Tuesday 31 January 2012

SA National Severe Weather Warning: 31 January 2012 16h00 SAST


Current warning: Eastern Cape
Updated: 31/01/2012 15:42:08
Watch: Be prepared
Subject: Heavy rain possible on Wednesday night into Friday.
Detail: VALID 01-02-2012 -------------------------- 1. Heavy rain can be expected in the central and eastern parts on Wednesday night into Thursday and Friday.

Current warning: Kwazulu Natal
Updated: 31/01/2012 15:42:08
Watch: Be prepared
Subject: Heavy rain possible on Thursday and Friday.
Detail: VALID: 01-02-2012 -------------------------- 1. Heavy rain can be expected in the southwestern parts on Thursday and Friday.

Current warning: All other remaining Provinces
Updated: 31/01/2012 15:42:08
No warnings nor advisories in effect
Subject: No Alerts
Detail: No Alerts

- SAWS

SA Weather Satellite Image: 31 January 2012 (16h00 SAST)



Images: Eumetsat (Click on images for larger view.)

NOTE: Satellite Image reflect heavy shower of rain in parts of the Eastern Cape.  Please report heavy falls of rain to the SAWDOS

SAWDOS prototype lightning detector put to the test

With thunder and lightning in abundance this afternoon in Mossel Bay and surrounding areas, I decided to knock together a prototype lightning detector. Here is a photo of the detector in action. Every lighting strike is indicated by the little light bulb and sound from the speaker. It looks to be working flawlessly and I will hopefully build this detector into a cabinet for future use. I apologise for the quality of the image.


- SAWDOS

Images: Post Tropical Cyclone Funso (31 January 2012 12h59 SAST)

Image: NOAA19 (Ben Engelbrecht, Dundee) Click on image for larger view.

Image: NOAA19 (Nic Cronje, Nelspruit) Click on image for larger view.

Verwoestend Brand naby Wellington steeds buite beheer.

'n Verwoestende brand by Wellington in die Boland, hou 'n bedreiging in vir voetslaanpaaie en kampeerplekke in die Limiet-bergnatuurrreservaat naby die dorp. Vyf helikopters is ontplooi om water op die vlamme af te gooi. Die brand het reeds wingerde, houthuise van naweekgangers en fynbos verwoes. Die brand het 'n rukkie gelede naby die gewilde kampeerterrein - tweede tol - gewoed. Die hele reservaat is intussen ontruim. Brandbestryders spook intussen ook nog om 'n brand by Bainskloof-pas onder beheer te bering. Die vlamme is ook deur 'n sterk wind aangejaag, maar die bevelvoerder van die Wynland-brandweerstasie - Roystone Harris - sê die wind het intussen gaan lê. Hy waarsku dat hoewel toestande nou gunstig is om vure dood te slaan, die brand nog nie onder beheer is nie. Helikopters gooi ook water op die vlamme af. Geen huise is in die stadium in gevaar nie. Twee-duisend-600 hektaar plantegroei is sover vernietig.

- RSG Nuus

Man dies in Bay storm havoc (Port Elizabeth 30 January 2012)

Image: Emergency workers try to retrieve municipal assistant horticulturist Reggi Jenniker's body after a tree fell on his vehicle. Picture: FREDLIN ADRIAAN

GALE-FORCE winds of up to 80km/h wreaked havoc around Nelson Mandela Bay yesterday, leaving at least one person dead and many evacuating their homes, fearing raging bush fires would burn houses and shacks to the ground.

While emergency service workers described the winds as "very hectic”, saying their phones had been ringing off the hook since the morning, teams of firefighters battled runaway fires across the Bay and beaches were closed because of dangerous seas.

In a tragic freak accident, municipal assistant horticulturist Reggie Jenniker, 60, was killed when the powerful winds caused a tree to fall on top of his vehicle after he parked alongside Buffelsfontein Road in Walmer after midday. Police spokesman Warrant Officer Alwin Labans said Jenniker had been sitting in his vehicle when the tree was blown over and crushed him.

"Workers spent more than two hours cutting the tree into pieces in an attempt to retrieve the body.”

Gardmed Ambulance medic Dirk Kunz said that when they arrived, Jenniker had already died.

Chris Hay, assistant director of parks, said he had seen the brake lights on the vehicle were on and his colleague had still had both hands on the steering wheel.

He was on his way to inspect the work of grass-cutting contractors near King Edward Park.

Fire department officials spent most of yesterday afternoon extinguishing eight bush fires across the Bay.

Authorities said the fires in both the Sardinia Bay and Willow Road areas were the largest and most serious. The Sardinia Bay fire started on Sunday afternoon and was deemed to be under control until yesterday afternoon, when strong winds caused it to flare up again. By late morning, five fire trucks were trying to extinguish it.

At 2pm the Sardinia Bay road was closed as the fire had jumped the road.

"The wind seems to be pushing it towards the houses,” one firefighter said. "We are constantly assessing the fire and have people driving between the houses and plots to assess if we should sound the evacuation alarm.”

In Malabar Extension 6, people packed up their goods as fires burnt dangerously close to their shacks.

By 5pm the Sardinia Bay fire was under control.

At about 3pm, another fire started in the dense bush alongside Willow Road. The Willow Academy School in Cedar Road, Fairview, was evacuated as a precaution. At 5pm the roads were still closed due to thick smoke.

Fires were also reported in Arcadia, Korsten, Greenbushes, Kleinskool and New Brighton.

Municipal spokesman Kupido Baron said 42 firefighters and 19 vehicles had been deployed.

In another incident, a branch smashed through the windscreen of a woman’s car near the police station in Walmer.

In Vitry Avenue, Lorraine, a falling tree knocked over a home’s boundary wall.

Beach manager Fernando Cane said all beaches had been closed for recreational activity because of the strong winds.

"It’s blowing south-west about 80km/h and anything over 30km/h is a risk. The surf is also very choppy.”

Cane said, however, that lifeguards had remained on duty.

- PE Herald

SAWDOS:  It is interesting to note that GALE-FORCE winds of up to 80km/h were recorded in Nelson Mandela Bay (EC) yesterday.  No national warning was however issued by the SAWS for gale force winds in the  Eastern Cape.  The SAWDOS received a weather observation from Johann Pretorius from Despatch that gale force winds is blowing in the Port Elizabeth area.  The SAWDOS issued a Twitter message to alert the public.  An article also appeared on the SAWDOS Blog.  I can only image what would happen if we have to rely on one source for weather alerts/warnings.  The public is once again encouraged to keep on sending weather observations to the SAWDOS.  

Extreme Weather - South-America - Argentina

One person was killed, fifteen were injured and at least 60 others had to be evacuated after a severe hail and thunder storm hit most of the city of C�rdoba. Emergency rescue services said that people reported tress falling, traffic lights malfunctioning, flooded streets and roofs being ripped apart by the strong winds. A 46-year old man identified as Jorge Carrizo was killed after a tree fell on top of the car he was driving, over Capdevila Av., located to the east of the city. Public services were collapsed due to the high number of people in need of assistance, while a Civil Defence spokesman said that at much as 70 percent of the city streets had experienced trees falling. C�rdoba-bound flights leaving from Aeroparque also had to be delayed due to poor weather conditions. The rain began minutes after 3 pm, even though this morning in C�rdoba the sun was shining and high temperatures were registered. Sources have confirmed many fallen tress and electricity poles throughout the capital city, with many of its streets inaccessible to traffic and power outages in several neighbourhoods. Traffic on route 5, uniting C�rdoba with Alta Gracia, had to be interrupted due to dangerous weather conditions.

- RSOE EDIS

Lessons learned, changes made in wake of large-scale emergency

The Enid News reports on the lessons learned from an ice storm 10 years ago that showed amateur radio could be used to overcome communication problems.

The newspaper says:
The 2002 ice storm, like all large disasters, stretched the capabilities and procedures of all entities tasked with responding and providing essential services, from non-profit relief agencies and first responders to hospitals, utility providers and public works departments.

Over the past week, many of those organizations paused to reflect on the impact of the 2002 ice storm, and the lessons learned and changes made over the past 10 years that have improved their ability to respond to large-scale emergencies.

“The biggest problem wasn’t the roads,” Unruh said. “The biggest problem was the power being out and not being able to use our cellphones.”

She said those communication issues largely were overcome by face-to-face instructions and the volunteer services of the Enid Amateur Radio Club, which set up a ham radio network between shelters.

Read the full story at
http://enidnews.com/localnews/x1669706568/
Lessons-learned-changes-made-in-wake-of-large-scale-emergency

Enid Amateur Radio Club
http://enidarc.org/

- South Gate Amateur Radio News

Nationwide petrol shortages

There have been reports that majority of Shell filling stations nationwide are without certain grades of petrol.

Those with petrol have complained of having a limited supply.

The shortages come as petrol stations brace themselves for a rush of motorists filling their tanks ahead of Wednesday’s fuel price increase.

The price of petrol will go up by 34 cents a litre at midnight.

Bonang Mogale , chairman and vice president of Shell South Africa, said he is trying to find out where the shortages are exactly, so that they can address the issue.

He says the company is desperate to resolve the nationwide shortages and that there is currently no specific explanation for the shortages.

Callers of the Redi Tlhabi show on Talk Radio 702 have been calling in and sharing their grievances.

Many of them say they have visited several garages that are without petrol.

Many Sasol, BP and Engen garages have also reported shortages.

- EWN

Bainskloof steier onder brande

BAINSKLOOF. – Die afgebrande ruïne van ’n eens spoggerige strooidakhuis getuig van die verwoestende brande wat die afgelope naweek, gister én deur die nag nog in die berge hier gewoed het.

Ook in die Slanghoekvallei by Rawsonville is groot skade aangerig, nie net aan duisende hektaar fynbos nie, maar ook aan wingerde op die plase van twee broers.

In die Calabash-gedeelte van Bainskloof het me. Diana Smith van Gauteng, suster van die huiseienaar, vertel hoe verslae hulle almal is. Sy was toevallig op Montagu met vakansie toe hulle die tyding gekry het.

Haar broer, mnr. Flip Nel (66), is ’n ekoloog wat tans in Zambië besig is om ’n wildtuin te vestig. Die huis wat Sondag in ligte laaie gestaan en gister nog plek-plek gesmeul het, is volgens Smith sy aftreehuis.

“Ek is so hartseer. Hy is reeds op aftree-ouderdom en hy het geweldig daarna uitgesien om hier te kom bly. Ons moes hom met die nuus bel. Hy was platgeslaan. Maar die assessor was nou net hier en dit klink positief,” het sy aan Die Burger gesê.

Net om die draai tussen die volgende kranse is skade van sowat R1 miljoen aan ’n nuwe blok cinsaut-wingerd aangerig. Daarby is ’n gedeelte van die pinotage-, muskadel- en colombar-blokke, waar die oes vandeesweek sou begin het, ook erg beskadig. Mnr. Pieter le Roux (36) wat saam met sy pa, Johan (62), en sy oom, Hugo (56), op die plase Môreson en Tweeheuwels in die Slanghoekvallei boer, het gesê hy het gedink hulle gaan alles verloor.

“Toe ek daai vlamme so 10m hoog hier langs die skuur sien kom, toe dog ek die hele plaas gaan afbrand. Maar ons is bitter dankbaar. As die bure van die Breërivier- en Slanghoek-gebiede nie ingespring het nie, sou die skade soveel groter gewees het. As die vuur so aangehardloop kom, dan weet jy nie waar om te vat of waar om te los nie.”

Mnr. Danie Wilds, brandweerhoof van die Kaapse Wynland-distriksmunisipaliteit (KWDM), het gesê minstens 170 brandslaners, 20 voertuie en drie helikopters was Sondag op die toneel.

