Department of Environmental Affairs & South African Weather Service on their 2013/14 Annual Reports

Meeting report

Briefing by Department of Environmental Affairs on its 2013/14 Annual Report

Ms Limpho Makotoko, Chief Director: Business Performance and Strategic Monitoring, DEA took the Committee through the overall performance information of the Department for the past financial year highlighting where the Department was off target. Overall the Department was compliant with all governance issues and was complaint with the target of 50% female and employment, 2% disabled employment and 90% black employment. The Department only had six targets which it did not achieve on the whole – this was within the climate change programme. In the main, targets were not met because of financial constraints and as a result of Treasury cuts. This also impacted DEA’s ability fill vacancies and ensure capacity.

Looking at improved access to information, the Department was off-target in the number of communication events including ministerial public participation programme events. Looking at the summary of performance from the COO branch, 21% of targets were achieved and 79% were on target.

Mr Ishaam Abader, DDG: Legal Authorisation and Compliance Inspectorate, DEA, took the Committee through programme two: legal authorisations and compliance inspectorate. Under this programme the Department exceeded the target for the number of inspections carried out and criminal investigations carried out and handed over to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). All Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) related to Strategic Infrastructure Projects (SIPS) were also completed along with wildlife monitors trained.

The Chairperson asked how many EIAs were planned for the SIPS.

Mr Abader explained 11 SIPS were completed but the Department could not plan for these EIAs but completed them as and when they arose. Of the projects which came the Department’s way, 100% of the EIAs were completed. 

Continuing with the programme and looking at appeals, the Department dealt with 95% of appeals and finalised more than the set target. Similarly for litigation matters, 35 applications for the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) all of which were completed – the Department also exceeded the target for PAIA training. 260 officials were trained in EIAs from a target of 240. Eight Bills were taken through the legislative process during the past financial year along with six sets of regulations. 

Dr Monde Mayekiso DDG: Oceans and Coasts, DEA, took the Committee through the achievements in programme noting on 7 December 2013, Cabinet had approved the Ocean Management White Paper along with the Oceans Perspectives Paper which was also approved on the same day. These documents gave birth to Operation Phakisa. The Southern Oceans and sub-Antarctic Islands management strategy implementation plan was developed along with approval for the National Coastal Management Programme which was a framework detailing how the Department would cooperate with provinces and municipalities in management of coasts. 11 out of 25 oil spill contingency plans were finalised. Five estuaries plans were finalised in this programme as well.

Mr Alf Wills, DDG: Environmental Advisory Services, DEA, skipped ahead and took the Committee through programme six – environmental programmes which, he explained, was essentially about the sustainable development of SA’s environmental sector to contribute to the growth path. The programme dealt with policy and planning of sustainable development for the country and environmental sector. This was related to law and legislative reform, implementation and monitoring the outcomes of the collective effort of government, society and business on the sustainability of the country’s growth path moving forward. These were the broad areas which this programme delivered on. On the policy front, the Department had the target of developing four sustainable development plans and this target was achieved.

Mr Guy Preston, DDG: Environmental Programmes, DEA, spoke to matters of implementation related to this programme. On the implementation of the Green Fund, virtually all of the budget (R790 million of R800 million) was spent on 34 projects inclusive of 16 research and development initiatives. This was in line with the targets set. 900 youth were benefitting from the Youth Environmental Service Programme, 122 out of a target of 110 wetlands were rehabilitated, just less than 100 hectares of alien invasive species was cleared which was well above target along with land restored and coastline cleared. The treatment and clearance of alien invasive species was the biggest programme under programme six and was a success. Achievements were also seen under the People and Parks programmes with the wildlife monitors being an exciting aspect of the project. There were over 1000 monitors working in both private and public protected areas where a very significant impact was seen on rhino poaching etc. This area would be expanded.

An official from the Department, standing in for Ms Judy Beaumont, DEA DDG: Climate Change and Air Quality, took the Committee through programme four: climate change and air quality. A key area of focus in this programme was climate change and adaptation where projects relating to long-term adaptation scenarios, climate change policy alignment – here work was completed on water, agriculture, biodiversity and ecosystems and heath. Progress was made with the mitigation potential and impact studies related to stabilising Green House Gas concentrations. Here a National Sinks Assessment was targeted and achieved along with the 2050 Pathways Calculator. On air quality, targets were exceeded for the number of air quality monitoring stations. The Draft Vehicle Emissions Control Strategy was compiled and the annual plans for the two Air Quality Management Plans had been implemented in the priority areas of the Vaal Triangle and Highveld.

Ms Wadzi Mandivenyi, Chief Director: Biodiversity Specialist Monitoring and Services, DEA, standing in for Mr Fundisile Mketeni, DEA DDG: Biodiversity and Conservation, took the Committee through programme five – biodiversity and conservation. The achievements included meeting the target of the percentage of land under conservation (10.67% of land was conservation exceeding the target of 8.2%), percentage of all state managed protected areas – the global target was 60% but the Department achieved 84%. There were a number of legislative tools to ensure the protection of species and ecosystems developed and implemented. In the specific case of rhino response and the implementation of the national strategy and protection of SA’s rhino population, ongoing maintenance was conducted on the Eastern boundary of the Kruger National Park, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) were negotiated with Mozambique and finalisation of the implementation plan for the MOU signed with Vietnam. Rhino issues were now recognised as a security threat and the establishment of a priority committee on wildlife crime was helpful in better coordinating sector departments for law enforcement. The report on rhino trade horn feasibility was finalised and released, a system for implementing the rhino horn stockpiles was completed and a panel of experts was established in assistance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) proposals. A number of public outreach and awareness was conducted around World Wildlife Day March which focused on illegal trade with buy-in from schools.

