Current time: 01-17-2018, 11:21 AM

Hello There, Guest! Register
facebook
Instagram
Eddles

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
Trying to make sense of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act

By

Ian Cox

Though many do not know it, millions of trout bass and carp fisherman woke up on Saturday 20 July 2013 potential criminals, liable should they ever catch trout bass or carp again, to a fine of up to ten million and a period of imprisonment of up to ten years. Thousands of people whose livelihood depends on the fact that these millions of South African’s enjoy fishing for trout, bass and also carp woke up to find that what they do for a living is a either under threat or in some cases a criminal offence. This is because the previous day the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs listed trout, carp and bass as invasive and alien species in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.

This was done without regard to, or even consultation with, the millions of South Africans referred to above. Similarly no regard was had to the fact the economies of some areas in South Africa are heavily if not entirely dependent on those millions of South Africans who regard fishing as vital to their happiness and wellbeing, or to the billions that have been invested and are being earned on account of this.

The purpose of this article is to try and make sense of all of this and hopefully show where the Minister of Water and Environmental affairs went wrong and what can be done to redress the situation.

Section 24 of the Constitution entitles everyone to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.



Current legislative controls are to be found in a raft of existing bylaws, provincial and national legislation and the framework of national laws that have been specifically enacted to give effect to this constitutional right and which fall under the umbrella legislation that is the National Environmental Management Act or NEMA. One of these laws is the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act or the NEM:BA.

The purpose of the NEM:BA is summarised in the preamble of the Act as being to provide for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act. Biodiversity is a rather loosely defined concept but in essence is built around the idea that that as far as indigenous species are concerned, the more the merrier. The NEM:BA contemplates that this will be achieved in large part by protecting indigenous species by controlling listed invasive and alien species and protecting indigenous ones through a managed strategy aimed, at amongst other things, eradicating listed alien and invasive species.

An alien species is defined as any species that was introduced into South Africa by man. Cattle (which were introduced into South Africa thousands of years ago by nomadic herders) would be alien had the Minister not exempted all alien species that are already in South Africa unless they have been listed as invasive. Thus cattle, sheep, maize and much of which we take for granted as essential to our everyday life is only allowed in terms of this act under sufferance on account of a ministerial exemption.

Trout, bass and carp are not so lucky even though they were introduced into this country over one hundred years ago. They are regarded as invasive. Invasive is defined under the NEM:BA as species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species or have demonstrable potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species and may result in economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. It is hard to see how trout, for example, can be regarded as threatening ecosystems, habitats or other species throughout South Africa, given that they can only in a very small part of South Africa and that in those areas they in most cases exist in balance with the ecosystems they inhabit. Quite how trout, bass and carp threaten human health or result in economic harm is also hard to determine. It seems that the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs takes the view that this is given once it can be shown that they threaten an indigenous species.

The fact is that trout, bass and carp are now subject to control. Control means eradication. It does not matter that this may be well-nigh impossible, or that the only invasive species that has been successfully eradicated in this country is a snail that was found in Cape Town harbour. Government must in whatever way it can bend itself to this task.

The fact that control means eradication is important. Much has been said and written in fresh water fishing circles about plans to allow the propagation and exploitation trout, bass and carp to continue in certain demarcated areas. Indeed the NEM:BA was amended only a week after they were proclaimed as invasive and alien species to allow this to be done. However such demarcation is not possible once a species has been listed nationally as invasive and alien as is the case with trout, bass and carp. The NEM:BA is very clear on this. Invasive and alien species are subject to control under the NEM:BA. Control is harshly defined under the NEM:BA to mean to combat or eradicate an alien or invasive species or where such eradication is not possible, to prevent, as far as may be practicable, the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien or invasive species.

This requirement that invasive species must be controlled with a view to bringing about their ultimate eradication is one of the foundations on which the NEM:BA is built. Section 75 which deals specifically with control refers to control and eradication as being one and the same. The language of the section is peremptory.

