Department of Environmental Affairs on its 3rd quarter 2014/15 performance and targets outlook

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

10 March 2015
Chairperson: Mr J Mthembu (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee met with the Minister of Environmental Affairs and senior officials of the Department to discuss achievements on the Department’s 2014/15 strategic plans and targets for the third quarter of the financial year. The Committee was taken through each of the Department’s programmes, including administration, where the targets partially achieved or not likely to be achieved were highlighted.

The Committee then discussed each programme engaging in a number of concerns and questions. On programme one of the Department, which dealt with administration, the Committee questioned penalties for non-performance of Department staff, employment targets for people with disabilities and females particularly in management positions, awarding of bonuses, work of local government in this programme and the challenges with the master systems plan. Under programme two, legal, authorisations, compliance and enforcement, more information was sought by Members on prosecutions and convictions, integrated management and training of environmental monitors.

With programme three, oceans and coasts, the Committee discussed preparations for Operation Phakisa and the global oceans governance regime. Turning to programme four, climate change and air quality, robust debate was held on the expected completion dates for the guidelines on offsets, plans to get the Highveld priority area complaint with ambient air quality standards, strategies to address air pollution in dense low-income communities, publishing air emission licences and their monitoring, delayed funding and acquiring technology to reduce Green House Gas emissions.

On biodiversity, programme five, the Committee sought elaboration on why some targets in this programme would not be achieved and the impact of this and delays in the final publication of the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS) regulations and the implications of this delay. Under programme sic, environmental programmes, Members questioned the kind of work done by those employed n the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) related projects and ensuring the target on wetlands was met. On the final programme, chemicals and waste, the Committee discussed targets around the number of authorisations of unlicensed waste disposal sites, the intent behind buy-back centres and holding people/companies responsible for pollution or instruments to achieve this maybe the compensation of those subject to tremendous suffering and negative impacts because of the air pollution.  

Meeting report

Department of Environmental Affairs Third Quarter Performance Report 2014/15
Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, DEA Director General, highlighted a number of targets met in this programme with 100 interns recruited, 30 external fulltime bursaries awarded meeting the target exactly and 49 part-time bursaries awarded when the target was 40. With equity and people with disabilities, the target was 50% women, 90% black and 2% persons living with disabilities – at the third quarter, 56% women were employed although this was lagging at senior management level, 91% black employees and 2.7% of people with disabilities employed. The target for the Department in these regard was thus met and exceeded.

Mr K Morapela (EFF) heard the DG say that penalties would be given to employees who did not perform as expected. He was interested to know which kind of penalties these were.

Ms Ngcaba said, in terms of the performance management system from public service regulations, there were measures to follow. When formal assessments were done, scores were given by the individuals themselves which was then revised by the supervisor to discuss targets not met. At times the reasons for meeting targets were outside of the hands of officials. If the performance was below satisfactory levels, processes kicked in to engage the official and allow him/her to make representations to the point where warnings could be issued and the matter reported to the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) especially in the case of senior officials. Employees could then be exited or moved to other years. Being the middle of the year, it was unlikely these processes would occur. The principle of the penalties were on not awarding poor performance

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) was particularly interested in understanding the employment target for people with disabilities – he wanted to know the actual number of disabled people employed and not the good looking percentage (2.7%).

Ms Ngcaba answered that 45 disabled people were employed in an organisation of 1648. 1493 black people were employed while women stood at 987. 

Mr P Mabilo (ANC) found that employees with disabilities were never found in management positions – he sought a reflection on where disabled people were in terms of leadership and management in DEA.

Ms Ngcaba replied that she would try to consolidate that information and then the Committee could be provided a written report on the matter. Currently there were 24 staff members who were disabled working in categories 1 – 4 and 16 of the 24 were female. In middle management, there were 20 disabled people and 10 of these 20 were female. In senior management, there were two people with disabilities and one was female.

The Chairperson clarified that the detailed information was in the Committee's document pack – it was in the last annexure.

Mr Makhubele thought that bonuses should be awarded for officials who performed extra-ordinarily and should not be awarded to people for simply doing their work. 

Ms Ngcaba clarified that the presentation was a broad overview because of the lack of time to look as targets achieved and what was being in the cases where these targets were not being achieved. Members did have the detailed information. In terms of bonuses, the system ran where officials were scored from 1 – 5 with 3 being expected work. 4 and 5 was when creation and innovation was demonstrated.   

The Chairperson asked that the DG zoom in on targets which the Department did not achieving or was not doing well and the reasons for this otherwise the Committee would be sitting for two weeks at the current pace. The Members did have all the detailed information but could raise any questions.

