Questions & Replies: Environmental Affairs A
2015-03-12
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: May 2015
QUESTION NO.1455 {NW1668E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.10 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 APRIL 2015
Ms T E Baker (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) (a) How many invoices from private contractors to her department currently remain unpaid for longer than 30 days and (b) in each case, what (i) are the details of the (aa) contractor and (bb) services provided and (ii) what is the (aa) date of the invoice and (bb) reason why the invoice was not paid within 30 days?
1455. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) (a) The Department currently has zero invoices from private contractors that remain unpaid for longer than 30 days.
(b) N/A
(i) (aa) N/A
(bb) N/A
(ii) (aa) N/A
(bb) N/A
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 1419 {NW1632E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.10 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 April 2015
Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Does her Department have a Regulatory Burden Reduction Strategy in place; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the strategy?
1419. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) The Department does not have a formal strategy in place to reduce the legislative burden on the regulated community. However, several initiatives are underway that are specifically aimed at streamlining regulations and legislative requirements which will move the sector towards proactive environmental protection based on the identification of areas in which development could be encouraged or should be discouraged rather than reactive command and control methods which require permits/authorisations and must be implemented through compliance monitoring. Some examples are included below:
- the development of standards in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008, which will result in the use of standards in the place of applications for environmental authorisations, waste management licences and environmental impact assessments (EIA);
- the development of a screening tool that would ensure a better information base for decision-making and alleviate the burden of unnecessary impact assessments;
- the development of minimum information requirements and standard environmental management programmes (EMPrs) that could be used by proponents, where they are relevant and applicable, leading to a reduction in costs to proponents and time spent on preparation of documents required as part of applications for environmental authorisation;
- the development of a number of strategic environmental assessments (SEAs), resulting in baseline information being available and authorisation processes requiring only outstanding information to inform decision-making;
- the use of environmental management instruments, e.g. environmental management frameworks (EMFs) to delist or exclude from the requirement to obtain environmental authorisation;
- the Department is in the process of identifying the activities which will be taken forward from the Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Strategy (EIAMS) which has been prepared over the past 6 years by the sector, and which has provided a number of suggestions to improve the current environmental management system, including suggestions on law reform; and
- the implementation of the one environmental management system by the DEA, provinces, DMR and DWS since 8 December 2014, with the preceding amendments made to relevant legislation to give effect to this streamlined decision–making process, should already result in a decrease in regulatory burden for mining.
(2) The Department also hosts a Mintech Working Group meeting each quarter which considers all legislation which affects the sector. These interactions are specifically set up in an effort to streamline environmental legislation and avoid duplication.
(3) As the Department is firmly of the view that the land areas that require protection are best protected at the planning stage, the Department is currently developing a strategy that will ensure that environmental planning considerations are integrated into the work done under the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act to ensure sustainable development.
(4) From 1 June 2015 all the Departments will be obliged to do socio-economic impact assessments on all their new policies and regulations. As part of this assessment the Department will consider options other than legislation that will address the challenge.
Reply received: May 2015
QUESTION NO. 1385 {NW1597E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.10 OF 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 APRIL 2015
Mr S Esau (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(a) What number of (i) financial, (ii) forensic and/or (iii) other investigations that were commissioned by her Department have been completed since 1 April 2013; and (b) in each case, what are the relevant details on the (i) investigation, including a synopsis of the facts and findings of each case, (ii) persons or third parties responsible for each investigation, (iii) total cost to date of each investigation and (iv) appropriate steps taken against officials and third parties implicated of wrongdoing in the findings of the investigations?
1308. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- (i) 1
(ii) 16
(iii) 3
- See table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 1308 {NW1517E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.10 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 April 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) How many rhinos have been poached from 1 January 2015 to 14 April 2015 in (a) the Kruger National Park, (b) Ezemvelo, (c) the Addo Elephant Park, (d) the Eastern Cape, (e) the Free State, (f) Gauteng, (g) KwaZulu-Natal, (h) Limpopo, (i) Mpumalanga, (j) North West, (k) the Northern Cape and (l) the Western Cape;
(2) how many arrests linked to rhino poaching have been made from 1 January 2015 to 14 April 2015 in (a) the Kruger National Park, (b) Ezemvelo, (c) the Addo Elephant Park, (d) the Eastern Cape, (e) the Free State, (f) Gauteng, (g) KwaZulu-Natal, (h) Limpopo, (i) Mpumalanga, (j) North-West, (k) the Northern-Cape and (l) the Western-Cape; and
(3) how many convictions linked to rhino poaching have been made from 1 January 2015 to 14 April 2015, which occurred in (a) the Kruger National Park, (b) Ezemvelo, (c) the Addo Elephant Park, (d) the Eastern Cape, (e) the Free State, (f) Gauteng, (g) KwaZulu-Natal, (h) Limpopo, (i) Mpumalanga, (j) North West, (k) the Northern Cape and (l) the Western Cape?
1308. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- (a – l) I am considering a schedule for the release of rhino poaching statistics and will release information relating to this as soon as I have made a decision.
(2) (a – l) The question should be directed to the Minister of Safety and Security.
(3) (a – l) The question should be directed to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 1156
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 9 of 2015 {NW1356E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(a) How many sick leave days were taken by employees of her department in the 2013-14 financial year and (b) what was the total cost thereof in rand? NW1356E
1156. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
In terms of the Labour Relations Act read with the Public Service prescripts, all employees qualify for 36 sick leave days over a three -year cycle, averaging 12 days per annum. For the period of 2013-14 this would amount to 22 200 days, which would have cost in the region of R22 million. The number of sick leave days that were actually taken by the departmental employees in the financial year 2013-14 were:
(a) 7 272.5 days, with an average of seven days per employee for the 1104 employees who utilised sick leave on a structure of 1850 posts; and
(b) the total cost was R8 519 000,00.
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO.1121 {NW1286E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.9 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 March 2015
Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(a) What amount did (i) her department and (ii) state entities reporting to her spend on each newspaper subscription in each month (aa) in the (aaa) 2011-12, (bbb) 2012-13 and (ccc) 2013-14 financial years and (bb) during the period 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) how many copies of each newspaper were ordered on each day of the week (i) in each specified financial year and (ii) during the period 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available? NW1286E
1121. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
Government newspaper subscription is based on the following key factors before a decision to choose the name of a newspaper to subscribe to, is taken i.e.ccuracy, relevance, factual reporting, insightful analysis, reach, frequency and cost.
The number of copies ordered is determined amongst other things by the office size and strategic divisions within the department or entity (i.e Communications and Media units) whose job is to monitor media reports and do analysis.
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 1086 {NW1251E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 9 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What amount did (a) her department and (b) entities reporting to her spend on advertising in The New Age newspaper in the (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013 and (iii) 2013-2014 financial years? NW1251E
1086. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
Government media bulk-buying is done by the GCIS following a Cabinet decision in June 2011.
An independent tool to assist in determining the best mediums to procure from for any specific media campaign request is used.
Advertising is a standard line item in each department’s /entity’s budget, which is approved by Parliament annually.
