Committee Workshop: Environment, Forestry and Fisheries legislation & policy day 4

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

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

Meeting Summary

As a continuation of its legislative workshop, the Committee was briefed on the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, the National Forests Act 84 of 1998, and the National Veld and Forest Fire Act 101 of 1998. The meeting took place on a virtual platform

The Committee asked questions relating to:

  • The extent to which international instruments informed the strategy taken when it came to protected sites, with the sixth mass extinction event and global ecocide;
  • What socio-economic development there had been as a result of areas being protected;
  • Clarification on the management of provincial protected areas;
  • Clarification on what informed the boundaries of marine protected areas;
  • The pressure to legalise illegal activities involving forests;
  • The sustainable management of forests through the involvement of communities;
  • The training of prosecutors and magistrates, and any noteworthy prosecutions;
  • Dukuduku Forest challenges; and
  • The enforcement capacity of the Department to ensure that regulations were adhered to.

Meeting report

The Chairperson introduced the meeting as the final day of the Committee’s legislative workshop.

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003

Mr Karl Naude, Director: Protected Areas Systems, Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), took the Committee through the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA). The presentation dealt with an explanation of what a protected area was and why it was necessary, the legislative framework of NEMPAA, its amendments, contents and offences, and lastly regulations.

The Chairperson asked the Members for clarity-seeking questions and comments.

Discussion

Ms H Winkler (DA) asked to what extent the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) provided information when it came to protected sites going forward, in the wake of the sixth mass extinction event and ecocide that was taking place globally?

Mr N Singh (IFP) commented that at the beginning of the presentation, the Committee had been informed that the Protected Areas Act was a basis for socio-economic development. He asked to be given examples of where this was a success. Where had there been socio-economic development as a result of areas being protected? What challenges were there of protecting protected areas? Although there was very good legislation, not all of the areas declared were being protected to the extent that they should be. What were the particular challenges?

His next question related to marine protected areas. What informed the geographic location and boundaries of marine protected areas? He provided an example, but acknowledged that he may be incorrect. How could people 50 meters away from a particular boundary go and fish and carry out activities, but in an area where there were households, this was prohibited? The Aliwal Shoal Marine Protected Area was an example of this. He wondered whether these protected areas and the boundaries were based on scientific facts or what was happening physically on the ground, or because of the kind of pressure that came from residents who lived there.

His last question related to Chapter 5 of the Act, where the presentation referred to the governance of SANPARKS, and what could happen if the parks were not run properly. Did that governance apply also to designated parks and park authorities?

Department’s response

Mr Ishaam Abader, Acting Director-General: DEA, responded to Ms Winkler’s question on whether the Department’s strategy was informed by things like IPBES, and said It definitely was. In relation to how the national strategies were formulated, South Africa was usually part of a convention or treaty and in the presentation, it was shown how that linked to national legislation and strategies, as well and it informed how the strategies, legislation and policies were developed.

In response to Mr Singh’s question on socio-economic development, there had been numerous successes in and around the parks. There were meetings with the Committee, where SANParks had indicated that the employment in and around the parks was close to 10 000 people.

In response to the boundaries of the National Protected Areas (NPAs) and how they were determined, it was usually science-based. Science determined the particular boundaries and what could and could not be done in a particular area. Usually it was in relation to the specific resources in that area.

Ms Skumsa Ntshanga, Chief Director: Protected Areas Systems, DEA, also responded to the question asking to what extent the DPE’s strategies were informed by the IPBES and the ICUN. South Africa was a signatory to many global instruments, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the IPBES, and it was also part of the IUCN family to the extent where the Department sat on the national IUCN committee. South Africa had also hosted the fifth IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2002, which had shaped the approach on the management of protected areas and extending benefits beyond park boundaries. The policies and strategies were informed by these international bodies and the thinking behind them, including IUCN and IPBES. There was continued participation in these global meetings, so it was ensured that there was innovation in the work done and an ability to stay abreast of international developments in that regard.

