COMMENT ON THE

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT :

PROTECTED AREAS BILL (B39-20030)

Environmental 12 Consortium

August 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This submission is made on behalf of the Environmental 12 Consortium, a consortium of organizations and non-governmental organizations listed below.

We provisionally welcome this bill, without prejudice, since it contains a number of extremely positive aspects, although a number of significant deficiencies and omissions have been identified, and are listed in this submission.

In a letter addressed to the Portfolio Committee : Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the General Assembly, we have protested at the extremely short time that has been made for comment on the bill, and the fact that in our view, due process has not been followed, for the reasons given below. We also wish to protest at the fact that changes have been made to the Bill, and despite repeated requests, we have still not been able to obtain electronic copies of version B39-2003 for our member organizations. The single hard copy of this version in our possession was obtained from the Chairperson of the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature Portfolio Committee : Environment and Nature Conservation.

Comment on specific sections of the bill follow.

Sect. 1 Definitions

A definition of the term ‘environmental good and services’ (otherwise known as ‘ecological services’) is provided for the convenience of the Portfolio Committee.

Sect. 9 Kinds of Protected Areas

We object to the change in policy which has been introduced in this Bill, of a suite of protected area (PA) categories that differs from that of the White Paper on Biodiversity Conservation of 1997. We believe that these changes have been introduced without adequate consultation, or investigation.

We are in particular concerned at the omission of the category wilderness area, although we welcome and support provision for wilderness by other means. We also welcome the inclusion of forest wilderness area as a PA. We strongly suggest that wilderness area (WA) should be included in the list of PA s listed in Sect. 9. Detailed motivation for this suggestion is provided both in the submission (and its annexure). Furthermore, we suggest that provision should be made for designation of either an entire or part of world heritage sites as wilderness area.

Sect. 10 (3) Register of protected areas

If, as proposed, wilderness is to be recognised as a protected area category, and certain provincial legislation (e.g. KZN) makes provision for wilderness areas, such areas should be listed as wilderness areas (and not nature reserve) in the register.

 

 

Sect. 15 Specially protected forest areas, forest nature reserve and forest wilderness areas

The applicability of Sect 48 (restrictions on prospecting and mining operations to these areas, is welcomed. It is suggested that world heritage site be inserted to the fifth line (after special nature reserve or nature reserve) in Sect. 15 (2), as certain forest wilderness areas are incorporated within World heritage sites.

Sect. 17 Purpose of protected areas

This section is supported. However, in view of the removal of the Living Marine Resources Act from this to the amendment Bill, we enquire whether it is correct to include "seascapes", in the second line of 17 (a)?

Sect. 23 Declaration of nature reserve

This section is supported. However, the provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services) is a critically important function of most protected areas and certainly of nature reserves. This should therefore be included in Sect. 23 (2) (b) (iii).

Sect. 26 (1) Designation of nature reserve as wilderness area

The concept of designation of nature reserves as wilderness area is supported. As above, however, provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services) is certainly a function of WA s, and should be added to Sect. 26 (2) (a).

Sect. 28 Declaration of protected environment

Supported. Provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services) should be added to 28 (2) (c ).

Sect. 47 Use of aircraft in special nature reserve or world heritage site

We regard the proposed altitudinal limit of 1500 ft (c. 500m) as too low. However, we do not have expertise in this issue. We would suggest that a higher limit (1 000m) be considered, and that an acceptable model should be determined that will take into account the altitudinal variations in certain PA s. It may be that further research may be required to formulate an acceptable model that would be acceptable to both protected area users and the civil aviation industry.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Environmental 12 Consortium (the Consortium) is a consortium of organizations and non-governmental organizations. It has a vital interest in the protected area system of South Africa, and accordingly considers itself, and its individual constituent organizations, as stakeholders in the process of formulating national legislation that aims at the establishment, declaration, management and co-operative governance of a national system of protected areas.

