Draft Safeguards Diagnostic Review

for

South Africa

Development, Empowerment and Conservation in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park and Surrounding Region

May 2009

SR20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms..........................................................................................................3Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................4I. Background........................................................................................................................18II. Project Description............................................................................................................20

A. Component 1: Hydrology and Ecosystem Functioning of the Lake St Lucia System 21...................................................................................................................................

B. Component 2: Promoting Local Economic and Cultural Development.....................22 C. Component 3: Institutional Capacity Building............................................................23

III. Basis for Selecting the Project for Piloting........................................................................20IV. Methodology and Process Followed in Determining Equivalence and Acceptability......28V. Summary of Equivalence Analysis....................................................................................29

A. Environmental Assessment (EA).................................................................................29B. Natural Habitats (NH)..................................................................................................30C. Physical Cultural Resources (PCR).............................................................................30D.. General Conclusion.....................................................................................................30

VI. Acceptability Assessment..................................................................................................32A. Institutional Capacity...................................................................................................32B. Processes and Procedures............................................................................................40C. Critical Review of Outputs..........................................................................................49D. Assessment of Outcomes.............................................................................................64

VII. Proposed Gap-Filling Measures Necessary to Attain and Sustain Equivalence and Acceptability for Use of Borrower Systems under World Bank Operational Policy 4.00.................................................................................70A. Equivalence..................................................................................................................71B. Acceptability............................................................................................................... 72

VIII. Proposed Timeline and Roles and Responsibilities of the Borrower and the Bank for Gap-Filling Measures................................................................................................................73

AnnexesAnnex 1: World Bank Operational Policy OP 4.00....................................................................75Annex 2. South African Laws, Regulations and Procedures Applicable to the

Proposed Pilot..............................................................................................................77Annex 3 Equivalence Matrix Per OP 4.00 Table A1.................................................................85Annex 4. Prioritised Areas of Intervention for the Next Five Years.........................................100Annex 5. Results of Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, St. Lucia, South Africa,

November 13, 2008...................................................................................................102References .............................................................................................................................116

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BAR Basic Assessment ReportBC Biodiversity and Conservation, a Branch of DEATBP Bank ProceduresCSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchDEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and TourismEA Environmental AssessmentEAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIAR Environmental Impact Assessment ReportEKZNW Ezemvelo Kwa-Zulu-Natal WildlifeEMF Environmental Management FrameworkEMP Environmental Management PlanEQP Environmental Quality and Protection, a Branch of DEATGEF Global Environmental FacilityGSLWP Greater St. Lucia Wetland ParkIEM Integrated Environmental ManagementKZN KwaZulu-Natal ProvinceNEMA National Environmental Management ActNHRA National Heritage Resources ActOP Operational PolicyPCR Physical Cultural ResourcesPPAH Pollution Prevention and Abatement HandbookPoA Plan of ActionROD Record of DecisionRPPF Resettlement Policy and Process FrameworkSDR Safeguard Diagnostic ReviewSEA Strategic Environmental AssessmentSEED Socio-Economic and Environmental DevelopmentSR Scoping ReportTCPA Trans-Frontier Conservation and Protected AreasThe Authority iSimangaliso Wetland Park AuthorityThe Park iSimangaliso Wetland ParkToR Terms of ReferenceUCS Use of Country SystemsWHCA World Heritage Conservation Act

3

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Policy Framework. Under Operational Policy/Bank Procedure 4.00 (OP/BP 4.00), Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects” issued in March 2005, the Bank has the authority to support pilot projects in which lending operations are prepared using the borrowing country’s systems for environmental and social safeguards, rather than the Bank’s corresponding operational policies and procedures. The advantages of using country systems (UCS) are to scale up development impact, increase country ownership, build institutional capacity, facilitate harmonization and increase cost effectiveness. These objectives were broadly endorsed at the Paris High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005 with respect to financial management and procurement, as well as environmental and social safeguards and strongly reiterated in the Accra Agenda for Action in September 2008.

2. During the past three years, the World Bank has approved seven of pilot projects under this program. On January 31, 2008 the Executive Directors of the World Bank approved a three-year extension of the pilot program accompanied by an incremental scaling up of the pilots from the project to the country-level, including support of activities at the sub-national level.

3. OP/BP 4.00 describes the approach, enumerates the criteria for using country systems, and specifies documentation and disclosure requirements and respective roles of the client country and the Bank. The Bank considers a borrower’s environmental and social safeguard system to be equivalent to the Bank’s if the borrower’s system is designed to achieve the objectives and adhere to the applicable operational principles set out in Table A1 of OP 4.00. Since equivalence is determined on a policy-by-policy basis in accordance with Table A1, the Bank may conclude that the borrower’s system is equivalent to the Bank’s in specific environmental or social safeguard areas in particular pilot projects, and not in other areas. Before deciding on the use of borrower systems, the Bank also assesses the acceptability of the borrower’s institutional capacity, implementation practices, and past performance in similar projects. Gap-filling measures must be implemented prior to project approval or, if carried out by necessity during project implementation, are subject to a time-bound legal agreement between the Bank and the borrower. The process and product of analyzing equivalence, assessing eligibility and identifying and agreeing on gap-filling measures is called a Safeguards Diagnostic Review (SDR).

4. This Draft SDR describes the scope, methodology, and findings of the equivalence analysis and acceptability assessment carried out in South Africa by staff from the World Bank. It also identifies and proposes gap-filling measures designed to ensure that applicable South African safeguard systems meet the equivalence and acceptability criteria of OP 4.00 throughout the project cycle and are adapted to extend their benefits beyond the scope of the project to the extent possible. The Draft SDR was conducted in collaboration with borrower, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the iSimangaliso Authority) and officials from the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). This draft will be the subject of a stakeholder consultation workshop to be held in St. Lucia, South Africa on November 13, 2008

and the results of the workshop will be reflected in the final draft of the SDR to be issued prior to project Appraisal, currently scheduled for March 2009.

5. The overall objective of the project is to support the Authority to address the twin challenges of nature conservation and poverty alleviation through a transition from a conservation-in-isolation approach which, until recently, was the dominant mode of park management, to a management approach that seeks to balance conservation with socio-economic development. The specific objective of the project is to improve ecosystem functioning of the Lake St Lucia System through restoration of key ecological processes whilst contributing to local economic development and improved livelihoods in and around the Park.

6. Project Objectives. The project development objective is to improve the availability of fresh water of adequate quality to the Lake St Lucia System, wetland of global biodiversity importance, and to increase access among local communities to conservation-compatible economic opportunities. More broadly, the overall objective of the project is to support the Authority to address the twin challenges of nature conservation and poverty alleviation through a transition from a conservation-in-isolation approach which, until recently, was the dominant mode of park management, to a management approach that seeks to balance conservation with socio-economic development.

7. Basis for Selection of Pilot Country and Project. South Africa was selected as a pilot country because it has an established legal and regulatory system and a favorable reputation for effective implementation of its systems governing Environmental Assessment, protection of natural habitats, protected areas and physical cultural resources. The proposed project is designed to build on these strengths while at the same time, due to the ecological, cultural, economic and social significance, scale and sensitivity of the Park will challenge the Government and other stakeholders to continue improving the country’s regulatory system and implementation capacity, while at the same time, addressing the urgent needs of its previously marginalized populations to transcend poverty and improve their standards of living.

8. The iSimangaliso Wetlands Park on South Africa’s northeast coast, formerly known as the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park (GSLWP), is a natural and cultural asset of local, regional and global significance. It is therefore an ideal subject for an SDR of South Africa’s safeguards related to the World Bank safeguard policies relating to Environmental Assessment, Natural Habitats and Physical Cultural Resources. Its biodiversity and cultural resources have been recognized globally: in addition to being a listed world heritage site since 1999 under the 1972 UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Convention, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park has four of the fifteen sites in South Africa registered under the RAMSAR Convention and forms the largest and best-protected area in the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Biodiversity Hotspot. At the same time, the Park is located in KwaZulu-Natal, one of the poorest provinces of the country, and which also forms the core of the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative (LSDI), a trilateral regional program aimed at stimulating development in a severely impoverished zone encompassing northern KwaZulu-Natal, southern Mozambique and eastern Swaziland. The species lists for the Park are the most extensive in the region and population sizes for most of them are viable. Of the 6,295 species that have been recorded in the Park (2,505 plant, 1,258 fish, and 521 bird species) 168 are endemic, 48 are international recognized threatened species

5

5

and 147 are listed on the CITES list. The Park is clearly a critical habitat for a range of species from Africa’s marine, wetland and savannah environments

9. SDR Methodology. The Equivalence Analysis and Acceptability Assessment were carried out by a multidisciplinary team from the World Bank in collaboration with relevant officials and technical staff members from the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the iSimangaliso Authority), and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). The methodology included desk review of legislation currently in force and supporting regulations and mandatory guidelines, discussion with officials, and several site visits to the Park by members of the Bank’s project team including an environmental lawyer, an environmental specialist, a natural habitats specialist and a social specialist

10. The Equivalence Analysis included a complete inventory of South African laws and regulations relating to three of the four Bank safeguard policies triggered by the project, as identified below, in the Equivalence Section of this report. These laws and regulations are supported by Constitutional provisions, policies, and international agreements ratified by the Government of South Africa, all of which are included as relevant to the legal framework for the Equivalence Analysis. An extensive literature review was also conducted tracing the development and evolution of South African environmental law in both historical and comparative contexts. The analysis draws careful distinctions between laws and regulations that are mandatory, as valid comparators to the Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1 and other documents having aspirational or guidance value, which may inform the analysis and provide a basis for comparison with the Objectives of OP 4.00 but cannot be considered conclusive evidence of equivalence with the mandatory provisions of Bank safeguards. Based on this analysis each relevant provision of a borrower’s system is characterized as having full, partial or no equivalence to the corresponding Objective or Operational Principle of OP 4.00 Table A1.

11. The Acceptability Assessment applied the four-component methodology that has evolved through the SDR process during the implementation of the UCS pilot program. These components include: institutional capacity; processes and procedures; outputs and outcomes. To assess relevant institutional capacity the assessment drew on primary sources including annual reports prepared by DEAT and the Authority providing detailed indications of South Africa’s institutional capacity to conduct environmental assessment and to conserve protected areas and other sensitive ecosystems, including the Park. To assess the effectiveness of implementing procedures, the Assessment referenced official procedural and guidance documents describing the appropriate conduct of the environmental assessment and management process in South Africa, with particular attention to conserving and managing biodiversity, ecosystems, cultural resources and protected areas. With respect to outputs, the assessment critically reviewed environmental assessments conducted for previous and ongoing projects in the Park under the auspices of the Authority and DEAT, including the draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) issued in 2003 as well as the draft Integrated Management Plan (IMP) most recently updated in May 2007 as well as environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental management plans (EMPs) related to specific interventions in the park infrastructure undertaken since 2000. This review of EA and environmental management capacity and performance was supplemented by a review of the extensive secondary literature on the practice of EA and SEA in South Africa to date as well as independent critical studies of South Africa’s experience in

6

6

integrating biodiversity considerations into its EA process. With respect to outcomes, the analysis reviewed annual reports prepared by the Authority regarding critical conservation objectives that have been undertaken since the Authority was constituted in 2000, and the members of the project team undertook visits to several of the project sites.

12. This methodology was further informed by a stakeholder consultation workshop on the findings of this report held in St. Lucia on November 13, 2008 as described in. Annex 5 of this report.

Summary of Equivalence Analysis

13. The first step in the Equivalence Analysis is to identify the World Bank environmental and social safeguard policies triggered by the project. The four environmental and social safeguards triggered by the project include: (A) Environmental Assessment (EA); (B) Natural Habitats (NH); (C) Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) and (D) Involuntary Resettlement (IR). However, due to the uncertainty regarding the precise circumstances under which the IR safeguard could be triggered by the project, it has been agreed that the Bank will address potential IR issues that may arise in the project through the conventional Bank Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement, OP/BP 4.12. Accordingly, a Resettlement Plan Framework and a Process Framework have been prepared per OP 4.12.

14. This Equivalence Analysis finds that South Africa’s systems for three of the four of the safeguards applicable to the project demonstrate sufficient equivalence – with modest gap filling measures so as to justify proceeding to an Acceptability Assessment to determine if and on what basis the Bank can use South Africa’s systems in lieu of Bank safeguards to address the environmental and social safeguard issues raised by the proposed project.

15. The following findings apply to the three safeguard areas, respectively:

Environmental Assessment. With respect to EA, the South African system appears to be fully equivalent to the objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1. However a few ambiguities remain to be addressed in order to make a determination of full equivalence:

o It is not clear the assessment of alternatives is required to actually assess their relative feasibility under local conditions, including comparative capital and recurrent costs, and institutional, training and monitoring requirements. It appears from the South African legislation that the proponent has the option to include only those alternatives deemed “feasible and reasonable” and compare the advantages and disadvantages of such alternatives for the environment and the community. But it does not require the Environmental Assessment Report to justify alternatives considered on the basis of all of the feasibility criteria cited in OP 4.00 Table A1.

The preparation of EMPs is required “by all departments in charge of any portion of the environment.” However, the function of the EMP on the project-specific level is not made sufficiently explicit. More specifically, it is unclear

7

7

whether the ROD fulfills the requirement for undertaking cost estimates in connection with proposed mitigation measures or EMP. According to section 35 of the EIA regulation 385, April 2006, a draft EMP is developed with the EIAR. Once an ROD is issued, and presuming it permits the development to go ahead, the EMP is updated to incorporate any new conditions from the ROD. For the project to proceed it is a given that all the conditions of the ROD mitigation measures will be implemented regardless of the cost]

Natural Habitats (NH) With respect to NH, the South African system appears to be fully equivalent to the objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1. However a few ambiguities remain to be addressed in order to make a determination of full equivalence:

o South African legislation appears to lack a conservation offset provision for non-critical habitat; and

o The otherwise strong prohibition on conversion of critical natural habitat appears weakened by a legal provision that an area may be excluded by a Notice issued by the Minister of Environment or a provincial government. However this issue would thus not apply to iSimangaliso as the Provincial Government does not have any jurisdiction. Further, as iSimangaliso is a proclaimed Park, the Minister has to go to Parliament to de-proclaim the Park and does not have unilateral authority to exclude an area from the prohibition..,

o There is no apparent reference to language requirements for public disclosure and consultation in legislation pertaining to the natural habitats.

Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) With respect to PCR, the South African system appears to be fully equivalent to the objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1. However a few ambiguities remain to be addressed in order to make a determination of full equivalence:

o The extent of participation and obligations of communities in the process of cultural heritage assessment and conservation remains to be clarified.

o It is not clear from the summary how the national legislative framework deals with “chance finds” of cultural heritage resources. However, in dealing with chance finds the Authority is guided by the KZN Heritage Act 10 of 1997, section 6 and 28 which state that no cultural heritage resource may be destroyed, damaged, excavated, altered, written or drawn upon, or otherwise disturbed without a permit. Implicit in this is the procedure followed by iSimangaliso which includes such measures as the immediate cessation of work, notification to Amafa which then issues a permit and examination of the cultural resource by a licensed heritage specialist.

8

8

Summary of Acceptability Assessment

16. The purpose of the Acceptability Assessment is to confirm that the implementation practices track record and institutional capacity of South African institutions that will be involved in addressing environmental safeguard issues in the proposed Bank-supported IWP meet the requirements of OP 4.00. The Acceptability Assessment examined four criteria for: institutional capacity; processes and procedures; outputs and outcomes of the borrowers’ systems for EA, NH and PCR.

Institutional Capacity. The institutions responsible for implementing the three environmental safeguards applicable to the project, and under consideration for piloting under UCS, include the Department of Environment and Tourism (DEAT), the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the iSimangaliso Authority) and Ezemvelo Wildlife KZN (EKZNW), the provincial authority responsible for the operational implementation of biodiversity and natural habitat protection within the Province of KwaZulu Natal. The rights and duties of the iSimangaliso Authority, EKZNW and the KZN Tourism Authority with respect to the management and development of iSimangaliso are regulated through legislation and have been further elaborated through a management agreement signed in August 2001 by the parties. The agreement specifies that the parties will assist each other in achieving the required regulatory processes and approvals necessary for the general enhancement of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park and to give effect to the objectives of the iSimangaliso Authority. These institutions are assisted by consultants and contractors who carry out both strategic and day-to-day functions including planning, environmental assessment, management and infrastructure development within and adjacent to the Park.

DEAT . Established in 1994, DEAT is an independent Department of the South African government responsible for protecting, conserving and improving the environment and natural resources, as well as for promoting and creating growth conditions for tourism to the country. It reports to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism who is a member of the Cabinet and is appointed by the President from among members of the National Assembly.

o As of March 2007 DEAT reported a total budgeted staff component of 1,907 including 182 in the Environment and Quality Protection (EQP) and 82 in the BC Branch. Approximately 35 percent of the positions in the EQP branch were vacant and 10 percent of the BC Branch positions were unfilled. The vacancy rate was particularly acute in will respect to the two skill areas most closely related to nature conservation (48 %) and natural sciences (40%). Approximately 557 individual consultants were employed during the reporting period. Between 2005 and 2007 DEAT succeeded in reducing its overall turnover rate from an unacceptably high level 22% to 6.7 % during the 2006-07 reporting period. However, as of 2007 there remained a high turnover rate of 27 % at the senior management level,

9

9

indicating that retention of the most highly trained personnel remains a challenge, given more competitive terms of employment in the private sector.

o DEAT management and staff have high levels of specialized training in all key areas of environmental assessment and management. With respect to Protected Areas in general, DEAT recently demonstrated its capacity for environmental management in developing a Protected Areas Register for completed verification of Register data and has completed assessment of management pans for 19 national parks as required by the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act of 2003.

iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority. The iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (iSimangaliso Authority), previously known as the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park Authority was renamed in 2007, in line with the renaming of the Park. The iSimangaliso Authority was established by the Minister of Environment under the provisions of the World Heritage Convention Act (No 49 of 1999) when the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park was registered as South Africa’s first World Heritage Site. It became a statutory body in 2002. The Regulations proclaiming the Wetland Park also established the iSimangaliso Authority to manage the site, exercise its powers and perform its duties through a Board and executive staff component. The iSimangaliso Authority reports to the national Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

The Board of the iSimangaliso Authority must consist of 9 to 13 members and be duly skilled and representative including representatives of the iSimangaliso Authority, DEAT, local government, a representative traditional authority, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and land claimants. The full-time staff of the authority includes several environmentally related positions including Technical Manager and three Contract Managers for Land Care; a Compliance Manager and a Compliance Officer for Conservation; a Compliance Officer for Infrastructure; a Senior Manager for Policy Planning and Research; a Research Officer; a Director for Park Operations and Data Mapping Officer. The Wetland Authority is designed to be a small organization – with 36 total staff members - which outsources many of its services. Due to its geographic location certain positions requiring particular skills are difficult to recruit and retain. A capacity development plan is in process to retain key skills and attract highly qualified people and thus, enable the Wetland Authority to be a small yet modern and efficient organization.

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife . Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW) is the agency mandated to manage nature/biodiversity conservation within the province of KwaZulu-Natal and is the successor to two agencies with fifty years of experience in managing nature conservation in the combined province. Probably the best known conservation success story is bringing the white rhino back from the brink of extinction. EKZNW is currently responsible for conserving about twelve percent of the land surface of the province, with responsibilities including

10

10

conservation, partnerships and ecotourism. Under a management agreement between the iSimangaliso Authority and EKZNW, the latter provides conservation expertise to the day-to-day management of the wildlife and natural systems of the Park. With respect to the Park its specific functions are to: (i) provide scientific input for the EIA/Basic assessment processes, where needed, via its “Eco-advice” unit based in the Park , (ii) enforce and ensure compliance with environmental laws and regulations in both the terrestrial and marine environments of iSimangaliso, (iii) undertake operational conservation activities, such as burning, erosion control and patrols,(iv) provide input into conservation policy

Processes and Procedures. South Africa began undertaking Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in an ad hoc manner during the 1980’s and a voluntary EIA procedure was integrated into the Environmental Conservation Act of 1989 (since superseded by NEMA). Requirements for EIA were introduced on a sectoral basis in the Minerals Act of 1991 (Sections 38, and 39(5). These requirements were generalized by The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of September 5, 1997, which mandated a process including screening, scoping, public participation, environmental reports, review and decision.