Ms Ngcaba carried on with presentation talking to grievances where the challenge was with grievances against officials working in Antarctica or Marion Islands and the time it took to resolve these cases – this was why the target was not met with regard to grievances but the Department was looking at corrective measures to meet the average target in future. Another target not achieved was the rolling out of the master systems plan in respect of nine project areas. The master systems plan was a document which outlined the improvement of the organisation’s business practices in terms of automation etc. Out of the nine projects areas, five were on target but the other four was not with the problem related partly related to procurement delays between the Department and SITA which took an inordinate amount of time as well two projects withdrawn by line managers. This was a centrally run matter from the office of the Chief Operating Officer (COO). It was hoped this target would be partially achieved by the end of the year once the procurement processes had been attended to. With access to information and improving sector awareness and education, this target was on course. Turning to the implementation of systems related to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Chapter Five, the regulated timeframes were amended in the past Parliament for national and provincial competent authorities to conclude and issue environmental authorisations in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system to improve the streamlining of the system for the application process to be automated. The Minister had already published the regulations but the appeal regulations still needed to be published. In respect of the target of 18 peer reviewed publications, the Department was lagging behind because 12 publications were not ready by the end of the third quarter. With the sustainable developmental outlook, this was concluded but the Minister wanted to correspond with other relevant Ministers before publication because some chapters dealt with water and energy etc. Other than this, the report was ready it just needed to be published. There were also delays with municipalities in local government publishing its environmental management plans but DEA would try to support in this area. Overall for programme one, around 67% of targets was met – out of 52 targets/milestones, 35 were met. 16 of the targets were a work in progress.  

The Chairperson asked what the effect was of the non-movement of local officials on the work of the Department.

Ms Ngcaba said the intention behind municipalities having environmental management plans was an attempt at ensuring local government performing environmental management functions. In most municipalities there was limited activity performed because there were no resources allocated. Some of the municipalities who had parks did not manage them well and there were challenges around knowledge and catchment management of indigenous species amongst others. River pollution in municipalities was also a reality. At a local government level, DEA was more of a regulator than an implementer so it provided parameters and standards to adhere to like with waste management, landfill sites, biodiversity management and management of beaches.

Ms Ngcaba continued with the presentation looking at effective knowledge and

The Chairperson noted programme one spoke to the demographics of the Department and if was showing representivity of SA as a whole, amongst other things. The programme also spoke to plans on the table on systems, performance and human development. He was most worried about the lack of environmental plans at local government – did this speak to all local authorities? He wanted to avoid sweeping statements. It was part of the Committee’s duties to interact with the local level. The Chairperson opened the floor to Members.

Ms Ngcaba said some municipalities did have environmental management plans.

Ms Liza McCourt, DEA Chief Operating Officer, added the Committee would benefit from a detailed presentation on the local government resource strategy. This was a full strategy with a differentiated approach – there was not differentiation in the type of support provided and the creation of an enabling environment. The latter was generally in the case of those municipalities which were slightly more capacitated or had a level of environmental function. This was the Department’s first year of implementing this specific strategy which explained the somewhat rocky road to achieve the target – in some instances, setting up the systems had taken longer than anticipated. It was expected there would be 80% achievement of the target of implementation by the end of the year.   

Mr M Shelembe (NFP) sought more clarity on the master system plan and challenges in this field. How was the Department working if its master systems plan was not currently effective? When would this plan be in place?

Ms Ngcaba clarified the master systems plan was in place- the plan included key projects for the Department to enable improvement in the delivery of services. Some projects were delayed partly because of procurement processes while two projects were withdrawn by line managers in the Department.

Ms McCourt added the Department had a fully functional master systems plan, i.e. the information communication technology, was fully in place. The master systems plan was reviewed annually and many of the projects under the system plan had been achieved and there were good audit reports in this regard. The new projects were the only issue with the master systems plan.

The Chairperson thought the Department was doing well with more achievements to be reached by the end of the year in programme one.  

Programme 2: Legal, Authorisations, Compliance and Enforcement
The Chairperson asked if a decrease was seen in the poaching and killing of rhinos generally.

Ms Ngcaba indicated this was a difficult question – without the actions put in place by the Department, the level of loss would be that much worse. The number of rangers had been upped, there was cooperation and with translocation it was hoped the rhino population could be saved and that breeding was increased. The question was what could be further strengthened. In terms of criminality, the Chairperson’s question was a difficult one because the numbers were no decreasing as stats of poaching showed a growth.

Mr T Bonhomme (ANC) asked for more information on dockets being sent for prosecution and investigation. He thought the convictions were the crux of the matter.

Mr Ishaam Abader, DEA DDG: Legal Authorisation and Compliance Inspectorate, said in 2013/14, there was a 25% increase in the number of dockets registered (1862). Almost 21% more dockets (379) were sent in 2013/14 to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) compared to 2012/13. With convictions, there were 78 in 2013/14. Specifically with rhino related prosecutions in 2013/14, 50 cases were finalised while in 2014/15, 70 cases were finalised. 140 accused were involved in 2014/15 in the rhino related cases and 95 in 2013/14. With convictions, in 2014/15, there were 85, 13 acquittals, cases were withdrawn against 25 people, 20 accused were convicted and sentenced to a fine and 50 accused were convicted to direct imprisonment without the option of a fine. In 2014, 9 people were found in possession of rhino horn, 24 people involved in the illegal hunting of rhinos, 32 people involved in illegal firearms and ammunition and 44 cases of trespassing.