The Consortium comprises the following organizations:

Centre for Environment and Development, University of Natal, Protected Areas Management Programme (CEAD);

Environmental Law Association (ELA);

Federation of Drakensberg Users Group (FDG),

Federation of Southern African Flyfishers (FOSAF),

Game Ranger’s Association of Africa (GRAA),

GeaSphere (GS),

International Wilderness Leadership Foundation (WILD),

Maquba Ntombela Foundation (MNF),

Mountain Club of South Africa (13 Sections) (MCSA),

Wilderness Action Group (WAG),

Wilderness Foundation (WF),

Wildlife and Environmental Society of Southern Africa (WESSA),

Xwe African Wild Life & Research Centre (XWLRC),

Zululand Environmental Alliance (ZEAL)

The purpose of this report is to provide comment on the NEM : Protected Areas (NEMPA) Bill in response to the advertisement of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism (National Assembly), dated 10 August in the Sunday Times.

  1. GENERAL COMMENT

2.1 Positive aspects of the Bill

Without prejudice, we provisionally welcome the Bill, which appears to contain a number of extremely positive aspects, although as discussed below, it also contains a number of significant deficiencies and omissions.

However, we consider that the Bill appears to represent a proactive attempt to make provision for the co-ordination of long-term conservation of the national protected area (PA) system of this country within a single statute, as opposed to the present system which has arisen largely our of historical circumstance rather than by design. In this sense, the Bill is welcomed.

 

 

 

In our view, some of the most positive aspects include the following:

  1. Provision of some protection against mining;

  1. Provision of some flexibility in the objectives and management of PA s such as by zoning, which might be employed for certain special dedicated forms of use (e.g. wilderness or resource utilization zones);
  2. Provision which has now been included for the designation of wilderness areas or wilderness zones (absent in previous versions of the Bill) - which we welcome, although we consider it the same provision should also apply to special nature reserves and world heritage sites, and be included as a PA category (see below); and
  3. Restriction on the use of aircraft over certain PA s, although we disagree with aspects of the proposed restrictions.

 

  1. DETAILED COMMENT ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE BILL

The followed is our detailed comment on each section.

3.1 Sect. 1 Definitions

Sect. 17 (g) lists as one of the purpose of PA s, to "assist in ensuring the sustained supply of environmental goods and services" (which, as indicated in one of our previous submissions, we strongly support), but this term is not defined in the definitions. We would point out that in the literature, the term "ecosystem services" appears to be preferred over "environmental goods and services" (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2002).

A definition is provided on the Millennium Ecosystem Website, as follows:

"Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, and include products such as food, fuel and fibre, and genetic resources; regulating benefits from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including climate regulation, disease and flood control and detoxification; and cultural non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems which include spiritual, recreational, aesthetic, inspirational, educational, community and symbolic values.

We emphasize the significance of provision of environmental goods and services, or ecosystem services as one of the primary, most important, but least appreciated functions of the national PA system. The goods and services are taken for granted by most people, but would be very concerned should they fail. Attention is drawn to the important recent research cited by Kormos & Martin (2003), which imputes economic values to environmental services. Many politicians and administrators appear to place most emphasis on the direct economic returns that may be derived from protected areas. This new research (Balmford et al. 2002) indicates that the direct and indirect values derived from protected areas greatly outweigh the direct costs of maintaining them.

Recommendation : The above definition should be included in Sect. 1.

 

3.2 Sect. 9 Kinds of Protected Areas

We make the following points:

(a ) Changes in the National Protected Area Categories

The White Paper on Biodiversity Conservation (Notice 1095 of 1997), which outlines current policy on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity, provides the current list of PA Categories. The PA Categories listed in Sect. 9 of the Bill differ from those listed in the White Paper. This represents a departure from the status quo. No reasons have been furnished by the department for this change in policy, nor are we aware of any published report on studies to investigate the consequences of these changes.

It appears to us that this change in policy represents a contravention of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA), in that the authorities have failed to provide motivation for such changes, as detailed below. It is therefore very difficult if not impossible for stakeholders such as ourselves, to determine whether the approach taken represents the best possible environmental option, as is required by the provisions of NEMA (see Annexure 1 below).

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism are custodians of and are primarily responsible for the implementation of the provisions of NEMA. One would expect that an exemplary lead would be taken by this organization in the implementation of the provisions of NEMA, but this does not appear to be the case.

The Consortium objects to these changes which appear to have been introduced without adequate objective investigation. We also object to the fact that the department has not carried out an effective consultation process, as required under the provisions of NEMA.

(b) The PA categories listed in the Bill

We are concerned at the omission of the category wilderness area, although recognise and support provision for designation of wilderness by other means (see below). We also support the other categories listed, but please see the note on protected environments/mountain catchment areas listed below.

 

(c) The absence of wilderness area as a PA category

We welcome the inclusion of forest wilderness area as a PA category.

However, we are strongly of the opinion that Wilderness Area (WA) should be listed in the Bill as a PA Category, as is the case in many other countries, and as was discussed at length at the two World Wilderness Congresses that have been held in this country (the only country world-wide that has been privileged to host two World Wilderness Congresses). As is well known, it is also included in the international list of IUCN. We express concern and disappointment that WA has been omitted from the kinds of PA s listed in the Bill, and we are aware the other stakeholders are of a similar opinion.

The following are the reasons why, in our view, WA should be listed as a PA category:

  1. It is not only an existing PA category, as noted above, but it has successfully been employed for nearly half a century in this country, and it has proven to be an effective and valuable PA category, of particular value for the protection of areas of sensitive environments, biodiversity and cultural resources which are of national importance from these perspectives but also for the provision of environmental services, in their wild, near-pristine state, as well as for the provision of specific social, recreational and spiritual values, as outlined in Annexure 1;
  2. The Bill makes provision for an entire nature reserve to be designated as a WA, and a similar provision was included in a previous version of the bill (which will presumably be included in the amendment bill) for national parks – and both of these will become known as wilderness areas);
  3. WA s (and wilderness zones) provide functions that are provided by no other protected area category (see Annexure 1);
  4. At least one provincial nature conservation agency (EKZN Wildlife) has promulgated legislation for the designation of provincial WA s, and it can therefore be expected that other WA s will be declared under this statute; and
  5. At least two private wilderness areas currently exist in the country (Shamwari and Lapalala), and it is known that other candidate areas exist on land in both privately-owned as well as communal areas. However, no legal provision currently exists for the designation of WA s on private and communal land, so provision should consequently be provided in this statute under Sect. 35 (see note below).

We would draw attention to the fact that there is also an historical perspective to this issue, in that South Africa was the first country on the African Continent to establish a system of wilderness areas. SA has taken a lead amongst other developing nations in Africa (such as Namibia and Ghana) through the establishment of legislation to protect its wilderness system, by the establishment of a system of wilderness areas, and in the development of scientific management. A number of South Africans have published both locally and internationally on wilderness conservation. Consequently, as a result of these initiatives, this country has acquired an international reputation for its contributions to the global wilderness conservation programme. It would seem entirely inappropriate to us that WA is no longer to be recognised as a SA PA Category. The first wilderness area in the country (in Umfolozi Game Reserve) was set aside in 1957, and the eleven wilderness areas on State forest land, were set aside from 1973, so our history in wilderness conservation extends back nearly fifty years.

Martin (2001) has summarised the international approach to wilderness conservation. It is clear that in the other approximately fifteen countries world-wide that were assessed, wildernesses may be set aside either as protected areas in their own right, or as zones in other categories, and this is no different from the situation in SA. The Umfolozi WA, the first on the African Continent, forms a zone in the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park.

Our view is that in view of the increasing international appreciation of the importance of wilderness (see the important recent paper by Kormos and Martin, ibid, in Annexure 2), provision should be made in the Bill for both possibilities.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that one of the reasons why the Ukhahlamba-Drakensberg Park in KZN was accorded world heritage status was because the four forest wilderness areas proclaimed there in the 1970 s (nearly thirty years previously) had successfully protected the unmodified wild character of almost half the present WHS.