Mr Mark Gordan, DDG: Chemicals and Waste Management, DEA, took the Committee through Programme Six – Chemicals and Waste Management. The key achievements for the past financial year included the promulgation of waste classification and management regulations which dealt with the declassification or delisting of waste that industry could submit to the Department. The norms and standards for composting and contaminated land were gazetted – norms and standards were used instead of licensing and regulations which was less onerous. Training of municipal officials across the country took place – there was no target for this project and instead it was conducted on a needs basis. This programme, last year, presented a Recycling Economy Concept Paper estimating the recycling economy in SA to be worth about R50 billion. The Waste Amendment Act was processed by the Department and Parliament last year but the amendments were finalised before financial year end. It was then sent to the Minister and through Cabinet processes before being signed by the President on 2 June 2014. The waste tyre industry plan was also fully operationalised last year – this was known as the Redisa Plan. This plan came into operation in July last year after some court battles and litigation. World Ozone Day was also celebrated in Mpumalanga, a convention to phase out mercury was signed by a number of countries across the world including the USA – the Department now had to complete the baseline, cost-benefit and situation analyses to ratify the Convention. Minister was pushing for this process to be completed by the end of next year. Regulations for industry Waste Management plans were developed and amendments to the Waste Management Activity List were also finalised. Targets for waste tyres were established. 84 Basic Assessment Reports were conducted by the Department for unlicensed waste disposal sites mainly at a municipal level. The methyl bromide phase out plan was also finalised

Discussion

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions from Members per programme.

Mr Mabilo questioned the target of teachers trained in the Curriculum Assessment and Policy Statements (CAPS) – he understood this to be the mandate of the Department of Basic Education – was this target not infringing the said Department? He asked about the polarisation of stakeholders mentioned in programme one as well as the contributing factors to provinces not enacting national legislation – was this because of a lack of capacity or indifference? Did the national Department not issue directives in this regard?

Ms Mandivenyi explained the term polarised stakeholders was used in the context of a specific world heritage site and the need for a creation of a buffer zone part, which was on privately owned land. The Department then needed to negotiate with the private land owners and this was complex. The Department had done a lot in this regard even appointing a mediator to try and achieve an amicable solution.

Mr Wills added that the reality was that different groups of stakeholders had different interests and often the different groups of stakeholders disagreed with each other and used government to fight competing groups. With stakeholder management and dynamics, the Department needed to tread the line to develop win-win solutions. As was often said in international negotiations, if no one was happy, it was a good solution. Stakeholder dynamics was an unpredictable process that needed to be managed constantly.

Ms Mandivenyi commented on the implementation of national legislation by provinces, particularly the regulations on threatened species and the CITES regulations. There were scientific services required with a number of provinces not having these scientists in place. These were the typical constraints at provincial level. Additionally, certain services like permit processes took longer at provincial level because there was not adequate capacity at that level. The national Department was working with the provinces in providing support to try and ensure they could implement the national legislation.

Ms Stander questioned programme four and internal training identified as a point of improvement – how did the eight extra bursaries and expenditure in this regard help the Department rather than using the funds for building capacity within the Department. She asked if the expenditure used when exceeding targets affected the programme or other programmes. Was the curriculum adjusted to accommodate the target of training teachers seeing as this was a national competency? She further noted that the target for environmental campaigns was eight but only five were carried out – one, under oceans and coasts was explained as to why it was not conducted but why were the other two campaigns not conducted? 

Ms Makotoko explained that when targets were exceeded, it was done so utilising the resources allocated simply for that line item – additional resources were not used from other line items when exceeding targets. 

Ms Anne Thompson, Acting COO, DEA, said 30 bursaries were targeted for the year with estimate funding set aside per bursary. However, if the actual amount paid out was less, the Department could manage to exceed targets. This was why 38 external bursaries were awarded. In the same year, the Department also awarded 98 internal bursaries for staff to better improve their qualifications. The Department had a difficult time attracting scarce skills which was why there was a bursary programme to grow people to serve as interns in the Department.

On the issue of basic education and the training of teachers, the target here was not on basic education but training teachers generally in environmental sciences.

Ms Makotoko added that the objectives were on training a few teachers on specialist environmental skills management but the Department of Basic Education was responsible for rolling out the programme.  

On the environmental campaigns carried out, the two noted carried out related to the EPWP and showcasing what was available in the Department as well as the climate change campaign. In the main, most of the content to be covered by these campaigns were covered in the environmental month as a strategy to cut down on overload and events.

Mr T Bonhomme (ANC) wanted more information on how much work was done on the border fence between SA and Mozambique. 

The Chairperson asked if the Department was suitably staffed to fulfil the obligations as mandated by the Constitution. 