Gister is die helikopters net op gereedheidsgrondslag geplaas met nog 60 brandslaners op die vuurlyne en 12 brandweerwaens van die KWDM in die berge.

Die Slanghoek-gedeelte, sowel as die Calabash-, Bush Pub- en Steenbokpark-gedeeltes, is gisteraand gepatrolleer. Teen druktyd was die brand op die gedeelte van die berg wat heeldag gebrand het steeds nie onder beheer nie.

Mnr. Riaan Jacobs, brandweerhoof van die Overstrand-munisipaliteit, het gesê die brand tussen Thesselaarsdal en Stanford is nou meer in bedwang.

Dié brand het oor die naweek ook gedreig om naby eiendomme handuit te ruk. ’n Sterk wind wat kort-kort draai, het die lewe vir hulle moeilik gemaak, het Jacobs gesê.

“Die vlamme stap nou stadig af hier by die Kleinriviersberge, weer aan Overstrand se kant. Nou maak ons voorbrande rondom al die plaas- en vakansiehuise om hulle te beskerm,” het hy om 17:00 gesê.

“Ons het vandag twee helikopters gebruik om die vuur, wat plek-plek gespring het, net dood te druk. Die wind tel in ons guns, maar ons sal die situasie steeds deurnag monitor.

- Die Burger

Dozens freeze to death as 'extreme cold' grips Europe

Yuriy Dyachyshyn / AFP - Getty Images - An official gives out hot tea to an elderly man at a newly opened shelter in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv on Monday. Temperatures have plunged to as low as minus 23 C (minus 10 F) in the country.

KIEV, Ukraine — A severe and snowy cold snap has killed at least 48 people across central and eastern Europe.

Officials have responded with measures ranging from opening shelters to dispensing hot tea, with particular concern for the homeless and elderly.

Ukrainian authorities said Tuesday that the number of people who died of hypothermia in recent days reached 30.

The Emergency Situations Ministry said on its website that most of the victims were found frozen on the streets. On Monday, officials had put the death toll at 18 people.

Temperatures plunged to minus 23 C (minus 10 F) in the capital Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine as schools and kindergartens closed and authorities set up hundreds of heated tents for the homeless.

Officials have appealed to people to stay indoors.

BBC Weather's Nina Ridge blamed a "very well-established" area of high pressure in Scandinavia and western Russia that was keeping mild air in southern Spain and northern Africa for the "extreme cold."

"Temperatures really are going to struggle across the bulk of Europe," she added.

Ridge predicted that daytime temperatures would climb no higher than minus 19 (minus 2 F) in Moscow on Wednesday. The mercury normally reaches minus 8 (18 F) at this time of year in the Russian capital.

In Poland, at least 10 people froze to death as the cold reached minus 26 C (minus 15 F) on Monday.

Malgorzata Wozniak, a spokeswoman for Poland's Interior Ministry, told The Associated Press that elderly people and the homeless were among the dead. Police were checking unheated empty buildings for homeless people they could take to shelters.

Train tracks damaged

Warsaw city authorities decided to place more than 40 heaters in the busiest city transport stops to help waiting passengers keep warm.

City authorities in the Czech capital of Prague set up tents for an estimated 3,000 homeless people. Freezing temperatures also damaged train tracks, slowing railway traffic.

In central Serbia, three people died and two more were missing, while 14 municipalities were operating under emergency decrees. Efforts to clear roads blocked by snow were hampered by strong winds and dozens of towns faced power outages.

Police said one woman froze to death in a snowstorm in a central Serbian village, while two elderly men were found dead, one in the snow outside his home. Further south, emergency crews are searching for two men in their 70s who are feared dead.

The current freeze came after a period of relatively mild weather.

"Just as we thought we could get away with a spring-like winter ..." lamented Jelena Savic, 43, from the Serbian capital of Belgrade, her head wrapped in a shawl with only eyes uncovered. "I'm freezing. It's hard to get used to it so suddenly."

In Bulgaria, a 57-year-old man froze to death in a northwestern village and emergency decrees were declared in 25 of the country's 28 districts. In the capital of Sofia, authorities handed out hot tea and placed homeless people in emergency shelters.

Strong winds also closed down Bulgaria's main Black Sea port of Varna, while part of a major highway leading to Bulgaria and Greece from Turkey was closed after a heavy snowfall. Nearly 200 Turkish Airlines flights to and from Istanbul's Ataturk Airport were canceled, and a city sports hall was turned to a temporary shelter for some 350 homeless people.

The temperature in Turkey's province of Kars, which borders Armenia, dropped to minus 25 C (minus 13F) on Sunday night.

The situation was similar in Romania, where reports said four people have died because of freezing weather. There, authorities sent prison inmates to shovel snow and unblock paths leading to a shelter with some 300 stray dogs and puppies.

Weather forecasters believe the cold snap will continue.

"We are getting some 'real' winter this week," Croatian meteorologist Zoran Vakula said.

- MSNBC/AP

SA National Severe Weather Warning: 31 January 2012 04h00 SAST


Current warning: Eastern Cape
Updated: 31/01/2012 04:57:32
Advisory: Be aware
Subject: Heavy rain
Detail: ADVISORY:VALID 31-01-2012 -------------------------- 1. Heavy rain can be expected in the central and eastern parts on Wednesday night into Thursday morning.

Current warning: Kwazulu Natal
Updated: 31/01/2012 04:57:32
Advisory: Be aware
Subject: Heavy rain
Detail: ADVISORY:VALID 31-01-2012 -------------------------- 1. Heavy rain can be expected in the southwestern parts on Thursday

Current warning: All other remaining Provinces
Updated: 30/01/2012 15:58:31
No warnings nor advisories in effect
Subject: No Alerts
Detail: No Alerts

- SAWS

SA Weather Satellite Image: 31 January 2012 07h00 SAST


Image: Eumetsat (Click on image for larger view.)

GFS Medium Range Forecasts of Vertical Velocity and Precipitation: 31 January 2012 - 1 February 2012


Image: U.S. National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)Click on image for larger view.

What happened at the public hearing in Parliament on the 24 - 25 January 2012 relating to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill?

SAWDOS - The public can now read and view all the submissions and presentations as well as the full summary and minutes of proceedings on the 24 - 25 January 2012. Many thanks to Mr Wilfred Solomons-Johannes, Head: Systems Integration & Special Projects and Acting Head: Disaster Operations Centre, City of Cape Town for providing the link.


South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B22-2011]: briefing & public hearings Day 1



Date of Meeting: 
 24 Jan 2012
Chairperson: 
 Mr J de Lange (ANC)
Summary: 
The Department of Environmental Affairs briefing on the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill looked at the background and legislative developments since the South African Weather Service Act of 2001, the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (No 39 of 2004) and its 2007 National Framework, and the South African Air Quality Information System (SAAQIS). Although the South African Weather Service (SAWS) hosted the System, only a very broad Memorandum of Agreement formalised the arrangement. A legal mandate for SAWS was required. The Department explained the developmental and consultative process for the Bill. The Department had received only two sets of comments during its 30 day period for public comment in May-June 2011 - from SAWS itself on technical issues (appointment of its Chief Financial Officer to serve as a member of the Board and on who should be the accounting officer in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, and from the South African Environmental Observation Network proposing, in the main, free and open access to the National Climatological Databank and air quality information. The Department was gratified at the new public interest in the Bill. The Department explained the Bill's objectives - to remove redundant provisions, to provide for the additional functions of SAWS as to the rendering of air quality information services, SAWS being the custodian of the SAAQIS and the National Air Quality Monitoring Network (NAQMN), the operation of the NAQMN, addressing administrative challenges experienced with governance issues; and to provide for offences and penalties. The Department noted that it was this last provision that had captured the public's especial interest.

The Bill provided that the Board should be SAWS’ accounting authority, to align with the Public Finance Management Act and that SAWS’ liability should be limited under certain circumstances. The Bill would require an annual performance agreement for the Chief Executive Officer.

The Bill now provided for offences and penalties. Section 4(3) of the Act stipulated that SAWS alone might issue severe weather-related warnings over South Africa in order to have a single authoritative voice in this regard. However, the above provision was not enforceable. Therefore, Clause 12 of the Bill stated it would now be an offence to issue severe weather or air pollution-related warnings without the necessary written permission of SAWS. The Department acknowledged that the inclusion of air pollution-related warnings in Clause 12 had been a mistake.

The Bill amended the Act's Schedules to make provision for the additional services for the public good and for the commercial services relating to the SAAQIS and to the National Air Quality Management Network. As to organisational and personnel implications, the Bill did not create new structures in the Department, but rather transferred the SAAQIS and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network function to SAWS. Accordingly, in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, a new Air Quality Information Unit had been established at SAWS to implement the SAAQIS and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network function. Financial implications were that the Department's budget would increase to include additional funds for implementing the Bill's proposed amendments concerning the SAAQIS and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network function.

The Department, addressing the current concerns, explained its reasons for the Bill's Clause to enforce the Act's Section 4(3) provision that 'Only the Weather Service may issue severe weather-related warnings over South Africa in order to ensure that there is a single authoritative voice' and that 'no person may ... issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service'. This was because of the importance of a credible severe weather warning system and because false, misleading or hoax warnings effectively undermined credibility. However, the Department acknowledged that the wording had been found unsatisfactory, and that there was a need to avoid undermining the public interest. The associated proposed penalties were similar to those contained in all current environmental legislation. The Department noted some merit in respect of the new concerns. It was not the intention of SAWS to create a monopoly. However, SAWS was a national asset.

A Democratic Alliance Member said that the Bill required good drafting and tight definitions to avoid leaving interpretation entirely to the courts, asked why secondment of employees from the Department was included in the Bill, who had been SAWS’ accounting officer since the commencement of the Act, called for more detail on the business case study for the Bill, and asked how the proposed legislation dealt with 'hoaxes'. The Chairperson asked why, when departments created agencies, they gave them the exclusive power to make policy. Departments should reserve the right to set the policy framework. The parameters of policy making must reside with Government. He was concerned that a political issue now had to be stopped through the courts, and emphasised that policy formulation should remain with Government. It was wrong that departmental agencies took policy formulation upon themselves. From his own perspective as a former deputy minister, he spoke on the need for appropriate and effective delegation of authority. He warned against mixing concepts. He emphasised the importance of the dissemination of information.

The Chairperson requested the Department to present to the Committee the future framework, and the performance agreements and policy frameworks set by successive ministers. The Committee would then have a proper debate on them.

The Department promised that it would prepare a full briefing.

There was some discussion on the status of the Bill as a Section 75 Bill. A Principal State Law Advisor, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, explained. The Chairperson elaborated on the dominant purpose test and said that it remained to be resolved how Parliament would treat the Bill. All aspects of air pollution were a concurrent power. It was a technical legal issue.

HAMNET [amateur network] Emergency Communications: the Emergency Communications Division of the South African Radio League objected to Clause 12 which proposed insertion of Section 30A in the Act - 'No person may issue severe weather or air-related warning without ....'. HAMNET thought that the Clause was counter productive and not in the interests of members of the public in general. HAMNET therefore recommended that Clause 12 be either withdrawn or written in such a way that issuing accurate weather information was not regarded as a 'criminal offence', especially when the source (like SAWS) was regarded as a reliable source. HAMNET complained that it was now necessary to pay in order to access SAWS’ website. Because of the restrictions on access to the website, HAMNET had to use alternative sources.

A Democratic Alliance Member understood HAMNET to be a closed network and asked about the dangers of hoax warnings. African National Congress Members asked what HAMNET's sources of funding were, what languages its members used, and in what way HAMNET' s warnings might be more accurate than those of SAWS.

