cost for printing the Annual Report was R218.30 exc. VAT and the CDs and the individual cost for CDs was R17.26 exc. VAT.
Inkomati Catchment Management Agency	520 copies and 62 CDs	520	Total cost of hard copies - R82,812.67	Total costs of CDs - R159.25
BOCMA Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency	500	500	R50 438.16	R100.88

(2) Refer to Table below:

Name	(2)(a) who printed each specified report	(2)(b) How was the specified printing services provider decided upon	(2)(c) What date did the specified printing services provider deliver the report
The Department	Shumani Printers	Shumani Printers was appointed by the Government Printer	7 November 2012
Amatola Water Board	Cadar Printers	Three Quotations were requested and received. Cadar Printers quoted the lowest price.	8 November 2011
Bloem Water Board	Nine Seconds Media	In terms of Supply Chain Management Policy, 3 quotes were obtained	24 November 2011
Botshelo Water Board	N/A	N/A	N/A
Bushbuckridge Water Board	Whiter River Printers	By Quotations	Last week of November 2011 and others in December 2011
Lepelle Water Board	Mixo The Dawn general trading	Through Supply Chain Management process	21 November 2011
Magalies Water Board	Bojanala Promotions	Invitation for Proposals	21 November 2011
Mhlathuze Water Board	Computer Artworks services trading as artworks	Tender Process	21 November 2011
Overberg Water Board	In House	N/A	27 November 2011
Pelladrift Water Board	In House	N/A	N/A
Rand Water	Shereno Printers	Tender Process	21 October 2011 and 7 November 2011
Sedibeng Water Board	Lathithaa Consulting Services	Quotations from different service providers	30 November 2011
Umgeni Water Board	Atlas Printers sourced via Afrospice Printing and Branding Studios	Tender Process	22 October 2012
Water Research Commission	Bhubezi Printers	Tender Process	22 September 2011
TCTA	Subcontracted to Broadsword Communications	Subcontracted	31 August 2011
Inkomati Catchment Management Agency	Copperleaf Graphic Design Minuteman Press White River Printers	Quotations from different service providers	31/08/12; 30/09/12; 1/10/12 and 9/10/12
Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency	Amazon Media	Supply Chain Management Process.	Annual reports were Delivered on 30 August 2012.

(3) Refer to Table below:

Name	(3)(a) Reports were satisfactory	(3)(b) By which printing services provider	(3)(c) What action was taken	(3)(d) What were the costs
The Department	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Amatola Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Bloem Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Botshelo Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Bushbuckridge Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Lepelle Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Magalies Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Mhlathuze Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Overberg Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Pelladrift Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Rand Water	All report were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Sedibeng Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Umgeni Water Board	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Water Research Commission	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
TCTA	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A
Inkomati Catchment Management Agency	The Annual Reports did not meet the required standard as per specifications.	White River Printers.	They have since been blacklisted from doing business with ICMA.	R34 714.25.
Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency	All reports were found to be satisfactory	N/A	N/A	N/A

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3375

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42 NW4277E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

Mr M W Rabotapi (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by (i) the Department of Environmental Affairs and (ii) the entities reporting to her were commissioned for print in the 2011-12 financial year, (b) how many copies were actually printed and (c) what were the (i) total amount and (ii) individual costs of printing these reports;

(2) (a) who printed each specified report, (b) how was the specified printer decided upon and (c) on what date did the specified printer deliver the report to the specified entity;

(3) whether any of the specified reports that had been printed were found to be unsatisfactory; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, (a) which reports, (b) for which entity, (c) by which printer, (d) what action was taken and (e) what were the costs?

Mr M W Rabotapi (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3375. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

1) (a) (i) 600 copies of the annual report were commissioned for printing;

(b) 600 were printed;

(ii) the individual costs of printing each report was R240.26.

(2) (a) Pixodel Design Studio;

(b) Pixodel Design Studio was appointed through the normal procurement process of sourcing three quotations in line with departmental procurement policy; and

(3) No, all printed copies were of a satisfactory quality.

ISIMANGALISO

(1) (a) (ii) Isimangaliso - 500; (b) 500 copies were printed, and (c) (i) the total cost was R125 453; and (ii) R251 per unit.

(2) (a) Draft FCB; (b) quotations; and (c) 26 August 2012.

(3) No, all printed copies were of a satisfactory quality.

SANBI

(1)(a) (ii) SANBI – 1 000; (b) 1 000 copies; and (c) (i) R114 643.53; and (ii) R114.64.

(2) (a) The Coupon Company t/a Design Divas; (b) written quotations from the SANBI supplier database; and (c) 28 August 2012.

(3) No, all printed copies were of satisfactory quality.

SAWS

(1) (a) (ii) The South African Weather Service commissioned 600 copies;

(b) 600 copies of the annual report were printed;

(c)(i) the total cost was R181 000.00; and

(2) (a) The report was printed by Blackmoon Advertising.

(b)The company was decided upon after the sending out of a formal terms of reference, receipt of quotes and an evaluation process which looked at competence, quality and price.

(3) No, all printed copies were of a satisfactory quality.

SANParks

(1) (a) (ii) The South African National Parks (SANParks) commissioned 800 copies of the annual report;

(b) 800 copies of the annual report for the 2011/12 financial year; and

(2) (a) The report was printed by Shereno printers cc.

(b) Three printing companies from SANParks database were sourced to provide quotations and designs. Shereno printers cc was appointed based on price and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) criteria.

(3) No, all printed copies were of a satisfactory quality.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3337

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42 NW4233E

DATE OF PUBLICATION:

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

(1) What is the current status of the environmental authorisation for the proposed West Coast One Wind Energy Facility;

(2) whether the applicant for the project (a) gave written notice to all (i) owners and (ii) occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the proposed activity will take place and (b) placed an advertisement in a local newspaper about the proposed project's participation process; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the applicant provided all potential interested and affected parties with reasonable opportunity to comment on the application; if so, how was this conclusion reached; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation;

(4) (a) what are the expected visual impacts of this project and (b) how many households are expected to be affected by these impacts;

(5) (a) how many objections from (i) interested and (ii) affected parties were received for this project and (b) what has been his response to these objections?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA)

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3337. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) The Department of Environmental Affairs granted the applicant an environmental authorisation for the proposed development on 16 March 2011.

(2)(a)(i) The Department is satisfied that the minimum requirements for the public participation process in accordance with GN R.385 were met.

(ii) Occupiers of land adjacent to the site were informed through newspaper adverts, site notices and public meetings.

(b) Yes, an advertisement was placed in the Weslander, a local newspaper, on 13 May 2010.

(3) Yes, the Department is satisfied that the minimum requirements for the public participation process in accordance with GN R.385 were met.

(4) The Visual Impact Study concluded that the potential visual impact of the proposed wind energy facility is not considered a fatal flaw for the development. It was further recommended by the specialist that the turbines be located in low lying areas to mitigate visual impacts. This recommendation has been carried forward to the conditions of the environmental authorisation.

(a) The wind farm may have a potential visual impact on the natural scenic resources and rural character of the region. The potential areas of high to very high visual impact within the 10 km radius of the wind farm include the arterial and secondary roads as well as the homesteads/settlements (sensitive visual receptors) located within this zone. The roads that connect Vredenburg to Paternoster and Stompneus Bay, the Stompneus Bay-Paternoster Roads, as well as a section of the R399 (running between Heuningklip and Soutsakfontein) are expected to have a potentially very high visual impact due to the high frequency of observation of the project infrastructure by observers travelling along these roads.

(b) It is expected that a total of 27 homesteads, settlements and towns can expect to be visually influenced (ie experience a potentially high to very high visual impact) by the proposed wind farm, within a 5 km radius of the development.

A total of seven homesteads, settlements and towns beyond 5 km from the development may experience moderate to high visual impacts.

(5)(a) Three objections/appeals were received against the approval of the development:

The first notice of intent to appeal was lodged by Mr Peter Roux in his letter dated 27 April 2011. Mr Roux argued that the public participation process was not conducted adequately. This allegation was not justified and was inadequately substantiated.

The second notice of intent to appeal was submitted by Ms Hedwig Slabig in her letter dated 4 May 2012 in which she argued that the Environmental Assessment Practitioner did not notify her of the Environmental Assessment in the prescribed manner, ie being notified, in writing, within 10 days of the date of the decision as required in terms of the EIA Regulations of 2006. This allegation was not justified and was inadequately substantiated.

The third objection was an appeal lodged by Heritage Western Cape represented by the CEO, Mr Andrew Hall. Relevant specialist studies, ie the Heritage Impact Assessment and the Visual Impact Assessment were conducted and a buffer zone of at least 2 km was recommended, along with mitigation measures to minimise visual impacts to acceptable levels. Comments from the appellant were considered and the Department approved the facility based on a condition that turbine placement around the foot of Kasteelberg be discussed and agreed upon between the Applicant and Heritage Western Cape. This appeal was formerly withdrawn by the appellant on 14 November 2011.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3334 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42 NW4229E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

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

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 889 on 18 May 2012, her department has made any effort to investigate a certain company (name furnished) to establish for what purpose it has been importing rhinos to China; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether any live rhinos have been imported by the company since 18 May 2012; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3334.THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1) Yes, the Department of Environmental Affairs can confirm that the purpose of the exports, as reflected on the permits, were for captive breeding.

2) No, the department is not aware of any export of rhino by this company since 18 May 2012.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3332

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42)

3332. Ms M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What (a) have been the achievements of the partnership between the Department of Water Affairs and the Water Resources Group since the Declaration of Partnership was signed and (b) are the expected outcomes of the partnership in 2013;

(2) whether the Department of Water Affairs has issued any (a) notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available against any members of the Water Resources Group operating within South Africa; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details in each case? NW4225E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) The Partnership process allows for effective collaboration between the public and private sector and is a unique response to the water scarcity challenge in South Africa as it allows the private sector to support the public sector in its mandate of managing South African water resources. In the year since the establishment of the Partnership, the initiative has established working groups working in three focus areas, namely:

· Water Efficiency and Leakage Reduction;

· Agriculture and Supply Chain; and

· Water Effluent and Waste Water Management.

The working groups have packaged projects and raised financing to take them forward. Projects have been selected for replicability with a view to mobilising wider support for similar initiatives and broadening the impact of the initiatives.

(1)(b) The expected outcomes for the Partnership during 2013 will be covered in a Strategic Plan for 2013/14 which is currently being finalised by the Partnership. It would be premature to provide any details until the Plan has been finalised and adopted.

(2) The Department has not issued any notices, directives or criminal charges against any of the partners of the Water Resources Group.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3330 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.42 NW4223E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

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

(1) Whether she has been informed of the recent high number of rhino poaching incidents in the North West province; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what is her response;

(2) whether she is providing any assistance to the North West provincial government to curb poaching in that province; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether there is any explanation for the recent high number of poaching incidents in the specified province; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3330.THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes. I am aware incidents of rhino killings that have been reported for North West and other Provinces including Kruger National Park. As a result, I have put in place a number of mechanisms to deal with country's Rhino poaching challenges. This includes co-operation agreements with other countries, closer collaboration with National Enforcement Agencies, Operation Rhino and an action plan with Enforcement Agencies.

(2) Yes. My department is working with North West province, I instructed senior officials of my department to seek assistance from SA Police Service (SAPS), and to visit the province in order to establish exactly what is happening. The visit took place and a report was submitted to me. Unfortunately, the report cannot be made public at this stage as it may jeopardise the investigation.

(3) No. We are not certain of the cause for the Rhino killings, however, we are working with SAPS in this regard. The department is however optimistic that the SAPS investigations will reveal causes thereof.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3330 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.42 NW4223E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

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

(1) Whether she has been informed of the recent high number of rhino poaching incidents in the North West province; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what is her response;

(2) whether she is providing any assistance to the North West provincial government to curb poaching in that province; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether there is any explanation for the recent high number of poaching incidents in the specified province; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3330.THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes. I am well aware of the latest incidents of rhino killings affecting the North West Province. Since then I have instructed senior officials of the Department of Environmental Affairs to seek the assistance of the SA Police Service (SAPS), and to visit the province and establish exactly what happened. The visit took place and a report was submitted. Unfortunately, the report cannot be made public at this stage as it may jeopardise the investigation.

(2) No. The province has not sought the assistance of the department. The SAPS is, however, working on the matter.

(3) No. No one in the province is yet certain what may have led to the recent killings. The department is however optimistic that the SAPS investigations will reveal this.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3329

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42)

3329. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) How (a) much did each water board owe (i) the Department of Water Affairs and/or (ii) any specified water service provider for water purchases as at the latest date for which information is available and (b) are the figures broken down according to (aa) current debt and (bb) debt in arrears;

(2) what steps are being taken by her department to ensure that water boards that have debt in arrears pay their debts? NW4222E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Refer to Annexure A for a comprehensive response to outstanding debt.

(2) The Department is currently in the process of reconciling accounts of all major customers and has implemented a special project to address the collection of outstanding debt. The upgrade of the SAP system will assist in the automated reconciliation of accounts as well as provide a platform for improved integration of IT Systems to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the billing system. Meetings with the CEO's of the Water Boards to discuss matters in dispute and set terms of reference for the payment of outstanding debt is also underway.

QUESTION NO. 3309 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42 NW4197E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether she intends to apply sanctions against the Cape Town Film Studios for its activities at the wetland conservation areas in Faure; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3309. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

This development activity is controlled by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). In terms of these regulations, the competent authority in respect of the activities is the environmental authority in the province in which the activity is to be undertaken.

The Minister must be identified as the competent authority in terms of subsection 24C(1) of NEMA if the activity -

(a) has implications for national environmental policy or international environmental commitments or relations;

(b) will take place within an area identified in terms of section 24(2)(b) or (c) as a result of the obligations resting on the Republic in terms of any international environmental instrument, other than any area falling within the sea-shore, a conservancy, a protected natural environment, a proclaimed private nature reserve, a natural heritage site, or the buffer zone or transitional area of a biosphere reserve or a world heritage site;

(d) is undertaken, or is to be undertaken, by -

(i) a national department;

(ii) a provincial department responsible for environmental affairs; or

(iii) a statutory body, excluding any municipality, performing an exclusive competence of the national sphere of government; or

(e) will take place within a national proclaimed protected area or other conservation area under control of a national authority.