AMAFA: is the KwaZulu-Natal provincial agency established under the Kwazulu-Natal Heritage Act, 1997 (Act No. 10 of 1997) to provide for the establishment of a statutory body to administer heritage conservation on behalf of the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal, in particular the care for, maintenance, repair and management of historically important sites; architecturally important buildings; public monuments and memorials; military cemeteries and other important graves; traditional burial places; archaeological and paleontological sites and artifacts; rock art; meteorites; historical shipwrecks, important cultural objects and trade therein, and the traditional building techniques of the people of the Province, by way of providing protections relevant to the type of site or artifact, and its relative significance; integration of protective measures into planning, development and local government systems and by providing for the establishment of educational, training, interpretive and tourism-related projects. AMAFA is a modest and small agency which is responsible for dealing with “chance finds” procedure that will be enforced under the EIA policy. Although marginal, AMAFA role must be kept in mind.

17. Following an extensive process of expert review and public consultation and discussion, substantially revised EIA regulations were issued in 2006. The new regulations resulted in a more coherent process with respect to application of EIA including: (i) EIA Scoping, (ii) Decision-Making Procedures, (iii) Roles, (iv) Responsibilities and Compliance, (v) Public Participation; and, and (vi) Appeal Process.

18. Although some EIA Applications are processed by the DEAT, the majority of applications are actually handled at the provincial level by agreement with DEAT. In the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, EIA applications are processed by DEAT as it is a World Heritage

11

11

Site, reporting to the National Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The iSimangaliso Authority has developed a procedure for site-specific EIAs that is designed to be fully consistent with the requirements of the NEMA and the EIA Guidelines.

19. South Africa has no legislation requiring Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); however, a set of generic guidelines have been issued by DEAT most recently in 2004, and have been applied with a focus that differs from conventional international SEA theory and practice. Rather than assessing the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programs (PPPs), SEA, particularly as applied to Protected Areas in South Africa, has focused on the opportunities and constraints that the environment places on PPPs rather than the impact of PPPs on the environment, including the proactive evaluation of the capacity of the environment to sustain various types of development.

20. A lack of capacity on the part of South Africa’s public sector to deal with the implementation of new legislation (such as EIA Regulations) has been “widely acknowledged.” In contrast, there appears to be significant EIA capacity in the consultancy sector where some international best practices in EIA have been demonstrated. The major consequence of this “consultancy driven” approach to EIA is a lack of integration of EIA into the decision-making process, and a lack of correspondence between the quality of EIA inputs and outputs. (

21. Quality of Outputs:

A. SEA:

22. In 2000 the Authority took a threshold decision to undertake an SEA for the Park. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the SEA was prepared by the Authority with input from DEAT and was based on the 2000 CSIR/DEAT Guidelines for SEA, Integrated Management Plan and EIA. Consistent with the critical distinction made in the 2000 CSIR/DEAT SEA Guidelines with respect to the application of SEA in South Africa, the stated purpose of the SEA is “to better understand the strategic environmental framework within which development planning in the Park has been done and has to be implemented so that the necessary action can be taken at a strategic level, to effectively deal with the main environmental aspects that affect the sustainability of development that is undertaken.”

23. One output of the SEA process was to prioritize the natural and human resources of the Park with a focus on water, terrestrial ecosystems and the communities living in and around the Park. A second output of the SEA process has been the identification of opportunities and constraints which the biophysical and socio-economic environment place on a plan for program. Another output of the SEA was that any developments and individual projects considered for implementation in the Park should be subjected to environmental screening and assessment process.

24. An external review of the SEA concluded that the SEA responded well to the expectations contained in the South African SEA framework and is a good example of how an SEA can contribute towards the promotion of sustainable development in a practical situation. Among the observations made the report found that cumulative were impacts were correctly identified as the key to strategic level decision making that the SEA provides a very useful

12

12

framework for screening and it should be possible for park management to be able to evaluate new proposals using this framework. One criticism of the SEA was there was no broad formal public consultation, rather a representative workshop with key stakeholders. The SEA has since been broadly disseminated as a component of the IMP consultation.

B. Integrated Management Plan :

25. Under Chapter IV of the World Heritage Convention Act of 1999 (WHCA), every Authority established to manage World Heritage sites in South Africa must prepare and implement an integrated development management plan and to conduct its activities in accordance with such a plan. The IMP for the Park sets out the framework for development in the Park, and the corresponding responsibilities of Park Management. The IMP is intended to cover a period of at least five years but may be reviewed and amended as necessary.

25. The draft IMP was prepared in accordance with the WHCA of 1999, as informed by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act of 2003, and aligned with other legislation, notably the relevant provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998 and the Public Finance Management Act. The draft IMP is “a five-year strategic management plan that strives to integrate conservation, tourism development and the local economic development of historically disadvantaged communities in and adjacent to the Wetland Park.

26. The draft IMP is also the basis of several key planning exercises related to the Zonation plan including: (i) activities plan, (ii) nodal plan, (iii) carrying capacity tables, (iv) limits of acceptable change, (iv) the division of the park into development/management blocks, and (v) zone of influence (buffer zone), and (vi) development phasing and setting of priorities

27. The draft IMP has been subject to twenty-four consultation workshops with land claimants and traditional councils and other official and non-official stakeholders. This has been followed by advertised open public meetings as well as placement on the website for the 8 week public consultation process. However also in contrast to the SEA a weakness of the draft IMP is the lack of direct reference to the cumulative impacts. . Importantly, methods relating to the assessment of cumulative impact assessment, such as an assessment of carrying capacity and levels of acceptable change have been deployed in the Draft IMP.1 Furthermore, the reporting requirements of commercial developments also allow for the development of a baseline against which cumulative impacts can be measured over time. The Authority has undertaken the following measures in order to fully implement the IMP including developing iSimangaliso Park Rules related to (i) Tourism Codes of Conduct and Accreditation; and (ii) Site Development Guidelines and Specifications.

C. EIA

28. There is a strong record of project- and spatial specific EIAs in the Park and surrounding area, pre-dating the elevation of the Park to World Heritage status, and reflecting in part the presence of four designated RAMSAR sites since 1989. Since that time the EIA process has applied to a broad diversity of activities in and surrounding the Park, including: land use and other spatial development initiatives, forestry, tourism, and conservation. One such EIA type

1 SEA, pp. 50-52

13

13

process resulted in the ROD for Beach Driving and Boat Launching in the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park completed in 2002. It was commissioned by the iSimangaliso Authority as part of its application to DEAT for authorization for regulated beach driving and boat launching pursuant to the Control of Vehicles in the Coast Zone Regulations issued in 2001.

29. An independent evaluation of the EA was conducted in November 2002. The evaluation’s conclusion was that the overall quality of the EA was “very favourable.” The EA was found to be in full compliance with all of the steps mapped out in the ToR as approved by DEAT. In particular, the section on the description of the environment was found be “comprehensive and more than adequate for the [intended purpose.].” r, The report was criticized for lacking rigorous definitions of impact significance relying on a simplistic matrix of high, medium an low likelihood of occurrence and consequence that was considered inadequate for a site as a complex as a World Heritage Site. However, the mitigation measures proposed were considered to have been well thought through, and easily integrated into an environmental management system to monitor and mitigate impacts. The reviewers final impression stated that the report that had ‘dealt admirably with the complex issues and difficult circumstances pertaining to the context of this particular assignment’. Most significantly the evaluation concluded that the process of public consultation, though not yet complete at the time of the evaluation, was “excellent”.

30. Assessment of Outcomes. The method used for assessing the acceptability of outcomes with respect to the protection of natural habitats and physical cultural resources involved a three-fold analysis of threats, responses and continuing challenges

31. Threats to Natural Habitats, Functions and Physical Cultural Resources: the following threats to the conservation of natural habitats, functions and physical cultural resources of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park have been identified in the documentation of the World Heritage Convention, the SEA, Draft IMP, IMDP and various EIAs conducted for activities within the Park:

The plantation of alien invasive species that reduced of water for indigenous plant and animal species and caused the soil to become more alkaline, which further promoted encroachment in sensitive ecosystems;

The area’s fragmented status;

The presence of more than 500 people living within the borders of the Park;

Slow resolution of land claims;,

Socio-economic pressures;

Viable mineral deposits on iSimangaliso Wetland Park’s eastern shores;

Incompatible land-uses (such as commercial afforestation) in certain core areas; and.

Uncontrolled harvesting of Ncema, a rush, used in the construction of huts

32. Responses of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority to Threats to Natural Habitats,

14

14

Functions and Physical Cultural Resources:

With respect to its objectives of promoting socio-economic development while protecting the natural habitat and ecosystems functions of the Park, the Authority has achieved the following milestones, many of which were cited by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in its 2004 annual meeting:

a. Establishment of Administrative and juridical structures and requisite infrastructure for reinforcing the conservation and the protection of the Park;

b. Implementation of major ecological programs;

c. Tourism evaluation;

d. Inclusion of land claimants and local communities as partners in the Park's development;

e. Implementation of the 1996 Cabinet decision prohibiting mining in the Park;

f. Eradication of plantations from the Eastern Shores and Western Shores of iSimangaliso Wetland Park;

g. Conservation strategy for the black rhino; and

h. Terms of Reference and a consultant study initiated to rationalize/formalize solid waste disposal for the Park.

Continuing Challenges: in spite of these achievements, the protection of natural habitats and physical cultural resources within the context of sustainable development of the iSimangaliso continues to face significant challenges, including:

i. Prolonged drought conditions, causing the closure the St. Lucia estuary mouth;

j. Catchment Degradation from far beyond the boundaries of the Park;

k. Reintroduction of endemic game, such as elephant, after more than 80 years of absence, and resulting challenges from the standpoint of human- animal interactions as well as impacts on the ecosystem;

l. Rehabilitation of clear felled pine/eucalyptus areas to grassland, the prevention of woody plant encroachment and the eradication of invasive alien species and the restoration of landforms scarred by commercial forestry tracks and ploughed firebreaks;

m. Sufficient monitoring of permit conditions; and

15

15

n. The legal protection and development controls of sections of conservation land in Mozambique to be incorporated with iSimangaliso as part of a trans-frontier park.

34. Proposed Gap-Filling Measures Necessary to Attain and Sustain Equivalence and Acceptability for Use of the South African Environmental Systems:

Equivalence: complete equivalence between the South African legal framework for Environmental Assessment (EA), Natural Habitats (NH) Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) and the Objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1 subject the following clarifications in the Terms of Reference for EAs, EMPs and other environmental and natural resource assessment, decision and planning documents prepared for the Project: .

i. With respect to EA:

1. Ensure that the assessment of feasible alternatives that are part of the Project is required to compare relative feasibility under local conditions, including comparative capital and recurrent costs, and institutional, training and monitoring requirements and to justify alternatives considered on the basis of all of the feasibility criteria cited in OP 4.00 Table A1;.

2. Ensure that cost estimates in connection with proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the EMP or otherwise undertaken prior to issuance of RODs.

ii. With respect to NH:

1. A compensation offset provision for conversion of non-critical local indigenous habitat should be considered;

2. The language requirements for public disclosure and consultation of local communities and the public in activities involving projects affecting natural habitats in or adjacent to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park should be specified.

iii. With respect to PCR:

1. The roles and responsibilities of local communities in the process of identifying, assessing and protecting PCR should be clarified.; and

2. The current iSimangaliso framework for the conservation and management of “chance finds” discovered during project implementation should be specified, which includes inter-alia measures such as the immediate cessation of work, notification to

16

16

Amafa which then issues a permit and examination of the cultural resource by a licensed heritage specialist.

Acceptability: based on the assessment of the institutional capacity, processes and procedures, a critical review of outputs and outcomes from South Africa’s system for conducting Environmental Assessment and protecting natural habitats and physical cultural resources, the following gap-filling measures are recommended to attain and sustain acceptability for use of country systems under World Bank Operational Policy 4.00:

i. Before appraisal, completion of the public consultation process for the SEA should be conducted , as part of the IMP process

ii. Before appraisal completion of the exhibition draft of the IMP, including the findings of the SEA and outcomes of the public consultation,

iii. Implementation of the Interim Planning Measures defined in the World Heritage Convention Act Regulations until the IMP is formally adopted by the Minister of DEAT,

iv. After adoption of the IMP, implementation of the Objective and Priority Actions for Intervention;

v. Strengthen the capacity of the iSimangaliso Authority and partner organizations including local governments to implement their respective mandates with respect to EIA, NH and PCR including management and monitoring of environmental impacts and the identification, assessment and protection of physical cultural resources in the Park.

vi. On the basis of the SEA and the IMP, develop and adopt the : (i) Environmental Management System, (ii) Wetland Park Rules including (a) Tourism Codes of Conduct and Accreditation and (b) Site Development Guidelines and Specifications.

j. When conducting any environmental impact assessment required under the Environmental Legislation for activities proposed for inclusion under the Project, the Recipient shall ensure that: (a) the Member Country’s guidelines for environmental impact assessment are used including a checklist for EIA practitioners, so that the impacts of these activities on the wetlands are properly analyzed; (b) alternatives to the proposed activities are considered in such a manner as to enable the Recipient to compare the feasibility of each alternative under local conditions, (c) an environmental management plan is prepared for the activities, as appropriate, including a detailed budget and institutional and human resources to be provided for such activities; and (d) procedures for chance finds of cultural property are clearly outlined in the Record of Decision and the EMP.

17

17

k. The Recipient shall, ensure that Non Listed Activities that will be undertaken within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, shall be subject to the iSimangaliso Environmental Procedures.

BACKGROUND

1. Under Operational Policy/Bank Procedure 4.00 (OP/BP 4.00), Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects” issued in March 2005, the Bank has the authority to support pilot projects in which lending operations are prepared using the borrowing country’s systems for environmental and social safeguards, rather than the Bank’s corresponding operational policies and procedures.2 The advantages of using country systems (UCS) are to scale up development impact, increase country ownership, build institutional capacity, facilitate harmonization and increase cost effectiveness. These objectives were broadly endorsed at the Paris High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005 with respect to financial management and procurement, as well as environmental and social safeguards and strongly reiterated in the Accra Agenda for Action in September 2008.3 During the past three years, the World Bank has approved seven of pilot projects under

2 OP/BP 4.00 can be viewed at this website:http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/tocall/E49CED1645FB433885256FCD00776B19?OpenDocument and is reproduced in Annex 1 of this report 3 In the Paris Declaration, “developing countries committed to strengthen their systems – including but not limited to, systems for public financial management, procurement, audit, monitoring and evaluation, and social and environmental assessment - and donors committed to use those systems to the maximum extent possible.” (cited in the Accra Agenda for Action. The Accra Agenda states that “ Progress in improving the quality of country systems varies considerably among countries; and even when there are good-quality country systems, donors often do not use them. Yet it is recognised that using country systems promotes their development. To strengthen and increase the use of country systems, we will take the following actions:

“a) Donors agree to use country systems as the first option for aid programmes in support of activities managed by the public sector.“b) Should donors choose to use another option and rely on aid delivery mechanisms outside country systems (including parallel project implementation units), they will transparently state the rationale for this and will review their positions at regular intervals. Where use of country systems is not feasible, donors will establish additional safeguards and measures in ways that strengthen rather than undermine country systems and procedures.“c) Developing countries and donors will jointly assess the quality of country systems in a country-led process using mutually agreed diagnostic tools. Where country systems require further strengthening, developing countries will lead in defining reform programmes and priorities. Donors will support these reforms and provide capacity development assistance.“d) Donors will immediately start working on and sharing transparent plans for undertaking their Paris commitments on using country systems in all forms of development assistance; provide staff guidance on how these systems can be used; and ensure that internal incentives encourage their use. They will finalise these plans as a matter of urgency.“e) Donors recollect and reaffirm their Paris Declaration commitment to provide 66% of aid as programme-based approaches. In addition, donors will aim to channel 50% or more of government-to-government assistance through country fiduciary systems, including by increasing the percentage of assistance provided through programme based approaches.

18

18

this program.4 On January 31, 2008 the Executive Directors of the World Bank approved a three-year extension of the pilot program accompanied by an incremental scaling up of the pilots from the project to the country-level, including support of activities at the sub-national level.5

2. OP/BP 4.00 describes the approach, enumerates the criteria for using country systems, and specifies documentation and disclosure requirements and respective roles of the client country and the Bank. This approach and the criteria for assessment were developed with inputs from external stakeholders such as representatives of governments, bilateral and multilateral development institutions, civil society organizations, and the private sector. According to OP 4.00, prior to Appraisal for any project proposed to be piloted under one or more of a borrower’s safeguard systems, the Bank is required to conduct an Equivalence Analysis, an Acceptability Assessment and reach any agreements necessary with the borrower for Gap-Filling measures as may be necessary to ensure that the Objectives and Operational Principles of the Bank’s applicable safeguard policies6 will be met.

3. The Bank considers a borrower’s environmental and social safeguard system to be equivalent to the Bank’s if the borrower’s system is designed to achieve the objectives and adhere to the applicable operational principles set out in Table A1 of OP 4.00. Since equivalence is determined on a policy-by-policy basis in accordance with Table A1, the Bank may conclude that the borrower’s system is equivalent to the Bank’s in specific environmental or social safeguard areas in particular pilot projects, and not in other areas. Before deciding on the use of borrower systems, the Bank also assesses the acceptability of the borrower’s institutional capacity, implementation practices, and past performance in similar projects. Gap-filling measures must be implemented prior to project approval or, if carried out by necessity during project implementation, are subject to a time-bound legal agreement between the Bank and the borrower. The process and product of analyzing equivalence, assessing eligibility and identifying and agreeing on gap-filling measures is called a Safeguards Diagnostic Review (SDR).

4. This Draft SDR describes the scope, methodology, and findings of the equivalence analysis and acceptability assessment carried out in South Africa by staff from the World Bank. It also identifies and proposes gap-filling measures designed to ensure that applicable South African safeguard systems meet the equivalence and acceptability criteria of OP 4.00 throughout the project cycle and are adapted to extend their benefits beyond the scope of the project to the extent possible.

5. The Draft SDR was conducted in collaboration with the recipient of the GEF grant, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the Authority) and officials from the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). This draft will be the subject of a

The Accra Agenda can be viewed at: http://www.accrahlf.net/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/ACCRAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21690826~menuPK:64861649~pagePK:64861884~piPK:64860737~theSitePK:4700791,00.html4 The seven pilot projects approved by the Board and in implementation are located in Ghana, Egypt, Tunisia, Romania (two projects), Jamaica, and Bhutan. Other pilot projects initiated during the first phase of pilot program and currently under preparation are located in India and South Africa. 5 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/01/09/000310607_20080109101841/Rendered/PDF/421050R200810005.pdf6 The Objectives and Operational Principles of the Bank’s eight environmental and social safeguard policies are set forth in Table A1 of OP 4.00.

19

19

stakeholder consultation workshop to be held in St. Lucia, South Africa on November 13, 2008 and the results of the workshop will be reflected in the final draft of the SDR to be issued prior to project Appraisal, currently scheduled for February 2009.

