Committee Workshop: Environment, Forestry and Fisheries legislation & policy day 1

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

18 August 2020
Chairperson: Mr F Xasa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was briefed in a virtual workshop by the Department of the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries on the National Environmental Management Act 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004).

They asked questions relating to cooperative governance between the spheres of government on environmental matters; water and sanitation issues; clarification on the environmental impact assessments; wetlands conservation; the export of animals; and the financial provisioning and rehabilitation of mines.

The Committee agreed to continue the discussion on the legislation and policy issues the following day.

Meeting report

The Chairperson provided an introduction into why the Committee was holding this workshop. It was supposed to have taken place last year. They had an agreement with the University of Cape Town that they were going to take the Committee through a number of pieces of legislation, but as a result of pressures at UCT, they could not do it. It could not, however, be abandoned because it was very critical and there might be Members who were new in this field. Members needed to know the laws so that when they were implemented, if they saw gaps, they would be able to recommend the relevant amendments. When the Committee did oversight, the law was the primary tool that it should use because the executive executes the laws and policies. It was critical for Members of Parliament and the Department to be the ones that knew the laws had to be implemented properly when they did oversight. They were the ones who had the authority to enquire into what was going on, and that authority was derived from policies and legislation.

Briefing: National Environmental Management Act 1998

Ms Amanda van Reenen, Director: Legal Support (NEMA), Department of the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF), took the Committee through the National Environmental Management Act 1998 (Act No. 17 of 1998). The presentation dealt briefly with some of the areas contained in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and how it fitted into the context of the Constitution and the specific areas of environmental planning, environmental impact management, integrated environmental management, the one environmental system and financial provisioning.

Discussion

Mr J Lorimer (DA) had five questions. His first question was about cooperative governance. What happened if the Minister and the provincial Member of the Executive Council (MEC) disagreed? It seems that if an MEC wanted a development, a Minister was able to block it. Did that happen often? Did the reverse ever happen, where the Minister wanted a development to go ahead against the wishes of an MEC? What would happen? His second question was on the assessment of the environment system. Were most of the processes dealt with within the prescribed number of days? Could a rough estimate of the number of processes that made up that prescribed timeframe be provided? His third question was about how the Interdepartmental Project Implementation Committee (IPIC) was supposed to work, and why it was not working. His fourth question was about concurrent rehabilitation. His experience from mining was that none of the mines would be able to get their hands on any of the financial provisioning to do rehabilitation, right up until the end with closure. Lastly, how big was the problem of insufficient financial provisioning at mines? He had heard stories that it was huge. Could an idea of its size be provided?

Ms H Winkler (DA) said she was dealing with a lot of water issues, especially in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). Who ultimately had jurisdiction over the matter? For example, with the National Water Act, there was a provision whereby it now fells under DEFF. When a water treatment centre was not being properly maintained and there were regular sewage spills into rivers that completely destroyed ecosystems and posed a serious health threat to communities, who was ultimately responsible? Did one approach the Department of Water and Sanitation, or the Department of Environmental Affairs? Which Minister was going to be ultimately responsible? It ended up going back and forth over who took accountability. When the water treatment plants were not maintained and sewage went off into rivers, it became a huge contravention of section 24 of the Constitution and environmental protection. When there were two concurrent departments, where did the buck stop? With the environmental impact assessments (EIAs), what were the exact parameters that were being used when they were issued? She asked for clarification on the provision of funding for mining rehabilitation matters. When mining rights were sold to another company, were they then forced to put those rights aside?

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) referred to the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill, and said that it had gone as far as the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). It impacted on a lot of other laws. One of the provisions made was that the Minister of Minerals could sign off an EIA. He said the authority for all EIAs should reside with the DEFF, otherwise a lot would fall by the wayside. He asked for clarification on the impact of the amendment bill. He added that it would have been good to have had the NCOP Members present at the current workshop to benefit from the greatly detailed presentation they had received.

Mr N Singh (IFP) acknowledged that the workshop was meant to take place last year and, in reference to the volume of the presentation, suggested that every quarter or so the Committee should find time in its schedule to go through pieces of legislation. This workshop would be a start to that process. While Ms Van Reenen had spoken about the legislation, the Members also needed to be aware of regulations. He subscribed to LexisNexis, so he was able to receive updates on the law, but not all the Members had the benefit of the Department sharing the regulations with the Committee. The devil was in the detail, which was the regulations, especially those being gazetted for comments now.