The above notwithstanding, I will ensure that the relevant authority deals with this matter and that my Environmental Management Inspectors (EMI's), together with EMI's from the Western Cape Department of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development, will investigate the matter and take the appropriate action.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3309

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 42 NW4197E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 NOVEMBER 2012

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3309. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

No.

From the information provided in the article, it appears that the development activity is controlled by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). In terms of these regulations, the competent authority in respect of the activities is the environmental authority in the province in which the activity is to be undertaken.

The Minister must be identified as the competent authority in terms of subsection 24C(1) of NEMA if the activity -

(a) has implications for national environmental policy or international environmental commitments or relations;

(d) is undertaken, or is to be undertaken, by -

(i) a national department;

(ii) a provincial department responsible for environmental affairs; or

(iii) a statutory body, excluding any municipality, performing an exclusive competence of the national sphere of government; or

(e) will take place within a national proclaimed protected area or other conservation area under control of a national authority.

From the contents of the article, it is clear that the Western Cape Department of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning is the relevant authority to authorise EIA related development activities in the province and therefore the competent authority that has authorised the development.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3251

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 16 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41)

3251. Ms M R Shinn (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether (a) her department or (b) any entity reporting to her, placed any advertisements in The New Age since the inception of the newspaper up until the most recent date for which information is available; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) which entity placed the advertisements, (ii) on what date was each advertisement placed, (iii) what was the nature of each advertisement and (iv) what amount was spent on each advertisement;

(2) whether any of these advertisements were placed through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details of the advertisements placed through the GCIS;

(3) whether an independent analysis was conducted by her department prior to placing advertisements to ascertain whether The New Age is read by the intended target market; if not, why not; if so, (a) who conducted the analysis and (b) what were the main (i) findings and (ii) recommendations of said analysis;

(4) whether any independent studies of said advertisements were conducted to ascertain whether they were effective within the relevant target market; if not, why not; if so, (a) who conducted the analysis and (b) what were the main (i) findings and (ii) recommendations of said analysis? NW4140E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) No, the Department has not placed any advertisements in the New Age newspaper.

(2) No. Entities reporting to me have not placed any advertisements in the New Age newspaper.

(3) Falls away

(4) Falls away

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO.3251

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.41 NW4140E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 16 November 2012

3251. Ms M R Shinn (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Ms M R Shinn (DA)

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3251. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1 (a) Yes, the Department of Environmental Affairs has placed advertisements in a number of publications including The Independent, Business Day, Sunday Times, Sowetan, Sawubona, the Public Sector Magazine, and The New Age. The department advertised on occasions as part of its Communications Strategy:

The advertisements covered events such as the department'sbudget vote, awareness regarding Environment Month, aspects of the Green Fund and the Rio Outcomes.

2. Yes, in the 2011/12 financial year the department placed the following advertisements through the GCIS:

Type of campaign	Amount
Environmental Month	R154 638.72
Environmental Month 2	R40 807.44
Green Fund	R64 432.80
Total	R259 878.96

3. There has been no need for the department to do any analysis since the placement of these advertisements has been informed by the Department's Communications Strategy that advocates the placement of advertisements in a wide range of media and publications to ensure media diversity. The placement of advertisements in these newspapers must be understood in light of the fact that government messages are aimed at all population groups, irrespective of their station in life.

4.No studies were conducted.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3241

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 16 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41)

3241. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) On what date did (i) Shanduka Graspan Colliery, (ii) Shanduka Bankfontein Colliery and (iii) Shanduka Coal Middelburg apply for water use licences and (b) what is the current state of each specified application;

(2) whether the Department of Water Affairs has (a) laid any criminal charges and (b) instituted court action against (i) any of the specified mines and (ii) the Shanduka group of companies for operating without water use licences; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(3) whether the Department of Water Affairs has withdrawn any (a) criminal charges and (b) court actions against (i) any of the specified mines and (ii) the Shanduka group of companies; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so,

(4) whether she took the decision to (a) withdraw charges and (b) cease court action; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, how does she justify her involvement? NW4129E ---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a)(i) The Shanduka Graspan Colliery applied for the water use license in September 2008, and the license was issued on 24 August 2012.

(1)(a)(ii) The Shanduka Bankfontein Colliery applied for the water use license on 30 July 2009, and the application was withdrawn on 28 February 2011.

(1)(a)(iii) The Shanduka Coal Middelburg applied for water use license in September 2009, and the license was issued on 26 January 2012.

(2) In response to question 2(a)(b)(i)&(ii), please see the detailed information of each specified mines including theShanduka Group of companies

Shanduka Graspan Colliery

- Contravention(s): Engaging in a water use without authorisation.

- Date of Notice: 27 March 2012.

- Date of directive: 30 May 2012.

- Criminal case: None because the licence was issued on 24 August 2012.

- Court action: None because the licence was issued on 24 August 2012.

Shanduka Bankfontein Colliery

- Contravention(s): Engaging in a water use without authorisation.

- Date of Notice: 27 March 2012.

- Date of directive: 20 May 2012.

- Criminal case: None because the mine is under care and maintenance.

- Court action: None because the mine is under care and maintenance.

-2-

Shanduka Coal Middelburg (Townlands Colliery)

- Contravention(s): Engaging in a water use without authorisation.

- Date of Notice: 15 August 2011.

- Date of directive: None because the licence was issued on 26 January 2012.

- Criminal case: None, because the licence was issued on 26 January 2012.

- Court action: None, because the licence was issued on 26 January 2012.

Umcebo Grootpan Colliery

- Contravention(s): Engaging in a water use without authorisation.

- Date of Notice: 01 May 2009.

- Date of directive: None, because the 20 April 2011.

- Criminal case: A criminal case was laid under CAS 57/11/2009 at the Carolina Police Station and later transferred to Belfast Police Station.

- Court action: None because the Department was awaiting the South African Police Services (SAPS) and National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) decision on the criminal complaint.

(3) In response to question 3(a)(b)(i)&(ii), the Department did not make any request to both SAPS and/or NPA for the withdrawal of any criminal charges. This conclusion is a fact that can be verified with both SAPS and the NPA.

(4) The Department did not make any decision to withdraw charges and cease court action against the specified mines and the Shanduka Group of Companies. This conclusion is a fact that can be verified with both SAPS and the NPA.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3235

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 16 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41)

3235. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many applications for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), Act 2 of 2000, were received by the (a) Department of Water Affairs, (b) Water Research Commission and (c) Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority since 1 December 2011;

(2) (a) on what date was each specified application received, (b) on what date did (i) the Department of Water Affairs and (ii) each specified entity notify the applicant of the outcome in each case and (c) how many applicants did not receive the outcomes after the 30-day response period had expired;

(3) whether any applicants took action through the courts in order to access information with regard to any application for which (a) the Department of Water Affairs or (b) any of the specified entities declined to provide (i) all or (ii) part of the requested information; if so, (aa) how many applicants in each case and (bb) what are the further relevant details in each case;

(4) for each of the specified entities reporting to her, what is the (a) name, (b) e-mail address and (c) contact number of each of the PAIA information officers as at the latest specified date for which information is available? NW4123E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) has received 8 (eight) applications since 1

December 2011.

(1)(b) Water Research Commission (WRC) - no applications were received by the WRC.

(1)(c) The Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) has received 1 (one) application since 1 December 2011.

(2) Refer to table below.

Department/Entity	(2)(a) Application	(2)(b)(i) Date received	(2)(b)(ii) Notification Date	(2)(c) Outcomes after the 30-days response
Department of Water Affairs (DWA)	D003	11 July 2012	26 October 2012.	Seven (7) Applications did not receive responses within 30 days
	D10632	15 May 2012	Receiving attention
	D10598	15 August 2012	6July 2012
	D10599	15 August 2012	2October 2012.
	D10642	17 May 2012	29 October 2012
	D11059	24 July 2012	Receiving attention
	D1034	17 July 2012	Receiving attention
	D10633	24 July 2012	Receiving attention
Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA)	1 Application received by TCTA	30 August 2012	Receiving attention	One 1 (1) Application did not receive responses within 30 days.

(3)(a) The Department:

The Applicant (Surface Preparations Equipment and Coating (Pty) Limited) took the Department to court in terms of the Promotion to Access to Information Act, 2000 for copies of all tenders received by the Department in response to the invitation for tenders for Mechanical and Electrical Asset Management Support of Major Plant and Machinery for the Eastern Cape Region- Southern Operations.

The application for access to information was later withdrawn by agreement between the parties after the Department provided the applicant with all information relating to this matter. The agreement was subsequently made an order of the court and confirmed by both parties.

(3)(b) TCTA:

The TCTA was requested by the applicant to furnish the requester with a copy of the agreement between the TCTA and Central Rand Gold pertaining to water pumps to be used to abstract acid mine water from the Central Basin. The TCTA declined to furnish a copy of the agreement as it was still subject to negotiation and had not been finalised at that time.

(4) Refer to Table below:

Department/Entity	(4)(a) Name	(4)(b) Email Address	(4)(c) Contacts
Department of Water Affairs	Mr Maxwell Sirenya	[email protected]	012- 336 6696
Department of Water Affairs	Mr Anil Singh	[email protected]	012- 336 7531
WRC	Mr Dhesigen Naidoo	[email protected]	012-330 9033 /0340
WRC	Ms Reshmili Lutchman	[email protected] [email protected]	012-330 9033 /0340
TCTA	Mr James Ndlovu	[email protected]	012-6831200
TCTA	Mr Yugen Moodley	[email protected]	012-6831200

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3234

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 16 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41)

3234. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Xstrata Tselentis Colliery is in possession of a water use licence; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, when (a) did the mine apply for the licence and (b) was the licence awarded by her department;

(2) whether any (a) notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges have been issued against the mine since 1 January 2010 for operating at any time without a water use licence in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW4122E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) Yes, the Xstrata Tselentis Colliery applied for a water use licence on 11 February 2010.

(1)(b) The Xstrata Tselentis Colliery was issued with a water use licence on 12 February 2011.

(2)(a) A notice was issued to the Xstrata Tselentis Colliery on 11 May 2009 against the mine operating without a water use license.

(2)(b) A directive was subsequently issued to the Xstrata Tselentis Colliery on 28 October 2009 for failing to comply with the conditions of the notice.

(2)(c) A criminal case was opened against the mine in November 2009 under CAS 39/11/2009 with the Breyten-SAPS for operating without a water use licence, and the case is currently pending finalisation. The details of the case cannot be revealed as the matter is sub judice.

fy�ceh`� �%'>PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS THE MINISTER OF TOURISM ANSWERS: a) The National Department of Tourism uses official data collected and released by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) to monitor key tourism indicators such as the performance of the accommodation industry, tourist arrivals to South Africa as well as the direct contribution of tourism to the economy of the country. The department has worked closely with Stats SA and key departments such as the Department of Home Affairs as well as the South African Reserve Bank in developing and improving some of the methodologies used to collect and release tourism related statistics currently released by Stats SA. The Department together with Stats SA and South Africa Tourism (SAT) are in a process of developing one methodology that will be used to measure domestic tourism performance and the first report will be piloted in 2014/15. This process is led by the department and the implementation is done by Stats SA.

b) The Department together with Stats SA and SAT has developed the methodology that is used to calculate the number of tourists from the total foreign arrivals which was implemented in 2009. Stats SA led this process and the first release of tourist arrivals to South Africa was with effective from 2009. Therefore, there is currently a single method of measuring tourist arrivals to South Africa which is implemented by Stats SA to produce official statistics for this indicator.

&nbM�nsH�� Not applicable ,

(b), the applications and constitutions are scrutinized for the registration requirements in terms Section 13(1) of the NPO Act. The annual reports are checked for compliance with section 18 (2) of the NPO Act. Staff in the NPO directorate is responsible to check and scrutinise all these paper work from the non-profit organisations for compliance purposes. (c) Organisations seeking registration and registered NPOs submit applications with their constitutions and annual reports to the Department (NPO Directorate) in terms of sections 13, 18 and 19 of the Nonprofit Organisations Act no 71 of 1997. This is prescribed in terms of the law that governs the non-profit organisation (the NPO Act)

(2) Yes, The Department has initiated the development of an online NPO web-system, and the systems will allow for submission of all the above documents electronically. The public will also be able to view these documents online. The system will be rolled out in the first quarter of 2013/14 Financial year.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3233 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41 NW4121E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 16 November 2012

3233. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa), has provided written feedback to the (a) persons and (b) entities who made submissions during the comment stage on the waste tyre plan; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether she has found the situation to be acceptable; if not, what steps does she intend taking to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the Department of Environmental Affairs has received written responses from Redisa on each of the submissions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the responses will be published on her department's website; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3233. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) To our knowledge, the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa (REDISA) has not provided written responses to each of the (a) persons and (b) entities which made submissions during the comment stage of the Waste Tyre Plan.

The requirement in terms of the Waste Tyre Regulations is to develop a comment and response document which is then submitted to the Minister, together with the plan, for consideration.

(2) The Regulations do not require anyone preparing an Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan (IIWTMP) to give written responses to every person or entity that has made submissions, but rather require such a person or entity to compile a comments and response document and submit it to the Minister for consideration, together with the IIWTMP. REDISA complied with the Regulations.

(3) As part of the submission of its IIWMP, REDISA did submit a comments and response document.

(4) The comments and response document will not be published on the department's website, as the purpose of the document was to help the Minister in considering the plan.

aD�oi�b� `� ext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO. 3232 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41 NW4120E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 November 2012

3232. Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many applications for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), Act 2 of 2000, have been received by (a) the Department of Environmental Affairs, (b) the SA National Parks, (c) the SA Weather Service and (d) the SA National Botanical Institute during the period 1 December 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) (a) on what date was each specified application received, (b) on what date did (i) the Department of Environmental Affairs and (ii) each specified entity notify the applicant of the outcome in each case and (c) how many applicants did not receive the outcomes after the 30-day response period had expired;

(3) whether any applicants took action through the courts in order to access information with regard to any application for which (a) the Department of Environmental Affairs or (b) any of the specified entities declined to provide (i) all or (ii) part of the requested information; if so, (aa) how many applicants in each case and (bb) what are the further relevant details in each case?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA)

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3232. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1.(a) The Department of Environmental Affairs has received thirty three (33) requests for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000) (PAIA), dating from 1 December 2011 to 8 November 2012. * Please see the attached table.

