Environmental Affairs

2014-07-16

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 2014

QUESTION NO. 3001 {NW3645E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 28 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether, with regard to the implementation of the Use of Official Language Policy Act,
Act 12 of 2012 and since the reply of the Minister of Arts and Culture to question 990 on
6 June 2013, her department implemented the Act; if not, when will the Act be implemented; if so, which languages have been adopted as official languages of her department?

3001. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The Department is implementing the Use of Official Language Policy Act, Act 12 of 2012 through translation strategy. Currently, we have not yet identified the departmental official languages as we are still in the process of developing a departmental language policy. The Department has already consulted with Stats South Africa regarding the demographics on languages which are used nationally. At this stage a survey is being done internally in order to identify such official languages for the Department. However, we do cater for five (5) official languages in-house so far, namely: Tshivhenda, isiZulu, isiXhosa, Afrikaans and English. Other languages are also catered for through outsourcing on request if there is a need.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2967 NW3611E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 28 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 November 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether she intends to pay bonuses to staff in her department; if so, (a) what criteria has been used to award bonuses, (b) how many staff members will be receiving bonuses, (c) what total amount will be spent on staff bonuses and (d) was this amount budgeted for?

2967. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Chapter 4, clause 15.3 of the SMS Handbook guides the awarding of bonuses to SMS members while the DPSA Employee Performance Management and Development System Framework (for levels 12 and below) guides the awarding of bonuses to levels 12 and below.

Whilst the Department has completed the individual performance assessments for staff for 2013/2014, implementation of performance rewards in accordance with public service provisions and prescripts are currently being costed to establish affordability. The department does intend to acknowledge proven good performance, but the percentages to be paid will be informed by affordability.

The information requested will be available in Annual Reports once these are tabled in Parliament.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2952 [NW3596E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 28 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 November 2014

Mr A G Whitfield (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) When is her department expected to make a decision on the authorisation of the Algoa Bay (Fish Farm) Aquaculture Development Zone project;

(2) When was the application for final authorisation submitted to her department;

(3) Was the application to use the proposed site for the fish farm ever rejected by her department in the past; if so, what are the relevant details?

2952. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) The final decision (environmental authorisation) was issued by this Department on 09 July 2014.

(2) The National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF): Aquaculture Division (Cape Town), lodged an application on 9 February 2011. The final Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIR) was received by this Department on 3 August 2013 and receipt thereof acknowledged on 19 August 2013.

(3) No, the use of the authorised site was never rejected by this Department. An application was lodged with the department in February 2011 and the necessary supporting documents were later submitted as per the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations and based on the information contained in those documents a final decision was issued on 9 July 2014.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2921 [NW3565E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 28 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

With reference to her reply to question 1767 on 13 October 2014, (a) when did the auditing process on the legality of structures on the coastal state land commence and (b) when will the audit be (i) completed and (ii) tabled in Parliament.

2921. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) The auditing of structures on coastal state land commenced in the 2013/14 financial year as a desktop study and is still ongoing. The auditing of the legality of structures on the coastal state land has not yet commenced.

(b) (i) The auditing of structures on coastal state land will be completed at the end of the 2015/16 financial year. Thereafter, the Department will proceed with the verification process of the legality of the structures on coastal state land during the 2016/17 financial year.

(ii) The report can be tabled in Parliament upon completion of the verification.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2920 {NW3564E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 28 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the current lion population in South Africa;

(2) Is there a limit as to how many lions can be exported in each year; if not, why not; if so, what is the limit;

(3) Is there a limit as to how many lions are allocated to sport hunting in each year; if not, why not; if so, what is the limit;

(4) Will her Department support the African Wildlife Fund's call for a total ban on the sport hunting of lions; if not, why not?

2920. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) There are currently approximately 2 743 lions in the wild in South Africa.

(2) No. African lion (Panthera leo) is listed as Appendix II in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which means that commercial trade in this species is permissible but regulated. There is no limit/restriction established in terms of CITES on the number of lions that can be exported each year, and South Africa has also not established such a limit/restriction in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA). The reason is that the lion population of South Africa is regarded as stable to increasing, and approximately 67% (1 849) of the wild lion population occurs in national protected areas where no hunting is permissible.

(3) No. The sport hunting of lion involves mostly lions that have been bred in captivity and released in extensive wildlife systems prior to the hunting. Therefore, the sport hunting of these lions does not negatively impact on the wild lion population, and hunting limits (quotas) are thus not required. Also remember the court ruling we referred Hon Member to in my previous response regarding 'animal welfare'.

(4) No. In terms of NEMBA, the carrying out of a restricted activity (e.g. hunting) may only be prohibited (banned), if such an activity negatively impacts on the survival of lion as a species. Therefore, the sport hunting of these lions does not negatively impact on the wild lion population, hence the Minister cannot prohibit trophy hunting of lion, at this stage, unless a determined study reveals otherwise. The latest study revealed what is referred to under point 2 of this response, particularly the last line.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO.2919{NW3563E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.28 of2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION:21 November 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is her Department doing to ensure that local municipalities comply with their responsibilities to (a)(i) monitor and (ii) control, (aa) littering, (bb) the burning of waste and (cc) uncontrolled salvaging of waste from landfill sites, (b)(i) enforce and (ii) update by-laws to prevent (aa) littering, (bb) the burning of waste and (cc) uncontrolled salvaging of waste from landfill sites;

(2) what steps is her Department taking against municipalities that are not complying with these requirements?

2919. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. (a) (i) and (ii) (aa) (bb) (cc):

Monitoring and control of littering, burning of waste and uncontrolled salvaging of waste from landfill sites:

As I indicated in the previous recent response on a similar question from the Honourable Member, please note that in terms of the Section 156 of the South African Constitution read with schedule 4,5 and 6 of the same Constitution, functions of spheres of government are clearly elaborated. The national sphere of government is required to support Provincial and Local spheres of government where necessary. This support is not an equivalent to taking over the functions of any sphere of government. In case of total lack of performance, a full intervention to be followed can be through application of sections 100 and 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. There is currently no need to apply these two sections of the Constitution.

Secondly, a full response was given to the Honorable Member recently when I responded indication the support we are giving to the Municipalities in full licensing all the landfill sites. The process of licensing landfill sites entails total management of landfill sites up to a point of post licensing and continued monitoring.

National Department of Environmental Affairs is primarily mandated to regulate hazardous waste landfill sites, and Provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs (the Competent Authorities) are mandated to regulate general waste landfill sites. Municipalities are responsible for the provision of waste collection services as well as the monitoring and control of the illegal burning of waste and littering.

All Waste Management Licenses issued by Competent Authorities are issued with strict conditions that are regularly monitored. The licensing conditions are clearly articulated in the regulations, which I presume the Hounorable Member would have read.

The applicable conditions that are contained in the approved license to each waste disposal facility includes the following:

1. The license Holder must prevent the occurrence of nuisance conditions or health hazards.

2. No general and hazardous waste is burned at the facility

3. The license holder must ensure a high fence is erected downwind to prevent litter being blown from the site.

4. The license holder must make sure that the incoming waste is compacted and covered on a daily basis in order to prevent waste from being blown away by the wind.

5. The license holder must ensure strict access control is enforced to control illegal or uncontrolled salvaging, so as to prevent people from illegally entering and litter in the landfill site.

1. (b) (i) and (ii) (aa) (bb) (cc)

Enforcement on littering, burning of waste and uncontrolled salvaging of waste in landfill sites:

The Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) (National and Provincial) is charged with the responsibility to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement measures. The Department of Environmental Affairs has trained EMIs in all different provinces to deal with environmental-related non-compliances. The three spheres of government conduct joint site inspections in all prioritised sites when necessary. The action taken may range from remedying the problem and where a need arise after all attempt fail closing down operations to implementing measures to ensure environmental protection.

2. Same response as above.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO.2918{NW3562E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO28 of2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION:21 November 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Does all legal landfill sites in South Africa comply with her Department's requirements, in that they have (a) a clear noticeboard, (b) well managed access control, (c) a weighbridge, (d) a waste compaction area, (e) a leachate control dam, (f) drainage systems, (g) dust suppression systems and (h) gas monitoring probes; if not, (i) why not and (ii) what is her Department doing to ensure compliance;

(2) is compliance with these requirements been monitored; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the monitoring?

2918. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

I would like to remind the honourable member once again that the provincial authorities are responsible for authorising and managing general waste landfill sites of municipalities, including compliance and enforcement while the national department authorises and manages hazardous waste landfill sites.

Please note that in terms of the Section 156 of the South African Constitution read with schedule 4,5 and 6 of the same Constitution, functions of spheres of government are clearly elaborated. The national sphere of government is required to support Provincial and Local spheres of government where necessary. This support is not an equivalent to taking over the functions of any sphere of government. In case of total lack of performance, a full intervention to be followed can be through application of sections 100 and 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. There is currently no need to apply these two sections of the Constitution.

(a) Yes.In terms of the information at our disposal; Yes. This can however, be confirmed with the relevant provincial and or municipal authorities. This overarching response is applicable to (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of question 1.

(b) Yes.

(i) Due to lack of funding in some municipalities.

(d) No.

(i) Due to lack of funding in some municipalities.

(e) No.

(i) Not all landfills are required to have leachate control dams. Where required, these do exist.

(f) Yes

(g) No, due to lack of funding in some municipalities

(h) No.

(i) not all are required to have gas extraction systems.

(ii) Not applicable

2. Yes.All licensed landfill sites are being monitored for the above, which are conditions of their license approvals where applicable. Compliance monitoring is carried out by the relevant competent authorities. The permit holder is required to contract an independent third party auditor to carry out the monitoring and forward the compliance monitoring audit reports to the relevant authorities. The audit findings are also presented to Community Monitoring Committees meetings which are attended by the DEA, Provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Water and Sanitation. Non-compliance with permit conditions is enforced by the relevant authorities, and any the appropriate action gets taken to rectify any unlawful activities where applicable.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO.2817{NW3458E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION:21November 2014

Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether (a) creating work and business opportunities for communities surrounding our nation's game parks to relieve poverty and thereby decrease the incentive for such community members to turn to poaching, (b) developing an extensive network of incentivised informants to identify poachers and to receive tip-offs when poachers enter the reserve, (c) recruiting community members to become rhino minders in the game reserves they border, (d) setting up a centralised hotline to receive information in respect of any trade in rhino horns, (e) establishing an inspectorate to inspect containers leaving South Africa and (f) requesting the permission of Tongaat Hulett to police their sugar fields for poachers in transit from Mozambique, are any of the measures that she has in place to ensure that rhino poaching is being thoroughly addressed; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

2817. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) The Kruger National Park is the largest employer of people in the region with 2,200 permanent and 930 temporary jobs filled mostly by people from neighbouring areas. The Kruger National Park also has a number of business opportunities that specifically focus on poor people from neighbouring communities such as soap making, small building contractor training, internship programmes, thatch harvesting, safari operators, curio outlets at entrance gates, community owned tourist lodges (egMjejani, Nkambeni, Makuleke), etc. Much of the goods purchased for operations come from outlets in neighbouring areas.

In addition, the Environmental Programmes within the Department of Environmental Affairs, working with SANParks as the principal Implementing Agent, has implemented a programme of "Environmental Monitors", whose tasks include anti-poaching work, advocacy in communities, and other conservation foci (e.g. invasive alien species, wetlands, soil erosion, wildfire and fencing impacts). Thus far, 1,289 Environmental Monitors have been employed through the programme, of whom 38% are women and 86% youth. These are managed through 17 partner organizations. A further two partner organizations are joining, which will take the number to 1,441 Environmental Monitors in this financial year.

The analysis of the efficacy of the Environmental Monitors is being undertaken. It is not easy to claim "cause and effect", but it is noteworthy that there has been a 50% reduction in the number of rhino lost to poaching in the buffer zones to the Kruger National Park, where Environmental Monitors have been deployed. Similarly, in reserves in KwaZulu-Natal where Environmental Monitors have been deployed, there have been 3 rhino lost to poaching, compared to 35 rhino lost to poaching in reserves where there are no Environmental Monitors.

It should be noted that the Department of Environmental Affairs employs many other beneficiaries adjacent to parks. For SANParks alone, there are 2,620 people employed through the Environmental Protection and Infrastructure Programmes, and 7,288 through the Natural Resource Management Programmes, thus totaling 9,908 beneficiaries. If one takes all of the other protected areas, this figure would easily be doubled. (The 1,289 Environmental Monitors are included in the 2,620 EPIP beneficiaries.)

(b) In close cooperation with the various branches of the South African Police Service (SAPS), the SSA and the National Wildlife Information Management Unit of the department, and in a thoroughly audited process, the Environmental Crime Investigation (ECI) unit of the Kruger National Park (KNP) is managing an extensive informant network in areas adjacent to the Park. This has led to the arrest of at least one hundred poachers in the past year.

(c) SANParks has not recruited any members of neighbouring communities to become rhino minders. The Kruger National Park is an area where many dangerous animals roam freely and people walking in the bush have to be armed or must have an armed escort. Arming community members to mind rhino seems to be a potential big security risk, given the escalating black-market price of rhino horn. We are however looking at a number of options which would allow certain communities to derive benefits associated with live rhino (instead of dead ones as is currently the case).

(d) Trade in rhino horns is not legal in South Africa. Consequently, there is no need to set up a hotline to address trade issues only. We have a hotline for any illegal activities including illegal trade in rhino horns.

(e) This question should be referred to the Border Control Operational Co-ordinating Committee(BCOCC) within South African Revenue Servicesas they hold the mandate to manage borders.

(f) The top management of HulettsTongaat has committed to the campaign against Rhino poaching. The concession management is in daily contact with the Kruger National Park and is in the process of committing significant resources to become a valued ally on the Mozambique side. Their effort includes intelligence sharing and protection measures, Law enforcement and plans to launch development projects in communities. This company is in the process of setting new standards of cooperation and support to the Kruger National Park.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2768 (NW3420E)

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr D Bergman (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she received an invitation to the wedding of Vega Gupta and Aakash Jahajgarhia; if so,

(2) Whether she attended any of the wedding festivities between 30 April and 3 May 2013; if so,

(3) Whether she stayed overnight at the venue; if so, (a) what accommodation did he use, (b) who paid for the said accommodation, (c) what mode of transport did she use to attend the wedding festivities and (d) who paid for the travel costs? NW3420E

.2768. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) No, I did not receive an invitation to the wedding of Vega Gupta and Aakash Jahajgarhia

(2) Falls away

(3) Falls away

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2726 {NW3375E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Dr G A Grootboom (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Did (a) her Department and/or (b) any of its entities owe money to any Gauteng municipalities at the end of the 2013-14 financial year; if so, in respect of each specified municipality (i) what is the name of the municipality, (ii) what was the total amount owed, (iii) what was the nature of the debt, (iv) for how long has the debt been outstanding and (v) what plans are in place to recover the debt owed to the municipality by (aa) her Department and/or (bb) any of its entities?

2726. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) No

(b) Yes. South African Weather Service (SAWS). It is important to note that this amount of R34 517.78 was outstanding for 30 days which is allowable in terms of the rules.

(i) Names of Municipalities owed as at 31 March 2014:

· Emthanjeni Municipality

· Municipality of Msukaligwa

· Newcastle Municipality

· Hantam Municipality

(ii) R34 517,78

(iii) The nature of the debt is as follows:

· Rental of property in Emthanjeni Municipality and Newcastle Municipality.

· Electricity, Rates and Taxes for all Municipalities mentioned in item (i) above.

(iv) These debts were outstanding for 30 days.

(v) The debts were settled in April 2014.

(b) Yes. South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)

(i) Names of Municipalities owed as at 31 March 2014: This debt was also within current time lines as allowable in terms of the rules

· City of Johannesburg

· City of Tshwane

(ii) R53 442,32

R6 267,28

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2705 {NW3352E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Has (a) she and/or (b) her Department instructed any provincial nature conservation agencies to refuse issuing rhino hunting permits to applicants from any particular country; if so, (i) which countries and (ii) what are the reasons for doing so?

2705. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) and (b). Yes

(i) Vietnam and the Czech Republic.

(ii) Upon request from the South African Management Authority in 2012, the government of Vietnam conducted an audit in Vietnam to determine how many persons that had hunted rhino in South Africa were still in possession of the rhino horn trophies. The audit revealed that many of the hunters no longer had the rhino horn (which could only be exported as personally hunted trophies) in their possession. As a result, rhino hunting permits would no longer be issued to hunters from Vietnam until such a time that Vietnam has implemented adequate local legislation to regulate internal trade in rhino horn. The South African Management Authority was informed by the Management Authority of the Czech Republic that its government was conducting a formal internal investigation regarding the importation into the Czech Republic of rhino horn as hunting trophies and the subsequent possession of, and trade in, these rhino horn trophies. Rhino hunting permits will thus no longer be issued to hunters from the Czech Republic until the investigation has been concluded and South Africa informed of the outcome thereof.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2704 {NW3351E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Has any provincial conservation department issued a permit to (a) certain persons (names furnished) and/or (b) their company as (i) outfitters or (ii) professional hunters; if so, for each permit, (aa) what are the permit details, (bb) which province issued it and (cc) what is the nationality of each of the specified persons who were issued with these permits?

2704. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1), (2) and (3). To provide information relating to the above questions requires consultation with the provincial conservation authorities; hence the extension is required until end of January to early February 2015, alternatively the Honourable Member can approach the relevant provinces directly as we are not the issuing authority.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2703 {NW3350E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Are (a) certain persons (names furnished) and/or (b) any of their companies still entitled to (i) outfit and (ii) hunt (aa) rhinos, (bb) elephants and (cc) leopards;

(2) on what date was the last hunting permit issued to a certain person (name furnished) as an (a) outfitter and/or (b) professional hunter for (i) rhinos, (ii) elephants and (iii) leopards; and

(3) for each hunting permit respectively, (a) which province issued it and (b) what (i) was the nationality of the hunter to whom the permit was given and (ii) were the specific details of the permit?