The question on the mining sector had been asked, but there had been an ‘ease of doing business’ index where South Africa had been positioned as number 69. With the EIAs, there was a prescribed period, but was that not too long? Did the country have the financial and human resources to implement various aspects of the legislation either at national, provincial or even local levels? The local level was very much a part of what was happening, and Ms Winkler would know more than anyone else about the Durban region and the air pollution. Even this morning’s headlines in the newspaper referred to deadly cancer findings on proxy dumps in the Pietermaritzburg area. He asked whether the liaison between the different spheres of government was really there and working well. For example, there was the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (D’MOSS) -- was this a preserve of just the Durban Municipality, or did the national Department get involved? How did these things come in place together?

There were going to be amendments to the NEMA that were being proposed, because the last amendment had been in 2014. He asked for an idea of the nature of the amendments and whether they would take into consideration the need to fast-track development in the country, as the economy was at its lowest. There was a general opinion that the economy had crashed, but it had not crashed yet -- but it was almost crashing. There was a need to ensure government had the capacity to provide for where businesses wanted to come in and start businesses, and that EIAs were not obstructions in the way of taking more time than other countries they may consider, bearing in mind that SA must not cut corners.

The Chairperson had connection problems, so Mr Singh took over as the acting Chairperson.

Ms A Weber (DA) said that with the provisional financing, every party was able to have an independent audit. When was the next independent audit? With mines, when they had completed 90% of rehabilitation and remedial action, they would stop and claim they were coming back to complete it to 100%, but they never did so and the rehabilitation never happened. What system was in place to ensure that this did not happen?

Response

Mr Ishaam Abader, Acting Director-General: DEFF, responded to Mr Lorimer’s questions first. When the Minister and MEC disagreed, because this was a concurrent function, technically speaking, the environmental authorisation could happen at the national level, as well as at the provincial level. In some instances, the Act made allowances for an MEC or the Minister to agree that either one did it. For example, if it fell within the jurisdiction of the Minister, the Minister could by agreement authorise the MEC to deal with a particular matter, and vice versa. In instances where there was disagreement about a particular development, depending on who the competent authority in that instance was, there were processes that dealt with how someone who disagreed would manage the matter. For example, if the Minister issued a decision, and a party to that process disagreed with that Minister’s decision, there was an appeal process.

Usually, the authority to issue that decision was delegated to lower level officials so that the MEC or the Minister, depending on where the application sat, became the appeal authority. That was an internal or administrative appeal process that resided within the Department. In essence, the decision was made and if there was unhappiness about that decision, then the person who was unhappy could then appeal that decision, and the decision was then made by the Minister or the MEC, as the case may be. There was further recourse in the instance where a person was still unhappy with the decision, where they could take that decision on review to the courts to ensure that whatever needed to be done in terms of the legislation had been done. Sometimes the unhappy party was the applicant applying for that particular authorisation, while in other instances it was community members or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). They could either attack the procedure that had been followed in making that decision, or they could look at the substantive provision -- that was the actual content of the decision.

He addressed the matter on the number of days, and whether EIAs got authorised within that period. The purpose of the amendments was to deal with this matter of EIAs being blamed for delays in infrastructure development. He claimed that the Department would need a couple of hours alone just to explain what they had done to expedite the EIA processes. They had managed to deal with that issue quite significantly because in the past, EIAs were always blamed for infrastructure development being halted. There were set timeframes for how long it took for a department to issue a particular decision. The onus had been shifted. If the department was supplied with all the necessary documents, there was a regulated timeframe in which that decision must be made.

He addressed the question on the IPIC. When the original conceptualisation of the one environment system had happened, the three departments that were mostly impacted had been the Departments of Environmental Affairs, Mineral Resources and Water. Mr Singh had spoken about the ‘ease of doing business’ index. The experience was that in the mining sector, there was a fragmented approach to how the Department dealt with authorisations. To have an environmental assessment, that needed to be obtained from the Department of Environment, then a water use licence from the Department of Water, and then a mining license from the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE). The purpose of the one environment system was to have ease of doing business, so that an interested party did not have to run around to all the Departments to obtain all those authorisations. The purpose was to align the processes. When looking at the one environment system and what it did in terms of timeframes compared to what it used to do in the past, where the processes essentially had to run in parallel, there was a big difference in how long it took to get that particular authorisation. When applying for a mining licence, one would need to apply for an EIA, a waste licence and a water use licence, all of which feed into the mining permitting process as well, and the processes all run in parallel to each other instead of following on each other. It shortened the timeframe for the granting of that actual authorisation.