Annually, the Department and its entities table their audited expenditure reports to Parliament and these reports become widely available to the public.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO.1067 {NW1228E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr T C R Walters (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) How many rhinos have been poached in the (a) Kruger National Park, (b) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, (c) Addo Elephant National Park, (d) Eastern Cape parks, (e) Free State parks, (f) Gauteng parks, (g) KwaZulu-Natal parks, (h) Limpopo parks, (i) Mpumalanga parks, (j) North West parks,
(k) Northern Cape parks and (l) Western Cape parks during the period 1 January 2015 to
17 March 2015;
(2) how many rhino poaching linked arrests have been made in the (a) Kruger National Park,
(b) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, (c) Addo Elephant National Park, (d) Eastern Cape parks, (e) Free State parks, (f) Gauteng parks, (g) KwaZulu-Natal parks, (h) Limpopo parks, (i) Mpumalanga parks, (j) North West parks, (k) Northern Cape parks and (l) Western Cape parks during the period 1 January 2015 to 17 March 2015; and
(3) how many rhino poaching linked convictions have been made in respect of poaching that occurred in the (a) Kruger National Park, (b) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, (c) Addo Elephant National Park,
(d) Eastern Cape parks, (e) Free State parks, (f) Gauteng parks, (g) KwaZulu-Natal parks,
(h) Limpopo parks, (i) Mpumalanga parks, (j) North West parks, (k) Northern Cape parks and
(l) Western Cape parks during the period 1 January 2015 to 17 March 2015?
1067. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) I am currently considering a holistic report on how South Africa is performing in implementation of the Integrated Approach in the fight against rhino poaching. In that report, I will also give statistics of poached rhino, number of arrests, number of convictions and how we are making an impact in RSA and abroad or otherwise. Once this full report is ready, I will release it to both Parliament and to South Africans.
(2) See one above.
(3) See one above.
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO.1065 {NW1226E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What was her department’s total expenditure on rhino poaching interventions (a) in the (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11, (iv) 2011-12 (v) 2012-13 and (vi) 2013-14 financial years and (b) from 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available? NW1226E
143. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(i)- (vii)
|
Year |
DEA
|
SANPARKS
|
TOTAL
|
|
2008/09 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2009/10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2010/11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2011/12 |
R 3 000 000 |
R 2 000 000 |
R 5 000 |
|
2012/13 |
R 8 000 000 |
R 8 000 000 |
R 16 000 |
|
2013/14 |
R 10 000 000 |
R 8 000 000 |
R 18 000 |
|
2014/15 |
R 10 600 000 |
R 33 480 000 |
R 44 080 |
|
2015/16 |
R 11 000 000 |
R 33 870 000 |
R 44 878 |
|
2016/17 |
R 11 550 000 |
R 34 665 000 |
R 46 215 |
|
2017/18 |
R 12 216 000 |
R 35 448 000 |
R 47 664 |
DEA budget over the years has been spent on the implementation of the National Strategy on the Rhinoceros population of South Africa. The departmental focus was on:
- building internal capacity to respond to the ongoing scourge through the establishment of the National Wildlife Information Unit,
- Enhancing capacity for rangers in SANPARKS. Additional funds received for maintaining National Parks Infrastructure, amongst others fencing on eastern boundary of Kruger National Park.to enhance protection.
- Mobilising law enforcement agencies nationally to support the implementation of the strategy,
- Development of an Action Plan for stakeholder engagements with security cluster and the private rhino owners,
- International engagements and negotiations culminating in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding with China (March 2015), Mozambique (April 2014) and Vietnam (March 2014) signed.
- Ongoing assessment of new technologies with potential to be deployed in the fight against rhino poaching
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 1055
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW1215E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) Has every (a) rhino horn and (b) elephant ivory specimen in the stockpile been (i) micro-chipped, (ii) assigned a unique reference (iii) weighed, (iv) categorised as saleable or unsalable and (v) recorded in a database/inventory; if not, in each case, why not;
(2) will there be an independent audit of the stockpile; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the further relevant details? NW1215E
1055. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) The marking and weighing of rhino horn and elephant ivory specimens is a compulsory legal requirement in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No 10 of 2004). These requirements are detailed in the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations; and the Norms and Standards for the marking of rhinoceros, rhinoceros horn and for the hunting of rhinoceros for trophy hunting purposes promulgated under this Act.
(a) All rhino horn stocks in government possession have been (i) microchipped, (ii) assigned a unique reference, (iii) weighed, and (v) recorded in a database/ inventory, (iv) but not categorised as saleable or unsalable, as such sales are not provided for under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, which South Africa has ratified.
(b) All elephant ivory stock piles in government possession have (i) not been microchipped (as it is not a legal requirement). However, they have been (ii) assigned a unique reference, (iii) weighed, and (v) recorded in a database/ inventory, (iv) but not categorised as saleable or unsalable, as such sales are not provided for under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, which South Africa has ratified.
The Department of Environmental Affairs is currently in a process of auditing all rhino horn stockpiles in private possession as well as verifying information in relation to government owed rhino horn and ivory stockpiles.
(2) The department has not planned for an independent audit of the stockpile at this stage since its officials are in the process of verifying rhino horn stockpiles. Once this work has been completed an assessment of requirements for any ongoing audit procedures will be done, taking into consideration the need to limit knowledge of and access to these stockpiles from a security perspective.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 1054
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW1214E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr P G Atkinson (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) How many elephants were poached in South Africa (a) in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2011, (v) 2012, (vi) 2013 and (vii) 2014, and (b) since 1 January 2015 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;
(2) Whether, noting that (a)(i) Kenya in 1989, 2011 and 2015, (ii) Zambia in 1992, (iii) Chad in 2007 and 2014, (iv) Gabon in 2012, (v) the Philippines, the State of Maharashtra in India and the United States of America in 2013 and (vi) China, France and Hong Kong in 2014 have burnt tons of ivory and (b) Kenya has undertaken to burn the rest of its contraband ivory stockpile within the year, her department is considering burning (aa) part or (bb) all of current stockpiles of ivory; if not, why not; if so, (aaa) when and (bbb) what are the further relevant details;
(3) Why is South Africa not signatory to the London Declaration of the Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, signed on 13 February 2014? NW1214E
1054. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) (a) Number of elephants poached in:
(i) 2008 - 0
(ii) 2009 - 0
(iii) 2010 - 0
(iv) 2011 - 0
(v) 2012 - 0
(vi) 2013 - 2
(vii) 2014 – 2
(b) 1 January 2015 up to 24 March 2015 – 1
(2) No. Confiscated ivory is kept in safekeeping facilities. Resolution Conference 9.10 (revised at the 15th Conference of the Parties) provides guidance to Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) on the disposal of confiscated and accumulated specimens and the options include safekeeping or destruction. The Department of Environmental Affairs keeps confiscated ivory, which is forfeited to the State subsequent to the finalisation of court cases in safekeeping facilities. The government regards natural resources as assets and supports the principle of sustainable utilisation of these resources as provided for in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the Convention on Biological Diversity and CITES. Therefore, South Africa does not destroy these resources. In addition, numerous concerns have been raised relating to the destruction of resources, especially unintended consequences, which include the increase in scarcity of these resources, which in turn drive increased demand and related poaching and illegal trafficking.