(b) The South African National Parks (SANParks) received two (2) applications for information in terms of the PAIA since 1 December 2011.

(c) The South African Weather Service (SAWS) did not receive any applications for information in terms of the PAIA for the period 1 December 2011 to 16 October 2012.

(d) The South Africa National Botanical Institute (SANBI) received one (1) application for information in terms of the PAIA during the period 1 December 2011 to 15 November 2012.

2. The Department of Environmental Affairs

(a)-(b) Kindly see the attached table for the dates that each specified application was received and responded to by the Department of Environmental Affairs.

(c) A total of eleven (11) applicants did not receive a response within the 30 day response period. These requesters were informed in terms of section 26 of the PAIA that the period has been extended by a further 30 days in order for the Department to locate and consolidate the requested information. Most of the requests for information entailed voluminous information kept within different components of the Department. Please see the attached table.

The South African National Parks

(a) Both applications for information were received by the SANParks on 8 March 2012.

(b) Both applicants were notified by the SANParks of the outcome of the applications on 13 April 2012.

The South African Weather Service

(a)-(c) Not applicable

The South African National Botanical Institute

(a) The applicant supplied the PAIA documentation to the SANBI on 3 April 2012.

(b) The SANBI notified the applicant of the outcome on 10 April 2012 and the data was provided to

the applicant on 25 April 2012.

3. (a)-(b) None of the applicants had to take any action through the courts to access the information.

* Table referred to in answer 1 and 2 above.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3228

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 16 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 41)

3228. Mr M Swart (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether, with reference to her reply to question 1703 on 23 July 2012, the process of reviewing the water use licence application of the George Local Municipality was finalised by 30 September 2012; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will it be finalised; if so, what is the final outcome of this review? NW4116E

---00O00---

REPLY:

Regrettably, the review of the water use licence applications for the George Local Municipality could not be finalised by 30 September 2012.

(1)(a) The three water use licence applications by the George Local Municipality, i.e. (i) Malgas River Pump Station, (ii) the Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant at the Outeniqua Waste Water Works and (iii) the Raising of the Garden Route Dam, are all inter-connected, although the applications were submitted individually and were initially reviewed separately.

Furthermore, the actual position of the construction of the Malgas River Pump Station versus the original planned position directly impacts on the set conditions of the approved Outeniqua Reserve Determination, making the licensing conditions more cumbersome.

Moreover, the contributions from the existing Kaaimans River Diversion, the Water Court Ruling of 1976 on compensation releases from the Garden Route Dam to downstream water users in the Swart River, the additional abstraction, storage and incremental yield from the proposed raised Garden Route Dam, directly influence the individual licences and its associated collective conditions.

In considering the issuing of a licence, the Department must take into account all relevant factors as stipulated under Section 27(1) of the National Water, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) to ensure long term sustainable water use allocations, and also to secure bulk water for the municipality without detriment of other existing water users, and the natural ecosystem sustainable functioning on each of the river reaches, where the pump station, the diversions and the dam are situated.

(1)(b) The Department has indicated that all efforts to expedite the integrated applications by the George Local Municipality will be made. The Department also anticipates that the review of the water use licence applications would be concluded by mid-December 2012, upon which the authorisations would be processed for issuance.

All these licence applications for the George Local Municipality were initially identified as potential interventions that are in line with the recommendations from the Outeniqua Coast Water Assessment Study completed in 2008, as well as the recommendations from the all Towns Reconciliation Strategies Study for George and surrounding area.

The review of the integrated licences has indicated that the Raising of the Garden Route Dam could be authorised without additional environmental releases, other than the calculated monthly compensation releases as per the Water Court Ruling that would be replaced by this authorisation once approved by the delegated authority.

Furthermore, additional gauging structures would have to be constructed within the Malgas River to measure flows from specific river systems that were excluded from abstraction under the set Outeniqua Reserve.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3175

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3175. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, since her reply to question 3111 on 4 November 2011, a certain person (name furnished) has had any involvement in the Lesotho Highlands Water Project; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details of the (a) position and (b) responsibilities of the specified person;

(2) whether the Government has again expressed its objection to the participation of this individual; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the appointment in any way undermines the anti-corruption clauses in the agreement between our Government and the Lesotho government on phase II of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what will be done to rectify the situation? NW4015E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) The official concerned (per details furnished) was employed on a three year contract by the Lesotho Government to serve as a Chief Technical Advisor to the Lesotho Delegation of the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission. His employment contract was entered into on 1 August 2011 and signed by the then Acting Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Natural Resources. His appointment makes him a civil servant working for the Ministry of Natural Resources (which currently is the Ministry of Energy, Meteorology and Water Affairs).

(1)(b) His main responsibilities at the time of his appointment were to:

· Act as a Chief Technical Advisor to the Lesotho Delegation of the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission;

· Advise the Chief Delegate – Lesotho Delegation in ensuring successful implementation of the Treaty, Protocols and the Phase II Agreement; and

· Advise the Chief Delegate – Lesotho Delegation on matters pertaining to the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

The Lesotho Government subsequently removed him from the offices of the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission following a a strong protest by the Republic of South Africa (RSA) Delegation and the South African Government. He is currently situated in the Ministry of Energy, Meteorology and Water Affairs and he has no involvement whatsoever in the affairs of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project contrary to what his response says to the Mail and Guardian and the Lesotho's Sunday Express of 4 – 10 November 2012.

(2) The South African government has since the beginning, before he was removed from any dealing with the Lesotho Highlands Water Project put on record its objection to his participation in the affairs of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. The RSA Delegation to the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission has on a number of occasions conveyed its Government's position in meetings of the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission.

These protests were formally recorded expressing South Africa's formal objection to the official concerned association in any manner with the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. Once I (Minister Molewa) was informed about this appointment I requested the RSA State Law Advisor to furnish me with a legal opinion regarding this matter which was subsequently provided. Furthermore, I (Minister Molewa) raised this matter with my then counterpart Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Monyane Moleleki, at a meeting on 27 November 2011 in Pretoria. At that meeting, it was then resolved that the RSA State Law Advisor together with his Lesotho counterpart the Attorney General should study the matter and give advice to the two Ministers as to what steps should be taken in resolving this matter. An initial meeting between the two parties was arranged in Maseru in January 2012. A follow up meeting is expected to take place once the RSA State Law Advisor receives confirmation of the meeting that he has long requested from his counterpart. A formal pronouncement by the Government of Lesotho in response to these objections is awaited. Be that as it may, the new incumbent has no linkage to the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. We just await formal response from the two State Law Advisory Bodies. Since the said incumbent does not work for the Commission norhas any linkage with the Commission, there is no way that he will undermine the anti-corruption policy

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3146

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3146. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

What (a) is the total outstanding amount of money owed by municipalities to water boards as at 30 September 2012 and (b) is the breakdown of this amount in terms of (i) current debt, (ii) debt in arrears and (iii) money owed by each specified municipality to each water board? NW3984E

---00O00---

REPLY

(a) The total outsanding amount of money owed by municipalities to water boards as at 30 September 2012 is R 2 313 824 320.

(b) The table below gives a summary breakdown of amount in terms of (i) current debt; (ii) debt in arrears and (iii) money owed by each municipality to each water board as at 30 September 2012.

No	Water Board	Number of Municipalities supplied by the Water Board	(b)(i) Current debt	(b)(ii) Debt in Arrears	(b)(iii) Total Owed by Municipalities
1	Amatola Water	03	R 18 945 934	R 1 217 469	R 20 163 403
2.	Bloem Water	04	R 40 933 093	R 41 684 447	R 82 617 540
3.	Botshelo Water	03	R 7 642 491	R 95 671 924	R103 314 415
4.	Bushbuckridge Water	03	R 13 934 362	R248 751 834	R262 686 196
5.	Lepelle Northern Water	11	R 27 602 130	R232 387 640	R259 989 770
6.	Magalies Water	07	R 15 151 342	R 21 248 693	R 36 400 035
7.	Mhlathuze Water	02	R 9 090 296	R 1 263 988	R 10 354 284
8.	Overberg Water	05	R 922 951	R 0	R 922 951
9.	Pelladrift Water	03	R 154 511	R 130 314	R 284 825
10.	Sedibeng Water	11	R 40 055 332	R638 600 122	R678 655 454
11.	Rand Water	19	R671 781 595	R 27 729 446	R699 511 041
12.	Umgeni Water	07	R154 168 279	R 4 756 127	R158 924 406
	TOTAL		R1 000 382 316	R1 313 442 004	R2 313 824 320

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3145

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3145. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the current state of performance of the Northern Works wastewater plant in Johannesburg;

(2) whether she has been informed of pollution incidents emanating from the Northern Works wastewater plant since 1 October 2012; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,

(3) whether she intends to investigate the matter; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any notices, directives or criminal charges have been issued against the municipality for pollution incidents emanating from the Northern Works in recent weeks; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether she intends to visit the Northern Works to assess the performance of the plant; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3983E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Johannesburg Northern Works Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently having a limited treatment capacity due to high solids (sludge) build up in the system caused by the current upgrades of the dewatering systems (belt presses) and these resulted in wastewater containing sludge spilling into the Jukskei River from the balancing dam. Storm water infiltration into the treatment systems has worsened the situation.

The plant is designed to treat 450 ML effluent per day and during this wet season, the plant is receiving in excess of 600Ml/day which makes treatment of all effluent received impossible and some excess was stored in the balancing dams.

(2) Yes, the Department learned about the incident through a complaint by the member of public on 24 October 2012 and was later informed by the City of Johannesburg on
5 November 2012.

(3) The matter was investigated on 30 October 2012 and 2 November 2012 and the following findings were made:

· Excess sludge was overflowing into a pollution control dam (balancing dam);

· The pollution control dams were silted up;

· Due to high flows, the dams could not accommodate all the overflows and they eventually spilled into the Juskei River;

· The discharged effluent was very bad to such an extent that the river water at the spillage sites turned black;

· Sludge dewatering equipments (belt presses); and

· Engineers were busy installing four new belt presses.

(4) No notices, directives or criminal charges have been issued. The matter has been discussed at the meetings which resulted in the implementation of a detailed action plan to address the problem.

(5) I do not intend to visit the plant as I was provided with a full report and will continuously be kept updated on the implementation of the plan of action.

t:-�Q n @� � :l0 level1 lfo1'>(2) No

(3) No

(4) No

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3141

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3141. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and EnvironmentalAffairs:

(1) What (a) are the (i) names and (ii) locations of mines that are still operating without a valid water licence since her reply to question 2114 on 29 August 2012 and (b) has been the progress of each specified mine's application for such a licence;

(2) whether any further (a) directives or (b) pre-directives have been issued against mines operating without water use licences in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3979E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) Refer to attached Annexure A, for the names and locations of mines that have been operating without valid water licenses since the Department's reply to question 2114 on 29 August 2012. The list shows 39 mines operating without valid water use licences compared to the 46 mines as at 29 August 2012. It should be noted that the Department's licensing team has also dealt with many other sectors' water licence and not mining alone. Between August 2012 and October 2012, nine decisions were made for the following mines:

· Shanduka Graspan Colliery: Mpumalanga

· Shanduka Bankfontein Colliery: Mpumalanga (decline)

· Aquarius Platinum SA: North West

· Lonmin Platinum (Marikana): North West

· Uitkomst Colliery: KwaZulu Natal

· Exxaro Hlobane Colliery: KwaZulu-Natal

· Richards Bay Mineral : KwaZulu Nata

Significant process continues to be made on engagement with applicants to obtain information and process the WULAs.

(1)(b) Refer to attached Annexure A, showing a list of mines who have submitted applications and the status of the applications for water use license.

The Department has embarked on a process of regulating mining operations with respect to the Department's legislatory requirements. Following this process, the Department has received a number of licence applications from the mines that have been operating illegally. It should be noted that the mining licence applications form part of the category of licences that are receiving the highest priority.

(2) A total of (a) Nine (9) Directives and (b) eighteen (18) Pre-directives were issued to date.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3132

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3132. Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to her letter dated 18 January 2012 (copy furnished), (a) what are the details of the progress of the independent forensic investigation process and (b) Why is the investigation taking so long?

(2) What steps has she taken to (a) protect the whistleblowers who have been dismissed and are currently unemployed despite having won arbitration awards against Bloem Water and (b) prevent further corruption at Bloem Water? NW3969E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) A panel of three forensic auditors, were appointed by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) in October 2012 on a call down-facility over a period of three years to conduct forensic investigations at the DWA public entities as the need arises.

(1)(b) The appointment of the three forensic auditors had to be conducted in terms of the stringent procurement policy of Bloem Water.

(2)(a) The Department is not aware of any employees charged as a result of whistle blowing. According to Bloem Water some employees have been subjected to disciplinary hearings in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. The hearings were instituted as a result of various acts of misconduct committed by the employees. As a result further particulars on which employees are said to have been dismissed for blowing the whistle are required.

(2)(b) The Department is not aware of any investigation that arrived at any finding of there being corruption at Bloem Water.

rs in tv�Swart River, the additional abstraction, storage and incremental yield from the proposed raised Garden Route Dam, directly influence the individual licences and its associated collective conditions.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3121

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3121. Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

How many hydrologists are employed in her department? NW3947E

---00O00---

REPLY:

The Department currently has 91 Scientists (Hydrologists) employed.

Please note that with the implementation of the OSD, all Hydrologists were translated to Scientists.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3111

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 39)

3111. Mr D A Kganare (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her department has a master plan to ensure that all households in South Africa are provided with safe drinking water; if not, why not; if so, (a) what will the implementation of the master plan cost and (b) what are the further relevant details;

(2) whether a business plan has been compiled in this regard; if not, why not; if so, when will the implementation be rolled out? NW3858E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Since 1994 the Department of Water Affairs developed and maintained a comprehensive water services management framework, master plan and implementation programme to ensure that all people have access to safe drinking water. This framework consisted of policy & legislation, dedicated funding, an extensive information system, implementation support, leadership and monitoring system.

