I received several requests from the International and Local media for personal interviews regarding the withdrawal of the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011. However it is simply impossible to grant personal interviews to every media outlet that requested an interview.
I have indicated before that as a result of wide spread interest and to be transparent the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (SAWDOS) has decide to issue press releases instead of personal interviews.
SAWDOS MEDIA STATEMENT
WITHDRAWAL OF SA WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL - SEVERE WEATHER AND AIR POLLUTION-RELATED WARNING
31 JULY 2012
Business Day reports that the Department of Environmental Affairs has quietly withdrawn its proposed amendments to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011. Notice of the bill's withdrawal was given, without reasons, in a June 15 parliamentary notice. There were no media or public announcements, but there is no obligation on a minister to make any public announcement when withdrawing a bill.
From the onset it was clear that this bill was a poorly drafted bill and unconstitutional. This highly controversial bill sought to introduce fines of up to five years imprisonment or a fine of five million rand while repeat offenders could be jailed for up to ten years or pay a fine of ten million rand if weather and air pollution related information are issued without the SA Weather Service's permission; the supply of false or misleading weather information; and the supply of information that "detrimentally effects or is likely to detrimentally affect the weather service". It further sought that the SA Weather Service not be held liable for any damage, loss or injury caused by any act performed or omitted in good faith, in the course of exercising a power or performing a function assigned by or under this Act.
The above is just a few basic examples of the highly controversial and poorly drafted bill.
The SAWDOS expressed it's opinion regarding this bill on several occasions in the media. The SAWDOS's submission to the port folio committee is available HERE.
With regards to the withdrawal of the bill, the SAWDOS would like to make the following comments:
1. This country cannot afford to waste time and money on poor quality legislation. Most concerning and not mentioned anywhere is the fact the tax-payers money is wasted by this poorly drafted bill. The time wasted by the port folio committee, it's personnel and all those who submitted submissions, those who addressed the port folio committee at their own cost and all others involved wasted valuable time and money on debating this draconian bill. It really reflect the incompetence by those responsible for the drafting of the bill.
2. One would think that the Minister or a delegated official would announce the withdrawal of the amendment bill publically due to the vast public interest in the bill. It now seems that the quiet way out was chosen. The Department declined an invitation to comment. It would have been appropriate to at least release a press statement to inform those concerned.
3. Although this bill is withdrawn it is not the end of the road. New legislation can be expected in future. Hopefully new legislation won't be draconian and at least worth the time and money spend on debating it. Time will tell if this will be the case.
4. The SAWDOS indicated in the past that it will continue to issue weather and disaster warnings, advisories and watches when threats are observed. The SAWDOS is of the opinion that it is the duty of citizens in this country to alert others if their is a life threatening situation developing or taking place in an area. One cannot waste time to first seek permission to issue such warnings, advisories or watches. By the time and if permission is granted many would have died in waiting for an answer. The SAWDOS have more than enough experience in not receiving answers from the SA Weather Service. Click HERE for more information.
5. I trust that Parliament will investigate the waste of the tax-payer money relating to this absurd legislation. The designated officials have to take responsibility for their actions and the waste of tax-payers money. Unfortunately SAWDOS is of the opinion that nothing will come of it and that it would just die a quiet death as was the case with the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011.
6. Finally: The SAWDOS would like to thank all those, but especially the media who contributed to "reverse" this draconian legislation. I am convinced that we all strive to make South Africa a safer place and to keep the public informed with regard to weather and disaster threats.
- END -
Johan Terblanche
Founder: SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service
Mossel Bay
31 July 2012
Showing posts with label Weather Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Weather Legislation. Show all posts
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
State cans penalising Weather Info Bill
The Department of Environmental Affairs has quietly withdrawn its proposed amendments to South Africa’s weather service legislation after they had drawn sharp criticism.
SUE BLAINE
Published: 2012/07/31 07:11:16 AM
THE Department of Environmental Affairs has quietly withdrawn its proposed amendments to SA’s weather service legislation after they had drawn sharp criticism, especially that they were unconstitutional.
The South African Weather Service Amendment Bill in January joined several other pieces of legislation criticised for poor drafting.
"We’re rather in the dark (over the bill’s withdrawal) … (and) our bigger concern is the scrutiny, by members of Parliament, of draft law. It does not appear to be what it should be," Johan Kruger, director of the FW de Klerk Foundation’s Centre for Constitutional Rights, said yesterday.
Notice of the bill’s withdrawal was given, without reasons, in a June 15 parliamentary notice. There were no media or public announcements, but there is no obligation on a minister to make any public announcement when withdrawing a bill.
The bill sought to introduce penalties for issuing weather or air pollution-related information without the weather service’s permission; the supply of false or misleading weather information; and the supply of information that "detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the weather service".
Department of Environmental Affairs spokesman Albi Modise did not respond to queries yesterday.
National Assembly speaker Max Sisulu in May expressed concern over the "poor quality" of legislation emerging from the parliamentary process, much of which had to be returned to the National Assembly.
"The poor quality of legislation is often the consequence of inadequate scrutiny.…. As the subject matter of legislation becomes more sophisticated and highly technical, our parliament and members must become more professional," Mr Sisulu said in his budget vote address.
Democratic Alliance water and environmental affairs spokesman Gareth Morgan said the weather service bill "was certainly a highly controversial and poorly drafted bill, but the committee had set about redrafting it into an acceptable form".
"The minister will now have to redraft the bill and resubmit it to Parliament. I trust she will take into account the submissions ."
Mr Kruger said if the withdrawal led to a better drafted bill, this would "certainly be welcomed".
This sentiment was echoed by Melissa Fourie, director of the Centre for Environmental Rights : " We … welcome any attempt to improve the bill to be better aligned with the Air Quality Act and to recognise the important supportive role civil society plays in monitoring air quality."
The FW de Klerk Foundation made a submission to the parliamentary committee on water and environmental affairs in which it called for the scrapping of the penalty-inducing clause, because the constitution guaranteed freedom of expression.
However, aspects of the bill, such as air quality and climate change reporting mechanisms, were important if SA was to meet its international undertakings on gas emissions linked to the overall rise in global temperatures, Mr Morgan said.
- BusinessDay
SUE BLAINE
Published: 2012/07/31 07:11:16 AM
THE Department of Environmental Affairs has quietly withdrawn its proposed amendments to SA’s weather service legislation after they had drawn sharp criticism, especially that they were unconstitutional.
The South African Weather Service Amendment Bill in January joined several other pieces of legislation criticised for poor drafting.
"We’re rather in the dark (over the bill’s withdrawal) … (and) our bigger concern is the scrutiny, by members of Parliament, of draft law. It does not appear to be what it should be," Johan Kruger, director of the FW de Klerk Foundation’s Centre for Constitutional Rights, said yesterday.
Notice of the bill’s withdrawal was given, without reasons, in a June 15 parliamentary notice. There were no media or public announcements, but there is no obligation on a minister to make any public announcement when withdrawing a bill.
The bill sought to introduce penalties for issuing weather or air pollution-related information without the weather service’s permission; the supply of false or misleading weather information; and the supply of information that "detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the weather service".
Department of Environmental Affairs spokesman Albi Modise did not respond to queries yesterday.
National Assembly speaker Max Sisulu in May expressed concern over the "poor quality" of legislation emerging from the parliamentary process, much of which had to be returned to the National Assembly.
"The poor quality of legislation is often the consequence of inadequate scrutiny.…. As the subject matter of legislation becomes more sophisticated and highly technical, our parliament and members must become more professional," Mr Sisulu said in his budget vote address.
Democratic Alliance water and environmental affairs spokesman Gareth Morgan said the weather service bill "was certainly a highly controversial and poorly drafted bill, but the committee had set about redrafting it into an acceptable form".
"The minister will now have to redraft the bill and resubmit it to Parliament. I trust she will take into account the submissions ."
Mr Kruger said if the withdrawal led to a better drafted bill, this would "certainly be welcomed".
This sentiment was echoed by Melissa Fourie, director of the Centre for Environmental Rights : " We … welcome any attempt to improve the bill to be better aligned with the Air Quality Act and to recognise the important supportive role civil society plays in monitoring air quality."
The FW de Klerk Foundation made a submission to the parliamentary committee on water and environmental affairs in which it called for the scrapping of the penalty-inducing clause, because the constitution guaranteed freedom of expression.
However, aspects of the bill, such as air quality and climate change reporting mechanisms, were important if SA was to meet its international undertakings on gas emissions linked to the overall rise in global temperatures, Mr Morgan said.
- BusinessDay
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Hazy weather Bill debated in Parliament
Public hearings on the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill continue in Cape Town on Wednesday.
They are being conducted by the parliamentary portfolio committee on water and environmental affairs.
Draft legislation to extend the operation of the South African Weather Service (Saws) to provide air quality information and issue air pollution warnings, was tabled at Parliament in October.
According to a memorandum attached to the measure, it will become "an offence for any person to issue a severe weather or air pollution related warning without the written permission" of Saws.
The existing Act carries no such provision.
Limiting freedom of expression
During the hearing on Tuesday, the FW de Klerk Foundation said the clause was unconstitutional because it limited freedom of expression.
A citizen should be entitled to issue a legitimate warning of severe weather without permission from the weather service, it submitted.
It was a constitutional right to impart information and ideas, the foundation argued.
Television channels Etv and e.sat TV said a weather warning would constitute the exercise of academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
They said the only limitation to freedom of expression was if something propagated war, incited violence or advocated hatred with incitement to cause harm.
Misleading
Clause 30A of the Bill prohibits the issue of severe weather warnings without permission and criminalises the supply of false or misleading information about the weather service, or an intentional or negligent act which negatively affects the organisation.
The clause was a bone of contention for many parties, which described it as vague.
In a submission by Etv and e.sat TV, legal representatives Steven Budlender and Nick Ferreira said the terms "severe weather warning" and "issuing" were not clear.
The Centre for Environmental Rights took issue with the permission process.
The Society of Master Mariners South Africa said the clause contradicted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, a treaty to which it was contracted.
-- Sapa/Mail and Guardian
SAWDOS: SAWDOS agree fully with the FW de Klerk Foundation that the Weather Amendment Bill is unconstitutional because it limited freedom of expression. In it's submission to Parliament the SAWDOS emphasized its view in this regard. The SAWDOS submission is available HERE.
This bill will not stop the issuing of hoax weather warnings.
They are being conducted by the parliamentary portfolio committee on water and environmental affairs.
Draft legislation to extend the operation of the South African Weather Service (Saws) to provide air quality information and issue air pollution warnings, was tabled at Parliament in October.
According to a memorandum attached to the measure, it will become "an offence for any person to issue a severe weather or air pollution related warning without the written permission" of Saws.
The existing Act carries no such provision.
Limiting freedom of expression
During the hearing on Tuesday, the FW de Klerk Foundation said the clause was unconstitutional because it limited freedom of expression.
A citizen should be entitled to issue a legitimate warning of severe weather without permission from the weather service, it submitted.
It was a constitutional right to impart information and ideas, the foundation argued.
Television channels Etv and e.sat TV said a weather warning would constitute the exercise of academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
They said the only limitation to freedom of expression was if something propagated war, incited violence or advocated hatred with incitement to cause harm.