2703. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Sections 88(2)(e), 92A and 93 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), as amended, provides for the issuing authority to defer a decision to issue a permit; refuse a permit; and to cancel a permit, in certain circumstances. The relevant MECs, who are the issuing authorities for the issuance of permits to private individuals, including the persons whose names have been furnished, in terms of Section 87A of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), have been instructed to implement these provisions.

Based on this empowering provision, the Department of Environmental Affairs has not recommended permits for the hunting of listed threatened or protected species on land of which the person whose name has been furnished, is the owner.

To provide information relating to whether the persons whose names have been furnished and / or their companies are authorised to operate as hunting outfitters or professional hunters (for any species), consultation is required with the provincial conservation authorities, since this aspect is regulated through provincial legislation. Extension is required until end of January to early February 2015, alternatively the Honourable Member can approach the relevant provinces directly as we are not the issuing authority.

National regulations for the registration of professional hunters, hunting outfitters and trainers will be promulgated for implementation in 2015, and in terms of these proposed regulations the Minister of Environmental Affairs will be the issuing authority.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2702 {NW3349E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many hunting permits have been issued in each province respectively for the hunting of damage causing (a) elephants, (b)(i) white and (ii) black rhinos; and (c) leopards (i) in (aa) 2008, (bb) 2009, (cc) 2010, (dd) 2011, (ee) 2012 and (ff) 2013 and (ii) since 1 January 2014;

(2) in each case, what was the (a) date of the hunt, (b) reasoning for the animal being hunted as a damage causing animal, (c) nationality of the hunter and (d) destination country of any trophy; and

(3) what was the (a) gender and (b) approximate age of each elephant?

2702. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2701 NW3348E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

2) for each of the hunting permits issued above, (a) on what date was it issued, (b) was her Department's approval (i) requested and (ii) granted, (c) was a background check conducted to verify the hunter's (i) credentials and (ii) hunting status, (d) what was the hunter's nationality, (e) on what date did the hunt take place and (f) were the permit fees paid; and

(3) (a) what is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) export permit number for any trophy, (b) what parts were exported, (c) which province does the taxidermist who prepared the trophy come from, (d) what was the date of export and (e) what was the destination country of the exported trophy?

2701. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO.2700 {NW3347E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many (a) black rhino and (b) white rhino hunting permits have been issued by all delegated authorities in each province respectively in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2011, (v) 2012, (vi) 2013 and (vii) 2014;

(2) for each of the hunting permits issued for hunting black and white rhino above, (a) on what date was it issued, (b) was her Department's approval (i) requested and (ii) granted, (c) was a background check conducted to verify the hunter's (i) credentials and (ii) hunting status, (d) what was the hunter's nationality, (e) on what date did the hunt take place and (f) were the permit fees paid;

2700. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2590 {NW3228E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr T J Brauteseth (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

2590. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The Department of Environmental Affairs, as part of the execution of its Communications Strategy, utilizes a number of media platforms (paid-for-media and not-paid-for media platforms). As part of the media mix, the Department has over the financial years in question, utilized various industry-specific magazines and also mass appeal magazines to popularize its programmes and services, in line with its strategic objectives. These publications were used to profile programmes of the Department with the aim of closing a gap that no-paid-for media platforms could not close but also raising awareness and improve information dissemination.

The Department of Environmental Affairs spent the following amounts on promotional magazines:

(a) In the financial year 2011-12 an amount of R121 387.20.

(b) In the financial year 2012-13 an amount of R552 398.40.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2581 {NW3218E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Government has studied the 5^th Assessment Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released on 2 November 2014 in Denmark; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) was the Government willing to take a lead among the nations of the world to use the findings of the report to set South Africa on a course of environmentally sustainable development and an active curtailment of practices accentuating climate change; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; and

(3) whether she will make a statement on the matter?

2581. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) Yes. South Africa, as an active member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has participated and contributed in the consideration and adoption of the 5^th Assessment Synthesis Report of the IPCC. Subsequent to the IPCC 40 session, the Department of Environmental Affairs hosted a regional IPCC Outreach event that took place in parallel to the National Climate Change Response Dialogue from 9 to 11 November 2014 at Gallagher Convention Centre, Midrand. The aim of the outreach event was to share the contents and analysis of the 5^th IPCC assessment report with fellow African colleagues. The presenters included the IPCC secretariat, Vice Chair of the IPCC and the Lead Authors of the three Working Groups of the IPCC; with the main focus being on the Africa chapter. Also in attendance were African Union member states, local and African scientific communities and the media from the African continent.

These are some of the main messages from the Synthesis Report of the IPCC's
5^th Assessment Report:

· Human influence on the climate system is clear.

· The more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts.

· While climate change is a threat to sustainable development, there are many opportunities to integrate mitigation, adaptation, and the pursuit of other societal objectives.

· We have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.

· Limiting warming to 2°C involves substantial technological, economic and institutional challenges.

· Without additional mitigation, global means that surface temperature is projected to increase by 3.7 to 4.8°C over the 21^st century.

The impacts of climate change on African countries' economies were clearly highlighted in the report. The key message from the IPCC outreach event was that the AU member states need to focus on adaptation to the impacts of climate change by mainstreaming economic and social resilience into their development plans, whilst at the same time transitioning to a lower carbon economy.

(2) The government, as an active member of the IPCC takes a lead among the nations of the world to use the findings of the report to set South Africa on a course of sustainable development, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. South Africa has already completed the study on Long-term Adaptation Scenarios and Mitigation Potential Analysis. We are currently in discussion with business and industry to conclude the desired emission reduction objectives for economic sectors and sub-sectors. In addition, South Africa is a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which is negotiating a new global climate agreement. South Africa is advocating for a deal that is rooted in science, and is fair and effective. As a contribution to these negotiations, South Africa will be chairing and leading the Group of 77 and China in the final year of these negotiations, 2015.

(3) I have made statements with regard to the outcomes of the 5^th Assessment Report of the IPCC. The first statement I made was on 17 October 2014 during the opening of Environment House and later at the stakeholder engagement on the same day where I shared the platform with labour, business and other non-govermental organisations. The second statement I made was during the opening of the National Climate Change Response Dialogue in Midrand. The dialogue was attended by more than 850 delegates; with more than 100 speakers across government, business, academic, labour and NGOs; divided into 27 formal sessions, 5 IPCC outreach sessions, 14 side events and 34 exhibitions. These events and statements enjoyed wide media coverage both in South Africa and in the African continent. We are confident that the message from the IPCC, particularly on climate impacts and need to invest now in renewable energies and adaptation is reaching all relevant audiences.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2580 [NW3217E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 27 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 14 November 2014

Mr D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether her department is implementing an effective countrywide programme to help South Africans dispose of electronic junk such as (a) out of date computers, (b) discarded cell phones, (c) non-functioning printers and (d) any other junk in an environmentally friendly manner and thereby ensure that opportunities for jobs in the recycling sector were created in the process; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the achievements in the past five years?

2580. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The National Waste Act of 2008 is being implemented as per the National Waste Management Strategy, give effect to a universally accepted waste hierarchy approach in the management of waste streams, which encourages recycling, reuse, recovery and refurbishment of waste. Recent amendments to the act provides for a new pricing mechanism for waste as well as the establishment of a new institutional mechanism namely The Waste Management Bureau that would oversee the implementation of Industry Waste Management Plans (IndWMP) including the disbursement of revenue and incentives to support enterprise development in the waste sector.

The Act also provides the Minister with a mandate to request industry sectors to submit specific waste stream Industry Waste Management plans in accordance with the principle of extended producer responsibility.

The Department has thus in the last three years initiated a process of engagement with the electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) sector over the past few years in the development of an industry waste management plan (IndWMP) that will outline how the sector will ensure sound management of EEE which includes, amongst others, computers, printers, cell phones, kitchen appliances, microwaves, fridges, televisions, computer and network hardware and software devises.

The IndWMP, which will give effect to extended producer responsibility, will include details of how the waste will be managed to ensure implementation of the waste hierarchy by means of best environmental practices giving priority to reducing, reusing and recycling of e-waste. The plan will also include details of how job creation and skills transfer, particularly to previously disadvantaged individuals and the informal sector already involved in waste management, will be integrated into the IndWMP.

There have been several initiatives and industries that recycle electronic waste that have been operating in South Africa for many years with high volumes of waste being recycled mainly computers, cellphones, and network devises with a significant amount of jobs which have been created. Notwithstanding this, the department has realized that the sector has the potential to create many more jobs. In this context the department is in the process of aligning these initiatives and operations with the new pricing strategy which would be finalized within the next three months that would ensure an effective country wide programme to maximize job opportunities through the recycling of electronic waste in South Africa.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2522 {NW3120E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Has her Department undertaken any impact assessment studies into the effect of current waste management practices on (a) local air quality and/or (b) communities health profiles; if not, why not; if so, (i) what were the relevant findings of any such study and (ii) will copies of these studies be made available;

(2) are there any plans in place to mitigate waste factors which are negatively affecting (a) local air quality and/or (b) communities health profiles;

(3) have any impact assessment studies been conducted to determine the (a) effect that removing all plastic from landfill sites before burning the waste would have on (i) local air quality and/or (ii) communities health profiles, and (b) feasibility of removing all plastic from landfill sites before burning the waste; if not, why not; if so, (aa) what were the relevant findings of any such studies and (bb) will copies of these studies be made available?

2522. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) Yes,

(a) The impacts of improper waste management practices such as the combustion of waste are well documented and understood worldwide. Worldwide studies on the combustion of waste produced consensus results, that the combustion of municipal waste results in the emission of pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter (including the respirable fraction), arsenic, cadmium, dioxins and furans responsible for various diseases, including chronic lung diseases and cancer (lung, bladder, skin etc.). It is for this reason that the management of waste is regulated through legislations such as the National Environmental Management Management: Waste Act, 2008. Section 26 (1) (b) of this Act prohibits any person from disposing of waste in a manner that is likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to the health and well-being.

(b) The Department has conducted a literature review on the Environmental and Health Impact of Emissions from Tyre Burning. Further comprehensive studies regarding the impact of other waste stream management practices will still need to be conducted by the Department of Environmental Affairs as new technologies are introduced into the sector.

(i) The review of the impact of the burning of tyres revealed that the open burning of tyres poses a significant health and environmental impact. The burning of tyres in open air results in the release of toxic chemicals, such as carcinogens and mutagens responsible for acute and chronic health effects.

(2) (a & b) Yes, there are different tools which the Department uses to promote and/or enforce good waste management practices in an effort to avoid and/or mitigate potential negative impacts of waste on the environment as well as the health of communities. E.g. Licenses, Norms and Standards, regulations, Industry Waste Management Plans, Best Practice Guidelines.

Reply received: December 201

QUESTION NO. 2447 {NW3040E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Ms L V James (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

How many work days has her Department lost to (a) sick leave and (b) strike action in the (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13 and (iii) 2013-14 financial years?

2447. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) In terms of the law every employee is entitled to sick leave. The number of sick per three-year cycle is 36 days after which three-year cycle the employee loses those days. This being a legal right we do not regard sick leave days as a lost to Government. We don't have days lost. The number of work days the Department has lost to

(b) Strike action in the financial years

(i) 2011-12: 7 days were lost due to a national strike (1 day by 7 employees),

(ii) 2012-13: 0 days were lost; and

(iii) 2013-14: 17.5 days were lost due to a temporary illegal work stoppage of 4 hours by 35 employees.

The no work no pay rule was applied in the first instance, and disciplinary action was taken in the second.

Reply received: December 2014

QUESTION NO. 2413 {NW3005E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) What was the total remuneration of (i) Board members, (ii) nonexecutive directors and (iii) executive directors of each entity reporting to her in the (aa) 2011-12, (bb) 2012-13 and (cc) 2013-14 financial years and (b) how many times did each board meet in the specified financial years?

2413. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

South Africa has set up clearly defined accounting mechanism and systems amongst which there is an obligation to table an annual reports to Parliament. DEA has successfully tabled such reports for the years 2011/2012, 2012/13, 2013/2014. The information requested for the years in question is available in Annual Reports and thus publicly available.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2397 {NW2989E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Has her Department taken any steps to facilitate the recycling of off road tyres; if not, why not; if so, what steps have been taken?

2397. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Yes.

Off road tyres are part of the approved Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan (IIWTMP), hence their management is in accordance with the waste tyre hierarchy (promoting waste minimisation, recycling and recovery over landfilling). Incentives targeted at promoting recycling on waste tyres are also applicable to off road tyres (training, mentoring, and subsidies).

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2396 {NW2988E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Is the current Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan in compliance with the waste management charge provisions and procedures as outlined in the National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act, Act 26 of 2014; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

2396. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Yes. The new Integrated Industry Waste Amendment Act 26 of 2014 (NEMWA) and its associated regulations are in compliance with waste management charge provisions and process. In 2014 the NEMWA was amended to provide for a new national waste pricing strategy accommodating all waste streams including tyres. The new strategy provides for a new methodology of funding flows and institutional arrangements and governance of all waste streams. The current Information Technology Waste Tyre is being accordingly aligned to the amended Act and regulations. This alignment process will not affect the current pricing quantum. All these details are available and contained in Section 13 (a) & (b) of NEMWA WHICH I advise the honourable Member to read.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2395 {NW2987E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Is her Department doing anything to (a) incentivise and/or (b) promote the recycling of tyres; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; and

(2) does her Department have any plan to start reducing tyres on stockpile sites; if not, why not; if so, what are the details of any such plan?

2395. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) Yes

(a) I have approved an Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan (IIWTMP) in November 2012. This IIWTMP ensures the management of waste tyres in accordance to the waste hierarchy. It also has elements that are intended to ensure sustainability of the sector as well as job creation and social upliftment. Through the different aspects along its value chain (collection and transportation, storage, processing and secondary industries), incentives are provided for. These may differ along the value chain, but include the following: subsidies, training and mentoring.

(b) The IIWTMP, as explained above, promotes the management of waste tyres in accordance to the waste hierarchy, which advocates for recycling and recovery over landfilling. The IIWTMP therefore promotes recycling by facilitating the collection of waste tyres and redistribution to the different processing facilities. The support given to the businesses also promotes sustainability of the recycling sector for waste tyres.

(2) Yes

The Waste Tyre Regulations make provision for stockpile owners to register with the Department and then prepare and submit Waste Tyre Stockpile Abatement Plans (WTSAPs) for consideration by the Minister. Currently, 11 organisations have submitted WTSAPs. A workshop was convened for all organisations who have submitted to assist them to prepare their WTSAPs correctly, in accordance with the Tyre Regulations, on 6 November 2014. Furthermore, road shows are planned to ensure that all other stockpile owners are aware of their legal obligations to register and submit a WTSAP to the Department for consideration.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO.2329 {NW2912E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION:7 November 2014

Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister Environmental Affairs:

Whether her Department is ensuring that fund raisers who are engaged in support of the country's wild life causes, such as the fight against rhino poaching, are (a) properly and adequately regulated and monitored, (b) restricted from using donor funds only for the purposes for which the funds were donated, and (c) compelled to account fully to the donor and the relevant boards for every cent of the money that was made available; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

2329. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) Fund raisers/non-government organisations (NGOs) are independent from Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and no tool or regulation exist that makes the Minister and the Department accountable for them nor for them to account to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. However, the DEA has made a public call for NGOs in this sector to register with the DEA in order to enable the Department to compile a database of these NGOs for reference purposes and track their public activities. As such, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)is in a process of developing an information system, with support from Peace Parks Foundation, to enable the DEA to be alerted of activities that the registered NGOs are engaged in.

Other fund raisers/NGOs are registered with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry. Further enquiries can be referred to them.

(b) The question can be referred to the Donors themselves to verify compliance requirements placed on the NGOs.

(c) The DEA does not have tools such as regulations to monitor and regulate how the fund raisers and NGOs utilise the funds that they have received. These are completely outside organizations from Government.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2327 {NW2910E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she can confirm that a certain person (name furnished) was paid five merit bonuses amounting to R1.4 million between June 2013 and April 2014; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; and

(2) whether she has found that the processes and procedures that were used to make such payments were regular, properly mandated and lawful; if not, why not; if so, what are the further relevant details?

2327. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) We confirm that four payments amounting to R1.4 million have been paid to a certain individual during the period June 2013 to April 2014. This relates to commission paid, and does not relate to merit bonuses.

(2) These payments were investigated and form part of a current disciplinary process being conducted.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2297 {NW2788E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 25 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 7 November 2014

Mr A M Figlan (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) With regard to the public hearings on climate change, sustainable development goals and rhino poaching that took place earlier this year, (a) how many people from (i) her department, (ii) Parliament and (iii) the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs attended each of these hearings, (b) what were the individual costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) travel, (iii) subsistence, (iv) venue hire, (v) marketing, (vi) communication, (vii) catering, and (viii) other expenses for each of these hearings, (c) what were the various budget line items of each of the expenses respectively, and (d) what was the justification for each person attending these hearings;

(2) (a) who were the service providers for these hearings and (b) how were they selected;

(3) (a) how, (b) where and (c) on what date was each public hearing (i) communicated and/or (ii) advertised;

(4) (a) what was the total cost of these hearings, and (b) how was it justified?

2297. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. (a) (i) About 8-10 officials attended each public hearings per province. It should be noted that rotational approach was adopted to ensure effective participation with minimal resources.

