COMMENTS ON THE iSIMANGALISO WETLAND PARK DRAFT INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN

On 24 December 2008, the consulting firm ACER released a Draft Integrated Management Plan (IMP) relating to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. Public comments were invited until 18 February 2009. The Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) worked through the document with care and submitted the following set of comments.

The following comments provided by the Oceanographic Research Institute fall into three categories: general comments, detailed comments and specific issues.

Extract from Heritage Act
25. (1) An Authority must submit its first integrated management plan to the Minister for approval within six months of the establishment of that Authority or such later date set by the Minister.

37. (1) (a)(i) An Authority must submit a five year strategic plan to the Minister for approval, not later than 30 days before the end of its first financial year.
(ii) Thereafter, a revised strategic plan must be submitted to the Minister for approval every financial year.

As a result of this eight-year delay, it is inappropriate and irresponsible to the future sustainability of the Park to develop a "first" version of the IMP without a comprehensive assessment of the status of the Park and all its ecosystems, especially documenting management successes and failures in the intervening eight or more years. Indeed, ORI strongly recommends a review of the status of the Park's management against objectives originally documented in the Lubombo SDI in 1996 - now almost 13 years ago, as well as the World Heritage proposal submitted to UNESCO (1998).

We understand that in terms of legislation the structure of an IMP requires the simultaneous development of a Business Plan that sets out the operational procedures such as compliance, monitoring, etc. Unless these are presented in detail at this time, the IMP is flawed.

Legislative framework
The Draft IMP lists the legislation relevant to the Park (pages 6-9). However, ORI is deeply concerned at the inferred relative ranking of these legislative tools. Our question is whether this ranking and precedence of certain legislation is real or perceived in terms of jurisdiction and enforcement? While the Authority may hold a firm opinion about this, it may not necessarily be the case in other government departments, parastatals and agencies. Past statements made inferring that the World Heritage Act is more "senior" to several other national acts needs to be clarified. The fact that NEMA: Protected Areas Act is believed by the Authority to have limited application in a World Heritage Site is of concern (ref letter to EKZNW-17 Nov 2008). ORI does not support the position whereby the excellent umbrella National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA) are relegated to "junior" position in terms of the World Heritage Act.

For example, on page 8 (1.2.2.4) it is stated that marine protection is derived from the World Heritage Act and that the Marine Living Resources Act merely provides an additional layer of protection. ORI does not believe this is right and it would fragment the entire South African fisheries policy if this were to be the case. We believe the opposite is true - whereby the Heritage Act provides for additional opportunities for protection in conjunction with the MLRA.

It is also with some concern that no mention is made under '1.2.2 Enabling legal framework' of the South African Water Act 36 of 1998 that expresses the right in law for the quantity and quality of water required to protect the natural functioning of a water resource. The definition of water resources also includes estuaries.

We believe that the resultant confusion (and possibly conflicting regulations) that has arisen must urgently be rectified by having an independent legal review undertaken and the necessary amendments gazetted. Such a review should take into consideration the optimal legal arrangements, recognising that this issue has been a source of great concern. Until such time that the situation is clarified and mandates are unambiguously documented there will remain policy, management and governance related problems.

The imminent promulgation of the Integrated Coastal Zone Act will present similar confusion and challenges unless this matter is clarified.

In addition to the confusion regarding the legal status and enabling powers afforded to the Authority, there is also the question of how it will contribute to the overall objectives of other legislation and national conservation plans. For example, how will the Park's marine resource management interface with the objectives of the MLRA - considering that the species concerned are shared with KZN, South Africa and indeed Mozambique? What role will management of the St Lucia estuarine system play within the context of estuarine management throughout South Africa - considering it represents about 80% of South Africa's estuarine surface area and therefore the largest single nursery in South Africa?

Other documents
We further draw attention to the existence of several documents that have in the past have been prepared in support of management of the Park, notably:

• The comprehensive 211-page Greater St Lucia Wetland Park "Initial Management Effectiveness Report" prepared in 2003 jointly by the Authority and EKZNW, and
• The Conservation Management Plan for the GSLWP prepared by EKZNW (2004).