Misleading
Clause 30A of the Bill prohibits the issue of severe weather warnings without permission and criminalises the supply of false or misleading information about the weather service, or an intentional or negligent act which negatively affects the organisation.
The clause was a bone of contention for many parties, which described it as vague.
In a submission by Etv and e.sat TV, legal representatives Steven Budlender and Nick Ferreira said the terms "severe weather warning" and "issuing" were not clear.
The Centre for Environmental Rights took issue with the permission process.
The Society of Master Mariners South Africa said the clause contradicted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, a treaty to which it was contracted.
-- Sapa/Mail and Guardian
SAWDOS: SAWDOS agree fully with the FW de Klerk Foundation that the Weather Amendment Bill is unconstitutional because it limited freedom of expression. In it's submission to Parliament the SAWDOS emphasized its view in this regard. The SAWDOS submission is available HERE.
This bill will not stop the issuing of hoax weather warnings.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
South African weather forecasters who get it wrong face imprisonment
Image: Environmental groups and opposition politicians say that public information is a vital addition to forecasting services in stormy South Africa, where droughts, floods, gale-force winds and bushfires are common Photo: REUTERS
South African weather forecasters who predict severe storms or gales without permission from the authorities could be punished by up to ten years imprisonment or a hefty fine under new legislation.
The bill, officials say, is aimed at "protecting the general public against the distribution of inaccurate or hoax warnings or weather predictions that could cause public panic and lead to evacuations and/or the unwarranted waste of resources – money, people and technology".
It would mean that independent forecasters wanting to issue a severe weather warning would first need to get written permission from the state-run South African Weather Service.
Members of the public who ring in to radio stations or newspapers to warn of an impending storm without asking SAWS first could also find themselves criminalised under the bill.
First-time offenders face a penalty of up to five years imprisonment or a fine of five million rand (£400,000), while repeat offenders could be jailed for up to ten years or be made to pay a ten million rand (£800,000) fine.
The bill also includes a limitation of liability clause for SAWS, ensuring that it cannot be held responsible for any damage, loss or injury caused by its predictions.
Environmental groups and opposition politicians say that public information is a vital addition to forecasting services in stormy South Africa, where droughts, floods, gale-force winds and bushfires are common.
Gareth Morgan, the shadow minister of environmental affairs with the Democratic Alliance opposition party, said the "draconian" law was an attempt to "establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the Weather Service, some of which are commercial".
Professor Hannes Van Der Merwe, head of Stellenbosch University's Geography Department, said most independent weather services provided farmers with detailed predictions so they could plan when to plant and spray crops.
"I am not aware of any bogus warnings that have caused disruption," he said. "It sounds to me like this is part of what has become a trend within government to centralise control."
Isham Abader, deputy director general of the department of environmental affairs insisted there was "nothing untoward" about the bill's intentions.
"It merely seeks to prevent the transmission of unreliable information.
Incorrect weather warnings could lead to the evacuation of an entire town at great expense to the tax payer," he said.
A spokesman for the department later admitted this had never happened, adding: "we need to pre-empt such incidents."
- The Telegraph (UK)
Friday, 13 January 2012
Update: SAWDOS - Request for Media and Television Interviews relating to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011
I received several requests from the International and Local media for personal interviews with regard to my comments on the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011. However it is simply impossible to grant personal interviews to every media outlet that requested and interview.
I have indicated before that as a result of wide spread interest and to be transparent the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (SAWDOS) has decide to publically publish its comments to the Portfolio Committe on Water and Environmental Affairs in respect of the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill. [B22 - 2011]
The submission of the SAWDOS is available by clicking HERE.
The submission explain my personal opinion and that of the SAWDOS. I deem it not necessary at this stage to add additional information to the submission. On hindsight there is currently more than enough opinions and information available with regard to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011
I am most grateful for the response by the media and the interest they have in this matter.
Here is a list of links that relates to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011:
(Note the SAWDIS now SAWDOS warned about the effects of this bill when it appeared in 2011
Will the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill be used to close down the SA Weather and Disaster Information Service (SAWDIS) for good?
Weather Organizations and Weather Observers take note of the South African Weather Service Amendment Draft Bill
If you have any other links or references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, send the information to the SAWDOS for publication by clicking HERE.
I am of the opinion that this article contains more than enough information for the media iro the Amendment Bill.
My appreciation goes out to all those who contributed and highlighted the discrepancies in this unconstitutional bill. I am convinced that we all strive to make South Africa a safer place with respect to weather and pollution. Keep up the good work.
Johan Terblanche
Founder: SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service
Mossel Bay
12 January 2012
I have indicated before that as a result of wide spread interest and to be transparent the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (SAWDOS) has decide to publically publish its comments to the Portfolio Committe on Water and Environmental Affairs in respect of the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill. [B22 - 2011]
The submission of the SAWDOS is available by clicking HERE.
The submission explain my personal opinion and that of the SAWDOS. I deem it not necessary at this stage to add additional information to the submission. On hindsight there is currently more than enough opinions and information available with regard to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011
I am most grateful for the response by the media and the interest they have in this matter.
Here is a list of links that relates to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011:
- Jailtime mooted for bad weather warnings - Ivo Vegter
- Storm oor straf vir weerdata - Beeld
- Storm over weather law - Cape Argus (IOL)
- Draconian Bill gives Weather Service a monopoly - Gareth Morgan
- Weather Service Bill unconstitutional - F W de Klerk Foundation
- Wetsontwerp oor weerwaarskuwings is ‘lagwekkend’ - Volksblad
- Cloudy weather legislation needs clarity - Mail and Guardian
- Activists slam air pollution bill - East Coast Radio
- SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011 unconstitutional? - Ryan Nortier
- Storm over new weather bill - Daily News - IOL
- R5m fines for storm alerts - Daily News - IOL
- Outrage over weather bill - News24
- The SA weather service amendment bill and why it kills off private competition - Randolf Jorberg
- The South African Weather Service Amendment Bill - StormchasingSA
- Concerns over severe weather or air pollution-related warning provisions of the current south African weather service Amendment Bill - Media Statement: Department of Environmental Affairs
- 'Koue voete' oor vreemde weer-wet - Volksblad
- Severe weather in the kingdom - Jerm
- South African weather forecasters who get it wrong face imprisonment - British Telegraph (UK)
- ...
- ...
Other references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill:
(Note the SAWDIS now SAWDOS warned about the effects of this bill when it appeared in 2011
Will the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill be used to close down the SA Weather and Disaster Information Service (SAWDIS) for good?
Weather Organizations and Weather Observers take note of the South African Weather Service Amendment Draft Bill
If you have any other links or references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, send the information to the SAWDOS for publication by clicking HERE.
I am of the opinion that this article contains more than enough information for the media iro the Amendment Bill.
My appreciation goes out to all those who contributed and highlighted the discrepancies in this unconstitutional bill. I am convinced that we all strive to make South Africa a safer place with respect to weather and pollution. Keep up the good work.
Johan Terblanche
Founder: SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service
Mossel Bay
12 January 2012
'Koue voete' oor vreemde weer-wet
Pretoria – Die departement van omgewingsake het oënskynlik koue voete gekry oor ’n omstrede klousule in die voorgestelde wysigingswetsontwerp van die Suid-Afrikaanse Weerdiens (SAW).
DÃt kom nadat ’n storm Donderdag losgebars het oor voorstelle dat landsburgers met miljoene rande beboet kan word of selfs in die tronk kan beland as hulle mekaar, sonder skriftelike toestemming van die SAW, oor uiterste weersomstandighede of lugbesoedeling waarsku.
Albi Modise, hoofdirekteur van kommunikasie by die departement van omgewingsake, het Donderdag in ’n verklaring gesê die departement was nie “dié hewige reaksie en kommer” oor die strafmaatreëls te wagte nie.
Hy meen die parlement sal waarskynlik nou die wysigingswetsontwerp na die departement terugstuur vir die hersiening van die omstrede kwessie oor strafmaatreëls.
Gareth Morgan, DA-woordvoerder oor omgewingsake, het dié klousule in die wysingingswetsontwerp as “drakonies” en “lagwekkend” bestempel.
Hy het gesê dit is in die mens se aard om sy medemens teen uiterste weersomstandighede te waarsku. Dit is ook ’n manier waarop mense mekaar beskerm. As die wetsontwerp deur die parlement aanvaar word, sal mense dié geleentheid ontneem word, het Morgan gesê.
Volgens Modise is die klousule met die “beste bedoelings” in die wetsontwerp ingeskryf om te verseker Suid-Afrikaners word teen “vals, verdraaide en misleidende” inligting beskerm.
Hy het gesê verkeerde inligting oor weersomstandighede kan onnodige paniek onder mense veroorsaak wat kan lei tot ernstige beserings en stres.
Hy het daarop gewys sulke voorvalle het al in die verlede voorgekom. Dit het glo daartoe gelei dat mense woonbuurte ontruim het en nooddienste “onnodig belas” is.
Modise het beklemtoon sedert die stigting van die SAW was dié diens die enigste amptelike verskaffer van inligting oor “uiterste weersomstandighede om te verseker dat met ’n enkele stem oor die aangeleentheid gepraat word”.
“Dit was nog altyd onwettig om vals inligting uit te gee. In die voorgestelde wetsontwerp word vir die eerste keer daarvoor voorsiening gemaak dat mense wat onwettige weerwaarskuwings versprei, vervolg kan word.
“Dit het nou duidelik geword dat hierdie voorstelle beskou word as verreikend. Die departement het daarvan kennis geneem dat sommige kommentators meen die wysigings gaan toegang tot noodsaaklike inligting oor weersomstandighede en lugbesoedeling- wat noodsaaklik is vir gemeenskappe se gesondheid, veiligheid en welsyn, beperk.
“As die parlement die wetsontwerp na die departement terugstuur, sal ons natuurlik noukeurig na die klousules kyk wat kommer wek en die nodige aanpassings maak.”
Modise het voorts gesê die huidige voorstelle moet ook “binne konteks” gelees word omdat klimaatsverandering besig is om weersomstandighede dramaties te verander. “Ons moet veerkragtigheid teen uiterste weersomstandighede ontwikkel en daarom moet ons seker maak ons waarskuwingsmeganismes is akkuraat en doeltreffend.”
Morgan het die departement daarvan beskuldig dat hy ’n monopolie in die SAW wil vestig deur “swak” wetgewing.
“Dit lyk egter nou of hulle wel koue voete gekry het.”
Modise het bygevoeg die les wat die departement uit die gebeure geleer het, was dat lewendige openbare debat die regering op sy tone hou om goeie wette te maak.
- Volksblad
DÃt kom nadat ’n storm Donderdag losgebars het oor voorstelle dat landsburgers met miljoene rande beboet kan word of selfs in die tronk kan beland as hulle mekaar, sonder skriftelike toestemming van die SAW, oor uiterste weersomstandighede of lugbesoedeling waarsku.
Albi Modise, hoofdirekteur van kommunikasie by die departement van omgewingsake, het Donderdag in ’n verklaring gesê die departement was nie “dié hewige reaksie en kommer” oor die strafmaatreëls te wagte nie.
Hy meen die parlement sal waarskynlik nou die wysigingswetsontwerp na die departement terugstuur vir die hersiening van die omstrede kwessie oor strafmaatreëls.