Based on the Constitution which mandates municipalities to be accountable for water services delivery and performance, the total basic water services programme and associated funding were transferred to local government in the 2002/3 financial year. Since then the programme is overseen and managed by the Department of Cooperative Governance.

At present the Basic Water Services programme consists of two core programmes:

· The first is the programme to provide water to those households that have houses but lack access to safe drinking water, i.e. a programme focusing on historical backlogs in mainly rural areas. This programme is managed by the Department of Cooperative Governance.

· The second programme is that of housing related needs focusing on informal settlements, the housing programme and associated needs. This programme is managed by the Department of Human Settlements.

· Both these programmes are supported by extensive grants managed and overseen by the respective departments.

Since 2003 DWA's role consists of maintaining policy, providing information support as well as implementation, planning and management support. Except for supporting municipalities to develop and maintain local water master plans as part of their Water Services Development Plans, the master delivery plan was not maintained.

Based on the goal of government to ensure effective services as well as meeting the targets, the Outcome 9 Delivery Agreement has been refined to mandate Sector Departments to assume specific sector performance responsibilities in terms of leadership, coordination and oversight. In line with this refined agreement DWA has recently accepted its oversight responsibility.

Extensive work is presently being undertaken to establish and validate the actual needs and to develop regional and local delivery master plans for the Priority 24 rural District Municipalities in partnership with the relevant Water Services Authorities. To provide safe and sustainable water to all households will cost an additional estimated R 90 billion which figure may vary depending on the level of service as well as the availability of sufficient water resource infrastructure such as dams and major regional transfer infrastructure. All these programmes and activities are done in collaboration with the Department of Cooperative Governance and National Treasury. This is supported through various other programmes such as the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG) programme, planning and local municipal support, as well as a Water Investment Framework and Drinking Water Quality Management System.

(2) The Department has also initiated an interim service delivery programme targeting those communities that have not yet been served. A comprehensive business plan to ensure that critical backlogs are addressed by 2014 has been developed and the implementation process has been initiated. This implementation takes place within the existing Basic Services Plan. It is expected that the comprehensive and revised updated master plan will be available by March 2013.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO. 3096 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 38NW3925E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2November 2012

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

(1) Whether her departments are currently subscribed to The New Age (TNA) newspaper; if so, (a) how many subscriptions do her departments have, (b) when was each subscription initiated, (c) what has been the annual subscription fee for each specified subscription since it was initiated and (d) what is the exact purpose of each subscription;

(2) whether a discount was negotiated for any of the specified subscriptions; if so, (a) for which specified subscriptions and (b) what discount in each case;

(3) whether her departments have mass-purchased the TNA on an ad hoc basis since the inception of the newspaper; if so, (a) on what dates, (b) how many copies in each case and (c) why were the papers purchased in each case;

(4) whether (a) the publishers of the TNA and (b) any other entity donated copies of the paper to (i) her departments and (ii) any entity reporting to her; if so, in each case, (aa) which entity donated the papers, (bb) to which entity were they donated and (cc) how many copies were donated?

Ms M R Shinn (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3096. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Yes, as part of the Department's Communications Strategy, the Department of Water Affairs subscribes to The New Age (TNA) newspaper as well as other titles like The Star, Pretoria News, Sowetan, Business Day, Mail and Guardian, Sunday Times, City Press and the Sunday Independent

(a) One of each titles mentioned above;

(b) From March 2012 – August 2012 and from June 2012 – November 2012;

(d) The department's daily media monitoring covers the full ambit of all newspapers, hence TNA was added.

(1) The department did not negotiate any discounts.

(a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

(2) No, the department has not mass-purchased any from the above titles on an ad hoc basis.

(a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

(d) Not applicable

(3) (a) (Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(b) No

(aa) Not applicable

(bb) Not applicable

(cc) Not applicable

QUESTION NO. 3096 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 38NW3925E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 2November 2012

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

(2) whether a discount was negotiated for any of the specified subscriptions; if so, (a) for which specified subscriptions and (b) what discount in each case;

Ms M R Shinn (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3096. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) One of each titles mentioned above;

(b) From March 2012 – August 2012 and from June 2012 – November 2012;

(d) The department's daily media monitoring covers the full ambit of all newspapers, hence TNA was added.

(1) The department did not negotiate any discounts.

(a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

(2) No, the department has not mass-purchased any from the above titles on an ad hoc basis.

(a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

(d) Not applicable

(3) (a) (Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(b) No

(aa) Not applicable

(bb) Not applicable

(cc) Not applicable

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3087

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 02 NOVEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 38)

3087. Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the large cattle feedlot within the Seringveld Conservancy in the region Oog van Boekenhoutskloof in Cullinan, Gauteng, has a water use licence; if so, what are the relevant details; if not, how can operations be allowed by the Department of Water Affairs if no water licence has been approved;

(2) whether an application for a water use licence has been submitted; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any (a) directives, (b) notices or (c) criminal charges have been brought against the proprietors of the feedlot for transgressions of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3916E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Cattle feedlot does not have a water use license, however, the Cattle feedlot applied for a water use license which was received by the Department in November 2009 for the Remaining Extent of Portion 2 of the Farm: Oog van Boekenhoutskloof of Tweefontein 288JR, Cullinan. The assessment of the water use licence was placed on hold subject to the outcome of the appeal against the Record of Decision issued by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The Department has instructed Kameeldrieft Voere in the pre-directive issued on 19 October 2011, the water use that is currently taking place is within the provision of the General Authorisation for the area i.e. the property extent is currently 261ha and ground water recharge for the area quaternary drainage (A23B) = 75 m3/ha/annum, there for the volume of fround water available for the property = 75x261= 19 575 m3/ annum.. If a water use is 20 m³/Large Stock Unit/annum (about 60 litre per Large Stock Unit/ per day), therefore a maximum number of large stock unit that can be supplied under General Authorisation is 1072 Large Stock unit..

(2) Yes, the water use license application has been submitted in November 2009 and evaluated by the Department. However, due some outstanding information requested in the Department letter dated 12 October 2012; the Records of Decision (ROD) appeal process not finalised and the fact that the activity had a potential to pollute water resources and impacting on the wetland, the applicant was instructed in the Pre-directive issued on19 October 2011 to submit additional information in terms of the National water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) for water uses defined in terms of section 21 (c) and (i) water uses and conduct a wetland delineation studies and operate within the General Authorisation requirements as indicated in (1) above until the license is issued.

(3)(a) No directive was issued since the owner of the feedlot responded through their lawyers in a letter dated 10 November 2011 requesting time to conduct the wetland studies, agrees to operate within the general authorisation requirement and conditions 3.3.1 -3.3.3, 3.3.4 (a-e), 3.3.4 (a), (i), (q), (r), (s),(t) and 3.5.4 of the ROD (pending appeal process) until the water use license has been issued. The wetland was delineated and fenced off well before the operations of the feedlot. The study required by the Department is to confirm the initial report, soil and rocks interactions to determine the potential of pollution pathways from the manure dam.

(3)(b) As indicated in response (2) above, a Pre-directive was issued on 19 October 2011 and the applicant submitted representation to the Department indicating that the feedlot will operate within those limits until information required for further processing of the feedlot application is submitted and approved by the Department. To date, such information has not been submitted and when followed up was done earlier this year the Department was informed by the Cattle feedlot that, the consultant is working on the application and additional information will be submitted. By the time this response was prepared, the Department has still not yet received additional requested information and follow up is being be made to check progress.

(3)(c) No Criminal Charges has been opened since the owner of the feedlot agrees to operate within the General Authorisation requirement until the water use license has been issued.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO. 3081 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 38 NW3906E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 02 November 2012

3081. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to her reply to question 2782 on 26 October 2012, what interim measures have been put in place to assist tyre (a) dealers and (b) producers to deal with the possible ten months' accumulation of waste tyres until collection by Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) contractors;

(2) how is a delay of up to 10 months in delivering the service justified when Redisa is expected to start issuing invoices at the start of November 2012 and tyre producers will be paying since early in 2013;

(3) whether she has found that the payment and service delivery arrangement is compliant with the Consumer Protection Act, Act 68 of 2008; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

3081. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) Prior to the commencement of the collection of tyres by the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (REDISA) – as stated in their plan – tyre dealers have dealt with waste tyres as per the tyre regulations, which is still applicable.

(b) It is not expected that producers will be accumulating waste tyres.

(2) It is important to note that the REDISA Integrated Waste Tyre Management Plan (IWTMP) does not only concern the collection of tyres, it also covers the entire value chain (transportation, storage, processing and final disposal) and, as such, the levy being paid is not only for collection but for the whole range of services. In addition, it also covers the supporting systems and infrastructure required to facilitate the management of waste tyres. The time period of ten (10) months is to allow for the process of putting the necessary systems and infrastructure in place, including the necessary transport mechanisms required to collect the waste tyres.

(3) The development and implementation of the REDISA IWTMP is based on the principle of ''producer responsibility.'' Producers of waste tyres are being expected to take responsibility for the waste they produce by paying for the management of such waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy. The department is not aware that this principle is in contradiction or falls short of any other applicable legislation in South Africa, including the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 (Act No. 68 of 2008) referred to.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3011

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 26 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 36)

3011. Dr D T George (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether the accounting officers submitted the annual financial statements for the financial year ending 31 March 2012 to her by 31 August 2012; if not, in each case, (a) why not and (b) on what date (i) were the statements submitted to her and (ii) did she submit the annual reports and financial statements to Parliament? NW3778E

---00O00---

REPLY:

Yes, the accounting officer submitted the annual financial statements for the main account by 31 August 2012, however, the annual financial statements for the Water Trading Entity were not submitted by 31 August 2012.

(a) The audits of the annual financial statements for the Water Trading Entity were completed after 31 August 2012.

(b) The annual financial statements of the Water Trading Entity were submitted to the Minister on 6 September 2012.

(b)(i) Yes, the annual financial statements were submitted to me.

(b)(ii) Yes, the annual reports and the annual financial statements were submitted to Parliament on time.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2978

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 26 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 36)

2978. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether efforts by (a) her department and (b) Rand Water has improved the water quality of the Hartbeespoort Dam; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(2) how (a) much money has been spent on the remediation programme (i) in the 2011-12 financial year and (ii) since 1 April 2012 and (b) are these amounts broken down;

(3) how much money is budgeted for the remediation programme in the (a) 2013-14 and (b) 2015-16 financial years;

(4) whether Rand Water, as implementing agent of the remediation programme at the dam, intends reviewing the effectiveness of current interventions; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,

(5) whether she intends conducting such a review; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3743E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Yes, efforts made by the Department together with Rand Water have improved the water quality of the Hartbeespoort Dam since 2008 after the implementation of the Integrated Biological Remediation Programme (also known as the Harties metsi a Me Programme). This is according to the monitoring results which were obtained through the Integrated Monitoring Programme conducted since the past four years.

(2)(a)(i) In the 2011/12 financial year, expenditure on the remediation programme was R18 447 454.28 (vat exclusive).

(2)(a)(ii) Expenditure on the remediation programme from 1 April 2012 to September 2012 was R 8 085 537.80 (vat exclusive).

(2)(b) The breakdown expenditure for the 2011/12 financial year and for the period from
1 April 2012 to September 2012 is provided in table 1 below:

Budget 2011-12 Financial Year	R million (excl. VAT)
Programme Coordination	R 16 233 940.26
Rand Water Implementation	R 13 129 665.27
Transformation Community Development and Support	R 33 391 635.37
Support	R 34 900 040,18
Operations and Maintenance	R 97 213 597,06
Information Communication and Knowledge Centres	R 5 606 695.00
Compliance and Enforcement	R 14 108 855,06
Medium to Long term Catchment	R 1 929 683.84
Total	R 216 514 112.04

(3)(a) Summary breakdown of the budget for the 2013/14 financial year is provided in table 2 below:

Budget 2013-14 Financial Year	R million (excl. VAT)
Operations and Maintenance	R 31 038 625.95
Fast Tracking	R 56 548 098.54
Full scale implementation and extension	R 170 983 932.86
Total	R 258 570 657.35

(3)(b) Summary breakdown of the budget for the 2015/16 financial year is provided in table 3 below:

Budget 2015-16 Financial Year	R million (excl. VAT)
Operations and Maintenance	R 49 441 996.52
Fast Tracking	R 90 397 861.44
Full scale implementation and extension	R 243 489 343.28
Total	R 383 329 201.24

(4) No, Rand Water has not within this financial year (2012/13), made provisions for a formal review of the interventions. However, the effectiveness of current interventions is reviewed on an ongoing basis and the implementation is overseen by the Hartbeespoort Dam Inter-governmental Steering Committee. The online Information Management System has all records of documentation, progress reports and expenditure which can form the basis of a review.

(5) Yes, the Department intends to conduct an independent effective, efficient and economy review on the Programme as part of the requirement for further continuation. This review needs to be conducted within three months of approval to continue with Phase II which began in September 2012. The procurement to appoint the Water Research Commission as Implementing Agent to do the review is in process.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO. 2967

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 36 NW3729E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26October 2012

Mr N D du Toit (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the government of Kenya has made any representation to her Department of Environmental Affairs on any positions that South Africa may take on any issues at the 2013 Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the Department of Environmental Affairs responded to attempts by the Government of Kenya to engage with it; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr N D du Toit (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2967. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes. On 25 September 2012 the CITES Management Authority of Kenya informed the CITES Management Authority of South Africa that it intends to submit the following proposals for consideration at the 13^th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES):

(a) To amend the annotation for Ceratotheriumsimumsimum as follows:

"Ceratotheriumsimumsimum (Only the populations of South Africa and Swaziland; all other populations are included in Appendix I. For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and hunting trophies. Hunting trophies from South Africa and Swaziland shall be subject to a zero export quota until at least CoP18. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly)."