Ms Thompson replied that one area where the Department did not achieve was in meeting the vacancy rate target which was 12%. The context for this was found in the macro reorganisation of the state and renewed priorities of government. The Department needed to substantially realign its structure. This structure was approved by the Minister in March 2013. As a result, the DEA’s vacancy rate grew and there was a huge task to fill the structure and create the capacity. In 2013, 670 employees were appointed which was a 57% increase in appointments the Department usually conducted in a year. There were capacity constraints in the specialist areas like oceans and coasts, in terms of scientists and researchers, but generally, such challenges were not insurmountable. The concern was the budget cut facing the Department next year and the Department would not be able to fully staff an ideal structure to deliver the mandate. There were also some capacity constraints in the creation of a new branch – waste management – but the branch was only a year old and would develop into its role. Generally on capacity, DEA tried hard that its structure catered for what it needed to deliver on.  

Mr Wills added that the field of environmental management and sciences was technical and advancing with new technology all the time. As result, there was an ongoing need to maintain internal training to keep staff up to speed with advances in the science. Young, up and coming staff with these skills and experiences were often poached or moved into the private sector. Organisational development in such a technical department was ongoing work and the Department needed to ensure more was done with less resources and this space needed to be explored. 

Ms Stander questioned conflict management within the Department and lists of mediators and arbitrators still not approved – how was the Department faring in this regard? What was the progress with increasing the rate at which disciplinary processes were dealt with?

Ms Thompson replied that disciplinary processes were a problematic area- the target set was for conclusion in 90 days. There were practical implications on this when the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and unions became involved and extensions were asked for. This often delayed the target of 90 days. In government generally the average time for dealing with disciplinary processes was 176 days based on the last quarter. The Department needed to review its target in this case especially given unmanageable factors. The Department had very few cases of suspension with full pay and where this did occur it was within the timeframes so that the cost element was reduced. Essentially, there was a challenge with how this target was set.

Ms Dimpo said the list of mediators and arbitrators was completed within the first quarter of the current year. 

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions from programme two – legal authorisations and compliance inspectorate.

Ms Stander noted the number of authorisations inspected targeted was 125. She knew there were hundreds, if not thousands, of authorisations granted- how did the Department feel the target compared to the number of authorisations issued. What was preventing the Department from increasing this target? She asked what was meant by “administrative enforcement actions resulting in compliance” and how the achievement toward the target could be improved. How did the Department feel about the target of 24 criminal investigations finalised given the vast number of reports for investigation. What draft joint operation was referred to under this programme? Was the implementation plan still outstanding with the MOU signed with Mozambique? With the “improved compliance with environmental legislation” there was no baseline or target – why was this so? Reference was also made to amnesty in this programme - what amnesty was this? With a central permit system – what was update on creating this within this programme? What was the Department doing to ensure there was consistency and consolidation of legislation in ensuring that the national Department and provinces were speaking to each other?

Mr Abader explained the target around the number of authorisations issued needed to be contextualised – authorisations depended on when the applicant decided to proceed with development and the different timeframes in which authorisations were issued. It was not a simple exercise of setting a target and then the target must be met. Certain sectors, developments, timeframes and resources informed the target. Currently the target of 125 (at national and provincial level) was practical.  

With the percentage of notices resulting in compliance, there were different methods used to enforce compliance. There were pre-compliance notices, compliance notices and criminal/civil cases each increasing in severity for enforcing compliance. The Department’s inspectors carried Green Dockets, which came from a special dispensation for environmental crime. Ultimately the Department did not have the capacity or wherewithal SAPS had in terms of investigative capabilities. The target was set with this capacity in mind.

Mr Abader said the Department was in the process of developing a Central Integrated Permitting System (CIPS). The idea behind this was for an electronic permitting system to start with basic permitting in the Department to be up scaled to an integrated level. DEA was used in the development of a pilot system eventually to be used in all permitting systems in government. From what he saw from this pilot, it was looking good and there was definitely a move towards a central permitting system.

On legislation, there was an exercise under programme five to look at the apparent conflict between provincial and national legislation but he would have to check with the legal service of the Department for an update on this and how it was dealt with. This would be submitted to the Committee in writing.

Mr Mabilo noted the Annual Report stated “the development of a compliance and enforcement strategy had been slightly delayed as a result of extended stakeholder consultation” – service delivery would be adversely affected in this regard. Why should DEA allow itself to be hamstrung or delayed by extended public consultation processes in such a very important programme?

Mr Abader explained the delay was not very long – only just a few months. It was to ensure all the relevant role-players were on board. The context behind this was the range of EMIs between national and provincial levels and there needed to be overall buy-in on how the entire country could improve compliance and enforcement. This extensive consultation also aided in ensuring the Department’s foot soldiers could implement the strategy effectively so this engagement was important. It also helped the Department to decide how to optimise its scare resources.

The Chairperson asked if the Department had the necessary capacity to enforce adherence to environmental laws. 

Mr Abader thought the Department was not adequately capacitated being constrained by the number of employees, financial resources and Treasury cuts. The appeal to the Committee was for more funding for the Department and especially for compliance and enforcement.

Mr Wills added there needed to be an understanding that the Department issued two types of authorisations – (1) right of use authorisations e.g. hunting permits, research-related permits etc. largely related to biodiversity and land resources and (2) impact management authorisations e.g. development impact on human health and development. Different inspections flowed from these different types of authorisations and the skill sets required for each were different. As a result, enforcement capacity was different. Good governance was also attached to these concepts in terms of separating the issuing authority from the compliance authority. With the centralised permitting, the objective was to use the resources efficiently to cut red tape, delays and to reduce the workload on compliance authorities.

