Environmental Affairs on the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report

Meeting report

Election of the Chairperson

The meeting was opened by the Committee Secretary, Ms Tyhileka Madubela. She outlined that the procedure required that the Acting Chairperson of the Committee had to be appointed in terms of Rule 130 of the National Assembly. This followed the tragic shooting of Chairperson, Mr J Mthembu (ANC) at an ATM in his home town over the weekend and was now in hospital. She called for nominations of Acting Chairperson by the Members.

Mr T Bonhomme (ANC) nominated Mr S Mabilo (ANC).  

Ms H Kekana (ANC) asked that the meeting be started off with a prayer.

Ms Madubela thought the Acting Chairperson could handle this once the meeting begun.

Ms Kekana seconded the nomination of Mr Mabilo.

Mr Mabilo accepted the nomination for Acting Chairperson.

There were no further nominations or objections.

Mr Makhubele was surprised to be entrusted with this nomination. It was unfortunate to hear the news of Mr Mthembu but he wished him a speedy recovery on behalf of the Committee. He sincerely appreciated Members for entrusting him with the responsibility of acting as Chairperson and holding the fort until Mr Mthembu returned. He hoped that Members trusted and supported him so that the work of the Committee went on as scheduled. He welcomed Mr Z Makhubele (ANC), who had been ill for quite some time but had now recovered. 

Adoption of Committee’s Agenda and other Committee Business

Dr Scottney Watts, Committee Researcher, opened the meeting up with a prayer.

Mr Makhubele recommended the Committee be encouraged to visit Mr Mthembu

The Chairperson thought this was a good proposal.

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) suggested the Committee send a card and flowers to the injured Chairperson.

The Chairperson noted this as another good proposal.

The Committee’s agenda for the day was then adopted by Members.

Seeing as it was the first time Mr Makhubele joined the Committee, the Chairperson asked that Members introduce themselves along with the Committee staff and other members present.

Draft Committee Programme for the New Parliamentary Term

The Chairperson opened the floor to inputs from Members on the draft programme.

Ms T Stander (DA) was concerned that there was no briefing session scheduled ahead of the next Congress of the Parties (COP20) due to be held in Lima, Peru on what the Department hoped to achieve as a country. She proposed the Department provide a presentation on what the objectives for Lima were for the Committee to start interrogating and planning accordingly. Another matter not on the Committee’s programme was the green Economy but she thought this might come next year. 

The Chairperson noted this. Members had no further comments on the programme.

The Draft Committee Programme was adopted with amendments by Mr T Hadebe (DA) and seconded by Mr Bonhomme.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs on Public Hearings on Sustainable Development Goals, Climate Change and Rhino Killing in KNZ, Mpumalanga and North West Provinces

The Committee went through the Report page by page.

A number of grammatical amendments were raised.

Ms Steenkemp noted more stakeholders were present then what was outlined in the Report.

Under “cooperation with provincial legislatures and local councils”, Ms Stander noted not all local councillors received their invitations to participate in the hearings and felt that this should be captured and noted for future reference. Where reference was made to the number of rhino killed this year, Ms Stander thought the most recent number should be provided.

The Chairperson would note this and would ask South African National Parks (SANParks) for the latest figure.

Ms J Maluleke (ANC) thought the figure pertained to the number of rhino killed at the time of the Committee’s hearing.

The Chairperson thought it was fair that the Report reflect what happened at the time of the hearings.

Dr Watts suggested the number in the Report be preceded with “at the time” to clearly indicate it was in reference to the time of the hearings. A footnote could be inserted for the most recent number of rhino killed.

Ms Stander said that the section of the Report dealing with trade in rhino horn was misleading as it stood. She recalled there were only a couple of participants in the public hearings who suggested the consideration of trade in rhino horn. There was no ways these participants went into as much detail as the section suggested. 

The Chairperson asked the Member for an alternative suggestion as to what the section should say.

Ms Stander proposed that the section mention that one or two attendees at the hearings had requested or suggested trade in rhino horn as a potential solution to curb rhino poaching.