He addressed the matter of concurrent rehabilitation. There were three scenarios with the provision relating to rehabilitation. The first scenario was in relation to the concurrent rehabilitation. What used to happen in the past was that an operation would carry on to its end of life, and then the need to rehabilitate would arise. The provision for that had not always been there. It was then decided that if rehabilitation was going to take place, the approach was that once a particular activity such as mining was done, there needed to be provision made for rehabilitation in the balance sheet for that particular year. The purpose of the financial provision regulations, amongst other things, was to deal with this issue of concurrent rehabilitation. There was also the period where one came to the end of the life of a mine. That period was also usually a very turbulent period that involved a lot of money and assessments. The second scenario was where one had made provision for a period just pre- and post closure of the mine. The third scenario was in relation to latent defects, or defects that were discovered only after the mine had been closed. In the past, provisions had not been made for these three scenarios. That was why a different regime was decided on for the rehabilitation aspect of environmental projects.

He then responded to Ms Winkler’s questions. Firstly, there was a Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), and their principal mandate was water. The confusion had arisen when the Water Act was listed as a Specific Environmental Management Act (SEMA). That was to ensure that these pieces of legislation acted in tandem with each other, with the natural jurisdiction for water and water-related matters, such as wastewater treatment works. There had been a similar question from the Human Rights Commission in relation to the Vaal River, and it was clear that the jurisdiction in relation to the water resources of the country rested with the DWS. Because of that not happening, part of the DEFF’s mandate was the air, water and the soil. The Department did get involved by assisting in compliance and enforcement matters. That was where including the DWS under the SEMA came in. This Department worked in tandem with the DWS. A question had also been raised as to how this Department worked with public spheres of government at a national level, and horizontally. If there were matters that affected both departments, there was an attempt to tackle those matters together.

He addressed the question on the EIAs, and the parameters for the issuing of the EIAs. That process was quite an intricate and complex process in the sense that there were various factors that were considered when an authorisation was granted. One of those factors was the nature of the development that was being applied for. If it was a mining application, it would have a different request for information as opposed to that for a lodge, or something like that. There were different variables and impact assessments that would be done. For example, if it was something that affected the water, it may need a geological or a hydrological study. It was a fairly complex assessment of what the potential impacts would be. He committed to providing additional information on the process and how it worked, if Ms Winkler needed it.

He addressed the question on the funding for rehabilitation and what happened if a mine was sold to another company. The Department had tried to make provisions for those instances where a company took over the rights and was bound to the liability that was created as well. If a company was sold, it was sold with its assets and liabilities. The environmental liability was attached to the authorisation, and the authorisation was transferred into the name of the new company, and that liability was attached to the new authorisation.

Responding to Mr Paulsen’s questions, he addressed the question on the NEMA Bill and the fact that there was unhappiness with the fact that the Minister of the DMRE signed off on the EIA processes. As part of the one environment system, there was quite a bit of unhappiness that the DMRE would be issuing environmental authorisations. There were comments such as how a department that did not have a mining mandate could be empowered to issue an authorisation. With the way the one environment system worked, the Department of Environmental Affairs was responsible for drafting the legislation that had to be complied with. Even though the DMRE issued the authorisation, it had to comply with the legislation. With the nine provincial competent authorities that could issue authorisations, were the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the DMR Minister who could issue authorisationd. There were in essence 11 competent authorities that could issue authorisations.

If there was unhappiness with a decision by any of these competent authorities, the first step would be to lodge an internal appeal against that decision. Specifically, on the minerals side of things, one of the safeguards that had been put in place was to ensure that this Department did not lose the oversight over the EIA side of things. If there was a decision made by the DMR on the environmental aspect or the authorisation aspect, the appeal lay with the Minister of Environment Affairs. That distinction was important. The decision maker was the DMRE, but the appeal for the environmental aspects lay with the Minister. This safeguard had been built into the system to ensure that there was no abuse of the system and that the environmental mandate was not moved away from the Department completely, and still fell within its core mandate.