20

20

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

6. Component 1: Hydrology and Ecosystem functioning of the Lake St Lucia System for biodiversity conservation. (Total US$ 10.8 million, of which GEF is US$ 2.8 million)

a. Support for the key studies and initial investment follow-up actions needed to restore the St. Lucia wetlands to a state of improved ecological functioning through technical assistance, works, goods, training and operational costs to implement:

b. Subcomponent 1.1: Analysis of Alternatives (Total US$1.4million, 100% GEF funded): Analysis of alternatives including a comprehensive feasibility study that will include an environmental and social impact assessment and analyze sediment load, hydrology, ecological systems, socio-economics and resource economics to select the best ecologically feasible solution taking into consideration the social, financial and economic considerations. Such study to include analysis of the wetland’s ecosystem services value such as fisheries, carbon sequestration and water regulation, among others that might facilitate leveraging additional funds to implement the selected solution.

c. Subcomponent 1.2: Implementation of Selected Solutions (Total US$1.4million, 100% GEF funded): support to follow up actions and investments to implement the selected alternative referred in Part A.1 above through consultant’ services, goods and works.

d. Subcomponent 1.3: Support for Park Operations, including Conservation Management (Total US$8 million, 100% Government funded): Support for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park operations related to this Part A.1 and A.2 above through, goods, works, services and operational costs to manage the iSimangaliso Wetland Park’s physical assets, including compliance and enforcement, environmental management, rehabilitation, infrastructure development and maintenance, and community based natural resource management.

e. The expected outcomes of interventions implemented under this component are (i) knowledge of ecosystem functioning is improved and a long-term solution is agreed for the hydrological problems of the Lake Stl Lucia system; (ii) stakeholder concerns and involvement are reflected in the Feasibility study and EIA process; and (iii) a management-oriented monitoring system is designed and implemented.

f. The key outputs will be: (i) a Feasibility Study completed that details the preferred option; (ii) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) completed of the preferred option; and (iii) follow- up actions implemented.

21

21

7. Component 2: Promoting conservation-compatible local economic and cultural development. (Total US$ 7.1 million, of which GEF US$ 4.7 million)

a. Improvement of employment and livelihood opportunities consistent with conservation of the Park's rich biodiversity and other important natural values, including diversification and scaling up of environmentally sustainable economic activities, through Sub-grants, training workshops and technical assistance . This Part shall include:

b. Subcomponent 2.1: Implementation of a Conservation-Compatible Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise Program (Total US$ 2.7 million, 100% GEF funded): Implementation of a Conservation-compatible Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise Program to promote the participation by local residents in eco-tourism and other conservation-compatible local enterprises through the provision of support and capacity building in (i) identification of viable enterprises; (ii) business management; (iii) financial management; (iv) production and quality control; and (v) marketing and other relevant skills.

c. Subcomponent 2.2: Development of an Education and Academic Support Program (Total 1.4 million, 100% GEF funded): Development of an Education and Academic Support Program as part of the overall training program of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority, targeted at local youth on conservation, eco-tourism and natural resources-related curricula, which will enable local youth to access formal tertiary education and employment in eco-tourism enterprises and conservation organizations.

d. Subcomponent 2.3: Establishment of a Capacity Building Program for nearby communities (Total US$ 0.6 million, 100% GEF funded): Establishment of a Capacity Building Program for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park neighboring communities to build the skills and capacity of neighboring communities including land restitution beneficiaries to participate in the Wetland Park’s co-management processes. Through training; mentoring, and study tours.

e. Subcomponent 2.4: SEED Program (Total US$ 2.4 million, 100% Government funded): Support for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park SEED Program that complement Parts B1, B.2 and B.3 above through services, training, capacity building and operational costs for local economic development and sustainable natural resource use including but not limited to: (1) community consultation, (2) craft development, (3) infrastructure and land care programmes (4) iSimangaliso Art Programme, which works with artists from the region to improve their technical skills and find markets for their work, and (5) environmental education awareness programme.

f. The expected outcomes of interventions implemented under this component are: (i) Improved access to knowledge in conservation and tourism for local youth, in nearby communities and land restitution beneficiaries; (ii) improved access to business development services for conservation-compatible SMMEs; and (iii)

22

22

improved capacity of local/community leaders in effective implementation of co-management agreements.

g. The key outputs will be: (i) SMME Program developed; (ii) Youth Educational Program operational; and (iii) Capacity building program for beneficiary communities implemented.

8. Component 3: Institutional capacity building for biodiversity conservation (Total US$ 3.8 million, of which GEF is US$1.5 million) through technical assistance, goods, works, workshops, training, study tours and operational costs to support the following components:

a. Subcomponent 3.1: Management and Technical Capacity Building (Total US$1.5 million, 100% GEF funded): Management and Technical Capacity building including:

b. Enhancement of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority’s capacity to manage the Project, including technical training and mentoring, recruitment of staff and the procurement of service providers

c. Support for the development of an information base including: mapping and survey data collection; databases and Geographical Information System.

d. Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system to: (i) monitor Project performance and outcomes, and (ii) adapt Project activities to enhance results and

e. Exchange visits with relevant programs and participation in international seminars and conferences related to World Heritage management and conservation, land restitution sustainable livelihoods, resource utilization and poverty issues, payment for environmental services, wetland management and territorial approach.; and

f. Implementation of a Project communication strategy and website development for the iSimangaliso Authority

g. Subcomponent 3.2: Support for Core Operations of Wetland Authority (Total US$2.3 million, 100% Government funded): Implementation of the Project including strategic oversight, consultation and facilitation activities, financial management and procurement, and monitoring and evaluation through operational costs.

h. 38. The expected outcome of interventions implemented under this component is: Improved capacity of the iSimangaliso Authority and other relevant stakeholders for biodiversity conservation.

i. 39. The key outputs will be: (i) Training and mentoring activities implemented; (ii) GIS and databases functioning; (iii) M&E system implemented; and (iv) Website improved.

23

23

BASIS FOR SELECTING THE PROJECT FOR PILOTING

9. South Africa was selected as a pilot country because it has an established legal and regulatory system and a favorable reputation for effective implementation of its systems governing Environmental Assessment, protection of natural habitats, protected areas and physical cultural resources.7 The proposed project is designed to build on these strengths while at the same time, due to the ecological, cultural, economic and social significance, scale and sensitivity of the Park will challenge the Government and other stakeholders to continue improving the country’s regulatory system and implementation capacity, while at the same time, addressing the urgent needs of its previously marginalized populations to transcend poverty and improve their standards of living.

10. The iSimangaliso Wetland Park on South Africa’s northeast coast, formerly known as the St. Lucia Greater Wetland Park (GSLWP), is a natural and cultural asset of local, regional and global significance. It is therefore an ideal subject for an SDR of South Africa’s safeguards related to the World Bank safeguard policies relating to Environmental Assessment, Natural Habitats and Physical Cultural Resources. Its biodiversity and cultural resources have been recognized globally: it was inscribed on the World Heritage List in December 1999,8 contains four of the fifteen sites in South Africa registered under the Ramsar Convention9 and forms the largest and best-protected area in the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Biodiversity Hotspot. 10 At

7 Letter from World Bank Country Director to the Director General of DEAT, August 29, 2005 proposed South Africa “as a likely candidate for piloting under the Bank’s pilot program on “Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects,” due to the fact that in South Africa “environmental regulations and agencies are already well developed and functioning,” and that the conservation and sustainable development sector is “attractive for the South African pilot both because the proposed project….is just now at the concept stage and because DEAT has already established capacity to conduct safeguard work. DEAT responded in the affirmative in a letter dated November 8, 2005.8 South Africa ratified the World Heritage Convention in May 1997 and enacted the World Heritage Convention Act in 1999. Since then eight World Heritage sites in South Africa have been proclaimed by UNESCO in addition to iSimangaliso Wetland Park. These include Robeen Island, the Cradle of Humankind; the Ukhahlamba--Drakensberg Park; the Mapungubwe Heritage Site; the Cape Floral Kingdom; the Vredefort Dome; and the Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape.9 Formally known as the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Water Fowl Habitat, 1971The Park contains four RAMSAR sites. The RAMSAR Convention recognizes the ecological functions of wetlands as well as their importance as resources of economic, cultural, scientific and recreational value. The following four sites in St Lucia have been designated as sites for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance: St Lucia Lake system. Turtle Beaches/Coral Reefs of Tongaland. Kosi Bay Lake system. Lake Sibaya.Available information suggests that no other locality on the globe harbors such a wide range of wetland types in a single protected area. Of the 30 distinct natural wetland forms recognized by the Ramsar Bureau, no fewer than 20 of these forms occur within the St Lucia system.10 The Park is located in the Maputaland region and lies at the interface between tropical and subtropical biota. The species pool (gamma diversity) is very rich. This is largely due to its regional position, and the complexity of the transition between tropical and subtropical biota. The richness of this species pool is the result of a number of speciation events in the past, hence, the high numbers of endemics, and a large number of successful dispersal and establishment events from adjacent faunas and floras. Another major determinant of the large species pool, and the

24

24

the same time, the Park is located in KwaZulu-Natal, one of the poorest provinces of the country, and which also forms the core of the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative (LSDI), a trilateral regional program aimed at stimulating development in a severely impoverished zone encompassing northern KwaZulu-Natal, southern Mozambique and eastern Swaziland. The species lists for the Park are the most extensive in the region and population sizes for most of them are viable. Of the 6,295 species that have been recorded in the Park (2,505 plant, 1,258 fish, and 521 bird species) 168 are endemic, 48 are international recognized threatened species and 147 are listed on the CITES list. The Park is clearly a critical habitat for a range of species from Africa’s marine, wetland and savannah environments.11

11. Historical circumstances have resulted in a situation that creates a significant challenge for the continuing conservation of the natural ecosystems of the Park. During the apartheid era conservation efforts in the region generally worked to exacerbate the plight of rural residents rather than contribute to economic growth and poverty alleviation. Under this dispensation, large tracts of rural land were given over to the formation of nature reserves managed by committed state agencies that ensured a high level of environmental preservation within the protected areas. Outside the nature reserves, however, land deprivation and systematic underdevelopment caused severe levels of resource degradation and acute poverty among large sectors of the population. Many tourism facilities developed by the Private Sector outside the Park specifically in the north, have been undercapitalized and have used land in uneconomic ways, resulting in few job and livelihood opportunities for local community members. This co-existence between protected nature reserves on the one hand and degraded human reserves on the other, forms the broad context that has determined the underdevelopment of the Park and surrounding area.

12. Underpinning this situation is the legacy of forced removals. For many people living in the area today conservation is synonymous with land alienation and consequent social dislocation. With the loss of land a bitter living memory for many of these residents, it is not surprising that there are tensions between some local residents and the authorities in general, including the iSimangaliso Authority which they associate with the forced eviction.

13. These tensions between impoverished residents and conservation continue to play themselves out and present a significant challenge to the Park. It is only through the delivery of economic benefits and permitting of sustainable access to natural resources that these tensions will dissipate.12

14. The iSimangaliso Wetland Park is listed as a World Heritage Site on the basis of its natural and cultural values and the World Heritage Convention Act confers an obligation on the Wetland Authority to present, promote and conserve the cultural heritage of the Wetland Park as part of its wide conservation mandate. 13 As a physical cultural resource asset, the history of the region around the Wetland Park and immediately surrounding areas provides an insight to the dynamics that have shaped the current environment, both natural and social. Furthermore, it

complexity of the plant and animal assemblages, has been the high levels of environment heterogeneity existing in the region. This has resulted from highly variable spatial and temporal rainfall patterns, especially steep east/west isohyets gradients, and the steep east/west gradient of the edaphic (soil) environment. This edaphic environment varies over the full range of physical (texture and depth) and chemical (eutrophic to distrophic) limits11 Draft Integrated Management Plan (IMP), p. 4312 Draft IMP, p. 5713 Draft IMP, p. 12.

provides an important explanation and understanding of the basic events that have influenced experiences and current perceptions held by people living in the area.

15. The region represents all of the main Ages of southern African archaeology, including Early, Middle and Late Stone Age, Early and Late Iron Age and the Historical Period (from 1820s). The Stone Age covers the last 2 million years of human prehistory, and tends to be reflected in artifacts such as stone tools, and (worked) organic remains (in the more recent times). These people were foragers and/or hunter-gatherers. These people would have lived, in this area, in open areas amongst the dunes, or where shell middens are now located. Iron age burning and cattle grazing can be linked to the unique coastal grasslands and vegetation in the Park

16. The Wetland Park is the largest protected area of recorded and potential Stone Age and Iron Age sites. These sites provide significant evidence of the presence of the ancestors of modern Nguni language-speaking South Africans and provide important insights into how African people adapted socially and culturally over time in southeast Africa.

17. Three sites of an early Stone Age culture (between 500,000 and a million years BC) have been found in the Wetland Park. There is also evidence of Middle and Late Stone Age occupation postdating the last interglacial period (about 110,000 years ago).

18. The Wetland Park is also rich in artifacts and other remains of Early Iron Age (250 – 1000 AD) and Late Iron Age (1000 - 1840 AD) settlements. These settlements exploited the bog iron ore deposits that occur in the vicinity of Lake St Lucia and other wetlands.

19. Today’s communities living in and around the Park have a long historical relationship with the land and natural environment. The Park contains significant evidence of the presence of the ancestors of modern Nguni-language speaking South Africans and provide important insights into how African people adapted socially and culturally over time in south east Africa. Archaeological evidence points strongly to the interaction between pre-historic humans or people and the natural environment.

20. This theme is also evident in the historical and current lives of the people of the area. Cultural traditions, land use management practices and indigenous knowledge systems have, and continue to shape the current environment. It has been argued that historically indigenous knowledge and land use management systems were based on principles of environmental sustainability. These natural resource use systems evolved under particular political, social and economic contexts. In many instances the natural resource use continues to be sustainable, and some of the traditional resource management practices are valuable and could be incorporated into the management of the Park.

21. The “historical” period begins with the arrival of European sailors along the Maputaland Coast followed by the arrival of British colonists in Durban Bay (c. AD 1820). This period also includes events that happened this century and covers all built structures greater than 60 years in age.14

14 In the late 14th and in the 15th centuries, Portuguese navigators exploring the African coastline discovered the St Lucia Estuary mouth. The British Royal Navy in the 1800s surveyed the coastline and subsequent to the 1820s,

22. Recent sites of historical interest include15:

Sites which commemorate land claimants loss of land and subsequent restitution;

Remnants from the two World Wars including Catalina Bay on Lake St Lucia, which was used by the Royal Air Force as a flying boat base.

Anti-apartheid activist and scholar, David Webster’s research camp at KwaDapha; and.

The establishment of an active military site in a conservation area at the Ndlozi Peninsula.

23. The long term sustainability of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, as a natural and economic asset capable of driving local development, is under threat. Within a regional context of severe underdevelopment and rural poverty, risks include disrupted ecological terrestrial and wetlands processes, increasingly unsustainable land use practices, large-scale commercial afforestation in endemic grasslands and water catchments on the Park’s fringes, the presence of commercially viable mineral deposits in the coastal dune cordon, and the spread of invasive alien plants that are threatening the highly productive communities growing in moist environments particularly on the alluvial floodplains along the coast line and in the valleys of the Lubombo Mountains. The proposed project seeks to improve the conservation of the globally important biodiversity present within the Park while complementing the actions of conservation agencies and local government authorities in moving towards sustainable development and poverty alleviation for vulnerable rural households living with degraded natural resources. As such, the project is fully consistent with the World Bank’s Environment Strategy and regional development priorities in South Africa, as well as the priorities of the Bank’s South Africa Country Program.

explorers, hunters and missionaries came to Zululand. The Zululand coastline, including St Lucia Estuary, was annexed by Great Britain on 18 December 1884, when HMS Goshawk was sent up from Cape Town. The British flag was raised on Sugar Loaf Hill and the following year the St Lucia township, consisting of three hundred and four one-acre plots, was proclaimed. St Lucia township became popular as a fishing resort, and the first hotel was established in the late 1920s.The Tsonga people in the Kosi Bay area asked for British protection and in 1895 their land was proclaimed a British Protectorate and the region became known as Thongaland. In 1897, when Zululand was handed over to the Natal settler government, Thongaland was included with it (the name Thongaland was subsequently changed to Maputaland). During the rule of the white settlers, the boundaries of scheduled “reserves” were determined and in 1904 the indigenous African people inhabiting this area effectively became “squatters” on Crown Land. At the same time, the Natal colonial government exploited the wildlife of the area for the export of ivory and hides. In addition, much of the game was decimated due to culling as a result of various Tsetse Fly control measures15 Draft IMP, p. 47

METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOLLOWED IN DETERMINING EQUIVALENCE AND ACCEPTABILITY

24. The Equivalence Analysis and Acceptability Assessment were carried out by a multidisciplinary team from the World Bank in collaboration with relevant officials and technical staff members from the iSimangaliso Wetland Authority (the Authority), and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). The methodology included desk review of legislation currently in force and supporting regulations and mandatory guidelines, discussion with officials, and several site visits to the Park by members of the Bank’s project team including an environmental lawyer, an environmental specialist, a natural habitats specialist and a social specialist.

25. The Equivalence Analysis included a complete inventory of South African laws and regulations relating to three of the four Bank safeguard policies triggered by the project, as identified below, in the Equivalence Section of this report. These laws and regulations are supported by Constitutional provisions, policies, and international agreements ratified by the Government of South Africa, all of which are included as relevant to the legal framework for the Equivalence Analysis. An extensive literature review was also conducted tracing the development and evolution of South African environmental law in both historical and comparative contexts.16 The analysis draws careful distinctions between laws and regulations that are mandatory, as valid comparators to the Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1 and other documents having aspirational or guidance value, which may inform the analysis and provide a basis for comparison with the Objectives of OP 4.00, but cannot be considered conclusive evidence of equivalence with the mandatory provisions of Bank safeguards. Based on this analysis each relevant provision of a borrower’s system is characterized as having full, partial or no equivalence to the corresponding Objective or Operational Principle of OP 4.00 Table A1.

26. The Acceptability Assessment applied the four-component methodology that has evolved through the SDR process during the implementation of the UCS pilot program. These components include: institutional capacity; processes and procedures; outputs and outcomes. To assess relevant institutional capacity the assessment drew on primary sources including annual reports prepared by DEAT and the Authority providing detailed indications of South Africa’s institutional capacity to conduct environmental assessment and to conserve protected areas and other sensitive ecosystems, including the Park. To assess the effectiveness of implementing procedures, the Assessment referenced official procedural and guidance documents describing the appropriate conduct of the environmental assessment and management process in South Africa, with particular attention to conserving and managing biodiversity, ecosystems, cultural resources and protected areas. With respect to outputs, the assessment critically reviewed environmental assessments conducted for previous and ongoing projects in the Park under the auspices of the Authority and DEAT, including the draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) issued in 2003 as well as the draft Integrated Management Plan (IMP) most recently updated in May 2007 as well as environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental management plans (EMPs) related to specific interventions in the park infrastructure undertaken since 2000. This review of EA and environmental management capacity and performance was 16 This literature is summarized in Section VI.C of this report and cited in the References at the end of this Report.

supplemented by a review of the extensive secondary literature on the practice of EA and SEA in South Africa to date as well as independent critical studies of South Africa’s experience in integrating biodiversity considerations into its EA process.17 With respect to outcomes, the analysis reviewed annual reports prepared by the Authority regarding critical conservation objectives that have been undertaken since the Authority was constituted in 2000,18 and the members of the project team undertook visits to several of the project sites.19

27. This methodology was further informed by a stakeholder consultation workshop on the findings of this report held in St. Lucia on November 13, 2008. Annex 5 provides the lists of people and agencies met, projects visited, and documents reviewed, respectively, for both the equivalence and acceptability work.

SUMMARY OF EQUIVALENCE ANALYSIS

28. The first step in the Equivalence Analysis is to identify the World Bank environmental and social safeguard policies triggered by the project. This exercise is normally undertaken by the World Bank project team at the project concept stage and is revised if necessary as project preparation evolves toward Appraisal. The documentation of triggered safeguards along with the justification is recorded in the Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) for the project. According to the ISDS prepared for project Appraisal the four environmental and social safeguards triggered by the project include: (A) Environmental Assessment (EA); (B) Natural Habitats (NH); (C) Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) and (D) Involuntary Resettlement (IR).20

The paragraphs below discuss the conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis.

