United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

South Africa’s biodiversity is a magnet for unscrupulous collectors around the world who crave the exotic and unusual. It is estimated that the illegal trade in flora and fauna is the third largest activity in the world, only surpassed by the arms and drug trade . Secondly, exporting and importing of wildlife species can be harmful to a region’s ecosystem. When plant and animal species are taken from their natural habit, it increases the risk that they will become extinct. One of the worst cases is that of the black rhino in Africa. Between 1970 and 2000, the number of black rhinos in the world declined dramatically from about 65,000 to only 2,200 . This species and many others are in danger of becoming extinct because of criminal wildlife traffickers. Furthermore, when a wildlife species is imported into a new environment it can bring diseases and cause imbalance in the ecosystem. People’s livelihoods are also threatened, as they depend on the exotic wildlife to attract tourists.

Historically, South Africa has been a haven for wildlife traffickers and businesses that flaunt its outdated environmental laws, making the need to protect its natural resources and the environment from invasive species and unscrupulous developers a priority.

Faced with these challenges, exotic reptiles were regularly smuggled in through customs; poachers’ killed rhino and elephants for their horns; medical waste was discarded next to poor informal housing settlements; while businesses polluted the air and rivers with impunity. Historically, the poor are the most vulnerable to industrial pollution and environmental degradation.

So when, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 was introduced in 1996, it had a Bill of Rights. Stating that “Everyone has a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being”; it also points to the necessity of ensuring that the environment is protected through the creation of legislation which ensures that pollution and ecological degradation are prevented, conservation is promoted and ecologically sustainable development and natural resource use are ensured in the pursuit of justifiable economic and social development. Consequently, the National Environment Management Act (NEMA) was promulgated in 1998. But NEMA in its original form had several flaws which made enforcing its stipulations almost impossible. The fines it proposes were lenient, and those attempting to enforce the Act were not really empowered to do their jobs. Developers found it cheaper and easier to break the law than to comply, which led to severe infringements of people’s environmental rights.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
NEMA was amended in 2005 to allow for a countrywide Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) who’s Inspectors had real power to enforce the Act which allowed stiffer penalties and real deterrents for individuals and companies who do not comply. A total of 14035 complaints and enquiries were handled by the Unit during the 2006/07 financial year. Forty-two (42) cases were investigated and 2 civil litigation matters handled. For example, investigations revealed that a waste medical company ‘Aid Safe’- had dumped between 10 and 12 tonnes of used medical waste on vacant land outside Boksburg, next to the Angelo informal settlement. The waste included amputated human limbs, used syringes, blood drips, and expired medication amongst other things. The land was a play area for the children and the women used to walk past the site everyday to collect water. The Aid Safe was instructed to clear the site and its operations have been suspended and a criminal investigation is pending. Working on tip-offs, ongoing investigations and communicating with international agencies, inspectors located at OR Tambo International Airport, have recently confiscated 4 black rhino horn, a threatened and protected species. Furthermore, 800 elephant tusk products, 27 full elephant tusks; 14 boxes containing 800 individual exotic plants; and 3 Albino monocle cobras, 3 Arabian saw-scaled vipers, 2 Nubian spitting cobras and 2 Papua New Guinea Taipans, venomous snakes were confiscated. A total of 531 inspections have been done on live wild animals for import and export purposes. Operation Ferro- was a joint compliance investigation and auditing of Ferro Ally industries across the country. Enforcement action resulted in the closure of the illegal waste site at ArcelorMittal Vereeniging, thereby minimising the impact on the quality of the water that feeds the surrounding communities. Benefits of these enforcement actions has improved the water and air quality; improved the safety of open areas; reduced safety risks of fly-by-night developers and illegal waste operators; and has ensured a safer environment for all.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The huge urban and industrial development and environmental challenges in Gauteng, resulted in the Gauteng EMI Chief Director, Tsheko Ratsheko and one of his Deputy Director’s, Frances Craige (with buy-in from senior management), lobbying Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE) to allow them to set up their EMI differently compared to the other provinces. Since then, the Unit has expanded into a large Chief Directorate, with three Directorates (Compliance and Monitoring; Enforcement; and Strategic Compliance and Enforcement) and about 70 staff members. At a national level the EMIs have benefitted from partnerships with the Environmental Agency of England and Wales (UKEA) and the Environmental Protection Agency of the USA. The EMI training programme was developed with the help of these bodies while some of the Inspectors have completed exchanges in the USA and UK. Although the national EMI programme falls under the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), the provincial EMIs fall under their respective provincial departments. Thus Gauteng EMI is part of GDACE and gets most of its funding from the Provincial Treasury. On an operational level, DEAT and the Gauteng EMI shares ideas, skills and systems. Gauteng EMI works with other EMIs on other issues, particularly regarding matters which straddle provincial boundaries. Similarly, Gauteng EMI works with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) whose mandate it is to deal with all water-related issues. Since the National Water Act, not NEMA, covers water issues, the EMIs need to work with DWAF with regard to water pollution. They partner with the Department of Agriculture (DoA) when farming and veterinary inspections are necessary and interact with all district and local municipalities in the province. The South African Police Service (SAPS) are crucial partners, assisting in arrests and investigations and often lend institutional support and clout to the EMI. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is another partner when it comes to taking matters to court. The Enforcement Unit works closely with customs and South African Revenue Services (SARS) at OR Tambo International Airport in monitoring the post freight and baggage smuggled or unauthorised wildlife or wildlife products. The unit has undertaken a training and education programme with SARS officials which has raised their awareness about environmental contraband and led to much higher detection of such smuggling. The public are key partners, making thousands of complaints and queries since Gauteng EMI was launched. Both phone and email lines are available to the public to alert the EMI of environmental problems in their areas. Public committees and interest groups such as Gauteng Wetlands Forum, Peat Forum and Sand Mining Forum all engage and interact with Inspectors, some of whom sit on the committees of these bodies. Gauteng is the only province with this structure and the national Department is now planning to move towards the same structure, due to its success.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
Created by an amendment to the NEMA, the inspectorate seeks to minimize environmental crime through enforcing environmental legislation, thereby creating a culture of environmental compliance in South Africa. Because of the huge urban and industrial development and environmental challenges facing Gauteng, the Gauteng EMI was allowed to set up their EMI differently to other provinces. The EMIs in other provinces also designate Inspectors, but these people mainly carry out their duties as Inspectors over and above their normal duties within provincial and local government departments. This means that they cannot solely dedicate themselves to the tasks of planning, investigating, inspecting, monitoring or enforcing environmental policy. Indeed their role as Inspectors remains largely reactive except when they specifically called to undertake national EMI projects because most of their time is taken up in their normal day-to-day duties within their departments. Guateng EMI on the other hand lobbied for the dedicated unit of Inspectors to be set up, whose day-to-day activities would consist solely of EMI business. Furthermore they lobbied for a Strategic Compliance and Enforcement Unit to drive the Gauteng EMI’s work strategically and develop policies and guidelines and measures to make the EMI more effective. This unit is basically a dedicated think-tank for the Gauteng EMI. It is very unusual for a government department to have a unit purely dedicated to strategic planning as officials are normally expected to do this over and above their normal duties. The creation of this dedicated team has allowed the Gauteng EMI to be much more effective than other provincial EMIs and cover a much broader area, including monitoring of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) compliance at OR Tambo International Airport and meat inspections with the Veterinary Department. Another thing the Gauteng EMI did differently to all other EMIs, including the national department, was to request the Provincial Treasury to give them a portion of the fines obtained in the rectification process. Section 24G of NEMA allows for fines to be imposed on developers who do not comply with their conditions or those breaking environmental laws in other ways, but the fine money normally goes into provincial or national treasury rather than going back into the fight against environmental crime. Gauteng EMI lobbied the Provincial Treasury and convinced them to give them a portion of these monies to be used specifically in the fight against environmental crime. This means that non-compliers and environmental criminals are effectively paying for better compliance and enforcement, thus fulfilling the internationally recognised polluter pays principle.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The EMI Inspectorate was created when an amendment to NEMA came into effect on 1 May 2005 and was co-ordinated by DEAT. The UKEA and the EPAUSA assisted in the development of the EMI Training programme and the first 15 officials were trained at the beginning of 2006, while the programme was formally launched 10 July 2006. Early in 2007, 15 Compliance and Enforcement officials and 5 Conservation officials completed their training. Permission was obtained to expand the structure of the Unit, making provision for land-use, industrial and biodiversity enforcement, as well as criminal investigations and prosecutions. To ensure effective implementation, Standard Operating Procedures, Information Management System and Complaints Register were developed. During May 2007, 12 municipal officers started the EMI Basic Training Course, a provincial mentorship system is now in place and these municipal officers act as a watchdog for provincial government. Between September and November 2007, an additional 16 officials received training and by 2010, 100 EMIs will be operational across the province.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
Initially, one of the main obstacles encountered by the EMIs was that environmental law enforcement was relatively new and as such they struggled with the judicial system, as prosecutors and magistrates were not familiar with it. This was resolved by the Gauteng EMI providing national training workshops to prosecutors and magistrates on the environmental legislation and the associated regulations. This information was incorporated in the Justice College curriculum. To further strengthen implementation, extensive awareness raising was done with Customs officials, the SAPS and SARS. The development of documented guidelines, templates and a fine calculator also assisted in making the new officials more confident to make decisions in a relatively new field. After these awareness raising events, the detection of illegal smuggling of endangered wildlife improved with 80%. Like all government departments, the problem of keeping staff from being poached by the private sector and other government departments has been a challenge. The position of Chief Director of the Gauteng EMI is currently vacant. The three Directors are currently rotating as Acting Chief Director. The EMI had a further setback when it lost 2 Assistant Directors in 2007 – DEAT having recruited some of Gauteng EMI senior staff. Apart from these losses however, turnover rates have not been high, especially as the EMI has tried to structure itself in such a way as to attract and keep staff, within the constraints of government salary scales. The 3 Deputy Director positions were created specifically to allow skilled people to come into these positions on a higher salary scale than they would as normal Inspectors. Furthermore there is a clause in Inspectors’ contracts that they cannot leave for a year after receiving EMI training. Furthermore, new systems and structures have been put in place to ensure sustainability and succession. Now there are other key people in the staff who could step into any of the Director’s positions comfortably due to capacity building, skills sharing and training exercises that have taken place.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
Although there are currently only 19 designated EMIs in the Gauteng unit, the unit consists of 70 staff members and is supported by other units in the Department such as Finance, Conservation and Knowledge and Project Management. The Gauteng EMI is funded mainly by the Provincial Treasury (95%) and the rest of the funds come from DEAT (for training of Inspectors) and Section 24G fines. The Gauteng EMI is financially sustainable for the foreseeable future, not only because both national and provincial governments are committed to the project, but also because they have negotiated an 80% share of all fines for themselves. All monies are managed by the Financial Department of GDACE and consequently managed in terms of procedures set out in the Public Finances Management Act as well as being subject to audits by the Auditor General every year. During 2007, Gauteng EMI was allocated R16 million which is mainly spent on staff salaries, transport and equipment such as uniforms, laptop computers, cameras and GPS and specialist computer software such as GIS. Vehicles are purchased by staff through the government’s subsidy scheme programme and staff members have to report to the Transport Division every month on their mileage. All equipment is on the Department’s asset register which is checked regularly, and field equipment must be signed in and out on a daily basis.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The unit has been operating for more than a year and is going from strength to strength and is expanding rapidly. Although 95% of the money for the operations of the EMI is obtained from provincial treasury, both GDACE and DEAT fund the training of officials. Each EMI official who attended the training is subsidised (50%) by DEAT. Additional funding has been secured and by receiving a portion of the fines, this has enabled the unit to increase its staff component, as well as increase the turn-around times on complaints as well as the overall capacity within the unit. As long as there is industry and growth within the province, the EMI will continue to operate, as the Department issues approximately 3000 decisions on developments and approximately 4000 conservation permits per year. Each of these permits requires monitoring to ensure compliance and prevent non-compliance and impacts on the environment, for which the EMI is needed. The unit is geared to be a permanent structure within GDACE and the concept can be replicated across other sectors and spheres of government, such as, for the more effective regulation of the National Water Act by DWAF or the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act by DoA, as well as implementing municipal by-laws. Looking at other opportunities, the first phase of replication is being implemented by the training and designation of certain municipal officials in Gauteng. Other provinces and the national department should also look at whether they can use the section 24G fines to fund additional capacity in a similar manner to the Gauteng EMI. This means that the criminals are, in fact, themselves funding better and more efficient compliance and enforcement.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
Most of the lessons learnt were through the actual implementation of the legislation and testing what will and will not work. Since environmental enforcement was not done in South Africa, the Gauteng EMI learnt by just doing what they thought best according to the law. Many of the innovative approaches have resulted in successes, such as clean-up of sites by the polluter and a general increase in awareness within the regulated community. Another key element of success is that the unit employed dedicated passionate people with a variety of skills. They consist of conservationists, air quality experts, waste experts, lawyers, ex-prosecutors, ex-SAPS officials, etc. The model developed by the Gauteng EMI for policing the environment effectively and enforcing NEMA has made a big difference to the way development is being implemented in the province as developers are aware of the consequences. Gauteng’s success compared to the other EMIs goes to show that policing the environment is a full-time job, not an added responsibility for already overworked government officials. The programme illustrates the success of having a dedicated team to enforce and regulate and has resulted in the unit slowly changing the paradigm of ‘cheaper to pollute than comply’ to one of ‘easier to comply than to contravene’. Partnerships are crucial to success and are an effective mechanism of addressing capacity challenges within government. For example the success of the unit by working together with SAPS as well as with other spheres of government and across provinces has created a network of law enforcement across Gauteng that sets an example that other provinces can follow. Polluters normally locate their illegal activities in close proximity to poor communities, as they believe that the poor are unable to assert themselves and to defend their rights. By increasing compliance with pollutant emission regulations there has been a direct and beneficial impact on the environmental health of poor communities. The culture of compliance that the Gauteng EMI, is helping to create will, in the long-term, strengthen the governmental and private sector commitment to environmentally sustainable development. This will contribute to positive and long-lasting socio-economic growth, while protecting the environmental resources of South Africa.


Institution Name:		Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment
Institution Type:		Government Department
Contact Person:		Nadene Slabbert
Title:		Deputy Director
Telephone/ Fax:		+27 11 355 1690
Institution's / Project's Website:		+27 11 355 1850
E-mail:		nadene.slabbert@gauteng.gov.za
Address:		PO Box 8679, Johannesburg
Postal Code:		2000
City:		Johannesburg
State/Province:		Gauteng
Country:		South Africa

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information