Question no
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 MAY 2008
Yüklə 3,8 Mb.
|
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 MAY 2008Mr E W Trent (DA) to ask the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development: (1) What is the status of the mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreement between South Africa and Germany in respect of the investigation into bribery and corruption relating to the four corvettes purchased as part of the arms deal; (2) whether South Africa has provided any support, co-operation and/or assistance to Germany to date in respect of their investigations into the Arms deal; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what support, co-operation and /or assistance (a) has been provided and (b) is still outstanding, from South Africa?
On 17 March 2008 the Prosecutor in Dusseldorf responded by email communication to the Director General advising that the documents were in the process of being prepared and would be forwarded as soon as possible. In addition he advised that the German Authorities distance themselves from any anonymous media reports that a response to the MLA request is awaited from the South African Authorities. In light of the above, I wish to assure the Honourable member that at all material times the Central Authority in South Africa and the Prosecutor in Dusseldorf have been in constant contact on the matter. Co-operation and support was always provided to the German Authorities. Any contrary allegation therefore is unfounded and baseless and should not receive the further attention of the Honourable member. QUESTION NO:690 MR J SELFE (DA) TO ASK THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES:
NW1384E REPLY (1) (a) The following is the breakdown of housing units at Voorberg: (i) Housing units 192 (ii) Single quarters units
(b) (i) The units were designed to accommodate:
(2) (a) The Department does not intend to build additional units to accommodate staff, as per a decision taken by the Minister in February 2007.
(i) Not applicable 691. Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Labour: (1) Whether his department allocated any funding to (a) the Bethelsdorp Development Trust and (b) the Bethelsdorp Hand Weavers in each of the past five years up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, why not; if so, (i) how much, (ii) when and (iii) on what was it spent;
NW1385E Minister of Labour replied:
QUESTION NO 692 DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 12-2008 IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF 09 MAY 2008 FOR A WRITTEN REPLY “692. Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture: (1) Whether his department has supplied any funds to the Bethelsdorp Development Trust in each of the past five years up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, why not (a) how much (b) when and (c) on what was it spent; (2) Whether any such funding will be supplied to this institution in the future; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? (NW1386E) REPLY:
Allocations for the poverty alleviation programme were as follows
When the programme was first implemented, there were two officials who managed the budget under the Chief Directorate of Cultural Industries. The project focused its efforts on the Poverty Nodes that were announced by the President in the state of the nation address in 2001. The format for funding was that applications were received from Municipalities, Provincial Offices, Provincial Arts and Culture Councils, Non Governmental Organizations, Community Based Organizations, State Owned Organizations (CSIR), Individuals and those people who had access to information. For the first few years (2001 – 2004) the programme was characterized by lack of capacity, Monitoring and Evaluation Systems and an arms length approach in managing and supporting the funded projects. The knowledge generated was kept by one official, this had a negative effort on sharing of knowledge, understanding what the shortfalls on the service the Department was offering to the communities and the general buildup and proper knowledge management regarding the programme. One of the major challenges in empowering the communities, funds were transferred to Arts and Culture Councils, municipalities ,institutions and the communities that were targeted never got to manage funds. This was disempowering as these communities were not given the opportunity to gain the necessary experience in a controlled environment in managing large sums of money, which was expected of them if they are to participate fully in the economy as SMME’s In 2003/04, a review of the programme was undertaken, both by the Department and the Treasury. It became clear that for the programme to have a significant impact, it needed to be re-engineered. At the time only one official was left to manage the programme. A process of re-engineering the programme was introduced, where the entire focus of the programme was changed. At the time the country was in its tenth year of democracy and all government programmes that have been introduced during the previous decade were being reviewed. As part of government’s review process, the Poverty Alleviation Programme was re-looked at. In its internal review, issues that were cross-cutting and were for the benefit of the poorest communities were to be integrated into the programme. These were:
The name ‘Investing in Culture’ (IIC) was adopted in 2005 as the programme was more than poverty alleviation but also included skills development and economic participation of beneficiaries. The IIC programme provides empowerment opportunities for unemployed people from the second economy through training & job creation in arts, culture and heritage. The priorities thereof are to support the previously disadvantaged groups of which 60% ought to be women, 30% youth and 2% people with disabilities. Of the total financial support it provides, 40% thereof would be invested in the ISRDP & URP nodes. As part of the re-engineering, issues relating to capacity were addressed. The sub-directorate became a Chief-directorate with supporting staff, the funding from Treasury was allocated for the MTEF period, which made it easier for the programme to plan activities and support to the projects. The medium term expenditure framework is tabulated below:
The DAC through its Investing in Culture programme is aligned to other government programmes like the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and Integrated Sustainable Rural Development and the Urban Renewal Programmes (ISRDP & URP) that target the previously disadvantaged groups and the poverty nodes respectively. Furthermore, it pledges support to other government programmes like Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative South Africa (ASGI-SA), Provincial Growth Development Strategies (PGDS) and municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDP). Hence, projects that contribute to these programmes would be prioritized when assessments are undertaken. The basic principles that inform the funding of projects are as follows:
The funding targets of the IIC programme in accordance with broader government imperatives are as follows:
All applications for further support by the Department through the Investing in Culture programme are supported through a process detailed below:
To ensure that the implemented projects address the needs, indicators are used to monitor and evaluate the impact of the IIC programme within communities. Each project evaluation examines:
The Bethelsdorp Development Trust is welcome to apply for funding from the Department through the Investing in Culture Programme subject to adhering to the above-mentioned principles, guidelines and criteria. If it were to be successful in attaining the funds, the above-mentioned indicators will apply. QUESTION NUMBER 693 DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 MAY 2008 Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether his department has supplied any funds to the Bethelsdorp Development Trust in each of the past five years up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, why not; if so, (a) how much, (b) when and (c) on what was it spent; (2) whether any such funding will be supplied to this institution in the future; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1387E
Below is a breakdown per year of DBSA Funding/Grants to date:
* Still to be disbursed. DBSA’s Further Support to BDT The DBSA is committed to providing continued assistance to communities in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. As a development finance institution working across the province and country, it has a responsibility to maintain a diverse portfolio of projects across sectors, regions and organisations. It also has a responsibility to ensure effectiveness and sustainability in the projects that it supports. Currently, the BDT has been experiencing cash flows problems with one of its loans, which has put the trust into financial distress, and by extension, default, in terms of the conditions of funding from the DBSA. In accordance with our assistance to such entities, we are in consultation with the trust and have instructed our Workout Unit to engage and help restore it to normality. As part of our engagement it is incumbent upon the DBSA to ensure that the recipients of the Bank’s support have capacity to implement the programme to achieve intended development results. Despite the substantial support provided to the BDT over the past four years, and in accordance with the various principles that guide the DBSA’s development assistance, we have not terminated engagement with the trust. However, any further funding to the trust will be subject to the outcome of this intervention. Presently, there are on-going discussions with the trust. QUESTION NO. 694 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 12 of 2008 DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 May 2008 Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: (a) When is it expected that the Cabinet will approve the National Strategy on Sustainable Development (NSSD) and (b) what have been the reasons for the delay in obtaining approval of the NSSD; whether his department will be responsible for the implementation of the NSSD; if not, what is the position in this regard, if so, what are the relevant details? NW1389E
MR G R MORGAN (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT HANSARD PAPERS OFFICE PRESS 694. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM ANSWERS: (a) South Africa has prepared a “National Framework for Sustainable Development” (NFSD) which is the first phase in the development of the National Strategy on Sustainable Development (NSSD). The NFSD will provide the framework for a coherent strategy on sustainable development. The NFSD will enter the Cabinet process soon, once approved, the second phase aimed at translating the framework into a strategy will commence, phase two will focus on preparing and planning for action, and the third phase of the NSSD will be about roll-out, implementation, monitoring and review. Following consultation with a wide range of stakeholders a draft document was prepared and published for public comment. Comments were processed and the document revised. The document was then submitted for consideration and approval by the relevant government DG clusters. The process has taken longer than anticipated due to the cross-cutting nature of sustainable development issue and the need to ensure receipt of inputs from multi-stakeholders. (2) Cabinet will provide guidance on the appropriate institutional mechanism and this will be elaborated upon during the second phase of developing a more detailed national strategy on sustainable development. Question no. 695 QUESTION PAPER DATE: FRIDAY, 09 April 2008 695. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Minerals and Energy: Whether her department is currently making active use of the Long Term Mitigation Scenarios for South Africa when planning future electricity generation decisions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? Response: The LTMS process is lead and project managed by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has not been finalized yet. The Department of Minerals and Energy has been consulted and making inputs into the finalization of this study. The DME will consider the document once it has been officially released and the decision on the applicability and use of the document will only be made then. QUESTION 696 DATE OF PUBLICATION: FRIDAY 06 MAY 2008 [IQP N 12 -2008] Question 696 for Written Reply, National Assembly: Mr. I F Julies (DA) to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs: (1) What is the extent of the use of methyl bromide on soil in South Africa; (2) whether there are any regulations that govern the use of this substance; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether there has been any adverse effects on the environment from the use of this substance; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1392E REPLY (1) Methyl bromide is an agricultural fumigant, which is used to control a broad-spectrum of pests in soil, commodities and structures. An intensive survey was conducted during 1999/2000 conducted by the Department Environmental Affairs and Tourism in order to establish the consumption pattern of MBR for 1997 and 1998 per province, crop and commodity in SA. Total MBR consumption in S.A. for the two seasons was found to be about 700 tons and currently it is estimated that about 450 tons is being used. The Western Cape Province is the main consumer of MBR followed by Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal provinces. Seventy five percent of the MBR is used for fumigation of soils and the remainder used for the fumigation of structures and durable commodities. vegetables (35%), apples (24%), flowers (17%) and tobacco (14%), are the main consumers of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant. The rest is used in the fumigation of buildings. (2) The Department of Agriculture (DoA) through The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947 (Act No. 36 of 1947) is responsible for regulation of methyl bromide. Furthermore, the above law requires that methyl bromide must only be applied by registered fumigators. Also The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) has control measures for and track the usage of methyl bromide where importers of methyl bromide are required to hold a “Controlled Substances Licence”, which restricts the quantities that they can import. In addition there are international organization (Montreal Protocol) that regulate the use of methyl bromide. The Montreal Protocol is an International agreement that aims to protect the Earth’s fragile ozone layer from the damage caused by chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbon, halons and methyl bromide. The layer is important to life on earth because it protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun. South Africa as a Party to the Montreal Protocol is committed and obliged in eliminating methyl bromide use while ensuring the protection of the environment and minimizing the economic impact of the phase-out on the agricultural sector. (3) No South African studies have been conducted to look at the environmental adverse effect of methyl bromide. However the international studies indicated that Methyl bromide has an indirect negative effect on the environment by affecting the stratosphere. The stratosphere is a zone high in the atmosphere, lying between 10 and 50km above the earth’s surface. This layer, apart from consisting of rarefied air, has some special properties under which life on earth as we know it has evolved. Specifically, the layer contains a relatively high concentration of special oxygen molecules known as ozone. This ‘Ozone Layer’ protects life on the planet by absorbing strong ultra violet rays from the sun before they reach the earth. Methyl bromide is known to destroy the ozone layer. Ozone depletion increases the level of UV-B radiation which has been linked to skin cancer, eye cataracts and other damage, the course and distribution of infectious diseases and immune system degradation. Farmers and other outdoor workers are particularly subject to these hazards. Furthermore, direct exposure to MB causes acute and chronic health problems such as respiratory difficulties, neurological disorders and, in some cases, death QUESTION NO. 697 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 12 of 2008 DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 May 2008 Mr I Julies (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: What (a) has been his route for each international trip undertaken by air, including the (i) departing city and (ii) final destination, since 1 July 2007 up to the latest specific date for which information is available and (b) was the purpose for each trip? NW1393E
(a)(i) 20 July 2007: Cape Town International Airport (a)(ii) Hosea Kutako International Airport, Windhoek, Namibia (b) Attend the Benguela Current Commission First Ministerial Conference which took place between the Republics of Namibia, South Africa and Angola. Agenda points included priority areas of action, e.g., Recovery of hake stocks (SA-Namibia), recovery of pilchard and horse-mackerel stocks (Namibia-Angola), implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management, training and capacity building, environmental monitoring – climate change/adaptation. (a)(i) 1 September 2007: Cape Town International Airport (a)(ii) Rio de Janeiro (b) Attend the Ministerial Meeting on Environment and Sustainable Development: Challenges for International Governance (3-4 September 2007). The objective of the meeting was to discuss the situation and options available in order to move forward in the debate on international governance and sustainable development.
(a)(ii) Tegel Airport, Berlin, Germany (b) Attend the 3rd Ministerial Meeting of the Gleneagles dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development (9-11 September 2007). The meeting provided an opportunity for Environment and Energy Ministers to discuss the progress made together on key issues of international climate and energy policies. The meeting focused on 3 areas, (i) technologies – realising the potential; (ii) scaling up climate-friendly investment; (iii) international framework post – 2012.
(a)(ii) JF Kennedy airport, New York, USA (b) United Nations High-Level Event on Climate Change (24-25 September 2007): “The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change”. During this meeting focus were on 4 thematic plenary sessions, (i) adaptation – the challenge of adaptation – from vulnerability to resilience; (ii) mitigation – reducing emissions and stabilising the climate – safeguarding our common future; (iii) technology – innovating a climate-friendly world – the role of technology and its dissemination; (iv) financing – financing the response to climate change – investing in tomorrow.
(a)(ii) Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, Jakarta, Indonesia drive to Bogor (b) Attend the Preparatory Meeting for UNFCCC COP 13 / MOP 13. This meeting was held in preparation for the UNFCCC COP 13 / MOP 13 meeting which took place in Bali, Indonesia from 3 – 14 December 2007. The intention of the meeting in Bogor was to focus on key outcomes for Bali.
(a)(ii) Heathrow Airport, London (b) Attend the World Travel Market (12 – 14 November 2007) and also attended the Ministerial Summit on Tourism and C limate Change where focused also where on poverty alleviation and sustainable growth
(a)(ii) Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia (b) Attend the High-Level Segment of the 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 13) (12 – 15 December 2007) where issues related to climate change were discussed.
(a)(ii) Nice Airport, Principality of Monaco (b) Attend the 10th Session of the Governing Council / Global Ministerial Environment Forum (20-22 February 2008). During the Ministerial Dialogues focus will be on the emerging policy issues of Globalisation and the Environment – Mobilising Finance to meet the Climate Challenge. The second emerging policy issue which where focused on was International Environmental Governance and the United Nations Reform.
(a)(ii) Narita Airport, Japan (b) Attend the 4th Ministerial Meeting of the Gleneagles dialogue on Climate Change (14-16 March 2008). During this meeting, Ministers focused on 3 areas of work relevant to the Gleneagles Plan of Action (i) technology; (ii) financing and investment; (iii) post-2012 international framework for climate change.
(a)(ii) Paris, France (b) Attend the 3rd Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (16-18 April 2008). The focus of this meeting where for participants to more deeply explore policy options for strengthening the climate change regime and the progress from this meeting will feed into the UN negotiations scheduled for December 2008 in Poland.
(a)(ii) Paris, France (b) Attend the Meeting of the Environment Policy Committee at Ministerial Level – Environment and Global Competitiveness (28-30 April 2008). Focus during this meeting was on the OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030, Environmental Co-operation between OECD Countries and Emerging Economies and Strengthening Co-operation across Government for Climate Change Policies.
(a)(ii) JF Kennedy Airport, New York, USA (b) Attend the African Ministerial Session Retreat Meeting (10-11 May 2008) – during this meeting African Ministers/Head of Delegations to the 16th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 16) will elaborate a shared vision for advancing Africa’s sustainable development, based on Chapter VIII of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.
(1) Whether, the department is currently making active use of the Long Term Mitigation Scenarios when planning future transport decisions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) (a) what standards currently govern the emissions from vehicles on our roads and (b) when were these standards last updated; (3) whether steps are being taken to reduce future emissions from vehicles; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) (a) what is the expected current contribution of the transport sector to greenhouse emissions and (b) how is this figure made up? NW1394E
(a) In terms of section 39 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, 1965 (Act No. 45 of 1965) (APPA), the Minister promulgated regulations concerning the control of noxious or offensive gases emitted by diesel-driven vehicles. The regulations were published under Gazette No. 4393, Notice No. 1651 dated 20 September 1974. The regulation schedules a number of municipalities that are empowered to implement the regulation. The regulation also sets out the method that the municipal officials must use when examining the vehicles. Section 37 of the APPA sets out the procedure in the event of contravention of the regulations. This section empowers the municipal officials to stop the driver of any vehicle on the public road within the municipality’s jurisdiction and undertake an examination of the vehicle or serve a notice on the registered owner to make available the vehicle for examination. If noxious or offensive gases are being emitted to a level exceeding those specified in the regulations an abatement notice may be issued. A person who fails to comply with the specified regulation or the notice is guilty of a criminal offence. (b) During the development of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) (the AQA), the Department included a regulatory tool to deal with this problem. Certain sections of the AQA came into operation on 11 September 2005. One of the sections that came into operation is the section 23, which provides the Minister or MEC with a regulatory tool to declare any appliance or activity as controlled emitters. When declaring such an appliance as a controlled emitter, the Minister must also establish emission standards for such controlled emitter. The Department, in consultation with the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), has agreed that motor vehicles should be declared as controlled emitters. In this regard, the Department will work with the DME to establish the associated emission standards that the different categories of motor vehicles should comply to. The declaration of motor vehicle as controlled emitters is on the Department’s 2008/9 Business Plan. Research on this matter has already commenced. The emission standards will repeal the APPA Regulation. In recognising that the emission standards might focus on the fuel specifications for new vehicles, the reality is that the old vehicles might still continue to pollute the environment. As a result, the Department has initiated the Municipal Regulatory Support Project that is aimed at assisting municipalities in dealing with air pollution issues at a municipal level. The main output of the project is to develop model air pollution control by-law which municipalities may adopt and adapt to their challenges. The Department is in the process of finalising model air pollution control by-law. One of the issues being regulated by the model by-law is vehicle emissions. The relevant section in the by-law focuses on old vehicles on our roads. The section provides municipal officials with powers to stop vehicles for inspection and testing and to issue repair notices. This provision will close the loophole with regard to regulating old motor vehicles that are not regulated under the controlled emitters. Section 23 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) makes provision for the declaration of any appliance or activity, or any appliance or activity falling within a specified category, as a controlled emitter if such appliance or activity, or appliances or activities falling within such category, result in atmospheric emissions which through ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition or in any other way, present a threat to health or the environment or which the Minister or MEC reasonably believes presents such a threat. Given the observed impacts of emissions from vehicles, the declaration of vehicles as controlled emitters is being investigated. (a) At the moment the contribution of the transport sector to the total greenhouse gas emissions is approximately 11% and likely to increase to 13% by 2015 based on projections conducted during the LTMS process using business as usual scenarios. In terms of past contributions, in 1990 the contribution was approximately 9% and in 1994 the contribution was about 9%. (b) This figure is made up approximately: 54.8% Petrol; 32.7% Diesel; 12.4% Jet fuel and 0.1% Gas. QUESTION699 699. Mr. K. J. Minnie (DA) to ask the Minister for the Public Service and Administration: (1) What feedback, expressed as a percentage, was provided by each government department with regard to the National Anti-Corruption Hotline (NACH) cases that were referred to them in 2006-07; (2) Whether any action has been taken by her department against departments who have failed to provide feedback, if not, why not; if so, (a) against which departments and (b) what action? ANSWER
Table 1: Cases of alleged corruption received through the NACH and referred to Departments and feedback received (as at 01 January 2006 to December 2007).
The PSC has appreciation for the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of the Hotline and has decided to conduct biannual assessments to measure its effectiveness. The first of such assessments was conducted in the 2006/2007 financial year and based on the slow feedback received from departments and the limited number of cases that were finalised following investigation, the PSC has recommended, amongst others, that its own as well as departmental investigative capacity must be improved as a matter of urgency. The second assessment will be conducted in the 2008/2009 financial year during which the PSC will monitor to what extent its recommendations have been implemented. Having held a number of workshops with national and provincial departments on the management of the Hotline, various challenges by departments in handling cases referred to them through the Hotline were brought to the attention of the PSC. The PSC has developed and published a Toolkit to assist departments on how to effectively manage cases referred and investigate the allegations made. QUESTION NO 700 DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 9 MAY 2008: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 12-2008 “700.Mrs D van der Walt (DA) to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture: (1) Whether any staff members of the Robben Island Museum reside on the Island; if so, in each case, (a) what positions do they hold, (b) what is the extent of their families living with them and (c) what is (i) the financial cost of the accommodation provided (ii) the staff contribution to such costs; (2) Whether it is necessary to have staff members living on the island in each case; if so what are the relevant details;
NW1397E
(1) Yes, some Robben Island staff members reside on the island. (a) Houses on Robben Island are generally allocated to Robben Island Museum (RIM) staff members who are engaged in “essential services”1 e.g. management, Medical Officers, Harbour Master and standby Boat Crew. Essential services are such functions that pertain to health, environment, security and safety issues. Houses are also allocated to such RIM staff members that are considered essential for operations e.g. managers, bus drivers, tour guides, shop assistants, catering personnel, special events staff and specific finance and education staff members. In relation to the above mentioned operational requirements of the institution, two staff members per department/function are generally provided with houses and the general RIM staff complement (approximately 130 RIM staff and 90 contractors) commutes on a daily basis. No houses have been allocated to any private individuals. Houses are also allocated to a wide range of RIM stakeholders that perform “essential services” e.g. the Department of Public Works (DPW) for day to day maintenance, National Ports Authority (PORTNET) for the light house, Sea Fisheries to monitor the natural environment and to the Cleaning, catering and Security staff members that are on shift. (b) There are approximately 170 people living on the island. 46 houses have been allocated to RIM staff members and stakeholders and there are approximately 71 people that constitute their spouses and dependants. Approximately 53 people live in communal/single quarters such as security guards, cleaning staff, catering staff and the boat crews. The staff members of RIM service providers e.g. cleaning, security and catering (± 2 year contracts) are not permitted to have family members and children staying on the island and would generally reside on the island for one week at a time and would then be off for one week. (c) Houses have been allocated to specific RIM staff members and stakeholders because of their specific functional responsibilities and because of the health, environmental, security and/or safety needs of the institution. As much as it is may be a requirement (in terms of their job descriptions) to stay on the island, a nominal price is charged to such RIM staff members and stakeholders e.g. R300 (one room), R475 (2 rooms), R680 (3 rooms) and R1180 (four rooms) 2. The prices of houses vary and are determined by the number of rooms, size of ground, outbuildings and location to the sea. (2) It is essential that the above mentioned RIM staff members and stakeholders reside on the island because Robben Island is located in the middle of the sea, can experience no boat days, there is usually no means of transport to or from the island at night and RIM is mandated to ensure that health, environmental, security and safety issues are maintained on a 24 hour-a-day basis. The RIM staff members and stakeholders that reside on the island cover a wide range of functional areas that are largely related to such “essential services” that may be required after hours e.g. medical officers for medical emergencies, PORTNET to ensure that the lighthouse is operational – particularly at night, the vessels and boat crew to ensure that residents can be evacuated from the island in the event of a nuclear disaster at Koeberg {RIM is within the 10 km (“Death Zone”) radius of Koeberg} or natural disaster, DPW to ensure that after hour problems can be dealt with at the desalination water plant, electricity power plant, sewage system and unforeseen maintenance emergencies to heritage buildings (e.g. burst geysers), Sea Fisheries to ensure that the natural environment is monitored on a 24 hour basis, security to ensure that the island is protected from unauthorized entry and from poaching that mostly takes place at night and all residents living on the island understand that they are the first line of defense (particularly after hours) and should assist in the event of a fire (one of RIM’s biggest threats) or natural disaster. It is also essential that a basic complement of operational staff members reside on the island as many unforeseen special events, helicopter protocol landings and police activities can occur after hours. It is comforting to know (even if there are no boats and no staff going over to the island) that there are such drivers, prison and general guides on the island that can be called upon at short notice. Houses have also been allocated to departments with special needs e.g. to Education because of the large number of educational programmes that allow students to stay on the island for three to six months (RITP Programme in the Multi Purpose Learning Center) and to Finance so as to ensure that there are personnel who can access computers (servers are also on the island) or filing systems on the island should the need arise. (3) The boat schedule is specifically designed with the health and safety of its residents and heritage assets in mind. One vessel and crew is always therefore stationed on the island after hours to ensure that residents may be evacuated in the event of a natural disaster or emergency and to take anybody off the island in the event of a medical emergency. In this regard, one vessel always leaves the island every morning3 at 06H45 (albeit empty) to start its tours in Cape Town and returns to the island after all tours at 18H45 (albeit empty). These two “empty” trips (at 06H45 and 18H45) have consequently become the standard staff trips for residents to and from the island. Technically RIM does not incur any special costs to transport residents and instead, residents are transported on an empty boat that must go to Cape Town in the morning for tours and return to the island at night because of health and safety considerations. RIM also reserves approximately 14 seats on all tourist vessels running between Cape Town and the island. These seats can be used by residents (on special request) although these seats are generally reserved for management, RIM staff, business guests and specific shift workers. Yüklə 3,8 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|