The Chemical and Allied Industries Association indicated key issues that the Bill raised: the intention of amendments, current challenges on implementation of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 2004, the scope of responsibility for air quality information, pollution warnings, that there was no reference to how the proposed amendments would be funded, and the proposed changes. It noted that the Bill's intention was to give effect to the agreement between the Department and SAWS on the establishment and management of an air quality information system, and that there were no changes proposed to the relationship between the regulator and industry. The current situation was that the licensing regime was still not operational. There were inconsistent messages on licensing requirements. The Green House Gas inventory was the subject of co-operation between Business Unity South Africa and the Department. The Association commented on scope of responsibility. As to advisory services, it believed that the inclusion of air pollution concentrations and emissions was beyond the scope of SAWS’ mandate, that the Bill did not acknowledge the responsibility of industry in respect of pollution warnings, and that it duplicated the responsibility of competent authorities. Instruments should be confined to information management. The Association submitted that research should be confined to SAWS. Training in air quality was not an appropriate function for SAWS. The Bill reflected a misunderstanding of the purpose of pollution warnings. Emission incidents must be reported in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act [2004]. Warnings to the public were required in terms of the Major Hazard Installation Regulations: in case of emergency response measures, it was not possible to wait for written permission. The Association proposed deleting definitions not used in the Bill; deleting restrictions on pollution warnings; deleting advisory and consultancy services on individual emissions; including restrictions on the use of business confidential information collected as part of licence applications; and deleting limitation of liability. Ambient air quality was available from a variety of sources, and therefore the definition should clarify those that would be used. There should be no limit on the sources of information to be used for consultancy services. The relationship between these services and advice given by competent authorities should be clarified. The Association further called for a limit on the sources of information to be used for consultancy services; clarifying the cost of these services; clarifying the relationship between this service and the advice given by competent authorities; and including Intellectual Property Rights protection for information submitted by industry in accordance with Section 26 of the Act.

A Democratic Alliance Member found the presentation rather technical. The Chairperson asked the Association to meet with the Department and give the results of their discussion to the Committee.

The Centre for Environmental Rights submitted orally that if the Weather Service was the custodian of air quality-related functions, this might create a silo between the information-gathering and dissemination functions and between other aspects of air quality management, like enforcement and licensing of activities. The organisation sought a continuing strong link between the Department and the Weather Service.

The Chairperson asked the Department to note the Centre's concerns.

The Society of Master Mariners South Africa, submitted that South Africa was a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (as amended) which required that the master of every ship which met with such hazards as dangerous ice, a tropical storm, severe ice build-up on ships' superstructures, or winds of force 10 or above on the Beaufort scale for which no storm warning had been received, was bound to communicate the information by all means at his disposal to ships in the vicinity, and also to the competent authorities. Moreover, no person should not prevent or restrict the master of the ship from taking or executing any decision which, in the master's professional judgement, was necessary for safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment. The Society proposed the term 'severe weather' should be defined; and the proposed Section 30A (1)(a) must be amended to acknowledge and even encourage the Convention's obligation on masters of ships to issue danger messages.

The Chairperson accepted the Society's concerns. The importance of SOLAS could be acknowledged by a general reference to international treaties. There were no Members' questions.

Afternoon session
The FW de Klerk Foundation expressed serious concerns concerning the proposed clause 30A relating to offences and penalties. It argued that the Bill was vague and unconstitutional in that it would impinge on the right to freedom of expression.

Members agreed that the wording was vague.  They agreed that hoax warnings must be prevented and that the wording of Bill had not been properly thought through.  It would need to be revised.

A delegation from e.tv was also concerned about the vagueness of the wording of the Bill.  The scope of the proposed legislation was not clear and could be seen as unconstitutional.  The weather team at the broadcaster were all trained meterologists and could make correct deductions from viewing weather data.  They had a duty to use the medium to warn the public of severe weather events which could lead to the loss of life or property, but felt that having to obtain prior permission from the South African Weather Services before issuing warnings might lead to fatal delays.  While they recognised the authority of the South African Weather Services, the speed of information being passed could be improved.

Members asked about the broadcaster's relationship with the South African Weather Services and if it issued weather warning on television.
Minutes: 
IntroductionThe Chairperson asked that careful note be made of proposed changes to the South African Weather Services Amendment Bill [B22-2011] (the Bill).

Department of Environmental Affairs South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B22-2011] presentation BackgroundMr Peter Lukey, Chief Director, Air Quality Management, Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA, the Department), gave a briefing on the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B22-2011]. As background and introduction he explained the need for an amendment to the South African Weather Service Act 2001 (No 8 of 2001) (the Act). He referred to relevant developments since 2001: the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 2004 (No 39 of 2004) and its 2007 National Framework, and the SAAQIS. He noted that although the South African Weather Service (SAWS) hosted SAAQIS, only a very broad Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) formalised the arrangement. Moreover, in just under 10 years experience of implementing the Act, the Department found that it contained transition provisions which were outdated and no longer needed, contained outdated governance provisions, and lacked teeth.

Developmental processMr Lukey explained the Bill's development process. The Department had begun an initial review in July 2009 and completed and circulated a technical discussion document in October 2009. The Department had in February 2010 briefed the legal drafters, who presented the initial draft Amendment Bill to the Department in May 2010. The Department, however, put the Bill's development process on hold, pending, among others, the finalisation of the Business Case for SAWS to host the SAAQIS, but resumed development of the Bill early in 2011, and presented it to the Cabinet Cluster for the Economic Sectors and Employment and for Infrastructure Development (ESEID) on 06 April, to the Cabinet Committee for ESEID on 13 April, and for Cabinet Decision (public comment) on 29 April 2011 (slide [4]).

The Department published the Bill for public comment in May 2011, addressed SAWS and South African Environmental Observation Network comments and consulted the National Treasury in June 2011, presented the Bill's final draft to the Cabinet Committee for ESEID on 31 August 2011 with a Cabinet Decision (tabling in Parliament) on 07 September 2011.

The revised Bill was introduced in the National Assembly and an explanatory summary of the Bill published in September 2011.

Public comments May-June 2011Mr Lukey noted that the Department received only two sets of comments during its 30-day period for public comment in May-June 2011. At that time the Department did not find this surprising, as it envisaged the Bill as largely technical in nature. These sets of comments were from SAWS itself on technical issues on the appointment of its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to serve as a member of the Board and to request clarity on who should be the accounting officer in terms of the Public Finance Management Act 1999 (No 1 of 1999) (PFMA); and from the South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) proposing, in the main, free and open access to the National Climatological Databank (NCD) and air quality information.

The Bill's objectives The Bill sought to amend the South African Weather Service Act 2001 (No 8 of 2001) by:
removing redundant provisions;
providing for the additional functions of SAWS as to the rendering of air quality information services, being the custodian of the SAAQIS and the NAQMN, and the operation of the NAQMN;
addressing administrative challenges experienced with governance issues; and
including a provision for offences and penalties (slide [7]).

Mr Lukey noted that is was this last provision that had captured the public's especial interest.

Air Quality Information ManagementIn order to meet the information requirements for good air quality governance and ensure full compliance with the Air Quality Act, the Department, in partnership with SAWS, had been developing the SAAQIS and its National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network. However, the only formal agreement between the Department and SAWS was a very broad Memorandum of Agreement.

A legal mandate was needed for SAWS, the Department and SAWS had agreed, for SAWS to implement the above systems efficiently and effectively. Such a legal mandate, Mr Lukey emphasised, had not existed before. Most of the Bill's proposed amendments to the Act therefore dealt with the ambient air quality information service function, and, consequently, the proposed amendments provided SAWS with this legal mandate to perform the Ambient Air Quality Information Service: Mr Lukey emphasised that it was purely around information; the Department would not lose any element of its accountability for service delivery. On the contrary it was merely acquiring a legal mandate to perform certain aspects of this work. It could be seen as delegation. (Slide [9]).

The BoardThe Bill sought amendments to ensure that the needs of the air quality management stakeholders were taken into account when Board members were appointed; that the remuneration of Board members was to be approved by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs; that the Board should be the accounting authority, to align with the PFMA which was very important; and that provision was made to limit the liability of SAWS under certain circumstances (slide [10]).

Chief Executive Officer The new provision prescribed the process for appointing the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the term of appointment and responsibilities. The new provision would compel the Board to enter into an annual performance agreement with the CEO. The provision set out the grounds for terminating the CEO's service and appointing an acting CEO. Mr Lukey noted that these were all typical of the King III Code of Governance for South Africa 2009 recommendations.

Offences and penaltiesSection 4(3) of the Act stipulated that SAWS alone might issue severe weather-related warnings over South Africa in order to have a single authoritative voice in this regard.

However, the above provision was not enforceable.

Therefore, the Bill provided (Clause 12) that it would now be an offence to issue severe weather or air pollution-related warnings without the necessary written permission of SAWS. (Slide [12])

Right from the outset, Mr Lukey explained, the provisions concerning air pollution-related warnings were actually a mistake, since they conflicted with the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 2004. These provisions were included in an early draft of the Bill. After internal discussion, they were removed from the early clauses of the Bill, but, by mistake, they had not been removed from the offences and penalties (Clause 12).

SchedulesThe Bill amended the Act's Schedules to make provision for the additional services for the public good and for the commercial services relating to the SAAQIS and the National Air Quality Management Network.

Organisational and personnel implicationsThe Bill did not create new structures in the Department, but rather transferred the SAAQIS and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network function to the SAWS.

Accordingly, in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, a new Air Quality Information Unit had been established at SAWS to implement the SAAQIS and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network function.

Financial implicationsThe Department's budget would increase to include additional funds for implementing the Bill's proposed amendments concerning the SAAQIS and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network function.

Current concernsIt was the Bill's Clause 12 to enforce the Act's Section 4(3) provision that 'Only the Weather Service may issue severe weather-related warnings over South Africa in order to ensure that there is a single authoritative voice in this regard' that had aroused the media's attention. Mr Lukey explained why.

Considering the importance of a credible severe weather warning system and how false, misleading or hoax warnings effectively undermined credibility, the Bill introduced, by way of this Clause, an offence and penalty: 'No person may ... issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service'. As Mr Lukey had said earlier, the reference to air pollution-related warnings was now to be removed, as its inclusion had been a mistake. [Slide [16]. However, Mr Lukey acknowledged that the wording had been found too open-ended and was tending to criminalise the very act of issuing a warning, even warnings with good intent. He gave examples, such as a farmer warning his neighbours by citizen's band (CB) radio of a hailstorm the approach of which he himself had witnessed. It was, of course, not the Department's intention to outlaw such warnings which were genuinely in the public interest. However, the Department sought to prohibit false warnings that resulted in panic and injury.

DiscussionThe Chairperson inferred that is was the Department's intention to prevent hoaxes but not prevent genuine warnings in the public interest.

Mr Lukey said that the Department wanted to encourage people, such as the above-mentioned farmer, to communicate with SAWS so as to enable information to be further disseminated.

Current concerns (continued) The associated proposed penalties were similar to those contained in all current environmental legislation. He pointed out that the Bill merely proposed an upper limit, not a minimum fine. The actual fine was at the discretion of the courts (See slide [17]).

DiscussionThe Chairperson had repeatedly advised parliamentary drafters to spell out the intention of legislation and not leave so much discretion to the courts. Why should it be left to the courts to interpretation what the intention of the legislature was?

ConclusionsMr Lukey said that the Department was gratified at the new level of interest in the proposed amendment, after it had received only two sets of comments in May to June 2011.

The Department noted some merit in respect of the new concerns.

The Department hoped that the Committee would provide it with an opportunity to submit proposals on how the current concerns could be addressed without compromising the good intentions of the amendments.

Mr Lukey pointed out that it was not SAWS' intention to corner the market. However, SAWS was a national asset.