Ms Ngcaba said this information would also be made available in writing to the Committee.

Mr Morapela could not reconcile an increase in the numbers of poaching and an increase in strategies put in place.

Ms T Stander (DA) thought the Committee needed to understand that DEA could only do so much with regard to the scourge of rhino poaching. She believed the Department introduced a number of brilliant interventions and had worked hard within its ambit. What was preventing a reduction in rhino poaching incidents were the porous border between SA, Kruger National Park (KNP) and Mozambique, poor crime intelligence and poor arrest and conviction rate. There were over 500 incidents in the Kruger National Park alone last year yet of that, only about in the region of 200 or 300 arrests took place. A lot of the responsibility in this environment was that of the Department of Justice, Police and he Defence Force and not DEA but ultimately this was where the buck stopped for the protection of threatened species. She asked that the Department enlighten the Committee on how it could assist in some areas where its hands were tied.      

Mr Makhubele questioned the training of the 1100 trained and deployed environmental monitors – how long did this training take? These people operated in a very difficult and dangerous terrain. These monitors needed to be up to the task.

Ms Ngcaba said this was basic formalised training which took three weeks. This same training was provided to rangers working in provincial and national parks. Training was also provided for prosecutors and magistrates to attempt to handle environmental crimes better. These were facilitated through MOUs. 

Mr Abader added there were different gradings of environmental impact monitors and this determined the training received. It was a very intensive and complex process of training from practical application to legislative training. This training was also provided to the SA Police Service (SAPS) when it came to wildlife crime.    

The Chairperson noted more discussion could be had when the actual strategy was interrogated in depth. It might be best for the Committee to assist the Department by having collaborative meetings with other Committees like that of Home Affairs, Justice and Police. The point was that when the rhino were killed, everyone, including Members, looked to Minister Molewa for answers. It might also be good for the Committee to be briefed on the essence of the training because the green scorpions dealt with so much. It was important to look at capacity, technology and if the foot soldiers were properly trained.

Ms Ngcaba noted the strategy had always been there, it had just now been revised, for example, to look at extensive protection zones in KNP where much investment occurred especially with technology and equipment. It was difficult to police and contain the poachers because KNP was such a wide area that spilled over two provinces and into another country. Parliament could really assist in the work of coordination. All these elements could be discussed when the Committee was fully briefed on the revised strategy.  

Ms Stander suggested the Committee had a meeting similar to what was held last year where there were representatives from the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigation (Hawks), Defence Force and SAPS to which Members could direct questions.

The Chairperson said the logistics of such a meeting would be worked on.

Programme 3: Oceans and Coasts
Ms Ngcaba said in the programme, the ocean policy was approved by Cabinet but there were delays with implementation related to moving forward with an ocean law, conservation and coordination with other departments. Despite this the target would be met as of the fourth quarter. There were some delays in gazetting the marine protected areas in certain locations because of fisheries related issues and access to communities for take zones vs. non-take zones. This gazetting would occur before the end of the financial year so the target would be met. There were also delays in signing plans with France in respect of monitoring plans. There was also a delay with the report on insect resistant GMO maize because the consultant needed further consultation and collate data in specific climatic requirements but the study would be completed by the end of the financial year. There were also some unintended procurement delays in this programme stemming from tightening processes as advised by the Auditor-General. Delays were also experienced with the servicing of some observation stations. in this programme, 68% of the targets were achieved – 15 out of 22 targets while six were work in progress.     

The Chairperson asked where the Department would be in the third quarter in terms of percentages of targets achieved. 

Ms Stander asked if Operation Phakisa fell within the Oceans and Coasts programme. What preparation was being done in terms of this programme because there was no mention of this?

Ms Ngcaba said Operation Phakisa was done in the middle of the financial year – all of the projects involved were part of outcome 10 and would be reflected in the Annual Performance Plan (APP). DEA was leading ocean governance protection services and within this there were projects and programmes related to the expansion of marine protected areas and the establishment of an integrated information system etc. A separate presentation could be made to the Committee in this regard. The Minister was championing Operation Phakisa with the Presidency. 