He addressed the question on municipalities carrying out EIAs, indicating that there may be a slight misunderstanding as to how that worked. The municipalities were allowed to issue only certain types of authorisations, specifically under the Air Quality Act. That was usually preceded by an EIA. They did not actually do the EIA as such. Their competence lay with the emissions under the Air Quality Act.

Regarding the impact of the Bill on EIAs, the amendment did not really affect the authorisation process. There were 11 competent authorities for the EIAs, and those would remain, so the responsibility resided with the competent authority concerned. There was also the safeguard with the appeals process and ultimate review to the courts if a party was still unhappy with the decision. A detailed presentation needed to be provided for each aspect of the legislation, because the regulations became more complex. It would require three weeks to go through the legislation adequately if that type of detail was required by the Members.

He addressed Mr Singh’s comments on the regulations. Before regulations were passed, the Department was obliged to table them in Parliament, which was part of the consultation process in relation to regulations and the oversight that Parliament exercised. If the process of tabling those regulations and allowing the regulated period within which the Department was expected to get comments from Parliament was not followed, it impacted on the procedural acceptance of the regulations. If the process was not followed, the regulations could be challenged. That was mandatory. He agreed that the Secretariat should make the regulations available.

With the EIAs, the argument was used internationally as well. The fact that the mandate of environment had come to the fore recently had become a problem for certain businesses, because they were looking for shortcuts or trying to evade their environmental liabilities. The Act also made provision for not only the EIA as the be all and end all of the environmental impact assessment process, but looked at alternative instruments. For example, if there was strategic environmental assessment for a particular area, it made things easier because then there was no need to look at each specific site in detail.

There was a general view of the area, and site-specific matters were looked at with the assessment of the EIA. Alternatively, if there was a common development activity such as a sub-station or a tower, then there were certain standard things that had to happen with that application. A set of standards or norms might need to be developed as an alternative to an EIA which still took care of the environmental mandate because that should not be compromised, but also provided an alternative to going through the complete EIA process. There was also a shortened basic assessment process with the EIA. That also had its own requirements and qualifications, but it was much shorter than the 300-day period that had been referred to. There was long period that was complex, where a scoping of the impacts needed to be done, and then a shorter period, which was a basic assessment which was less complex and went through a shortened process because there were certain things that would not need to be investigated as thoroughly due to the nature of the particular development.

He addressed the question on how the Department worked with the different spheres of government. Usually with an EIA, if there was a decision that needed to be made by a particular sphere of government, it was sent off to the other departments for comment within a strict time period. If it impacted on another department, they worked together. For example, if there was a development in the Durban area, the Durban Metro would be one of the commenting authorities. With compliance and enforcement, because there was a relatively limited capacity at the national level, they used the provincial and local authority capacity for those things. They attempted to do cooperative governance as far as possible, because they did not have the capacity nationally, so they had to use their networks to achieve their goals specifically around compliance and enforcement.

Regarding the question on the nature of the amendments to the EIAs and with the process not being obstructionist, he said that the Department had made a presentation on the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment (NEMLA) to the Portfolio Committee. He added that his comments on the alternatives to the EIAs addressed that matter.

He then responded to Ms Weber’s question on provisional financing, and said there were stipulations in the financial provisioning about when audits were supposed to happen. It may be a five-year period in which an institution redoes its audits. If circumstances changed and they were coming towards closure, there was a provision that addressed that. With the 90% completed mines and rehabilitation, the three scenarios he mentioned earlier ensured that there was adequate provisioning for rehabilitation.

Ms Van Reenen made some additional comments on financial provisioning. Some of the aspects and inputs in the presentation slides had tried to indicate were not sufficiently addressed in either the NEMA or the regulations, and that was why there were proposed amendments to the definition of the term ‘financial provision,’ as well as section 24, which dealt specifically with financial provisioning in NEMLA. In the presentation, she had spoken about the process under way to address some of these aspects in the financial provisioning regulations as well. Some of these things had been picked up only because they have dealt with the DMRE and the legislative framework. She emphasised that as a result of the one environmental system, the Minister of Environment Affairs sets the environmental legislative framework, and in this includes aspects relating to her purposes.