He pointed out the role of the SAWS Regulatory Committee, which was basically a watchdog. Concerns about the SAWS could be reported to this regulator which was obliged by law to investigate.
(See presentation)

DiscussionThe Chairperson wanted to hear all the submissions before the Committee would consider new wording. He thanked Mr Lukey, and congratulated the Department, together with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on the Conference of the Parties (COP) 17.

Mr Lukey suggested that the Committee should visit the SAWS.

Mr G Morgan (DA) appreciated the Department's implicit request to the Committee to remove from the Bill the reference under offences and penalties to air pollution-related warnings.

Mr Morgan asked if, in fact, 'severe weather' was defined, and weather it could be defined. He could not find it in the definitions in the Act or in the Bill. Good drafting would imply clarity on that subject. Did the Department regard the definition as important? No doubt the courts could interpret, but he was not sure that one would want to leave that to the courts. In the context of climate change, was an 'extreme weather event' the same as 'a severe weather event'. He said that the Bill required good drafting and tight definitions to avoid leaving interpretation entirely to the courts.

Mr Morgan asked the Department to provide the Committee with some background on the proposed amendments that were regarded as uncontroversial, in particular Clause 7 on the secondment of employees from the Department to the SAWS. Why was the Clause included? Was it in fact good practice to second employees from a Government department to an entity?

Mr Morgan further asked for clarity on Clause 8, which referred to the issue of the accounting officer. He knew that there had been a clash between the PFMA and the Weather Service Act 2001, and he was glad that the Bill sought to resolve this conflict. However, what in practice had happened operationally in the past years? Who had been the accounting officer since the commencement of the Act?

Mr Morgan noted that the Bill provided for an increase in the SAWS' functions principally in regard to air pollution management. He called for more detail on the business case study for the Bill.

Ms J Manganye (ANC) asked, in the context of the SAWS being the only voice for issuing severe weather warnings, how effective the present warning system was.

Ms D Tsotetsi (ANC) wanted to ensure that all the provinces had the infrastructure to contend with emergencies, such as those recently in Mpumalanga and Limpopo.

The Chairperson asked why, when departments created agencies, they gave them the exclusive power to make policy.

He was especially concerned about the implications of policy making by the boards of entities when the board expanded the commercial activities of the entity. It was a huge problem. He hoped that he would not be misunderstood, and he acknowledged the specialised knowledge that existed in entities such as the SAWS.

Departments should reserve the right to set the policy framework. The parameters of policy making must reside with Government and with politicians who were accountable.

The Chairperson asked how big the SAWS Board was.

The Department replied that there were 12 members of the Board.

The Chairperson asked how the Board was held accountable.

The Chairperson was dismayed that the policy making responsibility which the Constitution had given to the Executive, was, in so many instances, given away, and a board decision that was really a political issue could now only be stopped through the courts. He emphasised that policy formulation should remain the preserve of Government. It was wrong that departmental agencies such as those of this Department took policy formulation upon themselves.

The Chairperson asked about the role of the CEO and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in relation to the Board.

He further commented on the issue of policy and the function of the agency and accounting authority issues.

ResponsesMr Lukey replied to Mr Morgan that the Department had reconsidered the dictionary definition of 'severe', and found that the dictionary definition was inadequate. The Department now thought that it was necessary to define certain terms, such as 'severe weather warnings'.

The Chairperson said that the Bill's definition was wrongly worded. He imagined that if the Department reworded the definition in the way that Mr Lukey had explained it, it would not even be necessary to use the phrase 'severe weather warning'. If the Department were to say 'false and misleading weather information' that led to stampedes [or other such consequences], then a definition of 'severe weather warning' was not required. The debate would then hinge on 'false'.

Mr Lukey replied that the Department would try to find a solution that was the simplest, since the more definitions were included in an attempt to give clarification, the greater was the potential for confusion. The Department also acknowledged that there was no definition of weather-related disaster in the National Disaster Management Act 2002 (No 57 of 2002).

The Chairperson warned against mixing concepts in Clause 12. He affirmed the right of the SAWS to issue warnings while emphasising the importance of the right of individuals to disseminate information. Clause 12 needed further debate.

Mr Lukey referred to Clause 7 on secondment. The whole concept of air quality management was a new one. Until 2005 the Department had no information system on air quality. Both the Department and the SAWS had been building up their capacity in parallel. This was the intention for this Clause. The Department was effectively the client in this situation.

With regard to Clause 8, the motivating factor was not failure, but to achieve compliance with the PFMA, and avoid the implication that 'despite' the PFMA, the SAWS might do something different.

Mr Lukey referred to the business case. It was not really a classic business case because the SAWS was not a business. It was actually the provision of a service that one paid for directly, and SAWS was based on the kind of financial service that the Department gave to SAWS, which based its work on a business plan approved by the Department.

Mr Lukey said that it was not really the warning that was important, but the response to the warning. SAWS was a very important member of the entire disaster management fraternity of South Africa. SAWS was considering the use of cell phones as one of a number of additional means of disseminating severe weather warnings.

Mr Lukey replied to Ms Tsotetsi that disaster response was not included in the SAWS mandate but fell specifically under the Department of Cooperative Governance (DoCG) in terms of the National Disaster Management Act. The SAWS had an exceptionally important role, however, in relation to the disaster management centres in providing continuously accurate information on the weather, as did the Department of Water Affairs in providing information on river levels.

The Chairperson requested the Department to present to the Committee the future framework, and the performance agreements and policy frameworks set by successive ministers. The Committee would then have a proper debate on them.

Mr Lukey promised that the Department would prepare a full briefing.

The Chairperson, from his own perspective as a former deputy minister, spoke on the need for appropriate and effective delegation of authority.

Follow-up questionsMr Morgan asked how other legislation dealt with 'hoaxes'.

The Chairperson commented that such definitions were to be found in other legislation, such as the Terrorism Act, and in the Judicial Matters Bill. There was also protection in common law, but of course it would be civil.

Mr Morgan was concerned about the air quality functions given to SAWS, which was a national entity, and sought assurance that they were aligned to provincial and local government. Under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, local government was the most important sphere in relation to air quality. The Bill was tagged a Section 75 Bill, but he wanted to be sure about possible implications for the provinces.

The Chairperson sought reasons for the tagging.

Ms Suraya Williams, Principal State Law Advisor, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), explained why it had been tagged as a Section 75 Bill. The Bill in essence did not deal with the formulation or anything regarding air pollution or air quality control. Therefore the State Law Advisors were of the view that the amendment Bill was within the meaning of any other matters referred to in Section 44 of the Constitution. Actually the Bill dealt with certain aspects of ambient air, but it did not substantially fall in the concurrent provided for in the relevant Schedule.

The Chairperson accepted what Ms Williams had said, but wanted to consider the matter further. He spoke of the dominant purpose test which had been used in drafting the Constitution, and which had a precedent in Canada. The whole intention of the Constitution had been to keep provincial matters to a certain limit. He wanted to avoid the Bill's subsequently being determined unconstitutional purely on procedural grounds.

Mr Lukey said that the SAWS was in the best position to provide an additional service, on air quality, to the licensed authorities. The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act was not in any way amended by this Bill.

The Chairperson said that all aspects of air pollution could be seen as a concurrent power. It was a technical legal issue relating to Schedule 4 of the Constitution. He preferred to be cautious and wanted to prevent the Bill's stalling on a procedural matter. He would depend on the advice of the State Law Advisors. It remained to be resolved how Parliament would treat the Bill.

HAMNET Emergency Communications presentationMr Francois Botha, National Director, HAMNET Emergency Communications: the Emergency Communications Division of the South African Radio League, submitted that, in principle, HAMNET [amateur network] had no objection to the Bill, except the one issue of the proposed insertion of Section 30A in the Act - 'No person may issue severe weather or air-related warning without ....'.

Mr Botha, himself an amateur radio operator, explained that among services that HAMNET offered the community, was to inform it of adverse weather conditions if and when the situation might arise. HAMNET's members were fully trained, licensed and dedicated amateur radio operators.

This allowed recipients to prepare themselves for either possible flooding or heavy snow falls. HAMNET had a proud record of having issued various 'advisories' over the years which had been very accurate. HAMNET obtained the information from SAWS and it was therefore regarded as accurate and from a reliable source.

HAMNET felt that if it was prohibited from issuing these warnings, it might jeopardise life and limb. Moreover, by issuing such a warning, SAWS which HAMNET gave the community would become, under the proposed legislation, a criminal offence.

HAMNET thought that this was counter productive and not in the interests of members of the public in general.

HAMNET therefore recommended that Clause [number] be either withdrawn or written in such a way that issuing accurate weather information was not regarded as a 'criminal offence', especially when the source (like the SAWS) was regarded as a reliable source.

Mr Botha noted that obtaining weather information from around the world was available in many formats on a minute-by-minute basis and most, if not all of it, was very accurate. He therefore emphasised that the proposed Section 30A be accordingly amended.

Mr Botha pointed out that the SAWS did not inform the public well enough about the dangers, especially flooding, which could occur as a result of 'cut-off lows' - a term often used, but hardly explained.

Mr Botha complained that it was now necessary to pay in order to access the SAWS website. Since the information was now not available, HAMNET members' jobs were made harder.

HAMNET was very careful if it issued a warning. Moreover, such warnings were transmitted to HAMNET members. Creating a monopoly was a problem. There should be sharing of information. Because of the restrictions on access to the SAWS website, HAMNET had to use alternative sources.

(See presentation and submission)

DiscussionThe Chairperson gave an assurance that there would be a much more specific prohibition in the final version of the Bill. He criticized the SAWS for not being assertive enough in giving out information. Maybe the oversight visit that SAWS had suggested was long overdue, and perhaps the Committee should reprimand SAW. The lines of communication must be streamlined. It took time to do everything through formal structures, and he thanked Mr Botha for raising the matter. Moreover, he assured Mr Botha that the Committee appreciated HAMNET's work.

Mr Morgan understood HAMNET to be a closed network. He asked about the dangers of hoax warnings.

Ms Tsotetsi asked what HAMNET's sources of funding were.

Ms Tsotetsi asked what languages HAMNET members used.

Dr S Huang (ANC) asked in what way HAMNET' s warnings might be more accurate than those of SAWS.

ResponsesMr Botha replied that he was friendly with Radio 702 in Johannesburg. HAMNET reported events to the station, but did not issue advisories. Anyone who had information was welcome to share it with HAMNET. Moreover, HAMNET encouraged sharing information with the SAWS. Most amateur radio operators were to be found in the big cities. Some were farmers, and some worked in the emergency medical services. Amateur radio operators in South Africa used mainly English and Afrikaans, but members of the South African Amateur Radio League (SARL) in Johannesburg were fostering in schools an interest in amateur radio in order to broaden knowledge of and interest in amateur radio in the wider community. It was to be hoped that more languages would be heard on the air. Radio amateurs could use any language, subject to the restriction that they must give their call sign, for example, ZS6BUU, at the beginning and end of every segment of transmission.

Mr Botha replied to Ms Tsotetsi that HAMNET members financed their equipment and operation entirely at their own expense. Their activities were entirely voluntary, and HAMNET was a purely voluntary organisation. A small exception was some particular financial help from Sasol in expectation of assistance when required.

Chemical and Allied Industries Association (CAIA) Weather Services Act presentationKey issuesDr Lorraine Lotter, Executive Director, Chemical and Allied Industries Association (CAIA), indicated key issues that the Bill raised: the intention of amendments, current challenges on implementation of the Air Quality Act, the scope of responsibility for air quality information, pollution warnings, that there was no reference to how the proposed amendments would be funded, and the proposed changes.

The Bill's intentionDr Lotter noted that the Bill's intention was to give effect to the agreement between the Department and the SAWS on the establishment and management of an air quality information system, and that there were no changes proposed to the relationship between the regulator and industry.