Mr Mngxitama asked to what extent the problem of extended public consultation was a problem of the entrenchment and protection of private property especially when it came to world heritage sites. He would suggest, as the EFF, that such land close to such sites should simply be expropriated.  

Mr Wills said this was a highly political matter. Conflicting rights were a delicate matter and was not just limited to property rights. Balancing rights was a delicate task and explained why stakeholder dynamics and management was such an important issue to generate win-win solutions. 

The Chairperson questioned the relationship between enforcement (programme two) and programme five. 

Mr Abader explained that initially, each programme in the Department had its own enforcement and compliance sector. After restructuring, it was determined that enforcement and compliance should be centralised for the various branches for economies of scale etc. The rhino issue was split from other wildlife issues because of the prominence rhino poaching had gained in the last couple of years becoming a major issue. The Minister and DG decided there should be dedicated team dealing only with rhino issues. This was the responsibility of the DDG of programme five especially because he had the institutional knowledge and history of dealing with wildlife crime essentially. The remaining enforcement issues and general wildlife crime and other species were dealt with under programme two. 

Ms Stander asked why the turnaround time for issuing EIAs were not included in the Annual Report. What was the average turnaround time for processing applications from submission to issuing? What was the Department’s plan in developing a macro spatial framework for land use, speeding up applications and efficient resource use for development?

Ms Makotoko said the turnaround time was captured in the Annual Report under “service standards”. 

Mr Abader added the problem with turnaround times was in delays in receiving documentation which delayed the entire process.

Mr Wills responded that in NEMA there were tools like strategic environmental assessments and environmental management frameworks available for regional identification of particularly sensitive areas vs. other areas to provide guidance on where development of a particular type could go. This approach was being used in the 18 SIPS for wind and solar development etc. In effect, areas were zoned and development requirements/demands were balanced. This approach was incorporated into the Spatial Land Use Management Act and one of DEA’s targets for the next financial year was to incorporate environmental standards into the spatial development framework. The objective was to consider the environmental impact during planning and not when the development was complete. The Department battled with coal found under wetlands. In some cases there could be an off-set of balances where companies could invest in the rehabilitation of alternative wetlands elsewhere. The Department would be coming to the Committee in this term to consider this more nuanced proposals in terms of developmental balancing. 

The Chairperson recalled that during the public hearings held by the Committee, Members heard about the competition between environmental resources/protected areas and the encroachment of traditional economic activities like mining.

Mr Abader answered that this was DEA’s dilemma – enabling growth while at the same time protecting the environment and ensuring sustainable development where there was.

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions from programme three (oceans and coasts) and four (climate change and air quality) together to save time.

Mr Mabilo questioned programme three (oceans and coasts) asking if there was a reflection, in the past financial year, of any hazardous waste spillage in oceans and coasts – he did not see any mention of this in the Annual Report. He questioned the timeframe in updating all 25 oil pollution emergency response plans (of which currently on 11 were completed). What happened to the offshore area which was not environmental protected?   

Dr Mayekiso said there had been incidents of oil spillage along the coast but fortunately it was not large oil spillages so they were contained. One was in the George area of the Southern Cape. There were various players which came to the party in the event of an oil spillage like the Department of Transport, Disaster Management and DEA in order to address the spill. There was a weakness in the legislation in order to make the polluter pay but he understood this legislation was recently enacted. There was an arrangement for Treasury to set aside a sum of money to manage a sudden oil spill so Treasury was aware of the danger the country could face if there was a big oil spill. Now that the legislation from the Department of Transport had been enacted, there was an ability to tap into national insurance in order to deal with oil spillages. With contingency plans, usually two or three were completed per year but the Department was working on increasing the pace. With these plans there was a focus on the priority areas such as the Cape of Storms where there was danger. With the protection of the ocean zones, the coastal area was protected beyond international standards. Outside of the coastal strip, only 2% (about 200 miles) was protected and outside of the 2%, there was no protection at all. One of the priorities in Operation Phakisa was to increase the area of the ocean under protection. The target for this still needed to be negotiated. The point was that there was willingness to increase the ocean zones under protection.

The Chairperson asked why the ocean economy was only being explored in SA now. Other countries had beneficiated from its oceans so why was Phakisa only spoken of now? 

Dr Mayekiso agreed that the country was sleeping on the matter because it had done well in the traditional areas like fishing while being slow in new developments like prospecting for oil and gas. Prospecting for energy on land was much cheaper than doing so in the ocean so companies were generally reluctant to invest. In the shipping area, there were constraints due to regulations which was discouraging the development of the shipping industry. This industry was also one of the priorities in Phakisa. Aqua-culture was also slow to develop because of the advanced technology required.          

Mr Mngxitama questioned programme four (climate change and air quality) and the impact of air quality on the health of South Africans – he did not see this mentioned in the Annual Report. What was the impact of Eskom asking for an extension to meet its emissions targets? A shocking study by the civil society organisation Ground Work, suggested that in the Highveld and Mpumalanga area, up to 54% of deaths were related to cardiovascular diseases. The study claimed that the deaths were directly linked to air pollution in the area. He suggested the researchers of this particular study brief the Committee. 

The Chairperson also asked about the implication of Sasol’s challenge on the reduction of emissions from industry. Was the Department winning this battle fundamentally to secure a healthy environment devoid of high levels of pollution particularly in the three hotspots? If the Department was not winning, what more needed to be done? What was being done about the power stations using coal in specific areas? He heard the air quality officer complaining on various radio stations about industry not cooperating. 