The NEM:BA does now contain provisions that allow listed invasive species to be exempted from these controls in demarcated areas. This of course begs the question why it is necessary to list something in an area if it is your intention to then exempt it. The existence of these provisions is furthermore of cold comfort in the here and now as this can only take place after a risk assessment has been carried out. A risk assessment is only possible once the regulations are in place. This will not be for some time.

It is also true that the regulations that were also published on 19 July 2013 differentiate between invasive species listed under 1a and those listed under 1b. These regulations, which as I have pointed out are not yet operational, stipulate that invasive species listed under 1a are subject to compulsory control and those listed under 1b to control in terms of a management control program.

The difference between the two is largely one of priority. Thus, for example, if trout were listed under 1a one would be obliged to take active steps to eradicate them, such as for example poisoning dams or rivers in which they are found. Under 1b one must at the very least not actively promote their continued existence. This means that one cannot allow stocking.

This has serious implications for trout which will die out very quickly in most areas now that stocking has been made illegal. It is less of a problem in the case of bass or carp whose survival is not dependant on constant restocking.

It is now illegal to introduce trout (or bass or carp for that matter) into any South African waters because section 71 read with section 101 of the NEM:BA makes it a criminal offence to carry out a restricted activity in respect of a listed invasive species without a permit. Restricted activities are very widely defined to include having a specimen of a listed invasive species in your possession or under your control. It also includes growing, breeding, transporting, selling or donating them. A specimen is also widely defined to include organisms be they dead or alive.

The definition of restricted activities is so broad that owning a dam stocked with trout is now a crime. So is operating a hatchery or offering fresh or frozen trout for sale. Fishing (or at least catching trout, bass or carp and thereby exercising control over it) is also a crime though some argue this is not the case if you are fishing someone else’s waters and release what you catch. However that argument is a temporary one at best as the regulations also make catch and release a restricted activity. Thus that loophole will also be closed when they come into force.

This is not going to get any better once the regulations are in force because the regulations do not override the NEM:BA and one cannot, therefore, ever justify the continued stocking of a dam with trout under the NEM:BA once they have been listed as invasive. One also cannot operate a trout hatchery for the purpose of restocking dams or rivers. These activities contradict the clear and unambiguous obligation that the Act imposes that where eradication is not possible one must prevent, as far as may be practicable, the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien or invasive species.

Hatcheries that produce trout solely for consumption may get a permit once the regulations are in force, but only if they can show that their trout cannot escape.

This is no doubt why gum and wattle trees have not been listed as invasive species even though they clearly are. Gum and wattle trees are controlled in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act or (CARA). The CARA adopts a much more nuanced approach that allows for the continued exploitation of invasive species that are economically valuable. Listing gum trees and wattle trees under the NEM:BA will make it a criminal offence to propagate, harvest, transport or to sell products containing unprocessed gum or wattle which would destroy the billions that have been invested and the billions that are earned from these activities.

Unfortunately the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs does not recognise the economic value of trout, bass and carp.

One cannot underestimate the economic impacts of listing trout, for example, as an invasive species. The viability of most of the fly fishing tourism industry is destroyed once you make it a crime to stock waters with trout. That is now the case. Every owner or operator of trout fishing waters must ask; Do I risk a ten year jail term and stock, or do I go out of business? Every owner or operator trout hatchery that supplies trout for stocking purposes must also ask the same question. There can be no doubt listing of trout will destroy a large part of the value of properties exploited largely having regard their fishing potential. Many parts of South Africa will lose a lot if not all of what makes them attractive as tourism destinations. Thousands of jobs will be lost.

It is not just trout. Any business that supplies the needs of the trout, bass or carp fisherman is also arguably an accomplice to the crime of fishing for these species. So too are the banks and other financial institutions that finance these activities and indeed any authority that issues a permit otherwise than under the NEM:BA.