It is also worth noting that a number of South Africans are members of the new Wilderness Task Force (WTF) which will be involved in ensuring that wilderness issues are firmly on the agenda of the forthcoming World Parks Congress to be held in Durban in September 2003. Those of us who are involved in the WTF see the possible removal of WA as a SA PA category, as a retrogressive step for PA conservation in this county. We believe that there are many other stakeholders who will support this viewpoint.

Please see comment on Mountain Catchment Area as a SA PA Category below.

Recommendation. We strongly advocate that Wilderness Area be retained as a SA Protected Area Category, and accordingly request that it be added to Sect. 9 See comment on Sect. 26 below.

3.3 Need for provision to designate either an entire or a part of world heritage sites as wilderness area

As mentioned above, we consider that it is desirable that provision be made for an entire or part of world heritage sites to be designated as wilderness area. According to the Lebombo Spatial Development Initiative (2002), provision has been made in the LSDI Integrated Development and Management Plan, a significant wilderness zone within the Greater St Lucia Wetland World Heritage Site. It is suggested that this is clear evidence of this need.

Recommendation. Provision should be made for the designation as wilderness area of either part or an entire world heritage site.

3.4 Sect. 10 (3) Register of Protected Areas

If wilderness area is to be recognised as a protected area category, and certain provincial legislation (e.g. KZN) makes provision for the designation of wilderness areas, such areas should be listed as wilderness areas (and not nature reserve) in Sect. 10 (3).

Recommendation. Wilderness areas designated by provincial authorities should be listed in Sect. 10 (3) as wilderness area, and not nature reserve.

 

 

 

3.5 Sect. 15 Specially protected forest areas, forest nature reserves and forest wilderness areas

Sect. 15 (1) The applicability of Sect. 48 (restriction on prospecting and mining operations) to protected forest areas, forest nature reserves and forest wilderness areas, is welcomed. In view of para. 3.3 above, that specially protected forest areas, forest nature reserves and forest wilderness areas included in world heritage sites, should also be included in this section.

Recommendation. It is recommended that world heritage site should be inserted in the fifth line (after special nature reserve or nature reserve) in Sect. 15 (2).

3.6 Sect. 17 Purpose of protected areas

Supported. In view, however, of the removal of provisions of the Living Resources Act from this to the amendment bill, we enquire whether it is correct to include "seascapes", second line of 17 (a)?

3.7 Sect. 23 Declaration of nature reserve

As noted above, the provision of environmental goods and service (ecosystem services) is a critically important function of most protected areas, and certainly of nature reserves. This should be included under Sect. 23 (2) (b) (iii).

Recommendation. Provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services), should be added to Sect. 23 (2) (b)(iii), after "…biodiversity".

3.8 Sect. 26 (1) Designation of nature reserve as wilderness area

Supported. As above, provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services) is certainly a function of wilderness areas, and thus should be added to Sect. 26 (2) (a).

Recommendation. Provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services) should be added to Sect. 26 (2) (a).

3.9 Sect. 28 Declaration of protected environment

Supported in principle. However, as above, provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services), consequently this should be added to 28 (2) (c).

This category will be valuable for the protection of mountainous or sensitive environments, because of their importance for the provision of environmental goods and services, such as their water resources, in areas where unsustainable livestock grazing is currently practised, and the provisions of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act cannot be implemented, because of compensation that would be payable for patrimonial loss

Recommendation. Provision of environmental goods and services (ecosystem services) should be added to Sect. 28 (2) (c).

3.10 Sect. 47 Access to special nature reserves and world heritage sites

The restrictions on use of aircraft should not be limited to special nature reserves and world heritage sites, but also to nature reserves (especially those in which wilderness zones have been designated, or the entire area of which has been designated as WA) and also WA s.

It is suggested that the ceiling for overflying of 1 500 ft (= c. 500m) is too low. It is suggested that the minimum altitude for overflying should be at least 1 000 m, and that this should refer to the highest point in the PA. This is especially relevant for areas such as the Drakensberg with large altitudinal variation. The lowest point of the Ukhahlamba-Drakenseberg Park is c. 1 500 m, while the highest point is c. 3 000 m.

However, the consortium does not have expertise in this area, and suggests that further research and consultation with appropriate experts is necessary to develop an acceptable solution that is acceptable to both protected area users and the civil aviation industry.

Recommendation. These restrictions should also apply to wilderness areas and nature reserves designated as wilderness area.

It is recommended that further research and consultation with appropriate experts is necessary to develop an acceptable solution that is acceptable to both protected area users and the civil aviation industry.

 

 

 

Dr W.R. Bainbridge

for ENVIRONMENTAL 12 CONSORTIUM

pfcompacmt/biodprotareasbl/17 August 2003

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Balmford, A et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953.

Kormos, V. & Martin V.G. 2003. Support is building for Global Wilderness Conservation. International Journal of Wilderness, Vol. 9, No.2.

Lebombo Spatial Development Initiative 2002. Draft Integrated Management and Development Plan, Greater St Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site. Mimeo.

Martin, V.G. 2001. An attitude for Wilderness. In : (eds) V.G. Martin & M.A. Parthy Sarathy, Wilderness & Humanity, The Global Issue. 6th World Wilderness Cngress. WILD, Fulcrum Publishing ISBN 1-55591-989-8.

ANNEXURE 1

PRINCIPLES OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACT

No. 107 of 1998

THAT APPEAR NOT TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT NEM : PROTECTED AREAS BILL

The following principles of NEMA do not appear to have been observed in the preparation of the NEMPA, in particular, in respect of the new protected area categories.

"2.(2) Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.

2.(4)(a) Sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the following :

(vii) that a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions (emphasis added);

(viii) that negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimised and remedied.

2.(4)(b) Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and interrelated, and must take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best possible option.

2.(4)(f) The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.

2.(4)(g) Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including traditional; and ordinary knowledge.

2.(4)(h) Community wellbeing and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means.

2.(4)(i) The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits, must be considered, assessed and evaluated, and decisions must be appropriate in the light of such consideration and assessment.

2.(4)(k) Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law."

 

The changes in policy (on PA categories) introduced into the Bill are, in our opinion, in contravention of the above, in that the authorities have failed to indicate what alternatives have been considered, and what the consequences and impacts of the changes in the status quo are likely to be. We seriously doubt that the Minister has applied his mind to the consequences of these proposed changes. Alternatively, if he did apply his mind, we enquire why no explanatory statement has been made available for the edification of stakeholders such as ourselves, not to mention many of the rural communities who have a direct stake in these matters.

Because the rationale for these proposed changes to the status quo have not been made public, and none of the key issues raised above have appear to have been addressed, we respectfully submit that there has been a lack of transparency and access to information. We therefore consider ourselves disadvantaged and prejudiced by such failure, in that our ability to adequately comment on the draft Bill has been compromised.

ANNEXURE 2

A SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS VALUES

A motivation for promotion of wilderness conservation in South Africa

Wilderness Action Group

  1. Introduction
  2. The purpose of this document is to summarise what is meant by the terms "wilderness " and "wilderness areas", and the values of the wilderness concept and designated wilderness areas for the people of South Africa. It is also intended to promote sound management and secure legal protection of existing designated wilderness areas, as well as the legal protection of candidate wilderness areas which possess wilderness character, where their designation will significantly benefit society.

  3. What is wilderness?

There are both colloquial as well as technical meanings of the term "wilderness". In a colloquial sense, it could mean a desert, an uncultivated and uninhabited region (Oxford English Dictionary), or a wild, undeveloped area (Hendee at al.,2002). In South Africa, it is increasingly (but incorrectly) being used to describe wild areas, private nature reserves and even country lodges.

In a technical sense, however, the term refers to the protected area (PA) category "wilderness area" (WA) which is set aside with the following principal aims:

  • To protect the natural character or condition of representative land, coastal or marine areas;
  • Maintain these areas without permanent or significant habitation or development (such as roads) in order to protect their unmodified natural condition;
  • For scientific, experiential, environmental conservation and recreational purposes (including biodiversity conservation and to enable ecosystems to function without human interference;
  • To make provision for wilderness experience, a specific form of public outdoor recreation, or nature-based tourism, which includes opportunities for solitude, and spiritual renewal;
  • To preserve cultural, archaeological or historical values; and
  • For comparative and other research purposes.