(3) Honourable Members should note that the London meeting was and remains an informal meeting with no status as opposed to the CITES which we as South Africa are signatory to. South Africa did not attend the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade because it took place on the same day as the State of the Nation address in 2014. The majority of the actions contained in the Declaration are supported. However, some provisions of the Declaration are in conflict with the principle of sustainable utilisation of natural resources as provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. These provisions of the declaration also pre-empt the outcomes of the processes initiated in terms of Decisions adopted by the Conference of Parties to CITES, are therefore, not supported. South Africa, as a Party to CITES, which is a legally binding multi-lateral environmental agreement, supports the decisions taken by the CITES COP.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 1037 {NW1197E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr P G Atkinson (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
- What are the (a) details and (b) all relevant dates of all steps that (i) have been taken and (ii) will be taken to (aa) appoint, (bb) train and (cc) designate environmental management inspectors at a local government level since 1 January 2009;
- What are the (a) details and (b) all relevant dates of all steps that (i) have been taken and (ii) will be taken to ensure compliance monitoring and enforcement of the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act, Act 39 of 2004, (NEMAQA) in terms of which minimum emission standards will apply from 1 April 2015;
- What are the (a) details and (b) all relevant dates of all steps that (i) have been taken and (ii) will be taken to support local government to comply with their statutory obligations in terms of (aa) NEMAQA, and (bb) the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, Act 59 of 2008 (NEMWA), including (aaa) the NEMAQA obligations to (aaaa) appoint air quality officers in terms of section 14(3), (bbbb) prepare air quality management plans and report on their implementation in terms of section 15 and (cccc) implement the atmospheric emission licensing system in terms of section 36 and (bbb) the NEMWA obligations to (aaaa) submit integrated waste management plans for approval by the MEC and report on their implementation in terms of section 11(4) (bbbb) deliver waste management services in terms of section 9 and (cccc) designate waste management officers in terms of section 10(3)? NW1197E
1037. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- (a) and (b)(i)(aa) and (cc)
The following details of steps taken in relation to the appointment and designation of environmental management inspectors (EMIs) at local authority level since 2009:
- In October/November 2010, MINMEC and MINTECH approved the National Guideline for the Roll-Out of the EMI to Local Authorities as well as the template for the Implementation Protocol (to be signed by the relevant MECs and Executive Mayors). These documents were formally submitted to the MECs through Ministerial letters in February 2011, requesting that a provincial MINTECH WGIV (Compliance and Enforcement) nodal point be appointed to manage and coordinate the project on a provincial level;
- In March 2011, MINTECH WGIV agreed on an Implementation Project Plan that is aimed at providing the names of the EMI Local Authority Provincial Nodal Points; and setting out the standard procedure to be followed in the implementation of the project;
- In September 2013, the Minister submitted letters of concern to the MECs of the Free State, Northern Cape and Eastern Cape to enquire about the reasons for the slow implementation of the EMI Local Authority Project in these specific provinces; and
- In November 2013, at the 05th Annual Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Lekgotla in the Western Cape, a workshop was dedicated to lessons learnt for the implementation of the EMI Local Authority Project; and recommendations made for further improvement.
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 1024 {NW1184E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Ms J F Terblanche (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) How many (a) permits were issued for the export of lion carcasses, (b) lion carcasses were exported, (c) permits were issued for the export of lion bones and (d) lion bones were exported in the North West in 2014;
(2) in respect of each of the aforementioned cases, (a) were Cites permits issued and (b) what was the destination country? NW1184E
1024. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
This Parliamentary Question needs to be referred to the North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development, since the latter is the issuing authority and capable as well as the responsible sphere of government for responding to this question which is specifically and directly about their work.
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 862 {NW1011E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr A R McLoughlin (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) Whether her department or the entities reporting to her provides any type of sponsorships; if not, what is her department’s position in this regard; if so, (a) what are the details of each sponsorship, (b) what is the value of each sponsorship, (c) when were each of these sponsorship deals undertaken and (d) when will each of the sponsorship deals end;
(2) Whether her department or any of the entities reporting to her intends to enter into any type of sponsorship deal or contract in the (a) 2015-16 and (b) 2016-17 financial years; if not, why not; if so, (i) with whom will each sponsorship deal or contract be made, (ii) what will the terms of each of the sponsorship deals or contracts be, (iii) when will each of the sponsorship deals or contracts (aa) commence and (bb) end and (iv) what is the value of each of the sponsorship deals or contracts? NW1011E
862. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) The department has not provided any type of sponsorship.
Not applicable: (a), (b), (c) and (d).
(2) The department does not intend entering into any type of sponsorship deal or contract in the
(a) 2015-16; and
(b) 2016-17 financial years.
Not applicable: (i), (ii), (iii), (aa), (bb); and (iv).
South African National Parks (SANParks)
- SANParks has not provided any type of sponsorship.
Not applicable: (a), (b), (c) and (d).
- SANParks does not intend entering into any type of sponsorship deal or contract in the
(a) 2015-16; and
(b) 2016-17 financial years.
Not applicable: (i), (ii), (iii), (aa), (bb); and (iv).
South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)
- SANBI has not provided any type of sponsorship.
Not applicable: (a), (b), (c) and (d).
(2) SANBI does not intend entering into any type of sponsorship deal or contract in the
(a) 2015-16; and
(b) 2016-17 financial years. It is not in SANBI’s mandate or Strategic plan.
Not applicable: (i), (ii), (iii), (aa), (bb); and (iv).
iSimangaliso
(1) iSimangaliso has not provided any type of sponsorship.
Not applicable: (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 842
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW991E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr P G Atkinson (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) Why has a national electronic permitting system not been introduced to prevent information leakage from (a) regional and (b) provincial offices on the (i) capture and (ii) relocation of (aa) animals and (bb) horn stocks;
(2) What facilities are provided for the bulk storage of rhino horns;
(3) Have any facilities been offered to the private sector to minimise (a) theft and (b) risk to human life; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW991E
842. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- The department is in the process of developing a national electronic permitting system for all activities regulated in terms of national biodiversity and environmental legislation. In terms of the Minimum Information Security Standard, the Head of every institution has the overall responsibility for the provision and maintenance of security in his/her institution under all circumstances, including leakage of information
- Due to the security risk involved, information on the facilities cannot be provided.
- No facilities have been offered to the private sector to minimise (a) theft and (b) risk to human life to date. The Department of Environmental Affairs is exploring the feasibility of a national safekeeping facility or facilities for rhino horns which will possibly include provincial and private sector safe storage.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 840
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW988E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Dr M J Cardo (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Did her department pay for (a) Mavuso Msimang, (b) Pelham Jones, and (c) Adri Kitshoff to attend the Congress of Parties 16 in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2013; if so, what total amount did her department pay? NW988E
840. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- Yes, Mr Mavuso attended in his capacity as a Chairperson of the Rhino Issue Management Process. His role was to speak in various side-meetings as well as the arranged side event of South Africa on the rhino management challenges being experienced. His presence was also to demonstrate that South Africa had developed an independent public consultation process around the Rhino Issue. The costs totalled approximately R63 573,00.
- No.
- No.
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION N0.839 (NW987E)
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER N0.8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Dr M J Cardo (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What total amount was paid by her department for the Rhino Issue Management with regard to the (a) processes followed, (b) meetings that were held and (c) reports that were compiled?
NW987E
839. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(a) The national strategy for the safety and security for South Africa's rhinoceros population is extensive and requires a coordinated mechanism to ensure that all components are addressed. To this end, an approach was taken that ensured that the Department focuses on implementation aspects such as legislative, policy, and regulatory issues while a dedicated Issue Manager was appointed to address the extensive and polarized public outcry from a number of divergent stakeholder platforms on the potential responses to the ongoing scourge. In the past, the department has dealt with a number of emotive and complex issues on key issues such as the elephant culling debate, the ivory stockpile, and the hunting of lions in captivity. The total programme budget for the Rhino Issue Management process was R 9 989 306,
(b) The rhino issue manager undertook extensive consultation processes with all stakeholder groupings and convened a number of national and subject specific engagements across the country. An amount of R 5 489 306 was spent on meetings that were held.