Gareth Morgan, DA-woordvoerder oor omgewingsake, het dié klousule in die wysingingswetsontwerp as “drakonies” en “lagwekkend” bestempel.
Hy het gesê dit is in die mens se aard om sy medemens teen uiterste weersomstandighede te waarsku. Dit is ook ’n manier waarop mense mekaar beskerm. As die wetsontwerp deur die parlement aanvaar word, sal mense dié geleentheid ontneem word, het Morgan gesê.
Volgens Modise is die klousule met die “beste bedoelings” in die wetsontwerp ingeskryf om te verseker Suid-Afrikaners word teen “vals, verdraaide en misleidende” inligting beskerm.
Hy het gesê verkeerde inligting oor weersomstandighede kan onnodige paniek onder mense veroorsaak wat kan lei tot ernstige beserings en stres.
Hy het daarop gewys sulke voorvalle het al in die verlede voorgekom. Dit het glo daartoe gelei dat mense woonbuurte ontruim het en nooddienste “onnodig belas” is.
Modise het beklemtoon sedert die stigting van die SAW was dié diens die enigste amptelike verskaffer van inligting oor “uiterste weersomstandighede om te verseker dat met ’n enkele stem oor die aangeleentheid gepraat word”.
“Dit was nog altyd onwettig om vals inligting uit te gee. In die voorgestelde wetsontwerp word vir die eerste keer daarvoor voorsiening gemaak dat mense wat onwettige weerwaarskuwings versprei, vervolg kan word.
“Dit het nou duidelik geword dat hierdie voorstelle beskou word as verreikend. Die departement het daarvan kennis geneem dat sommige kommentators meen die wysigings gaan toegang tot noodsaaklike inligting oor weersomstandighede en lugbesoedeling- wat noodsaaklik is vir gemeenskappe se gesondheid, veiligheid en welsyn, beperk.
“As die parlement die wetsontwerp na die departement terugstuur, sal ons natuurlik noukeurig na die klousules kyk wat kommer wek en die nodige aanpassings maak.”
Modise het voorts gesê die huidige voorstelle moet ook “binne konteks” gelees word omdat klimaatsverandering besig is om weersomstandighede dramaties te verander. “Ons moet veerkragtigheid teen uiterste weersomstandighede ontwikkel en daarom moet ons seker maak ons waarskuwingsmeganismes is akkuraat en doeltreffend.”
Morgan het die departement daarvan beskuldig dat hy ’n monopolie in die SAW wil vestig deur “swak” wetgewing.
“Dit lyk egter nou of hulle wel koue voete gekry het.”
Modise het bygevoeg die les wat die departement uit die gebeure geleer het, was dat lewendige openbare debat die regering op sy tone hou om goeie wette te maak.
- Volksblad
Media Statement: Department of Environmental Affairs
MEDIA STATEMENT
CONCERNS OVER SEVERE WEATHER OR AIR POLLUTION-RELATED WARNING PROVISIONS OF THE CURRENT SOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
12 JANUARY 2012
In May 2011, the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs published the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill for public comment. Having taken into account the few public comments, a revised Bill was introduced in the National Assembly of Parliament and an explanatory summary of the Bill was published at the end of September last year. Although the formal public comment period on the initial draft Bill closed some time ago, the Bill is now being considered by Parliament and Parliament is planning to hold public hearings in the next few weeks.
Over the last two weeks, the amendments to the South African Weather Service (SAWS) Act proposed in the SAWS Amendment Bill appear to have become the subject of concern.
In particular, the concerns appear to relate specifically to a proposed provision that prohibits the issue of “…a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service” and especially the possible penalty of up to R10 million or 10 years imprisonment for persons found guilty of contravening this provision.
These provisions are sincere attempts to ensure that all South Africans are protected against false, misleading and/or hoax warnings that can result, and have resulted, in undue public panic, related stress and injury, evacuations and/or the mobilisation of emergency services and subsequent fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Furthermore, since its establishment, the South African Weather Services has always been the only official provider of “…severe weather-related warnings for South Africa in order to ensure that there is a single authoritative voice in this regard”. Indeed, it is only the proposal to make this 11 year old provision enforceable that is now causing concern. In other words, although it has effectively been illegal for anyone other than SAWS to issue severe weather-related warnings for South Africa since 2001, it is only now that there are possible criminal consequences for illegal warnings that are being proposed, that concerns are being raised.
To further put these provisions into our current context – one of the accepted impacts of climate change is the possible increase in the frequency, intensity and range of extreme weather events. In order to ensure that we build our resilience to these impacts, we must ensure that our warning systems are efficient, effective and, most importantly, credible. With the real possibility of increasing extreme weather events, the potential for false, misleading and/or hoax warnings significantly undermining public confidence in, and/or appropriate public reaction to, warnings is of real concern.
However, it is also clear from various comments that these proposed provisions are perceived in some quarters as going way beyond its intention as indicated above. It is suggested by commentators that the proposed amendment may actually limit access to weather and air pollution-related information that is in the interest of the general public’s health, safety and well-being.
As Parliament has now called for another round of public comment by 12 January 2012, it is highly likely, given these recent concerns around the Bill, that Parliament will request the department to review the perceived problem provisions. Naturally the department will then take a very close look at these concerns and will revert to Parliament with its findings and recommendations.
One of the important lessons from this is that active public participation is fundamental to good law-making and, if indeed the Bill’s honest attempts to protect South Africans from the potential harmful impacts of false, misleading and/or hoax warnings turn out to have unintended negative consequences that can be addressed in the final amendment, then it will be the public who must be thanked for their interest and involvement. Members of the public are accordingly urged to not only criticise the current draft, but to possibly propose alternative wording to ensure that the intention as indicated above is achieved.
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON 12 JANUARY 2012
CONCERNS OVER SEVERE WEATHER OR AIR POLLUTION-RELATED WARNING PROVISIONS OF THE CURRENT SOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
12 JANUARY 2012
In May 2011, the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs published the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill for public comment. Having taken into account the few public comments, a revised Bill was introduced in the National Assembly of Parliament and an explanatory summary of the Bill was published at the end of September last year. Although the formal public comment period on the initial draft Bill closed some time ago, the Bill is now being considered by Parliament and Parliament is planning to hold public hearings in the next few weeks.
Over the last two weeks, the amendments to the South African Weather Service (SAWS) Act proposed in the SAWS Amendment Bill appear to have become the subject of concern.
In particular, the concerns appear to relate specifically to a proposed provision that prohibits the issue of “…a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service” and especially the possible penalty of up to R10 million or 10 years imprisonment for persons found guilty of contravening this provision.
These provisions are sincere attempts to ensure that all South Africans are protected against false, misleading and/or hoax warnings that can result, and have resulted, in undue public panic, related stress and injury, evacuations and/or the mobilisation of emergency services and subsequent fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Furthermore, since its establishment, the South African Weather Services has always been the only official provider of “…severe weather-related warnings for South Africa in order to ensure that there is a single authoritative voice in this regard”. Indeed, it is only the proposal to make this 11 year old provision enforceable that is now causing concern. In other words, although it has effectively been illegal for anyone other than SAWS to issue severe weather-related warnings for South Africa since 2001, it is only now that there are possible criminal consequences for illegal warnings that are being proposed, that concerns are being raised.
To further put these provisions into our current context – one of the accepted impacts of climate change is the possible increase in the frequency, intensity and range of extreme weather events. In order to ensure that we build our resilience to these impacts, we must ensure that our warning systems are efficient, effective and, most importantly, credible. With the real possibility of increasing extreme weather events, the potential for false, misleading and/or hoax warnings significantly undermining public confidence in, and/or appropriate public reaction to, warnings is of real concern.
However, it is also clear from various comments that these proposed provisions are perceived in some quarters as going way beyond its intention as indicated above. It is suggested by commentators that the proposed amendment may actually limit access to weather and air pollution-related information that is in the interest of the general public’s health, safety and well-being.
As Parliament has now called for another round of public comment by 12 January 2012, it is highly likely, given these recent concerns around the Bill, that Parliament will request the department to review the perceived problem provisions. Naturally the department will then take a very close look at these concerns and will revert to Parliament with its findings and recommendations.
One of the important lessons from this is that active public participation is fundamental to good law-making and, if indeed the Bill’s honest attempts to protect South Africans from the potential harmful impacts of false, misleading and/or hoax warnings turn out to have unintended negative consequences that can be addressed in the final amendment, then it will be the public who must be thanked for their interest and involvement. Members of the public are accordingly urged to not only criticise the current draft, but to possibly propose alternative wording to ensure that the intention as indicated above is achieved.
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON 12 JANUARY 2012
The South African Weather Service Amendment Bill - StormchasingSA
As I am sure many of you know if you've been keeping an eye on the news, the new South African Weather Service Amendment Bill which seeks to censor sites like this, has come under great scrutiny. Personally, I think it's great that so many large names are getting behind the cause to fight a bill that would censor areas that people don't really think of all that often.
I have been in contact with Randolf from www.weather.co.za who is going to be attending the Parliamentary public hearings on the bill next week. And I have requested he be the representative speaker for me and stormchasing.co.za while there and asked that he present the following piece on my behalf.
Storm Chasing South Africa is a private non-profit website founded in 2009 as a personal expansion of a hobby and interest of mine, namely severe weather. I provide articles based on my opinion of what the weather may be doing. At no stage in my articles do I claim that my information is official and in no way do I seek to cause alarm or spread misinformation. I also provide an online forum where users are able to discuss upcoming weather events and severe weather threats, also in an environment that nowhere claims to be official information.
The SA Weather Service amendment bill includes the ban of the general public or other meteorological agencies issuing severe weather warnings, while I can see how this can easily be manipulated into sounding as though the bill will be doing the general favour to the public by removing hoax e-mails and fake stories about upcoming severe weather events, it in fact is just the monopolization of meteorological information.
Firstly I'd like to bring attention to the wording used in the bill. The new amendments within the bill under section 30 and in particular section 30(a) are far too broad. It states no person may issue a severe weather warning without the necessary written permission of the Weather Service. The issue here is that a severe weather warning is a blanket term which has not been described in enough detail for it to be understood. If I were to make a post on my website with the content mentioning the potential for thunderstorms, would that be included in the bills definition of a severe weather warning? Would I be prosecuted? What if I was to say that it looks like there is going to be a heatwave? Under this bill, one is forced to refrain from the publication of any kind of weather information that may be of interest.
I'd now like to bring attention to how the weather services are operated in other countries, for example the United States. In the United States of America, the government sponsored environmental websites such as www.weather.gov operate free of charge to the public, where their intention is the safety of U.S citizens. The U.S has a similar law in place as the one proposed in the South African Weather bill, but with one fundamental differences, while in the United States only the National Weather Service may issue official severe weather warnings, the general public and other weather agencies still have the legal right to issue their own warnings.
Another outlandish clause in the bill is that it will be illegal to spread "false or misleading information about the South African Weather Service". That sentence sums up the amendment bill pretty accurately. It is a clear indication that it's not safety or integrity of information that the South African Weather Service is worried about, it's about becoming an untouchable monopoly that can be corrupt and flawed to any degree but at the same time an untouchable entity. Who would determine if the information is false and misleading, most likely a judge. What this does, is use fear into scaring people into making sure that they never criticize the Weather Service and that doing so may land them in jail or even just in court.