Remarks by the Minister of Environmental Affairs
Ms Edna Molewa, Minister of Environmental Affairs, apologised for her late arrival because she was at two other engagements in Johannesburg. On Operation Phakisa, Cabinet asked the Department to investigate potential spin-offs and development in the ocean space from discussion on the oceans policy which was tabled in Cabinet about two years ago. Cabinet gave the go ahead to explore this potential. The President then made announcement in SONA 2014 for DEA to lead this work. There were dual roles to act as coordinator but also as implementer in the space of governance and ocean protection where some of the work was shared with Science and Technology and the security cluster in terms of illegal activity. DEA’s role was to manage the entire space of the oceans. An announcement was made through the budget so the actual implementation would start in this financial year. She emphasised the relevant Departments would still carry through the work on areas of mutual concern in an integrated fashion thus planning and execution would be done together. When referring to Operation Phakisa, one needed to keep in mind that Op. Phakisa was actually a model of big fast results delivery and this model would be used in different categories – the oceans economy was the first then the President indicated there would be health, mining, beneficiation, agriculture etc. With the targets not yet achieved in oceans and coasts, much of it relied on exogenous factors like the agreement with the French.

Dr Monde Mayekiso, DEA DDG: Oceans and Coasts, said, with the target not being met on peer reviewed publications which the DG alluded to, the target of 18 peer reviewed publications would be met at the end of the year but the nature of the delivery of a publication was difficult to work out in quarters. In terms of the agreement with the French on the Prince Edward Islands, he was confident this target could be achieved. The delay was caused by deciding whether the French could get into the SA Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This process involved not only DEA but the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) and the SANDF. 

Mr Mabilo asked if there was a global ocean governance regime under the UN.

Dr Mayekiso said there was an arrangement to monitor oceans globally – this was the Law of the Sea of 1982. This Law allowed countries to manage only what was in their 200 miles of coast but this left out 60% of the oceans, or what was termed “the High Seas”. Currently there was no international regime which managed this part of the ocean but the UN was working on it and there was an agreement for supplementary agreements to bolster the current Law of the Sea.

Minister Molewa added there were the Benguela Current and other instruments to manage coasts. On the matter of the High Seas, DEA was led by Dirco. There was also an outcome at Rio+20 which dealt with the Law of the Seas. The reality was that nations of the world needed to get together to decide on how to manage oceans beyond the 200 nautical miles. The UN General Secretary had appointed a team of people to work on his matter. There were also security issues in this space.

The Chairperson agreed that a detailed briefing on Op. Phakisa should take place to explain DEA’s responsibility in the area of the oceans economy. He pleased to see that 68% of targets had been achieved by the third quarter in this oceans and coasts programme – was this what the Department had envisioned?  

Minister Molewa replied that, on a straight line, the third quarter was expected to be at 75% i.e.25% of targets achieved per quarter to reach 100% by the end of the year. Just in this past week, the Department had been completing some of the targets partially achieved.

The Chairperson noted that at times life did not work on a straight line. The essence of his question was around meeting all targets the Department had control over by the end of the financial year. The Department could not hide behind procurement – it should be started early so that it did not impact negatively on targets. It was important to look at the impact of the bidding process and how this impacted on plans and that it was not used as an excuse. Despite this the Department was doing well. He appreciated that the Department was well prepared, had knowledge officials and a Minister who was so passionate about matters of the environmental that she even decided to wear green in Parliament. This showed the capacity and commitment of the Department to carry out its mandate. 

Programme 4: Climate Change and Air Quality
Ms Limpho Makotoko, DEA Chief Director: Business Performance and Strategic Monitoring, outlined there was a delay in finalising the risk reduction reports which meant the long term adaptation scenarios could not be published on time but the Department had since caught up in this area of work.

Ms Ngcaba said the adjudication committee of the Department had been much stricter this year sending back bids at the expense of meeting targets so this was a challenge but it would be mitigated much better next year.

The Chairperson felt the question was what could be done to ensure the committee did not send bids back because it was not a laudable excuse – this could have been foreseen.

Ms Makotoko continued noting the challenges of delayed UK funding for the sinks report so another source of funding was found from Germany but there still contractual delays around this work in collaboration with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).It was likely this target would not be fully achieved by the end of the year. The guidelines for mitigation plans related to the national climate change response strategy were not finalised because it was dependent on the carbon budget – once some of the elements of the carbon budget were concluded, only then could the guidelines be finalised. There were challenges of engagement with the multi-stakeholder groups for mitigation plans in the priority areas of the Highveld and Vaal – the planned sessions for consultation were delayed because the community indicated they needed more time to be fully informed. This was beyond the Department’s control and impacted the target of publishing further plans. In total, 47% of the targets were met in programme four and 47% of the targets were a work in progress.      