(c) The rhino issue manager prepared a number of comprehensive and specialist reports on the basis of the input that was received from a wide range of stakeholders. These reports serve as a foundation for further ongoing assessment of the economic dynamics underpinning the rhino management challenges. An amount of R4 500 000.00 was paid for the reports
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 837
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW985E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mrs M R Shinn (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) What are the specific details surrounding the (a) immediate, (b) medium- and (c) long-term plans for fencing along the Kruger National Park’s (KNP) 356km border with Mozambique;
(2) will she consider erecting a 356km fence rigged with (a) early detection and (b) audio or visual technology along the KNP border with Mozambique; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW985E
837. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- (a) We are currently constructing the fence on the Southern side. The immediate intervention is to construct/upgrade the degraded sections of the eastern boundary fence with Mozambique;
(b) The medium plan will focus on the remaining sections of the 356 km fence;
(c) The long term plan is to make sure that the entire fence is kept in good condition by undertaking routine maintenance.
- Yes, the early detection technologies may be considered, however the type of technology to be deployed and the extent of deployment of such technology shall be dependent on the cost and the outcome of the tests currently being undertaken by CSIR.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 834
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW982E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) What has been budget allocation to combating rhino poaching for the 2015-16 financial year;
(2) what are the specific plans on which her department will spend the specified budget;
(3) how does her department justify an overspending of over R200 million on the fight against rhino poaching in the 2013-14 financial year when there was an increase in rhino poaching incidents in the (a) national and (b) provincial parks during the specified period;
(4) (a) where and (b) how was the specified money spent? NW982E
834. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
1) The budget allocation for the 2015/16 financial year:
2015/16
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA): Wildlife Unit R11 000 million
South African National Parks (SANParks) R33 870 million
Total R44 870 million
2) The allocated funds will be directed at the Implementation of the National Strategy on the Safety and Security of the Rhinoceros Population of South Africa and the Integrated Management approach that aims to strengthen the existing interventions and introduce new ones in order to combat the illegal trafficking of rhino.
3) According to our records, the Departmental 2013/14 Annual Report as well as SANParks Annual Report for the 2013/14 financial year, there is no over expenditure of R200 million reported.
Allocations and spending within DEA for the 2013/14 financial year:
Wildlife Unit R10 000 million
SANParks R8 000 million
Total R18 000 million
4) (a) and (b) not applicable
Reply received: April 2015
QUESTION NO. 830
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW978E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What are the details of (a) rhino horn and (b) other wildlife demand reduction campaigns taking place in consumer countries which are funded by (i) the Government, (ii) foreign governments and (iii) private non-governmental initiative? NW978E
830. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- and (b)(i) Although the South African Government currently does not fund demand reduction campaigns in consumer countries, it recognises such campaigns by foreign governments. The South African Government’s focus in terms of campaigns continues to be on awareness raising to enhance community awareness with regard to the economic, social and environmental impact of illegal wildlife trade and to encourage the general public to report illegal activities related to the illegal killing of rhino and the illegal trade in rhino horn to appropriate authorities.
- and (b)(ii) In terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Decision 16.85 on rhinoceroses, all parties affected in the illegal trade in rhino horn as a Range or consumer state, where applicable, should develop and implement long-term demand reduction strategies or programmes (awareness-raising) to enhance community awareness with regard to the impact of illegal wildlife trade. Information relating to these strategies or programmes must be submitted to the CITES Secretariat by 31 March 2015 now extended to 31 July 2015. South Africa has submitted information relating to its awareness raising activities to the CITES Secretariat.
- and (b) (iii) The Department of Environmental Affairs is aware of the following private non-governmental initiatives (information provided to the Department by the Endangered Wildlife Trust which has been coordinating an informal demand reduction group):
- and (b) (iii) The Department of Environmental Affairs is aware of the following private non-governmental initiatives: see the link /files/RNW830-150413REPLY.docx
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 829
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 8 of 2015 {NW977E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
How many (a) horns and (b) kilograms of horns have been registered by (i) private owners, (ii) SA National Parks, (iii) Ezemvelo and (iv) other provincial conservation authorities? NW977E
829. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
As Hon Member is aware, due to security risks associated with this matter, I am unable to make such information publically available. We currently have full record of the stock piles of rhino horn that are in the asset register of National and Provincial Governments. Even as we have these records, we are conducting a verification exercise. This we do as a normal audit and re-audit process to check accuracy. We are also in the process of auditing the rhino stock-piles that are in the hands of private sector.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO.827 {NW975E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.8 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20 March 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Will she provide a signed copy of each, (a) regional and (b) international (i) Memorandum of Understanding and (ii) accompanying Implementation Agreement in relation to rhino poaching; if not, why not; if so, (aa) when and (bb) where will such documentation be made available? NW975E
827. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(a) (b) (i) Regional and International Agreements (Memorandum of Understanding) relating to Rhino Poaching are available on the departmental website. If Hon Member can by any chance not be able to access them, kindly call so that we print and send copies.
(ii) Implementation Plans are detailed plans of how the Memorandums of Understanding are going to be implemented with the signatory countries. They are technical working documents containing lots of strategies to be applied, especially in security and security related matters and can not be made available as they contain sensitive information. Progress on the implementation of these plans is reported to Parliament structures on an on-going basis accordingly.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 778 {NW928E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) What is the current population of (a) black and (b) white rhino in each (i) South African national and (ii) provincial park; and
(2) does her Department plan to have an independent census conducted; if not, why not; if so when?
778. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) The latest available information indicates that the total (a) black rhino population is 2 068; and (b) the white rhino population is 18 933 (Source: IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group; population information as consolidated in 2012).
(i) and (ii) Due to the security reasons the information cannot be provided per park/reserve.
(2) We do not understand what the honourable Member refers to as an independent census, Surveys are conducted by the respective conservation departments and entities supported also by a body such as the one stated under ……..?
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 777 {NW927E}
INTERNALQUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
- Does (a) her Department and/or (b) Government law enforcement agencies support private rhino owners with conservation efforts in the midst of the current poaching crisis; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
- whether it is mandatory for private owners to have an anti-poaching security unit present at all hours of the day; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; and
- does her Department (a) ensure and (b) monitor whether rhino owners have security plans in place; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
777. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
1. (a) and (b)
Yes, the Department and law enforcement agencies support the private rhino owners at all times through initiatives such as Rural Safety Strategy. The private rhino owners are also encouraged to participate in forums such as the Private Rhino Owners Workshops; which are aimed at enhancing relations and coordinating actions between Government, South African Law Enforcement Agencies and private rhino owners. The previous Private Rhino Owners Workshop was held in 2013, where a comprehensive and consultative action plan with key deliverables was developed. The next workshop is scheduled for April 2015, and those involved will be notified via their representatives. This workshop will review progress in implementing the 2013 action plan and enable the private rhino owners to share successes as well as challenges. The workshop will produce an updated action plan based on experience to improve the cooperative effort between government, law enforcement agencies and private rhino owners. Government will proactively facilitate these actions in the context of the mandates of the various departments.