A balanced approach had been adopted towards socio-economic development in protected areas. This ensured the protected areas were well-conserved but at the same time they did offer benefits to communities, especially those that lived in and around the protected areas. For management effectiveness, there was a tracking tool which ensured that there were indicators and targets that talked not only to conservation, but also to socio-economic matters. There was also the ‘People and Parks’ programme, where they met with the communities in and adjacent to the protected areas every two years to track progress with the decisions that had been made, and made sure benefits accrued in a manner that did not compromise conservation in the area, because the DPE did not want “to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” The People and Parks programme drove the socio-economic development in and around the protected areas, and they worked with other relevant government departments such as the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) because some of these protected areas were under claim, so it was important that they maintained the balance between conservation and development in a manner that also promoted their other priorities as government, such as land reform.

They had cooperation agreements with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) to ensure that mining development did not impact negatively on conservation. They also had guidelines to ensure the balance between conservation and mining in a manner that promoted the country’s priorities, while at the same time ensuring conservation of the rich biodiversity.

Mr Naude responded to Mr Singh’s question on the management of provincial protected areas. This was also covered within the Act, and was specifically related to development plans and monitoring of how the management plans were applied. There was a mechanism through which the management authority could be looked at if it was found that the management was not adequate. There was also a process under way where they were looking at privately-owned protected areas, which entailed the development of norms and standards.

National Forests Act 84 of 1998

Ms Shumani Dzivhani, Deputy Director: Forestry Regulation, took the Committee through the National Forests Act 84 of 1998. The presentation dealt with the primary regulation mechanisms, the legislative framework, compliance and enforcement measures, and cooperative governance.

The Chairperson asked the Members for clarity-seeking questions and comments.

Discussion

Mr J Lorimer (DA) referred to slide 15 of the presentation on the political pressure to legalise illegal activities. Where did this come from, when did it happen, and how often did it happen?

Ms Winkler referred to the sustainable management of forests, and asked of there had been any successful pilot projects which involved communities to capacitate them in the management of forests to their benefit, which would then mitigate against illegal activities and plundering of this natural resource? If there were not successful examples of this integration of communities into the management of forests, what plan did the DPE have to make sure that this kind of sustainable relationship between communities and forest management was used as a working strategy going forward?

Mr Singh referred to the amendment bill mentioned in the presentation. Where was that bill in the Committee and Parliamentary process? From a legal point of view -- because they were the drafters of the legislation -- were they finding particular challenges in the management of Dukuduku Forest? He had been involved for over 20 years, and had knowledge of the challenges. If there were challenges, how were they trying to mitigate the risk of degradation of those forests? In the presentation, there had been mention of the training of prosecutors and magistrates. What format did this take? When had it last happened? Could any big case of prosecution come to mind that could be placed before the Committee?

Response

Ms Morongoa Leseke, Deputy Director General: Forestry, responded to Ms Winkler’s question on sustainable forest management, specifically regarding any successful projects of collaboration between the communities. She said there had been what they called the Mabaso, Namabaso and Mbele community projects in northern KwaZulu-Natal. It was the first community forest agreement which the then Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries had handed over to the communities in that area and that was a project that was doing very well. What had been done in the first years of the Community Forestry Agreement (CFA), which had started in 2016, was to ensure that they were well resourced with capable personnel, who then assisted the community to get funding.

Ms Dzivhani responded to Mr Lorimer’s question on the pressure to legalise illegal activities. For example, they had had a challenge in Walmer in Port Elizabeth, where they had been put under pressure to legalise low cost housing, but the Department had refused to issue a license for such housing development in a natural forest.

She said the amendment bill had been tabled to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), and was currently being presented to the provincial legislatures. The bill had already been presented to North West, Gauteng, the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape.

On Mr Singh’s question on the training of prosecutors and magistrates, this type of training was usually requested. The last time they had conducted the training of prosecutors had been in the 2018 financial year. During the past financial year, they had not received any requests to conduct such training.

Follow-up discussion

Ms T Mchunu (ANC), referred to the mention of working with KwaZulu-Natal and other entities in the presentation. She asked how close the DPE was with those entities in dealing with the challenges they were facing now.

The Chairperson asked whether Ms Winkler’s question had been adequately responded to.

Ms Winkler responded that her question had not been responded to adequately, and opted to reframe it. Since there had been success in northern KwaZulu-Natal with the sustainable management agreements with communities, had there been any effort to replicate this agreement across the country in other instances where there was plundering of forests, because by having the buy-in from the communities, they would take ownership of those forests and then prevent illegal activities from taking place. How did this feed into the understanding of forests being carbon sinks, as well with climate mitigation strategies?

