Material irregularities in Environment Portfolio in 2022/23; Audit action plans and associated timelines; with Minister

Meeting report

CGE presentation deferred

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting, and indicated that the meeting coincided with a doctor’s appointment.

Mr N Singh (IFP) suggested they appoint an Acting Chairperson so that the Chairperson did not tire himself out.

Mr D Bryant (DA) supported the proposal.

The Committee Secretary advised the meeting that the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) had sent an apology, stating that the Chairperson of the CGE was unavailable, and neither were any of the other commissioners available to present to the Committee. They had therefore requested another presentation date.

Mr Singh said that it was not only strange, but also quite unacceptable. The meeting agendas had been sent out in good time. He asked the Chairperson to send a strongly worded letter to the Commission.

Mr Bryant agreed with Mr Singh that it was unacceptable. As a Portfolio Committee, they were entitled to summon people to come and present, and to indicate only at the last minute that they were unavailable but not give any reason was completely out of order. He hoped that a strongly worded letter would be sent to the Commission, and they would also try to establish their reasons for cancelling at the last minute.

The Chairperson assured the Committee that a letter would go to the CGE by the end of business that afternoon.

Ms Barbara Creecy, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, said that given the situation, it afforded the DFFE and SANParks an opportunity to prepare responses to the presentation, because they had received it only the day before. If the Committee was agreeable, the Department could also be allowed to prepare a response so that when the Commission made its presentation, it could also schedule a response from the DFFE at the same time.

AGSA presentation on material irregularity report

Ms Thabelo Musisinyani, Acting Business Leader, Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), said the material irregularity(MI) report contained all the MIs recorded at the national, provincial and local government levels. For the purpose of the meeting, they would be presenting only on the MIs impacting the environment portfolio.

She said the MI report stemmed from the AG raising a number of findings which had highlighted the mismanagement involved and the leakage of public funds. Due of the powers that the AG had had at the time, all that they could do was to just raise recommendations and then follow up on them from accounting officers, to ensure that they implemented them. This resulted in public outcry for increased accountability and transparency, with calls from parliamentary oversight structures, civil society, organised labour, media and the public at large for the AG to be empowered to hold accounting officers entrusted with public funds accountable for their actions. This resulted in an expansion of the AG's mandate to include enforcement with regard to material irregularities.

Ms Musisinyani said that once an MI was identified, a notification was issued to the accounting officer (AO), who would then be given an opportunity to respond within 20 days. The AGSA would then assess whether the AO was taking appropriate action by investigating the matter and holding accountable the person who had caused the material irregularity. In the event there was any loss, then the AO had to take steps to recover any loss that they had suffered. For the AG, improving the internal control environment was important so that the MI was prevented from occurring again. If the AG assessed and found that the response from the AO was not sufficient to address the material irregularity, they would then make specific recommendations in the audit report on what exactly the AO needed to do to ensure that they addressed the material irregularity to prevent a recurrence, and also improve the internal control measures by a set date. They also recommended that the executive and the oversight bodies monitor and support the accounting officer.

Mr Jacob Rakosa, Audit Manager, AGSA, said there were four MIs for the year under review. The first involved payments made to perform remedial work on vandalism of deliverables that had already been completed. The non-compliance resulted in a material financial loss of R2 359 461 by 31 March 2022. The expenditure incurred by the service provider was traced to the irregular expenditure as a result of the variation order not being approved at the appropriate level. The Department had instituted an investigation to determine if any official was liable for the financial loss. A service provider (SP) had been appointed to investigate the matter, and the investigation was at an advanced stage as the report was undergoing quality assurance. The recommendations of the report would be implemented thereafter. He said that appropriate actions were being taken to address the matter. As the AGSA, they would follow up on the progress of these actions and the implementation of the planned actions during the next audit.

The second MI was lease payments made for the leasing of land required for tyre storage, resulting in a material financial loss of R4 035 438 as of 31 March 2022, and there might be further losses as the contract was ongoing. The loss was also disclosed as fruitless and wasteful expenditure in the annual financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2022. The agreement with the service provider was terminated on 6 May 2022, and an investigation was concluded on 19 April 2023. The matter had been referred to the State Attorney for the possible recovery of funds from the service provider. The matter was still in progress, and was being assessed by the Determination Committee for implementing the investigation's recommendations. The Department has since amended the bid specifications for future land lease bids by including the requirement to provide proof of written municipal approval for the use of the site for waste tyre storage and processing. The AGSA intended to follow up on the progress and implementation of the planned actions during the next audit.