This led to the question on the indication she gave around transfers of mining rights. The aspect that was of concern there was that transfers of these rights were not specifically procedurally governed under the National Petroleum Resources Development Act (NPRDA). What was spoken about was the transfer of the liabilities that went with that, but the process was not clear enough and was not set out clearly enough in the legislation to avoid those kinds of loopholes. NEMLA was an attempt to act as a sort of ‘checks and balances’ being built into the current NEMLA process to try and address the aspects that they had identified up until that point.

Ms Weber said that perhaps her question had not been clear, because it had not been answered adequately. She had asked for clarification on what happened when the mine was left abandoned at 90% completion. What happened with the money?

Ms Winkler had a follow-up question on what the process was, and does the Department ensured that compliance was enforced when another department was a repeat offender.

Mr Abader responded that the abandoned mines were part of the reason why they had the new system.


Briefing:  National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act

Mr Shonisani Munzhedzi, Deputy-Director General: Biodiversity and Conservation, took the Committee through the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004). The presentation briefly dealt with some of the areas contained in the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), such as the conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity, the international context, the DEFF foundational mandate, NEMBA 2004’s objectives, the establishment of the SA National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), biodiversity planning and monitoring, bio-regional plans, the national biodiversity framework, biodiversity management plans for species, published biodiversity management plans, threatened or protected ecosystems and species, species and organisms posing potential threats to biodiversity, bio-prospecting access and benefit sharing, with implementation updates on each aspect.

Discussion

(Because of connectivity problems, some parts of the discussion could not be captured.)

Ms Winkler commented that she thought Mr Shonisani Munzhedzi was right to point out that there were contentious issues in this space. For example, there was still a problem regarding who was responsible for the protection of the welfare of wildlife, which was a grey area that needed serious consideration.

She referred to the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations, and asked how was it possible to have these regulations and allow the hunting of lions. She did not understand how one could co-exist with the other. These contentious issues were being taken into consideration. What was the timeline?

Mr Paulsen asked about the role of indigenous knowledge systems, which resided with science and innovation, and to what extent communities would benefit from having their indigenous knowledge used. The environment was one place that could produce the most sustainable jobs.

(Connectivity was completely lost at this stage)

Mr Singh commented on the harmful impact of genetically modified organisams (GMOs), and asked to what extent SA had the capacity to eradicate alien species and educate the population on what alien species were, and to ensure the protection of its biodiversity. His second question related to wetlands, which fell under the Biodiversity Management Act. Was there any threat of any of our wetlands being delisted for activities that should not be taking place either in, or surrounding, these wetlands? His last question related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Had this Department been able to see if there had been any difference in biodiversity or natural habitats? For example, in other countries in the world there had been the return of birds and certain plant species. Had that type of exercise been done? At some stage would it be done so they would know what the cause and effects were?

Ms Weber commented that South Africa had a rich diversity of reptiles which were not allowed to be exported, unless this was done by a legal breeder. This created quite a bit of tension, because each province could make its own environmental laws which could be different and opposite to one another. She proposed that they should have one national biodiversity law so that they had a guideline as to what the regulations should be. What could they do, and how could they build the protection of these animals into the Biodiversity Management Act? For example, one could have a list of legal breeders of reptiles so that when they were being exported from ships or airports, they could check those lists. At this stage anyone could get a permit and say that they were legal breeders. What regulations were built into the Biodiversity Management Act to protect SA’s animals from being exported illegally? With the biodiversity of the trees in South Africa that were being cut down for trade but were not being replaced, what were the steps being taken, and what could SA do to manage this through its measures and regulations?

Response

Mr Abader responded to Ms Winkler’s question on the grey areas regarding exploitative use and sustainable use. The DEFF had noted her concerns. At one of their sittings with the Portfolio Committee, the issue of welfare had specifically been raised when they presented the amendments to NEMLA, and the Committee had specifically requested inclusion of a provision related to welfare under the Biodiversity Act.

With the TOPS regulations and the hunting of lions, there needed to be a distinction made between wildlife populations and captive populations. The Biodiversity Bill was in process, and there was still going to be a comprehensive consultation process that would be undertaken. With all the legislation, there was a process that was being followed to garner input from all relevant role players in the industry. During the parliamentary process as well, the Committee should make interventions in terms of the legislation, and anything they would like to see contained in the legislation.