Ms Judy Beaumont, DEA DDG: Climate Change and Air Quality, added the carbon budget process was a very complex one. The Department was in the process of developing and in fact had three drafts of key documents including on carbon budgets, different instruments available in sectors to enable industry to reduce emissions and setting the desired emission reductions per sector. These documents were consulted with business and stakeholders at various levels but there was a push back in terms of the approach to setting carbon budgets and how it related to other instruments in the mitigation system. The complexity relates to who would be responsible, how the instruments fit and work together as a single system over five-year periods of emission reduction and the legal basis. This was a technical discussion involving not only business and industry but other departments like trade and industry, economic development, science and technology and energy. DEA aimed for a draft set of carbon budgets by the end of March – given that there were two weeks left until the end of the month and consultation was still on-going, it was unlikely this target would be met but the Department was working to resolve the matter as fast as it could.

Minister Molewa added there was an announcement made by the former Minister of Finance around two years ago in the implementation of the carbon tax which was subsequently not followed through in the budget. This year the current Minister of Finance addressed the matter and indicated the process of establishing and finalising the carbon tax would be finalised around June 2015. DEA had been working with Treasury regarding this. This was a highly technical issue but resolution was found on the sets of instruments utilised.  

Ms Stander wanted to find out whether the Committee could request the national environmental compliance and implementation reports for the current and preceding year could be provided to Members. When was the expected completion date for guidelines on offsets? What were the Department’s plans to get the Highveld area compliant within the target of 2020 in five years’ time? She knew there was a stand-off between the community and the Department. What happened with the strategy to address air pollution in dense low-income communities which was drafted in 2013? Was there any programme to publish the air emission licences specifically with regards to individual companies and what they were licensed to emit? She knew the issuing authorities of licences were often municipalities but it was ultimately DEA who needed to ensure ambient air quality. She also wanted more information around the monitoring of the issued licences to ensure air quality compliance.    

Ms Beaumont replied that the offsets guidelines would be completed by end March. The dense low-income strategy was presented to the DGs social cluster last week. This was a strategy was operational and required contribution from various departments. The strategy was in the process of going for Cabinet approval because it did have implications for strategic planning and budgeting for the relevant departments to support the work of emission reduction. With the Highveld and Vaal priority area, the multiple different sources of emissions each required a different set of instruments and approach. The pressure needed to be maintained for each of these interventions stemming from the targeted actions outlined in the air quality management plans of both areas. With the public licences, for existing ones, to some extent data was available on the air quality management system. The question was how to track the state of licences as issuing authorities were present at national, provincial and local level. A web-based permitting instrument was being put in place in this regard on which all licenses were loaded – this was critical because a significant number of places were licensed. 

Minister Molewa found it important to highlight that DEA was a regulatory department and everything it dealt with was compliance-related.

Mr Shelembe wanted to know what was going to happen with the delayed funding and how much money was involved.

Ms Beaumont answered that an amount of R3 million was requested from the UK government for this work on sinks. The sinks were the extent to which biomes, or land, could absorb GHG emissions and to indentify where action needed to be taken in combination and synergy with other ecosystem restoration programmes. The critical elements here were the national understanding of the extent to which GHGs were absorbed by sinks. The greater the understanding on this, the better for predictability and being specific of the GHGs in the inventory. The other element was the priority areas for the restoration of sinks. This was important work so this explained why funding was sought urgently. The UK funding had effectively closed therefore the matter was put before the German funding to request reprioritisation of some of the existing funds to direct it to the national sinks assessment. Confirmation of this had not yet been received. Currently, R35 million was allocated to the three-year programme. The German funding from the DEA counterpart concluded at the end of next year and the Department really appreciated this as a key source of funding.

The Chairperson asked about the input from the international fund on this matter particularly to developing countries with regard to adaptation and mitigation. This funding could ease the burden on governments and businesses in developing countries. How did countries acquire technologies at a cost which was reasonable to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions?

Ms Beaumont said the Green Climate Fund was the international fund which SA was very centrally involved in to ensure operationalisation. She was told these funds would be available probably from October 2015. There was already initial capitalisation of $10 billion which was received into the Green Climate Fund in December 2014 which was achieved at COP20 in Lima. SA also had access to the UN GEF six programme funding ($17 million over a period of five years) and there were other sources of funding. There was now national discussion with key stakeholders and relevant government departments on climate change response flagship programmes to identify priority, high-impact and catalytic projects to achieve scale-up or building on what existed for the transition to a low carbon resilient economy. With the GEF funding this was focused on emission reduction programmes and the Green Climate Fund was focused on adaptation programmes. The point was to package a set of high national impact programmes to leverage different sources of funding whether it was international, public or from the private sector to ensure emission reduction and resilience which was the basis of a transition. DEA’s climate change response programme was quite heavily dependent on donor funding because it was a new branch such as from the UK (which was now being phased out), Germany (who was offering a third period of funding), Norway and Sweden. This funding was used for the purposes of national climate change response not just for DEA who was the champion. With access to climate change technology, the sector was absolutely critical. The Department of Science and Technology had been asked to take the low-hanging technology and plot it in terms of access or negotiating with countries which had the technologies. The emphasis was on technology which could facilitate the biggest reduction. This was a national responsibility but also formed part of an international process and negotiation. Access to technology also formed part of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). 