The third MI was the payments made for waste disposal project deliverables not received, which resulted in a material financial loss of R8 290 558 by 31 March 2022. The service provider had signed an acknowledgement of debt in January 2023, and the amount involved was in the process of recovery. An investigation had been instituted to determine if any official was liable for the financial loss. The investigation was at an advanced stage, as the report was undergoing quality assurance. The recommendations of the report would be implemented thereafter. This matter has since been concluded and appropriate actions were being taken to address the matter. The AG would follow up on the progress and implementation of the planned actions during the next audit.

The fourth MI was the disposal of state motor vehicles through the transfer to employees of the service provider not being in line with the requirements of National Treasury, which had resulted in a material financial loss estimated at R1.8 million by 31 March 2022. The Department had sent two letters to "Working on Fire" for the purposes of recouping the proceeds from the disposal of the 42 plus six vehicles which had been disposed of, and the intention to transfer all the assets which were procured under the 2014 memorandum of agreement (MoA) -- a seven-year agreement -- as well as the 6-month MoA and first and second addendum agreements, including the transfer of ownership for the remainder of the assets. However, the Department was of the view that no one could be held responsible for this MI. The matter was still in progress -- it had also been to the state attorneys, and legal counsel had been referred by the Department. He said that this MI would be referred to the MI Committee for further action.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Mr Singh said that for most of the MIs there were plausible explanations about what was going to be done, but he was deeply concerned about those involving "Working on Fire" and the sale of the vehicles. He noted that the Department had said that no one could be held responsible, and wanted to hear the Department’s stance on that issue, because it was public servants who were responsible, or somebody who had been allocated that responsibility for fire management, and they could not just say no one could be held responsible.

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) asked if the AGSA could give an indication of how many of the material irregularities this year were recurring, and how they had been dealt with previously.

Mr Bryant asked how many of the cases had been referred for criminal investigation.

AGSA's response

Ms Musisinyani replied that the MIs they had raised in the current year were the ones they had presented. They had no material irregularities that had been raised in the prior years. She explained that because they worked on a sample basis, when they identified MIs in an area, they always recommended that there might be a possible risk that the same issue could occur in other areas as well in the same type of contracts. Hence, they always recommended that the control environment itself needed to be improved. When looking at some of the matters they had raised in a single transaction they had identified, the management had gone back and tried to improve the whole internal control environment so that they could deal with other transactions that the AG had not picked up, or that were not part of their sample, and could possibly have resulted in some likely loss.

Mr Rakosa said another thing to note was that the previous year had been the first year of implementing the MIs in the portfolio specifically for the Department. If one looked at the dates, most of the material irregularities had been raised in the 2022/23 financial year, so only four material irregularities have been issued within the DFFE and its entities. The AGSA was quite happy with the actions of management when it came to discouraging the continuation of those particular MIs, and they could also be praised when it came to the actions they had taken on their financial statements, as well as issues of prepayments on the infrastructure projects, because that had been the biggest issue involved in the material irregularities and financial losses.

For the waste bureau, which was dealing with the lease of property for waste tyres, they had been able, together with the Department, to agree that the best approach was to make sure that they did not contract and then try and get approval to use a certain space as a waste depot. Therefore, whenever there was a particular need to have a waste depot in a particular place and there was a bidding process, they included a clause to require submission of additional information to prove that they would be able to use the space as a waste depot. The AGSA was quite comfortable to say that Department had taken the necessary action. The most important action was the consequence action aspect -- after the reports had been concluded, there had been a need to implement the recommendations, which they had seen happening.

Regarding the "Working on Fire" vehicles, he said it was quite unfortunate that the contracts had not been written in accordance with Treasury regulations. Another issue was that because the vehicles were still in the name of the supplier, it meant that even where they had an agreement, it would result in them disposing of the vehicle without approval. That was why the AG had felt the Department should close that loophole to discourage such actions from recurring.

In response to Mr Bryant, he said that the AGSA had made recommendations, but as far as they were aware, none of the four MIs they had issued had been referred to the South African Police Service (SAPS). No further criminal investigation had taken place, but he believed that they would get advice from legal counsel on whether to move forward or not.