29. Annex 2 of this Report includes a narrative summary of South Africa’s Constitutional provisions, laws and regulations that correspond to three of these four safeguard policies. (For reasons explained below (see Para. 40, below, it was decided to not include IR within the scope of the SDR Annex 3 contains in matrix format a detailed comparison between the relevant provisions of the South African legal system and the corresponding Objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)

30. With respect to EA, the South African system appears to be fully equivalent to the objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1. However a few ambiguities remain to be addressed in order to make a determination of full equivalence:

It is not clear the assessment of alternatives is required to actually assess their relative feasibility under local conditions, including comparative capital and recurrent costs, and institutional, training and monitoring requirements. As

17 See in particular, “The Integration of Biodiversity into National Environmental Assessment Procedures,” Biodiversity Support Programme (UNDP/UNEP/GEF), September 2001; and L.A. Sandham, M.J. Moloto and FP Retief, “The quality of environmental impact reports for projects with the potential of affecting wetlands in South Africa,” February 2008, http:///www.wrc.org.za. 18 Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park Authority, Annual Reports 2006 and, 2007; iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Annual Report, 2008.19 World Bank Missions December, 2005; November 2007; April 2008; June 2008 and November 2008. 20 ISDS, Appraisal Stage, Integrated Development of iSimangaliso Wetland Park.

stated it appears that the proponent has the option to include only those alternatives deemed “feasible and reasonable” and compare the advantages and disadvantages of such alternatives for the environment and the community. But it does not require the Environmental Assessment Report to justify alternatives considered on the basis of all of the feasibility criteria cited in OP 4.00 Table A1.

The preparation of EMPs is required “by all departments in charge of any portion of the environment.” However, the function of the EMP on the project-specific level is not made sufficiently explicit, and whether the ROD fulfills the requirement for undertaking cost estimates in connection with proposed mitigation measures or EMP. . Accordingly to section 35 of the EIA regulation 385, April 2006, a draft EMP is developed with the EIAR. Once an ROD is issued, and presuming it permits the development to go ahead, the EMP is updated to incorporate any new conditions from the ROD. For the project to proceed it is a given that all the conditions of the ROD mitigation measures will be implemented regardless of the cost]

B. NATURAL HABITATS (NH)

31. With respect to NH, the South African system appears to be fully equivalent to the objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1. However a few ambiguities remain to be addressed in order to make a determination of full equivalence:

South African legislation appears to lack a conservation offset provision for non-critical habitat is a difference that should be noted.

The otherwise strong prohibition on conversion of critical natural habitat appears weakened by the provision that an area may be excluded by Unilateral Notice issued the Minister of Environment or a provincial government, unless this is within a proclaimed Protected Area.

There is no apparent reference to language requirements for public disclosure and consultation in legislation pertaining to the natural habitats.

C. PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (PCR)

32. With respect to PCR, the South African system appears to be fully equivalent to the objectives and Operational Principles of OP 4.00 Table A1. However a few ambiguities remain to be addressed in order to make a determination of full equivalence:

The extent of participation and obligations of communities [etc.] in the process of cultural heritage assessment and conservation remains to be clarified.

It is not clear from the summary how the legislative framework deals with “chance finds” of cultural heritage resources. However, dealing with chance

finds is applied through the iSimangaliso Wetland Park standard EMP and includes such measures as the immediate cessation of work, and examination of the cultural resource by a licensed heritage specialist.

GENERAL CONCLUSION ON THE EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS

33. This Equivalency Analysis finds that South Africa’s systems for three of the four of the safeguards applicable to the project demonstrate sufficient equivalence – with modest gap filling measures - to be discussed in Section VII of this Report– so as to justify proceeding to an Acceptability Assessment to determine if and on what basis the Bank can use South Africa’s systems in lieu of Bank safeguards to address the environmental and social safeguard issues raised by the proposed project.

34. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the precise circumstances under which the IR safeguard could be triggered by the project, it has been agreed that the Bank will address potential IR issues that may arise in the project through the conventional Bank Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement, OP/BP 4.12. Accordingly, a Resettlement Policy and Process Framework will be prepared per OP 4.12 for this purpose and the Acceptability Assessment will be limited the three remaining environmental safeguards triggered by the project: EA, NH and PCR.

ACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT

35. The purpose of the Acceptability Assessment is to confirm that the implementation practices track record and institutional capacity of South African institutions that will be involved in addressing environmental safeguard issues in the proposed Bank-supported IWP meet the requirements of OP 4.00. This report presents acceptability findings only for the three policy areas in which South African systems have been found equivalent to Bank policy: Environmental Assessment, Natural Habitats and Physical Cultural Resources. As noted in the Equivalence Section of this report, due to the uncertainty regarding the precise circumstances under which the IR safeguard could be triggered by the project, it has been agreed that the Bank will address potential IR issues that may arise in the project through the conventional Bank Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement, OP/BP 4.12.

A. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

36. The institutions responsible for implementing the three environmental safeguards applicable to the project, and under consideration for piloting under UCS, include the Department of Environment and Tourism (DEAT), the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the Authority) and Ezemvelo Wildlife KZN (EKZNW), the provincial authority responsible for the operational implementation of biodiversity and natural habitat protection within the Province of KwaZulu Natal. These institutions are assisted by consultants and contractors who carry out both strategic and day-to-day functions including planning, environmental assessment, management and infrastructure development within and adjacent to the Park.

1. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)

37. Established in 1994, DEAT is an independent Department of the South African government responsible for protecting, conserving and improving the environment and natural resources, as well as for promoting and creating growth conditions for tourism to the country. It reports to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism who is a member of the Cabinet and is appointed by the President from among members of the National Assembly.21

38. Organization. DEAT is organized into six integrated departmental programs each led by a separate organizational unit, or branch, with the following responsibilities and supported by various public entities and statutory bodies:22

Administration: human resources, finances, logistical support and communications;

21 DEAT’s legal mandate and authority is supported by various legislative instruments including the Constitution of South Africa (1996), the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 as amended (NEMA), the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998; he World Heritage Convention Act of 1999; the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act of 2003 , the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act of 2003; the Air Quality Act of 2005; as well as 28 multilateral and 33 bilateral agreements as well as various other primary legislative instruments affecting environmental matters and related issues. DEAT 2006-2007 Annual Report, p. 1222 DEAT, 2006/07 Annual Review

Environmental Quality and Protection: protecting and improving the quality and safety of the environment;

Marine and Coastal Management: promoting conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine resources;

Tourism: ensuring the creation of conditions for sustainable tourism growth and development;

Biodiversity and Conservation: promoting the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, including protected areas, biodiversity research, plant and animal species protection and trans-boundary conservation; and

Sector Services and International Relations: corporate and cooperative governance, organizational performance management and project implementation and international relations.

39. Public entities and agencies that support DEAT in carrying out these functions include:

South African Tourism and the Tourism Grading Council of South Africa

South African National Biodiversity Institute and South African National Parks

South African Weather Service; and

iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the Authority).

40. With respect to the application of South Africa’s EA, NH and PCR requirements to the Park, the key units in DEAT are the EQP and the BC branches.

41. EQP has the broad mandate of promoting the enhancement of natural resources for sustainable equitable use of to protect and enhance the quality and safety of the environment. Its functions include:

Promotion and conservation of biodiversity as well as cultural and local natural resources and to ensure the sustainable utilization of resources for the benefit for the people of South Africa

Protection of the environment in the interest of the health and well being of the people of South Africa; and

Provision of environmental information in support of effective environmental management and public participation in environmental governance.

42. Within EQP the Chief Directorate of Environmental Impact Management is responsible for all aspects of EIA and is divided into separate Directorates for Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Processing and Environmental Impact Management.

43. BC is headed by a Deputy Director General and has primary regulatory authority over the management of all biodiversity, heritage and conservation matters. Its functions include:

Management of the conservation of Protected Areas and Trans-frontier Conservation Areas;

Promotion and conservation of biological diversity and cultural and natural resources and ensuring the sustainable utilization of resources for the benefit of the people of South Africa; and

Provision of program management support to line managers in managing poverty relief projects.

44. Within BC there are Chief Directorates for Biodiversity and Heritage as well as Trans-frontier Conservation and Protected Areas (TCPA) Within Biodiversity and Heritage are Directors for Biodiversity Conservation, Resource Use, Biosafety/Genetically Modified Organisms; and Regulation and Monitoring Services. Within TCPA there are Directorates for Trans-frontier Conservation and Protected Areas, and Protected Areas and Legislation and Compliance.

45. Human Resources and Capacity. As of March 2007 DEAT reported a total budgeted staff component of 1,907 including 182 in the EQP Branch and 82 in the BC Branch. Approximately 35 percent of the positions in the EQP branch were vacant and 10 percent of the BC Branch positions were unfilled. The vacancy rate was particularly acute in will respect to the two skill areas most closely related to nature conservation (48 %) and natural sciences (40%).23

Approximately 557 individual consultants were employed during the reporting period.24 Between 2005 and 2007 DEAT succeeded in reducing its overall turnover rate from an unacceptably high level 22% to 6.7 % during the 2006-07 reporting period. However, as of 2007 there remained a high turnover rate of 27 % at the senior management level, indicating that retention of the most highly trained personnel remains a challenge, given more competitive terms of employment in the private sector. 25

46. DEAT management and staff have high levels of specialized training in all key areas of environmental assessment and management.

47. DEAT places a high value on training as evidenced by the fact that provincial training on the 2006 EIA regulations was completed by the end of March 2007.

48. During 2005 and 2006 DEAT implemented an Electronic Document Management System, which seeks to automate business processes and reduce paper usage throughout the organization. By 2007 about one half of DEAT staff had transitioned to the new systems.26

49. With respect to Protected Areas in general, DEAT recently demonstrated its capacity for environmental management in developing a Protected Areas Register for completed verification 23 DEAT, Annual Report 2006-2007, p. 86 24 DEAT, Annual Report, 2006-2007, p. 10525 DEAT, Annual Review, 2006-2007, p. 5026 DEAT, Annual Report 2006-2007, p. 17

of Register data and has completed assessment of management plans for 19 national parks as required by the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act of 2003.27

2. iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority (the Authority)

50. The Authority, previously known as the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park Authority was renamed in 2007, in line with the renaming of the Park.28 The Authority was established by the Minister of Environment under the provisions of the World Heritage Convention Act (Act 49 of 1999) when the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park was registered as South Africa’s first World Heritage Site. It became a statutory body in 2002.29

51. The Regulations proclaiming the Wetland Park also established the Wetland Authority to manage the site, exercise its powers and perform its duties through a Board and executive staff component. The Authority reports to the national Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The Authority’s relationship to other organs of state is illustrated below:30

Wetland Authority Policy & Direction

BOARD 5-9 Members

Ultimate Responsibility for Implementation of Act

Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism

Day-to-Day Operations Executive Staff

Park Operations Commercial Development

Training & capacity building

Research, Policy & Planning

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Board & Service

Day-to-Day Conservation Management &

Enforcement

Park Management Committee

KZN MEC Agriculture & Environmental Affairs

Co-operative Governance Agreements

Other Institutions &

Organs of State

Financial Oversight Auditor General

Promote Wetland Authority & Wetland

Park KZN Tourism

Authority

Enabling legislation: World Heritage Convention Act, 1999

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003

Marine Living Resources Act, 1998

Public Finance Management Act, 1999

Parliamentary oversight

52. Under Government Notices of June 23, 2000 regarding Regulations in connection with the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park and Establishment of the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park and 27 DEAT, Annual Report 2006-2007, p. 628 The word “iSimangaliso” was selected due to its rich historical context and refers to the “miracles” witnessed or the “wonder” experienced by a South African historical figure, an aide to King Shaka who visited the area in ancient times Annual Report, Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park Authority, 2007, p. 2 The name change was approved by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee at its 32nd Session in July 2008. United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization Convention Concerning The Protection of The World Cultural And Natural Heritage World Heritage Committee Thirty Second Session,, Quebec City, Canada, 2 – 10 July 200829 DEAT, 10 Year Review,” 1994-2004 (10 Year Review)30 Draft IMP, p. 14

Authority promulgated under the authority of the WHCA, the duties of the Authority were defined but, not limited to, to include:31

Develop measures for the environmental and cultural protection and sustainable development of, and related activities within and in connection with the Park and to ensure that the values of the Convention are given effect to, including, without limitation, in relation to harmful activities outside the GSLWP such as farming, forestry, pollution, harm to the catchment areas of the GSLWP and land degradation;

Without limitation to the sources of funding available to the Authority and the GSLWP, take effective and active measures to be financially efficient and independent and commercially viable; and

Establish and implement, in addition to the Integrated Development Management Plan, related subordinate plans, including, without limitation nodal development plans, wilderness areas and other appropriate designations.

53. The Board of the iSimangaliso Authority must consist of 0 to 13 members and be duly skilled and representative and may include” representatives from the national government; provincial government departments and cultural or nature conservation authorities; directly affected adjacent communities and tribal authorities; tourism bodies; organized business; heritage bodies; nature conservation bodies; cultural organizations non-governmental organizations; scientific and academic expert bodies; local authorities; private land owners; and international cultural or nature conservation bodies. The constituents of the Board set a precedent in South Africa for full representation at the highest decision-making body of local people and traditional leadership living in adjacent to a park of global significance.32

54. Additional powers were given to the Authority through the proclamation of the Regulations for the administration of the Park. In addition to ensuring that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the park and its associated World Heritage value, the Authority was mandated to:

Promote the empowerment and advancement of historically disadvantaged adjacent communities;

Promote, manage, oversee, market and facilitate optimal tourism and related development in the Park;

Encourage sustained investment, job creation and innovation in the Park; and

Work towards optimal financial self sustainability.

55. iSimangaliso Wetland Park's Park Operations Division has a dedicated Conservation Compliance Unit. This unit is responsible for the following:31 Government Gazette, Vol. 420 21304, Regulation Gazette H 6834, No. R 64 and 65, respectively.32 The current Board consists of representatives of the Authority, DEAT, the mayor of the local municipality , a representative of the Tembe Traditional Council, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and land claimants.

Co-ordination and participation in all conservation management within the park in both marine and terrestrial environments;

The oversight of the implementation of environmental management plans of established developments within the park;

Conducting environmental management audits in and around the park against relevant environmental legislation (National Environmental Management Act (1998), Protected Areas Act (2003), etc.

Co-ordination of Environmental Impact Assessments/Scoping exercises for proposed developments or proposed management interventions;.

Monitoring and assessment of conservation management practices of the conservation agency, KZN Wildlife;

Co-ordination and support of civil and criminal actions against perpetrators of environmental related legislation; and

Participation as a relevant/juristic authority in developments (infrastructure, afforestation, land transformation etc) within the Park's buffer zone, so as to ensure that due process is followed in terms of legislation and environmental management best practice.

56. The full-time staff of the authority includes several environmentally related positions including Technical Manager and three Contract Managers for Land Care; a Compliance Manager and a Compliance Officer for Conservation; a Compliance Officer for Infrastructure; a Senior Manager for Policy Planning and Research; a Research Officer; a Director for Park Operations and Data Mapping Officer33. The present incumbent of the Conservation Compliance Manager Post has 21 years of protected area/conservation/environmental management experience and is a nationally designated Environmental Management Inspector (Grade 1).

57. The Wetland Authority’s strategy is to maintain a small specialized skilled core staff to address its core functions and to out-source non-core or support functions. In addition, due to its geographic location certain positions requiring particular skills are difficult to recruit and retain. A capacity development plan is in process to retain key skills and attract highly qualified people and thus, enable the Wetland Authority to be a small yet modern and efficient organization.

3. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Organization

58. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW) is the agency mandated to manage nature/biodiversity conservation within the province of KwaZulu-Natal for and is the successor to two agencies with fifty years of experience in managing nature conservation in the combined province.34 Probably the best known conservation success story is bringing the white rhino back

33 iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority, 2008 Annual Report, p. 1434 http://www.kznwildlife.com/site/corporate/news/articles/Hippo_Management.html In 1998 the Natal Parks Board amalgamated with the KwaZulu Bureau of Natural Resources to form KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Services, currently known as Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.

from the brink of extinction35. EKZNW is currently responsible for conserving about twelve percent of the land surface of the province, with responsibilities including conservation, partnerships and ecotourism. Under a management agreement between the Authority and EKZNW, EKZNW is contracted to provide conservation expertise to the day-to-day management of the wildlife and natural systems of the Park.36

59. With respect to the Park its specific functions are to:

Provides scientific input for the EIA/Basic assessment processes, where requested by the Authority, via its “Eco-advice” unit based in the Park

As part of its management function (defined in the management agreement) EKZNW is responsible for environmental compliance in both the terrestrial and marine environments.

As part of its management function EKZNW undertakes operational conservation activities, such as burning, erosion control and patrols.

Provides input on conservation related policy to iSimangaliso

4. Inter-governmental Relations

60. The Constitution of South Africa establishes a model of co-operative government based on continuous interaction between the national, provincial and local spheres of government.37

With respect to conservation management in South Africa, this model has been subject to some criticism for imposing a standard of consensual decision-making on an otherwise compartmentalized structure with the effect of complicating and delaying strategic decisions regarding protected areas.

61. In this connection it is useful to note that the Authority was established under the terms of Section 9 of the WHC Act. In addition, national and provincial government formulated a Memorandum of Understanding. Regulations for the Park were drawn up in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act, followed by consultation with outside parties prior to finalization of the Regulations. This approach appears to have obviated many if not all of the weaknesses of the cooperative government process.

62. The rights and duties of the iSimangaliso Wetland Authority, EKZNW and the KZN Tourism Authority with respect to the management and development of the iSimangaliso Park are regulated through legislation and have been further elaborated through a management agreement signed in August 2001 by the parties. The agreement specifies that the parties will assist each other in achieving the required regulatory processes and approvals necessary for the general enhancement of the Wetland Park and to give effect to the objectives of the iSimangaliso Authority. The rights and duties of the parties to the agreement provide, amongst others, for the following responsibilities:35 http://www.kznwildlife.com/site/corporate/organisation/36 DEAT, 10 Year Review37 Petrus Brynarad and Lianne Malan, “Conservation Management and Intergovernmental Relations: The Case of South African National and Selected Provincial Protected Areas.” Politeia, Vol. 21., No. 2, 2002

63. The iSimangaliso Authority shall:

Develop measures for the environmental and cultural protection of the iSimangaliso Park and to ensure that the values of the World Heritage Convention are given effect. This includes oversight of conservation management in the Park.

Promote, manage and facilitate tourism and related development in connection with the iSimangaliso Park.

Facilitate programmes that encourage job creation.

Establish and implement the IMP.

EKZNW is the contractually mandated conservation agent for the iSimangaliso Authority and has standing in the Park only through the iSimangaliso Authority, and as such shall be responsible for:

Biodiversity management of the iSimangaliso Park, including policing and law enforcement activities, and assisting the Wetland Authority in monitoring compliance by concessionaires with contractual and statutory obligations.

Implementation of the Conservation Operational Plan and regulatory enforcement related to conservation within the iSimangaliso Park.

64. The iSimangaliso Authority also has the mandate to enter into co-operative governance agreements with a range of institutions across all spheres of government, importantly local government, to fulfill its core functions.

65. In terms of local government, the Park falls within the boundaries of the uMkhanyakude District Municipality (DC27). The Wetland Park is a District Management Area (DMA), which provides for a degree of administrative autonomy within the local government system. It neighbors all five of the local municipalities within Umkhanyakude District Municipality, namely, Umhlabuyalingana, Jozini, The Big Five False Bay, Hlabisa and Mtubatuba, and one local municipality within Uthungulu District Municipality (DC28), namely, Mbonambi. Approximately 600,000 people reside on the Park’s borders, with approximately 500 people living inside the Park.