2. There is no legislated mandatory requirement for private owners to have an anti-poaching security unit present at all hours of the day because this is a security and law enforcement function of the state. Only the SAPS and persons empowered by the Criminal Procedures Act can legally execute the search, seizure and arrest functions required for effective anti-poaching action. However, in order to safeguard our rhinos, all the affected stakeholders need to participate in protecting our rhinos regardless of the time of the day. The manner in which this can be legally undertaken is a focus of the 2013 action plan (and its 2015 update) referred to above. Hence the cooperation between the Government and the private rhino owners is highly essential.
3. (a) and (b)
As outlined above, there is no mandatory requirement for private rhino owners to have security plans and similarly there is no legislative mandate to monitor and ensure that the Private rhino owners have security measures in place. Although there is no legal mandate, as outlined above, this is a subject of voluntary cooperative action between private rhino owners, government and law enforcement agencies. Therefore, through the ongoing engagement private rhino owners are encouraged to strengthen rhino security.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 776 {NW926E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Is her Department exploring any form of (a) lethal and/or, (b) non-lethal poison and/or (c) other substances that would render rhino horns unfit for human consumption; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
776. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(a), (b) and (c)
The Department will consider any form of intervention to assist in curbing Rhino poaching for the existing illegal consumption. As the Department decides to institute such research, such measures will be developed and implemented with relevant government and non-government institutions.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 775 {NW925E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Is her Department aware that microchips that have been inserted in rhino horns can be damaged by putting such horns in a microwave for five seconds; if not, what does her Department intend to do with this information; if so, how does her Department plan to overcome this in respect of keeping track of rhino horns?
775. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
No. We make use of world renowned Scientists and non of them has made such information known to us. The Honourable member is encouraged to provide any relevant research or other report in this regard for further scrutiny.
tute such research, such measures will be developed and implemented with relevant government and non-government institutions.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 774 {NW924E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Does her Department or the South African National Parks have any programmes in place that take care of orphaned rhinos; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
774. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
Be that as it may, yes. The South African National Parks (SANParks) saves orphaned calves from poaching events where they are detected in time. We have mechanisms to deal with two categories of orphaned calves:
- Calves that are younger than 8-10 months and require specialist care are sent to specialist rehabilitation facilities where they receive the required support and can be rehabilitated to the point of assimilation with older rhino for release into rhino strongholds.
- If the calves are old enough and weaned, we introduce them to surrogate mothers at SANParks bomas, who take up the role of mothers. These calves and their surrogate mothers are also released into rhino strongholds.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 773 {NW923E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) What is the schedule of meetings of the Committee of Inquiry, which is tasked with investigating the feasibility of trade in rhino horn, for the period 1 January 2015 to
31 December 2015;
(2) whether the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs will be provided with regular updates on the progress of the specified committee; if not, why not; if so, how often; and
(3) when will the report by the specified committee be submitted to her Department?
773. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) The Committee of Inquiry will have bi-monthly meetings (every two months).
(2) The Committee will give their final report to the Minister of Environmental Affairs, who will process it to the Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC) and Cabinet. This report has been commissioned through a Cabinet decision and will not be released in part or before completion of the full tasks by the Committee of Enquiry. Any investigation of that nature and all such like Commissions’ investigation have never been tabled at Portfolio Committee until all the work is processed accordingly. Accountability on these follows the routes as indicated in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) or Annual Reports, if need be.
(3) Upon conclusion of Cabinet process as will be determined by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the IMC.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 772 {NW922E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) What amount was spent on each of the Panel of Experts’ (a) meetings and/or (b) workshops in the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014; and
(2) whether such expenditure met the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Act 1 of 1999; if not, why not; if so, in terms of which clauses of the PFMA?
772. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) (a) & (b) The costs relating to the meetings (six one-day meetings) and three-day meeting that took place in 2014 were:
|
MEETING |
DATE |
COSTS |
|
Panel of Experts meeting |
9 April 2014 |
R4 425.00 |
|
Panel of Experts meeting |
26 May 2014 |
R6 967.00 |
|
Panel of Experts meeting |
30 June 2014 |
R13 155.20 |
|
Panel of Experts meeting |
21 August 2014 |
R13 318.91 |
|
Panel of Experts meeting |
29 September 2014 |
R6 788.08 |
|
Panel of Experts three day meeting |
27 – 30 October 2014 |
R114 140.80 |
|
Panel of Experts meeting |
3 December 2014 |
R24 714.80 |
|
TOTAL COSTS |
|
R183 509.79 |
(2) Yes; financial systems of the Department of Environmental Affairs approved by the accounting officer as required in terms of Section 38 (a)(iii) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999) and based on the framework provided by National Treasury in terms of Section 76 (4)(c) of the PFMA as well as relevant Treasury Regulations, were adhered to.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 771 {NW921E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(a) How many (i) landfill sites have been awarded licenses since 1 January 2015 and (ii) applications for licenses have been denied; and (b)(i) how many applications are still outstanding and (ii) what is the reason in each case?
771. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(a)
(i) A total of 183 landfill sites were issued with waste management licenses by all nine provincial governments during 2014/15
(ii) No waste management licenses were denied.
(b)
(i) Out of 212 that were being focused between 2013/14 and 2014/15; only 46 waste management licenses are still outstanding.
(ii) The unlicensed sites with pending licenses required specialist studies, which include wetland, geotechnical and geohydrological assessment. It is important to note that it takes a bit of time to complete the specialist studies; hence the waste management licenses for the
46 unlicensed sites are not yet finalised.
;line-height:150%;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>· If the calves are old enough and weaned, we introduce them to surrogate mothers at SANParks bomas, who take up the role of mothers. These calves and their surrogate mothers are also released into rhino strongholds.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 770 {NW920E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 March 2015
Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Have any steps been taken to legalise the landfill sites in (a) Maquassi Hills and (b) Lekwa-Teemane Local Municipalities in the North West; if not, (i) why not and (ii) what steps has her Department taken to ensure that the specified municipalities complies with the relevant legislation; if so, what are the relevant details?
770. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
Yes.
- Maquassi Hills LM
The following landfill sites falling under Maquassi LM have been issued with waste management licenses by the North West Province as it is required in terms of the law and regulations during the 2014/15 fiscal year:-
- Leeudoringstad
- Makwassie
- Witpoort
- Lekwa-Teemane LM
The following landfill site falling under Lekwa-Teemane LM has been issued with waste management license by the North West Province as it is required in terms of the law and regulations during the 2014/15 fiscal year:-
- Utlwanang
The Municipalities were assisted to comply with the requirements of section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) by obtaining the waste management licenses through the licensing of unlicensed waste disposal sites project. The sites are now operating legally. The issuance of the licenses will ensure that the landfill sites are managed in accordance with the conditions set out in the licenses.