I see no evidence that this bill or the South African Weather Service are trying to increase safety and awareness, The reason for the bill, in all likeliness is to create a monopoly that would allow for a single channel of uninterrupted revenue. If this bill were to be passed, it would mean that there would be no alternative for information to the general public, they would be forced to use the South African Weather Service. The South African Weather Service over the years has become increasingly profit orientated, something that contradicts the ideas of increasing safety among the public. For anyone who has been a frequent visitor to the South African Weather Service website, as I have, over the past 10 years, you would have seen the shift it took from being a source of information to a business model. The website has undergone several redesigns in the past 10 years, each redesign lending itself to easier income, while each redesign also limiting the amount of free information. As an official weather service who's responsibilities are to protect the public, I see no place for a business model - unless only those wealthy enough to afford the insane costs of membership are worth protection.
As I touched on earlier, I am no stranger to the annoying hoax e-mails that get passed along with the South African Weather Service logo on them, and I whole heartedly agree that it's something that must be handled and punished. But there is a huge gap between impersonating the South African Weather Service and forecasting severe weather unofficially, especially since vast majority of us that do it unofficially offer disclaimers stating that we are not an official source.
There is large support for the bill being scrapped and media sources all over publishing content on the ludicrous nature of the bill. If it were truly imperative to safety and well being of the public, one would imagine that the public themselves would come out in support of the bill, instead of rallying behind how it's just another form of censorship and monopolization with some going so far as to describe it as a breach of the constitution, which would probably be an accurate statement.
In closing I'd like people to think about the bill and the reasons behind it. If you are looking to increase the safety of the general public, this bill is not how one is going to achieve that. All this bill will do is monopolize meteorology in South Africa, it will censor weather enthusiasts, it will turn what should be awareness into a complete business model and ultimately it will make the country look like a joke internationally. As stated in opening, I make no money from my website, I stand to lose nothing financially. But I am unable to sit back and have my interests and opinions censored so that a corporation can turn over a good profit. I, along with the others involved in local weather related sites have poured thousands of hours of work and money to bring a service to the public and provide a free platform to communicate.
I have faith that it will be as easy as it is to me to see the flaws and ludicrousy in this bill and the unwarranted censorship that it will enforce.
I urge everyone else able to make it to the hearings next week to please do so and voice your concern over this bill.
- StormchasingSA
I have been in contact with Randolf from www.weather.co.za who is going to be attending the Parliamentary public hearings on the bill next week. And I have requested he be the representative speaker for me and stormchasing.co.za while there and asked that he present the following piece on my behalf.
Storm Chasing South Africa is a private non-profit website founded in 2009 as a personal expansion of a hobby and interest of mine, namely severe weather. I provide articles based on my opinion of what the weather may be doing. At no stage in my articles do I claim that my information is official and in no way do I seek to cause alarm or spread misinformation. I also provide an online forum where users are able to discuss upcoming weather events and severe weather threats, also in an environment that nowhere claims to be official information.
The SA Weather Service amendment bill includes the ban of the general public or other meteorological agencies issuing severe weather warnings, while I can see how this can easily be manipulated into sounding as though the bill will be doing the general favour to the public by removing hoax e-mails and fake stories about upcoming severe weather events, it in fact is just the monopolization of meteorological information.
Firstly I'd like to bring attention to the wording used in the bill. The new amendments within the bill under section 30 and in particular section 30(a) are far too broad. It states no person may issue a severe weather warning without the necessary written permission of the Weather Service. The issue here is that a severe weather warning is a blanket term which has not been described in enough detail for it to be understood. If I were to make a post on my website with the content mentioning the potential for thunderstorms, would that be included in the bills definition of a severe weather warning? Would I be prosecuted? What if I was to say that it looks like there is going to be a heatwave? Under this bill, one is forced to refrain from the publication of any kind of weather information that may be of interest.
I'd now like to bring attention to how the weather services are operated in other countries, for example the United States. In the United States of America, the government sponsored environmental websites such as www.weather.gov operate free of charge to the public, where their intention is the safety of U.S citizens. The U.S has a similar law in place as the one proposed in the South African Weather bill, but with one fundamental differences, while in the United States only the National Weather Service may issue official severe weather warnings, the general public and other weather agencies still have the legal right to issue their own warnings.
Another outlandish clause in the bill is that it will be illegal to spread "false or misleading information about the South African Weather Service". That sentence sums up the amendment bill pretty accurately. It is a clear indication that it's not safety or integrity of information that the South African Weather Service is worried about, it's about becoming an untouchable monopoly that can be corrupt and flawed to any degree but at the same time an untouchable entity. Who would determine if the information is false and misleading, most likely a judge. What this does, is use fear into scaring people into making sure that they never criticize the Weather Service and that doing so may land them in jail or even just in court.
I see no evidence that this bill or the South African Weather Service are trying to increase safety and awareness, The reason for the bill, in all likeliness is to create a monopoly that would allow for a single channel of uninterrupted revenue. If this bill were to be passed, it would mean that there would be no alternative for information to the general public, they would be forced to use the South African Weather Service. The South African Weather Service over the years has become increasingly profit orientated, something that contradicts the ideas of increasing safety among the public. For anyone who has been a frequent visitor to the South African Weather Service website, as I have, over the past 10 years, you would have seen the shift it took from being a source of information to a business model. The website has undergone several redesigns in the past 10 years, each redesign lending itself to easier income, while each redesign also limiting the amount of free information. As an official weather service who's responsibilities are to protect the public, I see no place for a business model - unless only those wealthy enough to afford the insane costs of membership are worth protection.
As I touched on earlier, I am no stranger to the annoying hoax e-mails that get passed along with the South African Weather Service logo on them, and I whole heartedly agree that it's something that must be handled and punished. But there is a huge gap between impersonating the South African Weather Service and forecasting severe weather unofficially, especially since vast majority of us that do it unofficially offer disclaimers stating that we are not an official source.
There is large support for the bill being scrapped and media sources all over publishing content on the ludicrous nature of the bill. If it were truly imperative to safety and well being of the public, one would imagine that the public themselves would come out in support of the bill, instead of rallying behind how it's just another form of censorship and monopolization with some going so far as to describe it as a breach of the constitution, which would probably be an accurate statement.
In closing I'd like people to think about the bill and the reasons behind it. If you are looking to increase the safety of the general public, this bill is not how one is going to achieve that. All this bill will do is monopolize meteorology in South Africa, it will censor weather enthusiasts, it will turn what should be awareness into a complete business model and ultimately it will make the country look like a joke internationally. As stated in opening, I make no money from my website, I stand to lose nothing financially. But I am unable to sit back and have my interests and opinions censored so that a corporation can turn over a good profit. I, along with the others involved in local weather related sites have poured thousands of hours of work and money to bring a service to the public and provide a free platform to communicate.
I have faith that it will be as easy as it is to me to see the flaws and ludicrousy in this bill and the unwarranted censorship that it will enforce.
I urge everyone else able to make it to the hearings next week to please do so and voice your concern over this bill.
- StormchasingSA
The SA weather service amendment bill and why it kills off private competition
Disclaimer: I write this as the owner of weather.co.za - a privately held weather forecasting site that has definite plans to extend it's offerings to launch and produce it's own weather forecasts and warning data very soon. The weather bill can and will be used by the South African Weather Service (SAWS) and it's heavily connected private sister-company Weather Intelligence Systems (Pty) Ltd. to fight off private competition as my site could become.
Less than a week before the final hearings, the proposed SA weather service amendment bill, 2011 does finally make some headlines and gets attention by the DA MP Gareth Morgan, FW De Clerk Foundation and many other affected parties.
"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."
is what the South African Weather Service Act already says since 2001. As if this questionable decision, that lacks any legally binding definition of a 'severe weather-related warning' isn't enough the new amendment is now supposed to add the following section 30A that reads:
(1) No person may
(a) issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service;
(b) supply false or misleading information about the Weather Service;
(c) unlawfully, intentionally or negligently commit any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the Weather Service.
(2) A person who contravenes any provisions of subsection (1), is guilty of an offence and is liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five million rand or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten million rand or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, or in both instances to both such fine and such imprisonment, respectively.
As the SA weather service amendment bill is so outrageous and wrong, I just sent the following letter to the parliament, just in time for the public hearing, that I will attend January 17 and 18:
I heavily object to the new weather service amendment bill and ask parliament to review essential clauses to understand what this bill does to any legitimate competitor to South African Weather Service (SAWS) or their licensing customers:
South African might become the first country in the world where there is a state guaranteed monopoly for weather services. In my humble opinion does South Africa not need less, but more competition to guarantee a better forecasting quality, than we currently get.
The SAWS must by law adhere to The World Meteorological Organization Resolution 40 that urges Members to: "Strengthen their commitment to the free and unrestricted exchange of meteorological and related data and products" and specially states in Annex 3 "The purpose of these guidelines is to further improve the relationship between NMSs and the commercial sector. The development of the exchange of meteorological and related information depends greatly upon sound, fair, transparent, and stable relations between these two sectors.". This bill clearly does NOT help fair relations between SAWS and private competition!
The bill does not define "Severe weather warning". SAWS can use to scare clients by way of fine if they use any other forecast service other than SAWS and thereby creating a monopoly. Also, what would be considered "false" information? There is no 100% accurate weather forecast.
SAWS already acts and markets themselves as "The ONLY accurate source of SA weather" and take a very similar stance when negotiating with third parties over licensing terms. Their self-conception is NOT matched by their accuracy and I hope to bring some fresh competitive comparison with me to the parliamentary hearing next week.
The insertion of Clause 28A is also of great concern. The minister can change the act without going through parliment. Really not fair since this can change legislation even further to keep competitors out.
The offenses clause and clause 28A in the Bill needs to be removed and I ask parliament to rethink the current policy on "one single authoritative voice" in regards to severe weather warnings.
kind regards,
Randolf Jorberg
owner of weather.co.za
This submission is available at: http://randolf.jorberg.com/2012/01/12/weather-service-amendment-bill/
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Outrage over weather bill
Cape Town - Amendments to the SA Weather Service bill that threaten independent forecasters with fines and imprisonment for issuing severe weather warnings are draconian, the Democratic Alliance said on Thursday.
"[They are] an attempt... to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the Weather Service, some of which are commercial services," said DA environmental spokesperson Gareth Morgan.
"The bill, if passed in its current form, will have various undesirable consequences, and will make South Africans less safe," he said.
Against the law
The bill would make it illegal for someone to issue warnings about severe weather or air pollution without written permission from the national weather service.
It would also make it an offence to supply false or misleading information about the weather service, or intentionally or negligently commit an act which negatively affects the organisation.
An aim of the bill was to limit the damage caused by incorrect forecasts about dangerous weather.
First offenders could face up to five years in prison or a R5m fine while subsequent offenders faced a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or a R10m fine.
The bill would limit the liability of the weather service in any damage, loss or injury caused by its actions under the act.
A new clause would also allow a court to compensate the weather service for any monetary advantage the accused would have gained from a relevant offence.
"Perhaps the Weather Service sees this as a potential new income stream for itself," Morgan said.