So how did this extraordinary situation come about? I have not met anyone who can explain it to me. The best answer I have got is that the Department of Water and Environmental affairs did this deliberately, and knowing of the consequences. Suggestions that they should reconsider given that the NEM:BA has since been amended to, for example, allow species to be declared invasive in a specified area have been met with derision, even contempt.

Ideally, economically important species that are invasive or have that potential should be dealt with in a manner balances that invasiveness against the economic benefits. The NEM:BA as it has been amended allows for this. Unfortunately the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs seems incapable of striking that balance. Perhaps given this, Government should consider placing control of economically important species under the control of the Department of Agriculture and the CARA. After all this is what has been done with gum trees and wattle.

And I think in this debate lies the weakness that is the law’s undoing. The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs has very obviously failed to strike the balance between environmental needs and the obligation under the NEMA to place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.

This has patently not been done. There is nothing reasonable in a law that overnight criminalises previously legitimate activity of the magnitude that is the fresh water fishing industry that is sustained by trout, bass and carp fishing. It is excessive especially since the mechanisms for a much more balanced and reasonable approach were on the law books a week after the lists were proclaimed.

The fact that these lists were published before the Act was amended to allow a more reasonable approach begs the question why? Why did the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs not wait and deal with trout, bass and carp on a case by case basis and in a way that ameliorates the adverse economic and social impacts that must flow from this decision? Thus far it has not been able to proffer any cogent answer to this question.

There is another problem that the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs cannot overcome. You see the NEM:BA requires the Minister notify the public of these lists giving them a period of time within which to object. This she did not do. On the contrary there was no consultation. The lists and regulations were kept confidential until the last moment. The result is that very few people have any idea at all what has happened.

Regrettably none of this alters the situation that pertains at present. Trout, bass and carp fishing have been criminalised with immediate effect. If this is not opposed the right of every human being under the Constitution and NEMA that environmental laws should place place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern will be lost.

So what can we do about it? I have already said the solution lies in adopting the balanced approach required by the NEMA. This would require trout, bass and carp to be immediately delisted, to be reconsidered at a later date on a localised basis and once the economic impacts of a listing have been determined. Alternatively trout, bass and carp could be placed under the Department of Agriculture and CARA.

The Federation of South African Flyfishers has been suggesting both alternatives for years but has been ignored. It is thus very unlikely that the Minister is going to change her mind now. This means that we are going to have to oppose this law. We need to do so in the courts and in public. We must accept that no one will look after our interests but ourselves. In order to achieve this, trout, bass and carp fisherman and businesses and other stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on fishing for trout, bass and carp will need to work together.

I think this can and must be done.

The original source: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tomsutcliffe.co.za">http://www.tomsutcliffe.co.za</a><!-- m -->
Sometimes the fishing is so bad not even the liars catch anything!!!!
Reply
BFSA
#2
This is nothing new in the new dispensation and the "compulsory controls" are as policeable as making it illegal to look at a lekka chick in the street!

Maybe some of you are aware of the same fight we are having in the recreational fishing sector (marine) wrt policies, moratoriums and allocations. I've sat in these meetings with the Departments and it's mind boggling how legislation is formulated and bulldozed through into acts and notices.

It’s not that we are against all rules, regulations or legislations. It’s that there are too many outrageous, intrusive, rules to keep track of. Most times it’s very costly and simply not necessary as I feel is the case in this instance. Some of these regulations are made up by people in the cities who have never been on a boat or caught a fish for that matter and quite simply this almost amounts to harassment of a critical industry in this country.

I'm not surprised at all how this has gone. Rest assured, this is going to be a big fight but we don't have the endless financial resources that the state has............. :blue-rolleyes:
[Image: big_fish_eat_little_fish.jpg]
BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH....
Reply
#3
Here's a pickle for you competitive anglers out there.

If Ian Cox's assessment of the legislation is correct...

1.

Will there be no more recognition of Protea national and provincial colours for bass fishing - since you are all criminals?

2.