The Department official standing in for Ms Beaumont stated that he did not want to misrepresent the DDG and air quality officer on these important matters and was not in a position to respond. He added that he would provide written responses to the questions.

Mr Abader explained that with Eskom, he was not aware of an extension sought on the life of its plants or permits. With Sasol, the company had submitted postponement applications to DEA. He understood from DDG Beaumont (programme: climate change and air quality) that the applications had not yet been assessed because there was a considerable volume of documents to go through. In terms of litigation, Sasol had taken the Department to court to challenge the emissions standards. This case was still in progress but there had been meetings to consider the possibility of finding resolutions other than resolving the matter in court. 

The Chairperson asked if the Department was able to penalise those who did not adhere to emission requirements. 

Mr Abader emphasised that yes, the Department was able to penalise those who did not adhere to emission requirements. A concrete example was a company called Blue Sphere that was emitting emissions as a result of a manganese operation. The Department shut this operation down. There were other examples where the Department forced companies to retrofit their operations to reduce their toxic emissions.

The Chairperson said the Committee would go and see for itself if companies were adhering to prescripts. He was concerned that these prescripts were not concluded. Although it had been said the Department had the ability to penalise emitters, it did not fit in with the reality that companies and industry were challenging the Department through mitigating pollution measures although there was a deadline of 2016

Mr Abader, speaking under caution because it was not his programme, understood that there were two deadlines – one, for 2015 and the other in 2020. The 2015 deadline was for an emission standard set which companies were to comply with. The idea was to have a more stringent emissions threshold by 2020 but the challenge was that the standards with the 2015 deadline were still not being met by some emitters. Sasol and Eskom were two such examples. He recommended the Committee get a proper explanation from the air quality programme. 

Mr Wills agreed that DDG Beaumont was best placed to answer these questions but he understood that there were two legal obligations – one was to meet the standard set and there were ten years for industry to do this. The other obligation provided for in the Act was the submission of mitigation plans. The requirement to submit the plans did not take away the obligation to meet the standard. The grounds upon which the standard was reached was taken to court and the argument was that because the mitigation plans were not approved, the standard did not need to be met. However, it was very clear that industry needed to comply with both these obligations and it was not a case of either/or. Industry did not invest in the ten year grace period granted to invest in the technology to enable it to meet the standard. Although the matter was sub-judice, the judgement and matters would definitely come before the Committee to consider the way in which the obligations were constructed in the Act.     

Ms Stander said that although it was not in her area of expertise, it was brought to her attention that the SA coal mines were gross violators of legislation and was contributing to poor air quality. What was being done to tackle these coal mines?

Mr Wills said the coal mining sector had two sources of emission. One was from the release of coal-bed methane when the coal was mined. There was technology to use the methane extracted for energy and this might become a requirement in the future as the technology matured. The issue was linked to mine safety because methane was a very flammable and dangerous gas. The other pollution which came from coal was when it was burnt and it was not the mines doing this. Mines had no legal responsibility in terms of emissions from the burning of coal – this went largely to Eskom and others.   

Ms Stander knew she was not equipped to pose the question adequately so she would go back to the colleague she heard it from. She asked if Eskom complied with the standards - if not, what action was being taken against them.

Mr Abader was not sure about Eskom so he would have to get back to the Committee with a written response – he did not have the information at hand. In most instances, Eskom was in compliance and if it was not, the Department would take it on.

Mr Wills added, given his experience of being in charge of air quality in the North West province, the problem of air quality compliance was episodic – one would find that companies complied but would not do so for one day of the month and there would be total non-compliance. This was the reason the ambient standards were adopted. He would have to look at the monitoring data for information on this matter – he did not have it currently so the question could not be answered. There were challenges of attribution from these monitoring stations and the difference between ground data and what was picked up from the monitoring stations.  

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would call the Department back for further engagement in this programme when all information was gathered and the necessary officials were present. If necessary, the polluters would also be looked at as this was the job of the Committee. Pollution would be looked at closely by the Committee given the impact on human health. It was also pertinent to look at the pollution coming from informal settlements and what could be done to make them move away from coal burning.

Mr Mngxitama supported this. The idea of ordinary persons causing environmental hazards was an unacceptable proposition - it was the fault of state owned enterprises. Essentially, the enterprise, through asking for an extension, was asking to break the law. Such criminals breaking the law needed to account before the Committee.   

The Department official standing in for Ms Beaumont said it was unfortunate that this was not his particular area of expertise. He had taken detailed notes on the questions posed and it would be related to DDG Beaumont, the air quality officer and his colleagues. A written response would be submitted.   

The Chairperson said these answers would have to be sought to find out if air pollution standards were being adhered to and what actions were taken if this was not the case.  He also wanted to know at which level of pollution the hotspot areas were at – if the standards were exceeded, it simply meant there was no adherence. A mechanism needed to be sought on how these non-adherers should be brought under control in the interest of South Africans. Were provinces and municipalities cooperating with the Department on climate change and air quality objectives and legislation? If there was no action in unison, the war would not be won.   

The Department official standing in for Ms Beaumont said that provinces and metros were acting in unison with the Department. There were two specific programmes in the branch to deal with matters of local government climate change adaptation strategies. With climate change monitoring and evaluation, there was also a programme to visit provinces and metros to see which projects they had in place. The Department was also providing technical capacity particularly to monitor impacts.    