The current situationThe licensing regime, Dr Lotter explained, was still not operational. There were inconsistent messages on licensing requirements. Advice on requirements was provided by national and local government. Under the existing legislation the information to be provided in licence applications was still not clarified. Concerns around public access to confidential business information remained unresolved. The development of phase 2 of the SAAQIS included stakeholder involvement. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory was the subject of co-operation between Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) and the Department.

Scope of responsibilityAs to advisory services, Dr Lotter said that CAIA believed that the inclusion of air pollution concentrations and emissions was beyond the scope of the SAWS mandate; the Bill did not acknowledge the responsiblity of industry in respect of pollution warnings; and the Bill duplicated the responsibility of competent authorities.

The CAIA thought that instruments should be confined to information management.

Research should be confined to SAWS.

Training in air quality was not an appropriate function for SAWS.

Pollution warningsThe Bill reflected a misunderstanding of the purpose of pollution warnings, Dr Lotter said. She pointed out that emission incidents must be reported in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEMA) (No 9 of 2004). Warnings to the public were required in terms of the Major Hazard Installation Regulations: in case of emergency response measures, it was not possible to wait for written permission.

CAIA's proposed changes to the BillThe CAIA called for:
▪ deleting definitions not used in the Bill;
▪ deleting restrictions on pollution warnings;
▪ deleting advisory and consultancy services on individual emissions;
▪ including restrictions on use of business confidential information collected as part of licence applications;
▪ deleting limitation of liability of SAWS. (CAIA was worried about this.)

The CAIA noted that ambient air quality was available from a variety of sources, and that therefore the definition should clarify those that would be used.

There should be no limit on the sources of information to be used for consultancy services.

The relationship between these services and advice given by competent authorities should be clarified.

CAIA further called for:
▪ a limit on the sources of information to be used for consultancy services;
▪ clarifying the cost of these services;
▪ clarifying the relationship between this service and the advice given by competent authorities; and
▪ including Intellectual Property Rights protection for information submitted by industry (Section 26 of Act).
 (See presentation and submission, especially the table of detailed comments)

DiscussionMr Morgan agreed with the Chairperson in finding the presentation rather technical and that it would be useful to ask for some suggested amendments.

The Chairperson asked the CAIA to meet with Mr Lukey and give the results of their discussion to the Committee.

The Chairperson was pleased at the progress of the hearings, the Department having, in its briefing, acknowledged 'mea culpa' [i.e. the Department had admitted its mistake in Clause 12].

There were no further Members' questions.

Centre for Environmental Rights oral presentationMs Robyn Hugo, Staff Attorney, Centre for Environmental Rights, a law clinic and not-for-profit organisation providing legal expertise to community organisations, civil society, and the community at large. She referred Members to her organisation's written submission on behalf of groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance. All three of these organisations strove for environmental justice and improvement in the quality of life for vulnerable people and helping civil society have a greater impact on environmental governance. Their submissions had also been endorsed by the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA). She had intended to address the Committee about the offence of unauthorised issuing of air pollution-related warnings (Clause 12) which in the view of the above organisations had potentially negative implications for the environment and public health. Her organisation's clients disclosed, in the public interest, air pollution-related information, and believed that this practice was well-established and was a valuable check and balance. However, she was now happy to hear that prohibition of such warnings had been included in the Bill in error, and she would not speak about the matter further. She also noted the Chairperson's comments on transferring certain functions to the Weather Service. Her organisation had addressed this in its written submission. If the Weather Service was the custodian of air quality-related functions, the organisation feared that this might create a silo between the information-gathering and dissemination functions and between other aspects of air quality management, like enforcement and licensing of activities. The organisation sought a continuing strong link between the Department and the Weather Service (see submission).

DiscussionThe Chairperson asked Ms Hugo to provide other suggestions, if not now, then in writing. He noted that the Department had now identified three problems that it wished to prevent - false information, misleading information, and hoaxes. It also wished to prevent the consequences of these.

The Chairperson appreciated Ms Hugo’s drawing attention to the risks of possible fragmentation of functions.

The Chairperson asked Dr Lukey to note the organisation's concerns. He noted that secondment of staff might enhance the flow of information.

There were no Members' questions.

Society of Master Mariners South Africa oral submissionProposed Section 30ACaptain Rob Whitehead, President: Society of Master Mariners South Africa, submitted that the Bill's proposed insertion into the Act after Section 30 of offences and penalties (proposed Section 30A) was of great concern to the Society. He gave reasons:

The phrase 'severe weather' was not defined in the Bill and was vague;

South Africa was a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 (as amended); Chapter V (Safety of Navigation) of this Convention dealt in some detail with meteorological services and warnings: Regulation 31 (Danger Messages) section 1 of this Chapter required that the master of every ship which met with dangerous ice, a dangerous derelict, or any other direct danger to navigation, or a tropical storm, or encountered sub-freezing air temperatures associated with gale force winds causing severe ice accretion on superstructures, or winds of force 10 or above on the Beaufort scale for which no storm warning had been received, was bound to communicate the information by all means at his disposal to ships in the vicinity, and also to the competent authorities.

Further, Regulation 34 of the above required that the owner, the charterer, the company operating the ship as defined in Regulation IX/1, or any other person, should not prevent or restrict the master of the ship from taking or executing any decision which, in the master's professional judgement, was necessary for safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment.

While the Society appreciated that there should be 'a single authoritative voice”, as envisaged in the Act, when issuing severe weather warnings, it was a fact that masters of ships, who often found themselves in remote sea areas and were the first to detect warning signs of and to experience severe weather conditions, must take into account their obligation 'to communicate the information by all means at their disposal to ships in the vicinity, and also to the competent authorities' in terms of the SOLAS Convention.

The Society proposed:
The term 'severe weather' should be defined;

The proposed Section 30A (1)(a) must be amended to acknowledge and even encourage the SOLAS obligation on masters of ships to issue danger messages.

The proposed Section should be worded as follows:
'No person may -
(a) issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service (except in the case of a ship's master acting in terms of his obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of LIfe at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 (as amended).'

The Act's failure to recognise Government's important meteorological obligations in terms of SOLASCaptain Whitehead said the Society strongly believed that the Bill's proposed amendment of Section 3 of the Act must include the insertion of a new paragraph (g) laying down a Weather Service objective as follows:

'(g) to fulfil the meteorological obligations of the Government under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 (as amended).'

DiscussionThe Chairperson accepted Capt Whitehead's concerns. In particular, the concern around SOLAS could be accommodated in a more general reference to international treaties. This should not be a problem.

There were no Members' questions.

Afternoon session
Presentation by the FW de Klerk Foundation 
Mr Dave Steward, Executive Director, FW de Klerk Foundation, welcomed the chance to express the views of the Foundation.  In general, the Foundation was in agreement with most of the provisions of the Weather Service Amendment Bill. However, it had serious concerns regarding the proposed clause 30A relating to offences and penalties. He welcomed the news that the Department had moved to change the wording but the concern still remained nonetheless.  There had to be an open public debate in a free society.  This would inevitably lead to misunderstandings and incorrect impressions.  He felt that it would be unconstitutional to make this an offence.

The Chairperson said that the Bill proposed a prohibition on false and misleading information.

Mr Steward argued that it was a matter of interpretation of what was meant by false and misleading.

The Chairperson said that the courts would have to decide.

Mr Steward said that Section 30 could be interpreted as a prohibition on any criticism of a government organ.  This would lead to a curb on free expression, debate and political activity.  It was the Foundation's opinion that the wording of this clause should be reconsidered to be brought within the realms of freedom of expression.  The current wording infringed on Section 16 of the Constitution.

Discussion
Mr Morgan said that the Members had discussed this issue in the morning session. He asked to what extent an organisation could have legislation that would prevent false or misleading information about that body.  The focus had been on the aim of the Bill and not on the drafting.

Ms D Tsotetsi (ANC) said that it was correct and lawful to prevent false or hoax warnings.

Mr Morgan said that he had read the Bill intensively. He wondered if any comments he might have made as a Member had caused commercial harm to SAWS.  The Bill was going far beyond simply banning hoax warnings.

The Chairperson said that three separate offences were being defined.

Mr Morgan sketched the effect should he go and publicly criticise the SAWS.  He suspected that this was not the intent, but there was a problem in the drafting.

Mr Steward asked what the consequences would be if such legislation applied to the office of the President.  This would put a burden on any public commentator to make absolutely certain that their comments did not contain any false or misleading information otherwise they would be subject to a serious fine or even imprisonment.  The clause in this Bill was fundamentally unconstitutional.

The Chairperson said that most organs of state had similar provisions.  He urged Mr Steward to read similar legislation pertaining to other organs.  The Committee would accept any further written submission from the Foundation.

Presentation by e.tv
Adv Nick Ferreira, an Advocate in Gauteng acting as Counsel for e.tv, presented an opinion on behalf of e.tv.  ETV recognised the importance of updating the South African Weather Services Act to allow the South African Weather Services function effectively. However, e.tv is concerned about the effects of s 30A of the Amendment Bill. This section was over-broad and vague and should be amended to narrow the scope of the new criminal offences to more precisely achieve their purpose.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the Department had conceded that the clause was too wide and should concentrate on hoax warnings.  It was clear that the clause needed to be amended.

Adv Ferreira said that there was also a submission regarding Section 30A. (1) (c).

The Chairperson said that there had not been engagement with the DWEA.  The issue was not freedom of speech, but to what extent government could create an offence.

Adv Ferreira said that the Amendment Bill created three new offences, relating to the issuing of warnings regarding weather and air pollution, and criticism of the SAWS.  The language was too vague to make it clear what the scope of the legislation was.  He listed examples of offences which related to freedom of expression.  This need to have prior permission for publication of warnings from SAWS was a form of prior restraint.  This was the highest form of curbing freedom of expression.

Adv Ferreira said that a high level of justification was needed to curb freedom of expression.  There was a delay when having to apply for permission, and this might restrict the effectiveness of warnings for impending weather events.  It was important to prevent hoaxes, but the problem lay in the far-reaching nature of the proposed criminal offences.  The focus needed to be narrower.  He could not give an exact example, but there was a precedent.  The Constitutional Court had issued a ruling on a case where the Islamic Unity body had denied that the holocaust had happened.

Adv Ferreira said that it was not clear what was meant by a severe weather warning.  There was also a lack of clarity over the nature of issuing such a warning.  The Constitutional Court had said that such legislation must be as clear as possible to enable the public to comply.

Adv Ferreira said that e.tv was concerned about the proposed Section 30A. (1) (c).  This created severe criminal liability.  This proposed offence was very broadly defined.  The misleading information might come from within SAWS.  A range of happenings, such as a creditor company going bankrupt or employees of SAWS staging an illegal strike, would also be seen as criminal acts.  It was not clear where unlawfulness would come from.  This sub-clause could be deleted.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Adv Ferreira for his helpful submission.

Ms Tsotetsi felt that the examples put forward were not relevant.  It should not be an offence to look at weather patterns and predict what problems may develop.

The Chairperson said that the intention was to prevent false warnings from being issued to the public.

Mr Morgan asked Mr Derek Van Dam, Senior Meterologist, e.tv, what part of his work involved simply reporting on weather patterns or included issuing warnings.  The degree of severity was open to individual interpretation.  He asked if the possibility of committing an offence would cause him to adjust his personal interpretation of weather events. There had not been many hoaxes in the past.  On occasion, a weather reporter might be mistaken. Data could be drawn from unreliable sources.  He asked if this would temper a forecaster's enthusiasm in imparting information to the public.  The legislation should rather target people impersonating a weather service, as had happened recently.

Adv Ferreira said that the Committee had to bear in mind that a Judge could not interpret the intent behind an Act, but would have to make his or her decisions based on the written letter of the law.

The Chairperson said that the intent was not to punish negligence except in sub paragraph (c).