Further discussion

Mr Bryant asked which MIs had been recommended for investigation, and whether someone from the Department could advise if they had now been referred to the SAPS, and if not, why.

AGSA's response

Mr Rakosa said that all four MIs had gone through the investigation process. The AGSA had issued notifications mostly in December, and some in April. With the first two that they had issued, some had not gone through investigations, and AGSA had told the Department that they would prefer it if they investigated the MIs further. The Department had ultimately done that to ensure all the MIs were investigated, like the one completed on the list that had identified the officials that could be held accountable. The other two had started quite late -- some in April, if not May. They had been finalising the reports provided by the investigators when they were closing their audits. The AGSA was quite happy that they had started litigating, and they would now follow up on what further steps they were going to take in terms of how they would recover the funds, or make individuals within the Department accountable.

Minister Creecy said she thought these matters being raised fell squarely within the domain of the accounting officer, and there was a full presentation in response to all matters raised in both this meeting and the previous session.

DEFF on AGSA audit findings: audit action plan

Ms Nomfundo Tshabalala, Director-General (DG), indicated that the AGSA’s audit outcomes found four areas where the Department had either regressed or had no improvement or regression.

The first was asset management, where the AGSA had noted during the testing of disposals that the DFFE had sold computer equipment to the officials of the Department at the market cost. The departmental disposal committee had approved a decision to sell to the staff, rather than to donate the computer equipment to the schools. The asset management unit presented the submission to the disposal committee on 19 September to reconsider their initial decision to sell the computer equipment to staff. The Department would be deliberating and reconsidering the disposal methods to ensure they were in line with Treasury regulations. Depending on the response received from schools or training institutions, the disposal committee would then consider other disposal methods.

The second was contingent liabilities, where the auditors had inspected the contingent liability schedule and noted that there were discrepancies between the schedule amount and the amount per the external confirmations from legal counsel for litigation. As a remedial measure, regular reconciliations would be conducted between the Departmental contingent liability register and the confirmations from the external counsel, and would be verified with supporting documents.

The third was consequence management, where the auditors had been unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that disciplinary steps were taken against officials who had incurred irregular expenditure, as required by section 38(1) (h)(iii) of the PFMA. This was because most, or a large number, of the transactions incurring irregular expenditure had not been investigated. The assessment and the determination test of irregular expenditure, fruitless and wasteful expenditure cases would be expedited. Labour relations would conduct training for all bid evaluation committee members affected by supply chain management (SCM) non-objectivity transgressions, while risk and fraud prevention would expedite the investigation of irregular expenditure cases.

DG Tshabalala said the fourth involved broad-based black economic empowerment (B- BBEE), where the annual report and annual financial statements were not filed within 30 days to the BEE Commission. The annual report and the BBBEE certificate have been submitted to the BEE Commission. The service provider was currently doing the verification for the 2022/23 financial year.

She said that the Department had put an audit action plan to ensure all areas of risk and other findings were addressed. Progress on remedial action was monitored weekly, and branches were engaged weekly for updates on the implementation of remedial action, with a sufficient portfolio of evidence. The 2023/24 second quarter reporting was concluded on 30 September, with the set target of reaching 44% expenditure of the budget being exceeded, with 48% being achieved.

She said that the second quarter interim financial statements were in the process of finalisation for submission on 31 October. There were also ongoing weekly meetings to monitor the expenditure progress to meet the projected annual target of 98%. An amount of R540 million had been paid in the 2022/23 financial year emanating from old non-compliant contracts, and the payments made had to be reported as irregular. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure for the 2022/23 financial year had been R224.4 million, of which R819 000 was new. The balance was from the old cases currently under assessment and investigation.

The Department had established a determination committee (DC) that sits every Thursday to address and deal with the backlog of irregular, unauthorised, wasteful and fruitless expenditure. Due to improvements in its internal processes and structures, the DFFE has managed recently to address and resolve more than R2.8 billion in irregular expenditure that occurred over at least the past five years. Seven cases had currently been referred for forensic investigation by the determination committee to the ethics and fraud management unit. Two cases were at the final quality review stages of the forensic investigation conducted by the independent service provider.

On ethics and fraud management, she said that five recently received cases were under pre-investigation assessment, and pending the outcome the cases, they may be referred/assigned to the external and independent services provider for full investigation being conducted by internal ethics and fraud management officials. The ethics and fraud management unit was committed to prioritising them to ensure they were closed before the end of the current financial year. This would assist the DFFE to address the more than R2 billion in irregular expenditure.

