SANParks on park-related projects to assist neighbouring communities in terms of poverty relief and tackling unemployment; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE) and SANParks had engagements with the predecessors of the Committee during the fourth and fifth Parliaments. The key to a successful fight against poaching depended on aiding poor communities living around the national parks through providing economic opportunities. These opportunities could make communities less likely to work with illegal poaching networks. One scientist at the parliamentary colloquium on anti-rhino poaching had remarked that the compulsory and biological interventions were holding the fold inside the national parks, but there was a need to clean the parks from the outside.

The Committee’s concern was to be proactive in the involvement of rural communities in delivering tangible material benefits from the management of the parks. It was for such reasons that the predecessors in the fourth Parliament, the DEFF and SANParks, had to facilitate the management of the national parks for the communities to serve as firewalls against poaching. When the Committee met with the stakeholders in Kruger National Park (KNP) in December 2013, their quest as the legislature was for the transformation of a biodiversity benefaction enterprise into a fundamental biodiversity economy. It had been anchored in the meeting of the brave, patriotic forefather and mother, who had adopted the Freedom Charter as a vision for the democratic future of SA. The Charter stated that all shall share in the country's wealth, and provided a significant mandate to the biodiversity sector. The Committee and SANParks had to ensure that the biodiversity economy of the country should not be skewed along racial lines. They were to operationalise the sharing in the biodiversity economy of the country, to give practical meaning to the demand for transformation in the sector. They had to move beyond policy to achieve material benefits on the ground, to cultivate a sense of ownership of biodiversity resources in the people. The people had to understand that SANParks was acting in their best interest.

Ms Nomsa Hani, Head of Office, Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs, said she had taken note of the concerns regarding rhino poaching. For the past two and a half years, various matters had been sharply raised by the Committee. It had been discussed several times, and the management of SANParks was in a position to respond to the matters. These were issues of empowerment and skills development which were part of their mandate. The Minister had had a meeting with the SanParks chairperson and the chief executive officer (CEO), and had gone through the report and what was to be presented. There were challenges that had been raised to the Minister. She believed the management was in a position to give more information regarding those issues.

Chief LIvhuwani Matsila, board member of SANParks, said SANParks had a comprehensive report for the socioeconomic development programme initiatives related to the empowerment of the communities adjacent to the KNP. The programmes and the initiatives were under review by the current board. The focus was to ensure tangible benefits were strengthened. There were two programmes being run, one of which focused on land claimant beneficiaries inside the KNP. The board had set up an ad hoc committee on KNP land claims to deal with the beneficiaries and address all the challenges. The land claims programme was a different process, and it was not going to be reported on because they had to deal with it later in March. Thereafter they would present a report to the Portfolio Committee and to the Minister.

SANParks presentation

Mr Dumisani Dlamini, Acting CEO of SANParks, made a presentation in which he highlighted the projects and their overall socioeconomic impact in the 2020/21 financial year. He said SANParks had created 6 999 jobs, distributed 6 855 parcels of food and donated 26 837kg of meat to the surrounding communities. Further, it had spent R206 million on preferential procurement and had coached and mentored 272 small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs).

In terms of context, approximately 2.9 million people live within 50km of the KNP’s western boundary fence.The average unemployment rate in this area, weighted by population, was 40.8% and well above the national average of 34.4% .The KNP is one of the most important sources of local economic activity. Most of the employees from the park originate from the surrounding communities, and a large component of the Human Resource expenditure is channelled to these areas and households through the payment of salaries

See attached for further details 

Discussion

Ms A Weber (DA) asked about the wood that the workers sold. Which trees did the workers cut down to sell the wood? Who was managing that programme? Were the trees being replaced? Why did the park have only temporary employees and not permanent positions? She was impressed with the Jojo tanks and the fruit parcel and wanted to know the number of people per area to assess the impact of what was being done. She commended the efforts on environmental awareness. However, she was concerned that the school programmes were for the privileged and above-average schools. The rural people still did not have access to natural resources. She commended the enterprise development programme. Regarding the meat distributed to the communities, was the health department involved in the programme?

Ms T Mchunu (ANC) noted that the population around the KNP was 2.9 million, and the number of jobs created was 6 999. The unemployment rate around the area was 40.8%. which was higher than the country's unemployment rate, so it was not enough -- the park had to find ways of creating more jobs for the community. Regarding enterprise development for the community, she asked if the SMMEs were in a position to employ fellow community members. How many employment opportunities did it expect the SMMEs to create? She hoped the efforts and talks with the Treasury were intensified to ensure SANParks was providing employment. Did the parks offer support to students who wanted to go to the university and train to be environmental health practitioners (EHPs) and take programmes related to biodiversity?

Mr D Bryant (DA) asked how many fence monitor positions were vacant. He wanted confirmation as to whether the environmental monitors being referred to were rangers. He asked for a breakdown of the employment opportunities by gender, to see how many opportunities were being made available for women. Regarding the social projects, wanted to know if there were collaborations with the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR), since there was a great need for synergy between projects run by the APNR and the projects in communities surrounding the KNP. Regarding the remuneration scales of the rangers, which scale did the regular rangers fall under? Did the remuneration include accommodation, or was accommodation provided on top of that?

Ms N Gantsho (ANC) referred to the Covid-19 response and asked if the SANParks did other things to assist the vulnerable households, apart from the food parcels. Had the park thought of establishing a food bank to get assistance from other businesses? Regarding the disadvantaged schools surrounding the area, had it thought of adopting the schools to identify learners to transfer skills on conservation in order to dissuade them from poaching?

Mr N Singh (IFP) asked if a similar report could be provided for other SANParks and their initiatives in the surrounding communities. How aggressive was their campaign with school learners? Learners were the best teachers because they would go home and talk to their parents. Could there be more aggressive interventions with the learners? Who was responsible for compiling the socioeconomic report that was going to be out in May? What opportunities were being provided to upgrade people in the parks? Was there a system to identify people who wanted to upgrade themselves? Employment opportunities were not the only thing -- equity participation was another thing to consider. Had SANParks considered incorporating traditional land into the parks? Regarding the R206 million spent on preferential procurement, what were other examples from the local communities?

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) said that none of the jobs seemed to be sustainable, and there was no real skills development taking place. What were the other interventions to make sure that people got the necessary skills? In as much as people lacked opportunities, they also lacked the skills to access the opportunities. It was therefore important to upskill them. Regarding the meat being given to the communities, he asked if it was part of the diet of people there. or if it was because people were desperate.

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) said that the partnerships with the communities had to be improved since the communities had registered a high unemployment rate and these communities were among the most vulnerable. Kruger National Park was benefiting, but the communities not so much. She had a problem with the community forums because the communities were not working together -- they were fighting. The issues had to be looked at and corrected. She asked if SANParks had not been affected by the stopping of all preferential procurement by the National Treasury. Regarding the meat donation, she asked how the meat was slaughtered -- was it inspected, or were they just giving it because the poor were hungry. Referring to unemployment, she said it was painful to be on a contract basis and not know if the contract would be renewed or not. The park had too many people on a contract basis. There was a need to correct the situation and to empower the poor communities. She also raised the issue of gender in the presentation. There was a need for the classification to present a clear picture.

Regarding the JAB and GIZ-funded projects, during the policy conference, an issue had been raised about the gap between the Members of Parliament and the implementers. There was a question of monitoring the project on their behalf. There was a need for more information on the projects to ensure the Committee did oversight. There was a lot of funding on the project and the donors could not monitor it themselves. Regarding water harvesting, she said the parks had to drill the boreholes for the communities, so they had also benefited from SANParks.

The Chairperson asked how many people involved in the management of the KNP came from the surrounding area. It would have been very beneficial if some of the senior managers, with whom the locals could identify, came from the surrounding areas. How many of the senior managers were females, and what race were they? It was important to know this because of their history. How many of the parks were managed by local communities? What did the unarmed environmental monitors do in order not to endanger their lives, since those who encroached on the park were usually armed? She asked about the progress of the Shalati training project, when was it going to happen, and when the youth would complete the programme. She expressed concern over the presentation not having data on the indigenous tree green programme, but the park had been able to talk about the monetary value. The Committee wanted figures, so they must go back to update the presentation. She added that the presentation on the science labs also did not have the estimated monetary value.

Regarding the distribution of 737 bags of instant porridge, the Chairperson wanted to know the names of the drop-off centres, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), schools and vulnerable communities. They had to account for who the beneficiaries were because the Committee had to know for oversight. What was the rationale for the donation of old linen to the retired rangers -- were there no other more deserving people? Was it an aftercare programme? Regarding the meat, she asked about the slaughter facility in Skukuza and when would it be opened, since the elephants were destroying the biodiversity. The facility used to comply with the health requirements. SANParks had been given money to implement an eco-furniture project as part of the environmental programmes as one of the key initiatives to tackle poverty, inequality and unemployment, but the presentation had been silent on this issue.

Responses

Mr Dlamini agreed that SANParks had to look into the way it implemented the awareness programmes. Some of the issues raised, such as those about the schools in the rural areas, he might have not been aware of but needed urgent attention. The KNP was going to consider the issue of transport and food, and they would find a way of exploring how to deal with the challenge of distance since there could have been several schools that would have wanted to come.

Kruger National Park could not address the staggering unemployment numbers by itself, but it would create platforms where people could be trained to create their own economic opportunities. Regarding the absorption of the youth, there was a meeting scheduled the following month to meet the CEO of the National Youth Development Agency. The meeting would look at the numbers the park could absorb and the funding. It would also look for other partners to help create employment opportunities. Regarding enterprise development, it was difficult to indicate how many jobs could be created in the programme. Once they started trading with SANParks, it would be able to quantify the jobs.

Regarding black economic empowerment (BEE), when SANParks had made its presentation, it was not aware of the impact of the judgment. The judgment had a serious impact on what it was trying to do. The organisation had set up a meeting with the Treasury so they could come up with the way forward for giving the communities some economic opportunities. It had been a setback, and SANParks was imploring the Committee to help them to have legislation that supported what they were trying to do to uplift the communities.

Regarding critical skills, the park did not offer bursaries and those that had been offered to SANParks employees had also been suspended due to funding issues.

SANParks would go back to compile a breakdown of the information on the opportunities for youth and women and send it to the Committee.

The park had not adopted any school except where they had provided science labs, but not on an ongoing basis. It was something the park would look into. Regarding providing reports on the other parks, SANParks would go back to and compile the reports. On involving communities in anti-poaching, they were working to find ways to engage the communities, such as incentives. Regarding lower-level employment opportunities, all  2 193  employees were permanent staff. They were at low level because that was how the organisation was structured. The park would consider employing people around the park when they had replaced the senior positions, but this would take a while because the park had low attrition rates. The park would also look into the involvement of traditional authorities.

Mr Dlamini agreed that there was a need for SANParks to do more than what it had done. The temporary jobs were those that had been linked to the expanded public works programme (EPWP). The SANPark jobs were permanent. It would commit to some of the workers only for a period because that was what the funding would allow. It was hard to commit on a permanent basis because the funding was just for a period, and not permanent. Regarding the 40% level of unemployment, he was not sure to what extent SANParks could deal with it, but it could commit that it would do its best to lower the unemployment as much as the funding and the economic activity in the park allowed.

The CEO asked for more information on projects owned by other communities, which one of the Members had visited so that the park could improve its own. Regarding the preferential procurement policy, it had already drafted and sent the presentation to the Committee when the judgment came out. It was going to add more pressure on the communities, and it would affect service delivery at SANParks. Regarding skills, some people were hired based on the need of a specific project or according to available opportunities.

The pandemic had affected the KNP greatly -- it had lost R2 billion. SANParks had received government support, but it had not received more in subsequent years. It was unable to get international guests because of the lockdowns and restrictions globally. This had hampered its ability to fill the 300 vacancies because of insufficient funding, but it would look into how they could deal with the particular skills required.