66.

B. PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

1. National Level Environmental Impact Assessment

67. South Africa began undertaking EIAs in an ad hoc manner during the 1980’s and a voluntary EIA procedure was integrated into the Environmental Conservation Act of 1989 (since superseded by NEMA). Requirements for EIA were introduced on a sectoral basis in the Minerals Act of 1991 (Sections 38, and 39(5). These requirements were generalized by The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of September 5, 1997, which mandated a process including screening, scoping, public participation, environmental reports, review and decision.38

68. With the enactment of NEMA, supervision and coordination of the EIA process was centralized at the national level under the authority of DEAT. EIAs are conducted at several administrative levels: national, provincial and local depending on whether it is determined that the national environment is affected or national governmental authorities are the applicant.39

69. However, one unintended effect of this process was a lengthy application process that conflicted with urgent national priorities of urgent economic growth and job creation.40 Over the years, the DEAT reviewed the South African EIA system to see what regulations worked and what regulations needed improvement41 An April 2006 report found the following inadequacies: (i) a wide interpretation of activities resulted in inconsistent applications; (ii) unnecessary EIAs conducted for applications of small scale/insignificant activities; (iii) the application process itself was lengthy and inflexible and contained too many “authority stops”/“decision points”; (iv) inadequate provisions for public consultation; (v) no strategic planning tools to provide support; and (vi) enforcement measures were generally weak. The review led to the promulgation of the 2006 EIA Regulations, which issued under the authority of NEMA. Six aspects of EIA regulations were identified as areas that might be retained and what might need improvement. The six areas reviewed are as follows42:

Application of EIA: The 1997 EIA Regulations were applied to too wide a spectrum of activities resulting in a level of effort disproportionate to potential impacts and risks As a result some low risk projects were utilizing excessive resources while at the same time some higher-risk projects were not getting sufficient attention. The 2006 EIA Regulations seek to address this issue by both redefining the spectrum of projects subject to EIA.

EIA Scoping: The 1997 EIA Regulations created a cumbersome process for EIAs, which resulted in innovative interventions. The NEMA EIA Regulations differentiate between basic and thorough assessments, resulting in a more

38Jens Staerdahl, Zuriati Zakaria, Neil Dewar and Noppaporn Panich, “Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand and Denmark: Background, layout, context, public participation and environmental scope,” Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Vol. 3, no. 1, 2004 (Staerdahl et. al)39 Staerdahl et. al40 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review41 April 2006 DEAT Report on NEMA EIA Regulations 42 April 2006 DEAT Report on NEMA EIA Regulations

tailored scope for each EIA.

Decision-Making Process: The 1997 EIA Regulations allowed only a comprehensive process. In contrast, the NEMA EIA Regulations allows for upfront decision making regarding fatal flaws, emergency circumstances, and “clearly no impact” situations, and additionally prescribes differential time frames.

Roles, Responsibilities and Compliance: The 1997 EIA Regulations limited the allocation of roles and responsibilities to authorities and applicants and did not specify consequences for non-compliance. The NEMA EIA Regulations prescribe the roles and responsibilities for all roles players and provides consequences for non-compliance.

Public Participation: The 1997 EIA Regulations did include public participation as part of an EIA, but the regulation itself was poorly defined. The NEMA EIA Regulations provided a well-defined requirement for public participation, which included minimum requirements.

Appeal Process: The 1997 EIA Regulations contained no prescribed appeal decision-making process. The NEMA EIA Regulations sought to change this by providing a well-defined appeals process. The overall appeal process has been streamlined with regulations set forth by a consistent national process.

70. While some EIA Applications are processed by the DEAT, the majority of applications are actually handled at the provincial level.43 However, the DEAT is still involved as it has the Constitutional responsibility to provide the provinces with support and help in effectively handling a stream of EIA applications.44

71. As a result of the of the implementation of the 2006 EIA Guidelines the number of pending EIA applications (nationally and in the provinces) was dramatically reduced from 5,300 in July 2006 to 1,717 by the end of March 2007. EIA backlogs were reduced by 40% by the end of FY 2006-07 and more than 80 percent of new applications were processed on time.45

72. A first amendment to the EIA regulations was adopted in 2007, with technical revisions aimed at clarifying some of the ambiguities of the 2006 EIA Regulations In June 2008 the Minister issued a second draft amendment to the 2006 National Environmental Management EIA Regulations.46 The majority of proposed changes relate to matters outside the scope of protected areas management; however there are some provisions proposed that relate to measures designed to rehabilitate the environment affected by a designated undertaking to its natural or

43 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review: Enhancing Quality of Life44 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review: Enhancing Quality of Life45 DEAT, Annual Report 2006-2007, p. 4 Under Article 36 of The Regulations in Terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (“EIA Regulations”)…..”A competent authority must within 45 days of acceptance of an environmental impact assessment report….or, if the report was referred for specialist review …within 45 days of t receipt of the findings of the specialist reviewer, in writing – (a) grant authorization in respect of all or part of the activity applied for; or (b) refuse authorization in respect of all or part of the activity.”46 Regulation Gazette, Vol. 516, No. 8904, June 13, 2008

predetermined state or to a land use which conform to the generally acceptable principle of sustainable development.47 These proposals may have some direct relevance to the scope of EIA for particular interventions proposed for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park.

73. Decentralization of the EIA Process. Distributing power at a provincial level is common in South Africa, stemming from the South African Constitution that gives wider powers to the provinces, e.g. provincial planning, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, and the Department of Minerals and Energy.48 To achieve this end, several initiatives were launched to capacitate provinces while reducing the large number of pending EIA applications.

74. In accordance with its Constitutional responsibility to provide support for the provinces, the DEAT conducts visits to each province spending a full day with each provincial team to establish capacity. The feedback from these trips is incorporated into a Capacity Audit and Needs Analysis, which allows custom-made interventions to tackle provincial needs.49 The DEAT has also established a new Capacity and Support Directorate that focuses on provincial assistance. Additional training and other initiatives have included50:

Fourteen training sessions, with one for each province, followed up by five further sessions for provincial officials in related fields that had not attended the initial training.

Eleven “open day” information sessions, one for each province and two national sessions in Pretoria and Cape Town.

Four Regulation Implementation workshops of two to three days each.

Financial and technical help extended to seven provinces

Seven Environmental Management Frameworks (EMF) developed in partnership with the provinces. The target is for the Minister or MECs to promulgate these EMFs in terms of Rule 72 of the NEMA EIA Regulations in 2008/2009.

75. The effects of the 2006 EIA Guidelines and ongoing training and provincial capacity building are evident in the dramatic reduction in pending EIA applications by 40% by the end of FY 2006-07 and more than 80 percent of new applications were processed on time.51 Moreover, Electronic tracking of applications is no longer restricted to State-owned enterprises52. DEAT has developed the National Environmental Authorization System as a web-based tool to track the process of EIA applications.53

47 Section 34 (f) of draft second amendment.48 http://www.globaloceans.org/icm/profiles/safrica/safrica.html49 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review: Enhancing Quality of Life50 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review: Enhancing Quality of Life51 DEAT, Annual Report 2006-2007, p. 452 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review: Enhancing Quality of Life53 2006-2007 DEAT Annual Review: Enhancing Quality of Life

43

43

76. Further improvements are expected as a result of the revised Strategic Plan issued by DEAT in 2008, which among other recommendations, proposed a desired service standard of 95% of applications processed on schedule by 2010.54 The revised Strategic Plan also recommended training EIA officials in EIA administration for both provincial and national EIA Administrators.55 Training is offered in 9 provinces, without discrimination to all EIA Administrators. To date, approximately 250 administrators attended basic training on the 2006 EIA Regulations.56 The desired standard and timeframe is 450 trained EIA administrators at the end of 2008/09. The revised Strategic Plan recommends finalizing development and accreditation of training courses, adding training material and tutorials to the DEAT website, funding contact sessions in appropriate locations, and entering into partnerships with tertiary institutions to ensure sustainability of training courses.57

2. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

77. South Africa has no legislation requiring SEA, which is still considered an emerging tool for assessing environmental impacts on a strategic level in both developed and particularly, developing countries.58 NEMA, by making provision for the development of assessment procedures that aim to ensure that the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programs (as well as projects) are considered, provides for the use of SEA on a case-by-base basis.59 As a result, no particular body has legal responsibility for undertaking or approving SEA.60

78. However, a set of generic guidelines have been issued by DEAT61 most recently in 2004, and have been applied with a focus that differs from conventional international SEA theory and practice.62 Rather than assessing the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programs (PPPs), SEA, particularly as applied to Protected Areas in South Africa, has focused on the opportunities and constraints that the environment places on PPPs rather than the impact of PPPs on the environment, including the proactive evaluation of the capacity of the environment to sustain various types of development.63

54 Strategic Plan for 01 April 2005 to 31 March 2010, Revised 2007/0855 Strategic Plan for 01 April 2005 to 31 March 2010, Revised 2007/0856 Strategic Plan for 01 April 2005 to 31 March 2010, Revised 2007/0857 Strategic Plan for 01 April 2005 to 31 March 2010, Revised 2007/0858 “There is currently no internationally accepted definition of SEA. It is commonly referred to as a processing for assessing the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programmes” as distinguished from site-specific activities or projects. Nigel Rossouw, Michelle Audoin, Paul Lochner, Stuart Heather-Clark and Keith Wiseman, “Development of strategic environmental assessment in South Africa,” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, September 2000 (Rossouw et al.)59 DEAT and CSIR, Guideline Document: Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa, 2000 (DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document)60 DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document, p. 1061 CSIR, “Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) A Primer,” September 1996; CSIR, “Protocol for Strategic Environmental Assessment,” 1997); CSIR/DEAT, “Principles for Strategic Environment Assessment: Working Draft for Discussion (unpublished), 1998; CSIR/DEAT, “Towards Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidelines for South Africa,” Draft Discussion Document, 1998; the DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document, referenced above; and DEAT, “Strategic Environmental Assessment,” Integrated Environmental Information Management Series, No. 10, 2004 (DEAT, SEA, 2004).62 Rossouw et al63 Rossouw et al

44

44

79. SEA was initiated in South Africa in response to the limitations of project-specific EIA, in particular for the purpose of addressing cumulative and large scale effects and incorporating sustainability considerations into higher level decision-making, and thereby strengthening the context for project specific EA. In 1996 South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) issued “Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Primer” that departed from the main focus on SEA as promoted through the international literature and practice in earlier adopting countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand and the US and instead was designed to meet the needs of EA in South Africa, including bridging the gap between planning and Integrated Environmental Management, as defined by DEAT in 1992 as “a philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of the development process in order to achieve a desirable balance between conservation and development.” The need for SEA was acknowledged as a matter of policy in the 1998 White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa.”64

80. The key document in effect during the preparation of the SEA for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park issued in draft form in 2003 was issued by DEAT and CSIR in February 2000 and titled “Guideline Document: Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa” 2000 (DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document).65 The Guideline includes a prominent disclaimer to the effect that the “this document is intended as an aid only and cannot take the place of legal advice in a specific situation governed by legislation.” The Guideline is the product of an extensive iterative process of consultation in South Africa which began in 1996 with the drafting and circulation among authorities, practitioners and other interested parties of draft principles and early versions of the document and benchmarking against international trends and experience. A 1999 draft was produced in March 1999 and was widely distributed by DEAT to interested parties for their comment, supplemented by a series of workshops held in Cape Town, Pretoria and Durban. This analytical and consultative process was supplemented by six diverse case studies of SEA application during the late 1990’s.

81. The Guideline notes that SEA is “becoming an accepted and widely used instrument for integrating environmental issues into the formation of plans and programs.” Although SEA can and is also applied at the policy level, the DEAT/CSIR Guideline is limited to its application to planning and programs.

82. In the absence of a regulatory framework, “the initiation of SEA should arise from the benefits it provides to a decision-maker,” and accordingly, the initiator of an SEA may be, for example, “an industry which intends making a strategic decision concerning their future business direction, or a government body that requires a process to enhance strategic decision making relating to the management of a particular sector or region.” To address the absence of any formal governmental responsibility for government to review an SEA, the Guideline recommends that “reviews should be built into the process…through independent peer review and feedback from interested and affected parties.”

64DEAT White Paper for Environmental Management Policy for South Africa, 199865 DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document, Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa, February 2000 (ISBN 0-621-29925-1)

83. The Guideline sets forth 1) the key concepts underpinning the SEA Guidelines; 2) the Principles for SEA in South Africa; 3) the Key Elements of the SEA Process and 4) Current Issues and Challenges to the Implementation of SEA in South Africa.

84. The Key Concepts Underpinning the SEA Guidelines are that:

SEA should be context specific, with the process informed by the political, institutional, social and biophysical c process in which a plan or program is being developed.

SEA should be integrative, aimed to avoid the duplication of processes through adding value to existing procedures and minimizing the need for additional human and financial resources; and

SEA should be sustainability-led, providing for practical inclusion of sustainability into plan and program formulation.

85. The Guideline sets forth the following ten principles for SEA in South Africa:

SEA is driven by the concept of sustainability.

SEA identifies the opportunities and constrains which the environment places on the development of plans and programs

SEA sets the criteria for levels of environmental quality or limits of acceptable change

SEA is a flexible process which is acceptable to the planning and sectoral development cycle

SEA is a strategic process, which begins with the conceptualization of the plan or program.

SEA is part of a tiered approach to environmental assessment and management.

The scope of SEA is defined within the wider context of environmental processes.

SEA is a participative process.

SEA is set within the context of alternative scenarios.

SEA includes the concepts of precaution and continuous improvement,

The Key Elements of the SEA process as set forth the Guideline include:

Identify broad plan and program alternatives;

Screening;

Scoping;

Situation Assessment;

Formulate sustainability parameters for the

Development of the plan or program;

Develop and assess alternative plans and programs;

Decision-making;

Develop a plan for implementation, monitoring and auditing; and

Implementation.

86. A more recent iteration of South Africa’s SEA Guideline was issued in 2004 as part of a series of overview information documents on concepts of, and approaches to, Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) that have been issued by DEAT.66 The document cites the 2000 DEAT/CSIR Guideline document as the authoritative guidance on SEA in South Africa expands the scope of its recommendations on best practice from a broad set of international and national sources including the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United National Economic Commission for Europe and the World Bank.67 More recently, DEAT has taken note of the pending incorporation of South Africa’s SEA Guideline within South Africa’s regulatory framework “once the initiated provincial consultation process has been completed.68

87. A lack of capacity on the part of South Africa’s public sector to deal with the implementation of new legislation (such as EIA Regulations) has been “widely acknowledged.” 69 In contrast, there appears to be significant SEA capacity in the consultancy where some international best practices in SEA have been demonstrated. The major consequence of this “consultancy driven” approach to SEA is a lack of integration of SEA into the decision-making process, and a lack of correspondence between the quality of SEA inputs and outputs.70

88. It is anticipated that pending NEMA regulations will bring SEA under the regulatory purview of DEAT.71 These proposals are consistent with the international view that having “forming and unambiguous and explicit legislation is important for [SEA] success.72

3. Site-Specific EIA

66 DEAT, “Strategic Environmental Assessment,” Integrated Environmental Management Information Series, No. 10, 2004 (DEAT, SEA 2004)67 DEAT, SEA . 68 DEAT, Annual Report, 2006-2007, p. 1869 Francois Retief, Quality and effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a tool for water management in the South African context.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Vol 9, No. 1 (2007) (Retief, 2007),70 Retief, 200771 Personal communication with the Authority.72 Retief 2007

89. The Park Authority has developed a procedure for site-specific EIA that is designed to be fully consistent with the requirements of the NEMA and the EIA Guidelines. A graphic illustration this process is presented below.

C. CRITICAL REVIEW OF OUTPUTS

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as Applied to Protected Areas in South Africa.

90. Several independent evaluations have been conducted on the quality of SEAs undertaken in South Africa both prior to and since the issuance of the DEAT/CSIR Guidelines in 2000.73. These evaluations provide a mixed picture of applied EA capacity in South Africa. On the one hand it is acknowledged that “South Africa is regarded as a leading developing country in terms of SEA practice.”74 On the other hand, when six high profile SEA case studies are measured against key performance areas and indicators, it is concluded that the results show low degree of effectiveness in terms of “direct outputs.” and that based on this “poor” direct effectiveness, “SEA is not achieving its objectives within the South African context. 75 On the other hand, the case studies also contributed significantly to information generation and sharing and generated useful “indirect outputs” such as highlighting deficiencies and gaps in existing facility while facilitating capacity building and increased awareness of sustainability issues.76

91. The following characteristics of SEAs evaluated to date in South Africa appear consistent with the strengths and weaknesses of the “techno-rational” model of SEA as referenced in the international literature:

Technocratic: over-reliance on “scientific,” quantitative outcomes, which are considered to be accurate and conclusive;

Rational and information driven: based on the assumption that more and better information leads to better decision-making;

Objective: the notion that environmental assessment can be objective rather than advocacy-driven;

Consultancy-driven: SEA shaped by the strong role played by the consultancy sector (in particular, reflecting the absence of mandatory legal or regulatory requirements);

Extensive and costly: an indicated by budgets and time-frame; and

Procedurally structured and isolated, reflecting a weak understanding of decision making and decision-making processes

92. EIA has a much more clearly defined legal and regulatory mandate in South Africa than does SEA, as is evident in the discussion of Equivalency, above. Therefore, it is not surprising 73 Rossouw et. al., Francois Retief, “Effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa,” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,” Vol. 9, No. 1 (2007); Francis Retief, Carys Jones and Stephen Jay , “The emperor’s new clothes- Reflections on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2008). 74 Retief (2007)75 Retief (2007)76 Retief (2007); R. Therviel and M. Partidario, “The Future of SEA,” in Partidario. M., Clark, R., eds., Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2000); and B. Dalal-Clayton and B. Sadler, Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. (2005).

South Africa demonstrates a stronger and more consistent level of outputs on EIA than on SEA. This has been demonstrated in the literature on EIA in South Africa which is too extensive to cite here. However, one independent study of particular relevance to the current project is instructive about the strengths of weaknesses of project-specific EIA as applied to wetlands.77 All four EIAs were rated satisfactory, with the most robust outputs involving the project description, the baseline environment and results communication, whereas alternatives assessment, identification and evaluation of key impacts and impact mitigation were relatively less robust.

2. Draft SEA for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park

93. In 2000 the Authority took a threshold decision to undertake an SEA for the Park. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the SEA was prepared by the Authority with input from DEAT and was based on the 2000 CSIR/DEAT Guidelines for SEA. The Authority contracted the preparation of the SEA ACER, an Environmental Management Consultant based in Mtunzini, South Africa.78 Whilst this section summarizes the key aspects of the SEA it should be noted that some findings have dated as progress has been made.

94. Consistent with the critical distinction made in the 2000 CSIR/DEAT SEA Guidelines with respect to the application of SEA in South Africa, the stated purpose of the SEA is “to better understand the strategic environmental framework within which development planning in the Park has been done and has to be implemented so that the necessary action can be taken at a strategic level, to effectively deal with the main environmental aspects that affect the sustainability of development that is undertaken.”79 Given the previous history of environmental conservation and development in and surrounding the Park, it is also noted that the SEA “is not a classical SEA exercise, i.e. forward looking, complementary and proactive. It is retrospective [and] supports and helps give direction to an existing suite and plans and programmes.”80

95. The SEA “process was aligned to, coordinated with, integrated, and where appropriate .further developed the….”81

o Principles for SEA listed in the 2000 SEA Guidelines;

o Environmental Vision for the Park

o Integrated Management Plan

o Key strategic issues; and

77 Sandham, et. al. The case studies include the Braaamhoek Pump Storage Scheme; the Mooi-Mgeni River Transfer Scheme; the Midnar Dam Scheme; and the development of infrastructure n the Seekoeivlei Nature Reserve. 78 ACER is an autonomous operating company of MBB Services International. The key focus of its capabilities. Services and activities is Integrated Environmental Management, comprising competencies in environmental and communications management. ACER has won several awards from the South African Chapter of the International Association for Impact Assessment. ACER Company Profile, August, 2007 79 Strategic Environmental Assessment (Update) of the Development Planning of the Great St. Lucia Wetland Park, The Greater St. Lucia Wetland park Authority, prepared by ACER (Africa) Environmental Management Consultants, June 2003 (SEA), p. xii80 SEA, p.22. 81 SEA, pp. xii-xiii.

o Alternative scenarios.