DG Tshabalala said that the DFFE was implementing corrective action to rectify the failure of not meeting set targets. On the paper and packaging waste diversion target, it had worked with both the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to develop a South African waste pickers registration system. The producer responsibility organisations (PROs) had worked with waste pickers organisations on the rate of fees that would be used for 2022 and 2023, to compensate waste pickers for the collection of recyclables. The Department was working with PROs to ensure that they also ensure that the recyclers also report on the South African Waste Information System (SAWIS) the tonnages that may be below the threshold, although the waste information regulations did not require it. The regulations' reporting requirements on minimum thresholds avoided this administrative burden, but the implications on extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes were being reviewed.

On air quality not meeting the target of less than one, she said that stations that were non-functional due to vandalism, such as Sebokeng and Three Rivers, had been relocated to safe areas with improved security and were now fully operational. To help limit the impact of load-shedding on instrument performance, the procurement process was underway for 8kva 6-hour lithium-ion battery backup solution for stations that could be charged via solar and electricity. It was anticipated that these would be installed at the stations in December. The Department was also monitoring the South African Weather Service (SAWS) procurement plan for backup power systems weekly. The installation of automatic voltage regulators to help reduce damage to instruments due to power surges was completed in August.

On Air Quality monitoring stations not meeting the data recovery targets, the DG said that the Department was in the final stages of promulgating priority area air quality management plans that would provide mechanisms for enforcing and effectively implementing air quality management plans.

Following the "Working on Fire" MI found by the AGSA, the Department had already issued a letter to the service provider confirming that it would recoup funds associated with the transfer made without the Department’s approval, and not in line with National Treasury requirements. In this regard, further engagement had been held with the service provider, and the Department had initiated a legal process to recoup those funds.

She said there had been a 6% decline in the total number of national Environment Management Inspectors (EMIs) on the national register. To address this issue, environmental compliance and enforcement have been coordinated between the national and provincial spheres of government through a committee consisting of the Minister and provincial Members of Executive Councils (MECs) of Environment and Tourism, which sets out the strategic priority projects/sectors. The working group had prioritised municipal landfill sites for compliance and enforcement where there were poor compliance records. As part of this project, provinces had intensified administrative and criminal enforcement action against municipalities. The national EMI training programme provided support to all 19 EMI institutions.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms H Winkler (DA) said that she knew from the last audit report from the AGSA that there had been recurrent findings over a number of years. She wanted to know whether those recurrent findings had been sorted out and no longer formed part of the AGSA’s current report. Did the AGSA feel that the Department had adequately addressed those recurrent findings and the consequence management required? On the EMIs and the six percent decline, how was the Department going to remedy the situation when they knew that this was a weakness in being able to ensure enforcement?

Mr Bryant said that the presentation was an indication of some progress being made in terms of the reporting over the past few years. He asked for more details on the steps being taken to deal with the "Working on Fire" -- how far along was that process? What were the timeframe and timeline? He asked what the prerequisites were when it came to deciding which of the issues were referred for criminal investigation, because it seemed in some of the cases there were allusions to some form of criminal activity, but they could somehow be dealt with in-house. Who decided which cases were referred for criminal investigations?

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) acknowledged the DFFE's efforts on Triple E waste. They were at least complying with the issue of asset management and dealing with the electronic equipment. She wanted to know whether the electronic equipment was refurbished before being donated to schools. Once they had donated to the schools, was there any sharing of information on how the schools should dispose of their electronic equipment so that they reduced the problem of Tripple E waste being disposed in the wrong manner?

On the SAWS batteries that were still contributing to the Tripple E waste, she hoped that the Department had a plan, because it was part of their expertise.

She said she had a serious problem with the landfill sites, because most of them were almost full and there were no more landfill sites. What was the plan of the Department to assist municipalities to make sure that the waste that was going to the landfill sites was minimal, and to make sure that the lifespan of the landfill sites was extensive? Other countries' landfill sites were very flat and had a long lifespan, and once the landfill sites were full they rehabilitated them to something conducive to the environment.  

She said there was a serious problem with the waste pickers and in her city, Tswane, where no services were being rendered. One would find that the waste pickers that collected from their refuse bins during collection day ended up polluting the same environment when sorting their waste. Was it possible to allocate a location for the waste pickers to sort out their waste without polluting the environment?

DFFE's response

Ms Tshabalala replied to Ms Winkler that there were qualifying matters in the past, and the CFO would go into what had caused them. In past financial years, they could not complete the audit within the regulated timeframe because they were trying to ensure that they responded adequately to all the matters that the AG would raise as part of the audit process. All those matters had been dealt with, because there had been an issue around completeness and also accuracy. On the issue of pre-payments, they had put up controls so they did not transfer funds before a certain service or a milestone had been delivered.

She confirmed that they had taken action on the "Working on Fire" matter, and that the Department had worked very closely with the state attorney. The state attorney had indicated that they had issued a letter of demand to the service provider. That was an ongoing intervention that they were going to be monitoring, because it was an issue that was affecting and impacting the MIs, and they had to ensure that the issues of recovery were indeed addressed.

On the referral of material irregularities, she said the first stage, when it involved irregular or fruitless expenditure, according to the guide they had from Treasury, required them to set up a determination committee which had to assess each and every contract that had been deemed irregular by the AG. Where value had not been derived from a service provider, this was taken to the next stage to investigate what would have happened. In that case, they already had service providers thoroughly investigating those matters. Where they find prima facie evidence for taking the case forward as far as criminal prosecution, they would highlight that in their recommendations. They had done that in the past, indicating the criminal aspects, and as a result, would advise the Department to report the case to the SAPS, which they had done previously. They therefore relied on the detailed investigation done by the service provider, where if prima facie evidence was demonstrated, and then the SAPS would have to assist them with the investigations.

Ms Mamogala Musekene, Deputy Director General (DDG): Chemicals and Waste Management, in response to Ms Mbatha, said that one of the critical policy measures that they had put in place and was currently under implementation was on producer responsibility regulations. The first year of implementation had been in 2022. This was a new policy they were implementing, and one of the key matters that also formed part of the provisions of the EPR regulations was related to infrastructure development. The producers had to look into the feasibility of establishing new infrastructure. She was raising this in response to the need to support collection points and facilities, as it relates to waste pickers, especially in urban areas. It was an area currently receiving attention because, for 2023, the producers would have to submit their feasibility plans, and that was how they had indicated it in terms of the collection points or sorting facilities that would be established to support waste pickers. It could also mean that those existing and needing upgrading and refurbishment would be supported. The point was to ensure that the fees coming from producers, and not necessarily the funding that was coming from the fiscus, was also leveraged into that area.

She said that cities like Johannesburg had worked with Infrastructure South Africa (ISA) to ensure that within the flagship waste programme there was a pipeline to support municipalities with regard to establishing infrastructure. They were referring to an alternative waste treatment in line with the waste hierarchy, because landfill disposal sites were the last option. They were moving up the hierarchy, so the project was at an advanced stage, working with the infrastructure funding to ensure additional financial support for the city to go into the next phases involving establishing alternative waste treatment.

Concerning electronic equipment donated to schools, she said that they raised awareness regarding its disposal, as it was also linked to the producer's responsibility. Members might have noted that some of the retailers during the past weekend had been providing incentives for consumers to bring in their old electrical equipment, and then they would get some vouchers that they could use towards some products they may want to buy. It was part of the extended producer's responsibility to ensure that there was an incentive to take back the product. Because they were not refurbishing any equipment, they wanted a differentiated approach in terms of considering how to dispose of electronic equipment.

She confirmed that the Department did benchmark with other countries when they considered the amount of fees that needed to be paid, whether it was for electrical equipment or other products, given that when they engage with National Treasury for their approval of some of the EPR fees that were applicable, Treasury wanted them to engage on the best practices linked to some of the countries that had implemented EPR policies. They had worked with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to get such information. They had also worked with some of the developed countries that had been implementing EPR schemes for a number of decades.

Ms Amanda Jass, CFO, DFFE,  referred to the disposal of the laptops, and explained that they followed a process whereby when an asset had reached its useful life, it would be ready to be disposed of, meaning there was no warranty from the dealer on the laptop. They would clean it up and delete the information from the Department, and the asset would be ready for disposal. In the past, an employee used to buy the computer allocated to themselves, meaning there was no need for the cleaning or deleting of information, but they had to take it as is -- out of warranty and redundant, but still useable in certain instances.