The Chairperson asked where this programme would be in terms of meeting targets by the end of the year. He understood that the drying up of some of the funds meant certain projects could not be continued and that some of the targets were dependent on negotiations with various sectors on adaptation and mitigation. This programme also dealt with INDCs and COP21 in Paris this year.

Ms Beaumont stated this as a tough year ahead but the reality was that the programme would come short in two of the targets, which was, the national sinks atlas and concluding the final carbon budgeting design and quantification which was a key area. This would be pushed through as a priority for next year. She expected that by the end of the year, 80% of the targets for this programme should be achieved.

The Chairperson was also worried about the climate change response strategy which relied on outside funding – perhaps this reliance on funding needed to be reviewed. He wanted 100% of targets to be met at the end of the year as the programmes were placed on the plans.

Ms Beaumont said the Department was aiming for 100% of targets to be met in this programme but there would be at least 12% of targets not achieved by the end of the year.

The Chairperson was pleased with this.

Programme 5: Biodiversity and Conservation
Ms Makotoko outlined some targets were partially achieved around the management of protected areas. There were delays around confirming dates for audits in the provinces around the state management protected areas which explained why the target was not fully achieved as yet. The regulations of professional hunters, trainers and hunting outfitters was finalised mid-November 2014 but the publishing was delayed so that it did not fall over the December holidays to allow for fair opportunity for public comments to be made – the regulations were published in January 2015 and all the comments were received in February and the process was being finalised. Regulations for Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS) was completely off- target being it was re-published for public input and this was not anticipated. There was also a need to consult with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) regarding some welfare issues around canned hunting. A follow up meeting was scheduled for tomorrow and there would be a ministerial meeting planned for March to reach finalisation. With biodiversity plans for species, the Department was targeting the African lion, white rhino and bearded vulture – the finalisation of the plans for the lion and rhino were only finalised now while the one for the vulture was finalised on time. In this programme, 83% of the targets were met at the end of the third quarter while 14 targets were a work in progress but they would be met.

Mr Mabilo sought an explanation on some of the targets not being met in this programme and the implication of this on the core mandate of conservation.

The Chairperson questioned the TOPS issue in this programme and the implication of this.

An official from the Department explained there was a delay created by the public participation process after it was republished for public comment after received unanticipated significant submissions. There were also some issues which needed to be clarified with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) such as those related to welfare. The issue was being consulted and the final meeting would be held tomorrow. DEA tried its best to facilitate the public participation process and most of the inputs from the process had been effected into the regulations. It was hoped there would be less submissions when the regulations were published again and this should facilitate the process of final publication which was expected at June for the latest. This was a delay of about three months.

The Chairperson said this was still a delay in terms of what the Department made by its own submission in the annual plans. The Committee did not have a gun to the Department’s head. The Department should now learn that timelines should be more flexible when it came to public participation processes. However, DEA was still doing well with 83% of targets achieved in this programme as at December 2014. He thought the excuse in the delay stemming from public participation was a bit of a lame one – the possibility of republishing the regulations should have been factored into the planning of the work.

Ms Ngcaba noted this was a programme which was managing 29 targets and it was not expected that the Minister might say some issues should be revisited – this was a process of back and forth. The process of communicating with stakeholders, like DAFF, was not an easy one and there were also changes in the team working in this area. With issues of funding, like in the previous programme, departments were allowed to revise plans mid-term (after the end of September) according to the public service regulations and Treasury guidelines. The Minister would not easily approve such a change without a clear action plan. It was also not easy for managers to drop a target – it had to be proved there was no other way either if it was not defined correctly or there was an issue of funding. The Department was getting better at mitigating risks when it came to achieving targets.

Minister Molewa, looking at the previous programme, noted it had been said the submission of the long-term mitigation scenario went with the necessary support of the international community. This indicated the particular programme was dependent on international funding. With TOPS, there were certain programmes which were divided on two extreme ends when it came to public submissions. It was highly likely that someone would take the regulations to court when it was complete. DEA was even taken to court for canned lion hunting and the period allowed for lion to be hunted after being bred in captivity. The Department argued the time should be two-year but the court ruling said the matter was not the business of the Department and was a welfare issue for DAFF. DEA did not quite understand this. It was important that the work on the side of DAFF was in place for DEA’s regulations to be effective. A meeting on the matter would occur next week. There were issues which had very distinct and polarised public views – this more of the emphasis of the delay than not anticipating the amount of submissions.   