The new National Environmental Management : Protected Areas (NEM : PA) Bill defines a wilderness area as, "an area designated ....for the purpose of retaining an intrinsically wild appearance and character, or capable of being restored to such and which is undeveloped and roadless, without permanent improvements or human habitation."

 

 

 

 

  1. Wilderness Area as a protected area category

3.1 Wilderness conservation internationally

WA is a recognised PA in at least fifteen countries, world wide. It is listed as Category 1 (b) in the World Conservation Union list of protected area categories (IUCN 1994).

3.2 Wilderness conservation in Africa

SA was the first country in Africa to set aside a legally proclaimed wilderness system, but Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Namibia, Uganda and Ghana have all recently initiated wilderness conservation programmes.

3.3 Management objectives for wilderness areas

The Category WA has well-established management objectives, outlined above. Some of these are well-known, such as those that relate to the provision of wilderness experience (principally solitude and the spiritual well-bring of visitors), and the protection of the natural character of the area and of its cultural resources. Other objectives that are less well known locally (but are well known elsewhere), include opportunities for benchmark or comparative studies, to compare the state of undeveloped ecosystems with those in adjoining developed landscape; conservation of biodiversity, water, scenic and other natural resources, including physiographical, geological features of scientific, educational, scenic or historic value; and most importantly, the provision of ecological services (such as water production, carbon sinks, etc). While the spiritual, cultural and historical values are clearly Of particular importance, increasing emphasis is currently being placed on the environmental conservation values of wilderness.

Of particular importance for SA is the provision of opportunities for young people (especially urban youth) to experience undeveloped landscapes as their forefathers knew them, and for character and leadership development. Also, the importance of provision of back-drop scenery as a tourism attraction, is often underestimated.

In addition to its primary functions, wilderness provides functions that are provided by few if any other PA category.

Included are the following, all of which may be achieved concurrently:

  1. Appreciation of wild country on foot, in a way in which it makes it possible to relate to the manner in which our forefathers experienced our land before it became tamed by development, in order to celebrate our cultural and historical heritage and for personal growth;
  2. The protection of sensitive environments such as the major watersheds of our country (in a dry country in which water supplies are a limiting factor to our industrial economy), areas containing rare habitats or important biodiversity resources, and which by their nature, are not suitable for intensive recreational, tourism or other forms of use; and
  3. The protection of the natural character of the core areas of our major protected areas such as the Kruger National Park, especially from non-conforming land-uses.

 

3.4 Wilderness values and benefits

According to Hendee et. al. (ibid.) the values and benefits of wilderness may be listed under four generic heads, namely scientific, experiential, symbolic, spiritual and economic. A number of studies have been undertaken internationally (Costanza et al. 1997; Loomis & Richardson 2001; Balmford et al.2002) which indicate that the economic value of maintaining unmodified ecosystems may be considerably greater than from benefits from developed landscapes, employing various transformational forms of land-use. No comparable studies appear to have been undertaken on the values and benefits provided by the SA wilderness system, and this would appear to be an urgent research priority.

4. The wilderness areas of South Africa

4.1 Current legal provision for declaration of wilderness areas

The National Forest Act (No. 84 of 1998), as amended, is the only statute under which it is presently possible to designate WA s. Eleven WA s have been declared in terms of this act to date on various State forests distributed throughout the Republic (DEAT Bainbridge 2001). The areas designated to date are listed in the Annexe.

It is hoped that this situation will change when the new NEM : Protected Areas Act is promulgated. It is expected that this will enable the Minister to designate a national park or part thereof, as a WA, in instances where the area has unmodified wilderness character, and biodiversity resources which are considered to be of national or international importance, and /or other features such as viable representative samples of natural systems, scenic areas or cultural heritage sites . Similarly, the Minister or, in the case of provincial nature reserves, a Member of Executive Council (MEC) may also designate nature reserves or part thereof, with wilderness character, and significant biodiversity resources and other features (scientific, cultural, historical, or archaeological) as WA s. Proposals have been made for similar provisions be made for other protected area categories such as special nature reserve and world heritage site.