What's the easiest way for government to enforce these draconian laws?
Catch a bunch of people committing the "crime" at the same time.
How do we do this with anglers?
Wait till there's a big event and spring a trap on them all.
Example...Inter-provincials at Wriggleswade in October, Nationals on the Vaal

3.

Following on from point 1...will SABAA become redundant?

I'm sure there's more questions to be asked...but i'm quite peeved right now and cant think of any :blue-shock:
Reply
#4
Ai jai jai!! Why are they concentrating on the wrong stuff in this country? To me bass are a economical important alien! They control the carp numbers and they contribute to the economy by being a favourite pass time!!! A fight we will have for sure!!
Edit your signature here ... <a href="http://www.bassfishing.co.za/bassingnews/ucp.php?i=profile&mode=signature">Edit</a>
Reply
#5
Good luck policing it. Officer I was fishing for tilapia and yellowfish when this green fish jumped on my hook!!! Sorry
Reply
#6
We have bigger and more immanent invasive species in this country which come from Zim and Nigeria and the minister that makes these rules are thinking millions of anglers at 500k bail I'm gonna be rich in no time eish I'm to cleava mean while millions are lost in tax on tackle etc. and the country WILL feel that pinch and not only do we loose our hobby we will get taxed more to make up for shortfall they created. Stupid people with power I better stop cause soon I be called a racist :blue-evil: :blue-evil: :blue-evil: :blue-evil: :blue-evil:
Edit your signature here ... <a href="http://www.bassfishing.co.za/bassingnews/ucp.php?i=profile&mode=signature">Edit</a>
Reply
BFSA
#7
hmmmm. I see the site that claimed to be the source is now down. Not perhaps a hoax?

Surely, or should I say hopefully the Government would of looked at the significant impact this would have on the fishing industry? I mean this industry is easily in excess of R250M/annum in South Africa alone.

Also the way in which our economy is taking a dive we might have to revert to fishing for these lovelies to put food on the table.

If this is in fact true and not a hoax then we are all nutted, please turn yourselves into your local police station at your nearest convenience.
[Image: SignatureSmallBFSA_zps89bcf1e2.png]
Reply
#8
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.invasives.org.za/legislation.html">http://www.invasives.org.za/legislation.html</a><!-- m -->

Bass, Trout and Carp all fall in Category 1B.
(Invasive species that require control by means of an invasive species management programme.) eg. Rondegat rotenone treatment. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bassfishing.co.za/bassingnews/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=113107#113107">modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=113107#113107</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#9
Ever since the president decided to split DWAF into DAFF & DWEA we have had ridiculous legislation where the two bodies overlap but don't talk to each other. How do you divorce fish and fisheries from the environment!!

It is a pre condition that public participation has to be incorporated into the making of legislation, did it happen in this instance.........?? :blue-rolleyes:
[Image: big_fish_eat_little_fish.jpg]
BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH....
Reply
#10
:blue-lol: Its not the morning of 1 April is it.
Reply
#11
Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.


NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT 10 OF 2004 (an extract)

CHAPTER 5
SPECIES AND ORGANISMS POSING POTENTIAL THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY

64. Purposes of Chapter

(1) The purpose of this Chapter is-

(a) to prevent the unauthorized introduction and spread of alien species and invasive species to ecosystems and habitats where they do not naturally occur;

(b) to manage and control alien species and invasive species to prevent or minimize harm to the environment and to biodiversity in particular;

© to eradicate alien species and invasive species from ecosystems and habitats where they may harm such ecosystems or habitats; and

(d) to ensure that environmental assessments for purposes of permits in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997 (Act No. 15 of 1997), are conducted in appropriate cases in accordance with Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act.

(2) For the purpose of this Chapter, “specimen” has the meaning assigned to it in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “specimen” in section 1(1).

Part 1

Alien species

65. Restricted activities involving alien species

(1) A person may not carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of an alien species without a permit issued in terms of Chapter 7.