Programme 6: Environmental Programmes 
Ms Ngcaba outlined partial achievement of targets was experienced in employment related to the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) – 8696 full-time equivalents were employed compared to the target of 9855. The target for the year was 35 000 – the DDG for this programme said he target would be met with action plans for this achievement in place. There was also a further aggregation in this target for women and people with disabilities – the current achievement for women in the programme was at about 53% but for people with disabilities, the target of 2% (1.84%) was not met. It was important to note this was not referring to the internal staff of the Department but people from employment programmes. This would need to improve. Another target not fully met was with the wetlands being rehabilitated – 115 wetlands were targeted for rehabilitation for the year and so far only 81 wetlands were rehabilitated. The programme over achieved the target for suppression of wildfires in December excluding the fires recently suppressed in the Cape where a pilot, Mr Marais, was killed in an accident on duty on Sunday.  

Mr Alf Wills, DEA DDG, spoke to the target around adoption regulations – the regulations were drafted and were being considered by the Woking Group 7 workshop on 10 March so the target would be achieved. With the legal instruments, the EIA regulations and the revised listing notices were finalised and were published. This work was linked to the operationalisation of the One Environment System that the previous Parliament had completed. The other two legal instruments (the financial provisioning and mine closure regulations) had been combined into one set of regulations owing to the complexities of the mining sector which was underestimated by the Department so the regulations under NEMA took longer to develop and extensive consultation was needed. There was a draft set of these regulations but Treasury needed to be consulted formally for the financial provisioning but the work was at an advanced stage. With the Department of Mineral resources being the lead department for hydraulic fracturing, the hydraulic fracturing committee to deal with this did not meet in the last quarter but DEA initiated a strategic environmental assessment of hydraulic fracturing in the Karoo basin and this work was fully integrated into next year’s APP process. Some regulations were still outstanding for the full implementation One Environmental System for mining. These regulations included the financial provision and mine closure regulations, stockpiles and reside regulations under the Waste Act and water regulations under the National Water Act. The mining review guideline was dependent on the final approved regulations being in place although the terms of reference for the review was in place – this target would unfortunately not be achieved by the end of the year.

Programme 7: Chemicals and Waste
Ms Ngcaba outlined the programme was behind with the health care risk waste regulations. The regulations and norms and standards were drafted but the challenge lied in alignment with the Department of Health. Even though there were meetings and bilateral between the two DGs of the departments, Health continued to draft its own regulations but the matter was escalated to a ministerial level. Some incinerators of hospitals were running below temperature so the waste was not treated properly – such issues were dealt with in the regulations. It was unlikely the target would be met seeing as it was March already but if there was agreement between the departments, the documents were ready. With the permitting of unlicensed landfill sites, 40 sites were targeted and by December, 32 landfill sites were permitted so the target would be met. With the establishment of buy-back centres, 11 were targeted for establishment but only 2 were established. The obstacle in this area was to ensure the buy-back centres were functional and commercially viable to manage the waste streams. The recycling area also formed part of the success of buy-back centres. The pricing strategy was signed by the Minister so it was hoped the economics around this area would then make sense in future. The target of 11 buy-back centres to be established was not achievable in this financial year because of the associated economics. On the matter of chemicals, the target for the number of chemical management instruments developed and implemented was three but there were delays around the instrument dealing with mercury but a service provider would be working with industry to assess the readiness for SA to phase-out mercury as a country. She thought the target would be met by the end of the financial year.     

Mr Shelembe wanted to know if the employees for the EPWP were allowed to work in someone’s yard cleaning or getting rid of weeds.

Mr Guy Preston, DEA DDG: Environmental Programmes, indicated this was certainly not done with EPWP funding. There might be clearing of alien invasive species but if the impression was that menial work was being carried out this should certainly not be paid for by government programmes and he was certain this was not the programme of DEA.

Ms Ngcaba added the EPWP did not attract people from formal employment but the wages were structured and training was offered and were covered by the Workers Compensation Act in terms of health and the Unemployment insurance Fund (UIF) in some instances. The point was that there were special conditions aimed at protecting staff in the programmes and not attract other people by ensuring wages were not comparable to the formal sector – the unemployed and low-skilled people needed to be attracted to do useful work in terms of environmental outcomes. Therefore there was a balance between social and environmental outcomes.

Minister Molewa said currently the policy of SA was to create job opportunities for people unable to put bread on the table – this informed the framework behind various good programmes. Such interventions were good and needed to be improved on as they were making a difference in people’s lives. Without the Working for Fire programme the recent fires which the Western Cape was subjected to, would have been much worse in terms of devastation and people were proud to work in such programmes. People did not need to beg and dignity was restored to some extent. One should not forget people were actually trained in these programmes under EPWP mechanisms. 

Mr Makhubele asked whether the target for unlicensed waste disposal sites authorisations would be achieved.

Ms Ngcaba explained the target was 40 sites and the target would be met.

Mr Mabilo wanted to know if there were commitments to achieve the targets not yet achieved in terms of environmental authorisations especially for mines established across the countries.

Mr Bonhomme did not understand the number of waste disposal sites authorised per annum and sought explanation on this.