(i) and (ii) Not applicable
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO.: 745
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13 MARCH 2015
745. Ms P T van Damme (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:
|
(1) |
Whether any forensic audits have been instituted at (a) Denel, (b) Alexkor, and (c) SAFCOL in the (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13 and (iii) 2013-14 financial years; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, (aa) what was the subject of the audit, (bb) what was the finding of the audit, (cc) which entity or company or person was used to conduct the audit and (dd) what was the cost of the audit;
|
|
(2) |
whether the results of the audits have been made public; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the further relevant details;
|
|
(3) |
whether any criminal or disciplinary proceedings have been instituted as a result of the audits; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW893E |
REPLY:
|
(a) DENEL:
|
|||||
|
(1) |
(i) |
2011-12 |
: |
|
|
|
(ii) |
2012-13 |
: |
|||
|
(iii) |
2013-14 |
: |
|||
|
(iii) |
(aa) |
What was the subject of the audit? |
: |
||
|
(bb) |
What was the finding of the audit? |
: |
|||
|
(cc) |
Which entity or company or person was used to conduct the audit? |
: |
|||
|
(dd) |
What was the cost of the audit? |
: |
|||
|
(2) |
Whether the results of the audits have been made public? If not why not? |
: |
|||
|
|
(a) |
If so, when? If not, what is the position in this regard? |
: |
||
|
|
(b)
|
What are the further relevant details? |
: |
||
|
(3) |
Whether any criminal or disciplinary proceedings have been instituted as a result of the audits; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? |
: |
|||
|
(b) ALEXKOR:
|
|||||
|
(1) |
(i) |
2011-12 |
: |
|
|
|
(ii) |
2012-13 |
: |
|||
|
(iii) |
2013-14 |
: |
|||
|
(iii) |
(aa) |
What was the subject of the audit? |
: |
||
|
(bb) |
What was the finding of the audit? |
: |
|||
|
(cc) |
Which entity or company or person was used to conduct the audit? |
: |
|||
|
(dd) |
What was the cost of the audit? |
: |
|||
|
(2) |
Whether the results of the audits have been made public? If not why not? |
: |
|||
|
|
(a) |
If so, when? If not, what is the position in this regard? |
: |
||
|
|
(b)
|
What are the further relevant details? |
: |
||
|
(3) |
Whether any criminal or disciplinary proceedings have been instituted as a result of the audits; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? |
: |
|||
|
(c) SAFCOL:
|
|||||
|
(1) |
(i) |
2011-12 |
: |
None |
|
|
(ii) |
2012-13 |
: |
None |
||
|
(iii) |
2013-14 |
: |
1 (ONE) |
||
|
(iii) |
(aa) |
What was the subject of the audit? |
: |
Forensic audit in relation to Mozambican Subsidiary, IFLOMA. |
|
|
(bb) |
What was the finding of the audit? |
: |
Employees found guilty of fraud. |
||
|
(cc) |
Which entity or company or person was used to conduct the audit? |
: |
Alchemy Business Consultants (Pty) Ltd. |
||
|
(dd) |
What was the cost of the audit? |
: |
R769 730 |
||
|
(2) |
Whether the results of the audits have been made public? If not why not? |
: |
Yes. |
||
|
|
(a) |
If so, when? If not, what is the position in this regard? |
: |
Disclosed in March 2014 Annual Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
(b)
|
What are the further relevant details? |
: |
Employees found guilty of fraud and dismissed from the company. |
|
|
(3) |
Whether any criminal or disciplinary proceedings have been instituted as a result of the audits; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? |
: |
|
||
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 645
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 of 2015 {NW726E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 6 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What is the (a) permit number, (b) date of permit, (c) name of sender and (d) name of receiver in each instance with reference to all lion (i) imports into and (ii) exports out of Gauteng (aa) in (aaa) 2009, (bbb) 2010, (ccc) 2011, (ddd) 2012, (eee) 2013 and (fff) 2014 and (bb) from 1 January 2015 up to the latest specified date for which information is available?
645. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
The information required in Question 645 {NW726E} will be best answered by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as it is the department that issues Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) permits for restricted activities involving lions in and out of the province. The Department of Environmental Affairs only issues permits to organs of state.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 634 {NW715E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 06 March 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Whether she will make the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Area of Biodiversity Conservation and Protection between South Africa and Vietnam public; if not, why not; if so, when?
634. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
The information about the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Area of Biodiversity Conservation and Protection between South Africa and Vietnam was published on the Department of Environmental Affair’s website in December 2012, it was also part of the Departmental annual report 2012/13 financial year.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 633 {NW714E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 06 March 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) How many shipments of lion bones or skeletons were exported from South Africa to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (b) 2014;
(2) what quantities were shipped in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (c) 2014 to (i) Xaysavang Trading and/or (ii) Vixay Keosavang;
(3) what quantities were shipped to a company called Vannaseng in Laos in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and
(c) 2014;
(4) what are the names of the (a) individuals and/or (b) companies that exported lion bones to (i) Vixay Keosavang and/or (ii) Xaysavang Trading; and
(5) with regard to each shipment, what are the (a) full names of the (i) individuals and/or
(ii) companies that exported lion bones to Laos over this period, (b) shipment dates and (c) full details of (i) the suppliers, (ii) companies and/or (iii) individuals in Laos that the shipments were destined for?
633. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) To provide information relating to the above questions requires consultation with the provincial conservation authorities. We do not authorize any export of lion bones at the national department. My suggestion and advice is that the honourable member should use the Provincial Legislature representatives to ask this question so as to get direct response from the spheres of government which deals directly with permitting such exports.
Should the honourable member require that this question be responded to at national level, it should be acknowledged and accepted that this will take longer, a period of up to more than six months.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 535 {NW615E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 6 March 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
Whether any employees in her Department have been on suspension with full salary since 1 January 2014; if so, (a) how many employees and (b) what is the total cost thereof?
535. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
Whilst there is currently no employee suspended with full pay, two employees were suspended for part of the period in question whilst serious and complex allegations against them were investigated.
- There were two (2) employees who were suspended with full pay from January 2014 and both have been concluded with outcomes already communicated to those employees.
- Not applicable.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 466 {NW544E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 4 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 February 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) In relation to the Rhino Horn Trade Committee, (a) on what date did she request the State Security Agency (SSA) to vet the committee members, (b) what was the vetting criteria and (c) on what date did the SSA submit the vetting report of all potential candidates;
(2) did the vetting include (a) previous misconduct, (b) breach of ethics and/or (c) criminality on the part of candidates for the committee; if not, why not;
(3) (a) was she aware that a certain person (name furnished) had recently resigned as Vice Chairperson of the National Gambling Board after being suspended by the Minister of Trade and Industry, (b) what factors led her to appoint the said person to the committee and (c) what does the said person contribute to a committee which she states on record that it consists of (i) industry experts, (ii) academics, (iii) scientists and (iv) economists;
(4) (a) was she aware that a certain person (name furnished) was fired in 2005 as the Financial Director of a certain municipality (name furnished) after a special disciplinary committee found the person guilty of gross misconduct and financial mismanagement charges, (b) what factors led her to appoint the said person to the committee and (c) what does the said person contribute to a panel which she has stated on record consists of industry experts, academics, scientists and economists;
(5) will she be removing the said persons from the committee; if not, why not; if so, when? NW544E
466. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- (a) A letter was sent to the Minister of State Security Agency on 22 January 2015 requesting a security assessment of Committee Members.
- The vetting criteria to be adopted is the prerogative of the State Security Agency (SSA) as outlined within their mandate depending on the type and the sensitivity of information that the committee members will have access to.
- Security assessment referred to under (a) above consists of processes among which there is pre-screening report was received. We all are aware that a full vetting process take a while. State Security Agency will deliver a report as and when they have concluded the full vetting.
- (a) Vetting has not yet been concluded. It is important that the Honorable Member is able to distinguish between pre-screening and vetting, both of which are components of security assessment.
(b) and (c) Not Applicable
- (a) Yes, I am aware that the said person resigned as a Vice Chairperson of the National Gambling Board.
(b) and (c) The matter relating to the said person did not conclude that she should be charged/ prosecuted, found guilty or even asked to resign. As a result, there was no conclusive evidence that suggests that she was guilty. There was no report published that indicated that the said person was found guilty of the alleged matter. In terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa, a person is innocent until proven guilty and that is the principle I choose to uphold. Secondly the said person was appointed the “committee of inquiry” due to the background and experience held in legal matters, as well as being the current Chairperson of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). The board membership of the said person in the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) comes as an advantage to the Committee in that the collective will be able to have an informed contribution.