‘Clumsy bureaucracy’
He said it was concerning that the bill failed to define a "severe weather event".
It was more concerning that a citizen with vital information about a tornado, for example, would face "clumsy bureaucracy" when applying for written permission to broadcast a warning, he said.
"There is no reason to believe that the Weather Service, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around South Africa in real time, can respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning."
Morgan called for the offences clause to be removed.
Interested parties could submit written comment on the bill before the end of Thursday.
Public hearings were scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.
- SAPA/News24
"[They are] an attempt... to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the Weather Service, some of which are commercial services," said DA environmental spokesperson Gareth Morgan.
"The bill, if passed in its current form, will have various undesirable consequences, and will make South Africans less safe," he said.
Against the law
The bill would make it illegal for someone to issue warnings about severe weather or air pollution without written permission from the national weather service.
It would also make it an offence to supply false or misleading information about the weather service, or intentionally or negligently commit an act which negatively affects the organisation.
An aim of the bill was to limit the damage caused by incorrect forecasts about dangerous weather.
First offenders could face up to five years in prison or a R5m fine while subsequent offenders faced a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or a R10m fine.
The bill would limit the liability of the weather service in any damage, loss or injury caused by its actions under the act.
A new clause would also allow a court to compensate the weather service for any monetary advantage the accused would have gained from a relevant offence.
"Perhaps the Weather Service sees this as a potential new income stream for itself," Morgan said.
‘Clumsy bureaucracy’
He said it was concerning that the bill failed to define a "severe weather event".
It was more concerning that a citizen with vital information about a tornado, for example, would face "clumsy bureaucracy" when applying for written permission to broadcast a warning, he said.
"There is no reason to believe that the Weather Service, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around South Africa in real time, can respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning."
Morgan called for the offences clause to be removed.
Interested parties could submit written comment on the bill before the end of Thursday.
Public hearings were scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.
- SAPA/News24
R5m fines for storm alerts
Thinking about telling someone that a heavy storm in your area might lead to flooding? If you do it you could be fined up to R5 million.
The South African Weather Service Amendment Bill, in its current form, would make the issuing of severe weather or air pollution-related warnings illegal, if written permission has not been obtained.
The bill will make warnings from community-based weather and pollution watchers illegal. It will also place the popular international weather websites, such as Windguru, Windfinder and Accuweather, in a difficult position.
Questions have been raised about whether the SA Weather Service (funded by the taxpayer) should be disseminated freely, rather than requiring a commercial subscription.
The bill stipulates that a person contravening any provisions was liable to a fine of up to R5 million or imprisonment for five years, and in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine of up to R10 million or imprisonment for 10 years.
One of the bodies which could fall foul of this is the community-based weather watch organisation SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (Sawdos).
It recently warned people about the uMsinga, Nqutu and uMvoti storms, possibly reducing losses and damage.
Founder, Johan Terblanche, voiced concerns about the proposed legislation. Sawdos receives real-time weather observations from the public and then publishes these observations .
“As the amendment bill now reads, nobody will be able to issue any warning of approaching severe weather.”
He told the Daily News that the body published observations including images and videos on Twitter, Facebook, their blogs and radio networks to warn the general public where severe weather is observed.
“The question now remains whether the Sawdos will be able to continue as before.”
A person could obtain permission from the SA Weather Service to issue such a warning.
“But experience has taught us that to get permission from any institution takes time – that is if you can get hold of the designated person.”
The organisation is to submit written comments on the subject to the Portfolio Committee at the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs.
“Real-time weather observations are absolutely crucial as people can observe weather phenomena that instruments cannot see,” he said.
Terblanche said that he could only speculate on the Department’s motives for the changes.
“The SA Weather Service chose the commercial route; radar images are no longer freely available to the general public as before. Radar images are a valuable resource which is used to monitor thunderstorms for severity (intensity), direction and movement. The public must now pay a subscription fee (for them).”
Another commercial venture by the Service, he said, was the SMS subscription service.
“The real-time storm warning subscription service from the Weather service sends SMS messages of storm warnings to paid subscribers. If you cannot afford this service you do not receive any real-time storm warnings. We render a free service by the public for the public.”
Vaclav Hornik, who runs the WindGuru weather service website based in Czechoslovakia was shocked at the development.
“I do not know what the practices are in SA (but) my personal opinion is that this is unbelievable ... it’s like it was here during the communist regime. Freedom of speech punished? It’s a nightmare.”
Chief Director of Communications at the Department of Environmental Affairs, Albi Modise, said this amendment was aimed at protecting the public against the distribution of inaccurate or hoax warnings or predictions.
“(These) could cause public panic and lead to evacuations and/or the unwarranted waste of resources (money, people and technology). Once the bill is passed, government will be able to act against people who wittingly or unwittingly issue warnings based on false or misleading information that effectively causes public harm.”
Furthermore, he said, the bill would ensure that there was no possible confusion around warnings – if it came from the Weather Service it was official, if it did not, check with the Weather Service first.
Sending on a warning from the weather service would be seen as supporting the objectives of the warning-related provision, and re-tweeting an actual and accurate “observation” of severe weather or air pollution was also unlikely to be considered a contravention of the bill, he said.
“However, with reference to the purpose of the unauthorised warning prohibition… a Tweet that provides an unauthorised warning based on false or misleading information that gives rise to, or may give rise to, unwarranted public panic and reaction (eg evacuations, unnecessary mobilisation of emergency services, etc) will be considered a contravention of the bill as would a re-tweet of such a “hoax” Tweet.”
However, hoaxes usually “quote” reliable sources, such as the Weather Service, to be believable.
Environmental scientist and the SABC’s former weather man, Simon Gear, said that while he understood the Weather Service’s concern to prevent people from spreading panic through misinformation “willy-nilly”, he also understood the need to warn people of impending disaster.
“Four years ago rumours flew around that tornadoes would strike Johannesburg – nothing happened.”
In 2007 e-mails and SMSes circulated which caused emergency services to be inundated with calls from worried residents.
And while some areas experienced heavy storms, no tornadoes occurred.
“Despite mix-ups and misunderstandings of this nature taking place, I don’t see what prosecuting the people or group responsible would achieve – they were genuinely trying to warn people,” he said.
kamcilla.pillay@inl.co.za
- Daily News - IOL
The South African Weather Service Amendment Bill, in its current form, would make the issuing of severe weather or air pollution-related warnings illegal, if written permission has not been obtained.
The bill will make warnings from community-based weather and pollution watchers illegal. It will also place the popular international weather websites, such as Windguru, Windfinder and Accuweather, in a difficult position.
Questions have been raised about whether the SA Weather Service (funded by the taxpayer) should be disseminated freely, rather than requiring a commercial subscription.
The bill stipulates that a person contravening any provisions was liable to a fine of up to R5 million or imprisonment for five years, and in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine of up to R10 million or imprisonment for 10 years.
One of the bodies which could fall foul of this is the community-based weather watch organisation SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (Sawdos).
It recently warned people about the uMsinga, Nqutu and uMvoti storms, possibly reducing losses and damage.
Founder, Johan Terblanche, voiced concerns about the proposed legislation. Sawdos receives real-time weather observations from the public and then publishes these observations .
“As the amendment bill now reads, nobody will be able to issue any warning of approaching severe weather.”
He told the Daily News that the body published observations including images and videos on Twitter, Facebook, their blogs and radio networks to warn the general public where severe weather is observed.
“The question now remains whether the Sawdos will be able to continue as before.”
A person could obtain permission from the SA Weather Service to issue such a warning.
“But experience has taught us that to get permission from any institution takes time – that is if you can get hold of the designated person.”
The organisation is to submit written comments on the subject to the Portfolio Committee at the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs.
“Real-time weather observations are absolutely crucial as people can observe weather phenomena that instruments cannot see,” he said.
Terblanche said that he could only speculate on the Department’s motives for the changes.
“The SA Weather Service chose the commercial route; radar images are no longer freely available to the general public as before. Radar images are a valuable resource which is used to monitor thunderstorms for severity (intensity), direction and movement. The public must now pay a subscription fee (for them).”
Another commercial venture by the Service, he said, was the SMS subscription service.
“The real-time storm warning subscription service from the Weather service sends SMS messages of storm warnings to paid subscribers. If you cannot afford this service you do not receive any real-time storm warnings. We render a free service by the public for the public.”
Vaclav Hornik, who runs the WindGuru weather service website based in Czechoslovakia was shocked at the development.
“I do not know what the practices are in SA (but) my personal opinion is that this is unbelievable ... it’s like it was here during the communist regime. Freedom of speech punished? It’s a nightmare.”
Chief Director of Communications at the Department of Environmental Affairs, Albi Modise, said this amendment was aimed at protecting the public against the distribution of inaccurate or hoax warnings or predictions.
“(These) could cause public panic and lead to evacuations and/or the unwarranted waste of resources (money, people and technology). Once the bill is passed, government will be able to act against people who wittingly or unwittingly issue warnings based on false or misleading information that effectively causes public harm.”
Furthermore, he said, the bill would ensure that there was no possible confusion around warnings – if it came from the Weather Service it was official, if it did not, check with the Weather Service first.
Sending on a warning from the weather service would be seen as supporting the objectives of the warning-related provision, and re-tweeting an actual and accurate “observation” of severe weather or air pollution was also unlikely to be considered a contravention of the bill, he said.
“However, with reference to the purpose of the unauthorised warning prohibition… a Tweet that provides an unauthorised warning based on false or misleading information that gives rise to, or may give rise to, unwarranted public panic and reaction (eg evacuations, unnecessary mobilisation of emergency services, etc) will be considered a contravention of the bill as would a re-tweet of such a “hoax” Tweet.”
However, hoaxes usually “quote” reliable sources, such as the Weather Service, to be believable.
Environmental scientist and the SABC’s former weather man, Simon Gear, said that while he understood the Weather Service’s concern to prevent people from spreading panic through misinformation “willy-nilly”, he also understood the need to warn people of impending disaster.
“Four years ago rumours flew around that tornadoes would strike Johannesburg – nothing happened.”
In 2007 e-mails and SMSes circulated which caused emergency services to be inundated with calls from worried residents.
And while some areas experienced heavy storms, no tornadoes occurred.
“Despite mix-ups and misunderstandings of this nature taking place, I don’t see what prosecuting the people or group responsible would achieve – they were genuinely trying to warn people,” he said.
kamcilla.pillay@inl.co.za
- Daily News - IOL
Storm over new weather bill
Environmental bodies have rained criticism on the proposal to change the law to limit how people share information on severe weather events.
The SA Weather Service Amendment Bill would make the issuing of severe weather or air pollution-related warnings without written permission from the SA Weather Service illegal, with offenders liable to fines of up to R5 million or five years’ jail.
The Department of Environmental Affairs defended the proposed bill, saying that it needed to find a way to police hoax warnings – and mischief-makers causing panic for no reason.
But if it becomes law, objectors say, it could affect not only the ability of private weather forecasters to function, but also air pollution monitoring, satellite observation and even carbon trading.
But South Durban community activist Desmond D’sa said that if the bill was passed, it would be an even bigger problem because many people depended on such information.