Provision for designation of WA s has also been made in certain provincial statutes (such as the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Act # 9 of 1997, as amended), but as far as is known, no WA s have yet been declared under this legislation.

4.2 The SA wilderness system in perspective

In the past, WA s have been considered a luxury, elitist and a selfish locking up of land which could or should be put to better use. One current criticism revolves around the notion that if appropriately managed, many protected areas can generate revenue rather than constitute a drain on the public purse. However, WA s, by the very nature of their management objectives, are never likely to generate a revenue surplus. Their value to society lies in their capacity to provide their unique form of public outdoor recreation and experiential opportunities, and indirect or hidden values, such as from the ecological services they provide. These are hugely important in the context of the national ecological footprint, and the pressures placed on the environment to absorb waste, pollution, and excess carbon dioxide emissions.

It is contended that present generations do not have the right to make development decisions for the entire land surface on behalf of posterity. Adequate representative areas should be set aside in unmodified condition, to be set aside as living museums and laboratories, for their enjoyment and appreciation.

Mention should be made of the international reputation that has been acquired by the South African wilderness system, and the high standard of wilderness conservation management that is practised here, by virtue of the World Wilderness Congresses (the eighth of which is presently being planned), which were initiated by Dr Ian Player and Maquba Ntombela (Hendee et.al., ibid.) There is also a growing library of wilderness literature published both locally and internationally by SA practitioners.

 

  1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Wilderness Action Group believes that wilderness is a necessity not a luxury, for a number of sound reasons. We believe that a sensible proportion of the national protected area system should comprise wilderness, for the functions listed above, with particular reference to the provision of vital ecological services. We also believe that it is not possible to conserve wilderness resources without secure legal protection.

Management of WA s requires special knowledge and skills. For this reason, one of the primary services of the Wilderness Action Group is the provision of professional training in wilderness conservation, through our Wilderness Concept and Practice Courses, which are presented in partnership with the Centre for Environment and Development, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, validated by the University of Montana of the USA, with the support of the Wilderness Foundation of SA, and WILD, the International Wilderness Leadership Foundation.

Dr W. R. Bainbridge,

Vice-Chairman,

Wilderness Action Group

August, 2003-08-23

314 Alexandra Rd.,

PIETERMARITZBURG,

3201

033-3869133 e-mail <[email protected]>

REFERENCES

Bainbridge W.R., 2001. An Update on Wilderness Conservation in the New South Africa. International Journal of Wilderness, Vol.7, # 3, pp 38-42, WILD Foundation. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Co., USA

Balmford A et al, 2002 Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953

Coostanza R. et al.1997 The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Hendee J.C. & Dawson C.P. 2002 Wilderness Management : Stewardship & Protection of Resources & Values. 640 pp. WILD Foundation, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Co.,USA

IUCN 1994 Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories

83 pp, IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Loomis J.B & Richardson R.2001 Economic Values of the U.S. Wildernes System. International Journal of Wilderness, Vol. 7 # 1, pp 31-34. WILD Foundation, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Co.,.USA

 

ANNEXE

LIST OF WILDERNESS AREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Wilderness Area & Location Area (ha)

  1. Areas designated under the Forest Act
  2. Mdedelelo KZN 27 000

    Mkhomazi 48 000

    Mlambonja 14 000

    Mzimkulu 28 300

    Ntendeka 5 200

    Wolkberg NP 17 400

    Cedarberg WC 64 400

    Boosmansbos WC 14 200

    Grootwinterhoek WC 23 600

    Doringrivier WC 11 000

    Groendal EC 21 800

    Total 274 900

  3. Candidate wilderness areas (no legal status)

Baviaanskloof EC 70 000

Umfolozi KZN 26 000

Gt St Lucia Wetland Park WHS 40 000

Tembe Elephant Reserve 15 000

Kruger NP MP, NP, LP 650 000

 

Source : National Register of Protected Areas in South Africa. Dept. of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, 1996.

Bainbridge (2001)

 

wilderness summy/wrbpapers/August 2003-08-23

_