96. The Environmental Vision for the Park was formulated from “World Heritage values, legal requirements, national development policy framework and objectives, and economic realities…” The Environmental Vision states that “environmental management initiatives in the Park must achieve a balance between sustainable regional development and conservation of ecosystem functioning/biodiversity, so that natural and cultural resources are used equitably and sustainably and experienced by people, now and in the future.82

97. The SEA identified four key strategic issues in the light of several alternative development options tourism, agriculture, settlement, port development, mining, industrial development and wilderness area conservation:83

o In what way should sustainability be defined and applied to the management and operation of the Park?

o Which important resources in the Park are the most vulnerable and how can they be protected from misuse and deterioration to ensure that their resilience is not impaired irreversibly?

o In what way should the cumulative effects of development on the environment, be dealt with in the Park?

o What critical elements have to be considered to ensure that an acceptable balance is achieved in terms of the conservation and development imperatives for the Park?

98. The SEA addressed the question of sustainability in terms of three strategic levels of capital (natural, human, social and economic) depletion or conservation: “weak environmentally sustainable development” (i.e. development pursued purely for the sake of development and limits or excludes conservation); “strong environmentally sustainable development” (i.e. development that allows for the exploitation of resources, including non-renewable resources, but requires reinvestment of income from such exploitation in the form of activities that ensure the future availability of alternative renewable resources) and “absurdly strong environmentally sustainable development” (i.e. that pursues conservation purely for the sake of conservation and excludes development.84

99. One output of the SEA process was to prioritize the natural and human resources of the Park with a focus on water, terrestrial ecosystems and the communities living in and around the Park..

100. A second output of the SEA process was the identification of opportunities and constraints which the biophysical and socio-economic environment place on a plan for program.

82 SEA, pp. xiii83 SEA p. 19 84 SEA, p. 30

101. With respect to water resources, opportunities identified included: water supply for development within the Park (lodges, drinking water and recreation); recreational use of water bodies (fishing, kayaking), water for development outside the Park ; light industry, agriculture and tourism. Constraints include catchment degradation; erosion and sedimentation; inappropriate land use outside the Park (agriculture, afforestation and industry); ecological requirements of the Park; assimilative capacity of water bodies; pollution loads from developments; and natural disasters (droughts and floods). This process identified a number of critical actions that must be taken to attain and sustain the appropriate balance between these opportunities and constraints. These included:

o Determination of the Reserve for all major rivers in the Park;

o Comprehensive water use and water pollution control policies that link to the zonation plan and the application of sustainability criteria in the Park;

o Identification and description of ecosystem functioning in terms of main processes, significance and nature of interactions, key species, fluxes and flows, vital inputs and outputs, invasive species , and toxicity threats;

o Identification and description of key processes (for example, water flow, nutrient supply (source, type, distribution, flow), species migration, and rates of change);

o Water monitoring criteria in line with zonation and sustainability criteria, and action plans for the implementation of a systematic water quality monitoring system in the Park;

o Design of a monitoring system for key processes and variables;

o Setting standards which relate to limits of acceptable change; and

o Identification and monitoring of key habitat conditions.

102. With respect to terrestrial ecosystems opportunities included an outstanding opportunity for conservation of a unique and diverse natural heritage with significant underdeveloped tourism potential; education opportunities for visitors, communities, academic institutions and individuals; and a driver for regional development. Corresponding constraints to development identified included unconstrained, inappropriate and mismanaged tourism development which could destroy the natural asset base of which it depending and relies for survival (and thus the correct balance for tourism and conservation in the Park is to be found); uncontrolled and inappropriate land use outside of the Park which can adversely affect the functioning of ecosystems within the Park, particularly water; and ignorance of Park users of the vulnerability of the ecosystems on which they depend.

103. The SEA recommended the following critical actions that must be taken to attain and sustain the appropriate balance between these opportunities and constraints. These included:85

85 SEA p. 40

o Adopt strategies and programs to control and reduce the impact of alien species.

o Reintroduce game.

o Protect endangered, threatened and rare species.

o Adopt the concept of Integrated Catchment Management for sediment and water quality and quantity control within the Park.

o Remove existing inappropriate infrastructure in the Park.

o Actively encourage land inclusion and consolidation with private landowners into the Park under management agreement.

o Influence activities within the buffer zone.

o Promote sustainable land use on neighboring community lands.

o Improve socio-economic conditions on neighboring community lands.

o Develop legislation that meets the needs of both private landowners and the conservation authorities.

o Control the type and density of tourism facilities and activities.

104. With respect to communities, the SEA recognized that “the building of an environmental awareness and ethic amongst the Park’s neighboring communities is a necessary but insufficient condition to ensure the survival of the Park. Unless its poor rural neighbors see the Park as a source of employment and other tangible benefits, the political support required for its continued existence will be severely eroded. The need to optimize the flow of tangible benefits from the GSLWP is, therefore, not only an economic but also a conservation imperative.” 86

105. This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that the Park and its surrounds has been hampered by political and infrastructural neglect and is reported to be one of the poorest and most underdeveloped areas in Southern Africa. It has large income discrepancies, low levels of literacy and high unemployment as well as a high incidence of HIV/AIDS, a high population growth rate; unsustainable urbanization trends; and inadequate infrastructure and services. Outside the boundaries of the Park there are overcrowded and environmentally degraded tribal areas that abut the large protected areas of the Park. As a consequence of this spatial economy, the Park is under severe threat of land invasion and illegal unsustainable uses of the Park’s natural resources.

106. In some parts of the Park the threat of land invasion has already become a reality, such as at Dukuduku where illegal occupation combines with significant destruction of the forest. The illegal occupation of Dukuduku State Forest has resulted in some dry land subsistence crop production and extensive cattle grazing. In addition, curio stalls are rapidly developing along the

86 SEA p. 42

R625, which gives the impression of an unplanned and uncontrolled peri-urban sprawl rather than a pristine sense of arrival at a World Heritage Site. The Coastal Forest is also under threat with some local communities showing little respect for the Park boundaries and regulations87.

107. As a consequence of the forced displacement and relocation of people during the apartheid era, several claims for land in the Park have been lodged with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights. The areas of the Park that are affected are discussed at greater length in the IMP and other documents but include the Eastern Shores State Forest, Cape Vidal State Forest and Sodwana State Forest. At the time the SEA was conducted an agreement settling the Eastern Shores claim had been recently signed. It offered a precedent for the settlement of the other claims affecting the Park and provided the basis for greater integration between rural residents and the conservation industry.

108. In the medium term, given the carrying capacity and limits of acceptable change to the ecosystems of the Park, this can only be achieved through a process of ensuring that communities living in and around the park participate in its management through effective consultation processes with the Park Authority and other stakeholders; settling and implementing settled land claims; entering into land management agreements and social compacts with land claimants and other beneficiary groups; pursuing sustainable ecotourism development along with community based small and medium size enterprises supplemented by an agricultural program that will improve subsistence and small scale commercial production through environmentally sustainable agricultural practices.

109. The SEA invested considerable effort in identifying and developing strategies to address cumulative effects,88 which it recognized as an integral part of South’s Africa’s statutory compliance framework with respect to EA.89 It made a useful distinction between cumulative effects originating from inside the Park (“internal cumulative impacts”)90 and those originating from outside the Park (“external cumulative impacts”).91

87 This excludes the communities which legitimately live in certain parts of the Coastal Forest.88 The SEA references the US. Council for Environmental Quality (1997) definition of “cumulative effects.” According to this definition cumulative effects occur when: Impacts on the environment take place so frequently in time or so densely in space that the effects of individual

impacts cannot be assimilated; or The impacts of one activity combine with those of another in a synergistic manner.89 Section 24 (7) (b) of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 refers amongst other things to the fact that when investigating and assessing the potential impact of activities which may significantly affect the environment, such assessment must also include the cumulative effects of the activity. “An ‘activity’ is defined in section 2 of the Act to include policies, programmes, plans and projects. A development programme or conservation programme in the GSLWP would therefore be included in this definition and the cumulative effects of such a programme should therefore be carried out.” SEA, p. 46.90 Internal environmental cumulative effects in the Park refers to environmental threats that people see that will come from uncontrolled or inappropriate development and actions inside the Park (either directly by the Wetland Authority or as a result of policies sanctioned by the Authority). This would include the perceived threat and effects of things such as uncontrolled or inappropriate harvesting of natural resources by tribal people, creeping development in sensitive areas e.g. frontal dunes; or uncontrolled discharges of wastes and pollution in wilderness areas. It would also include the adoption, implementation and maintenance of inappropriate conservation and management practices91 The types of things and cumulative effects that may occur and hold a threat for the Park from sources external to the Park, some of which are listed below:

110. The SEA recognized that assessment of cumulative impacts is not an exact science or a process that is easy to carry out. There is no standard method of cumulative impact assessment among the variety of analytical and planning tools that are available for such a purpose, a number of which have already been used or are currently in use in the Park (such as Social Impact Assessment, economic impact analysis, GIS, carrying capacity, questionnaires, modeling, etc.)

111. The method that is used must be chosen to suit the needs of a specific study and the purpose for which the results will be used. Accordingly, the SEA did not recommend what method of assessing cumulative effects should be used in the Park. What it did recommend is that cumulative impact assessment must be done and that the methodologies already deployed in the Draft IMP, using as assessment of carrying capacity and level of acceptable change be used as part of any cumulative effects analysis.92

112. Another output of the SEA were that any developments and individual projects considered for implementation in the Park should be subjected to environmental screening and assessment process that considers the following key issues:

o In what way does the development/project fit in with zonation, (including carrying capacity, nodal range, activities & sensitivity & park planning) and considerations of weak, strong and absurdly strong sustainability that are applicable for the Park?

o Does objective consideration and application of the World Heritage’s Universal Values to the development/project preclude it from being implemented in the Park?

o Will the development/project impact negatively on the vulnerability or enhance the resilience of the key resources of the Park?

o Are there any cumulative effects that need to be taken into account?

The "honey pot" effect. Development, investment and ingress of people in areas outside the Park boundaries, because of the wider opportunities offered from revenues generated by tourism and employment in the Park.

Reduced surface water flow in the rivers feeding the Parks wetland systems. Caused by reduced runoff and direct extraction of water for domestic and agricultural needs outside the Park.

Reduced water quality caused by lower flows and heightened nutrient and pollution levels in rivers. Caused by inappropriate land use practices, agricultural chemicals and uncontrolled human waste discharges.

Groundwater pollution. Caused by inappropriate land use practices, agricultural chemicals and uncontrolled human waste discharges.

Increased sediment loadings in surface water. Caused by overgrazing, inappropriate agricultural and land use practice in general, overcrowding and the like.

Air pollution. From the burning of biomass and as the cause of acid rain. Uncontrolled access to the Park and the systematic stripping of its natural assets by impoverished people who

have no other means of survival. Because of the length of the Park boundary it does not lend itself to easy policing. This is in any case something which will be very expensive. It is also doubtful whether it is the correct approach and whether it can really be done cost effectively.

92 SEA, pp. 50-52

o Are there alternatives to the proposed development/project that are more appropriate to the Park? Will the proposed development/project cause the existing Limits of Acceptable Change that are applicable to be exceeded, or what Limits of Acceptable Change should be set to ensure that sustainability considerations in the Park are met?

113. Provincial and local regulatory authorities participated as relevant authorities in the SEA process attending briefing sessions and participating in field trips. During the SEA process limited consultations took place with key stakeholders including EKZNW and an environmental nongovernmental organization forum established for the purpose. The SEA states that the previous environmental and social assessment and planning in the Park, over a period of ten to twelve years, included “a large amount of intensive, focused and ongoing public participation and consultation (for which a good record of public interaction already exists.” On this basis, “broad input from stakeholders and interest groups will be brought in at a later stage in the SEA process than world normally be the case.” 93 The ToR for the SEA listed “stakeholder reaction an input” as eighth in a sequence of thirteen sequential steps to be proceeded by inception and screening, broad alternative visions, preliminary vision, identification of strategic issues, identification of environmental opportunities and constraints, preliminary test of investment option fit, and preliminary buffer zone identification.94 It is currently anticipated that the SEA itself will be made available to the public through forthcoming consultations on the Integrated Management Plan (see below) for which it is one of several critical inputs.

114. An external review of the SEA was conducted by Dr. Peter Tarr the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment, Namibia. The review made the following key observations with respect to the quality of the SEA and its consistency with South Africa’s SEA Guidelines:

o The report has responded well to the expectations contained in the South African SEA framework and is a good example of how an SEA can contribute towards the promotion of sustainable development in a practical situation.

o There do not appear to be major gaps between the ToR and what has been delivered.

o In terms of principles for both developmental and conservation or environmental management there are no deficiencies, the principles are clear and the report makes a very strong case for maintaining the right balance between conservation and development.

o The ToR seemed to ask for some kind of an “audit” (first para of 2.1) and this was re-iterated in para 2 of 5.1 (“…the SEA….has to be seen as retrospective rather than proactive …”). However the SEA did not present a sharp, crisp assessment of how iSimangaliso is actually coping with maintaining the required balance (as articulated in the environmental vision). One can make certain deductions (e.g. based on the level of poaching and threat of land invasion), but a better

93 SEA, p. 3 94 SEA, p. 6

assessment based on the 4 key issues would have been useful. The analysis of discrepancies between zonation, LAC and sustainability are to some extent covered in appendix 2, but not adequately so it is not possible to judge the adequacy or otherwise, of “public participation” based on the SEA itself. Although there have been many forums for discussions in and around the Park and innovative ways have been pursued to involve all relevant stakeholders over the past decade or more it is unclear whether these discussions included strategic elements as well as site or project specific issues.

o The SEA is forward-thinking in promoting the idea that the communities both inside and adjacent to the iSimangaliso must be part of the planning and development of the area (section 5.6.2.3). There can be no doubt that working with neighbors and residents (legal or otherwise) is the only way to solving issues in the long term, however challenging this might be to managers.

o Cumulative impacts are correctly identified as the key to strategic level decision making. The SEA provides a very useful framework for screening (page xv), and it should be possible for park management to be able to evaluate new proposals using this framework.

o However, SEA should have been stronger in assessing cumulative impacts (albeit crudely), relating these to the environment and development visions, and advising the authorities on the thresholds.

o The generic process for determining LAC (section 4.2.3) is very comprehensive and should be useful to park management.

o The report seems to have been based on a good process that resulted in the identification of 4 key strategic issues (defining and applying sustainability, assessing vulnerability of resources, dealing with cumulative impacts and maintaining a balance between conservation and development). It seems that these 4 issues cover the most important aspects needed for strategic planning, given that much more detailed management planning tools (including EIA processes) are evidently well established and used as a matter of routine.

3. Draft Integrated Management Plan for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park (2007-2012)

115. Under Chapter IV of the World Heritage Convention Act of 1999 (WHCA), every Authority established to manage World Heritage sites in South Africa must prepare and implement an integrated management plan and to conduct its activities in accordance with such a plan. The IMP for the Park sets out the framework for development in the Park, and the corresponding responsibilities of Park Management. The IMP is intended to cover a period of at least five years but may be reviewed and amended as necessary. Unlike the SEA, which

currently has not regulatory standing, the IMP is required to be formally signed by the Minister of Environment and Tourism and therefore, “in effect, becomes regulation.”95

116. The planning cycle of the Authority comprises a number of different types of plans, review processes and reporting requirements. The five year implementation plan contained in the IMP is a higher level plan that provides the framework for planning and implementation on an annual basis. The Authority is required to submit its IMP to DEAT for review and approval. And is required to report its progress annually against these plans.

117. The Draft IMP was prepared in accordance with the WHCA of 1999, as informed by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act of 2003, and aligned with other legislation, notably the relevant provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998 and the Public Finance Management Act.96 The draft IMP is “a five-year strategic management plan that strives to integrate conservation, tourism development and the local economic development of historically disadvantaged communities in and adjacent to the Park.”97

118. The Draft IMP is also the basis of several key planning exercises including:98

o The zonation plan99

o The activities plan100

o Nodal plan101

95 SEA, p. xiii. As a World Heritage Site and Protected Area the Park is also governed by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act of 2003 (NEM-PAA) which affords another layer of protection and makes provision for management and IMP. Regulations promulgated under the NEM: PAA also contain provisions regarding IMPs, Draft IMP, p. 996 Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park: Integrated Management Plan (2007-2012, internal draft) (Draft IMP, p. 1)97 Draft, IMP, p. 198 SEA, p. 23 99 The Zonation Plan is an internationally accepted planning tool for protected area management. It is recognized by the IUCN, UNESCO and the World Heritage Convention and is also a legal requirement of both the World Heritage Convention (WHC) Act and Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA). Zoning of visitor activities and facilities is used to effectively balance the twin objectives of biodiversity conservation and optimal economic development. Four categories of zonation have been proposed for both the terrestrial and marine components of the Park: Wilderness, Sanctuary, Restricted and Controlled. A fifth category, “Buffer”, applies to areas outside the Park, which due to their location or linkages have the potential to impact on the Park. SEA, p 26100 A number of different types of terrestrial and marine activities are currently offered or have been proposed in the Park. The conditions controlling each activity are contained in the Activities Plan, a subsidiary, but supporting document to the IMP. Terrestrial activities relate to: land, lake and river, activities. Marine activities relate to:offshore and inshore activities. In addition some air activities will be permitted. SEA, pp. 26-27101 Criteria and strategies have been laid down for the planning of development nodes in the GSLWP. There are four categories of development nodes, viz: Category A: Tourism Overnight Nodes. Category B: Tourism Day-visitor Nodes. Category C: Park Management Nodes. Category D: Access and circulation infrastructure.Within each category, the intensity of each node type is presented. This is closely linked to the zone within which it falls. Also specified is the temporary/permanent nature of infrastructure, service and access, SEA p. 27.

o Carrying capacity tables102

o Limits of acceptable change103

o The division of the park into development/management blocks104

102 Visitor carrying capacity is closely linked to zonation. Its determination is complex due to the number of interdependent variables, competing objectives, untested assumptions and value judgments. These include ecological carrying capacity, physical carrying capacity, social carrying capacity and economic carrying capacity.The SEA recognizes utilizes the analysis of carrying capacity as manifestation of the “precautionary principle” consistent with the “risk averse and cautious approach” referenced in NEMA (Sections 23 and 27 [confirm citation] and the term “precautionary approach” as used in World Bank Operational Policy 4.00 Table A1: Natural Habitats 103 LAC are closely aligned to carrying capacity. One of the fundamental assumptions for LAC is that where any form of human activity is allowed, environmental degradation will follow as a consequence and in fact should be allowed, but only up to certain limits. These limits or standards are set at the start and may not be compromised. The whole process of LAC demands a strict protocol for monitoring, checking and corrective management action and fits in well within the whole SEA process, SEA, p. 27104 The various terrestrial and marine areas that have been consolidated to comprise the GSLWP have been grouped into three Development and Management Blocks. The reason for doing this was to assist in the prioritizing and phasing of development, as well as devising the logistical management support. The three Development and Management Blocks are: Block A (St Lucia South). Block B (St Lucia North). Block C (Coastal Forest).Also included in Blocks A, B and C are parcels of land outside of the Park, but which can be described as part of or important to the Park’s short-, medium- and long-term vision. These parcels of land may either be incorporated into the Park under the Land Incorporation Policy (based on the willing party principle), or fall within the Park’s buffer zone, SEA., p. 28

60

60

O Zone of influence (buffer zone)105

Development phasing and setting of priorities.106

119. The broad conservation objectives of the Draft IMP are set forth as follows:107

o To protect and conserve the biodiversity of the Park

o To maintain key biological and physical processes that are important for ecosystem functioning.

o To preserve natural land and seascapes, their associated views and vistas, and scenic habitats and features.

o To provide for the sustainable and wise use of natural resources.

120. A weakness of the draft IMP (and the IDMP, see below), and as noted in the SEA, however, is the fact that “nowhere in the IMP and IDMP, was any direct reference found to the fact that a conscious effort should be made to actually assess the cumulative impacts that occur in the [Park]”108,. However, methods relating to the assessment of cumulative impact assessment, such as an assessment of carrying capacity and levels of acceptable change have been deployed

105 The World Heritage Convention, which is adopted into South African law through the World Heritage Convention Act, requires that effect be given to the Operational Guideline requirement that, whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural and national property nominated, an adequate “buffer zone” around a property should be provided and should be afforded the necessary protection. A buffer zone is defined in the Operational Guidelines, as “an area surrounding the property which has restrictions placed on its use to give an added layer of protection; the area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through technical studies”. Legal provision for the buffer zone is also made in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. However, the Wetland Authority has delineated a zone of influence in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act and through a technical study. The results are presented in the Draft IMP, p 126.106 iSimangaliso covers a large area and long coastline and is made up of many loosely linked components many of which are situated far from major service centers, airports, national roads and other forms of bulk infrastructure required for development. This situation, together with the reality of limited development resources, has dictated that planning and development of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park be prioritized and phased, logically and systematically one step at a time. For this reason, developments have been planned as stand-alone building blocks that can function and recover costs in the absence of a follow-up development phase. The following phasing and prioritization are: Phase 1: Southern St Lucia, Eastern Shores and uMkhuze Game Reserve. Phase 2: Sodwana State Forest (Mbila and Mabaso). Phase 3: Kosi Bay and Coastal Forest Reserve. Phase 4: Western Shores. Phase 5: Sokhulu, Umfolozi Flats and Dukuduku.The focus on specific components of the Park for each phase does not necessarily exclude development taking place simultaneously in the other development blocks. The intention of this prioritization is merely to ensure that the major thrust of development and expenditure takes place in the area that gives the best socio-economic return. The focus can also change based on funding availability, marketing strategy and land claims settlements (amongst others).107cited in SEA, p. 40108 SEA, p. 50

61

61

in the Draft IMP.109 Furthermore, reporting requirements of commercial developments also allow for the development of a baseline against which cumulative impacts can be measured over time.

121. The draft IMP has been produced and sent to EKZNW and DEAT for comment. DEAT’s Protected Areas Division held inter-governmental meetings in November 2007 and comments from the DEAT-led process and EKZNW were considered in updating the draft. Twenty-four consultation workshops have been held with land claimants and traditional councils. However, full public consultation (“open days”) remains to take place prior to submission of the IMP to the Authority’s Board and to the Minister for approval. Pending its completion, the Authority has prepared an Integrated Development Management Plan (IDMP) that is an effective substitute for the IMP pending its completion.110 More importantly, the World Heritage Convention Act Regulations in relation to iSimangaliso contain interim planning measures which apply in the absence of the IMP approval by the Minister.

122. The draft IMP recommends the development of an ISO 14000 based Environmental Management System that will provide the framework for the formulation and implementation of Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) that are required for all activities within the Park. The development of an EMP usually follows some form of assessment of environmental impacts projected during construction (where relevant), operation, and decommissioning (where relevant) for tourism, management, and residential/subsistence related infrastructure and activities. EMPs for Park-related activities are also based on the ISO 14000 Environmental Management System, applying the principles of: commitment and policy; planning; implementation; measurement and evaluation; and review.

123. The EMP or relevant parts thereof, will form part of contract documents between iSimangaliso and contractors, concessionaires or residents. iSimangaliso will monitor compliance of environmental performance according to the requirements of the EMP. Where responsible for Park infrastructure and activities, iSimangaliso will prepare and implement its own EMPs for environmental management.

124. The EMP must be designed specifically as a tool that achieves, improves and systematically controls environmental performance levels. A crucial part of an EMS is monitoring, evaluation and audits. The minimum the system should accomplish is the following:

o Identification of environmental aspects and significant environmental impacts.

o Identification of relevant requirements, both legislative and regulatory.

o Identification of priorities, appropriate environmental objectives and targets.

o Establishment of a structured process to implement policy, achieve objectives and meet targets.

o Planning, control, monitoring and review of policy implementation for continuous improvement.

109 SEA, pp. 50-52110 SEA, p. xiii

62

62

125. The requirements for an EMS, or relevant parts thereof, form part of contract documents between the iSimangaliso Authority and contractors, concessionaires and residents. The iSimangaliso Authority monitors compliance of environmental performance according to the EMS. Where responsible for Park infrastructure and activities, the Authority prepares and implements its own EMS for environmental management thereof.

126. Closely associated with the EMS are the following additional measures that the Authority has undertaken in order to fully implement the IMP:

o iSimangaliso Wetland Park Rules: A number of Park rules have been drawn up for the entire Park, as well as for specific habitat type (marine, terrestrial, etc.), zoning (e.g. wilderness, high intensity node, etc.) and activities (e.g. boating, angling, game drives, etc.). Periodically, these rules and conditions may be revised subject to approval by the Authority. Rules arising form various pieces of legislation (e.g. use of marine resources in terms of the Marine Living Resources Act) also apply.

o Tourism Codes of Conduct and Accreditation: Concessionaires are encouraged to obtain accreditation from recognized bodies with a strong focus on environmental management and performance, as well as develop separate tourism codes of conduct for themselves, their staff, and their patrons in terms of operating within a World Heritage Site and the iSimangaliso Wetland Park specifically. The iSimangaliso Authority may also set accreditation requirements based on its Park-specific programs.

o Site Development Guidelines and Specifications: A suite of site planning, design, implementation and management guidelines indicating current best practice and legislative requirements have been prepared. These documents are not definitive and will be progressively reviewed and revised as the phased development of the Park unfolds. Site specific documents are prepared when the development of tourism sites are put out to public tender.

4. Integrated Development Management Plan (IDMP)

127. The IDMP is an important baseline document as it sets out in detail the biophysical and socio-economic elements and characteristics of and linkages between the Park and the surrounding areas. Such linkages include the dependence of the marine, wetland and terrestrial ecosystems on a complex supply and distribution of freshwater. Other essential processes include tidal exchange, the role the large estuarine systems of Lake St Lucia and Kosi Bay play as the nursery ground for much of the marine fauna of the east coast of South Africa and the importance of fire in maintaining a mosaic of grassland and thicket (which support high species diversity).

128. The IDMP highlights the significance of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park as a natural and tourism asset. It examines the threats/challenges and opportunities facing the Park including conservation of the areas unique and highly diverse landscapes, ecological processes, habitats

63

63

and associated biota. Together with this there are, however, a number of significant/challenges threats to the successful conservation of the system’s biophysical diversity.

129. It is important to note that the IDMP sets up absolute limits and bottom line values for certain critical parameters or indicators. In other words what might be called limits of acceptable change (LAC) have been set for these parameters and indicators. This concept is given substantial and rigorous attention in the IDMP based on the principle that “a limit should be placed on the amount of change to be tolerated. When a site has reached this predetermined limit of deterioration, steps should be taken to prevent further adverse change.”111

5. EIAs for Project-Level Interventions in the Park

130. Under the terms of the National Environmental Management: EIA Guidelines, 2006 as amended, authorization is required for various listed activities within the Park. In addition, where such authorization is not a legal requirement, the Authority may require the application of various environmental management tools, the minimum of which is an Environmental Management Plan. The Authority may also impose conditions in addition to and consistent with conditions set by other authorities.112

131. There is a strong record of project- and spatial specific EA in the Park and surrounding area, pre-dating the elevation of the Park to World Heritage status, and reflecting in part the presence of designated Ramsar sites since 1989.113 The EA process began with the Eastern Shores EIA completed between 1991 and 1996 resulting in the Cabinet decision to disallow mining in the Park.

132. Since that time the EA process has applied to a broad diversity of activities in and surrounding the Park, including: land use and other spatial development initiatives, forestry, tourism, and conservation.114 One such EA type process resulted in the EAR Beach Driving and Boat Launching in the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park completed in 2002. The EAR was commissioned by the Authority as part of its application to DEAT for authorization for regulated beach driving and boat launching pursuant to the Control of Vehicles in the Coast Zone Regulations issued on December 21, 2001. The Regulations provide for a general prohibition on the recreational use of vehicles in the zone, apart from tourism concessions, such as turtle tours, and areas designated for temporary exemption, stipulate procedures for approving the use of vehicles in the coastal zone under specific circumstances, and provide measures for the enforcement of these regulations, including penalties for noncompliance. In accordance with the regulations, any application for the declaration of a Recreation Use Area (RUA) and licensing of boat launching sites must be approved by the Director General of DEAT. The EIA was prepared by ACER (Africa) Environmental Management Consultants, the primary consultant for all EA (SEA and EIA) work conducted for the Park under the auspices of the Authority.

111 Cited in SEA, p. 23112 Draft IMP, p. 127113 SEA, p. 31114 SEA, p. 11

64

64

An independent evaluation of the EA was conducted by Environmental Assessment Technologies (EAT) in November 2002. 115 The evaluation’s conclusion was that the overall quality of the EA was “very favourable.” The EAR was found to be in full compliance with all of the steps mapped out in the ToR as approved by DEAT. In particular, the section on the description of the environment was found be “comprehensive and more than adequate for the [intended purpose.].” 116 The approach to the problem of assessment of environmental impacts was characterized as “logical and well structured.” However, the report was criticized for lacking rigorous definitions of impact significance relying on a simplistic matrix of high, medium an low likelihood of occurrence and consequence that was considered in adequate for a site as a complex as a World Heritage Site. The evaluation found the proposed mitigation measures to be “well thought through…practical” and conducive to inclusion in an environmental management and monitoring system and the section on management and monitoring of impacts was “comprehensive and detailed.” The reviewers’ final impression stated that the report that had ‘dealt admirably with the complex issues and difficult circumstances pertaining to the context of this particular assignment’. It also found that gaps in knowledge bases and uncertainties about data have been identified in the EA. Most significantly the evaluation concluded that the process of public consultation, though not yet complete at the time of the evaluation, was “excellent.” 117

D. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES

133. One method of assessing the acceptability of outcomes with respect to the protection of natural habitats and physical cultural resources involves a three-fold analysis of threats, responses and continuing challenges. However, one limitation of this analysis is that the linkage between outcomes and the quality of inputs (institutional capacity) and outputs can only be inferred.

1. Threats

134. The following threats to the conservation of natural habitats, functions and physical cultural resources of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park have been identified in the documentation of the World Heritage Convention,118:

o The evaluation of the Park for World Heritage status prior to 1999 noted various aspects relating to the integrity of the Wetland Park. These included: protection of catchment areas; locating the Park within its regional development context; resolving the management structure; settling land claims; enabling resource harvesting; dealing with local community issues; restoration of degraded habitats (exotic species including plantation forests and management of St Lucia estuary); and amending boundaries.

115 Environmental Assessment Technologies, “Environmental Assessment Review: Beach Driving and Boat Launching in the Greater St. Lucia Wetland park” November 2002 (EAT). 116 EAT. p. 5117 EAT. p 6 118

65

65

o The Committee also noted the possible extension of the Wetland Park, including a possible trans-frontier initiative with Mozambique, and acknowledged that there were land claims on the Wetland Park, urging completion of land claim negotiations and confirming that these should not be prejudiced by the World Heritage Site designation of the Wetland Park.

135. Other specific challenges were highlighted in the SEA, Draft IMP, IMDP and various EIAs conducted for activities within the Park and included the following issues, many of which were present at the time the Parke was listed as a World Heritage Site:

o The plantation of alien invasive species, including thousands of hectares of pine and gum plantation that reduced the availability of water for indigenous plant and animal species and causing the soil to become more alkaline, which further promoted encroachment in sensitive ecosystems;

o The Park’s fragmented status;

o The presence of more than 500 people living within the borders of the Park in the Coastal Forest section, which will require the implementation of planning measures and development controls to be formulated;

o Slow resolution of land claims, 119

o Socio-economic pressures, with some 573 331 people living in the uMkhanyakude district council, many of whom rely on natural resources in the Park for survival.

o Viable mineral deposits on its eastern shores120

119 As a consequence of the forced displacement and relocation of people during the apartheid era, several claims for land in the Wetland Park were lodged with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights?. People were removed from a large proportion of the land under claim due to it being used for commercial timber plantations or for military purposes. Agreements settling the three major claims affecting 75% of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park’s surface area (the Eastern Shores, Cape Vidal and Sodwana State Forests) were finalized in 2002. In 2007 a further six claims were settled, bringing the total area settled to approximately 75% of the Park and leaving the settlement of four claims outstanding. The slow progress of the settlement of the land claim on the iSimangaliso Wetland Park has created uncertainty, and in many cases worsened the relationship between the Park and the land claimants. Impatience with the slow progress has led to building resentment and anger towards the Wetland Park as there are high expectations of delivery of economic benefits from the land. In some areas there is a strong expectation that beneficiaries of the land claim settlement will eventually replace the state management agency and have the right to develop tourism facilities and farm without any regulation from conservation authorities. There is therefore, some urgency in settling these claims. Draft IMP, p. 53. 120 The forested sand dunes of the Park’s eastern littoral are rich in ilmenite titanium ore, and following the granting of sand-mining prospecting leases in the 1970s, a mining application was submitted to the Department of Minerals and Energy Affairs in 1989. This application was met with considerable public opposition, necessitating resolution of the dispute by an Independent Review Panel, chaired by a judge of the South African Supreme Court. The Review Panel concluded that no mining should be allowed in the GSLWP area on the basis that the ecosystem is a priceless asset to the nation and recognized internationally as having exceptional conservation value. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that the impoverished communities neighboring the Park were overwhelmingly in support of mining, and consequently viewed the GSLWP in a negative light. National Cabinet took a formal no-mining decision in 1996 but stressed that its decision was based on an economic argument that conservation-based tourism

66

66

o Incompatible land-uses (such as commercial afforestation) in certain core areas.

o Catchment degradation.

2. Responses of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority to Threats to Natural Habitats, Functions and Physical Cultural Resources

136. With respect to its objectives of promoting socio-economic development while protecting the natural habitat and ecosystems functions of the Park, the Authority has achieved the following milestones:

o At the UNESCO World Heritage Committee’s 23rd session in 1999, during which the Wetland Park was inscribed onto the World Heritage List, the South African Government was commended for its decision not to allow mining and to nominate the Wetland Park for World Heritage status; for the long history of conservation in the area, and the regional conservation and development framework for the area.

o At the 2004 annual meeting of the World Heritage Committee:121

- UNESCO issued a statement “Acknowledg[ing] the efforts by the [Government of South Africa] to put in place administrative and juridical structures and requisite infrastructure for reinforcing the conservation and the protection of the [Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park];

- Commend[ed] the [Government of South Africa] for the steps taken in ensuring the effective conservation and management of the Park through the implementation of major ecological programmes; tourism evaluation; and the inclusion of land claimants and local communities as mandatory partners in the Park's development; and

- Recommend[ed] that the [Government of South Africa] keep the World Heritage Centre informed on further progress in the implementation of these actions

could generate regional and national economic benefits of the same order as the mining option. This ruling could be reversed if benefits from the Park are not forthcoming and local communities renew their political pressure for employment and other opportunities that arise from mining SEA, pp. 29 and 51.121 At its annual meeting in 2003, the WHC issued The World Heritage Committee [3] issued a statement “Taking note of the urgent need to re-establish co-operation and confidence among the stakeholders for the purpose of effective conservation and management of St. Lucia Wetland National Park…. expresse[d] strong concern regarding the potential impacts that the reported developments and the lack of a comprehensive environmental assessment plan might have on the property; encourage[d] the promotion of the development of new skills such as tourism among local communities for a better management of the property; and request[ed] the State Party to provide a report on these issues to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.”

67

67

E. THE PARK HAS BEEN SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE UNESCO-IUCN ON-LINE REPORTING PILOT FOR NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITES. THE OUTCOMES OF THIS PILOT WILL INFORM THE FINAL MONITORING SYSTEM FOR ALL WH SITES.

137. Outside of the framework of the UNESCO WHC, the following effective responses to these threats can attributed to the coordinated efforts of the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative, the Authority, DEAT and other stakeholders:

o Implementation of the 1996 Cabinet decision that mining the eastern shores of St. Lucia would not be permitted, on condition that the area is developed for tourism and would provide a sustained flow of benefits to local communities.

o At the 2003 World Parks Congress the Park was presented as a model of protected areas management that balances conservation and development in a sustainable framework. During the Congress, UNESCO cited South African legislation as a model for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the Park as an icon of how the Convention can be applied in practice.

o The establishment of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park as the anchor project for the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative, and the establishment of the iSimangaliso Authority.

o The consolidation of 16 parcels of land into the iSimangaliso Wetland Park under one single management regime.

o Improvement of regional access, including the construction of a new road, the upgrading of the national access route (N2) and many secondary roads, providing local community access to better transport networks and tourism feeder roads into the Park.

o Complete eradication of 8,000 hectares of pine plantations from the Eastern Shores of Lake St. Lucia and negotiation of the removal of more than 12,000 ha of alien plantations from the combined Eastern and Western Shores.

o The Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Resource Area Protocol has been established and lays the basis for transfrontier conservation areas, including the Ponto do Ouro- Kosi Bay TFCA with Mozambique.

o The upgrading and opening of border posts.

o Reduction of malaria in the area.

o Nine of the 14 land claims have been settled and the negotiation of the remaining land claims settlements is underway.

68

68

o A Black Rhino strategy has been issued following a review by an independent specialist.

o Terms of Reference have been drawn up and a consultant study initiated to rationalize/formalize solid waste disposal for the Park.

o The implementation of a Community Based Natural Resource Management program, which has seen the establishment of 39 community gardens as an alternative to unsustainable agricultural practice, particularly in sensitive wetland areas.

o As part of its broader Community Based Natural Resource Management program, the Authority has regulated the annual harvest and cutting practices, to balance communities’ current needs with the longer term sustainability of the Ncema resource. Harvesters pay for their Ncema, which has attached measurable value to the resource and promoted efforts to conserve it.

o Agreement with SAFCOL on March 31, 2007 to phase out a further 7,000 ha of pine and eucalyptus plantation on the Western Shores. Rehabilitation of forestry roads on the Eastern shores have been completed.

o The implementation of a land care program which includes alien clearing and rehabilitation, including the decommissioning and rehabilitation of commercial forestry roads, which is funded by DEAT and DWAF.

o The development of Park infrastructure, including conservation infrastructure (such as guard camps) roads, fences and park furniture. This includes roads, view sites and hides on the Western and Eastern Shores, a new entrance to Mkhuze at Ophansi gate with an access road and upgrading of existing road infrastructure.

o The implementation of capacity building and training programmes, such as the SMME programme aimed at entrepreneurs, tourism skills development, land claims leadership training and cultural heritage performance.

o The implementation of local economic development programmes, such as craft and cultural heritage performance, which target women and youth respectively.

o The creation of 4 500 temporary jobs and contractor opportunities through infrastructure development and land care programmes.

o The implementation of an equitable access strategy which includes a targeted environmental education programme as well as the facilitation of free and discounted to schools.