(ii) Parliament should respond to this question as Minister of Environmental Affairs is not accountable for Members of Parliament expenditure and budget;

(iii) Portfolio Committee should respond to this question.

(b) (i) R1 300 per person per night,

(ii) & (iii) It should be noted that these claims are calculated monthly and it might be difficult to disaggregate, (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) (viii) The Department of Environmental Affairs' team was not involved in the logistics for the hearings. It should be noted that the transport claims for the trips is calculated monthly and it might be difficult to disaggregate.

(d) The Department of Environmental Affairs provided content support, which included presentations on climate change, sustainable development goals and rhino poaching. Mainly, the presenters and technical support participated during the hearings.

2. (a) & (b) The Department was not involved in the logistics for the hearings.

3. (a), (b), (c),(i) & (ii) The Department was not involved in communication of the hearings.

4. (a) & (b) The Department was not involved in the logistics for the hearings.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2156 {NW2630E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

1) Whether her Department maintains (a) an up-to-date and regularly audited register of rhino horns and (b) elephant tusks accruing to government authorities and private enterprises; if so, (i) what was the stock holding of both of the above since 1 June 2009, (ii) what amount was held by (aa) state institutions and (bb) private enterprises and (c) how secure was the stock pile of both considering the ends to which rhino poachers were willing to go to lay their hands on rhino horns and elephant tusks; and

2) whether the Government intends to appeal to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to permit controlled trade in rhino horn in order to discourage criminal syndicates from poaching rhinos; if not, why not?

2156. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1) (a) (b) (i) (ii) (aa) (bb) and (c) To provide information relating to this question requires consultation with various components within the Department of Environmental Affairs, as well as with provincial conservation authorities; hence extension is required until 14 November 2014.

2) No decision has been made yet by the Government as to whether or not it would appeal to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to permit controlled trade in rhino horn. This decision will be made only once Cabinet has considered recommendations made by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the report of the Panel of Experts. The latter has been established by Cabinet to consider the feasibility of legalising trade in rhino horn.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2155{NW2629E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO.21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Why the (a) poaching of rhinos is still continuing unabated, (b) shipment of rhino horns is continuing to take place without detection, and (c) syndicate(s) behind the poaching remain unexposed after the much publicised and intense debate on the matter in the National Assembly on 2 September 2014?

2155. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) Rhino poaching continues to be a priority to the Department and the country. Measures have been put in place, and efforts are continuously increasedto combat Rhino poaching and illegal trafficking of Wildlife.

In one of my recent statements I had indicated that the Department, in collaboration with the provincial conservation authorities: the South African Police Service (SAPS), the South African National Defence Force, Justice and Correctional Services, private rhino owners and various non-governmental organisations, has been implementing a large range of interventions to address rhino poaching since 2008. This is mainly due to the fact that as Government we acknowledged that Rhino Poaching is not just an environmental issue, but a crime carried out by World syndicates with elements that requires a cohesive approach with other government Departments. Most importantly, it is a matter of National Security.

The following are an indication that increased efforts that the Government had put in place are starting to pay off:

We have seen some significant results, out of the multi-dimensional approach that has had an effect,as follows:

· the conviction on rhino related crimes has moved from 54% in the year 2011/12, to 61% in the year 2013/14, made up of 26 convicted accused and 85 in the periods mentioned, respectively;

· the number of Rhino related cases registered have also increased from 29 in the year 2011/12 to 70 in the year 2013/14, with the number of accused recorded at 48 in the year 2011/12, to 140 in the year 2013/14;

· the rhino population continues to grow, with more than 18 000 white rhino living in South Africa, on both state managed areas as well as private land; and more than 2000 black rhino living in South Africa on state managed areas, community land and private land;

· the number of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) that we have signed with some of the key Consumer countries, as well as the good relations established, has borne fruits. These partnerships have resulted in us securing a number of Rhino horn and Elephant Ivory consignments in Hong Kong, Vietnam and the People's Republic of China. We have also seen several arrests locally, as well and the recent sentence of 77 years on a rhino related matter, whichis yet another success stemming from our integrated approach.

However, the increase in the numbers of illegally killed rhino for its horn is an indication of the need to strengthen the interventions implemented to date, and that is why Cabinet recently approved the integrated strategic management of rhino that includes the following:

i) Compulsory interventions aimed at bolstering the current interventions relating to anti-poaching, actionable intelligence and responsive legislation;

· the Department of Environmental Affairs has, over the years,been faced with a speedily escalating poaching of Rhinos that has alarmed to the level of the Presidency announcing it as a national security matter. Following Cabinet approval, the National Rhino Coordination Centre was established in the Kruger National Park, with all the key strategic role players. The design had to focus on the following:

Ø Coordination of operations

Ø Centralisation of information

Ø Verification of intelligence

Ø Proactive and reactive measures

Ø Crime scene management

Ø Tracing and arresting of suspects

Ø Creation of a dedicated investigation team

The operational concept would have to deal with the above issues, and it entails the following as well:

· Consolidation of data from the KNP, Departments, Internal, external and other sources

· Management of the Joint Operational Centre (JOC)

· Management of operations by all involved

· Provide daily report with recommendations to the NATJOINTS.

The departments represented in the NRCC are as follows:

· South African Police Service

· South African National Defence Force

· Department of Environmental Affairs

· South African National Parks

· The Intelligence Co-ordination Committee structure within the Province

ii) New interventions, including the disruption of transnational crime networks:

· Through the intervention of the Priority Committee on Wildlife Crimes of the NATJOINTS which reports to the Justice Crime Prevention and Security cluster, an Intelligence Working Group (IWG) which is co-ordinated by the National Intelligence Coordination Committee (NICOC), was established to action the strategic interventions within this area as outlined to Cabinet.All affected departments are represented within the IWG.

· In addition, the Priority Committee on Wildlife crime is ensuring that all Provincial structures are co-ordinated, collaborated and functional in the fight against Wildlife combat. To date, meetings have already taken place in Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal, and North West;and have yielded positive results.

iii) The increase in rhino numbers through translocation of rhino to low risk areas, range- and population expansion

· The first batch of rhino has already trans-located from Kruger National Park to an undisclosed location.

iv) International and national collaboration and cooperation aimed at further strengthening cooperation with range, transit and consumer States

· In addition to the MOUs entered into with the Asian consumer countries, an MOU has been entered into with range states like Mozambique which is mostly affected by Rhino Poaching.

· An MOU with Botswana has been initiated and is under negotiation.

· Recently, South Africa has also engaged in talks with Tanzania, with the view of signing an MOU that would assist in consolidating a common position and approach to fighting Rhino poaching in the region.

v) Long-term sustainability measures, which include the creation of economic alternatives for communities; creating incentives to promote/facilitate rhino ownership; and the consolidation of rhino population across different land-users in South Africa, including national, provincial, private and communal land

· A dialogue has already started, specifically during the recent People and Parks Conference where communities were engaged on the type of economic opportunities that would be viable to creating a sustainable income generation mechanism and to explore their views on partnership with the Department in Combatting Rhino poaching and its impact.

Government has also involved Private Rhino Owners Association (PROA) as an affected stakeholder in dealing with Wildlife Crime. PROA is currently represented in the monthly Priority committee on Wildlife Crime meetings.

b) Shipment of rhino horns is continuing to take place without detection

i) The recent arrest of two Vietnamese nationals in possession of 41kgs of Rhino horn, at OR TAMBO International Airport, is an indication of continued vigilance and detection at the Ports of Entry and Exit. All forms of detection continue to be in effect as follows:

· Sniffer dogs;

· Scanning machines;

· Surveillance Cameras; etc.

ii) The Pedestrian by-pass pathway used to detect illegal goods on pedestrians, has also been revamped and is now functional.

c) A list of syndicates referred herein, which contains Mozambican nationals, has been referred by the Department to Mozambique,through a memorandum of understanding focal points, for further handling by relevant authorities.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO.2150 [NW2624E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Mr W M Madisha (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Government through the African Union and other bodies and institutions is taking steps to stop the shipment of hazardous wastes from developed countries to Africa for disposal; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) Whether she will make a statement on the matter of transnational movement of hazardous waste?

2150. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) In all SA's international engagements [Basel Convention's Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) and the Conference of the Parties (COP), Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA)] steps are always taken to stop the shipment of hazardous wastes from developed countries to Africa for disposal.

These actions are undertaken in line within the provisions of the Basel Convention on the control of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and their disposal, which SA is a Party to. The Basel Convention was created to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects resulting from the generation, trans-boundary movements and management of hazardous waste throughout their lifecycle, from production or manufacturing and transport to final use and disposal. The Basel Convention entered into force on 05^th of May 1992, and South Africa acceded it on 05^th of May 1994.

Furthermore, such steps are also taken in line with the Ban amendment of the Basel Convention, which South Africa is in the process of ratifying. The Basel convention ban amendment once ratified, bans with immediate effect all export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries for final disposal as well as the export of hazardous wastes intended for recovery and recycling by 31 December 1997 (Decision II/12).

The Ban Amendment, in full, states that:

"Each party listed in Annex VII shall prohibit all trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes which are destined for operations according to Annex IV A (disposal operations - operations which do not lead to the possibility of resource recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses), to States not listed in Annex VII. Each party listed in Annex VII shall phase out by the 31 December 1997, and prohibit as of that date, all trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes under Article 1, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention which are destined for operations according to Annex IV B (operations which may lead to resource recovery, recycling reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses) to States not listed in Annex VII. Such trans-boundary movements shall not be prohibited unless the wastes in question are characterized as hazardous under the Convention".

(2) Yes, South Africa continues to strive for the prevention of Africa being made a toxic dump of hazardous waste by developed countries. This is always advocated within the provisions of the Basel Convention, which SA and most other African countries are party to, more so in light of the potential adverse health effects such as fumes emanating from the burning of such hazardous waste. Furthermore, SA, together with its partners such as the Africa Institute, which is the Regional Centre for the Basel Convention for English-speaking African countries, and hosted by the Department of Environmental Affairs, and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), encourages the environmentally sound management of hazardous waste. For example, recently, the Africa Institute, after having held a successful regional meeting on the use of economic incentives as one of the tools to manage hazardous waste in an environmentally sound manner, developed and distributed in all English-speaking African countries which are Parties to the Africa Institute, educational materials on the following hazardous waste streams:

1. Used oil

2. E-waste

3. Used lead acid batteries

4. Used tyres

The huge potential of job creation within the hazardous waste stream sector is also acknowledged. To this effect, SA receives and accepts hazardous waste for disposal from other SADC countries into its licensed facilities due to the lack of capacity in those countries to dispose of such waste in an environmentally acceptable manner. The proximity rule is applied where wastes are to be treated as close as possible to the source of generation. Furthermore, the recycling of hazardous waste in an environmentally sound manner is also encouraged. It is for this primary reason that South Africa does not intend to ratify the Bamako Convention, in order to ensure that SA's recycling industry is protected and encouraged to grow. The industry is encouraged to utilise the opportunity which also contributes towards job creation and enterprise development. Such facilities should ensure that the working environment is safe and the workers are informed of possible health and safety dangers.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2137 {NW2608E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether her Department has introduced any measures to lower health risks from the burning of waste at landfill sites; if not, why not; if so, what are the details of any such measures?

2137. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Hazardous waste landfill sites are licensed by the Department of Environmental Affairs, and general waste landfill sites are licensed by the provincial department tasked with the mandate of environmental management. Waste collection and disposal is a municipal function in terms of Schedule 5b of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Licenses are issued with strict conditions that are regularly monitored. The applicable conditions are as follows:

1. Emergency Preparedness Plan – The license holder must maintain and implement an emergency preparedness plan and review it annually when conducting an audit after each emergency incident and major accident. The plan must amongst other, include measures to address:

a) power failure

b) equipment malfunction;

c) site fires;

d) spillage (on site);

e) industrial action;

f) natural disasters such as flood; and

g) contact details of the nearest Police Station, ambulance services and the emergency centre.

2. The license Holder must prevent the occurrence of nuisance conditions or health hazards.

3. No general and hazardous waste is burned at the facility

These are some of the applicable conditions that are contained in the approved license issued to each facility. Should any burning of waste occur at a landfill, it results in toxic emissions that can have a negative detrimental health impact on people on the landfill site, and would be in contravention of the conditions of approval.

The Environmental Management Inspectorate is then charged with conducting compliance monitoring and enforcement. This unit does the necessary inspections and investigations to proceed with the appropriate course of action. This could be in the form of compliance notices or directives, or even prosecution.

Most Municipalities in South Africa have promulgated by-laws for waste management. These include by-laws for illegal dumping of waste, prohibiting burning of waste on private or public places, including landfill sites. The contravention of these by-laws is deemed to be an offence, and there are punitive measures prescribed for these unlawful activities.

The Chemicals and Waste Management Branch is solely responsible for the approval and licensing of landfill sites, as well as imposing the appropriate conditions to protect the rights of people as enshrined in S24 of the Constitution of South Africa.

In addition, the Department has been working very closely with South African Local Government Association and Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency on assisting municipalities to prioritise waste management, including funding, training, education, awareness and capacity building to address a number of urgent matters, including the burning of waste.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2136 {NW2607E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to her reply to question 1654 on 21 October 2014, what measures is her department taking to ensure that illegal landfill sites are either (a) awarded permits or (b) closed down;

(2) what measures is her department taking to (a) monitor landfill sites and (b) make sure they are functioning within the legislative and regulatory framework;

(3) does her department have any processes in place to take action against municipalities with illegal landfill sites; if not, why not; if so, what processes are in place; and

(4) (a) will any affected municipalities be given licences, (b)(i) how many licences will be given and (ii) to which municipalities will it be given, (c) will those landfill sites without licences be closed; if so, what measures will be taken to ensure that each of the respective sites are (i) closed down and (ii) rehabilitated?

2136. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. (a) The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) commissioned a study in 2007 which identified 341 unlicensed waste disposal sites in the whole country. Then DEA and Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency (MISA) took a decision to fund the licensing process of all 341 unlicensed waste disposal sites during 2013/14 financial year and the licenses are being issued. The Competent Authorities (CA) responsible for the issuance of these licenses to all unlicensed waste disposal sites (general waste) are the Members of Executive Councils (MECs) of the Provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs. DEA has further identified an additional 69 unlicensed waste disposal sites which are not part of the 341 backlog study commissioned in 2007, and these are in a process of being licensed during 2014/15 financial year.

(b) Some of the waste disposal sites mentioned in Question 1 (a) above are for closure or decommissioning.

2. The National Department of Environmental Affairs is primarily mandated to regulate hazardous landfill sites. The Compliance monitoring sections in the department, as part of their yearly plans prioritises these hazardous landfill sites and carries out compliance inspections to ascertain whether or not they are in compliance with license requirements. In an event where non compliances are detected appropriate enforcement actions are taken to enforce compliance.

3. The department together with the provinces identified the need to prioritise a joint interdepartmental compliance and enforcement operation at general waste landfill sites for the 2014/2015 financial year. This will be a national compliance and enforcement operation that will focus on both municipal and privately owned general landfill sites. The non-compliances that are detected at these facilities will systematically be taken forward through appropriate enforcement action.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO. 2135 {NW2606E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) With regard to the Auditor-General's finding of R26 million worth of fruitless and wasteful expenditure within Programme 6: Environmental Programmes and Environment Advisory Services, (a) what were the terms of reference for the investigation requested by her Department which resulted in this finding; and (b) has this investigation been conducted subsequently; if not, (i) why not and (ii) what measures is the Department taking to recover this money;

(2) If this investigation has been completed, will the results of the investigation be made available; if not, why not; if so, when; and

(3) If this investigation is currently being conducted, when is it expected to be completed?

2135. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. The Auditor-General recommended that the amount indicated from the Audit that was commissioned and accordingly disclosed in the Director-General's Report, be disclosed as possible fruitless expenditure.

a) The Audit focused on 120 projects, which their end dates, according to the Department's Programme Management System, had lapsed; and they were not closed because the completion reports had not been received from the Implementing Agents. The main purpose was to determine if the projects had actually been completed and whether there was any money owed to the Department with a view to close the projects.

b) (i) The Department is busy with follow-up audit procedures as some Implementing Agents have challenged the findings, and are providing evidence to support their version.

(ii) So far R12.4 million has been recovered, seven High Court summonses have been issued, and in four other cases the Department is applying for default judgments.

2. The original investigation was completed on June 2012; and, in some cases, the findings were challenged by the Implementing Agents, leading to the initiation of follow-up audit procedures.

3. Draft report on follow-up audit procedures will be available by the end of December 2014.

Reply received: November 2014

QUESTION NO.2056{NW2523E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO.21 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 October 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) How many copies of her Department's annual report for the (i) 2012/13 and (ii) 2013/14 financial years were produced;

(b) at what cost were these reports produced for (i) 2012/13 and (ii) 2013/14; and

2056.THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES

Firstly I need to state that annual reports are produced as legally required documents as per section 40 (1) of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and paragraph 18 of the National Treasury Regulations

(a) (i) and (ii) 700 copies in total were produced for both 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years.