(2) A permit referred to in subsection (1) may be issued only after a prescribed assessment of risks and potential impacts on biodiversity is carried out.
(Commencement date of s. 65: 1 April 2005)

66. Exemptions

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, exempt from the provisions of section 65-

(a) any alien species specified in the notice; or

(b) any alien species of a category specified in the notice.

(2) Any person may carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of an exempted alien species without a permit mentioned in section 65(1).

(3) The Minister must regularly review a notice published in terms of subsection (1).
(Commencement date of s. 66: 1 April 2005)

67. Restricted activities involving certain alien species totally prohibited

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, publish a list of those alien species in respect of which a permit mentioned in section 65(1) may not be issued.

(2) A person may not carry out any restricted activity involving a specimen of an alien species published in terms of subsection (1).

(3) The Minister must regularly review a list published in terms of subsection (1).

68. Amendment of notices

The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, amend or repeal any notice published in terms of section 66(1) or 67(1).

69. Duty of care relating to alien species

(1) A person authorised by permit, in terms of section 65(1), to carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of an alien species must-

(a) comply with the conditions under which the permit has been issued; and

(b) take all required steps to prevent or minimise harm to biodiversity.

(2) A competent authority may, in writing, direct any person who has failed to comply with subsection (1), or who has contravened section 65(1) or 67(2), to take such steps-

(a) as may be necessary to remedy any harm to biodiversity caused by the actions of that person; and

(b) as may be specified in the directive.

(3) If that person fails to comply with a directive issued in terms of subsection (2), the competent authority may-

(a) implement the directive; and

(b) recover from that person all costs incurred by the competent authority in implementing the directive.

(4) Should an alien species establish itself in nature as an invasive species because of the actions of a specific person, a competent authority may hold that person liable for any costs incurred in the control and eradication of that species.

Part 2

Invasive species

70. List of invasive species

(1) (a) The Minister must within 24 months of the date on which this section takes effect,
by notice in the Gazette, publish a national list of invasive species in respect of which this Chapter must be applied nationally.

(b) The MEC for environmental affairs in a province may, by notice in the Gazette, publish a provincial list of invasive species in respect of which this Chapter must be applied in the province.

(2) The Minister or the MEC for environmental affairs in a relevant province must regularly review the national list or any provincial list published in terms of subsection (1), as may be appropriate.

(3) An MEC for Environmental Affairs may only publish or amend a provincial list in terms of subsection (1) or (2) with the concurrence of the Minister.

71. Restricted activities involving listed invasive species

(1) A person may not carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed invasive species without a permit issued in terms of Chapter 7.

(2) A permit referred to in subsection (1) may be issued only after a prescribed assessment of risks and potential impacts on biodiversity is carried out.
(Commencement date of s. 71: 1 April 2005)

72. Amendment of notices

The Minister or the MEC for environmental affairs in any relevant province may, by notice in the Gazette, amend or repeal any notice published by him or her in terms of section 70(1).

73. Duty of care relating to listed invasive species

(1) A person authorised by permit in terms of section 71(1) to carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed invasive species must take all the required steps to prevent or minimise harm to biodiversity.

(2) A person who is the owner of land on which a listed invasive species occurs must-

(a) notify any relevant competent authority, in writing, of the listed invasive species occurring on that land;

(b) take steps to control and eradicate the listed invasive species and to prevent it from spreading; and

© take all the required steps to prevent or minimise harm to biodiversity.

(3) A competent authority may, in writing, direct any person who has failed to comply with subsection (1) or (2), or who has contravened section 71(1), to take such steps-

(a) as may be necessary to remedy any harm to biodiversity caused by-

(i) the actions of that person; or

(ii) the occurrence of the listed invasive species on land of which that person is the owner; and

(b) as may be specified in the directive.

(4) If that person fails to comply with a directive issued in terms of subsection (3), a competent authority may-

(a) implement the directive; and

(b) recover all costs reasonably incurred by a competent authority in implementing the directive-

(i) from that person; or

(ii) proportionally from that person and any other person who benefited from implementation of the directive.