Mr Van Dam said that his definition of a severe warning had been discussed internally. It would be any weather event endangering the lives or property of South African citizens.  As a trained meterologist, he and the team at e.tv recognised the authority of SAWS.  Warnings issued were in the terms of their mandate.  It was up to him and his department to distribute warnings of hazardous conditions to the public as soon as possible.  He needed to know that he could do this freely.

The Chairperson asked what the broadcaster's relationship with SAWS was like.  He looked at the United States of America (USA) where weather reporting was much quicker to respond to events.  More information could be given to media services in a direct manner.  He could not recall seeing a weather warning on television.  There could have been a better response in many cases leading to lives being saved.

Mr Van Dam suggested that the relationship between the weather department at the broadcaster and SAWS should grow.  He had worked with the equivalent body in the USA.  Systems allowed for automatic displays of severe events such as tornadoes.

The Chairperson said that if the media was used to better effect, the SAWS would be more credible.  He hoped that SAWS and the DWEA would take this advice to heart.

Ms Tsotetsi asked how hurricanes were named.

The Chairperson was glad that there had been a large degree of consensus.  The process had gone well.  The point of the public hearing process was to gather as much expert information as possible.  This would lead to better legislation.

The meeting was adjourned.
South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B22-2011] public hearings Day 2


Date of Meeting: 
 25 Jan 2012
Chairperson: 
 Adv J de Lange (ANC)
Summary: 
weather.co.za submitted that weather hoaxes could not be fought by laws, but only with information. It was very hard to prosecute the originators of hoaxes. The solution was very simple: ensure a better distribution of information, and establish a better warning system about hoaxes. The Bill was not in line with international rules on hazards. South Africa did not need less but rather more competition to guarantee a better forecasting quality than currently available. More and more features of the South African Weather Service website were available only to paid subscribers. The Bill did not define 'severe weather warning'. The Bill allowed the Minister to change the legislation without it going through Parliament. Parliament needed to rethink the current policy on 'one single voice' in regard to severe weather warnings.

A Democratic Alliance Member asked where alternative sources of weather information were obtained, if weather.co.za issued weather warnings and if so, from where it obtained information, and if weather.co.za would find it more acceptable if Parliament created a specific offence for issuing a hoax warning.

Ocean Satellite Imaging Systems submitted that the proposed Section 30A1(a) and (c) would have far reaching consequences, including some that contravened other laws. Any forecast that specified dangerous conditions such as high seas or gale force winds could be construed as a weather warning. This would be tantamount to criminalising the dissemination of common or general knowledge. In many respects the proposed Section 30A would criminalise the provision of a warning based on freely available information. Criminalising the warning of mariners and other sea users would lead to a significant increase in danger to them especially to fishermen. The requirement that independent weather service providers seek permission from the Weather Service to issue a weather-related warning was uncompetitive and potentially monopolistic. A master of a vessel was legally bound to give warning of inclement weather, in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1951 as amended and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. People were responsible adults who were responsible for their own actions and for making correct decisions on the basis of a weather warning.

The Chairperson pointed out that the newspapers had misunderstood the situation. The Bill merely placed a limit on the fine or penalty. It was otherwise entirely up to the courts to decide what to do. He explained that the Bill's aim was to prevent false or misleading information and hoaxes. There was no necessity for authorisation. Dissemination of information was the issue. Services such as Ocean Satellite Imaging Systems had nothing to fear.

AfriForum opposed the Bill for the threat it posed to the safety of South African citizens; the unjustifiable violation of the rights of South Africans to freedom of expression and access to information; the responsible party (the Weather Service) not accepting liability for negligence; and the negative practical effect that the Bill might have on the environment. Afriforum also thought that the Bill amounted to an abuse of state power at the expense of South African citizens. AfriForum was committed to opposing hoaxes, since these violated the safety of the public and civil rights. However, the timing of warnings was critical and had implications for the people in the area affected. The Bill also implied in the proposed Section 27A (see Clause 10 of the Bill) that the Weather Service would not be accountable if it failed to do its job properly. AfriForum acknowledged that many issues and concerns had already been addressed.

The Chairperson said that yesterday's 'mea culpa' [my fault] acknowledgement by the Department of Environmental Affairs had smoothed the path for consensus. The Weather Service was a very valuable resource, but had bureaucratised its work in a way that it did not function the way it should and thereby obstructed the flow of information. When the Committee reviewed the Weather Service budget in May or June 2012 it would examine the issues of commercialisation. There were some services that should not be commercialised.

The South African National Editors Forum objected to the provisions for censorship of news relating to weather forecasting and news or information relating to the pollution of the atmosphere. In particular, it was alarmed at the provisions of the Bill for lengthy periods of imprisonment and excessive fines. It believed that the restrictions proposed in the Bill could constitute a breach of the Constitution. It recognised the intentions of the Bill to prevent harmful false weather forecasting, and favoured action against those who issued hoaxes, but the requirement for permission from the Weather Service for issuing weather warnings would seriously inhibit the media from publishing stories obtained from reputable sources other than the Weather Service such as international, academic or scientific institutions. Apart from the practical difficulties of obtaining such permission, the requirement constituted censorship. Apart from other objections, the Bill did not define 'severe weather', a failure that was likely to lead to much argument in the event of a dispute.

The Chairperson and the Forum disagreed amicably on the interpretation of Clause 12 in so far as it proposed penalties. What the Chairperson took as an upper limit, the Forum appeared to take as a mandatory sentence. The Chairperson assured the Forum that the Committee was also concerned about the wording of proposed Section 30A(1)(c). He asked the Department, which itself had received only two sets of comments, to provide the Forum with the Department's announcements. The Committee worked differently and pro-actively targeted stakeholders and sought out their views.

 Wavescape Surfing South Africa acknowledged the concessions already made, but submitted concerns that the Bill's proposed amendments might render some of its work illegal. Its free service drew data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Wavescape provided thrice-weekly specialised analyses to users. There was a need in a free and open society for such a particularly focused and free service for all South Africans. There should be more collaboration between the smaller, more specialist entities and the Weather Service. The information provided was interpreted to the particular needs of clients.

The Chairperson assured Wavescape that its business would not be affected by the Bill and urged the Weather Service to talk to its potential users and find ways of cooperating. The more genuine information that was made available to the public, the fewer losses there would be in future from adverse weather events.

Dr Lisa Ramsay, Researcher and Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal, a specialist in meteorology, air pollution and environmental health, said that her first concern about air pollution warnings had largely been resolved. However, she still wished to express concern about severe weather warnings. If such warnings were to be limited, it was suggested that the term 'severe weather' and 'warning' be clearly defined. She supported a distinction between public warnings and warnings to smaller networks and groups, such as academic meetings. Various research groups and private companies fulfilled forecasting requirements that were not sufficiently addressed by the Weather Service, such as real time warnings of tornadoes or dangerously high levels of ultraviolet radiation. The atmospheric science network was much broader and more collaborative than suggested in the Act. Perhaps a compromise would be to maintain a distinction between a warning and an official warning on severe weather events; as such, any institution could issue a severe weather warning as long as it was made in an unofficial capacity. Those who impersonated the Weather Service would be prosecuted. Dr Ramsay was concerned that the commercialisation of weather data could stifle research and innovation, including student research. The proposed Section 30A(1)(c) limited academic critique of Weather Service data collection methodology, processing or analysis. Scientific knowledge developed through cycles of theorising, critique, reassessment, and re-theorising. Such critique was a natural and necessary mechanism for encouraging innovation within the scientific model. Academics could be prosecuted for any criticism that might be financially detrimental the Weather Service.

The Chairperson asked Dr Ramsay to provide specific information on instances where commercial constraints impacted on the availability of data for academic as distinct from commercial research. The legislation could be revised to provide for such a distinction. A Democratic Alliance Member called for a presentation from the Weather Service and debate on paying for data. He was concerned about charging for historical data, the collection of which had been funded by the taxpayer.

Afternoon SessionThe two submissions scheduled were not heard due to the absence of the presenters.  The public hearings were complete and the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs would now consider the suggested amendments and present an updated version of the South African Weather Services Bill to the Committee for further discussion.  The Department was also tasked to look into past hoaxes and check if there was existing legislation to punish such offences.
Minutes: 
IntroductionThe Chairperson said that, as the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) had already done by way of a press statement, it had yesterday in its input indicated clearly that some of the consequences that might emanate from Section 30A(1)(a) as proposed in Clause 12 of the Bill were not intended, and that what the Department sought to do was prevent false or misleading information and hoaxes, and that therefore the Department wished to see Clause 12 amended accordingly. He noted that many of those present had made submissions on Clause 12, and he asked them to bear in mind that the Department had already conceded the need for amendments to this Clause. Of course, those who were present to make oral submissions or make presentations could still say what they wanted to say. Today there were eight submissions.

weather.co.za presentation Mr Randolf Jorberg, owner of weather.co.za, spoke from a private on-line business background of 14 years. He also said that he had experience of how weather service business worked internationally, although his experience was more in building internet businesses than in creating weather forecasts. He thought it strange that severe weather warnings might be seen as creating problems for the stability of a country. Over the past two weeks he had talked to people in the weather field and he understood the potential for problems.

'Are hoaxes really the problem?' he asked. The problem would not be solved by legislation. Hoaxes could not be fought by laws, but only with information. It was very hard to prosecute the originators of hoaxes since they took steps to conceal their contact details. The solution was very simple. This was to ensure a better distribution of information, and establish a better warning system about hoaxes. There was no way that prosecution of the issuing of severe weather warnings would help South Africa. The Bill was not in line with international rules on hazards.

The Bill in its current state would not lead to fair relations between South African Weather Service (SAWS) and private weather information providers. He pointed out that the South Africa might become the first country in the world where there was a state guaranteed monopoly for weather services. South Africa did not need less but rather more competition to guarantee a better forecasting quality than currently available.

More and more features of the SAWS website were available only to paid subscribers, while SAWS must by law adhere to the World Meteorological Organisation Resolution 40 that urged members to strengthen their commitment to the free and unrestricted exchange of meteorological and related data and products.

The Bill did not define 'severe weather warning'. Also it had to be asked what would be considered 'false information'. There was no 100% accurate weather forecast. The insertion by way of Clause 11 of Section 28A was of great concern, as the Minister could change the legislation without going through Parliament. The offences Clause 12 and proposed Section 28A needed to be removed, and Parliament needed to rethink the current policy on 'one single voice' in regard to severe weather warnings.

Mr Jorberg also pointed out that many private weather information providers could not afford to be present at the hearings since they were in the field as a hobby.

DiscussionThe Chairperson thought that Mr Jorberg was going to the beach. While ties and jackets were not required, Parliament had a dress code and shorts, thongs, and T-shirts were unacceptable and showed disrespect to Parliament's procedures. Surely common sense dictated that anyone attending a meeting of great importance in order to influence the legislature would dress in a seemly manner.

Mr Jorbert said that he had never visited any country's parliament until attending the hearings the previous day and it was all very new to him. He offered to excuse himself, but the Chairperson asked Mr Jorbert to proceed and concentrate on the things that he would like to see amended.

Mr G Morgan (DA) asked where the alternative sources of weather information were obtained. Were these a combination of information from SAWS and international sites, or were these just international sites?

Mr Morgan asked if weather.co.za was actually in the habit of issuing weather warnings. If so, from where did it obtain such information?

The Chairperson told Mr Jorbert that he would tell him when he could answer.

Mr Jorbert replied that Storm Chasing South Africa, who could not attend the meeting, issued eye-witness based warnings, or warnings based on manual interpretation of data from various sources. This was something that SAWS did not do and was unable to do. No organisation would have the necessary resources. This could be done only by private hobbyists, who were doing something very valuable in that regard. Their work was comparable to that done by farmers, as Members had heard the previous day, who sent out messages via citizen's band (CB) radio [or in the case of licensed amateur radio operators through HAMNET].

