- The government is proposing to scrap statutory environmental impact assessments for some areas of development within the park.
- The controversial proposal has so far elicited little reaction from the public.
- But some experts warn the move will reduce the public's ability to participate in the future management of Kruger National Park.
- For more climate change news and analysis, News24 The Future of Climate.
A government proposal to eliminate the need for South African national parks to obtain environmental approval for some developments within Kruger National Park has slipped in almost unnoticed.
The proposals were published by Minister for Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Barbara Creecy in mid-February and a 40-day public comment period was opened, but only five responses were received.
But one person who has responded is Richard Summers, a Cape Town lawyer specializing in environmental, heritage and urban planning law. In a comprehensive 10-page commentary, Summers argues that the proposed changes would allow the South African National Parks Service (SANParks) to make and implement development decisions without proper checks and balances.
“This is in direct violation of fundamental principles of administrative justice upheld by South African courts,” he wrote in his submission.
Summers also points out that protected areas such as national parks are held in trust by authorities for the benefit of current and future generations and argues that the proposed changes would prevent Interested and Affected Parties (IAAPs) and stakeholders from meaningfully participating in decisions about activities in Kruger National Park.
Read | South African countries fear drought will lead to more elephant deaths
This, he noted, contradicts the importance of public participation enshrined in Article 33 of the Constitution, arguing that “… any measure which undermines the ability of the national community to participate meaningfully must be rejected.”
His proposal was supported by Professors Reece Alberts and François Retief of North-West University's Protected Areas Research Group.
Exclusions
Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are central to South Africa's environmental management regime and are prescribed by law under the comprehensive National Environmental Management Act 1998 (NEMA).
Typically, a full EIA is required before authorities such as DFFE can grant or deny approval for a development or “designated activity.” However, NEMA allows certain activities to be exempted from the environmental approval requirement under certain circumstances, ostensibly to streamline the EIA process, making the system more efficient and reducing costs.
Such an exemption may apply to activities within a geographic area or existing environmental control regime that have been identified and formally adopted as an “environmental control measure” in terms of NEMA.
Examples of measures adopted include:
- Integrated Environmental Management Program for the management and mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from water action projects (February 2021)
- Integrated Environmental Management Program for the Atlantis Metropolitan Development Project (January 2022)
- Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope in the Northern Cape (March 2019).
DFFE's latest proposal is to remove the need for SANParks to obtain environmental permits before commencing “designated activities” within Kruger National Park. The proposal includes all activities listed in the park's annual infrastructure project implementation plan, activities related to maintenance, and activities related to conservation projects and restoration.
It does not include energy-related projects, which require air emissions permits, or waste management activities, which require waste management permits.
But there are two key stipulations: Such activities must be carried out in accordance with both the zoning plan set out in the park's 10-Year Management Plan 2018-2028 and the 58-page General Environmental Management Program, which was only released late last year.
Both documents have been adopted as environmental management instruments from a NEMA perspective.
Read | Development Bank to Launch First-of-its-Kind Biodiversity Fund
Streamline decision making
DFFE chief director of communications and advocacy Peter Mbelengwa confirmed that five comments had been received on the proposal.
“There were no specific objections to the proposal. However, suggestions and comments were made on various aspects of the proposal. Amendments have been made to the document based on the comments received and it will soon be published for a further comment period,” he said.
Mberengwa added that the report would be available on the ministry's website once the revised document had been approved for republication.
In his comments, Summers acknowledged that the proposed system's goal is to streamline decision-making, but said the park's management plan “does not provide the scientific and empirical information base necessary to streamline environmental decision-making within the park. Parks are strategically important and sensitive areas that should not be subject to the risks imposed by the proposed system.”
The proposal would take away the basis for properly evaluating important decisions about parks, he added.
“The proposed scheme is therefore contrary to NEMA's principles of sound environmental management, the rights of administrative justice and the environmental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution.”
biodiversity
Kate Handley, co-founder and executive director of the Biodiversity Law Centre (which has not commented publicly on the Kruger Park exclusion notice), called the proposal “concerning”.
“The purpose of carrying out an environmental impact assessment and obtaining an environmental clearance is to thoroughly assess all the impacts associated with the activity and propose mitigation measures where necessary,” she told Ground Up.
“By not carrying out an environmental impact assessment, there is a risk that site-specific impacts will not be properly considered, which is a serious problem in a protected area with such high biodiversity value as Kruger.”
Environmental management measures are less granular than environmental impact assessments, running the risk of overlooking important biodiversity features, Handley warned.
“Furthermore, given that these measures will be in place for an extended period of time (the Kruger Park Management Plan runs from 2018 to 2028), activities will be conditional solely on compliance with the plan, creating a risk that changes to the landscape from an ecological and development perspective will not be properly considered before activities that may have significant impacts are commenced.
She said South Africa should be doing “all we can” to protect biodiversity in light of international commitments such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which committed South Africa to protecting at least 30 per cent of inland and marine ecosystems by 2030.