Thank you for your letter of the 25^th July 2005 advising me of the Public Hearings on the above-mentioned Bill and inviting my organisation to participate in the debate. This is greatly appreciated.

We have studied the proposals contained in the Amendment Bill and with only one or two minor suggestions, have no concerns with what is proposed. The minor suggestions referred to are as follows:

A NATIONAL FOREST ACT ( Act 84 of 1998):

(1): Section 27:

It is suggested that the proposed section 27 (8) be amended to read.

"The Minister may, after consultation with the Trustees"

(2): Section 53

It is suggested that the proposed section 53(2) (f) (ii) be amended to read

"access to State Forests for recreation after consultation with the Committee on Forest Access established in terms of Section 36 (3) (b) of the Act".

The issue of fires is of such serious concern to the Forestry Industry that more, not less, communication about fires danger rating is needed. A relaxation of a communications strategy as proposed in the draft amendment bill is therefore considered somewhat irresponsible. The important issue is to reach as many people as possible , as frequently as possible, and in there own language . Whilst circumstances will differ from region to region , as a general rule we would urge that "three" be retain, but with the rider that this be flexible according to circumstances .

To put in place an expensive fire danger rating system and to then not communicate adequately is short sighted.

If you consider it still necessary for me to travel to Cape Town to put forward the above-mentioned to the Portfolio Committee then I will obviously do so, but I am hoping that the above-mentioned will suffice. Please circulate our comments to members of the Committee.

Please let me know if I should attend the meetings.

Thanks and regards.

Yours sincerely

M.B.P EDWARDS