The Chairperson opened the floor to questions on the remaining programmes (biodiversity and environmental programmes and chemicals and waste management).

Mr Mabilo questioned programme five and although the delay due to consultations was discussed it was reflected again in programme five. This was a concern because service delivery was delayed due to extensive stakeholder consultation - was this the same context discussed earlier related to stakeholder dynamics? Why were there no timelines and reasons given for the non-implementation of the project related to the removal of alien-invasive species? Which contextual factors led to non-implementation? Also on programme five, there were certain professions not reflecting transformation – could the Department reflect the women participating in this sector as well as opportunities for people with disabilities. How far was the Department with the wildlife economy in this sector which punted to be worth more than R50 billion annually?

Mr Mngxitama questioned the sale of wildlife referenced in the Annual Report to the value of about R40 million – besides rhino, which other animals were being sold? With the practice of moving/selling rhino to private hands – how could private owners have better capabilities to protect the rhino species? He was lost by this logic. People were also complaining the Department was not delivering the rhino in time after large sums of money were paid. Who was responsible for dealing with poachers if they followed the movement of rhino to private owners – this was a process of externalising risk from the state to society for profit. The selling/movement of rhino was not in the interests of South Africans but was part of privatisation and enriching individuals who had the means and capital.  

Ms Stander asked about the fence being built and the specifications of this – was the Department sure of spending money for the correct kind of barrier? What was the actual effectiveness of all the MOUs signed – were they meaningful and delivering on their intentions? Were the implementation plans attached to the MOUs finalised? She knew the Mozambique MOU was still outstanding – what were the reasons for this? What was the progress made with the draft joint operation? What was amnesty in this programme referring to? She also asked about the RAMSAR sites and the METT score for state managed protected areas. How did programme five manage its relations with the entities in meeting the Department’s mandate and holding them to account?

Ms Mandivenyi explained the progress reported on the fence was up to 31 March 2014 – at this point, only 2.6 km’s of the fence had been rehabilitated. The approach would not just look at the fence but also at rehabilitation of infrastructure in the area. This was three-year project with completion aimed at the end of the 2015/16 financial year.

With the MOUs, it was found the most important component was around the relationship formed with countries. Mr Mketeni, the DDG for the programme, was in China finalising the implementation plan of the MOU with China. The English version of the implementation plan of the MOU with Mozambique was finalised and the Department was busy with the Portuguese translation. Finalisation was targeted for the end of the current year. In the interim, there was a big workshop in August to look at some of the community issues. The MOU with Laos was stalled because of the change in government in the country so there would need to be some re-initiation of discussions.

When the strategic plan of the Department was being produced, it was believed amnesty was the best way to get stockpile information for overall management. With interaction with the NPA and the HAWKS, it was found amnesty might compromise the bigger picture so it was dropped       

The Chairperson asked if the country was in line with the development of a low-carbon economy as instructed by the NDP.  He appreciated all the work being done under this programme to ensure invasive alien species were kept away from the country. Was SA able to reduce its emissions to advert a serious climate catastrophe?

Mr Wills said the Department was in the range of the 2020 trajectory and target of 40% deviation. He speculated SA would face difficulty in meeting the 2020 target but it would be possible to meet the 2025 number. The Department, however, was making good progress with a reduction between 9% -11% reduction in carbon intensity since 2000 per unit GDP. The ability of the Department to measure emissions had also improved dramatically in terms of the quality of the data underpinning the reporting. In simple terms, the Department was on track. On whether this contribution was a fair global effort would be answered next year in Paris when there would be a comparison of other country efforts. Nevertheless it was believed the trajectory in the national climate change response strategy was a significant contribution to the global effort.

The Chairperson added that what came out of the Committee’s provincial public hearings was that when people felt they had ownership of their heritage they then had a moral obligation to protect that heritage. With rhino, community ownership was less than 1% whilst private ownership was over 20% and government ownership at 75% - what were the plans to increase community ownership? Until this was done, the Department would be acting contrary to its own conservation ethos. 

The Department official standing in for Mr Mkenteni, recognised that communities were the first line of defence. The Department had brought in a wildlife specialist who was working on the community component of the rhino response using the tools at the Department’s disposal. It was important that there was a strong community response as the Department moved to the next CITES.  

Ms Stander asked how the Department raised issues concerning their entities to hold them to account.

The Department official standing in for Mr Mkenteni explained that with the RAMSAR sites, some of the entities (parks) did not report directly to DEA so there was no oversight but because it was a RAMSAR site, it was the role of the Minister to appoint a management head – in this case KZN Wildlife.

Mr Mnxgitama said it was clear that animals were sent to communities as a sort of window-dressing or smokescreen for the animals sold to private owners who were the real beneficiaries. He was concerned that animals were given to communities instead of giving communities a direct stake in the parks. The state was the best place for the protection of rhino.    

The Department official standing in for Mr Mkenteni responded that the concept of co-management attempted to address this issue. This was why there was a co-management framework in place where the animals would be looked after by the parks custodians as a community resource. This was in the case of specific land claims. Looking at the best model for community empowerment was an ongoing process and there were different streams of work for this process.

The Chairperson said matters of threatened species were close to the hearts of Members.

Ms Stander was concerned that once the responsibility was devolved to KZN Wildlife – what was the recourse if KZN Wildlife did not fulfil its obligations?