General weather information services such as weather.co.za used a different approach. They used calculated weather forecasting algorithms based on different experience and properties, and might issue severe weather warnings based on these outcomes. At present weather.co.za did not have the capacity to supply these warnings. So weather.co.za was not currently in danger of being affected by the Bill.

Mr Morgan asked Mr Jorbert if he would find it more acceptable if Parliament created a specific offence for issuing a hoax warning. If so, were there any unforeseen consequences of which the legislature should be aware?

Mr Jorbert replied that including malicious intent in the Bill might be a problem. Neither SAWS nor anyone else would ever be able to create an entirely accurate weather forecast. It would be necessary to define intent to issue a hoax warning. However, he would welcome changes to the Bill such as Mr Morgan had suggested, but he felt that it would be very hard to trace and prosecute originators of hoax warnings as they hid their location and identity.

Ocean Satellite Imaging Systems (OSIS) oral submissionMr Jean Arabonis, Meteorologist, Ocean Satellite Imaging Systems (OSIS), submitted that the proposed Section 30A. 1(a) and (c) would have far reaching consequences, including some that contravened other laws.

Further, the Bill provided no definition of what was deemed to be either a severe weather or air pollution warning. If the Bill used the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)'s definition, only SAWS would be able to provide a forecast outside of calm weather that was legal. Any forecast that specified dangerous conditions such as high seas or gale force winds could be construed as a weather warning. This would be tantamount to criminalising the dissemination of common or general knowledge.

Most independent weather forecast organisations used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Forecast System (GFS) data as the base for their forecasts. The model data was freely available on the internet by virtue of United States freedom of information laws. In many respects the proposed Section 30A would criminalise the provision of a warning based on freely available information from a reputable source.

Weather forecasts were available on the internet from many sites and organisations. Those outside South Africa either fell outside the Bill's jurisdiction or could not be policed, thus South African organisations would be negatively impacted in having to comply with the legislation. Therefore local weather forecasters would be disadvantaged in not receiving local knowledge in specialised forecasts.

Criminalising the warning of mariners and other sea users, even on the basis of accurate and dependable data, would lead to a significant increase in danger to mariners, especially fishermen.

Neither the Act nor the Bill addressed the WMO requirement to recognise the interdependence of national meteorological or hydro-meteorological services and the commercial sector.

Though SAWS was undoubtedly aware of OSIS's existence, it had not consulted with any of the affected parties during the drafting phase of the Bill.

The requirement that independent weather service providers seek permission from SAWS to issue a weather-related warning was uncompetitive and potentially monopolistic.

A master of a vessel was legally bound to give warning of inclement weather, in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1951 (Act No. 57 of 1951) as amended and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requirements. Such would contravene the provisions of the Bill.

The WMO had a severe weather-warning page active since 2005. SAWS should contribute to this site, but was not listed as a contributor.

OSIS submitted that the proposed Section 30A, notably subsections (a) and (c) were harmful to the people of South Africa and should be deleted. Implementation would put South African lives, especially those of mariners, at risk. It was further in contravention of Merchant Shipping Act and SOLAS requirements. Implementation would drive business away from South African independent weather service providers leading to a loss of jobs and an export of jobs and technology.

Mr Arabonis explained that OSIS had been in business for some 12 or 13 years. Its main aim was marine forecasting. Its maritime clients were one of the major assets of the South African economy. It was a small company with three consultant meteorologists or oceanographers. He held an honours degree in oceanic and atmospheric sciences. OSIS made money from subscribers. It did not aim to engage with the public as such other than on a client to professional basis. So it did not run a website giving free information and warnings.

There had been a couple of bogus weather warnings. One had been a tropical cyclone warning for Johannesburg. However, Mr Arabonis emphasised that it did not take a rocket scientist to spot a weather hoax. His issue with weather hoaxes was that people were responsible adults. You did not hear a stock market crash 'warning' and jump out of the window 'just because your neighbour said so'. You made sure of your facts. Everyone should do that, especially people who were making decisions such that they were going to evacuate schools or close harbours, or anything like that. OSIS's clients engaged with it on a personal basis, and before they took a decision to close a harbour on the basis of data from OSIS, they would engage with several other weather forecasters. This was the nature of the game. You were responsible for your actions and for making correct decisions on the basis of a weather warning.

With reference to Section 30A(1) as proposed in Clause 12, Section 4(3) of the South African Weather Service Act 2001 (Act No. 8 of 2001) already provided that only SAWS should issue a weather-related warning. The Bill was now introducing a jail sentence or fine for contravention of an existing provision.

DiscussionAt this point the Chairperson pointed out that the newspapers had misunderstood the situation. The Bill merely placed a limit on the fine or penalty. It was otherwise entirely up to the courts to decide what to do. There was nothing in this legislation that made it obligatory. He quoted an example of 'trash journalism' which said that the Bill contemplated a fine of R5 million.

Mr Arabonis replied that we still had a Bill that prohibited a private individual from issuing a weather warning by taking something that existed already (Section 4(3) of the Act) and attaching a punishment to it. Therefore the Act itself needed to be looked at, and the Bill, in amending the Act, should correct that Section 4.1(3). This Section came from Annexure 3 of the WMO Treaty; the important thing was the wording of the original treaty. He quoted Resolution 40 of the Treaty.

Mr Arabonis agreed that only the SAWS should issue warnings to the public, but stated that commercial or private service providers should be able, legally, to issue weather-related warnings to their clients.

Ocean Satellite Imaging Systems (OSIS) (continued)OSIS had sought dialogue with SAWS but had been rudely rebuffed and had been accused of being 'journalists'. Quite frankly, Mr Arabonis did not know if that was a crime yet. OSIS was going to send the individual a copy of Making Friends and Influencing People. OSIS had been put in contact with the Head of Corporate Affairs, and then referred to someone else: OSIS was still following up this referral, after 10 days of effort.

Mr Arabonis wondered if OSIS must obtain permission for every warning that it issued to its clients, or if it could obtain a blanket permission. SAWS had not made this clear.

The Chairperson said that there would not be an authorisation process.

Mr Arabonis explained that 95% of internet weather service providers derived data from NOAA, whose data was freely available. 5%, including OSIS, were using data from Europe. SAWS did not have a monopoly on the data.

The Bill in its present form would be detrimental to South African mariners. It was completely at odds with the WMO Treaty. If there were to be clauses of this nature, perhaps it should be made illegal to issue a hoax weather warning. Such a provision would not affect OSIS, as it did not issue such hoax warnings, but Mr Arabonis was doubtful how such a provision could be implemented.
(See submission)

Discussion The Chairperson explained that the proposed legislation's aim was to prevent false or misleading information and hoaxes. There was no necessity for authorisation. Dissemination of information was the issue.
Services such as OSIS, using the information in the way that it did, had nothing to fear. The severe weather warnings definition would not be present in the final version of the Bill. However, how the final version of the Bill would be drafted was up to Parliament.

Mr Arabonis opposed a monopoly in any form.

The Chairperson would be happy to receive further written submissions, but no more oral submissions would be accepted.

Mr Morgan saw a similarity between OSIS's relationship with its clients and the closed network of HAMNET about which Members had heard the previous day. He commented that the Department had acknowledged that the Bill had been poorly drafted. It was necessary to ensure that the drafting resonated with the actual intent of the Department.

Ms D Tsotetsi (ANC) disagreed with Mr Arabonis. People could not always recognise a hoax such as a bomb threat and were liable to panic.

Mr Arabonis replied that a bomb threat was more of a terrorist threat. Bombs aroused exceptional fear. On the other hand a weather warning was a much slower process. People did geography at school and weather was a subject about which people knew to some extent.

The Chairperson sought to distinguish between a scam and a public safety issue as represented by a hoax by which even intelligent people could be mislead. It was necessary to prevent impersonation of authoritative sources such as SAWS, and this was not in the legislation but should be considered. He assured Mr Arabonis that no reasonable person was opposed to trying to stop hoaxes.

Mr Arabonis thought that impersonation was a civil matter covered by copyright legislation. He himself would prosecute anyone who put out a false warning on an OSIS letterhead.

The Chairperson said that the problem was people acting on such false information. Such could not be dealt with by a civil action.

The Chairperson assured Mr Arabonis that OSIS would still be doing its work after the legislation had been passed.

AfriForum oral submission Mr Julius Kleynhans, Head: Environmental Affairs, AfriForum, submitted that Afriforum opposed the Bill for various reasons, including:
the threat it posed to the safety of South African citizens;
the unjustifiable violation of the rights of South Africans to freedom of expression and access to information;
the responsible party (SAWS) not accepting liability for negligence; and
the negative practical effect that the Bill might have on the environment.

AfriForum also thought that the Bill amounted to an abuse of state power at the expense of South African citizens.

Recent flooding events in Limpopo and Mpumalanga gave a clear indication of what might happen if this Bill were to be passed. On Wednesday, 18 January 2012, Hoedspruit and surrounds, including parts of the Kruger National Park, were hard hit by Cyclone Dando. Heavy rains and subsequent flooding resulted in some communities being cut-off from civilization. They had to be rescued by emergency services. Afriforum was informed that no prior warnings were issued by the South African Weather Service whatsoever.

It had also been brought to AfriForum's attention that a caller had phoned one of the talk radio stations on the day of the flooding with a warning that Hoedspruit might get flooded that day. Another caller then accused him of inciting panic and said that it was a criminal offence. Mr Kleynhans emphasised that AfriForum was committed to opposing hoaxes, since these violated the safety of the public and civil rights. However, hypothetically, if an early warning could not be issued, and the affected area had been highly populated, the results could have been catastrophic.

Mr Kleynhans pointed out that the timing of warnings was critical and had implications for the people in the area affected.

The Bill also implied in the proposed Section 27A (see Clause 10 of the Bill) that the SAWS would not be accountable if it failed to do its job properly.

Mr Kleynhans acknowledged that many issues and concerns had already been addressed.

Discussion The Chairperson said that yesterday's 'mea culpa' [my fault] acknowledgement by the Department of Environmental Affairs had smoothed the path of consensus.

Mr Kleynhans said that it was good that he had attended yesterday.

The Chairperson believed that it was beneficial that the SAWS was present and listening to the views of stakeholders, since the Weather Service was a very valuable resource, but had bureaucratised its work in a way that it did not function the way it should and thereby obstructed the flow of information. The more assertive the SAWS became, the better, in order to promote the flow of information.

'Our dissemination of information is atrocious in this country.' It was because we bureaucratised it. It was necessary to encourage members of the public to be responsible citizens and the only way to do that was to equip them.

When the Committee reviewed SAWS' budget in May or June 2012 it would examine the issues of commercialisation. He had no problem with commercialisation, but there were some services that should not be commercialised. If Mr Kleynhans wanted to pass on information to the Committee about concerns around the flow of weather information to citizens, rather than to business men, so that they could organise their lives safely, he should do so, and the Committee would take that up with SAWS. The cost of such flow of weather information should be borne by the taxpayer.

Mr Kleynhans agreed and said that AfriForum also worked as a civil rights organisation. Its members were whistle-blowers.

Mr Kleynhans felt assured by what he had heard in the hearings.

There were no Members' questions.

South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) oral submissionMr Raymond Louw, Editorial Consultant, South African National Editors Forum (Sanef), thanked the Chairperson for indicating that the Committee would amend the Bill and thereby addressing many of his concerns. This was extremely welcome indeed. However, he wanted to go through his submission in order to place it on record, because there had been some deficiencies, as the Chairperson had indicated earlier, including deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill because of lack of consultation with any of the media organisations.