- (a) Yes, I was aware of the dismissal of the said person from the Bohlabela District. The matter which the “Committee of Inquiry” is investigating has no connection with the said person’s case outcome. This committee will not be handling any money nor manage any organization.
(b) and (c) The said person was nominated by the Community he leads i.e. the People and Parks. He will be representing ordinary communities upholding and advocating the views and positions of the communities, safeguarding their interests in the process and he will not be dealing with finances. It is also important to note that the said person is not a government official.
- If and when such a decision of removing the said persons were to be taken, such a decision will be taken based on any negative outcome of the based of the vetting process.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 221 {NW242E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Mr K Z Morapela (EFF) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
- What is the projected impact of the green and blue economies on the Gross Domestic Product growth for 2015; and
- what specific projects has her Department undertaken which specifically ensure that poor communities benefit from the green and blue economies?
221. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- Green Economy:
In 2013, a modeling report was commissioned to focus on the four thematic areas namely: natural resource management, transport, energy and agriculture. The South African Green Economy Model (SAGEM) was based on a system dynamics modelling approach, and is primarily aimed at assessing the impacts of green economy investments in selected sectors pertaining to the South African economy.
Based on planned targets and expenditures and/or costs of interventions, the model identifies the possible options and opportunities to achieving these targets. Four scenarios were defined: business as-usual (BAU); BAU2% representing a 2 per cent investment of gross domestic product in the BAU activities; GE2% representing an allocation of 2 per cent of gross domestic product in green economy sectors (natural resource management, agriculture, transport and energy); and GETS, which is a target-specific scenario aimed at identifying whether policy-makers can achieve the medium- to long-term targets following green economy interventions in the prioritised sectors.
According to the report, all green investments stimulate the growth of GDP relative to a Busines as Usual (BAU) scenario. Investments in a green economy could realise a further growth in real GDP of over 2 per cent by 2030, relative to 2012. This also translates into an increase in per capita income over the years, the growth target, as stipulated in the National Development Plan.
Blue Economy:
According to the study commissioned by the Department of Environmental Affairs in 2014, the South Africa’s blue economy is estimated to contribute about R129 177 Billion to the GDP by 2033, with 800 000 1 million jobs created.
- Green Economy
The most significant impacts arising from the current portfolio of projects within the green economy space funded by Green Fund, relates to improving the livelihoods, local environmental conditions and providing training opportunities to marginalised communities.
Some of the projects, particularly in the environmental and natural resources management window present tangible opportunities for meaningful job creation and empowerment, mostly in areas related to payment for ecosystem services, tourism and sustainable land use. A total of 1 378 direct job opportunities have been created as a result of projects being implemented under the Green Fund. Significant green skills training opportunities are already being realised in most of the projects, with at least 6 300 individuals having been directly trained as a result of Green Fund projects. Green skills training is expected to increase substantially through replication and scale-up of the portfolio.
Specific projects such as the Muthi Futhi Project (Umlazi Local Municipality, KZN) which facilitate sustainable use of the traditional medicinal plants is yielding positive results. Through the project traditional and medicinal plants are cultivated and harvested in a sustainable manner, thereby providing livelihoods to the communities working on site. A total of over 143 000 indigenous seed, seedlings, and plants have been purchased and propagated on site, surpassing the target of 120 000 plants per year over the duration of the project. The project to date employed 40 people, mainly women in the rural areas, to conserve and manage the indigenous traditional medicinal plants.
The second projects that have direct positive impact to the socio economic development of the poor communities is the iShack Project located in Stellenbosch Local Municipality, Western Cape: The goal of the iShack Project is to improve household living conditions of people living in the informal housing sector and to meet basic energy needs at an affordable price. The project has thus far installed 371 Solar Home System (SHS) for the community.
The third project is the Jobs in Waste for Youth: The Jobs in Waste for Youth Programme is a national programme to tackle the lack of capacity in delivering waste management services (including public awareness of recycling and re-use) at municipalities and a lack of employment opportunities for youth. The Green Fund funded the project in two provinces, namely: North West and Free State Provinces. To date 809 youth have been recruited and trained, this number exceeded the planned number of 777 youth to be recruited and trained (384 in North West and 393 in Free State). Furthermore, 13 000 waste bins and 18 weigh pads were procured and delivered, 6 enviro-loos have been erected at the landfill sites in NW. The programme has used 29 Small Businesses to provide goods and services to the projects.
The fourth project to be highlighted is the Waste-preneurs project which demonstrated that unemployed community members could be motivated to collect a range of recycling materials in exchange for either credit notes, or barter items like bicycles, building materials and other livelihood support items of their choice. The network of Waste-preneurs has grown to 5 075 spread in 87 communities in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng provinces. To date, 9 218 698 kg recyclable waste has been collected.
The aforementioned examples exclude a number of projects from the “Working for Programme” and other initiatives that are implemented by other sector departments. The above examples are drawn from the Green Fund projects only.
Blue Economy:
Working for the coast program (Projects attached as Annexure). /files/RNW221-150303_Annexure_A_-_Project_List_1.docx
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 170 {NW178E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Mr T Z Hadebe (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) With reference to the reply of the Minister of Communications to question 1031 on 27 November 2014, what was the total amount that (a) her department and (b) each of its entities (i) spent on and/or (ii) budgeted for advertising for each month between 1 January 2013 and 31 July 2014, excluding expenditure transferred through the Department of Communications for advertising;
(2) Does such figure for each month represent the (a) total value of advertising that appeared in the media in that month, (b) amount paid in that month for advertising that may have appeared previously or (c) amount paid in advance for advertising that appeared at a later date;
(3) In each specified case, what amount did (a) her department and (b) each of its entities spend on advertising in (i) print, (ii) radio, (iii) television, (iv) online and (v) outdoor;
(4) In each specified case, what is the breakdown of advertising by (a) her department and (b) each of its entities in terms of (i) name of and (ii) amount spent on each (aa) publication, (bb) radio station, (cc) television station, (dd) website and (ee) billboards location in each province
170. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
The information requested by the Honourable Member is published in the Department’s Annual Report for 2013/14, which is publicly available, while recent audited expenditure information will be made available in the Department’s Annual Report for 2014/15, which will be tabled later this year.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 163 {NW171E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Mr AG Whitfield (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 2952 on 9 December 2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment report considered the Civil Aviation Regulations; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) (a) whether she is aware that the proposed Aquaculture Development Zone site is in line with a dedicated flight path and (b) did she consider the danger that birds which are attracted to the fish farm could pose to aircraft; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
163. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, read together with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000), the power to issue an environmental authorisation has been delegated by the Minister to the Deputy Director General: Legal, Authorisations, Compliance and Enforcement.
Due to the separation of powers between the original decision maker and the appeal authority, i.e. the Minister of Environmental Affairs, the decision to issue an environmental authorisation was issued independent of the Minister's involvement in the EIA process. As a result thereof, as Minister, I was not aware of ACSAs contention that the proposed aquaculture development zone is in line with a dedicated flight path.
It should be mentioned, however, that the concerns raised by Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) were only brought to the fore during the appeals process. The environmental impact assessment practitioner did not include ACSA as a key stakeholder during the public participation process, as they had not considered interference with flight paths as a relevant issue at that stage. The Department was consequently not in possession of any information with regard to the concerns raised by ACSA prior to its decision to issue an environmental authorisation.