(b) (i) 2012/13 – R147568

(ii) 2013/14 - R143 070

(c) A prescribed quantity of 60 copies is submitted to the parliament, about 20 copies are provided to the Auditor General of South Africa, 13 copies provided to National Treasury. Copies of the annual report are also made available to the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA') Management and staff, and they are also placed at entrance areas for access by interested members of the public. Other copies are provided to the DEA information/walk-in centre and to members of the public who request for them. A number of copies (about 20) are retained for use by an assessment committee when the Office of the Public Service Commission facilitates the Director-General's final performance assessment for the respective year.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION 1949 / NW2332E

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES:

Ms A Steyn (DA) to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:

QUESTION

(1) (a) What was the date of the recorded outbreak of Avian influenza, (b) where was this outbreak recorded and (c) how many animals were affected;

(2) (a) what plans are in place to ensure that exports of ostrich meat to the European Union (EU) can resume and (b) by what date does his department plan to see the resumption of exports of ostrich meat to the EU? NW2332E

REPLY

(1) (a) What was the date of the recorded outbreak of Avian influenza, (b) where was this outbreak recorded and (c) how many animals were affected;

Highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N2

a) Started 1 February 2011 and was resolved on 20 June 2013.

b) Primarily in the Western Cape Province (49 outbreaks) and to a lesser extent in the Eastern Cape Province (1 outbreak).

c) 45343 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7N1

a) Started 19 December 2011 and was resolved on 11 July 2012.

b) A single outbreak within the Western Cape Province.

c) 12278 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H5N2

a) Started 13 January 2012 and was resolved on 11 May 2012.

b) A single outbreak within the Western Cape.

c) 2407 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7N1

a) Started 24 February 2012 and was resolved on 14 June 2013.

b) Western Cape (8 outbreaks) and Eastern Cape Provinces (6 outbreaks).

c) 4085 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H5N2

a) Started 1 June 2012 and was resolved on 20 May 2014.

b) Only Western Cape Province was affected (19 outbreaks).

c) 26218 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7N7

a) Started 28 February 2013 and was resolved on 27 January 2014.

b) Western Cape (8 outbreaks) and Free State Province (2 outbreaks).

c) 20026 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7

a) Started 30 July 2013 and was resolved on 17 October 2013.

b) Captive wild birds within a single facility within Gauteng Province.

c) 2000 captive wild birds were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7N1

a) Started 20 October 2013 and was resolved on 11 August 2014.

b) Eastern Cape Province (3 outbreaks).

c) 2906 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7N7

a) Started 31 January 2014 and was resolved on 9 September 2014.

b) Western Cape Province (3 outbreaks).

c) 977 ostriches were affected by disease control measures that were implemented.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H5N2

a) Started 28 January 2014. Not yet resolved.

b) Western Cape Province (7 outbreaks).

c) Still under investigation.

Low pathogenic avian influenza H7N1

a) Started 20 August 2014. Not yet resolved.

b) Western Cape Province (1 outbreak).

c) Still under investigation.

a) Currently heat treated ostrich meat from registered farms that do not fall within a 10km radius of an active outbreak area are exported to the EU. Negotiation with the European Union facilitated the export of raw ostrich meat from registered closed ratite holdings that comply with additional biosecurity requirements over and above that stipulated within VPN/04/2012-01(Revision 6.0).

Currently there is one registered closed ratite holding that is exporting raw ostrich meat to the EU. Other ostrich farms cannot export raw ostrich meat to the EU as they cannot meet the requirements.

b) In order for the department to declare the country free of HPAI, sufficient data has to be presented indicating confidence that there has not been any HPAI circulating in the country. In the last reported cases, virus could not be isolated and thus not typed; this doesn't give confidence to either the Department, or the trade partners that HPAI is not being missed.

The following steps are being undertaken by the Department:

i) A list of farms that have been re-registered is being interrogated, comparing it with the list of previously registered farms. A significant number of farms need to be registered, and an acceptable level is been estimated to be not less than 90% of the farms for epidemiological and statistical reasons.

ii) The 6 monthly surveillance data, mapping it to registered farms will then be considered and evaluated against its scientific/epidemiological significance. If the information is found to be sound, this information will be presented to the EU in the place of a country wide surveillance for AI. This process is outside the control of the Department as all the information is supplied by Provinces; the Department is awaiting this information.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO. 1823 {NW2196E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 18 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26 September 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the full and relevant details of the scientific process preceding South Africa's proposals to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 16^th Conference of Parties (CITES COP16) on the possible trade in rhino horn;

(2) What sustainable use practices are (a) taking place and/or (b) planned for the future in (i) provincial and (ii) national parks with respect to wildlife?

1823. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) The Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is the decision-making body of the Convention and comprises all its member States, has agreed in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) on a set of biological and trade criteria to help determine whether a species should be included in Appendices I or II (and the annotations associated with the listing). At each regular meeting of the CoP, Parties submit proposals based on those criteria to amend these two Appendices. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) initiates preparations for any CITES CoP a year prior to the CoP. This process includes a request to interested and affected parties to register to participate in the process to prepare for the CoP as well as a request to submit possible proposals for consideration by the Scientific Authority (the Scientific Authority is established in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004). The Scientific Authority then assesses possible proposals based on the criteria contained in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) and make recommendations to the Minister, which is then submitted to Cabinet for approval. With specific reference to a possible proposal on commercial international trade in rhino horn, a more comprehensive approach has been adopted to ensure the complexities relating to such a proposal will be considered. The Department of Environmental Affairs was authorised by Cabinet in July 2013 to explore the feasibility of South Africa tabling a proposal for the possible international trade legalization and orcontrolled limited trade in rhino horn to the 17^th Conference of Parties (CoP17) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2016. The Cabinet also approved the establishment of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) to oversee the investigation process.

The IMC will provide guidance relating to preparations in respect of this proposal to be considered at CITES COP17. The IMC will meet as soon as the Panel of Experts (PoE) has finalised a report for its consideration, and will make recommendations to Cabinet in this regard.

(2) (a) Sustainable use practices currently taking place include activities that relate to non-consumptive use (eco-tourism, photo-safaris, etc.) as well as consumptive use, such as harvesting, cropping, culturing, hunting, planting, translocating, selling/auctioning, donating, breeding and cutting.

(b) Should a decision be made on allowing any form of sustainable, the future plans will be determined based on the management plan of the protected area involved and will continue to be regulated through the current legislative framework, which includes the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 and the associated sub-ordinate legislation. This will include amongst others setting of annual quotas, harvesting sites, breeding sites, densities, daily bag limits, number of permits and permit conditions and season. These plans are based on understanding species population trends, reproduction, abundance, densities, locality, endemism, distribution, caring capacities and functioning of ecological processes.

(i) & (ii) Provinces and National Parks comply with legislative requirements and adaptive management policies in implementing sustainable use practices.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO. 1768

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 18 of 2014 {NW2139E}

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26 September 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her department has received the written submission on why the final compliance notice should not be issued to (a) Ezemvelo and (b) other parties thought to be involved in the (i) unauthorised drainage and (ii) destruction of a large section of the Balamhlanga natural wetland in the Makhatini Flats near Jozini;

(2) was this particular drainage authorised; if not, what steps will be taken to reprimand the guilty parties; if so, who gave authorisation;

(3) when will the full report on the Balamhlanga natural wetland debacle in the Makhathini flats be tabled in Parliament? NW2139E

1768. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1(a) The department received the written representations in response to the Notice of Intention to issue a compliance notice from Ezemvelo Wildlife.

(b) The department also received written representations in response to the Notice of Intention to issue a compliance notice from other parties thought to be involved in this matter.

(i)(ii) The Notice of intention to issue a compliance notice sets out the department's view in relation to unauthorised drainage and the destruction of a large section of the Balamhlanga natural wetland in the Makhatini Flats near Jozini.

(2) According to the current information at the disposal of the department, it appears as if the activities within this wetland have not been authorised. Furthermore, as matters currently stand, all the activities within this wetland have ceased and a criminal investigation is currently underway.

(3) A full report can only be tabled once all of the investigations have been finalised. At this point in time, and as indicated above, the department has received the representations to the Notice of Intention to issue a compliance notice and a criminal investigation is progressing. As soon as all these processes have been finalised a full report will be compiled.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO. 1767

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 18 of 2014 (NW2138E)

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26 September 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has found that all the structures built on coastal State land are legal; if so, for each of the structures, (a) who are the owners or users and (b) what (i) amount of rent is paid by the occupants and (ii) are the details of the agreement between the occupant and the State;

(2) with regard to illegal structures built on coastal State land, what action (a) has been or (b) is to be taken to (i) remove the occupant and (ii) ensure that the occupant (aa) restores the environment and (bb) demolishes any structure? NW2138E

1767. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) No. The Department is still in the process of auditing structures on coastal state land, and is not yet in a position to confirm legality of the structures.

(a) & (b) (i) and (ii) Lease agreements, ownership and rental are being administered by the Department of Public Works.

(2) (a) & (b) No action has been taken yet, as the auditing process of the coastal structures is not yet complete. Once the legality of the structures is determined the appropriate actions will be taken.

(i)(ii) aa & bb If the audit determines that structures are illegal; removal, restoration and demolition would follow on the basis of the provisions of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act: 2008.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO. 1759 (NW2130E)

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 18 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26 September 2014

Mr M H Redelinghuys (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) In the (aa) (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13; and (iii) 2013-14 financial years, how many times has her Department received a request from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in accordance with section 184(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to provide a report on measures taken by her Department towards the realisation of the rights in the Bill of Rights concerning housing, health care, food, water, social security, education and the environment; and
(bb) how many times did her Department submit such a report to the SAHRC in this regard; and (b) in each case, was the report (i) made readily available to the public or (ii) tabled in Parliament?

1759. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a)

(aa) (i) No request received.

(ii) Once.

(iii) Once.

(bb) The department has submitted reports for all requests from SAHRC.

(b) (i) No. In accordance with section 184(3) of the Constitution of South Africa, the Department is only requested to provide the Commission with information on measures that have been taken towards the realisation of human rights in the Bill of Rights concerning the environment. The responsibility to make the report available lies with the SAHRC.

(ii) No. See (b) (i).

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO. 1744

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 18 of 2014 {NW2110E}

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26 September 2014

Ms D Carter (COPE) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether research undertaken by her department shows any evidence of climate change within the (a) country's (i) national territory or (ii) surrounding oceans and (b) atmosphere during the period 1 July 2010 to 1 July 2014; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether she has found that her department was doing enough through (a) the public broadcaster and (b) other means of communication to encourage South Africans of all walks of life to play an active role in mitigating climate change outcomes; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether South Africa is achieving any success in Conference of the Parties meetings to get the nations of the world to work together to avert irreversible disaster; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

1744. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a)

(i) The Department of Environmental Affairs is currently concluding work on the development of Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios, aimed at understanding the impact of plausible climate change scenarios for South Africa, and developing potential adaptation responses for key sectors, including water, agriculture, health, human settlements, biodiversity, forestry, and marine fisheries. This work responds to the policy and planning directives of the National Climate Change Response White Paper and the National Development Plan, and provides a basis for short, medium and long-term planning. The first phase of this work, completed in June 2013, developed a consensus view of climate change trends and projections for South Africa for periods 2030, 2050 and 2100.

(ii) Yes, long-term ocean data around South Africa has shown an increasing average trend in Sea-Surface Temperature in the order of 2^oC over the last 100years. The Southern Ocean between South Africa and Antarctica has been identified as the ocean showing the fastest increase in temperature in the world and therefore affects our territory around the Prince Edward Islands. In addition, an increasing Sea-Surface Temperature trend over the Southern Ocean indicates that the oceans around South Africa will be experiencing more frequent and severe storms and associated storm surges that will impact directly on activities and our citizens along an increasingly vulnerable coastline.

(b) Observed climate trends for South Africa between 1960 and 2010 indicate that mean annual temperatures have increased by more than 1.5 times the observed global average of 0.65°C reported by the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the period from 1950. Maximum and minimum temperatures have been increasing annually, and in almost all seasons. A notable exception is the central interior where minimum temperatures have been increasing less strongly, and some decreases have been observed. Hot and cold extremes have increased and decreased respectively in frequency in most seasons across the country particularly in the western and northern interior. In almost all hydrological zones there has been a marginal reduction in rainfall for the autumn months. Annual rainfall has not changed significantly, but an overall reduction in the number of rain days implies a tendency towards an increase in the intensity of rainfall events and increased dry spell duration. Furthermore, extreme rainfall events show a tendency towards increasing in frequency annually, and especially in spring and summer, with a reduction in extremes in autumn.

(2) (a) No public broadcasting for this financial year on Climate Change.

(b) Yes, the department uses all possible avenues of communication to encourage South Africans to give effect to the national vision of transitioning to a lower carbon and climate resilient economy and society. This communication focuses on efforts underway and needed to enable South Africa to adapt to the impacts of climate change, as well as on efforts underway and needed to reduce South Africa's greenhouse gas emissions. Examples of such communication efforts include:

· Extensive stakeholder engagement in the development and finalisation of the National Climate Change Response Policy;

· extensive stakeholder participation in all elements of the work underway to give effect to the National Climate Change Response Policy;

· use of governance structures to involve stakeholders, including the National Climate Change Committee;

· various media events to engage South Africans on efforts to respond to climate change, including the use of tools such as the web-based 2050 emission pathways calculator which enables people from all walks of life to explore energy and greenhouse gas emission scenarios for South Africa up to 2050;

· use of print media to celebrate South Africa's climate change leaders; and

· use of formal and informal communication channels for publicising and calling for comments on documents such as the national greenhouse gas inventory which provides an analysis and consolidation of South Africa's greenhouse gas emissions from key sectors;

· The department is working with the poor and marginalised communities to raise awareness about climate change and its impacts;

· Outreach programmes which have been organized for schools. Aawareness campaigns were organised to coincide with the observations of the Departmental Annual Events such as the World Environment Day, World Day to Combat Desertification and World Ozone Day. Through the campaign, the department has reached an estimated 150 000 learners at schools in the KwaZulu-Natal, Free State and Eastern Cape Provinces since the beginning of the current financial year 2014/15. Educational materials were disseminated to both the learners and members of the community who attended the afore-mentioned events;

· the department has also made use of a branded bus to create the hype, grab the learners' attention as well as have it as a mobile advertisement of Department of Environmental Affairs' programmes;

· Different forms of publications, billboards and electronic communication are being produced and cover a wide range of environmental issues including climate change targeted at a wide audience of stakeholders.

(3) South Africa is one of the 194 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We participate in the negotiations as a member of the Group of 77 and China and the Africa group. The Africa group is made up of all African countries. South Africa facilitated the adoption of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action in 2011 during COP17 that was held in Durban. The main aim of the Durban Platform is to ensure that the international community negotiates and agrees to a new multilateral legally binding climate change agreement for all countries by 2015 in Paris during 21^st Congress of the Parties (COP21). South Africa and the Africa group have been calling for an ambitious climate deal that will ensure that we are all safe from the effects of climate change. The focus is to limit temperature increases to below 2 degree Celsius. This will require participation of all countries in doing their fair share in efforts to avert disasters associated with climate change. To this end the Ad Hoc Working Group for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action is tasked with producing a negotiation text no later than June 2015. The current Durban Platform for Enhanced Action negotiations are focused on agreeing to the elements of the negotiation text. The draft text that has been produced so far includes all the points that South Africa and the Africa group have raised. South Africa stands ready to negotiate with her partners to ensure that a credible deal is reached under the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action during COP21.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1655 (NW2016E)

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 17 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 September 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) With regard to the hydraulic fracking process, (a) what are the (i) short-term and (ii) long-term effects of this process on the soil; and (b) how will her Department ensure the rehabilitation of the soil/earth after fracking has been concluded?

(2) What negative effects will the hydraulic fracking process have on the surrounding areas/communities?

1655. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) a) (i) Hydraulic fracturing is listed as an activity which requires environmental authorisation in terms of section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998). As such, all hydraulic fracturing activities will be subjected to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Through the EIA process, the impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities on all environmental media, including soil, will be determined.

(ii) See (i) above

b) The EIA process requires all mitigation measures, including rehabilitation measures to be addressed in the Environmental Management Program report (EMPr). As such, the rehabilitation of any impacts on soil resulting from hydraulic fracturing activities will be assessed and mitigated.

(2) The impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities on the surrounding area/communities will also be determined through the EIA process. The EIA process will identify possible impacts, assess their severity, and determine if they can be avoided, or mitigated to an acceptable level prior to a decision being taken on the activity.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO.1654 {NW2015E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 17 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 September 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many landfill sites does South Africa currently have and (b) of these, how many are (i) legal, and (ii) illegal;

(2) (a) at what stage is her Department in the process of awarding licences to each illegal site; and (b) what is being done to close down illegal landfill sites which are not awarded licences; and

(3) are the legal landfill sites being monitored; if not, why not; if so, how?

1654. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a) There are 826 landfill sites in South Africa.

(b) (i) 489 municipal licensed landfill sites licensed (legal); and

(ii) A total of 247 municipal landfill sites are not licensed. 178 out of 247 unlicensed landfills, forms part of the licensing of unlicensed waste disposal site's project identified for licensing during the 2013/14 financial year, and licenses for these facilities are in the process of being issued by different Provinces. The remaining 69 unlicensed landfills are newly identified sites to be licensed during 2014/15 financial year. It is important to note that the 178 sites in process of being licenced are the finalisation of the 341 backlog study identified in 2011-2012, whilst the 69 sites due for processing in 2014-2015 have been subsequently identified through interaction with local and provincial authorities.

90 privately owned unlicensed landfills are decommissioned (not operational).

(2) (a) The Department Environmental Affairs (DEA) commissioned a study in 2007 which identified 341 unlicensed waste disposal sites in the whole country. This Department and Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency (MISA) are the funders of the licensing project of all 341 unlicensed waste disposal sites. The Competent Authorities (CA) responsible for the issuance of licenses for all unlicensed waste disposal sites (general waste) are the Provincial Departments responsible for Environmental Management. The prerequisite for environmental authorisations as well as the waste licenses are issued by these provincial authorities. The progress on the licensing project is as follows: 139 out of 341 unlicensed waste disposal sites were licenced between 2012 and 2014, and all remaining 202 unlicensed waste disposal sites are being licensed in the 2014/2015 financial year. DEA has further identified an additional 69 unlicensed waste disposal sites which are not part of the 341 backlog study commissioned 2007, and these 69 sites are in a process of being licensed in this current financial year.

