United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

South Africa has numerous relatively comprehensive pieces of environmental management legislation. These include the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA); the NEM Biodiversity Act; the NEM Protected Areas Act; and the NEM Air Quality Act. However, these are often difficult to monitor and implement; and the penalties laid out in them were previously very lenient (leading to a culture of non-compliance, as it was cheaper to be fined than to comply). Numerous different groups were charged with monitoring these Acts, and this led to the overlap of efforts, groups working at cross-purposes to each other (and sometimes obstructing each other), and officials being required to do environmental monitoring on top of their regular jobs. The legislation was therefore not very well monitored or policed, and this led to groups and companies breaking the regulations contained in it, as it was easier and cheaper to do so than to actually comply with the law.

This led to widespread pollution, dumping, environmental degradation, smuggling and poaching. Companies would often dump hazardous or restricted materials in the open near to residential or housing areas, meaning people and children could easily become infected or injured by it. This included medical waste, which also increases chances of people becoming infected with contagious diseases such as HIV. Companies would dump waste in nearby rivers or streams, often contaminating the water sources of neighbouring communities, and endangering any animals living in or around the stream. Over-fishing or –shooting of wildlife was leading to increased chances of extinction for a wide variety of fish and animals; and animals and their body parts were being smuggled through the airports, sea ports, and borders around the country.

These practices not only threatened plant and animal species across the country, but also endangered many people living in communities which are affected by large-scale companies dumping waste in restricted areas. Because there was no real body to police this, many companies simply continued to break the laws, believing it was cheaper and easier to do so than to comply. They were unlikely to be caught and, even if they were, the penalties were relatively lenient.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
The Gauteng Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) was established as the provincial branch of the national EMI programme. Gauteng is the only province with a dedicated EMI. A single unit monitors compliance with the legislation, conducts investigations into reported infringements, and carries out research into more effective ways to carry out their duties. These duties include investigations related to smuggling and importing/exporting endangered species; processing applications for rectification; issuing administrative fines, as well as civil, administrative and criminal action in relation to non-compliance. These duties are carried out by three branches – Environmental Compliance Monitoring; Enforcement; and Strategic Compliance and Enforcement. Because there is a single unit carrying out the work, there is no danger of overlapping or inconsistent implementation by different groups or departments. The Unit also has powers of search, seizure and subpoena. 35 inspectors had completed training by the end of 2007, with the intention being to have 100 by 2009/10. In 2006/07, 14 035 complaints and enquiries were handled by the unit; and 42 cases were investigated. Two civil litigation matters were handled. Aid Safe (a company who had dumped 10-12 tonnes of medical waste next to an informal housing settlement) were investigated, and the site’s operations were suspended. A number of investigations have been initiated as a result of confiscating animals or animal body parts at the two main airports in the province (Oliver Tambo International; and Lanseria). Operation Ferro looks specifically at compliance investigation and auditing of Ferro-alloy industries, and this was initiated in response to illegal waste being dumped into local water sources at a factory in Vereeniging. The unit has also negotiated with the Department to receive 80% of the money collected through fines which they issue, which assists in their financial sustainability. The project therefore helps to improve environmental compliance by individuals and groups (including large companies); and this impacts on the environment and eco-systems in surrounding areas. It has also begun to instil a culture of compliance, due to fear of penalties, as opposed to the culture of non-compliance which arose out of the mild penalties which were previously imposed. The unit is able to carry out all aspects of the investigation (ie search, seizure, subpoena), and this also improves their efficacy – they do not have to rely on another group to do so. The group has also effectively managed its media image, which has helped to improve the public awareness of its work and the legislation that it enforces.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The original Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) came into being as a result of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998, which was amended to become more easily implemented in 2005. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) is the national co-ordinating body, but each province’s EMI is managed by the provincial department – in Gauteng’s case, the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). In the case of Gauteng, it was decided to establish a dedicated EMI, as opposed to training people with other employment as inspectors. Inspectors in the Gauteng EMI are full-time employed, meaning they do not have other jobs which take priority over their EMI work. The Gauteng EMI was therefore launched in 2006 by the old Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE). All EMI Inspectors undergo six months of training, and are then required to work for the Unit for a year. The Unit has a specialised group of inspectors working at the province’s airports to investigate smuggling of endangered or vulnerable animals, which incorporated the former Special Investigations Unit that was based there. It also has a specialised group which focuses on conducting research and monitoring of current trends and practices in environmental policing and investigation, and this helps to make the unit able to work more effectively. The EMI works in partnership with a number of other government departments. This includes the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, who are officially mandated to deal with water-related environmental issues; and the Department of Agriculture (to deal with issues involving farming and veterinary inspections). The SA Police Service (SAPS) partners with the Unit by assisting in carrying out investigations and arrests, and lending institutional support and authority to the Unit’s actions. The National Prosecuting Authority also partners with the Unit when cases come to court; and the Customs department works with the Unit on issues relating to smuggling. The project is therefore a government initiated and implemented project; with the main stakeholders being different government departments and bodies.

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.
The main objective of the Gauteng EMI was to create a coherent and consistent method to ensure compliance with NEMA; and thereby reduce cases of individuals or groups breaking the regulations laid out in the Act. A secondary objective is to help establish a culture of compliance with the legislation. In order to achieve this, a single dedicated EMI unit was established in Gauteng, which is the sole body responsible for enforcing NEMA. This ensures that there is no overlap in implementation with other regulatory bodies; or groups working at cross-purposes to each other. This is also helped by the fact that the group has powers of search, seizure and subpoena. The fact that all EMI inspectors are full-time employed by the unit also means that they are able to dedicate all their time and attention to this work, rather than having to do it on top of other duties. These factors both help to ensure that the unit works more effectively than many of the other EMIs in the country; and they are also more successful. This success has also begun to encourage individuals and companies to comply with the legislation from the outset, rather than risk being investigated and prosecuted for non-compliance. The amended NEMA also provides for stiffer penalties for non-compliance, which again makes it less profitable for people to simply break the rules and pay penalties if they are caught. The Unit has a good relationship with the media, and news stories covering investigations and arrests help to raise the profile of the EMI’s work. Hotlines for citizens to report non-compliance with the legislation also means that the public feels a sense of ownership of the project; and will be less likely to break NEMA regulations themselves. It has also led to some non-compliers calling the unit to find out how to rectify the situation before they are caught themselves. These activities have therefore also helped to start encouraging a culture of compliance with the legislation.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The National Environmental Management Act was initially passed in 1998. However, it was difficult to implement, and only allowed for quite lenient penalties. There was no group tasked with enforcing compliance with it, and this meant it was generally ignored. In 2005, it was amended to make it easier to monitor, and to increase penalties for non-compliers. This led to the creation of the Environmental Management Inspectorate in 2006. In most provinces, EMIs consist of networks of environmental enforcement officials from different government departments or those employed by other organs of state. However, in Gauteng, a dedicated EMI team was launched in 2006. Inspectors received six months of training, and then had to complete a least a year of employment in the Unit. A number of international groups also provided training and consultation. The two major partners were the UK Environmental Agency; and the USA Environmental Protection Agency. Both supplied experienced training and enforcement officials to participate in the development of the EMI training programme; and provide expert advice on specific joint enforcement projects. These include sector-specific investigations, such as Operation Ferro (investigating the ferro-alloy industry). Three groups were established within the Gauteng EMI – the Environmental Compliance Monitoring Unit; the Enforcement Unit; and the Strategic Compliance and Enforcement Unit. The Environmental Compliance Monitoring Unit check whether different pieces of environmental legislation are being adhered to; and also oversee inspections; and monitor industrial, residential and infrastructural developers. The Enforcement Unit monitors the airports; deals with investigations and criminal prosecutions; and handles complaints and reports from the public. The Strategic Compliance and Enforcement Unit conducts research for development, policy drafting, guideline development, expert support, and strategy creation for targeted raids or sector-specific compliance.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
One of the biggest challenges is retaining staff for the unit. As with many government departments, qualified staff are often poached by private industry or better-paying positions, and this can have a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of the Unit’s work. However, the Gauteng EMI has managed to retain most of its staff – this is partly because Inspectors are required to work for the unit for at least a year after the completion of their six month training; and because they are able to offer relatively competitive salaries. The Unit also faces difficulties in trying to monitor NEMA-compliance across the entire province. In this aspect, they are lucky in that Gauteng is the smallest province, meaning that they do not have as extensive an area to monitor as in other provinces. Initially, it was difficult to convince large companies to comply with the legislation, as the penalties were not very damaging. However, over time the penalties stipulated by the legislation became heavier; and it was in a company’s interest to avoid them. The Unit also established a good relationship with the media, which led to news stories on high-profile non-compliers. The negative media coverage now also works as a way of discouraging non-compliance. A lack of significant funding also initially hindered the implementation of the Gauteng EMI’s work. However, the Unit lobbied the Provincial Treasury and asked if they could receive a portion of the fines or penalties issued by them. 80% of these fines and penalties now go towards the Unit, meaning that non-compliers are effectively paying for better monitoring and implementation of the legislation.

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
The majority of the funding for the project comes from the Treasury Department. This covers more than 90% of the funding; while a further 5% is received from the DEAT. The funds received from fines and penalties issued by the Unit also contribute to running costs. The project is government-initiated and managed, and therefore receives almost all its funding from government departments. Technical support and expertise was provided by the UK Environmental Agency; and the USA Environmental Protection Agency. These groups helped to develop the EMI training programme which all inspectors are required to complete. The DEAT also subsidise 50% of the training costs for each Inspector. In 2007, the Gauteng EMI was allocated R16m. The project also works in partnership with a number of other government groups, including the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; Department of Agriculture; SA Police Service; National Prosecuting Authority; and the Customs unit (managed by the SA Revenue Service - SARS). The Enforcement Unit based at the airport works closely with SARS and the Customs officials; and have undergone a training and education programme with the SARS officials. This Unit also works with international policing groups and environmental agencies when investigating international poaching and smuggling syndicates. The Gauteng EMI also has a good relationship with the media (outlined above), and is able to utilise different media sources to publicise and raise the profile of their work. Numerous public committees and interest groups also assist the Unit, such as the Gauteng Wetland Forum; Peat Forum; and Sand Mining Forum. These groups all interact with the Unit, and some of the Inspectors sit on the Boards of these groups to ensure they are kept up to date with developments.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The Unit was initiated, implemented and supported by government. This improves their chances of remaining sustainable into the future, as they have strong institutional and financial backing. Gauteng is the only province with a dedicated EMI unit; and this has seen it become significantly more successful than many of the others. Other provincial EMIs have asked for assistance from the Gauteng Unit; and visited the Unit for week-long training workshops. This again increases its chances of institutional sustainability. The Unit has also negotiated with the Provincial Treasury to be able to receive 80% of the funds from penalties and fines issued by them, and this contributes to their financial sustainability. The Unit has received positive feedback and support from the public, with thousands of reports and complaints being received over the phone and e-mail forums; and with Inspectors sitting on the Boards of a number of public committees and interest groups. If people are on the lookout for non-compliance with environmental legislation, it will help the unit to achieve its objectives. It also means that the public will not obstruct the Unit in its work. The media coverage generated by the group also contributes to popular public support for the Unit. This once again improves its likelihood of sustainability. The initiative could be replicated in other provinces. The EMI structures and training are already in place, and it would be a case of creating a dedicated Inspectorate with the capacity to full-time employ its Inspectors. This would also reduce the workload on those Inspectors with other job-commitments; and improve the effectiveness of these units. However, one could argue that it is easier to implement this project in Gauteng than elsewhere. It is the smallest province, meaning that the Inspectors do not have as large an area to monitor as would be the case in other provinces. It is also inland and does not have any sea ports, which are notoriously difficult to monitor. Gauteng is also the richest province, and it seems likely that other provinces may not have the necessary funding to support a dedicated unit. However, Gauteng is also the most difficult in other respects – it is close to South Africa’s northern borders, making it a prime area for smuggling. It also has the country’s major international airport, where the majority of smuggling is likely to take place. It is surrounded by four other provinces, meaning it has to work effectively with groups in all the surrounding areas. It is the most densely populated, meaning any environmental issues will have the biggest impact there. And it is the most industrialised province, with more big industries and companies than any other province. Thus, it also seems that, if a dedicated EMI unit can be run in Gauteng, it can be run anywhere. The initiative is therefore replicable, and this should be done in the other eight provinces of the country. Funding and institutional support would be necessary; but some financial resources could be sourced from fines and penalties.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The main impact of this project is that it is beginning to create a culture of compliance with environmental legislation among people in the country. Individuals and companies are more likely to adhere to the regulations in the Acts as they are aware that there is now a chance they will be caught and penalised. The penalties are also heavier than they were previously. The positive spin-off of this improved compliance is that there are fewer environmental hazards being created. This also has a positive impact on the public, as they are less likely to come into contact with hazardous dumped industrial or medical waste; to have their water sources contaminated; or to have their sources of livelihood destroyed through pollution or over-fishing and poaching. The main lesson learned is that a dedicated EMI unit will be more effective than just having a number of Inspectors who work part-time. The Gauteng EMI is the most successful because of this, and they have had the biggest impact. The initiative also shows that, with good monitoring and strong penalties, a culture of compliance can be created. High-profile media coverage also increases awareness of the regulations contained in the legislation, and this again improves the chances of compliance.


Institution Name:		Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Institution Type:		Government Agency
Contact Person:		Nadene Slabbert
Title:		Deputy Director
Telephone/ Fax:		+27 21 355 1690
Institution's / Project's Website:		+27 11 355 1850
E-mail:		nadene.slabbert@gauteng.gov.za
Address:		13 Market Street
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