Ms Ngcaba explained an audit was conducted of landfill sites in SA and it was found that some sites were operated without a license which was illegal. A landfill site by its nature was a polluter of soil and water so it needed to be licensed for conditions to prevent and minimise this pollution. The DEA then needed to go and authorise, or license, these illegal sites to prevent and minimise pollution. Furthermore, some of the landfill sites were not licensable s they needed to be closed and there were also requirements for the process of closing a site – it was not as simple as closing a gate because there was rehabilitation involved.

Ms H Kekana (ANC) asked what could be done to ensure the target around wetlands was met.  

Mr Preston said the target had already been exceeded which was set. There was a late start to the working for wetlands programme partially linked to it being operated out of the SA National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) - next year the programme would be run directly out of DEA and no further problems were anticipated. With the number of people with disabilities, DEA kept the identity (ID) numbers of everyone who worked in its programme so they knew the exact figures even though the data needed to be sought out. The Department pushed the issue hard and was extremely committed to creating opportunities for people living with disabilities and had been for 20 years. The programme would not meet the target for gender representation – the target was 55% but the figure stood at 53%. The DG was very firm on meeting this target but it was unlikely.

The Chairperson questioned the intent behind creating buy-back facilities for recycling. What regulated the creation of the dipsticks particularly in air quality hotspots like in the Highveld and South Durban in relation to respiratory problems people might have? He knew people or companies could be held responsible as a result of making people suffer from air pollution because the mix of the air but was there no way to make the polluter pay in one way or the other for the difficulties and negative impact pollution had on people? Was there not a way to zoom in on particular companies when it came to the air pollution? These polluters needed to come to the party and compensate victims in one way or the other for their polluting activities. He himself suffered from sinus problems along with many other people. 

Ms Ngcaba said the theory informing buy-back centres was for there to be points were the public could take recyclables and to remove them from landfill sites. These centres would be run professionally with reimbursements. The economics around this did not quite work out on the lines of supply and demand and economies of scale because of under-pricing and monopolisation. The pricing of the waste streams needed to be worked out for formalisation and that people could be encouraged to invest in this lucrative area. The Waste Act spoke of industry waste plans partly to establish real full-scale recycling economies and attention paid to where these buy-back centres were located. The science was such that one could not attribute pollution, once it was in the air, to a particular company but DEA was monitoring the ambient air quality and annual reporting for all operators and various monitoring stations was a compulsory requirement in terms of regulations. There was thinking about establishing a fund so that victims of poor air quality had recourse but this would require a lot of investigation, proposals and resources by all players in this space.

Minister Molewa added the polluter pays principle, was one of the major principles of the Department in the legal policy framework of SA back from 1994. The issue was how to enforce this principle. When the case of asbestos was dealt with in the Northern Cape, companies which were suspected or alleged to be polluting was followed through until money was paid to the victims. Unfortunately by that time, there were many people already beginning to die and suffer and the effects of this mineral were irreversible and this was serious. It was for this reason and to curb the pollution that monitoring was put in place on a continuous basis with attempts to ensure industry complied fully by 2020. This was in the case of old industry. For new industry, compliance was immediate. With past cases, various means were being explored. The argument being advanced also was that there needed to be a clearly articulated causal link between the sickness and what was causing the sickness. Such loopholes needed to be closed. The matter of the buy-back centres needed to be followed up on. The key point was that government could have well-intended initiatives but it was during implementation that lessons were learnt to tighten the screws better. The matter was dealt with quite elaborately at the Waste Summit where it was highlighted that recycling centres should be underpinned by sustainability. Last year Parliament helped a great deal with the law that allowed the Department to place prices on waste and this was continuing to move SA from a throwaway society to a recycling one. 2011 studies of the Department showed that SA threw away 90% of waste ending up in landfills with only 10% of waste was recycled. In advanced economies, these figures were reversed but the Department was moving toward achieving this direction. Buy-back centres and recycling plants needed to be in strategic locations after lessons were learnt. Another lesson was in the creation of Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) and the level of formalisation of waste pickers at a micro-level for issues of competition.

The Chairperson thanked the Department and Minister. One of the responsibilities of the Committee was to track the performance of the Department to ensure the plans tabled in Parliament were being implemented. This was the aim of today’s meeting as a mechanism to track the progress of the Department in its various plans. He appreciated the work done by various people on the ground in the various programmes related to the EPWP which provided people with opportunities in saving the environment and this included Working for Water. It was unfortunate to hear that one of the employees recently lost his life on the job – he would find a way to process this through the Parliamentary channel maybe through a statement or motion. Working for Fire assisted tremendously in the recent Cape Town fire – it was important to note many fires occurred in the squalor in which people were living and then Working for Fire assisted so this was a very important programme in addressing the needs of the people. There must be some form of budget to deal with climate change. He was pleased with the progress made in the plans of the various programmes in the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: