SUBMISSION TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ON
The National Road Traffic Act (93/1996):
Amendment of National Road Traffic Regulations
GAZETTED ON 8th JUNE 2012 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Produced by FSA Transport Committee
Pietermaritzburg
June 2012
Contents
___________________________________________________________________
Page
1.
Introduction to Forestry South Africa
3
2.
General Comments
3
3.
Specific Comments & Recommendations
4
4.
Conclusion
12
2
1.
Introduction to Forestry South Africa
Forestry South Africa (FSA) is an Association which represents the interests of its members in
particular and the promotion and wellbeing of the South African commercial Forestry Industry
in general. Although voluntary in its nature, FSA’s membership includes all 9 corporate timber
companies, including their subsidiaries, operating in South Africa, 1 100 commercial timber
farmers and over 20 000 emergent black timber growers. This membership represents over
90% of the Industry as a whole and virtually all the private sector involved in the Industry. Due
to this representivity, FSA is viewed by both Government and the Private Sector as the body
which represents the South African Forestry Industry.
FSA is involved in a host of areas such as research, education and training, water and
environmental affairs, business development and transport. This submission, for which we are
grateful of the opportunity to be able to make, is made on behalf of the South African Forestry
Industry by Forestry South Africa’s Transport Committee.
The South African Forestry Industry is, by any measure, an important sector of the economy,
employing 70 000 people directly, producing R8bn worth of products annually and supporting
a primary processing sector which employs a further 50 000 people directly, produces value
added products worth over R20bn and which, in 2011, earned the country net foreign
exchange earnings of R4.5bn. This economic activity, based exclusively in rural areas, is based
on the 18mt to 20mt of roundwood which is produced from the Industry’s plantations
annually. This production is, due primarily to poor rail infrastructure and levels of service,
transported overwhelmingly by road, invariably but not exclusively, by timber transport
contractors. Given the above and the fact that transport costs now make up the largest
portion of forestry production costs, the Industry views transport matters, including any
proposed changes to regulations, as extremely important.
After having studied the amended regulations to the National Road Traffic Act, as gazetted for
comment on 8th June 2012 in Gazette No. 35413, FSA is concerned that in a specific forestry /
agricultural context, certain proposed regulations could not only have considerable negative
unintended consequences for the Industry, such as significant job losses and the economic
marginalisation of many thousands of emerging black timber growers but are also, in certain
instances, unworkable in their proposed form.
We would like to take this opportunity to register these concerns, on behalf of the South
African Forestry Industry below.
2.
General Comments on Amended Regulations
Although Forestry South Africa fully supports the overall intentions of the amended
regulations in the sense that they want to make our roads safer through higher standards for
vehicles and drivers, reducing pavement damage through preventing overloading and stricter
enforcement of the regulations, we are concerned that in the South African context, many
amendments may not be appropriate or indeed, enforceable.
It is often stated that South Africa has some of the best policies, legislation, and regulations in
the world. Despite this, however, the resultant “best practices” that should theoretically flow
3
from these do not – simply because the implementation and enforcement of them is well
below par.
It is our view that any new regulations, whatever their context, ought only to be promulgating
if (a) they can actually be complied with and, more importantly, they can be policed and
enforced. If neither of these conditions can be met, then rather do not introduce them. In
addition, a third key criterion is that the cost (whether it be borne by taxpayers, companies,
individuals or society at large) of implementing and complying with regulations must be less
than the potential benefits (i.e. the “cost : benefit” must be positive).
The Department of Transport should therefore, in our opinion, think very carefully before
these regulations are promulgated in their current form. It is our view that given the serious
financial and economic implications that the regulations will have for the way in which
logistics businesses and those who use them operate, in addition to the huge negative
unintended consequences that could arise if promulgated and enforced in their current form,
it would be wise for a full Regulatory Impact Assessment to be conducted to ascertain their
likely impacts. Only once this has been completed, analysed and taken cognisance of, should
the Department refine the regulations.
3.