Regarding the Global Environmental Facility Fund plan, it welcomed the oversight by the Committee and the suggestions to improve its implementation. As for the Shalati project, the park was open to having a meeting with Ms Weber to arrange when a visit could be arranged.

Mr Dlamini said the presentation was a snapshot of the programmes within the park, rather than their full economic impact. Some of the information was not available at the time they compiled the report, but it would be made available as soon as possible.

Mr Gareth Coleman, Managing Executive, SANParks, said that the socioeconomic division worked with communities on selling firewood around Numbi gate and the Kruger National Park gate. There was a lot of wood being harvested especially in the northern areas around Limpopo, and not on KNP land. The wood was being shipped to Gauteng. It was not part of their programme, and it had to embark on greater greening efforts to work with community members.

Regarding the areas to which the food parcels were distributed, the management was going to get the information and make it available.

Enterprises using members from the surrounding communities varied, as some of the enterprises used normal procurement processes. For example, in one project financed by the Department of Tourism, 38 individual contractors had been identified. They would then identify ten community members who had been in the park for 18 months to two years, and they would be involved in assisting in the maintenance of the tourism facilities, as well as accommodation.

He said the fence monitors were funded through the EPWP, and all the positions had been filled. The only challenge was that there were not enough monitors. They wanted additional funding for that and had had discussions with the Department in this regard. The environment monitors referred to were not rangers, and they were employed on EPWP programmes. There was a programme that was part of the GIZ-sponsored program, where they were there were trying to upskill the monitors. The preference of the parks was to move the monitors into becoming full time rangers when the opportunities became available because they had the experience and the exposure. The environment monitors worked inside and outside the park. When they worked outside the park they would not be armed, and they would assist with stewardship programmes with partners. When inside the park, they would always be accompanied by an armed ranger or by an armed environment monitor.

Collaborations with the APNR were ongoing. SANParks had a meeting the previous week to discuss joint programmes and the plans around the GIZ programme. The Department had also held an entrepreneur roadshow at the end of November to make sure it exposed the entrepreneurs to APNR reserves and their tourism establishments.

On the compilation of the report, the information was being prepared and included the various APNR reserves and partners. This was the first time they had circulated all the frameworks in which people had to provide the information. The goal was to be able to update it on an annual basis and not have to wait every two to three years.

On the inclusion of traditional authority land into the park, the management had a work plan and had identified specific pieces of land for inclusion into the park. It was working with the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD). This was the first time this was happening and there were several questions that had to be answered on how the land was to be included. They had fast-tracked the process of dropping fences and had been engaging with the DALRRD to get other aspects handled.

SANParks would be working on certifying 150 enterprises by December to assess their ability to work with SANParks and to ensure they were fully compliant with the procurement practices. The target was to ensure 605 enterprises got work before the end of the year. They were also going to have an additional 450 enterprises check their investment readiness and upskill them to participate in procurement processes. There was also a 'train the trainer' programme included in those programmes. There had been a big call from the enterprises to establish a KNP-specific database of enterprises that came from the surrounding communities. There were finalising the modalities of what to do with the databases, how those enterprises could get opportunities with KNP, and how they could ensure they were informed when the KNP was to procure goods and services. Another part of the programme was the development of the wildlife and livestock industry, and they were going to train 20 abattoir staff, recruit four local SMEs and train five local butcheries, training four taxidermists and 20 chefs. This was part of the way to develop the KNP meat industry.

On the green entrepreneurship programme with the surrounding communities, they were going to be upskilling 80 monitors, of whom 35% were women and 40 % were youth. They were also going to upskill community-owned SMMEs around livestock management and business development management, and specific modules would be prepared at the Southern African Wildlife College for that. The target group would be 50 community-owned SMEs and 50 entrepreneurs.

Waste management was an important area for the park, and it had engaged the Department on it. SANParks wanted to improve the working conditions of 100 waste pickers -- 50 women and 50 youths -- as well as ensure the waste economy model was focused on ensuring that they developed viable businesses which surround the KNP. There were a lot of activities that were going to happen in the eight months to follow. They did not want to report on them, because it assumed that the Portfolio Committee would be more interested in what had been done. The park would update the Committee next time they had a meeting.