He then addressed Mr Paulsen’s questions on indigenous knowledge. The access and benefit sharing were specifically designed to ensure that the indigenous knowledge systems benefited the communities from which they were derived. The Department oversees this process. The Minister issues permits for the use of indigenous resources as well as indigenous knowledge, and there was a mechanism that was designed to ensure that when the bio-prospectors come to use SA’s natural resources, there was no theft of the species. If they were using a natural resource, there must be some benefit to the communities that were attached to that resource, and similarly with the indigenous knowledge that was attached to that community. There must be some form of compensation which was managed through a trust fund into which money was kept, and those benefits would then accrue to the communities from which that resource or knowledge had been derived.

He addressed Mr Singh’s question about alien species. There was a comprehensive programme that dealt with how to eradicate alien species specifically from a departmental perspective, and more specifically in relation to SA’s protected areas.

Regarding the differences in the environment with the advent of COVID-19, the environment would naturally have recovered to quite an extent because there was less pollution and flights. Specifically, with the protection of our biodiversity, that function had been an ongoing process throughout the lockdown and there had been a noticeable reduction in the number of animals being poached and so forth, although in certain areas there had been different types of interventions that had been found in relation to poaching, such as the use of dogs and that type of thing. There had definitely been some effects on the natural environment.

He addressed Ms Weber’s question on the provinces making their own laws regarding the exporting of animals. The issue was that the environment was a concurrent function, so the purpose of national government would be to draft the framework legislation, and that would be the legislation that went through this Committee and the NCOP. There was a provision for provincial legislation to be drafted, but it could not be less stringent than the national framework or legislation. The provincial legislation had to defer to the national legislation in a sense. It could be stricter than the national legislation. They were aware that there might be different pieces of legislation, and in some instances the pieces did not necessarily talk to each other. From that perspective, the Committee might be aware of the rationalisation of legislation process that had been undertaken by the Department, and part of that process was to address the matter raised by Ms Weber. That was why the Department was looking at how things were being dealt with. For example, with something like appeals involving the SEMA, what the DEFF was trying to do was to bring conformity with a single legislative process that dealt with it. That rationalisation process would extend to all the provinces, and would be an attempt to ensure that uniformity in the application of legislation was obtained. In some instances, the provinces may need more than what the Department had given them, in which case they could make their requirements stricter than the national legislation.

Mr Munzhedzi responded on the issue of sustainable use. As much as the Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBDs) were qualified and defined, they had always had so many interpretations. Things had changed so much over time that the matter required attention. Ms Winkler had been right in saying that the international platform for biodiversity and conservation services to which SA was party had prioritised the creation of a specific programme, to look at it from a scientific perspective. He did not know whether that was going to set up parameters, but it would offer an opportunity for countries to interact with it and participate in policy matters with a global understanding. They were aware that there may be specific aspects that were particular to specific regions, but certain principles should apply equally. The DEFF was part of that programme and was participating effectively through the membership of the members from SANBI, and the Department as well. Even in the CBD space, they were negotiating a new deal for nature and people, and that was for 2020 via the global framework, where the matter of sustainability was being defined.

The Department’s understanding and posture had always been the same -- that sustainable utilisation, conservation, and fair and equitable sharing from the benefits deriving from the resources, should always form part of the tenets of what biodiversity management should be. Whether it was being looked at from a CBD, constitutional or legislative perspective, in practice all of these three complemented each other. One would protect things that they attached value to. On the other hand, one would have to protect things and resources that would provide them with value. Whether that value came through ecosystems, or goods and services, it was also a problem that would need to be considered in the area of protection. The Department would always look into the matter and would consistently attempt to clarify it.

He welcomed the initiative by the Committee to set aside time on 25 or 26 August and had invited the Department, the Department responsible for agriculture, and hopefully the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) and others who would be party to that, so that they could specifically focus on welfare and related matters.

