SANBI, SAWS, SANParks & Isimangaliso 2025/26 Annual Reports, with Ministry

Video Annual Reports 2025/26 The Committee met to consider the 2025/26 annual reports of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), South African National Parks (SANParks) and iSimangaliso. The Minister and Deputy Minister were in attendance. South African National Parks (SANParks) reported its strongest performance in five years, achieving 38 of 42 annual targets, equivalent to 90%, and receiving an unqualified audit opinion with findings. Revenue increased by 7% to R4.4 billion, while expenditure rose by 13% to R4.25 billion. The entity reported progress in biodiversity conservation, protected-area management, tourism growth, job creation and support for community enterprises. Visitor numbers exceeded 6.8 million, while self-generated revenue reached R3.4 billion. However, challenges remained in resource mobilisation, renewable energy projects, water-use monitoring, and the conclusion of certain community co-management agreements. Members welcomed the entity’s performance but raised concerns about its failure to obtain a clean audit, recurring findings relating to revenue management, and the need for accountability and effective corrective controls. They requested detailed information on community bursaries, funding allocated to surrounding communities, employment demographics, and funding sources. Questions were also raised about delays in land settlements and co-management agreements, the benchmark used to assess protected-area management, outstanding debt and debt-recovery costs, and contingency planning in the event of declining tourism revenue and government grants. Members further questioned the financial and physical damage caused by flooding in the Kruger National Park, the extent of insurance cover, and the continued rebuilding of facilities in flood-prone areas. SANParks explained that vacancies had contributed to underperformance in resource mobilisation but had since been filled. It attributed the outstanding concessionaire debt of approximately R10 million to difficulties experienced during the COVID-19 period and indicated that legal processes were being used to recover the funds. The entity confirmed that community bursaries were increasing and undertook to provide a demographic breakdown of community employment. It explained that the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool was an internationally standardised assessment mechanism and that SANParks’ terrestrial parks had achieved full compliance with the national minimum threshold. Flood damage was estimated at approximately R1 billion, of which R150 million was insured. Relocating entire camps was considered financially unviable, and the entity was instead pursuing a “build back better” approach, supported by climate assessments, early-warning systems and disaster-response protocols. The iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority reported that it had achieved a clean audit for the fourth consecutive year but had met only 68% of its annual performance targets. While corporate support and tourism and marketing had achieved all their targets, performance in biodiversity conservation, infrastructure and internal operations remained weak. No hectares of alien invasive plants had been cleared against a target of 60,000 hectares, and planned community employment, training, environmental monitoring and infrastructure activities had been affected by delays in Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) funding. Tourism revenue reached R34.2 million, visitor entries increased by 34% to 301 331, and the entity recorded a surplus of R133 million. However, it had transferred R80 million from capital expenditure to operational expenditure to cover essential costs, leaving limited funds for infrastructure maintenance. The entity also reported progress towards dredging the St Lucia Estuary and plans to expand commercial concessions to increase self-generated revenue. Members questioned how the clean audit translated into tangible improvements when performance targets had not been met, infrastructure was deteriorating, and community employment opportunities had been lost. Concerns were raised about damaged fencing, inadequate water and electricity infrastructure, the dependence on EPWP funding, and communication with tourism operators in the Sodwana Bay area. Members sought details of planned commercialisation partnerships, contractor performance, outstanding concession agreements, entrance fees, a contingent liability relating to a fire claim, and fruitless expenditure. The entity explained that it had accurately reported its failure to meet EPWP targets because the required grant funding had not been received. Following interventions by the Ministry and the Department, funding had subsequently been secured, allowing 211 contractors, each employing at least 10 workers, to return to work. Management stated that the entity had inherited neglected infrastructure, and that inadequate baseline funding continued to constrain maintenance. An application to National Treasury's Budget Facility for Infrastructure was being prepared. Management also indicated that entrance fees would be adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index rather than increased substantially while basic facilities remained inadequate. The contingent liability related to a disputed historic fire, and the entity maintained that it was not liable. The fruitless expenditure had been investigated and processed in accordance with internal controls. The South African Weather Service (SAWS) reported that it had achieved 13 of its 15 annual performance targets, or 86.67%, with strong results in weather forecasting, research, infrastructure and public awareness. However, climate-data availability remained below target following a cyberattack in January 2025, while commercial revenue fell short because of delayed contract renewals. Total revenue declined to R534.35 million, while expenditure stood at R575.25 million, resulting in a final deficit of R44.90 million. The entity received a qualified audit opinion because the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) could not obtain sufficient evidence to verify aviation revenue of R173.10 million, owing to weaknesses in flight-movement data used for billing. A further qualification concerned the incorrect calculation of employee leave accruals, which had been overstated by R11.84 million. Members expressed concern about the seriousness of the audit findings, the reliance on third-party aviation billing data, senior-management vacancies, and irregular expenditure of R3.3 million. They asked whether revenue might have been lost through unverified flight movements, why funded executive positions remained vacant, and what measures were being implemented to restore climate-data availability and strengthen cybersecurity. Members also sought details of budget underspending, technical infrastructure availability, personnel costs and the system failure that had resulted in incorrect leave calculations. SAWS explained that the aviation billing arrangement had been in place since 1993 and that the audit qualification did not establish that under-billing had occurred. A joint task team had been established with Air Traffic and Navigation Services (ATNS), and independent flight-movement data was being incorporated to strengthen verification. The irregular expenditure had arisen during emergency cybersecurity recovery following the cyberattack. Management attributed the leave-calculation errors to a system migration and changes in personnel responsible for leave administration; a full investigation and consequence management had been requested. Recruitment for senior executive positions continued. SAWS had strengthened its firewalls, introduced multi-factor authentication and stabilised automated backups, while further testing and implementation of the audit action plan were planned. The Acting Chairperson requested that SAWS submit a detailed breakdown of unspent funds and capital rollover items, information on its service-level agreement and data-encryption controls with ATNS, details of cross-reconciliation arrangements, and specific cybersecurity budget allocations for 2026/27. The written submission was required by the end of October 2026. The Minister confirmed that supplementary written responses would be provided by the agreed deadline of 28 October 2026. The Deputy Minister reaffirmed the Department’s commitment to addressing the Committee’s concerns and meeting parliamentary reporting deadlines. The meeting was subsequently adjourned.