Specific Comments on Amended Regulations
3.1
Regulation 1 (c) (Consignee, Consignor)
1. The new definition of consignee means “.... the person who is named or otherwise
identified as the intended consignee of more than 100 000 kilograms of goods in a month in
the goods declaration for the consignment and who actually receives such goods after they
are transported by road." Conversely, a “consignor” is, “.... a person who is named or
otherwise identified as the consignor of goods in the goods declaration relating to the
transportation of more than 100 000 kilograms of goods in a month by road....”
2. What is not clear from the above definition, is what the 100 ton per month threshold
actually means – is this an average figure over a year (i.e. a total of 1 200 tons per annum)
or a threshold that only needs to be exceeded in one month before compliance kicks in?
Given the stringent vehicle weighing implications that must be met once the threshold is
exceeded, the latter definition would appear to be highly unfair. This is particularly the case
in the agricultural context where produce may only be moved off-farm in one or two
months in an entire year.
3. The calculation of what constitutes the threshold is, however, not the main problem – the
quantum of the threshold is the real problem and will cause all sorts of compliance
problems vis à vis vehicle weighing in the Forestry and Agricultural Sectors, particularly in
the case of forestry, which annually transports approximately 18 – 20 million tons of high
bulk, low value timber from thousands of despatch points from deep inside plantations.
Given the nature of forestry, these loading points are not static and are moved according
to where the next harvesting operation is to be undertaken.
4. Another aspect that will be problematic is in relation to the difficulty that our 20 000 or
more small emergent timber growers will have in complying with the consignee, consignor
regulations (not to mention the many small scale short-haul transport contractors
4
operating in this sector of the Industry). These small growers can easily produce more than
the 100 ton threshold, as this only represents the average production of gum pulpwood
from much less than one hectare of mature trees. Given the compliance problems that
they would have, these regulations could have the unintended consequence of closing
down thousands of these micro enterprises. This would have a devastating impact on
these growers in particular and rural economic development in general.
Recommendations
In the forestry context, the 100 ton per month compliance threshold limit is woefully
inadequate and needs to be increased substantially. We would recommend that in order not
to decimate the emerging timber grower sector of our Industry, the threshold be:

increased to 500 tons per month; and

that this threshold be based on an average over 12 months (i.e. compliance starts at
over an annual tonnage of 6 000 tons).
3.2
Regulation 1 (e) (Haulage Tractors)
1. The reclassification of “haulage tractors” as goods vehicles, as proposed in the regulations,
will not only significantly increase production costs in the Industry but could, unless a grace
period is allowed for the obtaining of the necessary EC (Code 14) licences and PrDP
permits, bring the forestry and agricultural supply chains to a complete halt. This because
those tractor drivers who currently have “B” licences but who do not have the necessary
“EC” licences and PrDP permits will be “illegal” from the date of promulgation.
2. Given the time required to go through the process of obtaining an EC licence (including a
probationary period), these drivers would, in effect, not be able to fully perform their
duties for upwards of probably two years. In such instances it is possible that literally
hundreds of tractor drivers could lose their jobs in the Forestry Industry alone. If the
Agricultural Sector is taken into account, the numbers would be considerably higher. This
will undoubtedly have serious consequences for the way in which forestry (and
agricultural) operations are conducted and could well, if not managed properly, lead to
significant job losses, as already indicated.
3. Another implication of this amended regulation is that it will put immense strain on the
licence testing authorities. Due to the fact that a vast majority of the affected tractor
drivers will be illiterate, they will need to be tested verbally. It will thus not be possible to
test such drivers in groups, as is normal practice, but rather on an individual basis. The
question therefore needs to be asked as to whether or not local licence testing authorities
actually have the capacity to conduct the many thousands of tests that will need to be
done on a verbal basis across the forestry and agricultural sectors?
Recommendations

Given the unintended consequences that the stipulation that haulage tractor drivers will
need to obtain an EC (Code 14) licence and PrDP permit, we strongly recommend that
this requirement be removed.

Should the requirement be retained, then we recommend, from a practical point of
view, that a grace period of 24 months be given in order to allow:
 current tractor drivers to obtain the necessary licences and permits; and
5
 the Industry time to secure the necessary operator cards for haulage tractors to
ensure business continuity in the forestry and agricultural sector.