(b) The Department will be undertaking a joint national compliance and enforcement operation that will target unlawful general landfill sites during quarter 3 of the 2014/2015 financial year. All of the unlawful sites will be prioritised for enforcement action based on the level of non-compliances that are detected during the compliance monitoring exercise. The priority status of each of these sites will depend on the severity of the non-compliance as well as the impact that is being caused thereby to the environment. The action taken may range from immediately closing down operations to implementing measures to ensure environmental protection.

(3) Yes, permitted or licenced landfill sites (legal) are being monitored. There are two monitoring regimes used, the first being a self-monitoring requirement wherein the Permit Holder is required to contract an independent third party auditor to carry out the monitoring and forward the outcomes to this Department. The audit findings are also presented to Community Monitoring Committees meetings which are attended by this Department, Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Water and Sanitation. All these requirements/conditions are specified in waste permits/ licences issued by DEA and Provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs to the Waste Disposal facilities.

The second monitoring regime is a compliance monitoring carried out by the competent authorities, such as DEA, DWS and Provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs, that issues the Waste Management Licences. Landfill sites are prioritized for inspections at the beginning of each financial year and compliance inspection are then conducted on the prioritized sites.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1653 {NW2014E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO. 17 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 September 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What (a) processes and (b) strategies have been implemented by her Department to ensure that South Africans recycle more waste?

(2) What is being done by her Department nationally to incentivise recycling on a (a) local and (b) municipal level to motivate (i) residents and (ii) businesses to recycle more?

1653. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a) The envisaged process to be followed in order to attain this goal is the development and implementation of Industry Waste Management Plans for identified waste streams.

(b) The Department has the National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) which guides the implementation of the Waste Act. Goal 1 of the NWMS is to promote waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and recovery of waste.

(2) (a) Local level towards residents: The Department is facilitating the development and implementation of Industry Waste Management Plans (IWMPs) as a way of facilitating and promoting recycling. Awareness raising to all different stakeholders forms part of IWMP. This would include teaching people the correct way of dealing with that specific waste streams, how to recycle and the benefits of recycling. Business opportunities within that specific sector would also be highlighted. In addition, IWMP would put in place the necessary systems and infrastructure to facilitate the correct behaviour. For example, IWMP would provide drop-off centres for the specified waste stream. It would also facilitate the collection of such waste to the drop offs.

(b) Local level towards business: Opportunities for new businesses are explored while existing businesses are assisted to function at a competitive level within the value chain of a waste stream; and the necessary incentives are given. For example, in terms of the waste Tyre Industry Plan, processors of waste tyres are given waste tyres free of charge. These tyres are also transported to the facility free of charge. This offsets some of the costs to the processors to enable competitive advantage on an international level. Furthermore, small businesses and cooperatives are also formed. People are assisted with setting up small businesses, and are also given training on the waste stream and business management. Subsidies are also given for the establishment of certain businesses. It is important to note that the type of incentives and interventions may differ from one waste stream to the next based on the challenges of that specific waste stream.

(i) I assume local level is the same as municipal level, hence the same answers as provided above would apply here too.

(ii) See (i) above.

It is also important to note that the concept of Industry Waste Management Plans is based on the life cycle of the waste stream and may not make a differentiation between provinces and local municipal levels. The different spheres of government would be included as stakeholders and possibly with their respective roles defined if there is a role over and above their legal prescribed mandates.

Reply received: October 2014

QUESTION NO.1620 NW1981E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 17 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 September 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) Which posts in her department are vacant in the (i) highly skilled, (ii) highly skilled supervision and (iii) senior and top management levels and (b) in each case, what has been the duration of the vacancy?

1620. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Following the macro re-organisation of the State and additions to the mandate of the Department, the Departmental structure had to be re-aligned and increased to optimise resourcing for service delivery. The increase of the structure led to an increased vacancy rate of 26% at the beginning of the previous financial year, which has now, through concerted efforts, been reduced to less than 10 % in line with the requirements of Outcome 12. The vacancy rates for the listed categories are highly skilled 10.7%, highly skilled supervision 15.5% and senior and top management 12.9%.

From a practical, capacity and change management perspective it was acknowledged upfront that this structure would have to be implemented in a phased manner, filling priority posts for delivery on the mandate first across the Department, with due regard to and constant monitoring of available budget. This has resulted in the duration of vacancies varying between as little as one (1) month for crucial affordable posts to as long as eighteen (18) months for those considered to be of lesser priority and subject to budget considerations, or where exceptional challenges have been encountered in sourcing specialised skills, particularly for science orientated posts in the fields of biodiversity, climate change, oceans and waste management. Sourcing in this area of challenge remains a strong focus area for the Department, involving innovative strategies to either reach and attract the scarce skills available, or creating a developmental pipeline to grow such skills for the Department and the country. The increased Departmental budget constraints have largely been occasioned by unforeseen additional expenditure requirements related to the implementation of collective bargaining resolutions and the establishment of a new Ministry in the Department.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1500 {NW1866E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 16 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 September 2014

Mr B M Bhanga (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether (a) her Department and/or (b) any entities reporting to it sponsored political party (i) advertisements, (ii) events and/or (iii) paraphernalia in the (aa) 2011-12, (bb) 2012-13 and (cc) 2013-14 financial years; if so, (aaa) for which political party and (bbb) what was the monetary value of the sponsorship in each case?

1500. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) No.

(b) No.

(i) Not applicable.

(ii) Not applicable.

(iii) Not applicable.

(aa) Not applicable.

(bb) Not applicable.

(cc) Not applicable. Moreover if there was any sponsorship to any political party the honourable Member would have read it in the 2013/14 annual report. This is so because accounting to South Africans also happens through that same report which is circulated to all honourable Members.

(aaa) Not applicable.

(bbb) Not applicable.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO.1467 {NW1833E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 16 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 September 2014

Mr D J Stubbe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

What is the quantum of funds spent by her Department on all advertising for each financial year between 1 April 2010 up to the latest specified date for which information is available?

1467. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

As required by the relevant prescripts, the expenditure of the Department of Environmental Affairs are disclosed annually in the audited financial statements as included in the tabled and published Annual Reports. Expenditure on advertising in the financial years in questions can be obtained from the Annual reports of the Department as follows:

(a) 2010/11 - Pages: 92

(b) 2011/12 - Pages: 106

(d) 2013/14 - Pages: 195

(e) For 2014/15 expenditure on advertising totals R6 417 000 upto 12 September 2014.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO1435 NW1800

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO16 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 September 2014

Mr A M Figlan (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) Which travel agents has her department used during the period 1 April 2012 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) what is the quantum of funds spent with each of the specified travel agents in the specified period?

1435. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Government requires service providers, such as travel agents, to be compliant with normal registration and compliance regulations as set out by relevant policies.

Government expenditure is accounted for through auditing procedures and information requested can be acquired from relevant annual reports.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO.1428 NW1793E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.16 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 September 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What steps are being taken to address the shortage of landfill sites in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality;

(2) are all the landfill sites in Buffalo City properly licensed; if not, why not; if so, (a) are the terms and conditions of the licence being complied with and (b) what monitoring is taking place to ensure that the licence conditions are complied with;

(3) is any action being taken to address the problems arising from the burning of the Stoneydrift Landfill Site; if not, why not; if so, what actions are being taken?

1428. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) The Buffalo City Metro Municipality has been having challenges of lack of facilities to encourage waste diversion away from landfill disposal. The City at this stage is prioritizing rectifying the non-compliances of the Roundhill and King Williams Town Landfill sites within the context of the national waste managemwast strategy which promotes waste minimization and diversion of waste from landfills.

The Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality will be assessing the need of additional landfill sites as well as addressing the state of compliance of the existing landfill sites. The solution might not be in having too many landfill sites, but rather in getting the most from the waste that is being generated through diverting it from going to landfill sites for disposal. Diversion will make waste to be available for re-use and recycling, hence contributing to the recycling economy and job creation.

(2) Buffalo City Metro Municipality has two licensed landfill sites i.e. the King Williams Town and the Roundhill Landfill Sites.

It has been established during monitoring of the sites that the licence conditions of these two sites have not been fully complied with. Hence, the Buffalo City Metro Municipality has undertaken an assessment to address the impact of the non-compliances of these two sites. The recommendations for remediating the impacts of the non-compliances have been made and the civil works to implement the corrective measures are expected to start before the end of this calendar year.

(3) The Department is not in support of the burning of waste in the landfill sites, as this activity deprives us of valuable recyclable materials that can be re-used and recycled. The burning of waste also contributes negatively to the recycling economy and reduces job creation opportunities.

The Buffalo City Metro Municipality is undertaking a procurement process to appoint a service provider to apply for the closure licences and rehabilitation as well as the identification of further uses of unlicenced disposal sites in Buffalo City Metro Municipality. As the licence of Stoneydrift expired in December 2013, this site will be included in that process.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1325 (NW1295E)

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 16 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 September 2014

Mr S P Mabilo (ANC) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to the alleged decline of air quality in the country (details furnished), could the Minister (a) explain what steps have been taken or are being taken in those worst-affected areas to alleviate the suffering of the poorest communities; and (b) indicate (i) which companies were responsible for exceeding the internationally accepted levels of aerosols emissions; and (ii) if the specified companies were effectively prosecuted?

(2) Have all the provinces submitted the required air quality management plans in order to comply with the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, Act 39 of 2004?

1325. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a) Minister has declared (in terms of Section 18 of the Air Quality Act) the areas where there

are exceedances of ambient air quality as National Priority Areas and published Air Quality Management Plans for these "Air Pollution Hotspots" in order to focus resources and efforts in bringing these areas into compliance. These areas are; a) The Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Areas; b) The Highveld Priority Area; and c) The Waterberg Bojanala Priority Area (a proactive declaration – to avoid non-compliance in the future industrial zone). With the declaration, there also came an establishment of air quality monitoring stations (14 in total) which record air quality values and are used to report compliance with ambient air quality standards. Ambient Air Quality Standards are the values that define "safe" air, and when they are exceeded it means that people are deprived of their right to air that is not harmful to human health and well-being. In total there are 109 monitoring stations that are owned by the different spheres of government for the purpose of monitoring air quality and reporting compliance with ambient air quality standards as the case may be.

The Air Quality Management Plans are under implementation and the Department and other spheres of government meet with stakeholders once a quarter to track the progress of implementation of the defined interventions. The analysis of the air quality problems in these areas have revealed the main pollution sources to be industrial emissions, dust and gaseous emissions from mining operations, domestic burning of dirty fuels (paraffin, wood and coal) and to a lesser extent, vehicle emissions. Industrial emissions are managed using an atmospheric emission licensing system, and mine dust is managed using national regulations for the control of dust. With regard to domestic fuel burning, the Department has developed a strategy to address air pollution in dense low-income communities. The strategy advocates, among others, for collaboration with the Departments of Energy, Human Settlements and Health, and it will soon be tabled in the cabinet process to seek approval and commitments for implementation.

(b)

(i) Non-compliances with regard to companies is when a company fails to comply with the provisions of their atmospheric emission license. The conditions and emission limits are based on the industrial emission standards of the Air Quality Act which, although have taken international standards into consideration, are South African.

(ii) The Compliance Enforcement unit of the Department has prosecuted some of the "offenders" in this regard. For example, Highveld Steel and Blue Sphere.

(2) The following provinces have completed their Air Quality Management Plan (AQMPs) in line with the requirements of the Air Quality Act:

• Limpopo (2013)

• Western Cape (2010)

• Northern Cape

• Free State (2009)

• Gauteng (under review)

• North West (2009)

• Eastern Cape (2013)

KwaZulu-Natal Province is in the advanced stages of developing their Provincial AQMP

Mpumalanga Province is in the process of initiating the development of their an AQMP

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1171 {NW1409E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 12 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 29 August 2014

Ms N I Tarabella-Marchesi (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs

(1) Whether (a) she; and (b) the Deputy Minister have each employed a ministerial special advisor; if so,

(2) (a) what is the name of the special advisor, (b) when was the advisor appointed, (c) what are the duties of the advisor, (d) at what post level was the appointment made, (e) what is the salary level of the advisor, (f) what is the duration of the employment contract entered into with the advisor and (g) why was it necessary to appoint this advisor?

1171. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. (a) Yes

(b) No

2 (a) (i) Ms K Magardie (Full time);

(ii) Prof M M Bakane-Tuoane (Part time); and

(b) (i) 1 August 2014

(ii) Accepted with effect from 1 September 2014

(c) To advise the Minister on the exercise or performance of her powers and duties; advise the Minister on the development of policy that will promote the Department's objectives; or perform such tasks as may be appropriate in respect of the exercise or performance of the Minister's powers and duties.

(d) Compensation level III

(e) Compensation level III

(f) Linked to the term of the Minister

(g) To perform functions as indicated in paragraph 2(c) above

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1068 {NW1192E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 12 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 29 August 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

What are the (a) names and (b) affiliations of the persons who sit on the panel of experts appointed in January 2014 to investigate trade in rhino horn?

1068. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) The names of the Panel of Experts will be made available after the vetting process has been finalised.

(b) Not applicable.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1043 {NW1197E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Does any official from her Department receive commission on any fundraising initiatives or funds raised; if so, (a) which officials are eligible to receive such commissions, (b) when have such commissions been paid and (c) how much do the commissions amount to?

1043. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

There are no commissions earned by any official from the Department.

(a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1042 {NW1196E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Is there a centralised DNA database of the entire rhino population in South Africa; if not, (a) why not; and (b) whether her Department is considering creating one; if so, will the database contain every individual rhino's DNA profile with regard to its location, age and other relevant details?

1042. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) DNA analysis to profile individual rhino was introduced as a tool to assist government in the fight against rhino poaching. DNA sampling only became a compulsory legal requirement in 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 was published in Government Gazette No. 35248. Samples have therefore not been collected from the entire population yet, but work is underway to complete this DNA database.

(b) A rhino DNA database has been created and is currently hosted by the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at the University of Pretoria, the institution responsible for rhino DNA analysis on behalf of the Department. This database is populated as samples are collected in compliance with the Norms and Standards for the Marking of Rhinoceros and Rhinoceros Horn, and for the Hunting of Rhinoceros for Trophy Hunting Purposes. The information in the rhino DNA database includes locality, species, sex, microchip number, permit number and owners' details.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1041 {NW1195E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Will her department consider adopting a centralised permit system for the transportation, breeding, sale and hunting of wildlife?

(2) is her department satisfied with the functioning of the current permitting system; if not, (a) why not and (b) what measures will her department take to improve the system?

1041. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, nature conservation and environment are functional areas of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence. Activities, such as transport, breeding, sale and hunting of wildlife are regulated in terms of both provincial and national legislation. The Department is in the process of developing a centralised permit system for all activities regulated in terms of national legislation.

(2) The Department recognizes the need to centralize information relating to activities authorised in terms of national legislation and it therefore initiated the development of a Coordinated and Integrated Electronic Permit System.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1040 {NW1194E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How much funding was received from (a) Howard Buffet Foundation and (b) Dutch Lottery to curb rhino poaching;

(2) (a) what are the terms of agreement or contract relating to the funding received from (i) Howard Buffet Foundation and (ii) Dutch Lottery and (b) will his department make public the agreements and/or contracts; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) in a detailed breakdown, (a) how was the money received from (i) Howard Buffet Foundation and (ii) Dutch Lottery been spent and (b) what is the remaining balance for both;

(4) in a detailed breakdown, how does his department plan to spent the remaining balance?

THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a) & (b)

Donor/Sponsor	Purpose	Promised/Envisaged	Received
Buffett Foundation	Rhino poaching – Kruger National Park Intensive Protection Zone	R 255 825 482	R 55 240 000
Dutch Post Code Lottery	Rhino protection programme	R 202 750 226	R 220 939 369
Swedish Post Code Lottery		R 14 067 000
Private donors		R 4 122 143

(2) (a) & (b) All the funds that are received by organs of state, (including donations) are audited by the Auditor-General, and that information is available to the public. Government has overall reporting mechanisms for disbursement of funds determined by the Generally Recognized Accounting Practices (GRAP), as well as the stipulations of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999. This system ensures monthly financial consolidation, quarterly- and annual reporting. This mechanism is employed in the case of funds received for rhino conservation by South African National Parks, as it is a requirement across government in general. Over and above these general, strictly followed internal processes, donors attach additional financial reporting requirements. For instance, the Buffet Foundation requires additional invoices and documentation relating to expenditure.