74. Requests to competent authorities to issue directives

(1) Any person may request a competent authority, in writing, to issue a directive in terms of section 73(3).

(2) A competent authority must reply to the request, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

(3) Should a competent authority fail to respond to the request within the stated period or refuses the request, the person who made the request may apply to a court for an order directing that competent authority to issue the directive.

75. Control and eradication of listed invasive species

(1) Control and eradication of a listed invasive species must be carried out by means of methods that are appropriate for the species concerned and the environment in which it occurs.

(2) Any action taken to control and eradicate a listed invasive species must be executed with caution and in a manner that may cause the least possible harm to biodiversity and damage to the environment.

(3) The methods employed to control and eradicate a listed invasive species must also be directed at the offspring, propagating material and re-growth of such invasive species in order to prevent such species from producing offspring, forming seed, regenerating or re-establishing itself in any manner.

(4) The Minister must ensure the coordination and implementation of programmes for the prevention, control or eradication of invasive species.

(5) The Minister may establish an entity consisting of public servants to coordinate and implement programmes for the prevention, control or eradication of invasive species.

76. Invasive species control plans of organs of state

(1) The management authority of a protected area preparing a management plan for the area in terms of the Protected Areas Act must incorporate into the management plan an invasive species control and eradication strategy.

(2) (a) All organs of state in all spheres of government must prepare an invasive
species monitoring, control and eradication plan for land under their control, as part of their environmental plans in accordance with section 11 of the National Environmental Management Act.

(b) The invasive species monitoring, control and eradication plans of municipalities must be part of their integrated development plans.

(3) The Minister may request the Institute to assist municipalities in performing their duties in terms of subsection (2).

(4) An invasive species monitoring, control and eradication plan must include-

(a) a detailed list and description of any listed invasive species occurring on the relevant land;

(b) a description of the parts of that land that are infested with such listed invasive species;

© an assessment of the extent of such infestation;

(d) a status report on the efficacy of previous control and eradication measures;

(e) the current measures to monitor, control and eradicate such invasive species; and

(f) measurable indicators of progress and success, and indications of when the control plan is to be completed.

77. Invasive species status reports

(1) The management authority of a protected area must at regular intervals prepare and submit to the Minister or the MEC for Environmental Affairs in the province a report on the status of any listed invasive species that occurs in that area.

(2) A status report must include-

(a) a detailed list and description of all listed invasive species that occur in the protected area;

(b) a detailed description of the parts of the area that are infested with listed invasive species;

© an assessment of the extent of such infestation; and

(d) a report on the efficacy of previous control and eradication measures.
Part 3

Other threats

78. Genetically modified organisms

(1) If the Minister has reason to believe that the release of a genetically modified organism into the environment under a permit applied for in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997 (Act No. 15 of 1997), may pose a threat to any indigenous species or the environment, no permit for such release may be issued in terms of that Act unless an environmental assessment has been conducted in accordance with Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act as if such release were a listed activity contemplated in that Chapter.

(2) The Minister must convey his or her belief referred to in subsection (1) to the authority issuing permits in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997, before the application for the relevant permit is decided.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) “release” means trial release or general release as defined in section 1 of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997.

Part 4

General provisions

79. Consultation

(1) Before publishing a notice in terms of section 66(1), 67(1) or 70(1), or amending or repealing such a notice in terms of section 68 or 72, the Minister must follow a consultative process in accordance with sections 99 and 100.

(2) Before publishing a notice in terms of section 70(1), or amending or repealing such a notice in terms of section 72, the MEC for environmental affairs in the relevant province must follow a consultative process in accordance with sections 99 and 100.

AS ABOVE GENERAL PROVISIONS, THE MINISTER IS OBLIGED TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS WITH REGARDS TO SECTIONS 99 & 100 WHICH ARE SET OUT BELOW. I CANNOT FIND A NOTICE INVITING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WRT THE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE 19 JULY 2013 - CAN ANYONE ENLIGHTEN ME IF THEY EXIST?

Consultation process

99. Consultation

(1) Before exercising a power which, in terms of a provision of this Act, must be exercised in accordance with this section and section 100, the Minister must follow an appropriate consultative process in the circumstances.

(2) The Minister must, in terms of subsection (1)-

(a) consult all Cabinet members whose areas of responsibility may be affected by the exercise of the power;

(b) in accordance with the principles of co-operative governance set out in Chapter 3 of the Constitution, consult the MEC for Environmental Affairs of each province that may be affected by the exercise of the power; and

© allow public participation in the process in accordance with section 100.

100. Public participation

(1) The Minister must give notice of the proposed exercise of the power referred to in section 99-

(a) in the Gazette; and

(b) in at least one newspaper distributed nationally, or if the exercise of the power may affect only a specific area, in at least one newspaper distributed in that area.

(2) The notice must-

(a) invite members of the public to submit to the Minister, within 30 days of publication of the notice in the Gazette, written representations on, or objections to, the proposed exercise of the power; and

(b) contain sufficient information to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections.

(3) The Minister may in appropriate circumstances allow any interested person or community to present oral representations or objections to the Minister or a person designated by the Minister.

(4) The Minister must give due consideration to all representations or objections received or presented before exercising the power.
[Image: big_fish_eat_little_fish.jpg]
BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH....
Reply
BFSA
#12
Rip i dont know if this stood anywhere in the previous message you sent but i just spoke to a buddy of mine who owns a trout dam in Dullstroom. He said that if you stock your dam from a legitamite supplier whos waterbody DOESN'T supply any natural water bodies of water you are aloowed to buy it and stock your waterbody that DOESNT supply any natural waterbodies! You will of course need a permit!! I know this doesnt solve the damn problem but atleast we can cone fish at your place! Hahah if they give you the permit that is!!
Edit your signature here ... <a href="http://www.bassfishing.co.za/bassingnews/ucp.php?i=profile&mode=signature">Edit</a>
Reply
#13
Completely agree Ernst.

But invasive fish species can't make an x on a ballot paper!

Sad but true mate!!
Reply
#14
Well guys the upside to this is that if they apply these rules like they do the rest of the countrie's rules we have NO problem! :blue-lol:
Edit your signature here ... <a href="http://www.bassfishing.co.za/bassingnews/ucp.php?i=profile&mode=signature">Edit</a>
Reply
#15
You can get mad or ignore it...the fact is that there are some that are still looking with blinkers on,being indoctrinated with views of 'the past',their head in the sand or up their ass,that profess to 'guide' the lawmakers in a direction that benefits the people based upon their limited knowledge of the bigger picture.I for one,will choose to ignore the assumption that bass,trout or carp are 'illegal' species.There are FAR more pressing needs to regulate,such as pollution of the river systems through industry dumping and groundwater seepage,the destruction of wetlands due to development (where there is megabuck handouts to ministers) and the blatant removal of one's right to participate in a democratic decision making process.Getting mad will only elevate the tension level and you will be forced to take the day off,not contribute to the economy and partake in what you consider to be your rightful pasttime...fishing.And I will release my catch so it has a chance to propogate for future generations to enjoy,and while I do this,I will pick up someone else's litter,I will stay in a small town guest house or campsite,I will contribute to that town's economy by purchasing fuel,food and drink from the local source,for without me and others like me,those towns will collapse,so will the municipal camp site facilities,as will the sale of fresh water angling licences (what are these for I must ask ?), yearly boat surveys and other related requirements.Shops will close,people will lose their jobs and join the ever increasing queues at the unemployment offices,waiting for a handout because someone at the top level thought it a good idea to criminalise these 'alien' fish species.For me,I don't get mad...I am going to continue supporting my sport because it supports a whole lot more than you will see if your head is up your ass.
Life is not about the number of breaths we make,but the moments that take our breath away.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)