The NEMBA was very clear on aspects of welfare. The case law that had come through certain judgments against the Department had prescribed that it had to consider welfare in the decision-making process. In the process going ahead, and even in NEMLA, the aspects of wellbeing were taken into consideration to try and make sure there were specific provisions that would allow the Minister to also take certain measures within the framework of the law. The Department was looking at that without taking anything away from agriculture, and they had agreed that there should be cooperation on a number of aspects, including on this particular matter between the two departments, which was underscoring some of the technical interfaces. They had undertaken an exercise a number of years ago to request provinces to harmonise their legislation with the national legislation, and they had made a lot of strides with that. There were still some areas that needed to be tightened up, which would be possible through all these amendments.

With the wetlands, the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) had indicated that wetlands were one of those ecosystems that were least protected and heavily impacted, hence the investments that were there. They were working on wetlands from a reactive perspective, but they also needed to be proactive in providing protection measures. There were many other thousands of wetlands that needed to be protected through legislative and other means. They were addressing the matter in the context of strategic water systems, including wetlands, to afford them a programme. They had started a process that they called the development of a joined framework on wetlands management in South Africa. They were working with the Departments of Water Affairs and Agriculture and other partners so that they had a joint policy framework that would for the first time, indicate the interfaces between the three of them and others in the management of wetlands.

There were programmes within SANBI as well that prioritised the classification of wetlands into certain categories to show which ones needed immediate intervention and many other issues that still needed to be done, including the reactive measures he had mentioned with rehabilitation. Wetlands needed to be protected at all costs. It was part of protecting water resources in South Africa, and the strategic processes that they had. The DEFF had a dedicated programme specifically on that subject, which they could address at any other time. They looked at risk assessment as a potential negative impact to biodiversity in particular, and run that assessment. When a collective decision was taken by the GMO Council, for a recommendation for the Minister to approve or reject, they would have to take that into consideration. Where science was not adequate, they had extended networks, such as universities that came on board to assist them in dealing with risk assessment on that particular aspect.

As much as they spoke about jobs being created, there were also a lot of positives with ecosystems being functional again and being restored. There were multiple benefits – social, political and economical -- in the type of investments they made into the programmes. With the statistics on the interventions done in catchment areas around the Western Cape after the drought and looked at in the context of drought, the yield after the removal of those invasive species, quantified and qualified in cubic meters, was so significant that if one put rands and cents into it, it showed that it was better to invest a lot of money into rehabilitation, and also into avoiding further impacts and reintroductions, than reacting. The biosecurity programme was also being enhanced in the Department to deal with the introduction and detection of those invasive species beforehand, and by learning from other countries as well in that space. Part of this work was being looked at by the panel that the Minister was speaking about, which was also looking at aspects of breeding.

On the question Ms Winkler had asked about the lions, the country had more than 3 500 wild lions and they interfaced with wild managed lions. There was also the aspect of captive breeding, which did not only deal with lions, but also with other species. Some of it was done in sanctuaries for reintroduction, and some of it was done with other species in relation to trade. Any captive facility in any of the provinces would have to get a particular permit which would prescribe what was permitted and what was not. The biggest aspect here was how matters were taken care of in that space. There was an issue of policy analysis on this particular matter.

Ms Skumsa Ntshanga, Chief Director: Biodiversity Specialist Monitoring and Services, DEFF, responded to Mr Singh’s question on the threat to wetlands. There were many threats to wetlands, and most of these had already been outlined in the NBA which had been concluded and lodged by the Minister last year. The threats included threats around mining, pollution, climate change, land degradation, large scale plantation, alien plants, eradication and fires. South Africa was a signatory to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. SA had 26 of its wetlands of international importance listed in terms of that convention. Two of its prestigious wetlands -- the Orange River mouth in the Northern Cape and Blesbokspruit in Gauteng -- were included in what was called the Montreux Record, which was the record of sites which were seriously under threat. They had been working with all stakeholders as part of the national committee on wetlands to ensure that they put in measures to ensure effective conservation of these areas.

With implementation on the ground, they had concluded a management effectiveness tracking tool which looked at all the threats in each of these areas and came up with interventions. With the Orange River mouth, they had met with all the relevant stakeholders and had an action plan they were currently implementing. They hoped that within a year or so they should be able to take the Orange River mouth out of the list of sites. They were also working with the Gauteng department to ensure that Blesbokspruit was also removed from the Montreux Record. There were a lot of measures in place for wetlands. They were also pursuing rehabilitation and restoration of these wetlands through the ‘Working for Wetlands’ programme, which continued to provide the much-needed support for rehabilitation and restoration.  Since the inception of that programme in 2000, around R1.3 billion had already been invested in 1 500 wetlands, resulting in the creation of about 37 000 jobs. There was a lot that was happening on the ground. They were on track with ensuring that those areas that were important for water security were being managed effectively as a country.