The Draft IMP appears to make no reference to these documents nor does it provide an explanation why this is so. Have these documents and their considerable input been discarded? If so why? There is reference to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and its role in developing the IMP. But this document was not made available nor is visiting the iSimangaliso Wetland Park website helpful as it is "under construction".

The fact that there is no bibliography in the Draft IMP is unacceptable and should be rectified so that the document is seen to be based on wider expertise and "best practice" rather than a product of a limited number of people with unknown expertise.

Scientific basis
The Draft IMP is virtually devoid of references to support the many statements that underpin the proposed policy, actions and management objectives. Recognising that the iSimangaliso Wetland Park has been the subject of intense research, investigation and documentation for > ½ century, it is inconceivable that the IMP does not refer to such information. This is especially relevant to Chapter 2 - which makes a plethora of unsubstantiated assumptions and comments that could be construed as "hearsay".

At one stage, a specific documentation centre was established for the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park. Does that still exist? Should it not at least be referred to? ORI produced a comprehensive inventory of GSLWP- MPA related references and information. Was that available? ORI estimates that there are well over 1000 papers available to the Authority. Indeed, the Authority demands from researchers all data and research products. Have these items been accessed and made available to the architects of the IMP? Or have they been discarded by the Authority as irrelevant?

ORI feels that by not considering the freely available literature and other documents relating to the Park, the IMP is significantly weakened and compromised. This is especially of concern considering the many years available to the Authority to provide such supporting information. These comments are of concern, despite the promises made on page 106.

We note with regret that no request was made to ORI to provide scientific supporting documentation for preparation of the IMP, which would have been gladly undertaken in terms of the draft MOU we have with the Authority.

It is also not clear who actually compiled the Draft IMP. While some departmental acknowledgements are made, it is unclear who made up the "project team" and on what basis they were selected.

Public liaison and communications
It is common knowledge that there is tension between the Authority and a significant number of stakeholders and institutions in KZN and beyond. If necessary, documentation can be provided in support of this. Consultation with many such groups has been impeded severely. While the Authority appears to have the unilateral "right" to create and select its own fora for consultation, ORI is concerned that many opportunities to improve the scientific basis of the Park's management decisions have been lost over the past 8-10 years. A typical example is the excellent work undertaken for many years by the voluntary group of experts under SCADCO (St Lucia Advisory Committee). This group provided outstanding advice for free and was represented by some of South Africa's top hydrologists, engineers and aquatic scientists. The Authority's termination and unwillingness to use the services of SCADCO is considered a regrettable flaw and may already have compromised the ecological integrity of several of the Park's ecosystems in the long term. While such specialist groups may provide advice that is not in line with the Authority's own views, it nonetheless contributes to a wider scientific understanding and transparent collaboration.

The Draft IMP has many encouraging statements and intentions that point to stakeholder consultation and participation. Some examples:

We consider this most important but are concerned that during the past eight years these ideals have not been achieved.

Similarly the IMP includes many statements in support of biodiversity conservation as follows:

Notwithstanding these laudable statements, there are significant concerns about implementing these actions. For example: the permissible harvesting in wilderness areas, the inadequate zoning of sensitive reefs and the number of poorly protected sites of special sensitivity, value and interest within the Park that require special protection (such as Black Rock, Island Rock and certain reefs, etc.).

Conclusion
In conclusion we are very disappointed with the IMP and suggest that it be rejected until such time that a more inclusive and substantiated document can be compiled. South Africa, and especially KwaZulu-Natal, has excellent capacity and skill available to develop a much more credible IMP. The fact that this opportunity for developing a more inclusive and transparent process was not undertaken is of little credit to the Authority and signals a potential waste of scientific resources that have seen millions of Rand invested in studies of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park over the years.

We thus suggest that the following issues are addressed as a priority:

a) Clarify the legal standing and relationship between all legislation that pertains to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park area. This to be done as an exercise that involves the key stakeholders so as to ensure eventual wider acceptance and improved collaboration in the future.

b) The development of a factual status report on the Park, with specific reference to the status of biodiversity, ecological function and status, resources and visitor numbers. Such a report to be substantiated by drawing on the available literature and expertise.

DETAILED COMMENTS

Pg 14
We strongly question both the validity and the wisdom of section 1.2.5. EKZNW does have a Province-wide mandate and should not be relegated to a junior partner or service provider in terms of a (possibly weak) management agreement. The Park is part of the Province of KZN and should remain as such. This confusion over who is in fact the responsible authority lies at the heart of several issues, including research.

Pg 29
The description of the responses of the lake to salinity fluctuations is misleading. It is a combination of evaporation and low freshwater input that result in hypersaline conditions which overall, do not 'impose a high degree of biodiversity, both in time and space'. At such times the system is impoverished and this further highlights the importance of considering the SA Water Act that stipulates a freshwater reserve to ameliorate such circumstances that ultimately have a direct effect on fisheries.

Pg 32
The 2nd last line refers to use of traditional fishing methods in Kosi - but non-traditional fishing methods (gill nets, fishing rods) are also used and these must be acknowledged as significant.

There is no mention of invertebrates (prawns and swimming crabs in particular) which use St Lucia as a nursery and underpin offshore resources.

No mention is made of the critical and national importance of St Lucia and Kosi estuaries as nurseries. This not only relates to their large surface areas relative to the majority of estuaries in the country, but also to the degraded and ecological compromised state of other KZN nurseries. It has been stated in the primary literature for over 50 years that estuaries are not only important connections between fresh and marine waters, but also they are primarily important as nursery areas and migratory conduits for fauna with obligatory marine or freshwater phases.

Page 36/37
Certain statements pertaining to fauna found within the Park are sweeping and some are clearly incorrect.

The fish section is weak and lacks references and thus credibility. The focus on brindle bass is inappropriate, especially as it is not endemic. A species that is not endemic but in critical and near-extinct status is the sawfish, once common in St Lucia. It deserves the special attention in the IMP context.

Pg 59
We dispute the commercial fish off-take of 14 000t p.a. There are no commercial permits there in the first place and there is no reference there to back up this statement. The Lake previously was subjected to an annual 56t recreational off-take and max 300t from illegal netting (Mann, 1995; Mann et al 2002).

Pg 64
This section carries a suite of alleged constraints mainly attributed to EKZNW. We feel this is a most unfortunate section of the IMP and suggest that it is removed or significantly altered and better substantiated.

We cannot possibly agree that "there is little product differentiation in and around iSimangaliso". A simple Google search proves otherwise and indicates that the opportunities offered for tourism are impressive - much better than many other destinations in South Africa.

We question the validity of the statement that "recent major road development" has overcome visitor access problems. Proper data needs to be provided. Similarly, a number of other unsubstantiated and "hearsay" claims are made, concerning crime, medical services, branding, etc. Malaria is seen as a past impediment, but no data is provided and it is noted that many African countries continue to draw good tourist numbers despite prevailing malaria.

We find paragraph 3.3.3.2 outrageous. EKZNW operated as most other South African nature conservation bodies have done, and mostly as SANPARKS still does in Kruger National Park. To apportion blame and call it a "state monopoly" is disingenuous, counterproductive and we believe insulting to those who made great efforts to promote tourism. We challenge the Authority to provide reliable visitor numbers over the past 15 years to validate the assumptions made. Our records show that for a period in the 1990s, Sodwana and other resorts attracted enormous visitor numbers to the extent that it cross-subsidised other KZN Parks. It is politely pointed out that since that time the Authority has been the responsible agency - so any poor performance may be a constraint directly attributable to the Authority itself.

We acknowledge that there are other factors that may have retarded visitor flow to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, such as competition with Mozambique, affordable cruises, other destinations and of course the drought. Has any in-depth analysis been undertaken over the past eight years?

Pg 76
We question the use of the term "optimal" in Management Goal 2 - if this is not linked to ecological sustainability.

Pg 83
The IMP states in Strategic Driver 2 that the Authority will set its own conservation policy. We question the expertise and multi-disciplinary support for this.

Pg 86
Conservation Operation Plan cost/hectare. This is a narrow definition and cannot be applied to the marine environment. Monitoring must be stressed.

Pg 89
The intention is to only "manage" currently unauthorized developments (by 2010) - these developments should not be "managed", they should be removed now. This intended approach proves that the authority does not assist EKZNW's initiatives to prevent illegal activities (including stopping of gill-netting in Kosi).

Why develop new (and potentially conflicting) policies and regulations when the MLRA and its regulations are already place?

There is scant reference to NGOs in resource management (2.8.3) - despite the fact that NGOs have often provided the primary source of data and advice. This is contrary to co-management and transparency.

Pg 99
We strongly question the statement: "the Authority is committed to open engagement with stakeholders both proactively and reactively". The supposed interaction with research stakeholders has been exceptionally poor to date. How does the Authority intend to improve on this? (also see pg 156).

Pg 101
We would insert point 5.6.4 to deal with monitoring and research relationships - which have to date been exceedingly poor.

Pg 104
Why initiate (duplicate) a new environmental education programme when EKZNW in collaboration with MCEN already exists and can be a source of support, collaboration and even funding. How will the effectiveness of the education programme be measured?

Pg 106
Strategic drivers are a useful concept. However, we would argue that these need to be prioritised and that Strategic Driver 7 should be ranked as Number 1, in terms of management goals presented in Section 4.4.

Research priorities are to be "set by the authority". Is this done unilaterally in isolation? Will there be capacity to do this? Experience over the past eight years calls this into doubt and there is no evidence provided of the Authority's capabilities/capacity in this regard.

The last paragraph refers. We recognise that the Authority needs to monitor its own achievements. However, monitoring should be much wider-based and seen in the context of other monitoring activities already in place. The Marine Park is not a system in isolation, but shared with other parts of South Africa.

There should be fora for feedback and mechanisms for deliberating the results on a wider scale. Remember that the Park is equally dependent on (marine) resources elsewhere in the region, so isolation will not be beneficial.

Pg 114 - 117
We do not support any form of harvesting in Pristine Wilderness areas as this runs contrary to everything else in the wilderness definition. The distinction between restricted and controlled in terms of activities is not clear.

Pg 124 + 126
"Pelagic" species is ambiguous and a non-scientific term - it needs to be defined and species listed as it can have huge implications for fishers. The proposed regulations are not workable.

Pg 154
It would have been useful if ORI had been given an opportunity to deliberate on some of the proposed measures and to have sight of the underlying rationale. For example, swimming, etc. in wilderness areas may be totally inappropriate - especially over New Year.

Pg 158
2nd para. - It is bizarre that the communities are considered a resource - humans are the prime users of resources.

Pg 160
We strongly oppose the notion that the Authority can conduct its own internal scoping process as indicated. There must be an independent body with oversight authority. The Authority cannot be the judge and the jury at the same time.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

Launch sites at nearly every point
Quite regardless of the fact that few points along the coastline are graded and officially registered as launch sites, nearly every point in the north is designated as a public or concession launch site. This flies in the face of the preservation of "sense of place" that is considered desirable in the Park, and ignores the safety aspects of sites already deemed dangerous by official launch site committees. It is also in contrast to the more precautionary approach adopted elsewhere in KZN.

Research
The experience of ORI and other researchers in KZN is that the Authority does not encourage research or provide conducive research support. ORI has been waiting on the Authority for many years to have an MOU and research agreement confirmed. While we recognise that scientific work needs to be managed and co-ordinated the "highly regulated research permits", excessive rules and controls over research projects, effective demands for the intellectual property rights and the total hand over of all raw data are seriously restrictive. Properly accredited research institutions should be encouraged to work in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, rather than having to resort to working in other regions and countries. Some, such as ORI, have generated several million Rand of external funding to support essential research in the Park. Research in the Park should be encouraged - not spurned.