Mr Singh brought attention to his unanswered questions on whether there were any challenges with the Dukuduku Forest, and whether there was any court case that stood out that had been won or lost.

Follow-up responses

Mr Abader responded to Ms Winkler’s question, and said that the forestry branch was currently in the process of developing a master plan for the forestry sector of South Africa. Part of that master plan would address what she had spoken about, on replicating some of the successes. The master plan was comprehensive in relation to how they dealt with category A, B and C forests, and alternatives to conventional forestry.

Ms Leseke added that besides the master plan, the Department was busy with the parceling and packaging of the category B and C plantations, and some of the target groups were the communities around those plantations so that they could co-manage the plantations.

Ms Dzivhani responded to Mr Singh’s question on the Dukuduku Forest, and whether there had been a case worth noting. So far, they had been able to build some case law to give the legislation some teeth, because many developers were not really aware of the legislation. They had managed, even though they did not have a unit that dealt specifically with enforcement. With the case law that had been developed, an example was the Long Beach Homeowners Association which had wanted to develop in a natural forest in the Eastern Cape, but the Department had managed to enforce the legislation. The case had ended up in the Supreme Court, where the outcome was that the Department should review its decision and address the applicant accordingly.

(At this stage, PMG’s connection to the meeting was dropped.)

National Veld and Forest Fire Act 1010 of 1998

Mr Kagisho Monnahela, Assistant Director: Veldfires Oversight, took the Committee through the National Veld and Forest Fire Act 101 of 1998 (NVFFA). The presentation dealt with the purpose of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act, an explanation of the Fire Protection Associations and fire danger rating, a classification of veldfire risk in South Africa, veldfire prevention through firebreaks, the sections of the NVFFA that dealt with fire-fighting, the progress made with the implementation process of the NVFFA, the key challenges in the implementation, the previous amendments of the Act, and any related legislation.

The Chairperson asked the Members for clarity-seeking questions and comments.

Discussion

Mr Singh had two questions. Firstly, what enforcement capacity did the Department have to ensure that these legislations were adhered to? Secondly, he requested that the Committee be provided with the sugar cane burning protocol document.

Response

Mr Monnahela, responding to the question on the Department’s enforcement capacity, said they were currently working with the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the other departments to assist them in enforcing the Act, because they were lacking the capacity to enforce the legislation in their Department.

Ms Leseke added to Mr Monnahela’s response on the matter of enforcement. The Department liked to take advantage of the fact that they were now in a department that was big on regulation, and which had the Green and Brown Scorpions. In the branch, there were no dedicated personnel or sufficient personnel to do enforcement or regulation. The members that were appointed as fire prevention officers were doing so as an add-on, as they had other responsibilities. They intended to collaborate more with the regulation section so that they could expand their regulation footprint.

Mr Renny Madula, Director: Forestry Regulation and Oversight, said that the legislation put the responsibility for implementing fire risk mitigation measures on landowners. To this end, the Fire Protection Associations (FPAs) developed their own constitutions, as well as guidelines on how they would prepare and manage fires as and when they were raised within their areas of jurisdiction. Within the guidelines which were approved by the Minister when the FPAs were established, they would account for matters of risk, and report on the day when the fire risk seemed to be relatively lower. If a member wanted to burn on a particular day, they would make an application to the FPA to be able to burn. They would be looking into the fire danger rating index within that particular time period to either allow or recommend the member to reschedule the burning.

Mr Abader added that the Department had recently included the forestry and fisheries branches into the Department, so they had been brought into the ambit of what it did with enforcement and compliance. They would be boosting the initiatives with that. They had already started joint operations in East London on a particular matter, together with one of their provincial entities, as well as two or three sister departments where there had been problems concerning an indigenous forest. They would be cooperating, and that enforcement capacity and action was limited not only to the SAPS, but extended also to the Green Scorpions’ institutions as well. In this specific instance, they had utilised the provincial colleagues with the Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs), the SAPS and the court services, to mitigate the challenges that were arising.

Closing Comments

Mr Singh said that the Committee should thank the Department for all the presentations, but he hoped their research team had been taking copious notes and looked at all the recommendations, questions and answers that could be compiled into some format for the Committee, as a reference document as they moved forward.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the legislative workshop. He admitted to having learned a few things from it, and hoped the Members had too. He asked Mr Abader to be available when the Committee needed him, as the content of the presentations formed part of the Committee’s daily work.

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: