LOURENS RIVER CONSERVATION SOCIETY

LOURENSRIVIER BEWARINGSVERENIGING

P O BOX 600, SOMERWEST WEST 7129
NPO 044018
The Portfolio Committee, 22 August 2003
Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Parliament, Cape Town.

Honorable Members

Comment on proposed Protected Areas Bill.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislation, now under consideration.

Our Society members are ordinary citizens whose ongoing mission seeks conservation of the Lourens River as a naturally functioning Eco-system, and as a safe attractive natural asset for the whole community and visitors. The river, rising in the Hottentots Rolland Mountains runs through agricultural holdings and through the towns of Somerset West and Strand where it spills into False Bay.

Through much hard work by our Society together with riparian owners, the local Municipalities, the Department of Nature Conservation and Environment, the whole river corridor was declared a Protected Natural Environment, as published in the Provincial Gazette 5135 of 9 May 1997.
The declaration required appointment of a Management Advisory Committee on which our Society is privileged, with other representatives, to serve. All Conservation Society and Management Advisory Committee Members serve as unpaid voluntary members.

This arrangement effectively gives the Helderberg Municipality (now incorporated as a sub-council within the City of Cape Town) practical control over development within the river corridor from an ecological and flood control viewpoint, in addition to normal municipal development regulation.
The Management Advisory Committee comments before final adjudication by the local municipal authority, upon all development applications within the Protected Natural Environment.

Whilst recognizing the value in the objectives of the proposed new Act, we are concerned that as currently constructed, the new Act may in certain respects cause or allow removal of protective status on certain less well-known Protected Areas. Such areas will have been declared under legislation, which will be repealed by the proposed new Act.
These concerns were specifically described in our comment on the draft bill, delivered in January 2003 to the Department of environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. A copy is attached for reference.

In summary our concerns are,



1. Withdrawal of Declarations or Exclusion of Parts
The bill proposes empowerment of the Minister, the Provincial MEC, or relevant
Municipality to withdraw existing declarations, or parts thereof, without any due
process and participation by interested and affected parties. Refer to Chapter 3
Part 5, Section 48.

We believe that wherever withdrawals may be mooted, full broad scope consultation and public participation similar to that required for initial declaration is essential for rational, lair and just decision making and transparent governance.

2. Register of Protected Areas.
Our concern as expressed in our initial comment in this regard, has since been alleviated. However another detail point arises. Nowhere in the new bill is any reference made to Protected Natural Environments. The bill does use the similar term, Protected Environments. We are concerned that this subtle difference should not jeopardize in any way inclusion in the required register and therefore continuing Protected Environment status for the Lourens River, under the proposed new Act. We understand that there are at least three other declared Protected Natural Environments in the country.

3. Existing Protected Areas
The bill in its present form allows in chapter 8, section 91 for inclusion of existing parks, nature reserves and protected environments, declared in terms of the National Parks Act 1976 and the Lake Areas Development Act 1975, under the proposed flew Act.
There are similar existing protected areas, declared in terms of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) for example, the Lourens River Protected Natural Environment. Therefore this Act should also, we believe, be referred to in Section 91 of the proposed new Act.
We believe also that the new Act should necessarily compel the Minister to designate existing protected areas in terms of the new Act. The current wording of the bill allows that the Minister may so designate existing areas. The word "may" should we believe simply be changed to must.


In conclusion we would inform you that our concern for the continuation of the existing protection afforded to the Lourens River lies with our firm belief that avoidance of canalization of this natural asset and ensuring reasonable safety from flood events, is owed to all. of us and to future generations.
There is also tremendous educational, recreational and tourism benefit available to all if we manage this asset sensibly. For that we need continuing legislative protection.

Thank you for listening.



Alan Penfold
Chairperson.