Mr Wills explained that the primary mechanism for engaging provincial entities was through the MINTECH structure and the Cooperative Governance Act. There were also 11 or 12 working groups to deal with technical matters – this was where the harmonisation of legislation between national and provincial level occurred. This was particularly the responsibility of working group 11. The Minister had a degree of authority in terms of directing what the MEC needed to do in relation to the obligations outlined in the RAMSAR international convention.

The Chairperson said that at the end of the day executive authority was given to the Minister on these matters. It might be devolved through other pieces of legislation but the ultimate responsibility rested with the Minister.      

On the chemicals and waste management programme, the Chairperson raised the issue of disposal nappies which was raised in all of the Committee’s provincial public hearings – what was the Department’s response on such non-biodegradable matters which were polluting the SA space? By when would the country be seeing a real recycling industry to take the strain off landfills many of which were unlicensed?

Mr Gordan responded that through the waste hierarchy and waste strategy, the emphasis was on diverting waste away from landfill sites. The Minister announced a moratorium on landfill sites in her budget speech where the Department would no longer be issuing licences for landfill sites. There were about 489 landfill sites in SA and the Department was looking at setting up regional waste recovery, buy-back and recycling centres before the waste actually reached the landfill site. Pampers had value for thermal energy and this applied to all such waste which burnt fast and had the potential to create energy. This was done on a big scale in Europe and the SA would be doing the same. The idea was for less and less waste to end up in landfill sites and over a period of time some would be closed down. An interesting statistic from the USA was that the country had 8000 landfill sites ten years ago and now it had been reduced to just 1000. The country had a 47% energy recycling rate which was significant given the country had the highest numbers of consumers in the world. Essentially, SA had the building blocks, regulations and legislation so it was just a matter of making it happen. A public consultation process on the pricing strategy was being run currently with key engagement with Treasury and industry and it was hoped that this discussion would converge at the end of the year for approval.  

Ms Stander noted the recent visit to Taiwan by some parliamentary colleagues were incinerators were seen which burnt waste and the energy created by this was used to feed the grid – what was the country looking at to go greener? 

Mr Gordan said SA was quite advanced and the Department was aware of this Taiwanese technology where tyres were burnt to make gas used for electricity. This was done in SA for many years already with plants in Cape Town, Pretoria and a few other places. A tyre and plastics plant on the West Rand had been developed through the Green Fund where ‘93 octane petrol would be made from tyres and plastics along with PetroSA. There were, however, issues with using waste for Energy- a recent article on Sweden proved the country was running out of waste and buying it in from Sicily, Italy. Sweden used the waste to make thermal heating and electricity which was a practice done by most Nordic and Scandinavian countries. This was also the way SA was heading given the amendments to the regulations, new definitions for waste and unlocking waste streams all as a means to de-regularise waste so that industry could look at economic opportunities. This set the platform for a waste economy along with economic incentives (pricing strategy), setting up the waste management bureau and the Department would be ready was all was completed in the next six months by 1 April 2015 after the Money Bill was passed. This would provide funding and capacity for the bureau. The Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa (REDISA) tyre plan was also in operation. Behaviour could be changed regulations and creating incentives for communities and civil society through appropriate prices to correct the market failure for waste.  

Mr Mabilo commended the programme on the internationally renowned technology it was making use of in Durban. He asked why this could not be benchmarked to be used in all other municipalities in the country. He recommended the Committee conduct an oversight visit to this Durban plant. Was the Department in a position to indicate if all municipalities in all provinces in the country had a waste management strategy? If not, this was a challenge and the Department needed to think of innovative interfacing in the cooperative governance framework.

Mr Gordan indicated that Durban was a success story but the issue in rolling such a programme out was that it required a large amount of waste of which Durban had to produce enough gas. The landfill site was engineered long before it received the waste (20 years ago) for the purposes of gas extraction for electricity production. This development came out of the clean development mechanism where SA got paid through the World Bank based on the carbon credit scheme. Other municipalities could be encouraged to get such developments rolling but large amounts of waste were needed to decompose over many years. The strategy was less on getting the waste to the refill site but getting recycling higher up on the value chain. A site visit was conducted recently in July where the Phakisa members all visited the site. It would be a good idea if Members also paid the site a visit.

He outlined that many of the provinces and municipalities did not have a waste management strategy and the biggest problem was that waste management was not prioritised at a local government level even though there was funding from Treasury through the equitable share. The Department now worked closely with COGTA in this regard. There was an attempt to force some sort of waste management and control through the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). Three of the bigger provinces had a waste management strategy and some of the metros but the real problems were in medium and small municipalities where some had no landfill sites to take their waste to. But the Department was addressing this through municipal support programmes.

Ms Stander questioned the issue of plastic bags and the regulations stipulating the minimum microns and the associated levy to be paid – how much money was generated by this levy and what was it being spent on? The issue with the disposable nappies was it did not get to the landfill sites to be burnt for energy. Often, and she had seen this numerous times, nappies landed at illegal dumps with other waste. Was there a way to regulate diapers and minimum criteria as there were many cheap imports in the industry? She was particularly concerned about harmful substances in these products for children - was this something the Department would look at? She suggested the Department look at an awareness campaign in getting waste to landfill sites to be sent then to incinerators because SA cities and towns were dirty.