“Imagine if there was a huge storm approaching and people did not know which direction it was coming from and went straight in that direction. Even those at sea will be in trouble. If the bill passes, it will be undermining everything we have fought for including our right to information,” he said.
Bobby Peek, director of groundWork, also said organisations such as his released information in the interests of public health and the environment.
“This should be a legitimate, relevant and well-established check and balance for information generated by authorities and particularly by private enterprises. However, the effect of the bill is that, by disclosing such information, these organisations may very well be committing serious offences.”
The bill focuses on air quality is in the form of the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network and the SA Air Quality Information System, both electronic web-based information systems on the country’s air quality.
Peek said groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance monitored air quality and air pollution by taking samples and sending these for analysis at local or international laboratories.
“These organisations then advise the government or private enterprises that may be responsible for the pollution, as well as members of the public (including through media releases) of the results of such analyses.”
These organisations also disclosed information of this nature from other sources, such as the SA Air Quality Information Service, he said.
Brad Inggs, founder of the African Space Institute (ASI), said his organisation would submit an objection to the bill, and to the fine mentioned in particular, as it hindered innovation, growth, and knowledge distribution.
“The way they are going about it is very disturbing and it doesn’t look like the weather service has looked enough into the ripple effect it will be causing. We are also wondering how this steps on the toes of Earth observation via satellite as satellites are used for most weather emergencies.”
He said that what the bill outlined not only affected the space industry, but also the financial industry that used weather analysis for commodities and carbon trading.
“As South Africa is very involved with commodities, how will this affect the international analysis on our financial markets?
“Does every analyst have to line up on the phone for someone at the weather service to approve a weather report for corn?
“With the rise in carbon credit trading, is the weather service trying to control access to the data or analysis into these areas?”
If this went through, would the world be seeing South Africa as a missed block on overseas weather satellite imagery, he asked
“Also when the ASI downloads our own satellite weather imagery directly from the satellites, are they saying we not allowed to warn people of possible severe weather or sharing any knowledge gained from research and analysis with students and the public unless we ask for their blessing?”
Gareth Morgan, DA spokesman for water and environmental affairs, called the amendment “stupid”.
“(We) know from climate change scientists that ‘extreme’ weather events such as floods and tornadoes are likely to increase in frequency in the future. So, the need for warning systems to protect people and property is important.”
There was no reason to believe that the weather service, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around SA in real time, could respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning, he said.
All interested stakeholders must submit written comments no later than today, and public hearings are planned for January 17 and 18 in Cape Town.
kamcilla.pillay@inl.co.za
- IOL
The SA Weather Service Amendment Bill would make the issuing of severe weather or air pollution-related warnings without written permission from the SA Weather Service illegal, with offenders liable to fines of up to R5 million or five years’ jail.
The Department of Environmental Affairs defended the proposed bill, saying that it needed to find a way to police hoax warnings – and mischief-makers causing panic for no reason.
But if it becomes law, objectors say, it could affect not only the ability of private weather forecasters to function, but also air pollution monitoring, satellite observation and even carbon trading.
But South Durban community activist Desmond D’sa said that if the bill was passed, it would be an even bigger problem because many people depended on such information.
“Imagine if there was a huge storm approaching and people did not know which direction it was coming from and went straight in that direction. Even those at sea will be in trouble. If the bill passes, it will be undermining everything we have fought for including our right to information,” he said.
Bobby Peek, director of groundWork, also said organisations such as his released information in the interests of public health and the environment.
“This should be a legitimate, relevant and well-established check and balance for information generated by authorities and particularly by private enterprises. However, the effect of the bill is that, by disclosing such information, these organisations may very well be committing serious offences.”
The bill focuses on air quality is in the form of the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network and the SA Air Quality Information System, both electronic web-based information systems on the country’s air quality.
Peek said groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance monitored air quality and air pollution by taking samples and sending these for analysis at local or international laboratories.
“These organisations then advise the government or private enterprises that may be responsible for the pollution, as well as members of the public (including through media releases) of the results of such analyses.”
These organisations also disclosed information of this nature from other sources, such as the SA Air Quality Information Service, he said.
Brad Inggs, founder of the African Space Institute (ASI), said his organisation would submit an objection to the bill, and to the fine mentioned in particular, as it hindered innovation, growth, and knowledge distribution.
“The way they are going about it is very disturbing and it doesn’t look like the weather service has looked enough into the ripple effect it will be causing. We are also wondering how this steps on the toes of Earth observation via satellite as satellites are used for most weather emergencies.”
He said that what the bill outlined not only affected the space industry, but also the financial industry that used weather analysis for commodities and carbon trading.
“As South Africa is very involved with commodities, how will this affect the international analysis on our financial markets?
“Does every analyst have to line up on the phone for someone at the weather service to approve a weather report for corn?
“With the rise in carbon credit trading, is the weather service trying to control access to the data or analysis into these areas?”
If this went through, would the world be seeing South Africa as a missed block on overseas weather satellite imagery, he asked
“Also when the ASI downloads our own satellite weather imagery directly from the satellites, are they saying we not allowed to warn people of possible severe weather or sharing any knowledge gained from research and analysis with students and the public unless we ask for their blessing?”
Gareth Morgan, DA spokesman for water and environmental affairs, called the amendment “stupid”.
“(We) know from climate change scientists that ‘extreme’ weather events such as floods and tornadoes are likely to increase in frequency in the future. So, the need for warning systems to protect people and property is important.”
There was no reason to believe that the weather service, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around SA in real time, could respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning, he said.
All interested stakeholders must submit written comments no later than today, and public hearings are planned for January 17 and 18 in Cape Town.
kamcilla.pillay@inl.co.za
- IOL
SAWDOS: Request for Media and Television Interviews relating to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011
I received several requests from the International and Local media for personal interviews with regard to my comments on the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011. However it is simply impossible to grant personal interviews to every media outlet that requested and interview.
I have indicated before that as a result of wide spread interest and to be transparent the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (SAWDOS) has decide to publically publish its comments to the Portfolio Committe on Water and Environmental Affairs in respect of the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill. [B22 - 2011]
The submission of the SAWDOS is available by clicking HERE.
The submission explain my personal opinion and that of the SAWDOS. I deem it not necessary at this stage to add additional information to the submission. On hindsight there is currently more than enough opinions and information available with regard to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011
I am most grateful for the response by the media and the interest they have in this matter.
Here is a list of links that relates to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011:
Jailtime mooted for bad weather warnings - Ivo Vegter
Storm oor straf vir weerdata - Beeld
Storm over weather law - Cape Argus (IOL)
Draconian Bill gives Weather Service a monopoly - Gareth Morgan
Weather Service Bill unconstitutional - F W de Klerk Foundation
Wetsontwerp oor weerwaarskuwings is ‘lagwekkend’ - Volksblad
Cloudy weather legislation needs clarity - Mail and Guardian
Activists slam air pollution bill - East Coast Radio
Other references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill:
(Note the SAWDIS now SAWDOS warned about the effects of this bill when it appeared in 2011
Will the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill be used to close down the SA Weather and Disaster Information Service (SAWDIS) for good?
Weather Organizations and Weather Observers take note of the South African Weather Service Amendment Draft Bill
If you have any other links or references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, send the information to the SAWDOS for publication by clicking HERE.
I am of the opinion that this article contains more than enough information for the media iro the Amendment Bill.
My appreciation goes out to all those who contributed and highlighted the discrepancies in this unconstitutional bill. I am convinced that we all strive to make South Africa a safer place with respect to weather and pollution. Keep up the good work.
Johan Terblanche
Founder: SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service
Mossel Bay
12 January 2012
I have indicated before that as a result of wide spread interest and to be transparent the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (SAWDOS) has decide to publically publish its comments to the Portfolio Committe on Water and Environmental Affairs in respect of the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill. [B22 - 2011]
The submission of the SAWDOS is available by clicking HERE.
The submission explain my personal opinion and that of the SAWDOS. I deem it not necessary at this stage to add additional information to the submission. On hindsight there is currently more than enough opinions and information available with regard to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011
I am most grateful for the response by the media and the interest they have in this matter.
Here is a list of links that relates to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011:
Jailtime mooted for bad weather warnings - Ivo Vegter
Storm oor straf vir weerdata - Beeld
Storm over weather law - Cape Argus (IOL)
Draconian Bill gives Weather Service a monopoly - Gareth Morgan
Weather Service Bill unconstitutional - F W de Klerk Foundation
Wetsontwerp oor weerwaarskuwings is ‘lagwekkend’ - Volksblad
Cloudy weather legislation needs clarity - Mail and Guardian
Activists slam air pollution bill - East Coast Radio
Other references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill:
(Note the SAWDIS now SAWDOS warned about the effects of this bill when it appeared in 2011
Will the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill be used to close down the SA Weather and Disaster Information Service (SAWDIS) for good?
Weather Organizations and Weather Observers take note of the South African Weather Service Amendment Draft Bill
If you have any other links or references to the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, send the information to the SAWDOS for publication by clicking HERE.
I am of the opinion that this article contains more than enough information for the media iro the Amendment Bill.
My appreciation goes out to all those who contributed and highlighted the discrepancies in this unconstitutional bill. I am convinced that we all strive to make South Africa a safer place with respect to weather and pollution. Keep up the good work.
Johan Terblanche
Founder: SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service
Mossel Bay
12 January 2012
Activists slam air pollution bill
Durban environmental groups have slammed a new bill that seeks to restrict all weather and air pollution warnings issued in South Africa.
The Weather Service Amendment Bill says only the South African Weather Service should issue warnings and anyone who sends out an alert without written approval from the Service could face fines of up to R10-million or 10 years in prison.
Local NGO Groundwork says environment officials have told them that the air pollution section of the bill was "mistakenly" inserted and will be removed.
The group's Rico Euripidou says however if the bill is passed in its current form, it will spell bad news for groups that warn communities when there is an air quality threat.
"It would have curtailed the freedom of environmental groups such as GroundWork or the South Durban Environmental Community Alliance to warn people within the community when we have a genuine concern about air pollution," he said.
He says they will also be lobbying against the proposed law.
"We're going to be making amended suggestions to the Department of Environmental Affairs, so hopefully we will manage to eliminate this provision within this bill, which is a very bad provision the way we read it."
- East Coast Radio
The Weather Service Amendment Bill says only the South African Weather Service should issue warnings and anyone who sends out an alert without written approval from the Service could face fines of up to R10-million or 10 years in prison.
Local NGO Groundwork says environment officials have told them that the air pollution section of the bill was "mistakenly" inserted and will be removed.
The group's Rico Euripidou says however if the bill is passed in its current form, it will spell bad news for groups that warn communities when there is an air quality threat.
"It would have curtailed the freedom of environmental groups such as GroundWork or the South Durban Environmental Community Alliance to warn people within the community when we have a genuine concern about air pollution," he said.
He says they will also be lobbying against the proposed law.
"We're going to be making amended suggestions to the Department of Environmental Affairs, so hopefully we will manage to eliminate this provision within this bill, which is a very bad provision the way we read it."
- East Coast Radio
Weather Service Bill unconstitutional - FWDKF
F W DE KLERK FOUNDATION CALLS FOR THE SCRAPPING OF CLAUSES IN THE WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL THAT WOULD LIMIT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The F W de Klerk Foundation has made a submission to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs in which it has called for the scrapping of the proposed clause 30A that deals with penalties and offences (see here - PDF).