Ms Magdel Boshoff, DEFF, responded to Mr Paulsen’s question on how to ensure that communities benefited from prospecting activities, and said funds were paid into a trust fund and then went to the communities. One additional area, to make sure that it was quite important and required in terms of NEMA, was that there must be a benefit sharing agreement of how communities would benefit, and that agreement must be signed off by the Minister.

She addressed Ms Weber’s question on the concurrent legislation of the provinces on reptiles. It was an area that they had picked up which concerned reptiles removed from the wild. They acknowledged that the provinces’ legislation differed, and a particular province would not necessarily regulate or protect species that were not necessarily indigenous to that particular province. That created the problem, which was where the national legislation came in. That was factored into the TOPS regulations and how they had been amended. They had proposed a number of reptiles to be included in the amended TOPS list to be afforded protection at a national level. The problem was in responding timeously in implementing the legislation. Some time would go by, and then there were new species that needed to be included in the list. They would be looking into amending the list that would be published now. It was a lengthy process, but they attempted to keep up continuously with what warranted protection at the national level.

With the concurrent competence, and the matter where provinces may have different legislation to the national legislation, they tried to avoid differences, but it was inevitable that they may arise. NEMA required that they submit all subordinate legislation to Parliament 30 days prior to promulgation, and if it was subordinate legislation it must at least receive approval from the NCOP. They did that consultation process in terms of section 146 of the Constitution, which dealt with conflict between national and provincial legislation. If it was regulations that were submitted to Parliament, they tabled it with the NCOP and the National Assembly. With the NCOP, they needed approval so that if there was conflict between the pieces of legislation, then the national legislation would prevail. The conflict referred to something that was so different it was impossible for a person to comply with both of them. If it was different but a person could comply with both at the same time, that was not necessarily conflict. There were the Parliamentary approval processes.

At the moment, the amended TOPS regulations were with Parliament, and the norms and standards for the procreation of leopards would soon be tabled for the Parliamentary approval process. She addressed the question on the illegal export of species. The amended TOPS regulations that were currently subject to the NCOP approval process required that all captive breeding facilities must keep a stock book in which they would need to provide numbers coming into the facility and the numbers going out of the facility -- for example, when they sold those animals. They were also required to keep a book where they had to do a DNA analysis, which was for the purpose of determining which offspring came from which mother and which father, and also the marking of the specimens. The intention was that if a captive breeder wanted to export anything from that captive facility, these measures would then enable them to prove that a particular specimen actually came from that particular captive breeding facility and not from elsewhere. It was already in the current TOPS regulations, but it was not as explicit, so they had strengthened it in the amended TOPS regulations to require that that needed to be done.

Mr Singh wanted to follow up for clarity. He understood that the Department was complying with regulations by tabling them with Parliament, and the way it was tabled with Parliament, and was printed in the Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATCs). He clarified that in addition to that requirement, if the Department would assist the Committee where it was responsible for DEFF matters, by providing the text of the proposed regulations on or about the same time that it tabled it in Parliament, because it got lost in the whole Parliamentary process. Then they could consider it as a Committee or as individuals, and make their comments if they needed to.

The Chairperson as whether the last presentation they had received was the last agenda item.

Mr Singh confirmed that there were two more presentations, but proposed that they assign them to the following day.

The Chairperson asked whether they should reschedule the remaining agenda items to the following day. He agreed with Mr Singh’s proposal that it was necessary, and that they may need to do it quarterly and take it bit by bit rather than rushing through it. He suspected they would need to be ready for Parliament in the afternoon. He asked the Members whether they could still receive one more presentation.

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) said she had a problem with rushing going through the legislation, as it took time to do so properly. They should understand NEMA first, as it was the “bible.”

The Chairperson agreed, and claimed that what Mr Singh was saying was meant going through each piece of legislation, but the current workshop was intended to provide an overview.

Ms Mbatha said that there were three minutes of the meeting left, and proposed they leave the rest of the presentations for the following day.

This was agreed, and 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: