SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Information and Discussions on Management Issues in SANParks
Post Reply
User avatar
Toko
Posts: 26619
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Toko »

https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/21638/

Committee meeting 16 October 2015
SANParks presented its annual report, noting that a new Board had come into effect on 1 April 2015, and had taken a decision to focus on five issues. In governance, there would be tightening of procurement, delegation process and risk management. A comprehensive approach to transformation would be adopted. Consideration was being given to whether the SANParks should become a section 3(b) entity, with less dependence on transfers from the DEA. Management would visit the Kruger Park to assess the progress with combating rhino poaching and there had to be better collaboration between SANParks and the security cluster overall. Some irregularities from the previous year were being investigated. The targets not achieved were presented. Fund-raising was below par, largely due to the economic climate, and SANParks fell short on the targets for rehabilitation of land from alien vegetation, and also on the target for the census of animal and plant populations. The targets for combating rhino poaching, and for increasing black visitors to the parks and transformation had been criticised by the Auditor-General as not well defined. Figures were presented for rhino mortality in Kruger Park, together with proposals to address it. The targets for permanent job creation were not met but it was noted that perhaps they were not achievable, and the difficulties with disabled recruitment, given the job environment, were outlined. The steps taken to address irregular spending, wasteful and fruitless spending, cash embezzlement, stock loss and problems of non-compliance with objectives were discussed. The steps taken to put new policies and procedures in place were outlined.


User avatar
Toko
Posts: 26619
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Toko »

South African National Parks (SANParks) on its 2014/15 Annual Report

Ms Joanne Yawitch, Board Chairperson, SANParks, briefed the Committee on the organisational issues which were currently facing the organisation. She said that the current Board came into effect on 1 April 2015, and from the handover package meeting it was decided that issues which the previous Board had cited needed to be addressed in this year, along with other issues which the previous Board had not cited. The new board initiated a review process of the organisation.

There were five distinct issues that the Board had, as its main focus.
In relation to issues of governance, she said that there should be a tightening of procurement, authority delegation process and risk management, through the creation of a robust risk matrix.

In relation to transformation, there was a need to create a comprehensive approach to addressing transformation issues. Management needed to develop a strategy on how to address this.

The Board was considering the revenue position, in particular whether it should table a change to becoming a section 3(b) entity. There needed to be less dependence on the fiscal transfer from DEA

In relation to land claims and rhino pouching, it was recommended that management must visit the Kruger Park to assess the progress with combating rhino poaching. There needed to be more coordination between SANParks and the Security cluster on the security and intelligence issues. Indigenisation of the SANParks had to be prioritised, to dis-incentivise collaboration between locals and poachers

There were still some irregularities that were identified by the previous board which were still to be investigated but this would take place in the next financial year.

Mr Fundisile Mketeni, Chief Executive Officer, SANParks, presented on the performance of the entity. He focussed on specific targets which were not achieved. Firstly, he said that the fund-raising income target was not met and he cited the economic climate in South Africa as a major contributing factor to this. Strategic Objective 4 - effective management of national parks – fell short on the total area of rehabilitation of land from alien crops, and this was due to reprioritisation of follow-ups to land that had already been cleared. There was an important need to facilitate this process to succession. The target for the census of animal and plant populations was not quite achieved, because of limited resources to conduct all censuses. The target on rhino poaching was not achieved because it was not properly defined and was hard to measure.

In regard to rhino poaching he cited the following points:

Average annual growth of rhino mortality in Kruger National Park (KNP) between the years 2011/12 and 2014/15 was 58.1%
There was a 222.1% (607 in number) increase in the total number of rhino deaths between 2011/12 and 2014/15, and there were 828 in 2014/15 alone
On average, 2.40 rhino were killed per day in 2014 /15, compared to 1.69 per day in 2013/14
The current interventions in place for Rhino Poaching included:

Strategic Rhino Translocation Programme (moving from hotspots, and addressing sales)
Increase of capacity (150 rangers recruited in the KNP in past four years)
Improvement to technological capacity (aerial support, testing UAVs, canine unit)
Fund raising from external partners
Implementation of the Intensive Protection Zone (KNP-IPZ) and additional deployment of resources
Signing of the international agreements (MOUs)
Cross border cooperation with Mozambique authorities
He then spoke to the transformation goals of SANPARKS, and said the target of permanent job creation was not met. It was a target where performance was severely low, but he said that SANParks would have to set targets that it could achieve – and that went not only for the transformation, but also disability and women-in-management targets. The implementation of the skills development programme had also not been met, and there needed to be more planning with the relevant stakeholders in the programme to ensure that commitments were fulfilled. Other targets did not make sense, especially the target on rhino poaching.

In regard to the financial performance he wanted to highlight the action taken to address issues raised by the report of the Auditor-General (AG). He described the issues and SANParks’ response as follows:

1. Irregular spending:

On detection of the breakdown of the internal controls, the two suppliers in question were immediately removed from SANParks' supplier database
SANParks' Supply Chain Management (SCM) division had implemented a management review process to check suppliers on the National Treasury (NT) database for legitimacy
SANParks' SCM division had implemented a frequent review process to remove suppliers from the database who were listed as “restricted” on the NT database
Management had flagged this area to be reviewed by Internal Audit to test the internal controls for its effectiveness
There had been a decision to reconstitute the bid adjudication board which would handle and verify suppliers with National Treasury database, before a tender was approved. The individuals who were involved with the irregular spending were dismissed. This emphasised the governance issues that Ms Yawitch cited earlier, which had resulted in this irregular spending.

2. Wasteful and Fruitless Spending

Interest due to creditors (R1.2 million): Staff had been made aware that in the event of a postal strike, they must request the supplier to use alternative methods of delivery of its invoices, such as courier and email. In addition, staff had been trained to regularly follow-up suppliers for outstanding invoices
Interest owned to SARS: Management will in future verify with SARS all tax amendments for their applicability to SANParks
Cash Embezzlement (R1.5 million):
- The monthly bank reconciliation was now being reviewed and signed-off by line management, who would take accountability for ensuring that all reconciliations were performed properly. A strict review of reconciliations was conducted monthly by head office
- Internal Audit conducted a periodic review of the reconciliations
- Any material differences were investigated immediately by management and corrective actions would be taken
- Responsible staff members were subjected to disciplinary hearings and dismissed
Stock Loss (R1,3 million):
General inventory controls had been improved in both the warehouse and filling stations, with more oversight being exercised
Staff had been trained and were monitored
Management review of stock count results was now being performed monthly
Stock losses were investigated monthly by management and reported on for corrective action
In the medium to long term, SANParks would need to automate its inventory systems, by digital migration
He then moved on to performance issues. He noted that there were issues of compliance with predetermined objectives.

In this regard, he noted that the first target was problematic because it was supposed to measure the number of black people, through the trends observed by management and staff of parks. However, the AG had a problem with using this method of collecting data because there was no way to collect that information without looking at trends, as it was a sensitive issue. He said SANParkmanagement would need to develop an indicator descriptor in a manner that reflected black visitor trends rather than absolute figures.

It was reported that performance targets not measurable included the combating rhino poaching target. In the Annual Performance Plan, there was an administrative error, and the performance target did not correlate to the performance indicator. Management would critically review the performance indicators against the performance target before finalisation of the Annual Performance Plan. The incidence against birth rate was a poor indicator. Management therefore needed to create new indicators to monitor the numbers gained and lost, and future interventions into poaching would be directed by that information.

In relation to non-compliance with legislation, there were problems with IT governance. Firstly, the Terms Of Reference for the ICT Steering Committee were not developed. This had now been addressed, and new terms of reference were approved by Exco, and the ICT Steering Committee was now functioning.

Similar problems had been apparent with the ICT strategy not reviewed and approved, but that had also now been done, and it would be tabled to the Audit and Risk Committee in November 2015, and to the Board on 4 January 2016, for approval.

There had not formerly been an approved Information Security Policy in line with COBIT and other best practice standards. This had now been rectified and the new policy was submitted to the IT Steering Committee. The IT Steering Committee had requested a generic Information Security Policy to be developed and submitted for approval to EXCO, the Audit and Risk Committee and the Board. The target date for completion of this was March 2016.

There had not been a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan, but this was now being developed for submission to Exco, the Audit and Risk Committee, and the Board, for approval. An ICT Service Continuity Plan had meantime been approved by Exco, in July 2015. The ICT Disaster Recovery Plan was approved at Exco, in July 2015. The target date for completion was April 2016.

Previously, in the HR system, the user account management processes were inadequately designed and/or implemented on VIP, resulting in inappropriate user access to the HR management system. That had now been reviewed and the appropriate changes were implemented, to limit access and to maintain an audit trail. Management has flagged this, and Internal Audit would be asked to conduct periodic reviews to ensure that user access was appropriate and in line with user needs.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that there needed to be a framework to allow the board members and the Chairpersons of boards of entities to interact with Parliament. Boards were the accounting body in the entities, and it was important that all chairpersons should be able to engage to the same level as just shown by Ms Yawitch.

Mr Mketeni said that the issue raised by the Chairperson would be included in the APP for the following year.

Mr Hadebe welcomed the initiative by the Board of SANParks to have an organisational review. He said that it made him uncomfortable that guests were asked to declare their race, and that this should be a target for SANParks, and he agreed that ideally a different approach was needed. He asked if there was a strategy to deal with wildlife crime.

Mr Makhubele said the findings of the AG showed some regression, but the presentation was good. He asked whether SANParks was paying property rates to municipalities, and if not, what the effect was on the municipalities. He said that transformation could not be an open-ended process, and targets should indicate progress. He wondered if all issues cited in the Annual Report would be addressed, not only those relating to IT.

The Chairperson agreed with the AG about the fact that the indicator on slide 25 was not measurable and thus it would be best to add sustainability and wildlife crime to the targets. The indicator did not speak to the threat under which species were placed, but hindrances to addressing poaching, and something was needed to address the rise in poaching. He asked why this indicator was created in the first place. He then noted that slide 23 set out that a baseline for 24 000 hectares of land to be cleared of alien vegetation. The explanation for why this was not met was not satisfactory, as prioritisation of something else should not interfere with the target. He urged a focus on clearing these new areas.

The Chairperson asked how, in relation to slide 24, the figure of 89% achievement was calculated if SANParks had been unable to capture the numbers for animals in the parks. He wondered how the sustainability of rhinos was going to be tracked, and what methodology was used. If no census took place, then he asked how SANParks would know the amounts. If there were reports that rhino were extinct, then he asked how SANParks could be sure about the numbers, and whether there was any scientific verification.

He agreed that the issue of employing people with disabilities was problematic, as the target set by SANParks was not aligned to government priorities, and targets for women and those with disabilities appeared to be discriminatory.

Mr Makhubele noted that the baseline for people living with disabilities was 0,6%, but asked what informed this, and what were the numbers for disabled people being employed.

The Chair asked whether SANParks was using different categories of disability when assigning employment.

Mr Mketeni said that SANParks was paying property rates and that the parks were measuring the trends of people who visited the parks; it was not asking individuals to account for their racial category when visiting the parks, but the staff of the SANParks were observing trends. This indicator was important because it would assist in the attempts to change the demographics on visitor numbers and he reminded the Committee that the ultimate goal was to make all parks accessible to the public.

Mr Hadebe was not happy with the response on racial categorisation.

Ms Lize McCourt, Chief Operations Officer, SANParks, said there was a targeted effort to increase the number of black people who visited the parks, as the current general trend was for predominantly white visitors. The problem with the target had been that the AG found it not verifiable, and it was this aspect of measuring by verifiable means that would have to change, to comply with the AG's requirements.

Mr Hadebe said he was still very uncomfortable about the target.

The Chairperson explained that the focus would be on visitor trends rather than individual declarations of racial group.

Mr Mketeni said that there was low public confidence in the rhino efforts. Kruger National Park was an “organised crime hotspot” and thus the whole security cluster needed to be fully informed and involved in addressing the situation there. There were developments in how wild life crime scenes were handled, through collaboration between SANParks and the security cluster. Another issue was land use compatibility. Here, there was a policy on wild-life donation to land that was no longer being used by communities. The DEA was seeking a decrease in the killing of wild life, by developing communities and highlighting the vulnerability to wildlife crime. In relation to land rehabilitation the target would have to be changed, in consultation with DEA. Monitoring of biodiversity in parks would be done with a rhino census every year, and a monitoring process for other animals and plants.

The Chairperson reiterated that the disability employment target should be 2%, in line with government objectives.

Ms McCourt said that at the beginning of the year, an internal audit was performed to evaluate whether the vacancies were suitable for disabled candidates – and this was looked at across a variety of categories of disability. The target on female employment would be moved from 35% to 50%. There were already staff in positions, and minorities were also being looked at. This was not a target that looked only to vacant posts. National Treasury did not want a growth of establishment but the filling of existing vacancies was important. The new approach to creating permanent employment was through partnerships with small business, in order to utilise SANParks' buying power to facilitate employment.

Ms McCourt noted that page 80 of the AR spoke to the issue of rhino poaching and page 81 discussed the target on black visitors and the new processes of measurement that needed to be implemented. The new process would be created in close conjunction with the Office of the Auditor General. Internal audit was present, as set out in the Annual Report. The numbers of disabled employees at SANParks was given on page 65.

The Chairperson thanked her for that response but emphasised again that people with disabilities needed to be taken seriously, and that staff composition needed to reflect national demographics.

Mr Mketeni said that some individual regions had exceeded the 2% target.

Mr Aucamp noted that the Minister had an agreement with the Department of Cooperative Government. All parks should be paying their municipal bills.

Mr Rajesh Mahabeer, Chief Financial Officer, SANParks, said that the entity had a very transparent approach. Most of the issues lay with Supply Chain Management, and this was being urgently addressed.

Mr Makhubele asked whether the franchises that operated in SANParks were black owned, pointing out that ownership of franchises also needed to transform.

Mr Mketeni said that management would look into this but advocacy was being done to get more black investment in the Parks.

The Chairperson repeated the need for transformation and a review of the adjudication process in order to address preferential procurement. Wildlife crime also needed to be addressed decisively and there needed to be greater partnership with neighbouring countries and a push towards indigenous ownership of parks.

Mr Mketeni said there also should be a process of declaration on the casualties and deaths incurred in the fight against wildlife crime in the Kruger National Park. The matter was politically sensitive, and it was important that Parliament address it.

The Chairperson welcomed the request and thanked the presenters for their presentations.

The meeting was adjourned.


User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75834
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Richprins »

Thanks very much, Toko!

Will dissect later! O0 O0 O0


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Lisbeth »

For once they are admitting to a certain amount of failures ( I have only read the first part for the time being :o0ps: )


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Alf
Posts: 11606
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:40 pm
Country: south africa
Location: centurion
Contact:

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Alf »

Just a huge joke 0*\

None of the targets could be met........ (and they have excuses for that)

The systems in place were not controlled properly or were faulty or the staff were not trained to understand it :shock:

Typical to our country 0*\

Then i don't even want to mention the irregular spending, wasteful and fruitless spending @#$ @#$

I mean stock loss of R1,3m -O- :-?

Please wake up SP 0*\


Next trip to the bush??

Let me think......................
User avatar
Alf
Posts: 11606
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:40 pm
Country: south africa
Location: centurion
Contact:

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Alf »

It's actually sad that they made this public 0*\ don't they feel embarrassed -O-


Next trip to the bush??

Let me think......................
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75834
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Richprins »

It's actually much better than previous ones, Alf, and far more transparent?

The wasteful expenditure is admitted to, as is the fraud/stealing.

But it begs various questions:

What really happened with the previous board/CFO/CEO over the years, and why their dismissals/redeployments?

How has SP bragged with a yearly "unqualified" audit then?

Why has the dismissal of criminal employees not been in media releases, if it actually happened, which I doubt.?



I like Hadebe's questions! :yes:


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75834
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: SANParks on 2015 Annual Report

Post by Richprins »

The actual bread and butter is the slides from 34 onwards...a gigantic surplus of R287.94 million....auditors please help?

Never seen this before? 0:


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Post Reply

Return to “General Management Issues - SANParks”