The Chairperson asked that the Member bear in mind that three provinces participated in the hearings.

Ms Stander noted this but to her recollection not one single person used the word “limited, regulated trade” or “mainly from the existing stockpiles or natural mortality”. There were probably three or four out of the 3400 attendees who touched on all three of the hearings. No opposition to this proposal from the hearings was noted in this section either. She felt the Report should be balanced, unbiased and a correct reflection.

The Chairperson was at all three provincial public hearings and thought the Report was a fair reflection. Not every single comment made could be captured but the Report summarised the thrust and essence of the hearings.

 Ms Stander understood this section focused specifically on the KZN hearings as the Report was divided between which comments were made on the different topics in the different provinces. She specially recalled that two people brought up the issue of rhino horn trade in KZN and they never used the words “limited regulated trade”. The comments on rhino horn trade from Mpumalanga were reflected correctly because it said “one stakeholder suggested there is a need to think carefully about the proposal to introduce a limited regulated trade in rhino horns”. The Report should be consistent in this regard.

The Chairperson noted many different languages were spoken at the public hearings not all of which she might have understood. He did not think the points being made were material and the Committee should not get bogged down – the Report was to capture the essence of the hearings otherwise it will come down who had the most retentive memory. The Members point, however, was noted. 

Ms Stander knew this which was why she had a translator. She turned to the parts of the Report dealing with waste management where mention was made of Pampers and its disposal. The Report made reference to this one particular brand name of the product whereas the communities in the hearings referred to all nappies as “Pampers”. She thought the term “Pampers” should be changed to “disposable nappies” or something similar so that the Committee was not seen as attacking Pampers.

The Chairperson felt the Committee should not change what the communities said in the public hearings and get bogged down in minute details.

Ms Hadebe fully agreed with Ms Stander because using the name of the company opened the Committee to litigation. The term “disposal nappies” should rather be used in the Report as even the people in his own community at home referred to all disposal nappies as “Pampers”. The Committee needed to remain objective to avoid trouble.

Ms Steenkamp suggested a footnote to explain that the Committee understood it was not only Pampers being disposed of but all kinds of disposal nappies.

Ms Stander was happy with this.

Mr Makhubele agreed that the Committee remain objective and not condemn particular companies.

The Chairperson said there was sufficient consensus on the matter so Members could move on.

Ms Stander turned to the recommendations of the Report noting that during the helicopter ride, the issue of fences was discussed where it was said a fence alone would not deter poachers. A cable that would function as an early detection system was needed to be underground in addition to the fence as well as monitoring stations along the fence.

The Chairperson said this was part of discussion held in the helicopter among the two pilots and the Members and was not said in a general briefing session so it could not be included. He did not want the Committee to come back and say the system was not implemented. This was just a suggestion made by the pilots.

Mr Hadebe thought Ms Stander was just making an addition to recommendations on what sort of fence should be used.

Ms Stander said all the recommendations were not discussed in a Committee meeting format – she thought this was what this meeting was for – for Members to discuss, agree, disagree, develop and expand on recommendations as it was currently drafted.

The Chairperson suggested SANParks first cost such a fence to avoid a situation where a recommendation was made but could not be implemented. A recommendation could be made that SANParks did such a cost analysis vis-a-vis surplus. The Report needed to contain reasonable and practically implementable recommendations to Parliament. The Member’s suggestion would be noted.

 Mr Makhubele stated the recommendations came with no attached timeframes – in principle, reasonable timeframes should be included.

The Chairperson noted this as a good point.

Ms Stander stated that in addition to the recommendations, there was also discussion on education campaigns for Vietnamese and Asian countries which was not addressed. She proposed the Committee receive a report from the Department as to what it was doing with demand reduction and education awareness campaigns both locally and internationally. She also sought a report on the effectiveness of the joint forces and security cluster intervention deployed to the Kruger National Park 1 September 2014 until end of October 2014. Over the past weekend, 14 rhino poachers were nabbed and this was absolutely commendable and she was absolutely sure this was due to the deployment of the joint forces. The Committee needed to ensure those forces remained in the Park after 31 October 2014. She felt community beneficiation was not adequately attended to in the Report – a report/presentation should be sought from the Department/SANParks on their proposals on how surrounding communities would benefit. 