Sanef objected to the contents of certain proposed amendments contained in the Bill because of the provisions for censorship of news relating to weather forecasting and news or information relating to the pollution of the atmosphere. In particular, Sanef was alarmed at the provisions of the Bill for lengthy periods of imprisonment and excessive fines that could be imposed.

Sanef believed that the restrictions proposed in the Bill could constitute a breach of the Constitution.

Sanef recognised the intentions of the Bill to prevent harmful false weather forecasting, and favoured action against those who issued hoaxes, but feared that the proposals would seriously inhibit the media from carrying out their functions of informing the public accurately on these issues.

The requirement for permission from SAWS for issuing weather warnings would seriously inhibit the media from publishing stories obtained from reputable sources other than SAWS such as international, academic or scientific institutions. Apart from the practical difficulties of obtaining such permission, the requirement constituted censorship, and would be in breach of the Constitution.

Apart from other objections, the Bill did not define 'severe weather', a failure that was likely to lead to much argument in the event of a dispute with the SAWS or in court.

The penalties proposed by the Bill were excessively harsh, and there were similarities with the 'excessive penalties contained in the Protection of State Information Bill'. They should be rejected for the same reason.

Sanef was disappointed that it was not consulted before now on the Bill. It apologised for the delay in submission. It only became aware of the Bill in the last few days.

Discussion The Chairperson said that only two entities, SAWS included, had responded to the Department's call for comments in May and June 2011.

Mr Louw said that the journalists who reported on Parliament had not notified Sanef. His organisation would have to take up this lapse internally.

[Note to Editor: Mr Louw told me personally that it was through the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) website that he found out about the Bill]

The Chairperson and Mr Louw disagreed amicably on the interpretation of Clause 12 in so far as it proposed penalties. What the Chairperson took as an upper limit, Mr Louw appeared to take as a mandatory sentence. Mr Louw preferred to leave it to the press ombudsman and not get into the semantics.

The Chairperson assured Mr Louw that the Committee was also concerned about the wording of proposed Section 30A(1)(c). He asked the Department to provide Mr Louw with the Department's announcements on the consultation process. This Committee operated differently, and did not just advertise and wait for submissions, but also pro-actively targeted stakeholders and sought out their views.

There were no Members' questions.

[Tea break]

Wavescape Surfing South Africa presentationMr Steve Pike, Surf Forecaster, Consultant to Surfing Events, and Founder of wavescape.co.za, acknowledged the concessions already made, but submitted his concerns that the Bill's proposed amendments might render some of his work illegal. His free service drew data from NOAA) in the United States of America (USA). This information was graphically and textually displayed on wavescape.co.za, which had 25 000 users. Based on the data, he provided thrice-weekly analyses of the conditions for our users to make informed decisions about their marine and coastal activity, from surfing in its various forms to fishing, sailing, swimming and going to the beach generally. His users depended on this information because it was highly specialised, with no other mandate other than to interpret the unique conditions created by different swell heights and the energy in the wave as informed by period. This pure, almost one-dimensional focus provided a unique service that was beneficial to a wide and broader spectrum of coastal users, not just surfers.
There was a need in a free and open society for a person such as himself to provide his particularly focused and free service for all South Africans.

Mr Pike felt that there should be more collaboration between the smaller, more specialist entities, such as himself, and the Weather Service.

He pointed out that the information that he provided was interpreted to the particular needs of clients.

Mr Pike commented that his service lacked resources comparable to those of SAWS. Notwithstanding its origins in providing information to the military, the NOAA service offered almost entirely free and open source information in the public domain. SAWS should take note of this and take it to heart. More efficient communication was required. Often journalists struggled to interpret warnings.

Mr Pike said that his own language was flowery, metaphoric, almost purple at times, in the way that he worded his weather alerts and surf reports. This added interest and, in a way, accuracy. He quoted one of his own forecasts for KwaZulu-Natal, a forecast which, in expectation of particular surfing conditions referred to 'carnage'.

DiscussionThe Chairperson assured Mr Pike that his business would not be affected by the Bill and urged the SAWS to talk to its potential users and find ways of cooperating. The more genuine information that was made available to the public, the fewer losses there would be in future from adverse weather events.

Mr Morgan said that legislators must guard against Mr Pike's kind of colourful language falling victim to inappropriate quotes out of context with resulting confusion to people who were not familiar with the language of surfers. There was no reason, however, to stop Mr Pike from performing what was effectively a niche service.

The Chairperson said that the Committee's intention with the drafting would be to deal with the evil of people being evil. It was deliberately misleading information that the Bill sought to prevent, rather than the kind of language that Mr Pike used. Legislators should make their intentions very clear in Hansard, in order to assist the courts in interpreting the legislation.

The Chairperson assured Mr Pike that he had the Committee's blessing to engage with the SAWS on seeking more cooperation.

Dr Lisa Ramsay, Researcher and Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal oral submissionDr Lisa Ramsay, Researcher and Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal, specialising in meteorology, air pollution and environmental health. She was present to represent a group of atmospheric scientists based in Durban who were concerned about the effects of the proposed amendments on academic research. She acknowledged that many of the pertinent points had already been discussed.

The first concern around air pollution warnings had largely been resolved.

However, she still wished to express concern about severe weather warnings. If such warnings were to be limited, it was suggested that the term 'severe weather' and 'warning' be clearly defined. Mr Morgan had the previous day raised the issue of the distinction between 'severe' and 'extreme' weather. She also appreciated Mr Morgan's noting a distinction between public warnings and warnings to smaller networks and groups, such as academic meetings.

Various research groups and private companies fulfilled forecasting requirements that were not sufficiently addressed by SAWS, such as the capacity to issue real time warnings of tornadoes or dangerously high levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

Schedules 1 and 2 of the Act, and the amendments, listed SAWS as the only institution that conducted the activities listed, but in reality the atmospheric science network was much broader and more collaborative than suggested.

Although Dr Ramsay and her colleagues firmly believed that members of the South African public should have access to weather warnings by any institution, acting in good faith, perhaps a compromise would be to maintain a distinction between a warning and an official warning on severe weather events; as such any institution could issue a severe weather warning as long as it was made in an unofficial capacity. This would also deal with the issue of impersonators. It would not matter if your warning was incorrect or misleading, or false or a hoax, you would be prosecuted for impersonating SAWS.

The next concern was access to data, the issue touched upon the previous day by Mr François Botha, National Director, HAMNET. Weather data was a basic input for various climate and air quality models. The Bill formalised the shift away from a public service to a more commercial model for SAWS. Dr Ramsay and her colleagues were concerned that the commercialisation of weather data could stifle research and innovation. It certainly would limit opportunities for academic research where funding was often a concern, particularly with student research.

Early last year, Dr Ramsay had advised a student to change a research topic after being quoted more than R5 000 for the rainfall data set required to assess rainfall cyclicity in northern KwaZulu-Natal, an important analysis in the context of climate change in the region. No country, and certainly not South Africa, could afford to inhibit research and innovation in the field of climate science.

Perhaps provision could be made under Schedule 1 to provide the commercial data packages that were described in Schedule 2 to academic researchers at no extra cost.

On a more technical note, focusing on air quality data, these limitations on access to air quality data would conflict with SAWS requirements under the National Framework for Air Quality Management. SAWS needed to ensure that unprocessed air quality data were made freely available and easily accessible to the public and researchers as required by the Framework. The Bill in its current form failed to acknowledge this obligation. Perhaps something further could be included under Schedule 1.

Dr Ramsay expressed concerns about the proposed Section 30A(1)(c) (see Clause 12 of the Bill). This had been brought up the previous day and largely resolved, but Dr Ramsay wanted her perspective incorporated when the Bill was revised. This proposed Section 30A(1)(c) limited academic critique of SAWS data collection methodology, processing or analysis. Scientific knowledge developed through cycles of theorising, critique, reassessment, and re-theorising. While critique of SAWS might be detrimental to a scientific image per se, such critique was a natural and necessary mechanism for encouraging innovation within the scientific model. Academics could be prosecuted for any criticism that might be financial detrimental to SAWS. This point overlapped with the previous day's debate, so Dr Ramsay concluded her oral submission here, but pointed out that the Committee might have received more submissions from academics had the period for comments not been over the festive season.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that every year the Committee engaged with SAWS on commercialisation. He asked Dr Ramsay to provide specific information on instances where commercial constraints impacted on the availability of data for academic as distinct from commercial research. He felt sure that the legislation could be revised to provide for such a distinction in order to meet Dr Ramsay's concerns.

Dr Ramsay said that it was a new issue.

The Chairperson was concerned with agencies' commercialisation of their activities so as not to be so dependent on funds appropriated for them by Parliament. There was a need to set limits and close loopholes. It was unacceptable that genuine research that could help South Africa should be subject to the restrictions that Dr Ramsay had recently encountered.

The Chairperson said that proposed Section 30A.1(a) and (b) (Clause 12 of the Bill) was to be limited only to intention. There was need for the Committee to debate further: there was no need to make a distinction between public and private dissemination of warnings in regard to prohibiting intentionally false or misleading information or hoaxes; such a distinction could create an unfortunate loophole.

Mr Morgan said that the Committee intended to focus on the text before it, but Dr Ramsay had done well to go beyond the text on the table and say that that there was some issues that needed attention in the schedules, which defined SAWS' commercial and public aspects. He would welcome a presentation from SAWS and debate on paying for data. He was concerned about charging for historical data, the collection of which had been funded by the taxpayer. SAWS had told him that charges for such data were essentially administration fees for lifting data from the system; however, he asserted, fees could be prohibitive, and wanted a debate.

The Chairperson said that Parliament was the only legislature, and this legislation was complex. He asked SAWS to give its detailed input to the Committee on all aspects of commercialisation. There was need for a fine balance. This was a serious issue that the Committee would address this year.

Mr Morgan agreed. He noted that no one had submitted comments on the Bill's proposal to allow the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, after publication in the Government Gazette, to move different SAWS products between public and commercial. It was probably a Clause that the Committee should review. He felt that the legislature should have an input, before gazetting.

The Chairperson noted Mr Morgan's point. It was a good suggestion.

Dr S Huang (ANC) appreciated Dr Ramsay's submission.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would ensure that proposed Section 30A(1) (a) and (c) were reworded to be more in line with the Bill's intentions.

Two submissions remained - those from the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Institute for Soil, Climate and Water and from Earthlife Africa.

The Chairperson reserved the mornings of 14 and 15 February, when the President's State of the Nation Address (SONA) would be debated in the National Assembly in the afternoon, for the Committee's deliberations on the hearings. He trusted that Mr Peter Lukey, Chief Director: Air Quality Management, Department of Environmental Affairs, would have met with Dr Lorraine Lotter, Executive Director, Chemical and Allied Industries Association (CAIA), as requested the previous day. The legislation should spell out clearly the implications for data collection on air quality of any limits on access.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting until 14h00.

Afternoon Session
The Chairperson announced that the Committee was scheduled to hear two presentations in the afternoon session.  However, neither presenter had arrived.  That concluded the public hearings on the South African Weather Services Amendment Bill.  The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs now had to work on the technical issues raised.  A document had been compiled on the summary of the amendments to the Bill which had been put forward.  The Department was also asked to see what hoaxes had already been spread in the country.  He had a feeling that there was already legislation to criminalise the deliberate spreading of hoax warnings.  He thought that he had dealt with some legislation in this regard from the time he was involved with the Department of Justice.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would meet the following day to discuss the extent of rhinocerous poaching.  He quipped that government should consider the free distribution of viagra to discourage men from using rhino horn products as an aphrodisiac.

Mr G Morgan (DA) said that a tight procedure should be followed so that the Bill could be tabled in Parliament before being published in the Government Gazette.

The Chairperson agreed that the necessary preparatory work needed to be done.  The Committee would meet in February to go through the amendments to the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.

- Parliamentary Monitoring Group, South Africa