(b) The listing of Osyrislanceolata (East African sandalwood) in Appendix II

(2) Yes. The CITES Management Authority of South Africa responded, indicating that Kenya's proposed amendment to the above annotation is unacceptable and not supported; the proposal violates South Africa's sovereign right; hunting is a sustainable form of utilisation; and that South Africa has implemented a number of legal instruments to regulate the industry. The CITES Management Authority of Kenya was reminded that South Africa is home to the largest viable rhino population, with private rhino owners conserving a quarter of the population.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2966

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 26 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 36)

2966. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the current level of mine water below the (a) surface and (b) environmental critical limit (ECL) for the (i) western, (ii) central and (iii) eastern basins in the Witwatersrand;

(2) when is the mine water expected to breach the (a) ECL and (b) surface in the absence of interventions to reduce the water level;

(3) whether there are any cases in the central basin where mine water has infiltrated the foundations of buildings; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether (a) the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) or (b) officials of the Department of Water Affairs are under any prohibition with regard to making announcements on water levels below any of the specified basins; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(5) what steps have been taken to mitigate the mine water situation below the (a) western, (b) central and (c) eastern basins as at the latest specified date for which information is available? NW3728E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) The current level of mine water below surface in each Basin is as follows:

Basin	Mine water level (metres below surface)
Eastern	518
Central	290
Western ¹	1.4

For the Western Basin, it is imperative to record that the mine water level reached surface in 2002, resulting in the unabated decant of acid mine drainage (AMD) into the natural environment over a period of ten years. As of June 2012, an immediate mitigation intervention (that is, AMD neutralisation and the discharge of neutralised water into the water resource) implemented by the Department of Water Affairs (the Department) has brought the mine water level to below surface, resulting in the concomitant elimination of AMD surface decant. Continuous monitoring confirms progress towards accelerating the drawdown of the water level from surface.

(1)(b) The current level of mine water below the ECL in each Basin is as follows:

Basin	Mine water level below ECL (metres)
Eastern	213
Central	112
Western	Not applicable. The ECL is breached.

-2-

It should be noted that the TCTA has been authorized by the Department to immediately commence with the implementation of the short-term measures in the Central Basin (pumping and neutralization) and in the Western Basin, to implement additional pumping and the further upgrading of an existing mine water neutralisation treatment plant.

(2)(a) With the current underground mine water level rate of rise and in the absence of interventions, underground mine water will reach the ECLs in the Central and Eastern Basins as follows:

· Central Basin by August-September 2013; and

· Eastern Basin by May-June 2014.

In the Western Basin, underground mine water has already breached the ECL, hence the immediate mitigating measures that was put in place to ensure partial treatment and drawing down of the water level. The Department has interventions in place to ensure that the ECLs will not be breached, thereby ensuring water resource protection.

(2)(b) The underground mine water level will not reach the surface in the Central and Eastern Basins since the ECL's will be protected in these Basins. In the Western Basin, the Department has put measures in place in an endeavour to lower the water level to the ECL over a period of time.

(3) No, there are no known cases of underground mine water penetrating the foundations of buildings in the Central Basin. This is based on the fact that the current underground mine water level in the Central Basin is well below the foundation levels of existing infrastructure.

(4) No, since information on mine water levels in the Witwatersrand Basins are within the public domain, officials of the Department and the TCTA are not under any prohibition regarding the communication of information on mine water levels. However, all announcements on mine water levels are done through the Department, after the updated levels are reviewed by the Department's Hydrological Monitoring Committee and subsequently ratified by the Inter-Governmental Task Team on AMD.

(5) For the Western Basin, the immediate mitigation intervention was commissioned in June 2012. Since this intervention came into effect, the surface decant of AMD was eradicated. Continuous monitoring has verified that this intervention demonstrates progress towards drawing the water level to ECL. Further investigations into the feasibility of increasing the capacity of the immediate solution as well as optimising treatment through clarifiers and / or mobile desalination units are underway.

For the Central Basin, the Department approved the construction of an emergency Government waterworks (mine water pumping and neutralisation infrastructure) in the Central Basin, in accordance with Section 110 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998). This strategic intervention, projected to be operational in the latter half of 2013, is targeted at maintaining underground mine water at / or below ECL thereby ensuring that the Johannesburg and surrounding regions, as the economic hub of South Africa, are protected from adverse impacts of mine water.

For the Eastern Basin, an approach similar to that of the Central Basin intervention is envisaged. However, this is subject to the acquisition of sufficient funding in subsequent financial years. The Department has also appointed professional service providers to conduct a feasibility study on the long-term management of the AMD in the Witwatersrand. The study will be concluded in February 2013, whereupon the procurement of a long-term solution may commence. Part of the study is also to test the open market on potential solutions for the long-term management and use of mine water in the Witwatersrand region.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO. 2963

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 36 NW3725E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26October 2012

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

(1) When will the Government sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the government of Vietnam on (a) rhino poaching and (b) other relevant matters;

(2) why was it not signed at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meeting in Hyderabad as was indicated would happen in a media statement from her department on 3 September 2012;

(3) whether her department is experiencing any challenges in getting Vietnam to sign the memorandum; if not, what are the reasons for the delay; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2963. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) and (b):

The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between South Africa and Vietnam is not specifically an MoU on rhino poaching, but is an agreement entitled ''Cooperation in Biodiversity Management and Protection." Among others, the MoU does include provisions for cooperation regarding biodiversity law enforcement and CITES related matters. South Africa has proposed to the relevant Ministry in Vietnam that the MoU be signed in South Africa on 23 November 2012. However, we are still waiting for confirmation from Vietnam whether this date would suit them. If not, the next available alternative date for signing will be secured.

(2) The meeting which took place in Hyderbad was the 11^th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP11); it was not a CITES meeting. The 16^th Conference of the Parties to CITES will take place in Bangkok next year. Therefore, the MoU was not signed in Hyderabad as originally intended as the relevant Minister from Vietnam did not attend the meeting. The responsibility for functions regarding CBD issues and CITES issues in Vietnam lies with two different Ministries, the latter being the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

(3) No, the Department of Environmental Affairs has not experience any challenges from the Vietnam side regarding the preparations for signing the MoU. The main issue has been to secure a date for the two Ministers to sign the MoU.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO. 2922

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34 NW3603E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 October 2012

Mrs B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her department has fully studied the results of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on shale gas fracking in the (a) Karoo area and (b) country in general; if not, why not; if so, what is the (i) relevant impact in the short-term (5-10 years) and (ii) long-term negative environmental impact as projected, after the start of the project;

(2) what recommendations contained in the Karoo EIA compare with best practice in similar operations elsewhere;

(3) whether studies have shown that earth fracturing is a popular or preferred form of gas exploration in (a) developed or (b) developing countries; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the further relevant and comparative details per country?

Mrs B D Ferguson (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2922. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) The Department of Environmental Affairs is not aware of any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for shale gas fracking that has been done in the (a) Karoo area and (b) country in general. No EIA application was lodged with the Department, and it is therefore not in a position to comment on the (i) relevant impact in the short-term (5-10 years) and (ii) long-term. The only interaction with potential applicants was with Shell last year where they only informed the Department of their intention to frack the Karoo and the intended procedure to do so.

(2) Refer to paragraph 1 above.

(3) Refer to paragraph 1 above.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2878

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34 NW3553E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: October 2012

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

(1) Whether the vessel Algoa has been transferred from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to the Department of Environmental Affairs; if not, why not; if so, (a) when was the transfer effected, (b) what was the book value of the vessel at the date of transfer, (c) what work will the Algoa be expected to perform in the future and (d) when is it expected that the vessel will go to sea again;

(2) whether there is currently an operational budget for the Algoa; if not, how will this be rectified; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the inactivity of the vessel before it was transferred to the Department of Environmental Affairs has compromised any work or obligations of the Department of Environmental Affairs to international organisations; 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

2878. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes

(a) 12 September 2012

(b) The vessel was transferred ''voetstoots'' with a book value of R1.00 as at 31 March 2012.

(c) The Algoa is expected to be used for the monthly monitoring of environmental lines, ecosystem studies, marine top predator studies (whales, sharks, seabirds), biodiversity surveys, oceanographic surveys, observational platforms (buoys, moorings, etc.), deployment and climate change related studies.

(d) Upon completion of the dry-docking that is currently underway.

(2) Yes, a limited budget which was secured through re-prioritisation. Also, a request for funds has been submitted to the National Treasury through the Medium-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for 2013 to 2016.

(3) No. The proposed regional cruises are scheduled for 2013/2014.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2876

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 19 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34)

2876. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Department of Water Affairs has been informed of the illegal mining activities, including crushing of ore, in the vicinity of the intersection of Corlett Drive and Main Reef Road in Gauteng; if so, what is the effect of these operations on adjacent water courses; if not,

(2) whether she intends to determine the effects of these operations on adjacent water courses; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the Department of Water Affairs is in discussion with the Department of Mineral Resources about these activities; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the Department of Water Affairs is taking any steps to stop these activities; if not, why not; if so, what steps? NW3550E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Based on existing information and routine inspections, the Department of Water Affairs is not aware of any illegal mining activities, including ore crushing, in the vicinity of the Corlett Drive and Main Reef Road intersection in Roodepoort, Gauteng. However, a pre-cast concrete manufacturing plant which is dependent on processing of mining-derived aggregates (sand and crushed rock) from the Muldersdrift area is currently operating in the vicinity.

(2) No, the pre-cast concrete manufacturing plant is located a substantial distance from the buffer zone of the nearest watercourse and as such, the activity does not present any risk to the water resource.

(3) The Department is not in engagement with the Department of Mineral Resources due to the fact that the operation of the pre-cast concrete manufacturing plant does not entail any mining activity.

(4) No, it is not necessary for the Department to enforce any measure as operation of the pre-cast concrete manufacturing plant does not present any risk to the water resource.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2872

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 19 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34)

2872. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has been informed that mining sludge from the Welverdiend canal has spilled onto, among other places, municipal land adjacent to 1^st Avenue in Welverdiend and that the canal is blocked; if so, what was the response of her department to the situation; if not,

(2) whether she intends to investigate the situation; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the Department of Water has taken any action in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, against any entity responsible for the spill; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the Department of Water is taking any steps to ensure that such a spill does not happen again; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3546E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Department of Water Affairs (the Department) was informed of a spillage of sludge at the mine in Carletonville. The sludge flowed into a canal causing a partial blockage and also flowed onto municipal land in the Welverdiend area. Since the spillage posed a potential pollution risk to the water resource, the Department collected samples for analysis and engaged the mine on remedying the situation.

(2) Yes, at the time of the spillage, the mine duly notified the Department and immediately commenced with measures to contain the spillage and initiate clean-up operations. The Department conducted inspections during July and August 2012 to establish the magnitude of the problem and thereafter continued to monitor the remedial interventions implemented by the mine. An inspection undertaken on 2 October 2012 confirmed that there was substantial progress in remediating the spillage.

(3) Notwithstanding remedial interventions implemented by the mine at the time, on
28 August 2012, the Department issued the mine with a notice in terms of Section 20 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), to clear the spillage and remediate the affected site.

(4) The notice referred to in response (3) above additionally required the mine to implement measures to prevent a recurrence of the spillage. The mine subsequently constructed spillage containment facilities and is currently in the process of increasing pump infrastructure that will avert spillages in the event of mechanical failure.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO. 2860 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34 NW3533E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 October 2012

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

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2860. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) 2009-10:

TABLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2009/10	Abalone	10 274
2009/10	Lobster (WCRL)	2 710
KNYSNA
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2009/10	Bloodworm	397
	Tapeworm	64
	Mud Prawns	14 893
	Polycheate worms	1 158
	Moonshine	30
	Alikreukels	687
	Mud Crabs	10

CAMDEBOO NATION PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2009/10	Kudu	8
	Steenbok	2
	Cape Mountain Zebra	2
	Red rock hare	1
	Ostrich	2

KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2009/10	Giraffe	1
	Buffalo	13
	Zebra	2
	Waterbuck	2
	Kudu	2
	Nyala	1
	Impala	37
	Bushbuck	1
	Lion	3
	Hyaena	3
	Crocodile	2
	Rhino	53
	Helmeted Guinea-fowl	23

(b) 2010-11:

TABLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2010/11	Abelone	8 018
	Lobster (WCRL)	1 205
KNYSNA
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2010/11	Bloodworm	335
	Tapeworm	40
	Mud Prawns	5 340
	Polycheate worms	1 929
	Alikreukels	63
	Mud Crabs	8
	Venus ear	11
	Limpets	10
	Bushbuck	1


CAMDEBOO NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2010/11	Red Hartebeest	4
	Mountain Reedbuck	1
	Kudu	5
	Eland	2
	Mountain Tortoise	1


RICHTERSVELD NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2010/11	Barbell	14
	Yellow fish	891
	Carp	2
	Tilapia	73

AGULHAS NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2010/11	Abalone	1 500

KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES	NUMBER
2010/11	Hippo	3
	Buffalo	2
	Zebra	1
	Kudu	1
	Impala	15
	Duiker	2
	Lion	2
	Hyena	2
	Rhino	148
	Helmeted Guinea-fowl	1

TABLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR		SPECIES	NUMBER
2011/12		Abelone	6 070
		Lobster (WCRL)	4 870
KNYSNA
FINANCIAL YEAR		SPECIES	NUMBER
2011/12		Bloodworm	328
		Tapeworm	710
		Mud Prawns	8 918
		Polycheate worms	1 971
		Mud Crabs	3
		Venus ear	42

CAMDEBOO NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR		SPECIES	NUMBER
2011/12		Kudu	5
		Cape Mountain Zebra	1
		Springbok	1
		Ostrich	1

RICHTERSVELD NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR		SPECIES	NUMBER
2011/12		Barbell	5
		Yellow fish	4
		Mud fish	1
		Mullet	1
		Carp	1

AGULHAS NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES		NUMBER
2011/12	Abalone		1 325
	Brunialeavis		300 stems

KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
FINANCIAL YEAR	SPECIES		NUMBER
2011/12	Hippo		1
	Buffalo		8
	Waterbuck		1
	Kudu		2
	Impala		38
	Bushbuck		1
	Lion		1
	Leopard		1
	Tawny Eagle		3
	Bateleur		7
	Rhino		274
	Helmeted Guinea-fowl		3

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2846 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34NW3519E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 October 2012

Mrs C N Z Zikalala (IFP) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether she has been informed of high altitude areal spraying, more commonly known as chemtrail spraying, in South African air space; if not how many (a) reports, (b) complaints and (c) requests for information has her department received from citizens and interest groups regarding the practice and evidence of areal or chemtrail spraying; if so, (i) what is the purpose of the spraying, (ii) what is the chemical composition of the material used, (iii) when did the programme begin, (iv) what quantities of chemicals were sprayed as at the latest specified date for which information is available, (v) where did the spraying take place and (vi) what are the details of the (aa) number, (bb) type and (cc) ownership of the airplanes that carried out the spraying?