The Chairperson thought all these points could be captured in an overall presentation by the Department on an update of the combating of rhino poaching strategy. He asked what the Committee thought about the timelines and an implementation strategy for the recommendations.

Ms Stander thought the presentations regarding her points raised, because of their serious nature, needed to be received before the end of the year. This could be accommodated by scheduling an additional meeting during the week on a Thursday. 

The Chairperson suggested the recommendations could be provided to the Department on what was short-term, medium and long-term. An implementation strategy was vital so that public hearings were not a talk shop but actually yielded results. The Report would be amended based on the points raised during this meeting but in principle the Report would be adopted. He thanked Members for their contribution and inputs. The Committee Secretary would send the revised Report for Members to peruse.

Ms Kekana moved for the adoption of the Committee’s Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs on Public Hearings on Sustainable Development Goals, Climate Change and Rhino Killing in KNZ, Mpumalanga and North West Provinces. The movement was seconded by Mr M Shelembe (IFP).

The Committee adopted the Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs on Public Hearings on Sustainable Development Goals, Climate Change and Rhino Killing in KNZ, Mpumalanga and North West Provinces with amendments.

Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs

The Committee went through the Report page by page.

When looking at the conclusion and recommendations, Ms Stander sought clarity as she thought the conclusion and recommendations was to motivate to Treasury if more money was needed or not. There were no recommendations of this sort in the Report. Where did this Report go? Was it the basis for Treasury to decide what to do? If this was so, the Report was not convincing enough. A strong case needed to be made to Treasury not to cut the Department’s budget as far as possible.

The Chairperson noted and took the Member’s concerns on board. He was advised that the Committee did not make recommendations to Treasury but to Parliament. Other processes were then taken forward.

Ms Stander asked on what information/Report Treasury would base its decision to cut or not to cut the Department’s budget.

The Chairperson explained it was due process between Parliament and government. The BRRR were the findings of the Committee’s to recommend to Parliament.

Mr Shelembe thought Ms Stander’s question was a valid one.

Mr Maluleke said the Committee was not dealing with any appropriations so the Report was more to inform the next budget cycle. 

Dr Watts reminded Members of the Committee’s Report on the Budget at the beginning of the year where a clear recommendation was for Treasury to re-examine the cut to the budget of the South African Weather Service (SAWS). The Committee could go back to these recommendations. The BRRR’s went to Parliament’s Appropriation Committee who then dealt with Treasury and it knew how to flag certain recommendations with Treasury through engagements.

The head of research for the Committee cluster added that the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act provided for the Minister of Finance to state why Committee recommendations were not taken on board in terms of budget decisions if they were not. The MTBPS process allowed for the Minister of Finance to explain how Committee recommendations were taken forward, implemented and considered and if not, why.

Ms Stander considered the BRRR was a summary of the annual reports and financial information of the Department and its entities which was fine. What was missing was what the Committee identified as gaps. Even with the section dealing with SAWS, no mention was made of the Committee’s concern of the massive budget cut. She felt the conclusions and recommendations were not sufficient.

Mr Hadebe thought more needed to be contained in the Report about the insufficient funding of the Department as budget cuts affected critical programmes.

Ms Stander added the Department was one which needed sufficient investment immediately so that in the next 10-50 years there was a framework for responsible development. The environment was the natural infrastructure upon which the country would be built. Investment for the future was needed now. The Committee needed to be firm on this and that investment could not be compromised.

The Chairperson proposed the Report be adopted in principle with amendments.

Mr Hadebe moved for the adoption of the Committee’s Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs. This was seconded by Ms Maluleke.

Committee Minutes Dated 2 September 2014

The Committee went through the minutes page by page.

Minutes dated 2 September 2014 were adopted without amendments.

Committee Minutes Dated 16 September 2014

The Committee went through the minutes page by page.

Members raised minor amendments related to incorrect initials and format.

Ms Stander, under the “deliberations” section of the minutes, noted that she had raised four questions that were relevant to the Department and entities present but not specifically to the presentations. She wanted the minutes to correctly reflect that “Honourable Stander indicated that she had four general questions to ask the Department. However, these were not specifically related to the presentations made”. The minutes should also reflect that she was informed, during the tea break, by an official in the Department that the Committee was the best forum to raise the question she wanted to ask. The minutes should then read “she was informed during an informal discussion with an official that the Committee would be the best forum to raise these questions”.  She had indicated this in meeting so the minutes should not say “she was of the view”.

The Chairperson replied that minutes could not account for informal discussions. .

Ms Stander had made mention of the discussion in the meeting to justify her request to ask the four questions. She wanted this reflected because she was informed and not just “of the view”. Additionally, an agenda for the day was not adopted. She just wanted the incident reflected accurately.

Mr Makhubele felt the official should not be held accountable and Members needed to take responsibility for issues raised. He did not think the minutes should be amended.

Ms Stander maintained her request for an amendment to the minutes to correctly reflect what she said. She took full responsibility for raising the request for asking the four questions not specifically related to the presentations made. She had said in the meeting that she was informed that the Committee would be the best platform to raise the questions – because she had said she believed it could be reflected in the minutes and correctly recorded. To reiterate, the minutes should read “she raised that she had been informed during an informal discussion with a Department official that the Committee would be the best forum to raise these questions”. She wanted to be minuted for what she said in Committee. She did not want any officials to be named.

The Chairperson said this was a view and not an opinion.

Ms Stander replied that it was a fact that she had been informed and it was a fact that she made mention of it in Committee. She wanted her statement recorded.

The Chairperson said this still remained a view because she had the conversation alone – Members were not privy to it.

Ms Stander thought they were misunderstanding each other.

The Chairperson stated that the conversation with the official was the view of Ms Stander – whether it was true or not was immaterial. He thought the minutes correctly captured this as it was. The essence of what the Member said was captured and he did not want playing with words. Everything Members raised were views. The Secretary could not capture everything in a way that was palatable to everyone. It was a view of Ms Stander based on the advice she received. He was comfortable with how the minutes were formulated.  

Ms Stander wished the statement she raised in that Committee meeting to be minuted. This statement was that she was informed by an official. If this was not minuted, the minutes would be open to interpretation that she had no justification for her view. If the minutes were not amended, she wanted her objections noted.

The Chairperson wanted to avoid dialogue. He did not want to set a precedent for Members to say exactly how they wanted minutes captured. This was not a legal matter and the essence of Ms Stander’s point remained. From experience he said minutes could not be captured verbatim. He did not want to make things difficult for the scribers in future.

Ms Stander accepted this and wanted her objection noted as a footnote in the minutes dated 16 September 2014.    

Minutes dated 16 September 2014 was adopted with amendments.

Committee Minutes Dated 14 and 16 October 2014

The Committee went through the minutes page by page.

The minutes were a summary of the meeting – the thrust of the meeting was contained in the BRRR.

Members raised minor amendments related to incorrect initials.

Minutes dated 14 and 16 October was adopted with amendments.

Other Matters

The Chairperson asked if there were any other matters Members sought to raise.

Ms Stander wanted the Committee at some stage to discuss its catering – she proposed the Committee try to cut down on this to try and save costs. She noted there were no minutes for last meeting held by the Committee before recess on 23 September 2014. The Committee needed to look at its own budget to see how much it was allocated, how it would be spent and what it was currently being spent on – just as the Committee asked the Department to spend it budget well, it needed to do the same.

The Chairperson said time would be found to deal with these matters. More details around the Committee’s visit and well wishes were the briefly discussed.

The meeting was adjourned.