(3) (a) & (b) and (4)

Howard Buffet Foundation – disbursement schedule:

(It should be noted that the disbursement schedule is dependent on the progress made with the implementation of projects for which funds have been released. The exact amount available per project may change due to changes in the exchange rate):

No.	Disbursement Schedule [in ZAR]	TOTAL
No.	Disbursement Schedule [in ZAR]	TOTAL
1	Establish and manage a Program Office (CSIR)	R 19 011 278
2	Upgrade Reaction Force and K9 Handler Facilities	R 11 973 682
3	Establishment Canine Systems	R 3 027 339
4	Establishment 37 Reaction Force Members (6 member per section)	R 9 573 634
5	Specialized Risk Management Capability in the area of interest	R 12 967 600
6	Establish a Communication Backbone for command and control	R 8 902 172
7	Establishment of Western Boundary Seismic Fence (60 km)	R 47 141 423
8	Establishment of Eastern Boundary Monitored Fence (40km)	R 19 149 720
9	Establishment the Mobile Phone Tracker System	R 12 124 248
10	Establishment Air Mobility Capability	R 56 714 386
TOTAL (excluding first disbursement of R55 240 000)		R 200 585 482

Dutch Post Code Lottery – Rhino Protection Programme

No	Description	Total [in ZAR]	Contractually Committed budget	Remaining budget
1	Rhino Horn Asset Management and Research	66 212 735	3 450 000	62 762 735
2	Rhino & Protected Area Support	56 978 290	24 837 510	32 140 780
3	Veterinary support	4 000 000	2 000 000	2 000 000
4	Counter trafficking	19 117 059	17 117 059	2 000 000
5	Wildlife Justice Commission	14 000 000	14 000 000	0
6	Communication and advocacy, including demand reduction	26 420 234	3 900 000	22 520 234
7	Programme Implementation Unit	10 707 890	0	10 707 890
8	Contingency	1 144 915	0	1 144 915
9	Peace Parks Foundation Project management and support	22 358 246	4 471 649	17 886 597
TOTAL		220 939 369	69 776 218	151 163 151

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1039 {NW1193E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 of 2014

DATE OF P UBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

What are the names of the persons forming the interministerial committee that considers proposals for the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species 2016 conference to legalise limited trade?

1039. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

There is no such a team appointed as Inter-Ministerial Committee to legalise the limited sale. If this question was supposed to be about the Inter-Ministerial Committee appointed to investigate the possible trade of rhino horn, then the response is as detailed below. The appointment of these Ministers is related to the Portfolios they serve in and therefore if any Minister was to be moved, the next Minister continues with the functioning or task because their appointment are function and portfolio related.

The Inter-Ministerial Committee is comprised of the:

Minister of Environmental Affairs

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans

Minister of Economic Development

Minister of Finance

Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

Minister of Police

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Minister of Science and Technology

Minister of State Security

Minister of Trade and Industry; and

Minister of Tourism

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1038 {NW1191E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.10 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Has her department found that provincial ordinances and Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations compete with each other; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, (a) is her department considering consolidating legislation and (b) what are the relevant details?

1038 THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, nature conservation and environment are functional areas of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence. To ensure the proper functioning of these concurrent functional areas, the Constitution provides for mechanisms to ensure alignment, including recognition that national legislation that applies uniformly with regard to the country as a whole prevails over provincial legislation. The provincial legislation therefore does not compete with national legislation.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 1037 {NW1190E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Has any conservation official from her department conducted any verification that canned lion hunting has been done in accordance with applicable legislation; if so, (a) how many verifications, (b) on what dates and (c) where were the verifications conducted;

(2) have any canned lion hunts been conducted without verification from a conservation official; if so, (a) how many hunts, (b) on which dates and (c) why were the verifications not conducted?

1037 THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) and (2)

In general, the term "canned lion hunting" refers to the hunting of lion in artificial circumstances, including the hunting of lion that is under the influence of a tranquiliser, by trapping it against a fence to hamper its escape, by luring it through the use of bait, hunting it in a controlled environment, and hunting it from a motorised vehicle.

In terms of the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations, which have been promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), specific activities relating to the hunting of lion have been prohibited, including hunting a lion-

(a) by means of poison, traps, snares, flood- or spot lights or darting;

(b) with an automatic weapon, a weapon discharging a rimfiring cartridge of .22 of an inch or smaller, a shotgun or an air gun;

(d) if the lion is under the influence of a tranquilizing, narcotic, immobilizing or similar agent;

(e) if the lion is trapped against a fence or in a small enclosure where the lion does not have a fair chance to evade the hunter

(f) motorized vehicles, except for the tracking of the lion if the hunt takes place over long ranges, for allowing a physically disabled person to hunt;

(g) aircraft, except for the tracking of the lion if the hunt takes place over long ranges; or

(h) dogs, except if the dogs are used to track a wounded lion, or for the purpose of pointing, flushing and retrieving a lion.

Based on the above, canned hunting cannot be done in accordance with applicable legislation, because the above mentioned activities are prohibited and any person carrying out a hunt in non-compliance with these prohibitions are guilty of an offence.

There is no legal requirement to supervise lion hunts; only rhino hunts have to be supervised because it is a compulsory requirement in terms of the applicable norms and standards.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 986 {NW1139E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.: 7 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether her Department is responsible for the South African National Antarctic Programme (SANAP); if not, which department(s) is; if so, (a) to what extent is her department involved with SANAP, (b) what is the status of SANAP in terms of funding and (c) has her department to which SANAP will report to in the future been resolved?

986. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The Minister of Environmental Affairs has the mandate (Antarctic Treaties Act No 60 of 1996) for South Africa's presence and involvement in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, and therefore Environmental Affairs is responsible for SANAP.

a) As clearly stated in the Presidential Proclamation which all Honourable Members have access to, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is responsible for the logistic support (including environmental monitoring and compliance) of SANAP i.e. provide the enabling conditions for SANAP science (e.g. Ship, Bases on Marion and Gough Islands and in Antarctica, etc.) while the Department of Science and Technology (DST) is responsible for funding SANAP research.

b) The SANAP logistics support budget (DEA) for this financial year is R158.5 million. The SANAP research budget (DST) is R24 million.

c) No change is envisaged for the future, however the agreement between the two departments remains in relation to SANAP activities.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 985 {NW1138E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many new (a) hotels, (b) lodges and (c) gates are proposed for the Kruger National Park in the long-term future;

(2) (a) will there be an end of self-drive for tourists in (i) the Kruger National Park or (ii) parts of the Kruger National Park; if so, who will take over the transportation of tourists; and

(3) will (a) tourism or (b) other departments of the Kruger National Park be privatised in the future; if so, what are the relevant details?

985. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a) None

(b) 2: Skukuza Safari Lodge in the Skukuza camp as well as the Malelane Safari Lodge.

(2) (a) (i) No.

(ii) Not applicable in the context of the above response.

(3) There are no departments in the Kruger National Park, assuming that the Honourable member is

referring to departments like Public Works etc.

Reply received: September 2014

QUESTION NO. 924 {NW1013E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 10 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22 August 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) How many (i) persons have been suspended and/or terminated before the end of their contract within South African National Parks (SANParks) since 2010, and of these (ii) are still under suspension; (b) (i) why and (ii) how many of these persons are still being paid by her Department; and (c) why was (i) Dr Hector Magome suspended, and (ii) her Department's contract with Dr David Mabunda not renewed?

924. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) (i) 1 person has been suspended.

(ii) 1 person is still under suspension.

(b) (i) He is under suspension due to alleged misconduct which relate to governance. The case is still on and no further details can be done at this stage.

(ii ) 1 person is still being paid by SANParks.

(ii) Dr Mabunda's served two terms of his contract with SANParks, and the contract has come to an end as per the normal practice applicable to SANParks.

Reply received: August 2014

QUESTION NO. 920 {NW1012E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 1 August 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether her Department is considering to burn the current stock pile of rhino horn which it has under its control; if not, (a) why not; if so, why; and (b) what (i) does her Department estimate it would cost to burn the current stock pile of rhino horn and (ii) are the further relevant details?

920. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

No.

(a) Adequate guidance is provided in Res Conf. 9.10 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Rev. CoP 15) regarding the disposal of confiscated and accumulated specimens.This Resolution provides that:

"Parties dispose of confiscated and accumulated dead specimens of Appendix-I species, including parts and derivatives, only for bona fide scientific, educational, enforcement or identification purposes, and save in storage or destroy specimens whose disposal for these purposes is not practicable;"

(b) (i) Not applicable;

(ii) There are no further details.

Reply received: August 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 786 NW873E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.6 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION 25 JULY 2014

786. Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many rhinos have SA National Parks (SANParks) (i) sold, (ii) given away or (iii) culled since 1 January 2010, (b) how much money has been raised through the sale of rhinos since 1 January 2010, (c) what were the funds spent on, (d) when were tenders for the sale of SANParks rhinos publicised and (e) who were the successful bidders;

(2) whether she has established that the entities to whom tenders were awarded had no links to any government officials; if so, (a) were any links established, (b) who were the officials and (c) what links do they have with the entities;

(3) (a) how much will it cost the department to relocate 250 rhinos to the proposed secret locations, (b) how does this compare to the cost of protecting them from poaching and (c) will SANParks go ahead with the planned relocation of rhinos;

(4) (a) why was the SANParks' contract with Pathfinder terminated and (b) what measures are currently in place to (i) gather and (ii) share intelligence that can lead to the conviction of rhino poachers and syndicates?

786. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1(a)(i) 354.

1(a)(ii) Six.

1(a)(iii) None.

1(b) R 81 060 538 (excluding VAT)

1(c) SANParks accumulates all income from the sale of animals in a special fund called the Park Development Fund. This Fund is used by SANParks for numerous conservation-related projects including: acquisition of land for inclusion into national parks, research projects in the biophysical and social sciences relevant to national parks, scientific reports and community beneficiation projects.

1(d) Before 2012, tenders for the sale of rhinos were advertised in various public newspapers. This practice was stopped in 2012 for security reasons. Therefore the recent sale of rhino was not publicised.

1(e) Names cannot be published due to exposure and security risks.

2. Not aware of any government officials linked to the entities to whom tenders were awarded.

3(a) The costs associated with relocation of rhino depends on various factors such as distance, type of equipment, weather, topography, size of the rhino, number of rhinos and expertise employed therefore the exact costs cannot be provided.

(b) The Department does not cost the protection of each Rhino, costs related to the protection of rhino are for the whole Rhinos population in a particular area and this therefore depends on the size of the area, vegetation type, the threat level, topography, proximity to identified risks, type of equipment used, and available intelligence.

(c) Decision has not yet been made in relation to the relocation, however, relocation is undertaken as part of a conservation principle to manage the Rhino population and encourage expansion. SANParks is currently drafting an integrated rhino conservation strategy involving a number of possible actions, including innovative technologies, movement of rhinos to safer locations, greater involvement of communities in rhino conservation and international collaboration. The strategy will also include cost implications.

4(a) The scope of work and the appointment of Pathfinder was not properly consulted with the Security Cluster.

4(b) (i) and (ii) SANParks Rangers and SANParks Corporate Investigation Services are currently collaborating closely with the SAPS and SANDF to gather and share intelligence on wildlife crime. The relevant security structures are also working in this area.

Reply received: August 2014

QUESTION NO. 745

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 6 of 2014 {NW832E}

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25 July 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(a) How many (i) judgments and (ii) court orders were made against her department in the (aa) 2010-11, (bb) 2011-12, (cc) 2012-13 and (dd) 2013-14 financial years and (b) in each case, (i) how many of these (aa) were implemented and (bb) await implementation by her department and (ii) what was the nature of the (aa) judgment and/or (bb) court order?

745. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(aa) (a) 2010/2011 Financial Year (one judgment was taken against the department)

Name of case: Predator Breeders Association versus the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Supreme Court of Appeal

Date of Judgment 29 November 2010

(a)(i)- One judgment was taken against the department.

(b)(i)(bb)- None await implementation.

(b)(i)(aa)- The court order was implemented.

(b)(ii)(aa)- Nature of Judgment: This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal which concerned the validity of certain regulations made by the Minister of Environmental Affairs under Section 97 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004).

The judgement was in favour of the applicant, based on, among others, the following:

The banning of "put and take" hunting (Regulation 24(1)(a) of the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, and in terms of the regulations generally meaning the hunting of a captive-bred specimen within a period of 24 months after its release from captivity is an ethical matter that cannot be regulated in terms of legislation that is designed to conserve and protect biodiversity; and

there is no rational justification (no scientific evidence) for the assumption that captive-bred lions need 24 months to become self-sustainable, or that they can be rehabilitated at all.

The challenge by the applicant involved the lion only and not all the listed large predators such as the black and white rhino; therefore the judgment related to the lion only. Subsequent to the court case no further amendment to the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations was required in order to implement the judgment, and the lion was not included in the definition of the "listed large predator" again. The regulations had indeed already been amended in January 2008 pending the outcome of the court case.

However, since the department was aware that the principle of the judgment would also apply to other species to which Regulation 24 applies, and that the potential exists for Regulation 24(1)(a) to be challenged in relation to other species, the department has deleted all reference to "put and take" hunting in the current draft of revised Threatened or Protected Species Regulations.

(a) (bb) 2011/2012 Financial Year (two judgments taken against the department)

Name of Matter: M Hodge/Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Date of Judgment 1 November 2011

a)(i) Two judgments were taken against the department in 2011/2012.

(b)(i)(bb)- None await implementation.

(b)(i)(aa)- There are no outstanding issues to be addressed by the department

(b)(ii)(aa)- Nature of the judgment: The matter related to a review application against the Minister's decision to uphold an appeal against the issuing of a permit for the construction of a commercial exhibition centre. The applicant brought an application for the review and setting aside of such a decision.

After consulting with legal representatives, the Minister was advised not to oppose the application due to certain factual, legal and technical difficulties; in particular the approach of not opposing the application was deemed prudent in that it would grant the Minister an opportunity to consider the outstanding appeals and deal with the appeal question holistically.

The court therefore reviewed the Minister's decision and set it aside with costs. A new appeal was considered by the Minister and it was dismissed with the effect that the authorisation for the construction was granted.

(a)(cc) 2011/2012 Financial Year (two judgments taken against the department)

Wasteman Holdings (PTY) LTD and others versus Francois Ryno Serfontein and others

KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Date of Judgment 20 December 2011

(a)(i)Two judgments were taken against the department.

(b)(i)(bb)- None await implementation.

(b)(i)(aa)- The order to return documents, seized objects and samples was implemented.

(b)(ii)(aa)- Nature of the judgment: The matter concerned the validity or otherwise of a search and seizure warrant issued by Magistrate PI Singh. The warrant was executed on 10 February 2011 by the first respondent and various employees of the other respondents. The applicant is a waste disposal company which collects and disposes of medical waste. The Minister of Environmental Affairs was the second respondent.

After considering the evidence, the court ordered that the search and seizure warrant be set aside, and that all documents and objects seized, and samples taken pursuant to the execution of the search and seizure warrant be returned to the applicant forthwith.

2012/2013 Financial Year (one judgment taken against the department)

Airjaws Africa CC/Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and 13 others

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Date of Judgment 24 April 2012

a)(i) One judgment was taken against the department in 2012/2013.

(b)(i)(bb)- None await implementation.

(b)(i)(aa)- There are no outstanding issues to be addressed by the department

(b)(ii)(aa)- Nature of the judgment: The Minister's decision not to grant the Airjaws white shark cage diving appeal was set aside and referred back to the relevant Minister by the Western Cape High Court on 24 April 2012. Furthermore, Airjaws' exemption was declared valid pending any appeal by either party.

Judgment was appealed against by the department and the appeal was settled on the basis that the original judgment would be abandoned by both parties; therefore the order against the Minister no longer stands. The Minister was ordered to pay Airjaws' costs and 50% of the costs of the third respondent.

(a) (dd) 2013/2014 Financial Year (no judgments to date have been taken against the department)

Reply received: August 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.689 [ NW600E[

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.6 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION 25 JULY 2014

Mr M G P Lekota (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether the Government has made any significant progress in its negotiations with the government of Mozambique to ensure Mozambique's support for better security of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park in order to stem the poaching of rhinos; if not, how does the Government intend to take this matter forward; if so, what are the details and the outcomes thereof? NW773E

THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. The MoU between the two countries has been signed and the implementation plan is being developed by officials of the two countries. The implementation plan will facilitate, among others, conducting of coordinated law enforcement operations that will include the management and protection of Protected Areas and the TFCAs. The GLTP's security plans will form an integral part of the Implementation Plan in order to curb poaching of Rhinos in this area.

2. At macro level, South Africa and Mozambique are strengthening coordination and are undertaking interventions jointly between the Kruger National Park and the Limpopo National Park Conservation authorities at park management level, in order to improve co-operation between the Limpopo National Park (LNP) in Mozambique and the Kruger National Park (KNP) in South Africa as part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP) initiative. Regular bi-lateral collaboration meetings between LNP and KNP managers and field rangers are held; Joint operations between LNP and KNP, to discuss the Security Cluster related issues such as Operation Capricorn is ongoing. The security cluster also forms part of the implementation mechanism for a cross-border protocol to facilitate movement of officials across the international boundary; Joint training of rangers from each of the GLTP partner countries also happens periodically.

3. A fence is being erected in the Limpopo National Park to create an Intensive Protection Zone to strengthen and support enforcement and patrols. 54km of this fence is already completed.

4. Other areas of collaboration include exchange and/or sharing of information and intelligence as well as development and implementation of a joint cross border communications network, which is focussed on the areas located on both sides of the international boundary.

5. To minimize the risk due to the movement of people in the GLTP, the government of Mozambique is also engaged in a process of relocating villages out of the Limpopo National Park. Two of the 7 villages have already been removed and the 3^rd is in the process of being moved. This process is targeted to be completed by 2016.

6. In addition to the above, the Government of Mozambique through the Limpopo National Park has embarked on the following processes to ensure the safety of tourists visiting the Park:

Implementation of an Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) located along the international boundary (i.e. on the eastern side of the Kruger National Park Fence);
Training and deployment of a new elite field ranger unit in the newly formed "Zona de Vigilância Especial (Intensive Protection Zone)" along the Park's western boundary with KNP. Activities of the rangers in the IPZ will focus mainly on addressing the rhino poaching and wildlife crime. The main focus of this unit is to address rhino and elephant poaching challenges facing the GLTP.
The new Conservation Areas Act was enacted by the Parliament of the Government of Mozambique on 9 April 2014. The new Act further commits Mozambique to its international biodiversity conservation obligations and recognizes transfrontier conservation areas as one of its national conservation area categories. It further provides for significant sentences for wildlife crime related activities, which includes rhino poaching. Training of judges and magistrates in the implementation of the New Conservation Act, will commence later this year.

7. The two countries also submit joint reports to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as obligated in decision 16 of the 2013 Convention on Rhino.

8. South Africa has also made significant progress in securing external funding jointly with Mozambique to support the implementation of the MOU.

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.605 NW688E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.5 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION 18 JULY 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many (a) international and (b) domestic hotel bookings were made by (i) her, (ii) her predecessors and (iii) departmental officials attending (aa) workshops, (bb) seminars, (cc) oversight visits or (dd) any other relevant meetings of the relevant portfolio committee from 1 April 2013 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) in respect of each specified booking, what was the (a) date, (b) name of the hotel, (c) number of delegates, (d) cost of the hotel booking for each delegate and (e) the nature of the relevant portfolio business dealt with? NW688E

605. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Members of the Executive, by the very nature of their ministerial work are required to travel. Ministers and Deputy Ministers may choose to occupy a state-owned residence in the area, in which their seat of office resides. However, ministerial work is not limited to seats of office and their duties require them to visit provinces around the country and travel abroad in order to fulfill their duties, which include among others, interaction with communities and stakeholders in the course of delivering on their mandates. In these instances, Ministers and Deputy Ministers are accommodated in hotels or guest houses, when fulfilling official duty away from their ordinary place of residence, befitting their office requirements and as outlined in the relevant policies.

The 2013/14 year is currently being audited and will be available in the Annual Report. Information regarding the 2014/2015 financial year will also be audited and made available to the public at the relevant time

Reply received: August 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.547NW629E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.5 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION 18 JULY 2014

Mr N Singh (IFP) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

Whether, with reference to her reply to question 1734 on 23 August 2011, confirming numerous exports of lion parts to a certain person (name furnished) in Lao People's Democratic Republic, she will now consider banning all (a) further exports of lion bones, skeletons and carcasses and (b) other wildlife exports to the specified person, given that a substantial monetary reward has been issued by the State Department of the United States of America for information leading to the dismantling of a certain organisation (name furnished) of which he is the leader; if not, why not; if so, what steps will she take?

547. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) and (b) Yes. Sections 88(2)(e), 92A and 93 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), as amended, provides for the issuing authority to defer a decision to issue a permit; refuse a permit; and to cancel a permit, in certain circumstances. The relevant MECs, who are the issuing authorities for the issuance of export permits to private individuals, including the specified person, in terms of Section 87A of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), will be instructed to implement these provisions. Furthermore, I will, in terms of Section 59(d) of NEMBA, instruct the MECs that permits should be refused where the specified person is involved as well as any other person involved in illegal wildlife related activities.

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 519 {NW601E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 4 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 11 JULY 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What upgrades, if any, does her Department envisage for the Lion's Head; and (b) what is the timeline for the implementation of such upgrades; and

(2) whether any funds have been allocated for upgrades to the Lion's Head; if not, why not; if so, what financial amount has been budgeted for such upgrades in the current financial year?

519. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1 ((a) None

(b) None

2. No. Other critical areas have been prioritised for upgrades.

Reply received: August 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.518 NW600E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.4 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION 11 JULY 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How does her department intend to contribute towards the reduction of Parliament's carbon footprint;

(2) what (a) current and (b) future incentives are (i) being implemented and/or (ii) planned to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour in the country? NW600E

THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1. As the custodian of the South African environment, the Department of Environmental Affairs is obligated to identify, measure and act on the impacts that its activities may have on the country's environment. The Department has since 2010-11 conducted an annual Departmental Carbon Footprint study. A carbon footprint can be defined as a calculation of the total greenhouse gas emissions caused both directly and indirectly by an organisation's activities and is typically measured and reported over a period of 12 months. The carbon footprint studies aim to provide a comprehensive audit analysis of the emission sources which are linked to the Departmental daily activities and the extent of carbon dioxide emissions as a result of these activities. The information obtained through the studies ultimately supports decision making and the implementation of relevant programmes and actions that contribute to a reduction in the current emissions profile of the Department. The results obtained from the studies allow the Department to investigate mechanisms and actions that would contribute to reducing the Department's Carbon Footprint.

Parliament as a public organisation is required to align to the objectives of the National Climate Change Response Policy (NCCRP) through employing similar tools and interventions at an organisational level to audit the emission sources which are linked to the Parliament's operations and daily activities and to make year on year improvements in the organization's environmental performance.

Chapter 10.5 of the National Climate Change Response Policy encourages organizations, communities and citizenry to "change our behaviour and become conscious of our individual carbon footprints". There is no requirement or commitment from DEA to commission a carbon footprint study for Parliament. This is an organisational sustainability management exercise that should be managed through the organisational support services components of Parliament. DEA would; however; be able to provide technical support to Parliament in the event the organization initiates a carbon footprint audit process.

2. (a) & (b)

Government has established a number of incentives schemes aimed at promoting environmental sustainability through the support of green economy and sustainable consumption and production initiatives. In this regard, the Manufacturing Competitiveness Enhancement Programme (MCEP) within the Department of Trade and Industry (Dti) has a sub-component on Green Technology and Resource Efficient Grant, which support manufactures to upgrade their production facilities in a manner that promote environmental sustainability. Furthermore, government introduced the tax incentive to allow tax payers to claim deductions of energy efficiency savings made against a baseline measured at the start of each year of assessment. The allowance for energy efficiency savings will provide tax incentive for energy efficiency improvements as outlined in the 12L Regulations for businesses based on measured and verified energy savings through registration with the South Africa National Energy Development Institute (SANEDI) and ultimately linking to the Tax process by the South Africa Revenue Services (SARS).This incentive has significant contribution to the environmental sustainability.

Further interventions include the Solar Water Heater Rebate Programme was aimed at promoting the installation of the solar water heaters thereby contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emission. A significant stride has been made with regard to the reduction of the greenhouse gas emission through this programme thereby influencing environmentally friendly behavior by most receiving communities.

Furthermore, the Department of Environmental Affairs through the Sector Education, Training and Development directorate is currently implementing a number of educational programmes which serves as incentives to increase the knowledge, values, behaviour and skills base of participants and to encourage environmentally friendly behavior in the country to achieve better environmental outcomes and increasing the environmental return on investment. These incentives are also complemented by funding mechanism such as the Green Fund which act a catalytic fund to leverage private sector, donor agencies as well as civil society participation in a transitioning towards a green economy.

(i) and (ii)

Some of the myriad of environmental educational and awareness' interventions currently being implemented by the Department include:

· Translating the technical language of a natural science or related field into terms and ideas that ordinary members of the public can readily understand; which employs various methodologies to achieve environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and effective public participation in decision-making.

· Implementation of the Eco-Schools programme is designed to encourage curriculum-based action for a healthy environment. This is an internationally recognised award scheme that accredits schools that make a commitment to continuously improving their school's environment. DEA has partnered with the Wildlife & Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) to co-ordinate the development and implementation of the international Eco-Schools programme within South Africa

· A Teacher Training Programme (Fundisa for Change programme), that was launched by the Department as a significant national event aimed at strengthening the national system of engagement for transformative environmental learning and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) through teacher education. The Department is currently implementing the teacher training programme for starters in four provinces with strong rural base (Eastern Cape, Free State, Limpopo, and Northern Cape) to provide participants with the knowledge, skills and techniques required to effectively educate the learners in line with the Basic education Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS).

· An Enabling Framework for the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) to assist them to adopt a pro-active approach to environmental skills development in order to address environmental concerns and also to maximise new development opportunities and job creation possibilities;

· Implementation of the Environmental Practice Learnership to assist local government to implement environmental mandates for service delivery, particularly water quality management, waste management, biodiversity management, air quality management, environmental health, climate change risk and opportunities, management of parks and gardens or public open spaces. DEA is funding the Learnership programme and paying stipend to the unemployed learners. The stipend serves as an incentive to attract the unemployed to pursue a career in the environmental sector.

· A partnership with the Department of Higher Education with the support of the German Development Agency on the Green campus Initiative which is currently being implemented to green FET Colleges in respect of the curriculum, infrastructure and community and research.

The Department of Environmental Affairs has employed an outreach strategy that uses mass media, publicity merchandise [for environmental outreach campaigns linked to varying thematic areas] and the internet as tools to raise environmental awareness. The Department conducts environmental awareness programmes for free as an incentive to schools, communities, the youth as well as women to inform them about environmental issues and concerns and to assist them to establish environmental structures and programmes to promote environmentally friendly behaviour in the country.

Reply received: August 2014

QUESTION NO. 517

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 4 of 2014 {NW599E}

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 JULY 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

How do (a) full-time equivalent jobs and (b) work opportunities differ from a standard 45-hour week permanent job?

517 THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(a) A Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) job refers to one person-year of employment. One person-year of employment is equivalent to 230 person days of work. Person years of employment equals total number of person days of employment created for targeted labour during the year divided by 230 days. (note that these are based on 40-hours per week).

(b) Work opportunity refers to paid work created for an individual on an Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) project for any period of time. The same person can be employed on different projects and each period of employment will be counted as a work opportunity.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION NO. 425 {NW507}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 3 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 4 July 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many delegates from her Department attended the United Nations Environment Assembly held in Nairobi in June 2014; and (b) why was it necessary for the specified number of persons to attend;

(2) what was the all-inclusive cost of the delegation's attendance;

(3) what specific (i) outcomes will be implemented and (ii) benefits will South Africa enjoy as a result of South African delegates attending this summit; and

(4) whether she has found that the cost versus benefit is justifiable?

425. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

1) (a) 12 Delegates attended the United Nations Environment Assembly held in Nairobi in June 2014.

(b) The delegation was selected according to areas of their knowledge as they relate to agenda items that were to be addressed. The programme for the Assembly was divided into two segments, namely the High Level Segment that involved Ministerial participation and the technical levels negotiations. The subject matters were addressed in the form of negotiations in small contact groups that operate and meet on a parallel basis throughout the week. The discussions were of a technical and scientific nature and, therefore, warranted the presence of suitably experienced officials from the Department.

The following agenda items for negotiations within the expert group necessitated the attendance of all experts in these areas.

· The science-policy interface (this matter deals with the important discussion of ensuring that policy decisions are adequately under pinned and informed by rigorous scientific evidence and information).

· Chemicals and waste

· Enhancing coordinating role of the UNEP in the UN system on environmental matters: A process to prepare a UN system-wide strategy on the environment, including the EMG.

· Promoting air quality through UNEP.

· Ecosystem-based adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

· International environmental governance (specifically, the implementation of paragraph 88 of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development).

· UNEP budget and programmes.

2. The total cost of the mission to the Department of Environmental Affairs was
R465 831.10.

3. (i) The United Nations Environment Programme outcome document is available on their website address, www.unep.org The same document delineates all the outcomes reached through the negotiations. As a member state of the UN Environment Assembly, the outcomes are legally binding and, where relevant, are to be implemented at the national level. Of particular relevance in this regard are the resolutions on illegal trade in wildlife, chemicals and waste, air pollution and ecosystem based adaptation. The international environmental governance issues, including the global sustainable development goals and post 2015 development agenda, will be resolved at the UN General Assembly in September 2014. Reports on the status of implementation are presented to Parliament in accordance to the Parliamentary reporting timetable.

(ii) The trans-boundary nature of environmental challenges, climate change being a case in point, necessitates global collaboration. Given South Africa's socio-economic vulnerability to these threats to the global environmental public good, it is in our national interest to ensure that actions taken at the national level are coordinated with as well as supported and complimented by those taken at the global level. Therefore, South Africa proactively promotes multilaterally agreed solutions to these global challenges to prevent unilateral and possibly trade distorting actions by some countries. The UN Environmental Assembly is leading the global responses to environmental challenges and as such, provides the appropriate multilateral level setting to ensure that decisions taken globally are translatable into and are appropriate for our national context.

Furthermore, participating in the global decision making process allows South Africa to contribute in setting the global agenda which ensures that matters of concern for South Africa, Africa and the developing world are taken into cognisance and adequately addressed. Our proactive involvement in the negotiation process ensures that global policy decisions taken are also internationally supported with finance, technology and capacity building through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, such as the Global Environment Facility, to ensure delivery on the imperatives.

4. Yes, the cost benefit is justified; and adequate representation was necessary and justifiable in order for South Africa to continue its efforts to protect our national interest and in developing a better Africa and a better world.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION NO.360{NW445E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION:27 June 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, in relation to the compliance with and/or enforcement of environmental laws, she intends to advocate for specialist prosecutors to contend with environmental compliance cases; if not; why not; if so, when;

(2) whether she intends to propose changes to legislation regarding the responsibility of approving environmental impact assessment applications to prevent possible corruption;

(3) (a) how does her department ensure compliance with the rehabilitation responsibility of mining companies, (b) how many onsite inspections of mining companies have been executed in the last five years and (c) what are the (i) names, (ii) dates and (iii) findings of these inspections;

(4) (a) how many convictions have been achieved in the (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13 and (iv) 2013-14 financial years for environment-related crimes, excluding administrative violations and (b)(i) who or (ii) which organisation(s) was/were convicted and (iii) for which specific violations;

(5) whether she intends to advocate for stricter sentences for environmental law contraventions; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the proposals and (b) when does she intend to implement these proposals?

360.THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has, over the years, engaged with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in relation to the possibility of dedicated prosecutors for environmental crimes. Based on these engagements, significant progress has been made in relation to raising awareness within the NPA on environmental crime. The development of a Prosecutors Guideline by DEA (together with the on-going prosecutor training programme led by the Chief Directorate:Enforcement of DEA) has also assisted prosecutors in better understanding environmental crimes, including, the impacts of such crime and how to argue in aggravation of sentence. Within each of the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions, specific prosecutors have been identified as nodal points for environmental cases, and these prosecutors co-ordinate/oversee environmental cases within their areas of jurisdiction, including the referral of dockets to other prosecutors; support and advice other prosecutors as well as deal with certain cases themselves. Within the North Gauteng DPP region, a specific guideline is in place, which provides guidance to all prosecutors (and the relevant EMIs that work in this area) as to how environmental dockets will be dealt with.

It should further be noted that dedicated prosecutors have been assigned to rhino cases; however, due to the significant number of these dockets, it is a challenge for the prosecutors who have been assigned to these cases to keep pace with the number of poaching incidents and related investigations.

(2) At this stage there are no proposals to change legislation. However, should there be issues of corruption within the environmental impact assessment system, those would be addressed through the Department's management system.

(3) (a) The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) (rather than the Department of Environmental Affairs) has always been the responsible department to ensure compliance with the rehabilitation responsibility of mining companies. Provisions related to rehabilitation have always been included in mining legislation (for example, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act) which requires mining companies to provide adequate financial guarantees to the DMR in respect of their rehabilitation obligations. Amendments to the legislation dealing with these issues are being proposed, and the obligations will be brought within the realm of the environmental legislation through the drafting of regulations on financial provision and mine closure. The responsibility for monitoring compliance and enforcing these new regulations will still remain with the DMR.

(b) Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(iii) Not applicable

(4) This information has been extracted from the information provided to the National Department for the purposes of compiling the National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report on an annual basis (these are cases investigated/supported by the Environmental Management Inspectorate). Due to the volume of required information, the attached link reflects the cases and convictions. http://www.pmg.org.za/rnw360-140722numberofconvictionsreported

(5) The Department is of the view that the current penalties in the suite of environmental legislation under the framework of the National Environmental Management Act and its associated legislation, including regulations, are adequate for offenders involved in environmental crimes. The fines, depending on the offence committed, range from 5 to 10 years imprisonment and/or fines of between R5 million and R10 million or both. In addition to environmental offences, there are often other charges involved in criminal cases, which would then result in additional penalties in certain cases. In relation to more serious environmental crimes that involve organised crime, the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998 becomes applicable, allowing for even higher penalties to be given by the court in addition to orders that assets be seized from the offender based on the benefit accrued from these criminal activities. The courts are utilising these mechanisms in many of the rhino related cases, and we are seeing direct imprisonment sentences in most of the rhino cases that are finalised. We are also beginning to see much higher monetary fines in relation to the pollution cases. Further work is on-going to continue training the prosecutors and magistrates.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable.

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 327 NW408E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 June 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the details of all flowers purchased by her department for each year between 1 April 2009 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) what are the details of (a)(i) the address and (ii) the name of the office where the specified flowers were displayed, (b) for whose benefit were the flowers purchased and (c) what was the purchase value of the flowers for each office where it was displayed;

(3) in respect of flowers purchased for individuals, (a) what is the (i) name and (ii) relationship of the person to (aa) her and (bb) the Ministry and (b) what is the cost of each purchase;

(4) what are the details of any (a) contractual arrangements and (b) plans to purchase flowers in the future? NW408E

327 THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The Republic of South Africa is a caring Government and flowers are a token of compassion to people and/or employees in cases of, amongst others, bereavement and hospitalization.

Since purchasing of flowers is done on the basis of such instances, it's not possible to say when bereavement or hospitalization will affect people or staff, therefore there are no plans to purchase flowers in future, except to enact relevant policy when the need arises.Normal procurement processes are followed when purchasing flowers.

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 293 NW373E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 June 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the details of office furniture ordered and or purchased for the use of her and/or her staff since 1 May 2014;

(2) in respect of each piece of furniture, (a) what is the description, (b) what is the breakdown of the costs, (c) where will each piece of furniture be used and (d) who will use each piece of furniture;

(3) what are the details of furniture disposed of;

(4) in respect of each piece of furniture disposed of, (a) what is the description, (b) original purchase costs and (c) on what date was it purchased;

(5) (a) how was this furniture disposed of, (b) what disposal method was used, (c) what is the name and contact details of person/s to whom it was disposed and (d) at what price was it disposed of? NW373E

293. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The New Executive was announced in May 2014 and is setting up according the proclamation by the President dated the 3 July 2014.