Mr Gordan indicated there was a levy on plastic bags charged to consumers by the stores and a regulation to determine how thick the bags were. These levies went through the SARS custom route to Treasury and about R200 million per annum was collected in this way. Treasury did not ring fence this money. The regulations on the thickness of the bags were controlled through the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS). The Department worked with this body to enforce compliance the minimum standards. During last week, a big waste conference was held in Cape Town where the Department was considering a ban on plastic bags in years to come. Even a country like Rwanda did not allow plastic bags. The attendees of the conference were in support of this idea of banning the plastic bags. This would occur through extended producer responsibility regulations and “take back centres” where producers were compelled to take back goods, in this case, disposable diapers. The Department would be taking with the producers/manufacturers/suppliers to see to what extent they could set up take back centres or for the process to be incorporated through the industry waste management plan for plastics and packaging to prioritise this particular waste stream. He agreed with the education campaigns and outreach – this was an ongoing matter because there was simply not enough awareness but the programme would be doing more and more.   

The Chairperson asked how the programme managed spills from industry into water sources seeing as this programme was also responsible for chemicals. Was there a management tool in this regard? Apart from damaging water, such spills had far reaching effects on human health.

Mr Gordan said this was a difficult issue as it was a grey area that sort of slipped between the legislative cracks because the programme did not have a direct mandate over chemicals and pollution of water. This was more within the ambit of the Department of Water Affairs. The Department and programme was trying to extend its mandate slowly but such chemicals were not necessary deemed “waste”. Recently, a discussion was provoked in the sector on whether waste water was in fact waste.

The Chairperson said SA had an economic crisis on its hands and the area of work of a waste economy had the possibility of contributing to economic upliftment, removing dirt from the streets, directing waste from the landfill sites and creating employment.

SAWS Annual Report/Performance Information Presentation

Dr Linda Makuleni, CEO, SAWS, highlighted that the entity received an unqualified audit opinion with findings. The theme of the work of the entity for the previous financial year was on promoting socio-economic benefits through activities.

Some of the highlights included the development of a flash flood guidance system which was now operational. There was also a disaster risk reduction looking at climate change adaptation strategies. Agriculture was being looked in a more intensive way in terms of humidity technology to assist farmers with making decision. 

Capacitating municipalities was an important aspect to take information to communities with a pilot project in this regard already developed. Collaboration was a vital element here. With renewable energy, SAWS was assisting the Department with generating information and risk management in terms of severe weather. SAWS was the implementing agency of the Department when it came to air quality. Here the entity was also responsible for monitoring stations especially in hotspots. SAWS had a key relationship with the aviation industry and audits were continually conducted in the sector – SAWS was 100% compliant  

The CFO highlighted the financial performance of the entity.

Discussion

Mr Hadebe was concerned about certain strategic objectives related to recruitment agencies – did the entity have risk management plans in this regard?

Dr Makuleni explained SAWS did have robust risk management strategies together with internal controls. There was also a fraud management plan along with the encouragement of whistleblowers. 

Mr Mabilo congratulated the entity on the appointment of the COO. He thought the seven year period with unqualified audit opinions was unprecedented and he complimented SAWS on this noting that it needed to be maintained. He asked what happened in rural areas which did not have the early warning detection technologies. Was there a timeframe for the entity’s collaboration with all nine provinces now that it had established a national footprint? To what extent was SAWS involved with the Department on projects of renewable energy? He thought SAWS was too hard on itself with the achievement of targets where, for instance, 95% of a target was achieved by the entity deemed this as non-achievement. He asked the entity to elaborate on its succession plan given that it was a public entity.

Dr Makuleni highlighted that a community rain gauge, especially for flash floods, was developed by the entity’s scientists for connection to cellphones. With renewable energy, SAWS worked closely with DEA and the Department of Science and Technology where it was given some funds to develop the solar monitoring stations which would assist in generating baseline information for solar energy. Last year this contribution was R4.3 million and this year the contribution would be R3.5 million to move this project forward.  The succession plan formed part of the risk plans of SAWS as well as the attraction and retention of skills and individuals. With timelines, the entity had identified certain hotspots when it came to air quality where communities were more vulnerable to weather conditions like lightening and flooding. The different stakeholders were still being negotiated in this regard.

Ms Maluleke (ANC) asked if bursaries were awarded according to certain criteria.

Dr Makuleni explained the bursary programme looked at what the organisation needed over a period of time, creating incentives to attract scare skills and retain this.

The Chairperson noted that SAWS was a reputable government entity – what would keep the entity in this reputable light and not regress on these good accolades?      

Dr Makuleni said issues of reputation were also looked at in perception surveys. There were challenges related to financials but there was an emphasis now on collaboration where all the skills did not always need to be internalised but could be shared. SAWS could not do without human capital or financial resources.

The Chairperson asked if SAWS was able to check on weather stations throughout the country to see if the stations were operational as it was part of the air quality management system.

Dr Makuleni explained the entity had a responsibility to manage air quality in SA and all national monitoring stations reported to SAWS. Some stations did not meet the required standards so the idea was to begin assessing these stations.

Closing Remarks

The Chairperson highlighted that getting a clean audit was an indication of how good the work of the organisation was. SAWS played a vital and there was no way it could be lost and it was relied on by many. The Committee was proud of the progress made by the entity under good leadership.

The Department, with all the entities reporting to it, needed to lead by example which it had done through the clean audit outcome. The Department was clear of its mission in the overall vision of government and the NDP and its programmes spoke to this clarity of purpose.

The meeting was adjourned.