Regarding the meat, on an annual basis, the SANParks board approves a certain number of animals that could be culled, and that amount was determined in consultation with scientists. These included damage-causing elephants, which were processed at the abattoir and distributed to the communities. Buffalo and impala were cooked before leaving the park because of foot and mouth disease issues. The abattoir was operational, and had to be certified and approved by the Department of Agriculture on a regular basis to ensure there was compliance with all health standards that apply to an abattoir.

Mr Nomfundo Tshabalala, Director-General (DG), DFFE, replied in terms of the constitutional judgment on preferential procurement regulation. All the entities were going to be impacted by the judgment. It was going to set SANParks back in terms of government policy in pursuing empowerment. The regulations were assisting in focusing on procurement towards designated groups -- women, youth, and people with disability. The regulations also assisted in sub-contracting 30 small companies. The hope was that the National Treasury was going to provide guidelines, especially around empowerment in procurement.

They were implementing an eco-furniture programme through SANParks, and were focusing on dry mela and clearing operations in various areas. It was governed through a memorandum of understanding. In the past, resources were transferred to the SANParks and SANParks would assist in the managing of the facilities and ensure they were delivering what was expected to be delivered. In that particular year, there had been delays because of audit risks that were identified in the past in relation to the matter. As a Department, they had to deal with the audit risk, and delays had resulted in signing the memorandum of agreement with SANParks late in the year. The amount of R45 million was going to be transferred to SANParks only now.

The eco-furniture programmes were supporting the SMME development model in the various local communities. One of the critical issues raised by the AG was their mandates. They were having a discussion with the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) to assist the move to self-sustaining factories in the localities. The two Ministers had a meeting at a technical administrative level and had tasked both DGs to look into how best to ensure they continued with the capacity building initiative, but also dealt with issues of incubation and support by linking them to some of the markets. With small businesses, they were also looking at the SMME's agents and how best to come up with a model that could ensure the sustainability of the eco-furniture programmes. It was a good programme, and as government they were looking at a model for sustainability because it created employment in the local economies. They were working closely with the Department and SANParks.

Chief Matsila said that one of the issues that was still going to affect the SANParks board was that they had to balance their mandate on biodiversity conservation and environmental protection with the obligation to undertake the development of socioeconomic initiatives. It had become a challenge over the years, and the issue was that given the limited resources, they had to come up with realistic expectations as to what they could achieve outside the parks to benefit the communities. If they were generating a lot of expectations without matching resources, it would generate a lot of problems. What was expected of the Department and SANParks had to be realistic, and in tandem with the resources that were available. They were going to take up all the valuable inputs of the Members, and inform the programmes going forward.

Ms Maggie Sotyu, Deputy Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environmental Affairs, said some of the information that SANParks could not provide, would be provided in written form by the DFFE. The Chairperson had raised the issue of eco-furniture on the side-line, but she could not respond because she did not have the information that was available on that day.

Ms Weber asked for clarity on adhering to the regulations regarding the distribution of meat. Was there anyone who checked the quality of the meat so as not to give the community something that could be harmful?

Mr Bryant clarified that he had been referring to the presentation that had been made about fence monitors during their visit to the KNP. What was the optimal number of fence monitors?

The Chairperson asked for a written response on the eco-furniture project.

Mr Coleman replied that every animal that went to the abattoir was checked by a veterinarian, and the quality of meat and the question of diseases was checked, and its use for human consumption was certified. The question on the fence monitors would be answered in writing.

The Chairperson said the meeting had moved towards a people-centered approach. It was about addressing the core component of the parks and the people connected to them. The Committee wanted the people to be an integral element of conserving the biodiversity assets in all the protected areas. The Committee kept probing matters because they wanted to see clear plans -- something tangible for the communities that border the national parks. They were beyond looking at the surrounding communities as labourers only. The Committee would be expecting a more detailed report next time.

The meeting was adjourned.