The issues raised by ACSA first came to light during the appeal process and will now be taken into account by theme during the appeal decision-making process.
(2) Due to the fact that ACSA was not involved in any way during the public participation process, none of the issues raised by ACSA were taken into account prior to the decision to issue an environmental authorisation. This includes the contention by ACSA that the proposed development is in line with a dedicated flight path and that this may lead to potential collisions with aircraft occupying the same airspace.
However, I am now in possession of the detailed grounds of appeal submitted by ACSA through the appeal process, and this information will form part of the body of information (27 appeals in total) to be considered by me when making an appeal decision.
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 144
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015 {NW151E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What amount has been spent in respect of each meeting of the panel of experts appointed to investigate trade in rhino horn since January 2014?
144. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
The Committee of Inquiry announced by the Minister of Environmental Affairs on 10 February 2015 met on 2 February 2015. Below is the table illustrating the amount that has been spent on the meeting.
|
ITEM |
COSTS |
|
Catering |
R6 820,00 |
|
Flights and accommodation |
R25 467,73 |
|
TOTAL |
R32 287,73 |
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 143 {NW150E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
What (a) are the names of each rhino intervention plan, strategy and/or intervention that were developed since 2008 to combat the scourge of rhino poaching, (b) is the total costs associated with (i) developing and (ii) implementing each plan and (c) were the (i) objectives and/or (ii) key result areas of each (aa) plan, (bb) strategy or (cc) interventions met; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
143. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
- 2008 – 2012
- The National Strategy on the Safety and Security of the Rhinoceros Population of South Africa (NSSSRP).
- South African National Parks (SANPARKS) and Kruger National Parks (KNP) Organisational Anti-poaching Strategies and Plans.
- Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) Organisational Anti-poaching Strategies and Plans.
- (i) Development: - There were no costs incurred in developing these as internal resources were utilised.
(ii) Implementing:
- The National Strategy on the Safety and Security of the Rhinoceros Population of South Africa: 10 million rand
- About R33.480 million from the Treasury
- About R10 million rand from the ivory fund
- About R15 million from RSA donors
- About R350 million rand from foreign donors (thirty percent utilised)
- Rhino Rubicon Project/Rhino Protection Programme: R188.98 million and R64.20 million
- (i) Objectives of the:
- NSSSRP - To provide guiding principles to inform decision-making processes, strategic planning and operations aimed at reducing the effects of poaching on rhino species and to ensure the successful arrest, conviction and sentencing of poachers, illegal traders and crime syndicates operating locally (at reserve level), nationally, regionally and internationally. The purpose is to also provide better controls and monitoring of rhino horn stockpile management and to promote improved management of the conditions under which rhino may be legally hunted.
- SANPARKS/ KNP - Implementing an immediate action plan aimed at mitigating the current escalation.
- EKZN Rhino Intervention Programme 2014 to 2018: Operation Rhino KZN Strategic Operations Plan 2014/2015 (PPC Rhino Poaching Implementation Plan) - Provide a clear coordinated approach to rhino security and associated intervention which focuses on a counter interactive measures to curb rhino poaching within KwaZulu-Natal
- Rhino Rubicon Project/Rhino Protection Programme - Through various initiatives and programmes targeted at different groups, this project aims at implementing a strategy that will address different aspects that form basis for Rhino poaching and fuels the rapid increase thereof.
(c) (ii), (aa) (bb) and (cc) Yes.
NSSSRP:
- Established a National Wildlife Crime Reaction Unit
- A permanent Unit established
- Law enforcement/Security structures provide support through the NATJOINTS, nationally and provincially
- Permanent joint deployment under Ops Rhino, based in the Kruger National Park undertaken
- The Rhino Protection Programme
- The National Rhino Operation Centre
- Operation Corona
- Rhino DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA) Project – development and implementation
- Operation Rhino
- Integrated Strategic Management of rhino approach
- Intelligence Working Group
- Prohibition on trade in detached horns and norms and standards specify permits and requirements relating to movement of hunting trophies. DEA in process of developing interim system to track all permits authorising activities involving rhino draft framework for Biodiversity of Management Plan aimed at long terms survival of the species developed.
QUESTION NO. 142 {NW149E}
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Ms T Stander (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
With regard to the ivory sale that was conducted (a) what is the total amount that was raised and (b) what (i) is the detailed breakdown of expenditure, (ii) is the balance of money; and (iii) are the plans, if any, for this money?
142. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(a) The total amount that was raised from Ivory sale is R67 617 677.29 {Ivory from South African National Parks (SANParks), Mpumalanga Parks and Tourism Agency (MTPA), North West Parks and Tourism Board (NWPTB) and KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (KZN Wildlife) were sold}
0 000
Reply received: March 2015
QUESTION NO. 10
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 of 2015 {NW11E}
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015
Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:
(1) (a) Whether the Government had sought expeditious and dramatic international action in COP17 on the question of the sustained and increasing acidification of the world’s lakes, seas, and oceans, considering that these large bodies of water were collectively responsible for absorbing about 26% of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions every year, leading to a series of chemical reactions that increased the acidity of surface seawater; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) Which chemical reactions has she found are seen by scientists to be impacting negatively and harmfully on (a) marine organisms such as oysters, mussels, corals, (b) some planktic species which have calcium carbonate skeletons and (c) the economy of coastal regions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) Will the Minister make a statement on the already visible impact of ocean acidification on (a) our marine life, (b) our coastal economies and (c) life on earth?
10. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:
(1) (a) We recognise and acknowledge the importance of this issue. South Africa as an active member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) negotiates and monitors the issue of acidification to ensure that literature from Africa on this issue is considered in the IPCC assessment cycles. The IPCC 5th assessment report acknowledges that the ocean is indeed a big sink for carbon dioxide. The IPCC underscored that the ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing ocean acidification. This together with increased ocean surface temperature will have major impact on the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide. However, the IPCC also points to the issue of ocean science as something that needs to be studied further. The IPCC is confident that the 6th assessment report will provide better understanding on this issue.
(2) (a) Atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the concentration of carbonic acid in the oceans, putting at particular risk marine organisms with calcium carbonate in their external structure.
(b) These organisms range from photosynthetic diatoms to corals and shelled organisms, including crustaceans and molluscs.
Internationally, scientists explain increasing acidity in the global ocean through the dissolution of Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the seawater. This reaction is represented by the following simplified chemical reaction:
carbon dioxide + water + carbonate = bicarbonate,
which can be written as CO2 + H2O + CO32- => 2HCO3-
The reduction in the seawater carbonate concentration (CO32-) that results from this reaction produces a reduction in seawater pH, also called ocean acidification. This ocean acidification, however, will only negatively and harmfully impact on organisms if the carbonate ion concentration in the seawater falls below a threshold value. This threshold value is related to the solubility of the calcium carbonate mineral phases that marine organisms form during their life cycles.
(c) In South African coastal and continental shelf waters, the seawater carbonate ion concentration is still well above this threshold value; therefore ocean acidification is not yet found to negatively impact oceans and coasts ecosystems in South Africa hence there are currently no negative consequences on the economies of our coastal regions due to this cause.
(3) (a), (b) and (c) The Minister will consider expressing the need to monitor ocean acidification at appropriate fora, in particular the role this knowledge would play in developing adaptation strategies.