They had cleared all the qualification items that the AG had raised in the past. They would have been qualified in this financial year if they had not been cleared. They had qualifications around capital work in progress and tangible capital assets, and the manner in which they were accounting for them, because they could not produce a proper report where they could split what should be capitalised, and what could be treated as capital expenditure. Therefore, They had undertaken a lengthy exercise in which they did not want to merely clear the surface, but rather focus on the root cause to lay the foundation for moving forward.

On the irregular expenditure, they had a qualification on the completeness and accuracy of the register they were using, as the AG could not rely on the information they presented. The AG had investigated and found new areas that were non-compliant, and which ought to have been in the register. They had cleaned up that area of irregular expenditure.

There was also an irregularity involving the manner in which they were accounting for the pollution prevention programme (PPP). This pertained to way in which they were substantiating the information that they were reporting on. They had cleaned up all those areas and put in place controls to ensure that moving forward, when they were accounting and reporting, they used credible and reliable information substantiated by supporting documents.

Ms Vanessa Bendeman, DDG: Regulatory Compliance and Sector Monitoring, said that they had raised a concern regarding the environmental management inspectorate (EMI) through the relevant structures within the Department. They had noticed a decline, and it was a concern. What they noted was that the operational budgets in the provinces had reduced their competing priorities when it came to compliance and enforcement. The analysis of the landfill sites was specifically done by the working group, which was information they had provided to the AGSA. Looking at the possible interventions they could take, Ms Musekene had already highlighted those where they were trying to assist in getting the landfill sites into compliance. The national Department tried to assist when provinces requested it, but they had to look at how the priorities could be adjusted to ensure that there was sufficient local operational capacity so that EMIs were not just designated, but had the operational funds they needed to carry out their activities.

Further discussion

Ms Mbatha returned to the issue of E-waste, saying it seemed that the Department was just dumping the equipment on the schools, and the schools were not being informed on how to deal with the waste. She requested that the Department look into that so that electronic equipment was not disposed of in an incorrect manner.

On the issue of tyres, she acknowledged the Department was doing its best, but there were still a lot tyres that were all over the place and the issue was not being managed. How was the Department going to deal with such tyres, because, in the end, one would find them being burned during the strikes or boycotts and damaging the infrastructure, especially the roads? It also contributed to air pollution.

Further responses

DG Tshabalala said that they would definitely take up the comments and advice regarding the disposal by schools of electronic equipment. She said they did engage the Department of Basic Education around a clear methodology on how best they could enhance the issue of recycling, even at the school level.

Mr Masopha Moshoeshoe, Acting CEO: Waste Management Bureau, replied that the challenge with the waste tyre sector had been that traditionally the level of collections, where they collect approximately 120 000 tons of waste tyres a year, was below the total amount of waste tyres generated. For the past three years, they had not had a contract with informal waste pickers and micro depots, but this has now been corrected through contracts with project managers in the Western Cape and Gauteng, which they were in the process of expanding. This would assist in their ability to collect more of the loose tyres from the informal settlements, townships and other areas.

In terms of the broader waste collection and processing approach, they had seen a considerable uptick in the level of waste processing. The overarching tyres per year had outstripped what they processed, but their target in the annual performance plan (APP) was approximately 30 000 tons of tyres being processed. With the increase in processing, as well as an export market developing, they had been able to drive processing numbers up to 56 000 tons, and at the moment, they were working on increasing those numbers by being able to meet the full demand of both local processors and exporters. Of the export market, they could meet only 20 to 30% of the market capacity, and for local producers, they could meet about 80% of their requirements.

He said that the key to making sure that the tyres were not in the environment or being burnt or disposed of illegally, was to increase the processing quite significantly. From a waste storage perspective, the tyres being referred to were not those that were in formal storage areas, but they were adding additional storage capacity by leveraging off state-owned properties through the likes of Transnet properties, and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI)giving them the opportunity to speak to a single landlord over multiple sites. With Transnet, he had a short list of 25 sites throughout the country, and through lease engagements, around six of those could be ready within six months. They were also engaging with large processors to give them security of supply for their investment and avoid just-in-time delivery of tyres to their operations for them to extend storage capacity to the Department.

The Acting Chairperson said they had reached the end of the meeting, and took the opportunity to thank the Minister, the AGSA, and the Department for their participation. She also thanked the Members of the Committee for their engagement.

The meeting was adjourned.