Government is committed to apply austerity measures as spelt out by Cabinet and each Ministry is expected to inherit existing infrastructure. However, should there be none the normal government procurement process will be followed. While Government seeks value for money, it will source purchases from the local market in line with a commitment to support local industry and producers of goods and services.

General Furnishing of Executive offices is the responsibility of Public Works and individual departments do not bear associated costs.

Where furniture is required on departmental budgets, normal procurement processes will unfold in line with austerity measures, which seeks value for money and use of local industry to procure goods and services.

Furniture is disposed if it redundant; outdated; broken beyond repair; have exceeded their lifespan and / or are no longer supporting the objectives of the Department.

Depending on the usefulness of the particular equipment and the costs involved in alternative methods of disposal, Departmental disposal committees may recommend that item(s) be scrapped, auctioned or donated to amongst others local communities. Any funds raised through the above are deposited into the National Revenue Fund.

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 259 NW338E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 June 2014

Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the details of motor vehicles ordered and/or purchased for her use since May 2014;

(2) (a) what is the (i) make, (ii) model, (iii) total cost and (iv) breakdown of the cost of each motor vehicle and (b) where will each motor vehicle normally be stationed?

259. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The New Executive was announced in May 2014 and is setting up departments according the proclamation by the President dated the 3 July 2014.

Government is committed to apply austerity measures as spelt out by Cabinet and each Ministry is expected to inherit existing infrastructure. However, should there be none the normal government procurement process will be followed.While Government seeks value for money, it will source purchases from the local market in line with a commitment to support local industry and producers of goods and services.

Official vehicles are the property of the state and are used on official duty for direct interaction with communities and stakeholders as part of the Public Participation programmes and Parliamentary programmes of Ministers. These enable Ministers to fulfil their duties which may call for their presence in different parts of the country.

When official vehicles are purchased for Ministerial use, procurement is done according to an existing framework and guidelines that stipulate that new purchases of vehicles may take place when the currently provided official vehicle for that office has reached 120 000 km or 5 years, whichever comes first.

Official vehicles may (sometimes) experience serious mechanical problems or could be in a poor condition. In such cases, the respective Department may approve the replacements of such a vehicle, subject to obtaining a detailed mechanical report by the vehicle manufacturer or approved dealer.

The total purchase price of the vehicle chosen by the Member may not exceed in respect of a prescribed percentage of the inclusive annual remuneration package of an Executive Member.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION NO. 242 {NW320E}

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 June 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether her Department currently have stockpiles of rhino horn under its control; if so, (a) what measures are implemented to safeguard these stockpiles and (b) who is responsible for the safeguarding of the said stockpiles;

(2) whether South Africa was represented at the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, held on 12 and 13 February 2014; if not, why not; if so, who attended this conference;

(3) how many kilograms of rhino horn (a) did her Department have under its control in the
(i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13 and (iii) 2013-14 financial years, (b) are currently held by her Department and (c) have been (i) lost, (ii) misplaced and (ii) stolen over the specified financial years?

242. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) Yes, the National Department of Environmental Affairs has a stockpile of rhino horn under its control.

(a) The stockpile is secured in appropriate safes, with the necessary control measures in place.

(b) Specific Departmental officials have been appointed to ensure that the stockpiles are safeguarded.

(2) South Africa was represented by officials from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation.

(3) (a) (i) 2011-12: 1517.2 kg

(ii) 2012-13: 1560.2 kg

(iii) 2013-14: 1560.2 kg

(b) 1560.9 kg

(ii) None.

(iii) None.

Reply received: July 2014

ADVANCE QUESTION NO. 169 NW217E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the details of all the costs of the maintenance of the pot plants in her (a) departmental offices and (b) official residence (i) in the (aa) 2009-10, (bb) 2010-11, (cc) 2011-12, (dd) 2012-13 and (ee) 2013-14 financial year and (ii) since 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) in respect of the pot plant maintenance, (a) what is the (i) address and (ii) name of the office where they were/are displayed, (b) for whose benefit are these pot plants, (c) what was/is the value of maintenance for each office and (d) what are the details of any contracts and/or plans for the maintenance of these pot plants in the future?

169. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

The Department procures its own pot plants for use in their offices. The pot plants are used as office décor and do not directly benefit any person. They are procured according to normal procurement processes.

In terms of the provision of pot plants for Ministerial use, the Department of Public Works provides these at all Ministers' official residences under the Prestige Portfolio and the Department of Public Works carries the cost.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION NO. 135 [NW147E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Mr S J Masango (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the details of all expenditure that was found to have been (a) irregular and (b) wasteful in her Department for each year from 1 April 2009 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; and

(2) in respect of each such finding of (a) irregular and (b) wasteful expenditure, (i) what (aa) is the description thereof, (bb) is the value thereof and (cc) action has been taken against the persons accountable thereof and (ii) how much thereof (aa) has been recovered and (bb) from whom?

135. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Wasteful expenditure is recognized as an expense in the statement of financial performance in the year that the expenditure was incurred. The expenditure is classified in accordance with the nature of the expense and where recovered, it is subsequently accounted for as revenue in the statement of financial performance.

Irregular expenditure is accounted for as expenditure in the statement of financial performance and where recovered, it is subsequently accounted for as revenue in the statement of financial performance.

Annual financial statements are published in the Department's and/or entities Annual Reports which have been tabled and discussed in Parliament for the financial years 2009/2010; 2010/2011; 2011/2012; 2012/2013; 2013/2014 and are public documents. The 2013/2014 Annual Reports are expected to be tabled in accordance with normal parliamentary processes and are expected later this year.

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 103 NW112E

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Mr D Bergman (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What are the details of official credit cards issued to (a) her and/or (b) her staff;

(2) in respect of each credit card, (a) what is the (i) name and (ii) organogram position of the user, (b) what is the (i) maximum permissible value of each purchase and (ii) total credit limit of the card, (c) what are the details of permissible purchases for which the credit cards may be used and (d) may alcoholic beverages be purchased;

(3) in respect of purchases made with each credit card during the period 8 May 2014 and/or thereafter up to the latest specified date for which information is available, (a) what is the (i) name and (ii) organogram position of the user, (b) what is the (i) value of each purchase made, (ii) what are the details of each item purchased and (iii) for what purpose was each purchase made and (c) were any alcoholic beverages purchased; if so, (i) what are the (aa) details and (bb) value of these purchases and (ii) for what purpose was each purchase made?

103. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1)There is no official credit card that has been issued to either me or any officials in my Department.

(2) Falls away

(3) Falls away

Reply received: July 2014

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 71 (NW77E)

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many (a) international and (b) domestic flights were undertaken by (i) her and (ii) her predecessors using (aa) aircraft operated by the military, (bb) aircraft chartered by the military or (cc) commercial aircraft during the period 1 April 2013 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) in respect of each specified flight, what was the (a)(i) date and (ii) place of (aaa) departure and (bbb) arrival and (b)(i) total cost and (ii) breakdown of such costs?

71. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

Ministers and Deputy Ministers may use business class / first class travel for official purposes at the expense of their Departments. Official trips include, amongst others, those travelled from Pretoria to Cape Town for Parliamentary Sittings and appearances, as well as international trips, which require Ministers to execute official duties.

All flights are used for official duty and this is an enabling factor for Public Participation Programmes of Ministers who have to meet demands of their schedules.

Members may use the South African Airforce aircraft for official purposes, when available and under certain circumstances and for reasons including if the facilities of other airlines are not cost-effective and / or readily available in the specific instance.

Members may also use chartered aircraft for official purposes and for reasons including if the facilities of other airlines are not cost-effective and / or readily available in a specific instance.

The Ministry (and its support staff) is responsible for determining the cost-effectiveness of all trips carried out by Ministers and Deputy Minister's and ensure that the intended journeys meet the requirements of relevant guidelines.

The relevant details and financials in this regard will be provided in the relevant Annual Report 2013/2014, which will be tabled later this year.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION NO. 48 [NW54E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 OF 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Ms T Hadebe to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) What steps has her Department taken to strategically include private rhino owners/breeders/conservationists, who own the second largest herd of rhino in the world, in initiatives to combat rhino poaching;

(2) what is her Department's position on (i) the use of drones to combat rhino poaching and (ii) will she object to the intention of the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) if it brings legislation to ban this form of surveillance;

(3) (a) has SACAA's ban on the use of drones with cameras been implemented in national game parks and (b) will her Department object if SACAA's ban on drones with cameras are implemented to affect private game parks who use such equipment to combat rhino poaching?

48. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) The Department consults with the Private Rhino Owners Association (PROA) on a regular basis, and has also held a Workshop with the South African Police Service and PROA in order to establish where assistance is needed and to create relationships between government and PROA.

(2) (i) The Department will support the use of drones to combat rhino poaching if research/experiments on its use shows that it can be used effectively in combatting poaching.

(ii) Should the SACAA bring legislation to ban this form of surveillance, and the research/experiments undertaken on the use of drones shows that it can be used effectively to combat poaching, I will engage with SACAA on the legislation or request that certain allowances be provided for within the legislation.

(3) (a) According to SACAA they have not banned the use of drones with cameras as no specific notice or regulation to ban unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) (also popularly known as drones), has been issued. They are simply working on the integration of drones into the South African airspace.

(b) See answer in paragraph (2) (ii) above.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION 47 [NW53E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What amount in funding has been raised by private bodies registered with her Department since
1 January 2013 to curb rhino poaching, (b) how have these funds been spent, (c) when will her Department publish a list of registered private anti-rhino poaching initiatives and (d) what steps has she put in place to facilitate an integrated approach to combat rhino poaching;

(2) will she push for stricter prison sentences, starting with a minimum of 10 years, for offenders involved in rhino poaching; if not, why not; if so, when does she intend to (a) bring such legislation and (b) enforce its implementation;

(3) (a) what aspects of rhino horn trade does her department (i) support and (ii) not support, (b) what are the reasons for those aspects that her department (i) support and (ii) does not support and (c) what are the recommendations that she will make to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)?

47. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) According to the information submitted by Non-Profit Organisations/Non-Government Organisations/individuals to the Department of Environmental Affairs:

(a) The funds raised to date are R101 388 850-95;

(b) The funds have been spent on the following initiatives:

· Improving security standards

· Dissemination of information

· Raising awareness about rhino poaching

· Support interventions that deals with rhino anti-poaching

· Supporting security operations, surveillance, intelligence, training and equipment

· Supporting rhino orphanages and rhino breeding programmes;

(c) The department will publish a list of Non-Profit Organisations/Non-Government Organisations/individuals when the information submitted has been consolidated and the relevant verification finalised; and

(d) The Department, in collaboration with the provincial conservation authorities, the South African Police Service, the South African National Defence Force, Justice and Correctional Services, private rhino owners and various non-governmental organisations, has been implementing a large range of interventions to address rhino poaching since 2008, among many other non-security related measures that can be disclosed being the following:

Legislative interventions, including strategies and studies:

· Government Gazette No. 31899, Notice No. 148 (13 Feb 2009): National moratorium on the trade of individual rhino horns and any derivatives or products of the horns within South Africa. This is in place until further notice.

· Government Gazette No. 32426, Notice No. 756 (20 July 2009): Norms and standards for the marking of rhino horns and hunting of white rhino for trophy hunting purposes. The norms and standards were reviewed in 2012 to further strengthen provisions, and on 10 April 2012 the Norms and standards for the marking of rhinoceros and rhinoceros horn as well as for the hunting of rhinoceros for trophy hunting purposes were published in Government Gazette No. 35248, Notice No. 304.

· National Strategy for the Safety and Security of Rhinoceros Populations and Horn Stocks in South Africa was approved and implemented in 2010.

· A dehorning impact assessment, to determine whether dehorning is an option in terms of securing rhino populations, was initiated in 2011 and released in 2012.

· A feasibility study to determine the viability of legalising trade in rhino horn in South Africa was initiated in 2012.

· Amendments proposed to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) to strengthen permit provisions and include enabling provisions to defer, suspend and cancel permits under certain circumstances. The National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act, 2013 (Act No. 14 of 2013) came into effect on 24 July 2013.

· A biodiversity management plan for the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in South Africa 2011-2020, was published in Government Gazette No. 36096, Notice No. 49 for implementation.

· A draft biodiversity management plan for white rhino (Ceratotherium simum simum) has been developed.

Collaboration and co-operation interventions:

· Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) have been signed with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China and now under implementation.

· The MoU between Laos Peoples Democratic Republic and South Africa has been finalised and is awaiting signature.

· Draft MoUs with Cambodia, Thailand and Mozambique have been developed, negotiated, and awaiting finalisation.

· An interim National Wildlife Crime Reaction Unit (NWCRU) was established to assist in the implementation of the National Strategy for the Safety and Security of Rhinoceros Populations and Horn Stocks in South Africa.

· NATJOINTS (National security structure) has a Priority Committee on wildlife crime (with the focus currently on rhinoceros) to co-ordinate investigations and plan joint operations (the ProvJoints in the nine provinces report back into this national structure which comprises all the law enforcement and intelligence role-players).

· The Southern African Developing Communities (SADC) meeting of Ministers of Environment decided that a comprehensive anti-poaching strategy must be developed and adopted for the region and that a coordination unit should be established in the SADC Secretariat to coordinate law enforcement and monitoring illegal harvesting of resources.

· The Department will continue with the implementation of the joint strategy with all other affected government departments, including law enforcement agencies.

· The Department will implement key recommendations emanating from the Rhino Issues Management process, including the establishment of a National Rhino Fund, to assist in the implementation of key interventions.

The South African National Parks has taken the following steps:

· The Ranger Corps and associated divisions were re-organised into an anti–poaching force with unified command.

· A Joint Operation Centre (JOC) was established to ensure 24/7 command and control of operations.

· Cooperation and communication with all members of the task force (SANDF and SAPS) were streamlined.

· More than a dozen training courses were presented to ensure special skills development.

· Alliances with private reserves on the Western boundary were concluded as part of the "buffer zone" concept to ensure intelligence, early warning and disruptive engagement with poachers in those parks.

· Community programs were intensified to enhance cooperation and intelligence sharing.

· Three projects were launched in Mozambique:

o Cooperation with the Limpopo National Park to ultimately allow for joint cross border operations;

o Cooperation with the Concessionaire's in Mozambique, adjacent to the south eastern areas of the Kruger National Park, yet again according to the "buffer zone" concept; and

o Operation LEBOMBO has been conceptualised and discussed with the Mozambican Authority, and will be launched before the festive season.

· The resettlement of the seven villages out of the Limpopo National Park is pursued as priority with the Mozambique government.

· SANParks will execute the three year plan to build an anti-poaching capability addressing people, including leaders, organisations and processes, sustainment, training, equipment (including technology) and doctrine.

· Continue with the Mozambique initiatives as well as new projects.

· Improve the flow and processing of crime intelligence.

· Work towards an integrated Government approach, resulting in more resources dedicated from more departments.

· Continue investigations into asset management – options related to the Rhino horn;

· Implement technology solutions.

· Ensure total access control, including the two international border posts.

(2) No; the current penalties in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) and its associated Regulations are adequate for offenders involved in rhino poaching in that we use the criminal justice system of the Republic of South Africa. It must be noted that the courts do not only use NEMBA (which also includes charges related to possession and other activities for which permits are required) but a plethora of other laws related to illegal possession of firearms, trespassing as well as other Acts, such as the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998 to charge an offender involved in rhino poaching. A combination of the relevant charges can result in sentences greater than the 10 years imprisonment provided for in NEMBA, for example, the convicted rhino poacher who received a sentence of 40 years imprisonment in 2013 (which was later reduced to 30 years on appeal);

(3) (a) – (c) Cabinet approved that a process to explore the feasibility of rhino horn trade should be explored and possibly be initiated at the 17^th Conference of Parties to CITES in 2016. No final proposal has been compiled, or decision made, regarding the possible future rhino horn trade as an additional intervention to reduce the levels of poaching, and trade should not be considered in isolation from the comprehensive national response referred to in response to question 2.

Reply received: July 2014

QUESTION 46 [NW52E]

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2014

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 June 2014

Mr M H Redelinghuys (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What is the list of the relevant statutes and/or policies that forms the current legislative framework that governs recycling programmes and initiatives at municipal level, (b) what incentives are (i) currently in place and (ii) being considered to encourage (aa) municipalities, (bb) private residents and (cc) businesses to recycle waste;

(2) whether any legislation is currently being considered to incentivise and/or compel (a) municipalities, (b) private residents and (c) businesses to recycle waste; if so, what are the relevant (i) timeframes and (ii) details;

(3) whether her department intends undertaking any feasibility studies in respect of incentives for recycling by municipalities, private residents and businesses;\

(4) what tonnes in waste is recycled annually?

46. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1) (a) Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) and the National Waste Management Strategy 2011.

(b) (i) (aa) (bb) (cc) Currently there are no incentives

(ii) (aa) (bb) (cc) The bureau established under the Waste Amendments will consider incentives for recycling. The president signed the Waste At amendments in June 2014.

(2) (a) (b) (c) The bureau established under the latest amendments to the Waste Act will consider incentives and compulsory requirements. The president signed the Waste Act amendments in June 2014.

(i) No timeframes specified.

(ii) No details given.

(3) The bureau established under the latest amendments to the Waste Act will consider feasibility studies and incentives.

(4) The baseline study that was undertaken in 2011 indicates that we recycle approximately 10 600 000 tonnes per annum.

2014-07-16

What's wrong with this page?