3.3
Regulation 107 (Provisional Licences)
1. Certain proposed regulations related to the issuing of provisional licences seem to be
designed for young learner drivers driving saloon cars and are not geared for commercial
practicalities. Consequently, they are not suited to the situation existing in a forestry or
agricultural context, particularly with regards to haulage tractor drivers and will be
impractical to implement. These relate to the following which are listed below.
2. The limitation on the engine aspiration (not to be turbo – or super-charged) of the vehicle
that may be driven during the probation period would actually exclude the type of vehicle
equating to the licence being tested, if above a “C” licence. This is simply not practical as
many haulage tractor drivers would, in effect, not be able to perform their duties during
their one year probation period and may well lose their jobs as a result.
3. The provision in terms of Section 107 (3) states that “In the case where a person applies for
a provisional driving licence which authorises him or her to drive an articulated motor
vehicle, or a combination of a motor vehicle and trailer, the practical test shall be
conducted while the semi-trailer is attached to the truck tractor, or the trailer is attached to
the drawing vehicle, as the case may be: Provided that for the purpose of testing an
applicant for a driving licence a haulage tractor may not be used to conduct the test”. In
other words, a driver applying for a provisional licence to drive a haulage tractor will not be
able to be tested on a haulage tractor but only an HMV truck. This seems irrational.
4. Section 107A (1) states that a provisional driving licence will be suspended for a period of
24 months if the holder has, within the period of 12 months after obtaining such licence
contravened certain things. Not only is this penalty excessive in the extreme but two of the
listed contraventions will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to comply with in the
forestry context. These are contained in sub-sections (e) and (f).
5. Sub-section (e) states that a provisional driver must not have “operated a motor vehicle
between midnight and four am”. This may be fine in the context of trying to stop teenage
drivers from driving home after they have been to a party but it is totally inappropriate in
the forestry context where transport operations invariably carry on 24/7 in order to keep
the mills continually supplied with timber. Consequently, those long-haul and tractor
drivers who happen to work on certain shifts will be required, as part of their normal job,
to drive during the hours stipulated. Banning them from doing so would probably cost
them their jobs. In our view such a prohibition would be an unjustified limitation on their
rights to the freedom to choose their trade, occupation or profession, as set out in Clause
22 of the Constitution and that as such, would be unconstitutional.
6. Sub-section (f) states that a provisional driver will have his licence suspended if he has “not
completed the provisional driving licence logbook as shown in Schedule 2, on all trips
undertaken within a driving time of a minimum of 60 hours. Once again, given that the vast
majority of drivers employed in the forestry and agricultural sector are illiterate, their
ability to comply with this regulation will be virtually impossible. Job losses would result if
this provision was enforced.
6
7. The completion of the logbook in the stipulated format would also, from a technical point
of view, be impossible to complete in the required format vis à vis provisionally licenced
tractor and haulage tractor drivers as these vehicles do not indicate distance travelled, only
engine hours.
8. In addition, it is not clear if the provisional licence holder has to keep a logbook for “all
trips undertaken” during the entire one year probation period or only until such time as 60
hours of driving time has been reached. Given the nature of tractor trips (generally of a
short distance, duration and over a repetitive route), the filling in of such a logbook for 12
months would be tedious in the extreme and of no practical use whatsoever. If complied
with to the letter and assuming that a driver only actually drove 7 hours in the working day
and undertook 7 trips a day, then in one year he would theoretically have completed 1 820
hours of driving and filled in no less than a staggering 12 700 trip entries in his logbook!
Keeping of a logbook in a non-commercial context may be feasible but not in a forestry or
agricultural context.
9. Finally, although we have assumed the probation to be 12 months, it is in fact unclear if
this is actually the case or only up until the 60 hour threshold has been reached. This is
because Section 107B (1) states that the applicant for a provisional licence “must be on
probation for a period not exceeding 12 months”. If the former is the case, then given the
high turnover of drivers in the Industry (due primarily to the scourge of HIV / Aids), this
would cause huge practical problems in terms of the ability of the Industry to train drivers
up to a stage where they can get an EC licence.
Recommendations
Given the extreme difficulty in trying to comply with the regulations vis à vis haulage tractor
drivers, we recommend that:
 provision be made to allow the aspiration of the vehicle to match the licences being
tested for, specifically if above a “C” licence;
 a new licence classification be introduced specifically for haulage tractor drivers;
 truck, tractor and haulage tractor drivers be exempt from sub-sections (e) and (f) of
Section 107A(1) – (i.e. night driving times limitation and need to complete logbook);
 clarity be given on what constitutes the “probation period”; and
 if the probation period is indeed one year, we recommend that for drivers working in a
commercial context, the period be redefined as the period between the issuing of the
provisional licence and the attainment of the 60 hour driving time threshold.
3.4
Regulation 237 (Haulage Tractor: Permissable Maximum Combination Mass)
1.
This regulation is amended by the substitution of the proviso clause at the end of sub
regulation (2) of the following clause:
“Provided that the permissible maximum combination mass of a combination shall not
exceed 56 000 kilograms: Provided further that in the case where the drawing vehicle is a
haulage tractor with a single driving axle, the permissible maximum combination mass
shall not exceed 48 000 kilograms.”
7
2.
The above proposed amendment does not clearly stipulate the GCM for a 4x4 haulage
tractor, only that for a 2x4 unit. Is the proposed GCM to be 56 000 kgs for the former?
Clarification in this regard is hereby requested.
Recommendation
This clause needs to be reworded in order to given clarity on what exactly is intended.
3.5
Regulation 242 (Haulage Tractor: Axle Massload of Any Steering Axle)
1.
In terms of this regulation, it has been amended by the insertion of the following
paragraph after paragraph (b):
“(bA) in the case of haulage tractor, whether part of a combination of vehicles or not, the
axle massload of any steering axle is less than 15 percent of the sum of all the axle
massloads of such haulage tractor;”.
Recommendation
In order to ensure a higher degree of safe steering capabilities of a haulage tractor, it is
recommended that the wording of the amended section be amended to read as follows:
“(bA) in the case of haulage tractor, whether part of a combination of vehicles or not, the
axle massload of any steering axle must not be less than 15 percent of the sum of all the axle
massloads of such haulage tractor;”.
3.6
Regulations 330A - 330D (Consignor, Consignee)
These four new sub-regulation sections have been added to the existing regulations under
Section 330. These deal with the following issues:
 Acceptance of overloaded vehicles;
 Weighing of vehicle by consignor;
 Goods declarations; and
 Insurance of goods being transported.
Although the objectives of these new regulations cannot be faulted, we question their
applicability to the South African Forestry and Agricultural Industries given the operating
conditions and circumstances of these Industries and the marked difference in the ability to
comply with the regulations between established large scale businesses on the one end of the
operating spectrum to small scale, previously disadvantaged timber growers and farmers
operating in remote rural areas at the other. A one-sized-fits-all approach is not therefore, in
our view, appropriate.
3.7
Regulation 330A (1) – (4) (Offering and Acceptance of Goods on Overloaded Vehicle
Prohibited)
1.
Section 330A (1) of the proposed regulations states that “A consignor or consignee of
goods shall not offer goods or accept goods if the vehicle in which it is transported is not
loaded in terms of the provisions for the loading and transportation of goods as prescribed
in this Act.” Section 330A (2) then goes on to state that “A consignor shall require from
the operator of the vehicle in which the goods he or she offers for transport and in which
8
the goods will be transported, a written submission as to the payload of such vehicle and
the distribution of such load on a vehicle”.
2.
In other words, it will be essential for the transporter of the goods, whether the consignor
or an agent / contractor, to weigh the vehicle before departure so as to ensure that the
total payload and mass per axle complies with the law. In the forestry context this would
be highly problematic and exceedingly costly to comply with, if at all, given the rural
nature of our business, the many thousands of loading points deep in plantations and the
mobile weighing technology currently available to weigh axle mass within the tolerances
required. In short, complying with this regulation would, for all intents and purposes, be
virtually impossible to comply with from a technical point of view. Refer to the comments
under Section 330 B below.
3.
It must also be pointed out that public weigh bridges currently used by the RTI do not
even have the capability to weigh loads on a per axle basis. This limitation also applies to
the “standard” 22 metre weigh bridges currently installed at those processing plants
which do have weigh bridges – some do not generally have such facilities, particularly
sawmills and pole treating plants which measure their intake on the basis of cubic metres
rather than weight. Is it fair therefore to compel Industry to comply under these
circumstances?
4.
Given the Timber Industry’s proactive approach to eradicating overloading through the
establishment of the Road Transport Management System (RTMS) that is now fully
supported by the National DoT, this regulation should be changed to exclude the
consignor and should resolve that the “consignee will not accept goods.” By so doing,
overloading offenders would be excluded from the system by the market to which they
deliver – thereby achieving the desired result but at a considerably reduced cost to the
Industry. It is noteworthy that such markets already share all weighbridge data with
provincial DoTs for scrutiny.
5.
It should be recognised that the RTMS, which was pioneered by the Forestry Industry and
which is now one of the four pillars of their National Freight Strategy, has and continues
to have a major impact on driving down overloading in the Forestry Industry – from an
average of 40% of loads when it was initiated to around 4% today. This compares
extremely favourably with the current average general freight traffic overloading figure of
around 20% of loads. What is particularly impressive is that unlike the latter figure which
is derived from only a small sample of loads weighed (i.e. only the very small % of the
total weighed by the RTI), the RTMS figures for forestry cover 100% of the loads going
into pulp and paper mills 100% of the time – on average, a staggering 18 000 to 20 000
loads per month. Self regulation as a concept is also successful in the sense that it can
produce the results that are intended by these regulations but at a substantially reduced
cost.
Recommendation
Given the technical difficulties with compliance from both the consignor’s and consignee’s
point of view with the regulations contained in Section 330A it is recommended that selfregulation vis à vis overloading , through adherence to the principles of the RTMS, should
rather be the approach to take in the Forestry Industry’s case (and with those other Industries
9
that adopt the system).
3.8
Regulation 330B (Consignor to have a Method of Determining Mass)
1.
This new regulation puts an obligation on the consignor to do the following:
(1) A consignor shall use a method of establishing the mass of a vehicle and any axle or
axle unit of such vehicle that is sufficiently goods accurate as to ensure that such
vehicle axle or axles are not overloaded in terms of Part IV of Chapter VI.
(2) A consignor shall keep a record of the mass of every load transported from his or her
premises as contemplated in sub-regulation (1).
(3) The record as contemplated in sub-regulation (2) shall be put at the disposal of any
traffic officer or person appointed by the MEC in terms of section 50 or 82 of the Act.
2.
Accordingly, the consignor is responsible for the load of the vehicle and is required to
establish the weight of the vehicle before leaving the loading site. Typical forestry loading
sites are un-tarred and situated in remote locations inside plantations. Once all timber
from a specific compartment in the plantation is harvested and moved, the loading site
moves to a different location where the process starts again.
3.
The weighing of vehicles accurately using weighbridges is thus completely impractical –
irrespective of the financial implications of building 1 000’s of weighbridges in timber
plantations. Weighing of vehicles on weighbridges may well work fine in a FMCG
environment with single or few points of despatch in sophisticated supply chains but in
the forestry (and agricultural) sector is simply unrealistic in the extreme.
4.
With regard to haulage tractors, there is currently no practical alternative technology that
will allow the forestry and agricultural sectors to weigh the axle mass of haulage tractors
other than weighbridges. Theoretically, load cells could be fitted to tractors and haulage
tractors (admittedly at huge cost - +/- R50 000 per tractor) but this is not a practical
solution given poor road conditions and lack of suspension and of course the prohibitive
cost. Even long-haul vehicles fitted with on-board weighing systems are weighed again at
destination because the technology struggles to withstand the uncompromising and
contaminated environment of undeveloped and rural roads.
5.
Should the Industry be forced to comply with these regulations, one drastic action could
be to phase out the use of tractors and haulage tractors altogether. This would of course
be catastrophic for the wellbeing of the Industry and the livelihoods of those employed in
it. It would also result in the emerging timber grower sector, in effect, not being able to
transport their product to market, given the nature of the transport used in that sector.
6.
The only currently available technical solution available to the Industry to accurately
weigh per axle, given its unique operating environment, is to use platform scales.
However, it is impossible for platform scales to be erected at every loading point in
forestry plantations. Furthermore, platform scales are, quite frankly, impractical to use in
forestry conditions as they need a specifically prepared surface to be within 10% accuracy
tolerance. The slightest amount of dirt, stones or mud will influence the accuracy of these
units. Platform scales are also extremely bulky, difficult to move and the area needs to be
10
100% level and continuously manned. From a practical point of view therefore, even this
technical solution is not an option. As mentioned above, neither the RTI nor processing
plants have weigh bridges capably of complying with the proposed regulations.
7.
On-board scales, already widely used in the Forest Industry, could be used but only allow
for the measurement per axle group or unit, not per axle, as now required by the
proposed regulations. It is technically not possible with on-board scales to measure
accurately individual weights per axle on the truck as per the proposed requirement. Onboard scales allow for very accurate measurement of only axle units or groups. This
method of weighing ensures an accuracy of between 1% and 2% and is a good method to
weigh the vehicle’s combination mass to ensure that it is not loaded over and above the
legal weight limit.
8.
As mentioned previously in this submission, regulations should only be implemented if
compliance with them can be achieved, at reasonable cost (not just financial but societal)
and can be enforced. It is our contention that with regard to these specific proposed
weighing regulations, they are not currently achievable with the weighing technology
currently available in the forestry / forest products processing context and would, if
implemented and enforced, lead to untold economic damage, not least of which being
the demise of the vibrant small timber grower sector in the Industry (as they would not
have a hope of complying). The drafters of the regulations therefore need to relook at
the applicability of these regulations in the South African context.
Recommendations
Given the technical difficulties with compliance highlighted above (it simply is not currently
technically or economically viable), it is recommended that:
 the regulations contain a concession for Industries such as the Forestry and Agricultural
Industries that use “off-road” loading points whereby the weighing of vehicles can be
measured not on a per axle basis but according to an “axle unit” or “axle group”
measurement, as currently done at RTI weighbridges across the country;
 vehicles transporting timber (or other produce) under a GVM of 10 000kg be exempted
from such regulations if travelling on a “public” road; and
 all vehicles, including tractor trailer units and haulage tractors transporting timber solely
on “private” roads within the boundaries of farms, be exempt from all those regulations
related to the transport of goods on “public” roads”.
3.9
Regulation 330C (d) (Goods Declaration to be Carried on Motor Vehicle)
1.
Sub-section (d) appears twice in the numbering list.
2.
Sub-section (d) and the newly numbered (e) both list the people who’s particulars need to
be contained in the goods declaration. “Agents”, which are used extensively in the
transport of timber products, are not included. For the sake of inclusivity and limiting any
misrepresentation of information on goods declarations, they should be.
Recommendations
 Change the numbering of Section 330C.
 Reword sub-sections (d) and the newly numbered (e) to include the words “or agent”.
11
3.10 Regulation 330D (Consignor or Consignee to Insure Goods to be Carried on a Motor Vehicle
and the Motor Vehicle)
1.
This new Section states that “A consignor or consignee of goods shall not transport goods
on a public road or accept goods unless such transportation is fully insured for damages
that can occur as a result of an incident."
2.
Although the heading of this Section is very clear, what is not clear from the above
wording is what is meant by “transportation” – is this the goods on the vehicle, the
vehicle itself or both? All vehicles that are insured are automatically covered for damage
to third parties or property for items falling off or becoming detached under the public
liability section of a motor insurance policy. This cover is normally restricted to R2.5
million. Insurance for timber as “goods” is not currently available.
3.