In terms of the clause "no person may (a) issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service; (b) supply false or misleading information about the Weather Service; or(c) unlawfully, intentionally or negligently commit any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the Weather Service."
The Foundation expressed the view that the clause is irreconcilable with Section 16 of the Constitution which gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes "freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive and impart information and ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research." The only limitations placed on freedom of expression are "propaganda for war; Incitement to imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm".
The Foundation pointed out that, quite clearly, communication regarding weather or pollution-related conditions does not fall under any of the areas of expression prohibited by the Constitution. The proposed clause would directly limit freedom of expression by preventing print, electronic and social media from expressing their legitimate views on severe weather and/or air-pollution conditions.
It would also limit the freedom of people and organisations to receive and impart information and ideas on a topic of general and legitimate interest. One can imagine many circumstances - such as the approach of a tornado - when the media or ordinary citizens would have an over-riding need to warn others of an impending danger without the written permission of the Weather Service.
The proposed clause would also give the Weather Service a monopoly of communication on issues of general importance to the public and would thereby limit academic freedom and freedom to conduct research by other organisations or individuals.
In the Foundation's view it was equally unacceptable to try to prohibit "false or misleading information" about the Weather Service. It pointed out that Information is often "false or misleading" in the eye of the beholder - and there can be legitimate differences of opinion on virtually any question. The Foundation said that It was unacceptable to limit legitimate comment and debate - particularly on organs of state - even if such comment proved to be erroneous, false or misleading - by interfering in any way with expression that complies with section 16 of the Constitution.
It was also unacceptable and unconstitutional to try to prohibit acts or omissions that might detrimentally affect the Weather Service - or any organ of state. Citizens in constitutional democracies are free to take action within the law that might well detrimentally affect organs of state - for example, by exposing incompetence and corruption; or criticising management or the activities of such an organ of state; or by exercising their right to strike or to demonstrate.
The Foundation also pointed out that, quite apart from the unconstitutionality of Clause 30A, the proposed penalties of fines between R 5 million and R 10 million, or maximum imprisonment of between five and ten years were out of all proportion to the supposed offences.
The Foundation found it most disturbing that such fundamentally undemocratic and unconstitutional tendencies should manifest themselves in legislation on so supposedly innocuous a topic as the Weather Service.
Statement issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation, January 11 2012
The F W de Klerk Foundation has made a submission to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs in which it has called for the scrapping of the proposed clause 30A that deals with penalties and offences (see here - PDF).
In terms of the clause "no person may (a) issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service; (b) supply false or misleading information about the Weather Service; or(c) unlawfully, intentionally or negligently commit any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the Weather Service."
The Foundation expressed the view that the clause is irreconcilable with Section 16 of the Constitution which gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes "freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive and impart information and ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research." The only limitations placed on freedom of expression are "propaganda for war; Incitement to imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm".
The Foundation pointed out that, quite clearly, communication regarding weather or pollution-related conditions does not fall under any of the areas of expression prohibited by the Constitution. The proposed clause would directly limit freedom of expression by preventing print, electronic and social media from expressing their legitimate views on severe weather and/or air-pollution conditions.
It would also limit the freedom of people and organisations to receive and impart information and ideas on a topic of general and legitimate interest. One can imagine many circumstances - such as the approach of a tornado - when the media or ordinary citizens would have an over-riding need to warn others of an impending danger without the written permission of the Weather Service.
The proposed clause would also give the Weather Service a monopoly of communication on issues of general importance to the public and would thereby limit academic freedom and freedom to conduct research by other organisations or individuals.
In the Foundation's view it was equally unacceptable to try to prohibit "false or misleading information" about the Weather Service. It pointed out that Information is often "false or misleading" in the eye of the beholder - and there can be legitimate differences of opinion on virtually any question. The Foundation said that It was unacceptable to limit legitimate comment and debate - particularly on organs of state - even if such comment proved to be erroneous, false or misleading - by interfering in any way with expression that complies with section 16 of the Constitution.
It was also unacceptable and unconstitutional to try to prohibit acts or omissions that might detrimentally affect the Weather Service - or any organ of state. Citizens in constitutional democracies are free to take action within the law that might well detrimentally affect organs of state - for example, by exposing incompetence and corruption; or criticising management or the activities of such an organ of state; or by exercising their right to strike or to demonstrate.
The Foundation also pointed out that, quite apart from the unconstitutionality of Clause 30A, the proposed penalties of fines between R 5 million and R 10 million, or maximum imprisonment of between five and ten years were out of all proportion to the supposed offences.
The Foundation found it most disturbing that such fundamentally undemocratic and unconstitutional tendencies should manifest themselves in legislation on so supposedly innocuous a topic as the Weather Service.
Statement issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation, January 11 2012
SA Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011 unconstitutional?
Ryan Nortier writes: Just read your response to the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs in respect of the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill [B22 - 2011], the section that reads nobody will be able to issue any real-time warning of approaching real-time severe weather, contravenes section 16 of the South African Constitution as below:
16. Freedom of expression
- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
- freedom of the press and other media;
- freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
- freedom of artistic creativity; and
- academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
- freedom of the press and other media;
- The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
- propaganda for war;
- incitement of imminent violence; or
- advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
- propaganda for war;
I’m sure you have already researched this, but none the less just sharing my observation ;-).
Good Luck & I’m sure sanity will prevail
SAWDOS: SAWDOS respectfully argue that 30A. (1) is unconstitutional and vague....
Draconian Bill gives Weather Service a monopoly - Gareth Morgan
Weather Service Act Amendment: Draconian Bill gives Weather Service a monopoly
South African citizens could face penalties of up to ten years in prison, or a R10 million fine, for issuing any information that may be construed as a "severe weather or pollution-related warning" without written permission from the Weather Service.
This amendment, among others, is contained in a Bill before Parliament that seeks to amend the South African Weather Service Act (see here - PDF).
The proposed Bill creates an offenses section for the first time, which also includes a prohibition on any person supplying false or misleading information about the Weather Service or who intentionally or negligently commits any act which detrimentally affects the organisation.
These proposed amendments are draconian, and an attempt by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, the sponsor of the Bill, to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the Weather Service, some of which are commercial services.
Interestingly, the amendment Bill includes for the first time a limitation of liability whereby the Weather Service cannot be held liable for any damage, loss or injury caused by any act committed in good faith. So, while the Weather Service wants protection for performing the imperfect science of weather predicting, it wants to close down other entities that dabble in the same field.
The Bill, if passed in its current form, will have various undesirable consequences, and will make South Africans less safe. The Bill, for example, does not contain a definition of a "severe weather event". But we do know from climate change scientists that "extreme" weather events such as floods and tornados are likely to increase in frequency in the future. So, the need for warning systems to protect people and property is important.
But the nature of such weather events, whether one calls them severe or extreme, is that they strike quickly. They can also be highly localised, that is, striking in a small area. There is no reason to believe that the Weather Service, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around South Africa in real time, can respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning. The prospect of a citizen who, for example, observes that a tornado is about to strike a settlement and wishes to issue a warning, actually receiving written permission in time from the clumsy bureaucracy that is the Weather Service, is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Thus the Bill will make criminals of civic-minded people and organisations who offer warnings to their fellow citizens, as they will be unlikely even to seek permission to sound the warning. The proposed amendment is simply stupid law.
There are many informal networks of citizens around our country that observe weather changes, and offer commentary or advice on what they see or measure. They offer useful services that supplement the work of the Weather Service. Many users of weather data might even regard them as more useful than the Weather Service.
The prohibition on making pollution-related warnings without official consent is also absurd. The NGOs that work in highly polluted communities such as the South Durban basin, Secunda and Sasolburg perform excellent work monitoring pollution that supplements the work of the state. They also hold the state accountable for compliance action when pollution events from big polluters such as refineries occur, and warn affected people to take precautions to prevent exposure. Why should they seek permission from the Weather Service to make a warning? What if the Weather Service colluded with a polluter to prevent a warning so that a polluter could escape liability? Granted, people or networks that make weather or pollution-related warnings could get their predictions wrong. But what if they are right and the effect of their warning is to save lives?
The Bill also gives courts the power to assess whether any person convicted of one the new offenses gained a material advantage from doing so, and if so, courts may order the award of damages or compensation. Perhaps the Weather Service sees this as a potential new income stream for itself.
It is no secret that since the formation of the Weather Service, just under a decade ago, the entity has struggled to generate increased income from the commercial services it offers. It now turns to Parliament to give it a monopoly over these services. If implemented, these amendments would offer the Weather Service no incentive to innovate and deliver attractive new products. If the Weather Service wants to succeed in a fast-paced economy, where improved communication is empowering more citizens every day, then it must develop the ability to adapt and must display its worth. The proposed Bill will crush creativity and innovation for these other networks of people that offer services in the weather field, and without the competition, the Weather Service will become moribund.
The offenses clause in the Bill needs to be removed.
Public hearings on the amendment Bill are due to be held in the coming weeks.
Statement issued by Gareth Morgan MP, DA Shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, January 11 2012
South African citizens could face penalties of up to ten years in prison, or a R10 million fine, for issuing any information that may be construed as a "severe weather or pollution-related warning" without written permission from the Weather Service.
This amendment, among others, is contained in a Bill before Parliament that seeks to amend the South African Weather Service Act (see here - PDF).
The proposed Bill creates an offenses section for the first time, which also includes a prohibition on any person supplying false or misleading information about the Weather Service or who intentionally or negligently commits any act which detrimentally affects the organisation.
These proposed amendments are draconian, and an attempt by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, the sponsor of the Bill, to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the Weather Service, some of which are commercial services.
Interestingly, the amendment Bill includes for the first time a limitation of liability whereby the Weather Service cannot be held liable for any damage, loss or injury caused by any act committed in good faith. So, while the Weather Service wants protection for performing the imperfect science of weather predicting, it wants to close down other entities that dabble in the same field.
The Bill, if passed in its current form, will have various undesirable consequences, and will make South Africans less safe. The Bill, for example, does not contain a definition of a "severe weather event". But we do know from climate change scientists that "extreme" weather events such as floods and tornados are likely to increase in frequency in the future. So, the need for warning systems to protect people and property is important.
But the nature of such weather events, whether one calls them severe or extreme, is that they strike quickly. They can also be highly localised, that is, striking in a small area. There is no reason to believe that the Weather Service, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around South Africa in real time, can respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning. The prospect of a citizen who, for example, observes that a tornado is about to strike a settlement and wishes to issue a warning, actually receiving written permission in time from the clumsy bureaucracy that is the Weather Service, is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Thus the Bill will make criminals of civic-minded people and organisations who offer warnings to their fellow citizens, as they will be unlikely even to seek permission to sound the warning. The proposed amendment is simply stupid law.
There are many informal networks of citizens around our country that observe weather changes, and offer commentary or advice on what they see or measure. They offer useful services that supplement the work of the Weather Service. Many users of weather data might even regard them as more useful than the Weather Service.