Mrs C N Z Zikalala (IFP) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2846. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

No, the Department of Environmental Affairs has not been informed of any high altitude/chemtrail aerial spraying in the South African air space.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2836

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 19 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 34)

2836. Mr D A Kganare (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(2) (a) whether any of the affected workers were reinstated as a result of the rulings; (b) if not, why not; (c) if so, how many;

(3) (a) how much was spent on legal costs as a result of these cases, (b) which firms of lawyers were involved in each case and (c) how were these firms appointed? NW3383E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) For financial year 2009-10, no arbitration awards were issued against Bloem Water.

(1)(b) For financial year 2010-11, no arbitration awards were issued against Bloem Water.

(1)(c) For financial year 2011-12, five (5) arbitration awards were issued against Bloem Water.

(2)(a) As a result of the rulings, two (2) workers were reinstated and three (3) workers were not reinstated.

(2)(b) Three (3) of the cases where the workers were not reinstated, were referred to the Labour Court for review of the Arbitration Award.

(2)(c) Two (2) workers were reinstated.

(3)(a) Invoices have not been received. It should be noted that Bloem Water like any employer have a budget to utilize for labour disputes as well. So even after receiving and paying those invoices, funds would have been spent as required by the law.

(3)(b) Two (2) of the cases were done by Bloem Water's Labour Relations Officer and three (3) were handled by an Incorporated.

(3)(c) The Incorporated was appointed from Bloem Water's supplier data base.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2815

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 12 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32)

2815. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether there has been any water pollution emanating from the Blyvooruitzicht mine of a certain company (name furnished) since 1 April 2012; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the Department of Water Affairs has issued any (a) notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether steps have been taken to clean up the pollution; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the pollution has posed any risk to the quality of drinking water in affected municipalities; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3470E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Yes, the Department of Water Affairs (the Department) was informed by the mine telephonically on Friday 27 July 2012 of an accidental spillage of mining slime (tailings) at the Blyvooruitzicht mine resulting in some of the material flowing into a canal leading to the Wonderfontein Spruit (Welverdiend / Carletonville area). Subsequently, on Monday 30 July 2012, officials of the Department conducted a site inspection at Wonderfontein Spruit. An analysis of the water samples confirmed that the spillage caused transient pollution of the said watercourse.

(2) Yes, in terms of Section 20 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), the Department issued a notice to the mine with the instruction that the spillage must be cleared and the affected site remediated.

(3) Yes, at the time of the spillage, the mine notified the Department and immediately commenced with measures to contain the pollution as well as commence with clean-up operations. The most recent inspection on 2 October 2012 showed substantial progress in remediating the affected site and further water quality monitoring has shown an improvement in water quality.

(4) No, the Tlokwe Municipality (the Municipality) processes its drinking water through a conventional water purification system. In terms of the South African National Standards 241, assessment of the quality of the drinking water supplied by the Municipality confirms that the water is safe for human consumption.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2788

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 12 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32)

2788. Mr J J van der Linde (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to the proposed pipeline that Rand Water intends building through various properties along Modderfontein Road, an environmental impact assessment has been conducted; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether an environmental authorisation has been granted or is being sought; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any alternative routes for the pipeline have been investigated; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether she intends conducting any public participation process on the proposed pipeline; if not, how can this be justified; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) when is it expected that the project will (a) commence and (b) be completed? NW3437E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed on the H39 pipeline.

(2) An Environmental Authorisation has been granted by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD).

(3) Alternative routes for the pipeline were considered, however, Rand Water will utilise current servitudes and where these are not sufficiently wide enough for the pipeline, additional land will be acquired.

(4) Public participation was undertaken in line with legal requirements. Site notices were put up and all adjacent landowners were given notices from 19 January 2012. An advert was also placed in the Star newspaper on the 2 February 2012. The Public Participation Process (PPP) lasted for 40 days. Twenty four (24) Interested and Affected Parties (IAP) registered their queries. Comments were addressed from February until March to accommodate late submissions. The final document was sent out again for review by IAP's for fourteen (14) days prior to final submission. The Basic Assessment report, on consultation was submitted to GDARD and authorisation was received on the 27 August 2012.

(5) It is anticipated that this project will commence latest in August 2013, with completion planned for 2016.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2787

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 12 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32)

2787. Mr J J van der Linde (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to the proposed pipeline that Rand Water intends building through various properties along Modderfontein Road, what mechanisms are being used to determine the valuation of the payments for proposed servitudes;

(2) whether mechanisms are in place for affected property owners to dispute the offered payments for servitudes; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) what recourse does Rand Water have if the affected property owners reject the amount offered for servitudes, even after a mediation process;

(4) what does Rand Water intend to do if affected property owners deny Rand Water access to their property to lay the pipeline? NW3436E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) An independent property evaluator will be appointed by Rand Water to undertake sworn valuations of all proposed servitudes negotiated. The purpose is to establish market-related valuations in order to negotiate with the landowners.

(2) Affected landowners are afforded an opportunity to appoint their own evaluator if they dispute the offered payments for servitudes.

(3) Should the negotiation process be unsuccessful, Rand Water will request to expropriate i.e. after Rand Water has done everything to secure the servitudes and pay market-related compensation. If the request to expropriate is approved, all documents are forwarded to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs for final approval. Upon approval by the Minister, construction can resume, in parallel, whilst the matter is finalised through a legal process. Expropriation does not mean Rand Water will not pay compensation.

(4) Rand Water will follow legal process to effect the expropriation, and/or follow the ruling of court of law where Rand Water is challenged by property owners regarding expropriations, i.e the Board of Rand Water recommends to the Minister in terms of Section 81 of the Water Services Act.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2786

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 12 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32)

2786. Mr J J van der Linde (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the expected cost of the proposed pipeline that Rand Water intends building through various properties along Modderfontein Road;

(2) what is the (a)(i) name and (ii) designation of the project leader of the project and (b)(i) name, (ii) designation and (iii) contact details of the person designated to deal with the public queries on this project;

(3) whether measures will be taken to secure properties from possible criminal incursions while contractors are working on the proposed affected properties; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) for any walls bordering properties that will be removed during construction, how long after construction is completed is it envisaged that the walls will be replaced;

(5) whether it is intended to replace the vegetation, including trees, that will be removed during construction, after construction is completed; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3435E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The cost of the proposed pipeline that Rand Water intends building through various properties along the Modderfontein Road is estimated at R300 million.

(2)(a) (Details furnished) of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the project leader.

(2)(b) (Details furnished) of the Corporate Communications Manager and the designated person to deal with the public queries on this project. The contact details of the person to deal with all public queries are:

Contact Number: (011) 682 0910 or

Email address: [email protected]

(3) The appointed contractor ensures that costs are reserved for employing security persons during construction to secure the properties. This complies with the Safety, Health and Environmental specification.

(4) All walls bordering properties removed during construction will be replaced immediately after construction is completed.

(5) In terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the following are done:

· Rand Water appoints an independent consultant to undertake a Basic Assessment (BA)/Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

· Receive Record of Decision (ROD)/ Environmental Authorisation (EA)

· Rand Water prepares an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for construction

The EMP ensures compliance with the conditions as stipulated in the EA. In the case of the pipeline route interfering with vegetation, this will be rehabilitated after construction. The detail of affected trees should be negotiated with the Corporate Communications Manager and designated person to deal with the public queries on this project (details furnished) as it is logical that replanting will depend on the specific position and size of such affected trees.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2784 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32NW3433E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12October 2012

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

(1) Whether, with reference to the media statement by SANParks on 28 August 2012 about the death of 30 roan antelope while in an enclosure in the northern part of the Kruger National Park, the exact cause of death has been established; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether an investigation has been conducted to determine whether human errorcontributed to the death of the antelope; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the relevantdetails and (b) how will such deaths of roan antelope be avoided in future;

(3) what is the estimated population of roan antelope in the Kruger National Park after thedeath of the 30 antelope?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2784.THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) The cause of death of a total of 45 roan antelope in the Capricorn Breeding Enclosure was confirmed as anthrax. Anthrax, which is endemic to Kruger National Park (KNP), is a highly infectious disease caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. There is currently an outbreak of anthrax in the northern parts of the KNP. Once infected, most species develop a rapidly fatal septicemia that results in death within a few hours to three days. The disease is generally lethal, and some animals (especially roan antelope) seem to be more susceptible than others. The disease is spread mainly by vultures which are immune to the disease. The bacterium passes uninfected through their intestinal tract and is spread when they defecate in or near water sources where they drink or bath. The disease is also spread by blowflies. Anthrax outbreaks are a natural occurrence in the northern KNP, apparently associated with the end of dry cycles. It usually occurs during the dry months of the year. Since 1960, eight major anthrax outbreaks have occurred in the KNP (1960, 1970, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1999, 2010 and 2012). The current incident in the Capricorn Breeding Enclosure was apparently caused by vultures that infected the water troughs.

(2) Yes, an investigation has been conducted which rules out human error.

(a) As indicated, the northern part of the Kruger National Park is prone to cyclic outbreaks of anthrax as a result of droughts.

(b) The existence of the Capricon Roan Breeding Camp, which is a 2002 creation in the Kruger National Park, is being reviewed to establish its effectiveness in achieving the objectives for which it was created, viz, to breed more roan antelopes and reintegrate them successfully in their natural habitat. A way forward will be communicated soon. In future, the monitoring of the camp and its drinking water will be stepped up with regular cleaning and disinfection of the water when anthrax is known to be in the area.

(3) There are currently 13 roan antelope remaining in the Capricorn Breeding Enclosure, 35 in the Nwaswishumbe Breeding Enclosure, and an estimated 40-50 free roaming animals.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2783

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32 NW3432E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 October 2012

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

(1) Whether any live rhinos have been exported to Namibia since 1 January 2010; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, with regard to each export, (a) how many and (b) from what province;

(2) whether DNA samples were taken from the live rhinos before each exporting event; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2783. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes. As it can be seen in the information given in the annual reports for 2010 and 2011 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), permits were issued for the export of (a) 11 White rhinoceros (five (5) in 2010 and six (6) in 2011) to Namibia for re-introduction purposes during the period 2010 to 2011; (b) by the North West Province.

(2) The requirement to take DNA samples of live rhinoceros only came into effect on 10 April 2012 when the norms and standards for the marking of rhinoceros and rhinoceros horn, and for the hunting of rhinoceros for trophy hunting purposes, were published in the Government Gazette.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2782 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32NW3431E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12October 2012

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

(1) (a) On what date must participants in the waste tyre management plan of the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) start levying the waste tyre fee to consumers and (b) when will representatives of Redisa start collecting waste tyres from tyre dealers;

(2) whether the proposed fee of R2,30/kg is inclusive of value added tax; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) what are the locations of al sites that have been secured by Redisa, as at the latest specified date for which information is available, for the purposes of (a) administration and (b)(i) storage, (ii) treatment and (iii) disposal of waste tyres;

(4) what (a) waste permits has her department granted to Redisa as at the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) permits are still outstanding?

Ms S Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2782. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) The REDISA Plan requires all tyre producers to pay the contributions as stated in the plan. However, it does not require the producers to recover such payments from the consumers. It is discretionary should tyre producers do so. Practically, tyre producers will only start to declare their production/imports at the end of October for the month of October 2012. REDISA would be expected to issue invoices in early November 2012. Tyre producers would be expected to pay within three (3) months, which means thatthe first payment is only due at the end of January 2013.

(b) According to the REDISA Plan, waste tyres will be collected not later than 10 months from the date of publication of the plan for tyres falling under categories 1, 2, 3 and 5. For categories 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 collection will happen not later than 18 months from the date of publication of the plan.

(2) The contribution of R2.30/kg excludes VAT, as it was only based on the estimated costs of implementing the plan. The plan is explicit on this matter.

(3) (a) Currently, REDISA has identified a building in Cape Town for their administration.

(b)(i) REDISA has not yet secured any places for storage.

(b)(ii) REDISA has 174 processors registered with them, of which only 10 have been confirmed as existing. They are located as follows:

· Carte Blanche Marketing, Germiston

· Rubber Recyclers, Alberton

· Dawh Rubber Recycling, Alberton

· Gloss Recycling & Chemicals, Johannesburg

· Langkloof Bricks, Port Elizabeth

· Energia, Olifantsfontein

· Osho, Richards Bay

· Enviroserv, Cape Town

· SATR, Atlantis

· Goswell Recycling, Cato Ridge

(4) (a)No permits have been issued by the Department to REDISA,no activities require waste licence.

(b) There are no permits outstanding.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2781 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2781 NW3430E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: October 2012

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

Whether, with reference to her reply to question 1447 on 12 June 2012, she is now in a position to provide the information; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2781. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Unfortunately, the requested information cannot be provided as no statistics could be obtained from the South African Police Service (SAPS). In their response, the SAPS stated that statistics were only released once a year.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2780

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.32NW3429E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12October 2012

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

Whether, with reference to her reply to question 614 on 11 April 2012, the rhino census in the Kruger National Park scheduled for the dry season of 2012 has commenced; if not, why not; if so, (a) when did it commence, (b) who is the team leader of this project, (c) what budget is attached to it, (d) when is it expected to be concluded and (e) what are the further relevant details?

Ms S Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2780. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Yes,

(a)10 August 2012

(b) Dr Sam Ferreira, Large Mammal Ecologist, SANParks

(c)Budget summary below in ZAR:

Survey Component	USFWS	SANParks Operational	SANParks PDF
Black Rhino Southern Kruger Survey	193500	111750	0
Black Rhino Northern Kruger Survey	72000	111750	27000
White Rhino Survey Bias Assessments	0	28500	15750
White Rhino Kruger Wide Survey	0	111750	252000*

USFWS – United States of America Fish and Wildlife Services

SANParks' operational budget comes from the baseline annual budget. SANParks PDF comes from the Park Development Fund

* Note that not all funding has been secured. By conducting black and white rhino surveys simultaneously,SANParks attempts to optimise available budgets

(d) End of November 2012, but analytical results will only be available in 2013

(e)Surveys are conducted following standard protocols as defined by two scientificpapers (abstracts provided) that reviewed the trends in both black and white rhino in Kruger.

i) Ferreira SM, Greaver CC & Knight MH. 2011. Detecting population performance in the black rhino population of Kruger National Park, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 41: 192-204.

ii) Ferreira SM, Botha JM, Emmett M. 2012. Anthropogenic influences on conservation values of white rhinos.Public Library of Science ONE 7(9): e45989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045989.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2778 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.32NW3427E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: October 2012

Mr K S Mubu (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

What is the total legal cost incurred by her department for implementing the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) in the 2011-12 financial year?

Mr K S Mubu (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2778. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

The Department of Environmental Affairs incurred legal costs for the court case that was brought against the Department by the South African Tyre Recycling Process (SATRP) Company in January 2012. The casewas settled out of court. The exact amount is not known at this stage as the State Attorney's office is yet to communicate these details to the Department.

The Department was further taken to court by the SATRP in August 2012. The matter was dismissed with costs; hence, the Department has not incurred any costs in this regard.

The Retail Motor Industry (RMI) also launched a court motion against the Department in September 2012. This case is continuing. The Department has not received an invoice yet.

In addition, the Department does not fund the implementation of the REDISA; it will also not fund the implementation of any other plan that may be approved in future.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2758

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 12 OCTOBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32)

2758. Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether any action was taken against officials in her department who violated the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000, in the 2011-12 financial year; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3404E

---00O00---

REPLY:

No action has been taken against any official violating the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000, in the 2011-12 financial year. During 2011-2012 financial year, no official of the Department of Water Affairs was found to be wilfully contravening the Act.

· Section 90 (1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000) provides that an official of the Department commits an offence if such an official intentionally denies a right of access to information held by the Department by destroying, damaging or altering a record; conceals a record; or falsifies a record or make a false record.

· Section 90 (2) of the same Act provides that an Information Officer who wilfully or in a grossly negligent manner fails to comply with the provisions of section 14 commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2752 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 32 NW3398E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: October 2012

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

Whether there is any inoculation programme in place at the Kruger National Park to protect roan antelope against anthrax; if not, why not; if so, why was it not administered to prevent the death of 30 roan antelopes at the Capricorn rare antelope enclosure in August 2012?

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

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2752. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

No. Inoculation of free-ranging roan antelope against anthrax is no longer applied as a general practice in the Kruger National Park. The reason is that it requires darting of individual animals from the air by helicopter, subjecting them to excessive exhaustion and causing herds to split up. Disease control is however, managed through border and fence control jointly with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The roan antelope in the Capricorn camp were not inoculated.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2740 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.32NW3381E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 October 2012

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether her department has reviewed its organogram as required in the (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2010-11 financial years to enable her department to do (i) job evaluations and (ii) abolish redundant posts; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2740. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) Yes. The structure was reviewed to support the mandate of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

(i) All newly created or newly defined positions were job evaluated in accordance with the regulatory framework.

(ii) Non-required positions were abolished.

(b) Yes. As a result of the split of the Branch: Marine and Coastal Management between the DEA and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the DEA's structure was reviewed.

(i) All newly created or newly defined positions were job evaluated in accordance with the regulatory framework.

(ii) Non-required positions were abolished.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2696

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. ** NW3314E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 September 2012

The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether her department has awarded any contracts to a certain company (name furnished) since its establishment in 1996; if so, in each case, (a) when was the contract awarded and (b) what was the (i) nature of the contract and (ii) the total accumulative value of the tender?

The Leader of the Opposition (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2696. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

No, the Department of Environmental Affairs has not awarded any contract/s to the company under question since its establishment in 1996, (a) not applicable, (b) (i) not applicable (ii) not applicable

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2693 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. ** NW3311E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 September 2012

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

(1) Whether the Department of Environmental Affairs has reviewed the research by Prof Hideshige Takada of the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology into the quality of water off Durban's beaches; if not, will her department take note of the findings; if so, what is the response of her department;

(2) whether her department has any concerns about the quality of water off Durban's beaches; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether her department is providing any assistance to eThekwini Municipality to help improve the quality of water off Durban's beaches; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2693. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) No, the Department of Environmental Affairs has not reviewed the research conducted by Prof Hideshige Takada of the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology regarding the quality of water off Durban's beaches. The Department has, however, consulted the Council for Scientific Research (CSIR) and the eTthekwini Municipality on the matterand requested a copy of the research report.

(2) Yes. The Department is concerned about the water quality of Durban's recreational beaches. The problem is related to the management of municipal wastewater and its associated infrastructure. The Department liaised with the eThekwini Municipality who undertook to intensify its preventative maintenance of existing infrastructure and to install new systems where necessary.

(3) Yes, the Department is providing assistance to the eThekwini Municipality to help improve the quality of water off Durban's beaches. The Department has developed new water quality guidelines for recreational coastal waters. The guidelines contain updated water quality targets for several pollution indicators, as well as practical information to assist municipal officials in their daily monitoring and assessment of coastal water quality.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2688

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 31)

2688. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 2366 on 14 September 2012, she has been informed that in practice the mine management is not negotiating with affected landowners about water compensation, but rather determining the compensation unilaterally; if not, what steps does she intend to take to ascertain the facts in this regard; if so, what is her response;

(2) whether she has been informed that the mine is not paying the full cost of water delivered to affected land owners and expects the land owners to pay part of the cost; if not, what steps she intends taking to ascertain the facts in this regard; if so, what is her response;

(3) whether, with reference to the option of affected landowners to sell their farms to the mine, she has been informed that the price per hectare that is being offered to the affected land owners is considerably lower than the recent price per hectare of other transactions in the vicinity; if not, what steps she intends taking to ascertain the facts in this regard; if so, what is her response;

(4) whether the Department of Water Affairs intends to interact with affected landowners about their concerns about the mine's compliance with the terms of its water use licence; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3306E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Department is not aware that the mine management is not negotiating with affected landowners about water compensation nor that compensation of affected landowners is determined unilaterally. As far as the Department is aware, the
12 affected landowners have entered into mutually accepted agreements with the mine in respect of water compensation including the provision of alternative water supply and grazing. An investigation will be conducted by the Department into the allegations.

(2) The Department is not aware that the mine is not paying the full cost of water delivered to affected land owners and expects the land owners to pay part of the cost. The Department is conducting an investigation on the allegations and will be concluded around 30 November 2012.

(3) The Department has been informed that the properties of six affected landowners have been purchased by the mine. However, the price per hectare of those properties is not known to the Department since the mine and the individual affected landowners have included confidentiality clauses in their purchase agreements.

(4) The Department has interacted with affected landowners about the mine's compliance with the terms of its water use licence through the relevant environmental forums as well as the Tshiping Water Users Association. Given the recent spate of allegations made by affected landowners, the Department will arrange an engagement session with affected landowners to discuss the mine's compliance with the terms of its water use licence.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2687

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 31)

2687. Mr M R Sayedali Shah (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has been informed of the regular occurrence of pollution into the Margate and Port Edward estuaries from sewerage infrastructure managed by Ugu District Municipality; if not, what steps does she intend to take to investigate the matter; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the municipality has reported the events to the Department of Water Affairs as and when they occur; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the Department of Water Affairs is assisting the municipality to eradicate the pollution events; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any officials of the Department of Water Affairs have conducted inspections since 1 January 2012 of failing sewerage infrastructure managed by Ugu District Municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether, since 1 January 2012, any (a) notices, (b) directives or (c) criminal charges in terms of section 19(3) of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, have been directed against the municipality for pollution events; if not, why not; if so, in each case, what was the response of the municipality? NW3305E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Regarding pollution in the Margate area:

· The Department of Water Affairs (the Department) was first notified of an incident of sewage overflow from the Margate Pump Station 4A on 28 June 2012 by the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs. In response, the Department issued a non-compliance letter to the Ugu District Municipality
(the Municipality) on 2 July 2012 requesting a plan of action (to address the pollution) to be submitted on or before 20 July 2012.

· On 3 September 2012, the Department received a complaint from the Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife regarding sewage overflow from the same pump station. Taking into cognisance the fact that the Municipality had not yet responded to the Department's notice and that a second complaint had since been lodged regarding the same pump station, the Department conducted an inspection of the pump station on 5 September 2012 and confirmed the sewage overflow.
On 7 September 2012, the Department held an urgent meeting with the Municipality's management and environmental authorities to discuss the cause of incident, actions taken and the way forward. It should also be noted that during the meeting, the Municipality also provided the Department a response letter to the notice issued on 2 July 2012 and the actions in the letter are reflected in response (5)(a) below.

· The Department gave the Municipality a verbal directive to take steps to stop the source of pollution, ensure that the Margate Beach is closed to the public, and remediate the effects of the pollution. Such verbal directive was followed with a written directive on 2 October 2012 instructing the Municipality to conduct an assessment of all sewage infrastructure within their area of jurisdiction, report the outcome of the assessment and further develop a plan of action to refurbish or construct new infrastructure where necessary in order to prevent the recurring incidents.

With regard to the Port Edward pollution incident, the Department received a complaint from a community member on 1 August 2012. A subsequent inspection revealed that there were no incidents occurring, however, signs of recent spillages were evident.

(2) Although the Municipality did not report the pollution incidents to the Department and environmental stakeholders, a community member alerted the Department as outlined in response (1) above.

(3) As part of its support function to municipalities, the Department's KwaZulu-Natal Regional Office serves on the Sector Appraisal Committee, which is responsible for appraisal of business plans and technical reports from municipalities. In the case of the Ugu District Municipality, a business plan for the replacement of the sewer pipeline, upgrade of the rising main, effluent main and pump station at Margate was assessed by the Sector Appraisal Committee (on 6 August 2012) and an amount of R24 562 091 has been recommended for funding of the business plan from the Municipal Infrastructure.

(4) Two inspections have been conducted by the Department on 14 August 2012 and
3 September 2012. The outcomes of the inspections as well as actions taken by the Department have been outlined in response (1) above.

(5)(a) As indicated in response (1) above, a non-compliance letter (notice) regarding the failing pump at the Margate Pump Station 4A was issued to the Municipality on 2 July 2012 requesting a plan of action to address the pollution. The Municipality provided the response letter during a meeting (to discuss the pollution incidents) held between the Department and the Municipality. The letter stated that a project to replace the sewer pipeline at Margate, upgrade the rising main, effluent main and pump station was approved by the Department on 31 August 2012 to be registered on the Municipal Infrastructure Grant. The Municipality further informed the Department that this project could take up to 18 months from the date of budget approval and the estimated completion date is April 2014.

(5)(b) As indicated in response (1) above, a verbal directive was issued to the Municipality on 7 September 2012 to take steps to stop the source of pollution, ensure that the Margate Beach is closed to the public and remediate the effects of the pollution. Such verbal directive was followed up by a written directive on
2 October 2012, instructing the Municipality to conduct an assessment of all the sewage within their area of jurisdiction, to report the outcome of the assessment and to draw up a plan of action to refurbish or construct new infrastructure where necessary in order to prevent the recurring incidents.

(5)(c) No criminal charges have been laid against the Municipality at this stage. The Department has undertaken to monitor the progress of the proposed medium and long term solutions. The outcome will determine whether charges will be instituted against the Municipality.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2686

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 31)

2686. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 2368 on 14 September 2012, the date of the 2012 audit is in compliance with the audit frequency as stipulated in the water use licence that was issued to the mine; if not, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(2) whether, with reference to the findings of the 2011 audit, the effects of dewatering by the mine on water users have been taken into account; if not, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether she has been informed that the mine management has refused to make the audits available for scrutiny to affected water users; if so, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if not,

(4) whether she intends to investigate the situation; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3304E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The date of the 2012 audit is in compliance with the audit frequency as stipulated in the water use licence. The water use licence stipulates that the licensee must conduct an audit in compliance with the conditions of its water use licence on an annual basis.

(2) The impact of dewatering by the mine on water users has been taken into account, with reference to the findings of the 2011 audit. The Department has ascertained that, in accordance with the conditions of the mine's water use licence, water users that are affected by the mine's dewatering activities are compensated for the loss of water through various means such as the provision of alternative water supply or grazing subsidies. In addition, it has also been determined that several of the affected water users have exercised the option to sell their properties to the mine.

(3) The Department is not aware that the mine management has refused to make the audits available for scrutiny to the affected water users and is investigating this allegations. The Member should however request the Audit Report directly from the mine.

(4) The Department will investigate the situation and will arrange an engagement session with affected water users to obtain greater insight into the matters as also raised in question 2688 and, if need be; will direct the mine to address the matters in line with the conditions as stipulated in the water use licence.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2684

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 31)

2684. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, since her reply to question 2115 on 29 August 2012, the Department of Water Affairs has made any progress in rectifying the noncompliance at the mine; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether, since the specified reply, any part of the (a) pan and (b) wetlands on the mine site has been mined; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether, since the specified reply, officials from her department have conducted any inspections of the mining site; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the Water Tribunal has met to hear the appeal lodged by the mine against the directive issued by her department; if not, why not; if so what are the relevant details? NW3302E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) As indicated in question 2115 on 29 August 2012, the Department conducted an investigation on 20 June 2012 and noted that the machinery used for mining through the wetland/pan was removed and mining was only taking place towards the North to the tarred road within the boundary of the mining area. The Department held a meeting with the mine management on 30 August 2012 and the mine confirmed that, the mining activities within the pan have ceased. As part of the Department's audit processes, the site visit has been scheduled for a date that can't be disclosed, but will be soon, in order to verify if indeed the mining activities within the pan has ceased.

(2) Falls away.

(3) Falls away.

(4) As per my elaborate response given on the functionality of the Water Tribunal, the Water Tribunal has not met because the operations of the Water Tribunal have been put in abeyance in light of the fact that, the term of office of the members of the Water Tribunal came to an end in August 2012. As a result, I approved the implementation of section 150 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) for mediation and negotiations to resolve the disputes on appeal in the Water Tribunal as an interim measure.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2678

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. ** NW3296E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 September 2012

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

Whether (a) the SA Weather Service (SAWS) and (b) any entity contracting with them under their commercialisation programme have prevented any applications that offer weather services on smart phones other than the official SAWS application from operating on smart phones; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, (a) how is this justified and (b) what are the further relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2678. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) The South African Weather Service (SAWS) has not prevented any application, which offers weather services on smart phones other than the official SAWS application, from operating on smart phones.