Measurable outcomes and standards
There is a growing international thrust for management effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This development is especially driven by the IUCN and South African contributions have been included. The Durban Accord, WSSD and other international agreements all recognise this need. Modern ISO standards are currently being developed and proposed for implementation in MPAs. We feel that the IMP does not address this issue. While "monitoring" is mentioned in several places, there are no targets, optimal standards and thresholds provided. From a marine, (we presume also terrestrial) biodiversity and resource point of view this is not acceptable. We see this as an inherent weakness in the IMP, especially as there is adequate capacity in KZN and South Africa to develop such standards.

Bio-prospecting
The proposed policy of isolation of the Park in terms of bio-prospecting is short-sighted and may well deny the Park, the people of South Africa and possibly the world from potential benefits of natural products in its resources. Geographic variation in natural product generation would necessitate the study of organisms distributed both in the Park and adjacent regions.

Zonation
We consider that overall zonation could be better structured (pg 112) so that the main two divisions are terrestrial and aquatic, the latter subdivided into freshwater and marine components.

A wealth of information regarding the need for reef zonation is available in the literature (see reference list below), and has been presented at symposia and was communicated to the designated conservation authority of the park. This outlines the need for further marine sanctuary areas to meet the biodiversity targets of the Park. All of this has been totally ignored in the IMP.

As an example, the offshore sanctuary area in the northern complex has been located at the N30 Beacon where it provides no protection to Kosi Reef. The entire reef lies to the south and the location of a sanctuary to the north of N30 is totally meaningless. Some of the most damage-sensitive coral communities in southern Africa are found on Kosi Reef and will thus go unprotected. Similarly, unique communities on the southern reaches of Mbibi Reef, on Five-mile Reef and on Nine-mile Reef will not be afforded protection in terms of the biodiversity targets of the IsiMangaliso Wetland Park. The Wright Canyon may justify incorporation in a 5-Mile Reef Sanctuary to provide better protection for the coelacanths. It is essential that these issues be rectified.

SELECTED RELEVENT LITERATURE

MANN, B.Q. 1995. Quantification of illicit fish harvesting in the Lake St Lucia Game Reserve, South Africa. Biological Conservation 74(2): 107-113.

MANN, B.Q., JAMES, N.C. & Beckley, L.E. 2002. An assessment of the recreational fishery in the St Lucia estuarine system, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 24: 263-279.

SCHLEYER, M.H. & TOMALIN, B.J. 2000. Ecotourism and damage on South African coral reefs with an assessment of their carrying capacity. Bulletin of Marine Science 67: 1025-1042.

SCHLEYER, M.H. & CELLIERS, L. 2005. Modelling reef zonation in the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, South Africa. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 63: 373-384.

RAMSAY, P.J., SCHLEYER, M.H., LEUCI, R., MULLER, G.A., CELLIERS, L. & HARRIS, J.M. 2006. The development of an expert marine geographical information system to provide an environmental and economic decision-support system for coastal tourism and leisure developments within the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology of South Africa Innovation Fund Project - 24401 Report 93pp.

CELLIERS, L. & SCHLEYER, M.H. 2008. Coral community structure and risk assessment of high-latitude reefs at Sodwana Bay, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:3097-3117.

SCHLEYER M.H., CELLIERS, L. & KRUGER A. 2007. Significant results of reef surveys and associated research relevant to management of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park. 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology 1- 5 July 2007, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Paper.

SCHLEYER M.H., CELLIERS, L. & KRUGER, A. 2008. Results of reef surveys and associated research relevant to the IsiMangaliso Wetland Park. 13th Southern African Marine Science Symposium, Cape Town, 29 June - 3 July 2008. Paper.

Prepared for the Oceanographic Research Institute by:
Rudy van der Elst (Prof) Director - ORI
Michael Schleyer (Prof) Deputy Director - ORI
Fiona MacKay Senior Scientist - ORI
Johan Groeneveld (Dr) Senior Scientist - ORI
Bruce Mann - Senior Scientist - ORI
Bernadine Everett - Scientist - ORI
Judy Mann - Director - SeaWorld