The low value, high volume bulk nature of timber makes the insurance of these “goods”
unfeasible. Any such insurance would not be available to individuals because each load of
goods would have to be insured separately making it administratively unworkable and
economically prohibitive. In the Timber Industry, when contemplating incoming logistics,
none of the consignees (located at mills) own the vehicles used to transport the goods as
this function is contracted out. It is, however, common practice for the operator of the
vehicle to be responsible for the vehicle’s insurance.
Recommendations
Given the fact that (a), no insurance currently exists for the insurance of the actual timber
being transported (i.e. the goods) on a vehicle (b), even if it were, the huge logistical
impracticalities of insuring every single load of timber that is transported and (c), the fact that
insured vehicles are already covered for third party damage, it is recommended that:

the wording of the Section be changed to read as follows: “An operator shall not
transport goods on a public road or accept goods unless such vehicle is fully insured for
damages that can occur as a result of an incident .";

a minimum third party liability limit be considered by the Department; and

the insurance of “goods” remain optional.
5.
Conclusion
Like so much of Government policy, legislation and regulations, the overall aims of the
amended regulations are commendable and, in large part, are supported by Forestry South
Africa.
However, as we have seen before, good intentions do not always lead to the desired
outcomes. As mentioned in the General Comments above, regulations need to be
achievable, enforceable and the costs of compliance should be outweighed by the benefits.
After having studied the amendments, we as an Industry are extremely concerned about the
practicality and cost of compliance and, more importantly, the damaging unintended
consequences that will occur should the regulations we have highlighted above be
implemented in their current form.
In short, these will result in a huge financial burden on the Forestry and Agricultural
12
Industries in terms of increased operating costs and capital expenditure and a subsequent
decrease in profitability, leading in turn to potentially huge job losses. Although it is difficult
to quantity, the financial cost of complying with the regulations, just from the forestry
perspective, could well run into hundreds of million of Rands – from an agricultural
perspective, billions of Rand. This will not only negatively affect the Industry from a financial
perspective but will also push up South Africa’s logistic costs which, currently estimated at
between 12% and 14% of GDP, are already considerably higher than the world average of 8%
of GDP. Increased logistic costs translate into higher consumer prices, food prices being
particularly sensitive to these costs.
It should be remembered that the forestry and agricultural sectors have to compete on the
global market. Remaining internationally competitive is already difficult, particularly in the
current economic climate – the last thing we need is the implementation of regulations that
will do considerable damage to our competitiveness. By doing so we would be shooting
ourselves in the foot.
Aside from the above, we are particularly concerned about the impact that the regulations
will have on our large and vibrant emerging timber grower sector in which over 20 000
people are directly involved and who provide livelihoods for many tens of thousands more.
Compliance for even well established haulage contractors will be difficult but, given their
operational circumstances, these thousands of small growers neither themselves nor the
small scale transport contractors they invariably use will be able to comply. If they cannot
move their product to market they will simply have to stop growing trees. We, as a
responsible Industry, simply cannot allow this to happen.
The bottom line is that we believe that due care and attention has not been taken of the
operational realities of the Forestry and Agricultural Sectors when crafting the regulations.
Indeed, it appears that the dangerous goods section of the National Road Traffic Act has
been used as a template for the drafting of the amended regulations. This, in our view, has
resulted in the amended regulations being completely inappropriate for our Industry’s
circumstances in particular and, given its level of economic development, South Africa in
general.
From the Industry’s perspective we would far prefer to go the route of self-regulation
through the strengthening of the Road Traffic Management System that was pioneered by
the Industry (and which has achieved remarkable successes). By doing so we would avoid
the serious unintended consequences that would arise from the implementation of the
amended regulations in their current form.
If this is not allowed, then the Forestry and Agricultural Sectors need to be granted a range
of concessions which will ameliorate the adverse effects of the current regulations.
We trust that the Department will accept our comments in the spirit with which they were
made and take cognisance of their content.
Roger Godsmark
Chairperson: Forestry South Africa Transport Committee
Pietermaritzburg,
5th July 2012
13