(b) The SAWS is not aware of any entity contracting with them under its commercialisation programme that has prevented any application that offers weather services on smart phones.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2625 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.31NW3237E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 September 2012

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether her department has implemented the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000, if not, why not; if so, what are the (a) relevant details with regard to (i) public inquiries, (ii) notice and comment procedure, (iii) notice of administrative action and rights and (iv) requests for reasons and (b) further relevant details?

Ms B D Ferguson (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2625. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act 3 of 2000) (PAJA) has been implemented in the Department of Environmental Affairs.

(a)(i) Acommunication workflow has been created to specifically assist the front desk and switch board staff to ensure that the public are directed to the correct branch for a response to the query.

(ii)The Department makes administrative decisions in terms of empowering legislation or policies. Prior notice is given; and opportunities are provided to make representations as per the legislative requirements.

(iii)Persons are notified as per the legislative requirements of a decision and reasons are provided for the decision. Furthermore, persons are notified of their right to appeal the decision.

(iv)Reasons for decisions are provided within 90 days of the request.

(b) The Department engages in an on-going process of awareness and capacity building with staff on the PAJA.

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO. 2593

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 30NW3202E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 September 2012

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

(1) Whether the environmental authorisation that was granted in 2007 to the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) (details furnished) for the (a) installation and operation of a test smelter and (b) subsequent installation and operation of two induction smelters is still valid; if not, why not; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(2) whether she has found any non-compliance with the terms of the environmental authorisation since construction of each specified smelter commenced; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2593. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1) The Department of Environmental Affairs confirms that the Record of Decision (RoD) dated
30 August 2012 for the proposed installation and operation of two (2) induction smelters in Area 26 at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), Pelindaba is still valid. Condition 3.4 of the RoD indicates that the decision is valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of signature of the decision; provided that the activity commence within the five (5) years. The Department received confirmation from NECSA that construction activities have indeed commenced prior to 30 August 2012.

2) No, NECSA has been in compliance with the RoD since installation commenced on 12 July 2012.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2592 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.30NW3201E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 September 2012

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

(1) Whether, since 1 October 2011, the Environmental Management Inspectorate of her department conducted any (a) compliance and (b) enforcement operations; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the inspectorate has issued any (a) pre-notices, (b) notices, (c) directives or (d) criminal charges to (i) individuals or (ii) entities for transgressions of the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the inspectorate is experiencing any challenges in enforcing national environmental legislation; 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

2592. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a)

The Environmental Management Inspectors in the national Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) have carried out 87 planned environmental compliance inspections to ascertain compliance with records of decisions/environmental authorisations, waste management licences, atmospheric pollution prevention registration certificates and/or air emission licenses, and other similar types of authorisations since 1 October 2011. This number includes compliance inspections conducted jointly with Inspectors from provincial departments as part of the joint strategic compliance and enforcement project, Operation Skhumba, which was undertaken in August 2012 and targeted the tannery and taxidermy industry.

(b)

Yes, the details of the enforcement actions are set out in (2) below.

(2) (a), (b), (c),and (d)(i) and (ii):

From 1 October 2011 to date, the national branch of the Environmental Management Inspectorate has issued/finalised the following:

(a) Pre-notices/Directives

· Pre-compliance notices in respect of different contraventions/combination of contraventions of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEM: WA) and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEM: AQA) – 25 issued;

· Pre-directives in respect of serious harm to the environment – 2 issued;

· Combined pre-compliance notice/pre-directives in respect of contraventions of the NEMA, NEM:WA and NEM:AQA and serious harm to the environment – 4 issued

(b) Notices

· Compliance notices in respect of different contraventions of the NEMA, NEM:WA and NEM: AQA – 10 issued

· Directives in respect of serious harm to the environment – 3 issued

· Combined compliance notice/directive contraventions of the NEMA, NEM: WA and NEM: AQA and serious harm to the environment – 1 issued

It should be noted that the specific details of notices and directives issued as stated above, which are part of the administrative enforcement process, are information that would need to be requested in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. Once such an application is made, the DEA is obliged to issue third party notifications to the recipients of the notices/directives prior to making a decision on whether or not to release such information.

(d)(i) and (ii)Criminal Charges:

Dockets handed over to the NPA for a decision on whether or not to prosecute –28, as follows:

i. Non-compliance with environmental authorisations (EA) and waste licence conditions (NEMA and NEM: Waste Act contraventions)

ii. Commencement of a waste management activity without a waste licence (NEM: Waste Act)

iii. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste (NEM: Waste Act)

iv. Conducting an atmospheric emission listed activity without an atmospheric emission licence (NEM: AQA and NEMA)

v. Commencement of a waste management activity without a waste licence (NEM: Waste Act)

vi. Commencement of a waste management activity without a waste licence (NEM: Waste Act)

vii. Illegal dumping of waste (NEM: Waste Act)

viii. Illegal dumping of waste(NEM: Waste Act)

ix. Conducting a listed activity without an EA(NEMA)

x. Conducting a scheduled process without an Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act permit (APPA, NEMA)

xi. Storage of Health Care Risk Waste (HCRW) without a waste management licence (NEM Waste Act)

xii. Storage of HCRW without a waste management licence (NEM: Waste Act)

xiii. Illegal dumping of waste (ECA)

xiv. Commencement of a waste management activity without a waste licence (NEM: Waste Act)

xv. Commencement of a waste management activity without a waste licence (NEM: Waste Act)

xvi. Illegal storage of hazardous waste (NEM: Waste Act)

xvii. Illegal dumping of HCRW (NEM: Waste Act)

xviii. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste (NEM: Waste Act)

xix. Causing significant pollution to the environment(NEMA)

xx. Recycling hazardous waste without a waste management licence and causing significant pollution to the environment (NEM: Waste Act and NEMA)

xxi. Illegal storage of HCRW (NEM: Waste Act)

xxii. Failure to ensure that HCRW is disposed in an environmentally sound manner (NEM: Waste Act)

xxiii. Failure to ensure that HCRW is disposed in an environmentally sound manner (NEM: Waste Act)

xxiv. Failure to ensure that HCRW is disposed in an environmentally sound manner (NEM: Waste Act)

xxv. Failure to ensure that HCRW is disposed in an environmentally sound manner (NEM: Waste Act)

xxvi. Failure to ensure that HCRW is disposed in an environmentally sound manner (NEM: Waste Act)

xxvii. Failure to ensure that HCRW is disposed in an environmentally sound manner (NEM: Waste Act)

xxviii. Conducting a listed activity without an EA(NEMA)

Note that the specific names of these individuals/corporate entities have not been included in the above-mentioned list; as some of them have not yet pleaded in a court of law.

It should also be noted that the information provided above does not include the enforcement actions taken by the provincial environment departments and institutions which also make up the Environmental Management Inspectorate. The DEA has also not captured the statistics in relation to the section 31H NEMA notices issued which are utilised during the enforcement process to obtain specific information.

Please also note that the Annual Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report for the 2011/12 financial year is in the final stages of printing. This report will provide statistics for the whole Inspectorate in respect of that financial year.

(3)

The primary challenge remains the capacity constraints across the Inspectorate when compared to the number of environmental violations. A range of different skills are 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. A project will commence soon to develop a Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for the Inspectorate which will include the following:

• Review of the current environmental compliance and enforcement system (situational analysis), including an assessment of the impact that the work of the Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) is currently having on the regulated sector and the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.

• The above review must provide a breakdown of the relevant structures within each EMI institution that deals with environmental compliance and enforcement; including available resources and capacity.

• Determination of how many Inspectors are required in order to provide for the effective compliance and enforcement of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and all the Specific Environmental Management Acts (SEMAs).

• Development of a compliance and enforcement strategy for the Inspectorate which must promote co-operative governance and understand areas where mandates converge and capacity and resources can be optimised.

Lastly, the DEA is experiencing a challenge in relation to criminal enforcement related to the NEMA in circumstances where section 24G of the NEMA is applicable. Some of the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions have indicated that they are not going to prosecute in relation to matters where a section 24G application has been submitted and an authorisation has been issued by the relevant department. Although the intention of section 24G was never to exclude the possibility of criminal prosecution for the offence committed, based on some prosecutors' interpretation of this provision, certain matters that have been criminally investigated are not being prosecuted. An amendment to the legislation has been proposed to make it clear that the submission of a section 24G application does not preclude a criminal prosecution and that, should an environmental authorisation be issued as a result of a section 24G application, this authorisation is only valid from date of issue.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2589

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 14 SEPTEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 30)

2589. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her department has completed a study on the apportionment of liability for acid mine drainage in the Witwatersrand; if not, why not; if so, what are the names of the (a) organisations and (b) persons who conducted the study;

(2) whether she intends to table the contents of the study in the National Assembly; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the findings of the study will be made public; if not, why not; if so, when? NW3197E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) No, the Department has not yet completed the investigation in respect of the apportionment of liability for the acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Witwatersrand. The said investigation is currently in process as one of the key outputs of the Feasibility Study for a long-term solution to address the AMD associated with East, Central and West Rand underground mining basins.

(1)(a) The study is conducted by the Department's Chief Directorate: Integrated Water Resource Planning.

(1)(b) A team of professional service providers have been contracted to assist the Department.

(2) The study result will not be tabled in the National Assembly until there is sufficient engagement with the mining sector on their financial contribution for mitigating the AMD in the Witwatersrand.

(3) Yes, the findings of the study will be made public at a suitable time. The nature of the information necessitates careful consideration and application as it may impact on future negotiations and procurement processes with the relevant parties.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2528
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 14 SEPTEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.30)
2528. Ms B.D Ferguson (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1.) What measures have been put in place to attract appropriate skills in the water sector, with specific reference to the 9a) infrastructure requirements of the sector and9b) need for person who have a full understanding of integrated water catchment management;

(2.) whether there is a human resource plan for the sector; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3129E

REPLY

(1) The Department as long established a learning Academy in order to attract appropriate skills in the water sector. The Learning Academy gives bursaries in integrated water management. Graduates are then absorbed in the department under the integrated Water Resources Programmes. Some graduates have appointed in permanent positions in the Catchment Management areas. We have also given about 100 vursaries in engineering fields such as mechanical, electrical etc are trainees meant for the Infrastructure Sector.

(2) The Water Research Commission is carrying out skills audit to determine the number for the whole sector inclusive of the Department of Water Affairs. Significant progress has been made; 70% of the study will be completed in October 2012 and a final report is expected in May 2013.

Further the Department plans to do the following:

Short Term Strategies to Address the Skills Crisis (0-2 Years)

2010-2013

Target recruitment of engineer and technician outside of South Africa. These will be placed in the neediest Municipalities. This will relieve immediately the skills shortage in these municipalities, but also offer a base from which new entrants to the workplace can be mentored and facilitated into the workplace. This short term strategy is dependent on inter-country compatibility of water reticulation and wastewater treatment facilities, as well as water education/training codes and norms.
Deploying full-time mentors to municipalities. These mentors provide support to employees and managers in municipalities. These mentors will be drawn from engineers from other countries (as per programme above) and retired engineer in South Africa.
Targeted recruitment of engineering learners in the final year of training and in HET band in 2010 and 2013 to increase entry rate into the workplace in 2011 and 2014.
Extend retiring engineer's tenure in the workplace as a means of addressing directly the shortage expected as a result retirements due between 2010 and 2013.
Unemployment Graduate Programme to immediately increase capacity at municipal level. These will be on a programme of mentoring and retraining to meet the needs of the municipality and sector.

Medium Term Strategies to Address the Sills Crisis

Targeted recruitment of learners in Grade 12 with financial assistance scheme for the technical related fields of study in the water sector. This would increase number of graduates entering the water sector in 2014 and 2015

· A workplace training programme that will increase skills levels of those already in the sector to ensure alignment and appropriateness to sector's present and future needs.

· Structure mentorship programme, building on the mentorship and Learnership programmes implemented.

Long term Strategies to Address the Skills Crisis
2016-2022

Targeted recruitment of learners in the FET band (grade 10-12) into Water Academies will see increased uptake of learners in the HET band between 2013 and 2022. This will be done through the combination of competitions, the multimedia programme and the water education (curriculum) since 2009. The impact in the water sector: A strong increase in new entrants to the water sector field from the year 2017.

Rolling out of a comprehensive water education and public awareness programme in all schools, across all learning areas from the GET to HET band, will increase understanding of water issues, water sector and water related career fields and thereby increase the pool that will have an interest in and pursue water sector fields.

A structure approach and interaction between DWEA as sector leader and institutions of learning in FET an HET band-to ensure that there is a seamless transition for graduates entering the workplace.

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 2506

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 SEPTEMBER 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 29)

2506. Mr K S Mubu (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether (a) her Ministry, (b) her departments and (c) any entity reporting to her plan to host end-of-year parties; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, (i) for how many people and (ii) at what cost:

(2) whether the cost of the specified end-of-year parties has been budgeted for in the current financial year; if not, from where will the funding be sourced; if so, (a) what amount has been budgeted and (b) from which part of the budget will it be incurred?

REPLY:

(1)No, neither the Ministry nor the Department has budgeted to host the end-of-year parties.

(2) Falls away.

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO. 2506 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 29 NW3112E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 07 September 2012

Mr K S Mubu (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Mr K S Mubu (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

2506. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

	Question 1			Question 2
Institute	any plan to host end-of-year parties	(i) for how many people	(ii) at what cost	(a) Amount budgeted	(b) Source of funding/budget allocations
Department (DEA)	Yes	900 - 1100	R500 000	R500 000 budgeted and sponsorships being pursued	Staff Events budget
SAWS	No	na (not applicable)	na	na	na
iSimangaliso	No	na	na	na	na
SANBI	Yes	700	R56 000 (R80 per official)	R60 000	Operational budget
SANParks	Yes	300	an estimated cost of R150 000	R150 000	Entertainment budget

2012-12-31

What's wrong with this page?