The prohibition on making pollution-related warnings without official consent is also absurd. The NGOs that work in highly polluted communities such as the South Durban basin, Secunda and Sasolburg perform excellent work monitoring pollution that supplements the work of the state. They also hold the state accountable for compliance action when pollution events from big polluters such as refineries occur, and warn affected people to take precautions to prevent exposure. Why should they seek permission from the Weather Service to make a warning? What if the Weather Service colluded with a polluter to prevent a warning so that a polluter could escape liability? Granted, people or networks that make weather or pollution-related warnings could get their predictions wrong. But what if they are right and the effect of their warning is to save lives?
The Bill also gives courts the power to assess whether any person convicted of one the new offenses gained a material advantage from doing so, and if so, courts may order the award of damages or compensation. Perhaps the Weather Service sees this as a potential new income stream for itself.
It is no secret that since the formation of the Weather Service, just under a decade ago, the entity has struggled to generate increased income from the commercial services it offers. It now turns to Parliament to give it a monopoly over these services. If implemented, these amendments would offer the Weather Service no incentive to innovate and deliver attractive new products. If the Weather Service wants to succeed in a fast-paced economy, where improved communication is empowering more citizens every day, then it must develop the ability to adapt and must display its worth. The proposed Bill will crush creativity and innovation for these other networks of people that offer services in the weather field, and without the competition, the Weather Service will become moribund.
The offenses clause in the Bill needs to be removed.
Public hearings on the amendment Bill are due to be held in the coming weeks.
Statement issued by Gareth Morgan MP, DA Shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, January 11 2012
Storm over weather law
A storm is brewing over the government’s bid to severely punish those who issue severe weather warnings without official sanction.
The proposed SA Weather Service Amendment Bill makes it illegal to issue such warnings without written permission from the weather service, and those found guilty could face fines of up to R5 million or five years’ jail.
In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine of up to R10m or 10 years’ jail will apply.
The founder of the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (Sawdos), Johan Terblanche, said on its blog that he was concerned about the bill.
Sawdos publishes weather observations from the public.
“As the amendment bill now reads, nobody will be able to issue any warning of approaching severe weather.” He said the body also posted images and video on Twitter, Facebook, their blogs and radio networks to warn the public about severe weather.
He added that obtaining permission to issue a warning “takes time – that is, if you can get hold of the designated person”.
Sawdos would submit written comments on the matter to the portfolio committee at the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs.
“Real-time weather observations are absolutely crucial as people can observe weather phenomena that instruments cannot see,” Terblanche tweeted.
Vaclav Hornik, who runs the WindGuru weather service website based in the Czech Republic, was shocked at the development.
“I do not know what the practices are in SA (but) my personal opinion is that this is unbelievable… it’s like it was here during the communist regime. Freedom of speech punished? It’s a nightmare.”
Chief director of communications at the Department of Environmental Affairs Albi Modise said the bill was aimed at protecting the public against the distribution of inaccurate or hoax warnings or predictions.
“(These) could cause public panic and lead to evacuations and/or the unwarranted waste of resources (money, people and technology). Once the bill is passed, the government will be able to act against people who wittingly or unwittingly issue warnings based on false or misleading information that effectively cause public harm.”
On Twitter, re-tweeting an SA Weather Service severe weather or air pollution-related warning would not be considered a contravention of the bill.
“
However... a Tweet that provides an unauthorised warning based on false or misleading information that gives rise to, or may give rise to, unwarranted public panic and reaction (evacuations, unnecessary mobilisation of emergency services) will be considered a contravention… as would a re-tweet of such a ‘hoax’.”
The SABC’s former weather man, environmental scientist Simon Gear, said that while he understood the concern to prevent people from spreading panic through misinformation, he also understood the need to warn people of impending disaster.
“Four years ago rumours flew around that tornadoes would strike Johannesburg – nothing happened.
“I don’t see what prosecuting the people or group responsible would achieve – they were genuinely trying to warn people.”
Interested parties can submit written comments to the department not later than tomorrow, with public hearings scheduled for January 17 and 18.
- Cape Argus
The proposed SA Weather Service Amendment Bill makes it illegal to issue such warnings without written permission from the weather service, and those found guilty could face fines of up to R5 million or five years’ jail.
In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine of up to R10m or 10 years’ jail will apply.
The founder of the SA Weather and Disaster Observation Service (Sawdos), Johan Terblanche, said on its blog that he was concerned about the bill.
Sawdos publishes weather observations from the public.
“As the amendment bill now reads, nobody will be able to issue any warning of approaching severe weather.” He said the body also posted images and video on Twitter, Facebook, their blogs and radio networks to warn the public about severe weather.
He added that obtaining permission to issue a warning “takes time – that is, if you can get hold of the designated person”.
Sawdos would submit written comments on the matter to the portfolio committee at the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs.
“Real-time weather observations are absolutely crucial as people can observe weather phenomena that instruments cannot see,” Terblanche tweeted.
Vaclav Hornik, who runs the WindGuru weather service website based in the Czech Republic, was shocked at the development.
“I do not know what the practices are in SA (but) my personal opinion is that this is unbelievable… it’s like it was here during the communist regime. Freedom of speech punished? It’s a nightmare.”
Chief director of communications at the Department of Environmental Affairs Albi Modise said the bill was aimed at protecting the public against the distribution of inaccurate or hoax warnings or predictions.
“(These) could cause public panic and lead to evacuations and/or the unwarranted waste of resources (money, people and technology). Once the bill is passed, the government will be able to act against people who wittingly or unwittingly issue warnings based on false or misleading information that effectively cause public harm.”
On Twitter, re-tweeting an SA Weather Service severe weather or air pollution-related warning would not be considered a contravention of the bill.
“
However... a Tweet that provides an unauthorised warning based on false or misleading information that gives rise to, or may give rise to, unwarranted public panic and reaction (evacuations, unnecessary mobilisation of emergency services) will be considered a contravention… as would a re-tweet of such a ‘hoax’.”
The SABC’s former weather man, environmental scientist Simon Gear, said that while he understood the concern to prevent people from spreading panic through misinformation, he also understood the need to warn people of impending disaster.
“Four years ago rumours flew around that tornadoes would strike Johannesburg – nothing happened.
“I don’t see what prosecuting the people or group responsible would achieve – they were genuinely trying to warn people.”
Interested parties can submit written comments to the department not later than tomorrow, with public hearings scheduled for January 17 and 18.
- Cape Argus
Cloudy weather legislation needs clarity
A storm is brewing over contentious proposed legislation, which aims to punish those issuing severe weather warnings without proper authorisation.
The South African Weather Services Amendment Bill will see citizens issuing any "severe weather or pollution-related warning" without written permission from the South African Weather Service, facing a multi-million rand fine and a possible 10 years imprisonment.
Under the legislation, only the South African Weather Service (SAWS) will be permitted to issue "serious weather warnings".
It is understood the Bill is hoped to control the reporting of hazardous weather events, to prevent incorrect warnings being issued.
But the Bill's definition of a "severe weather" event is too broad according to analysts and opposition parties.
The Bill also proposes a limitation of liability, which would see SAWS not being held responsible for any loss or damage incurred from their issuing an incorrect weather warning.
Johan Terblanche, founder of the South African Weather and Disaster Observation Service (Sawdos), which publishes public weather observations, believes the Bill will prevent any citizen from merely commenting on the weather.
"As the amendment Bill now reads, nobody will be able to issue any warning of approaching severe weather," he wrote on his blog.
Terblance added that public weather observations are "crucial" in supplementing the information supplied by weather monitoring instruments.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has labelled the Bill as an attempt to "crush creativity and innovation".
"This is a draconian attempt to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the weather service, some of which are commercial services," Gareth Morgan, DA spokesperson of water and environmental affairs said in a statement.
But Isham Abader, deputy director general of the department of environmental affairs believes there is "nothing untoward" about the Bill's intentions.
"The Bill merely seeks to prevent the transmission of unreliable information. Incorrect weather warnings could lead to the evacuation of an entire town at great expense to the tax payer," Abader told the Mail & Guardian.
Environmental journalist Simon Gear admits that it is "international practice" to have a central system controlling warnings of severe weather patterns, but questions the control the Bill grants to SAWS.
"I personally would never issue a serious formal warning unless it was confirmed by SAWS. But you have to ascertain how much authority the service will have to withhold or grant permission to report on severe weather," he told the M&G.
This sentiment was echoed by eNews, who solely rely on the data collected by their independent information gathering service for their weather reports.
"The definition does need to be clarified in terms of how we and other people report on the weather. If we monitor imminent gale force winds in the Cape, can we report on it if there isn't a warning?" asked senior meteorologist Candice McKechnie.
McKechnie said the Bill would, however, prevent "mass hysteria" resulting from incorrect warnings.
Public hearings are due to be held on the Bill in coming weeks and Abader maintains all responses would be "taken into account".
"We will look at rewording the Bill if necessary to make sure it operates properly and caters to the needs of all involved," he said.
- Mail and Guardian
The South African Weather Services Amendment Bill will see citizens issuing any "severe weather or pollution-related warning" without written permission from the South African Weather Service, facing a multi-million rand fine and a possible 10 years imprisonment.
Under the legislation, only the South African Weather Service (SAWS) will be permitted to issue "serious weather warnings".
It is understood the Bill is hoped to control the reporting of hazardous weather events, to prevent incorrect warnings being issued.
But the Bill's definition of a "severe weather" event is too broad according to analysts and opposition parties.
The Bill also proposes a limitation of liability, which would see SAWS not being held responsible for any loss or damage incurred from their issuing an incorrect weather warning.
Johan Terblanche, founder of the South African Weather and Disaster Observation Service (Sawdos), which publishes public weather observations, believes the Bill will prevent any citizen from merely commenting on the weather.
"As the amendment Bill now reads, nobody will be able to issue any warning of approaching severe weather," he wrote on his blog.
Terblance added that public weather observations are "crucial" in supplementing the information supplied by weather monitoring instruments.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has labelled the Bill as an attempt to "crush creativity and innovation".
"This is a draconian attempt to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the weather service, some of which are commercial services," Gareth Morgan, DA spokesperson of water and environmental affairs said in a statement.
But Isham Abader, deputy director general of the department of environmental affairs believes there is "nothing untoward" about the Bill's intentions.
"The Bill merely seeks to prevent the transmission of unreliable information. Incorrect weather warnings could lead to the evacuation of an entire town at great expense to the tax payer," Abader told the Mail & Guardian.
Environmental journalist Simon Gear admits that it is "international practice" to have a central system controlling warnings of severe weather patterns, but questions the control the Bill grants to SAWS.
"I personally would never issue a serious formal warning unless it was confirmed by SAWS. But you have to ascertain how much authority the service will have to withhold or grant permission to report on severe weather," he told the M&G.
This sentiment was echoed by eNews, who solely rely on the data collected by their independent information gathering service for their weather reports.
"The definition does need to be clarified in terms of how we and other people report on the weather. If we monitor imminent gale force winds in the Cape, can we report on it if there isn't a warning?" asked senior meteorologist Candice McKechnie.
McKechnie said the Bill would, however, prevent "mass hysteria" resulting from incorrect warnings.
Public hearings are due to be held on the Bill in coming weeks and Abader maintains all responses would be "taken into account".
"We will look at rewording the Bill if necessary to make sure it operates properly and caters to the needs of all involved," he said.
- Mail and Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)