3. Continuing Challenges

69

69

138. In spite of these achievements, the protection of natural habitats and physical cultural resources within the context of sustainable development of the Park continues to faces significant challenges, including:

o The unprecedented prolonged drought conditions of the last several years have caused abnormally low water levels in Lake St. Lucia, causing the closure the St. Lucia estuary. Following the breaching of the mouth in March 2007 due to a combination of high seas, strong onshore winds and very high tides, a new estuary was formed and water levels in the Lake recovered. However, continued drought and evaporation of fresh water resources has led to increased salinity in the Lake, requiring the Authority to undertake detailed environmental assessment of alternative approaches to restoring natural ecosystem processes. These and other climatic changes are likely to pose significant challenges for the management of natural habitats, and biodiversity and sustainable development in the Park.

o Catchment Degradation: The catchment of the Wetland Park extends far beyond the boundaries of the protected area. The main forms of land tenure and land use in this catchment are privately owned commercial farmland and communally owned subsistence farmland. Overgrazing from domestic livestock and other forms of land use are causing excessive soil erosion on this land. The expansion of forestation in areas of the catchment well beyond the Wetland Park’s boundaries could also have a significant impact on the hydrology of the lakes and wetlands and their biodiversity.

o The reintroduction of endemic game, such as elephant, after more than 80 years of absence, will present challenges from the standpoint of human- animal interactions as well as impacts on the ecosystem

o Rehabilitation of clear felled pine/eucalyptus areas to grassland, the prevention of woody plant encroachment and the eradication of invasive alien species and the restoration of landforms scarred by commercial forestry tracks and ploughed firebreaks. A substantial land care programme with funding is in place to address these rehabilitation requirements.

o Infrastructure Development: With tourism development there will be the development of a range of infrastructure, from accommodation, to roads, parking areas, gates, etc. The development of this infrastructure over time presents the possibility of cumulative impacts. In order to manage these some roads within the Wetland Park have been closed so that access to fragile and significant areas can be better controlled and their conservation enhanced. Conversely, the standard of certain roads will need to be improved so that better tourism facilities and better tourist management are provided at the same time as the Wetland Park and its heritage values are protected. .

o Insufficient monitoring and incident reporting on the ground especially in the most northerly sections of the Park. Although this has been improved through areal surveys, there are still gaps.

70

70

o Whilst 190 km of fencing has been completed, some of the fencing is not progressing on schedule at all locations due to internal community dynamics

o The legal protection and development controls of sections of conservation land in Mozambique to be incorporated with iSimangaliso as part of a trans-frontier Park.

PROPOSED GAP-FILLING MEASURES NECESSARY TO ATTAIN AND SUSTAIN EQUIVALENCE AND ACCEPTABILITY FOR USE OF BORROWER SYSTEMS UNDER WORLD BANK OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.00

Equivalence:

i. With respect to EA:

1. Ensure that the assessment of alternatives is required to compare relative feasibility under local conditions, and institutional, training and monitoring requirements and to justify alternatives considered on the basis of all of the feasibility criteria cited in OP 4.00 Table A1;.

2. Clarify the role of EMP on the project-specific level as distinguished from the programmatic level of environmental management planning, including clarification on whether EMP is required to be prepared as a stand-alone document or may be incorporated into the Environmental Assessment Report or Record of Decision; and

3. Ensure that cost estimates in connection with proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the EMP or otherwise undertaken prior to issuance of RODs.

ii. With respect to NH:

1. A compensation offset provision for conversion of non-critical indigenous habitat should be considered;

2. The language for public disclosure and consultation of local communities and the public in activities involving projects affecting natural habitats in or adjacent to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park should be specified.

iii. With respect to PCR:

1. The roles and responsibilities of local communities in the process of identifying, assessing and protecting PCR should be clarified.; and

71

71

2. A current iSimangaliso framework for the conservation and management of “chance finds” discovered during project implementation should be applied, which includes inter-alia measures such as the immediate cessation of work, notification to Amafa which then issues a permit and examination of the cultural resource by a licensed heritage specialist.

Acceptability: based on the assessment of the institutional capacity, processes and procedures, a critical review of outputs and outcomes from South Africa’s system for conducting Environmental Assessment and protecting natural habitats and physical cultural resources, the following gap-filling measures are recommended to attain and sustain acceptability for use of country systems under World Bank Operational Policy 4.00:

l. Before appraisal, completion of the public consultation process for the SEA will be undertaken as part of the IMP process:

ii. Before appraisal completion of the exhibition draft of the IMP including the findings of the SEA and outcomes of the public consultation

iii. Implementation of the Interim Planning Measures defined in the World Heritage Convention Act until the IMP is formally adopted by the Minister of DEAT,

iv. After adoption of the IMP, implementation of the Objective and Priority Actions for Intervention

v. Strengthen the capacity of the iSimangaliso Authority and partner organizations including local governments to implement their respective mandates with respect to EA, NH and PCR including management and monitoring of environmental impacts and the identification, assessment and protection of physical cultural resources in the Park.

vi. On the basis of the SEA and the IMP, develop and adopt the : (i) Environmental Management System, (ii) Wetland Park Rules including (a) Tourism Codes of Conduct and Accreditation and (b) Site Development Guidelines and Specifications.

m. When conducting any environmental impact assessment required under the Environmental Legislation for activities proposed for inclusion under the Project, the Recipient shall ensure that: (a) the Member Country’s guidelines for environmental impact assessment are used including a checklist for EIA practitioners, so that the impacts of these activities on the wetlands are properly analyzed; (b) alternatives to the proposed activities are considered in such a manner as to enable the Recipient to

72

72

compare the feasibility of each alternative under local conditions, (c) an environmental management plan is prepared for the activities, as appropriate, including a detailed budget and institutional and human resources to be provided for such activities; and (d) procedures for chance finds of cultural property are clearly outlined in the Record of Decision and the EMP.

n. The Recipient shall, ensure that Non Listed Activities that will be undertaken within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, shall be subject to the iSimangaliso Environmental Procedures.

PROPOSED TIMELINE AND ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BORROWER AND THE BANK FOR GAP-FILLING MEASURES

In order to ensure the proper implementation of the Project in an environmentally sound manner, the Recipient shall be requested to take appropriate actions, in accordance with the SDR. Covenants will be included in the Grant Agreement for the Development, Empowerment and Conservation in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project (the Project) to request implementation of and compliance with the gap-filling measures identified above. The Covenants will be written along the proposed language:

A. With respect to the Use of South African safeguard system as it relates to the three policy fields piloted under the Project, the following covenants will be included:

Safeguard Policies: In order to ensure the proper implementation of the Project in an environmentally and socially sound manner, the Recipient shall take the following actions, in accordance with (1) the Environmental Legislation as described in the SDR and (2) the RPF and PF

1. Until the IMP is approved by the Minister of DEAT, the Recipient shall implement the Project in accordance with the Interim Planning Measures defined by the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 Regulations in Connection with the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park, (Currently known and called as iSimangaliso Wetland National Park) dated November 24, 2000,

2. Complete the preparation of the IMP including stakeholders and the public comments and thereafter submit such IMP to the Minister of DEAT in fulfillment of the Environmental Legislation and exchange views with the World Bank on the modalities of the implementation of the IMP; and thereafter, the Recipient shall carry out the Project in accordance with the Environmental Legislation and the IMP;

3. If at any time the Environmental Legislation is proposed to be modified, the Recipient shall, prior to such modification, inform the World Bank of, and consult with it on, such proposal; and if in the opinion of the World Bank the application of such any aspect of such proposal would result in adverse environmental impacts under the Project, the Recipient shall continue to carry out the Project in accordance with such other environmental guidelines as shall have been determined by the Recipient and agreed upon by the World Bank.

73

73

4. When conducting any environmental impact assessment required under the Environmental Legislation for activities proposed for inclusion under the Project, the Recipient shall ensure that: (a) the Member Country’s guidelines for environmental impact assessment are used including a checklist for EIA practitioners, so that the impacts of these activities on the wetlands are properly analyzed; (b) alternatives to the proposed activities are considered in such a manner as to enable the Recipient to compare the feasibility of each alternative under local conditions, (c) an environmental management plan is prepared for the activities, as appropriate, including a detailed budget and institutional and human resources to be provided for such activities; and (d) procedures for chance finds of cultural property are clearly outlined in the Record of Decision and the EMP.

4. The Recipient shall, ensure that Non Listed Activities that will be undertaken within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, shall be subject to the iSimangaliso Environmental Procedures.

5. The Recipient shall develop and implement a capacity strengthening program for it and its partner institutions, including local authorities and traditional councils for activities in the Wetland Park area including its buffer zone, to enhance the capacity of all such institutions to implement their respective mandates with respect of environmental impact assessment, natural habitats management and conservation and physical cultural resources management.

B. With Respect to potential involuntary resettlement

6. During Project implementation, the Recipient shall refrain, on account of any Project activity, from any new action or activity that would result in the involuntary resettlement or adverse impacts on livelihoods as a consequence of restriction of access to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park of persons or communities residing in the territory of said Park ; provided that if such impact or resettlement would be unavoidable, the Recipient shall undertake such action or implement such activity only after it has consulted with potentially Displaced Persons in accordance with the provisions of the RPF and the PF, and prepared, adopted and implemented a RAP or a PoA as appropriate in accordance with the RPF and PF, all with the prior written approval of the Bank.

74

74

ANNEX 1: WORLD BANK OPERATIONAL POLICY OP 4.00

OP 4.00March 2005

Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to AddressEnvironmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects

1. The Bank’s1 environmental and social (“safeguard”) policies2 are designed to avoid, mitigate, or minimize adverse environmental and social impacts of projects supported by the Bank. The Bank encourages its borrowing member countries to adopt and implement systems3

that meet these objectives while ensuring that development resources are used transparently and efficiently to achieve desired outcomes. To encourage the development and effective application of such systems and thereby focus on building borrower capacity beyond individual project settings, the Bank is piloting the use of borrower systems in Bank-supported projects. The key objective of the pilot program is to improve overall understanding of implementation issues related to greater use of country systems.

2. Equivalence and Acceptability. The Bank considers a borrower’s environmental and social safeguard system to be equivalent to the Bank’s if the borrower’s system is designed to achieve the objectives and adhere to the applicable operational principles set out in Table A1. Since equivalence is determined on a policy-by-policy basis, the Bank may conclude that the borrower’s system is equivalent to the Bank’s in specific environmental or social safeguard areas in particular pilot projects, and not in other such Areas. Before deciding on the use of borrower systems, the Bank also assesses the acceptability of the borrower’s implementation practices, track record, and capacity.4

3. Addressing Gaps. If the borrower has to fill gaps in its system to meet the objectives and applicable principles in Table A1 and is committed to doing so, the Bank may, when determining equivalence take account of measures to improve the borrower’s system. Similarly if the borrower has to fill gaps in implementation practices and capacity to achieve acceptability and is committed to doing so, the Bank may, when determining acceptability, take account of measures to strengthen borrower implementation practices and capacity. Such measures are to be carried out before the borrower undertakes implementation of the relevant project activities, and may include Bank-supported efforts to strengthen relevant capacity, incentives and methods for implementation.

4. Borrower Role and Obligations. The borrower is responsible for achieving and maintaining equivalence as well as acceptable implementation practices, track record, and capacity, in accordance with the Bank’s assessment. For each project, the borrower identifies those provisions of the country system that are necessary to ensure that the requirements of Table A1 are met. These provisions may vary from project to project, depending on such factors as the structure of the country’s system and the type of operation. In all cases, the specific provisions of the country system and any additional actions that the borrower needs to undertake to achieve and maintain equivalence and acceptable implementation become part of the borrower’s contractual obligations to the Bank, subject to the Bank’s normal contractual remedies (e.g., suspension of disbursements).

5. Bank Responsibility. The Bank is responsible for determining the equivalence and acceptability of borrower systems, and for appraising and supervising pilot projects that use these systems. The Bank carries out its responsibility, including supervision5 of borrower implementation practices, track record, and capacity, in a manner proportional to potential impacts and risks. The Bank may explore with the borrower (and, as appropriate, third-parties) the feasibility of arrangements to strengthen ownership and country capacity to implement specific operational principles in Table A1. Without limitation to its responsibility under this paragraph, the Bank may also explore with the borrower (and, as appropriate, third-parties) the feasibility of establishing alternative monitoring arrangements for overseeing the implementation of the project.

6. Changes in Borrower Systems and Bank Remedies. If, during project implementation, there are changes in applicable legislation, regulations, rules or procedures, the Bank assesses the effect of those changes and discusses them with the borrower. If, in the judgment of the Bank, the changes reflect a further improvement in the country systems, and if the borrower so requests, the Bank may agree to revise the legal framework applicable to the operation to reflect these improvements, and to amend the legal agreement as necessary. Management documents, explains, and justifies any changes to such framework, and submits them for Board approval (normally on an absence of objection basis). If the country system is changed in a manner inconsistent with the legal framework agreed with the Bank, the Bank’s contractual remedies apply.

7. Disclosure. To promote transparency and facilitate accountability, the Bank makes public through the PID early in the project cycle its intent to use country systems in a proposed pilot operation. It updates this information as project development proceeds. At a later stage, but prior to beginning appraisal, the Bank makes publicly available its analysis of equivalence of borrower systems and Bank requirements and its assessment of the acceptability of borrower implementation practices, track record, and capacity (including a description of the applicable borrower systems and of actions that would achieve and sustain equivalence and acceptability). In addition, the Bank ensures that relevant project-related environmental and social safeguard documents (see Table A1), including the procedures prepared for projects involving subprojects, are disclosed in a timely manner before project appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and understandable form and language to key stakeholders.

1 “Bank” includes IDA; “loan” includes credit and grant; and “borrower” includes grant recipient.2 The Bank’s environmental and social safeguards policies and procedures are: OP/BP 4.01, EnvironmentalAssessment; OP/BP 4.04, Natural Habitats; OP 4.09, Pest Management; OP/BP 4.10, IndigenousPeoples; OP 4.11 (forthcoming), Management of Cultural Property in Bank-Financed Projects; OP/BP4.12, Involuntary Resettlement; OP 4.36, Forests; and OP/BP 4.37, Safety of Dams.3 When used in this policy statement “country systems” means a country’s legal and institutionalframework, consisting of its national, subnational, or sectoral implementing institutions and applicablelaws, regulations, rules, and procedures.4 As the applicable statement for the pilots, this OP and BP will apply only to those areas where theBank has determined equivalence. The Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies will applyto the areas which the Bank has determined not to be equivalent to its applicable policy framework andwill continue to apply to all projects that are not part of the pilot program. Pilot projects will besubject to all other applicable policies and procedures.5 OP/BP 13.05, Project Supervision, applies to pilot projects.

76

76

ANNEX 2. SOUTH AFRICAN LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PILOT

Environmental Assessment

1. The two primary objectives of the Environmental Assessment are: (i) to help ensure the environmental and social soundness and sustainability of investment projects; and (ii) to support integration of environmental and social aspects of projects into the decision-making process. Without a country system, these goals are achieved in investment projects through eleven respective World Bank operational principles.122 South Africa, however, conforms to these objectives and operational principles, satisfying the Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy through a variety of legislation and procedures. The Constitution and various acts, including the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) provides for the Government to: (i) protect ecological processes, natural systems and preservation of biotic diversity in the natural environment; (ii) promote sustainable use of species and ecosystems and effective application and reuse of natural resources; (iii) protect the environment against disturbance deterioration, defacement, poisoning, pollution or destruction as a result of man-made structures, installations, processes, products or human activities; (iv) establish and maintain acceptable human living environments in accordance with the environmental values and environmental needs of communities and (v) apply appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure the integrated environmental management of activities. An EIA is one of the tools that the NEMA promotes.

122 The EA Operational Principles: (i) Use a screening process for each proposed project, as early as possible, to determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment (EA) so that appropriate studies are undertaken proportional to potential risks and to direct, and, as relevant, indirect, cumulative, and associated impacts. Use sectoral or regional environmental assessment when appropriate; (ii) Assess potential impacts of the proposed project on physical, biological, socioeconomic and physical cultural resources, including transboundary and global concerns, and potential impacts on human health and safety; (iii) Assess the adequacy of the applicable legal and institutional framework, including applicable international environmental agreements, and confirm that they provide that the cooperating government does not finance project activities that would contravene such international obligations; (iv) Provide for assessment of feasible investment, technical, and sitting alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, potential impacts, feasibility of mitigating these impacts, their capital and recurrent costs, their suitability under local conditions, and their institutional, training and monitoring requirements associated with them; (v) Where applicable to the type of project being supported, normally apply the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (PPAH). Justify deviations when alternatives to measures set forth in the PPAH are selected; (vi) Prevent and, where not possible to prevent, at least minimize, or compensate for adverse project impacts and enhance positive impacts through environmental management and planning that includes the proposed mitigation measures, monitoring, institutional capacity development and training measures, an implementation schedule, and cost estimates; (vii) Principle stakeholders, including project-affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations, as early as possible, in the preparation process and ensure that their views and concerns are made known to decision makers and taken into account. Continue consultations throughout project implementation as necessary to address EA-related issues that affect them; (viii) Use independent expertise in the preparation of EA where appropriate. Use independent advisory panels during preparation and implementation of projects that are highly risky or contentious or that involve serious and multi-dimensional environmental and/or social concerns; (ix) Provide measures to link the environmental assessment process and findings with studies of economic, financial, institutional, social and technical analyses of a proposed project; (x) Provide for application of the principles in Table A1 to subprojects under investment and financial intermediary activities; (xi) Disclose draft EA in a timely manner, before appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and in a form and language understandable to key stakeholders.

139. Legislation and Regulations: The 1996 South African Constitution; National Environmental Management Act; NEMA – Biodiversity Act 2005; and The 2006 EIA Regulations. Section 24 of the 1996 South African Constitution contains mandatory, clear, applicable provisions on environmental protection and sustainable development. Under the Constitution, the NEMA has: (i) a comprehensive Chapter 1 on “National Environmental Management Principles”, which mandates that all stakeholders ensure the environmental, social and economic soundness of development activities123; and (ii) a Chapter 5 on “Integrated Environmental Management”. South Africa revised their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations on Monday, 3 July 2006, which were published by Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister on 21 April 2006.

140. The 1996 South African Constitution: The right to an environment that is not harmful to one’s health and well being is considered fundamental in South Africa. The Constitution refers to this right and that of future generations to a healthy environment (clause 32 of the bill of rights). The Constitution contains mandatory, clear, and applicable provisions on environmental protection and sustainable development.124 The environment is defined as the natural environment and the physical chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties of it that influence human health and well-being. The following sections of the Constitution apply to the Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy: Chapter 2 – Bill of Rights, Section 24 (Environment); Chapter 14 – General Provisions, Section 231 (International Agreements), Section 232 (Customary International Law), and Section 233 (Application of International Law).

141. National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA): NEMA promotes the sustainable use of natural resources and co-operative governance in environmental management. It supports institutional capacity in all spheres of government for effective implementation of participation, and it promotes equitable access to natural resources. It promotes the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of marine resources. NEMA helps citizens handle problems at a municipal level. The Act enables one to question whether proper Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) procedures have been followed125. One can raise concerns with officials, ask for relevant information and approach standing and executive committees. One can warn them of flaws in the procedure or violations of NEMA. The following NEMA provisions apply to the Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy: Chapter 1 – National Environmental Management Principles, Sections 2.3 and 2.4; Chapter 2 – Institutions, Sections 3 and 8; Chapter 3 – Procedures for Cooperative Governance, Sections 11 through 16; Chapter 5 – Integrated Environmental Management, Sections 23 and 24; Chapter 6 – International Obligations and Agreements, Sections 25 through 27; Chapter 7 – Compliance, Enforcement and Protection, Section 29, 31, and 32.

142. NEMA – Biodiversity Act 2005: The original Biodiversity Act was implemented in 2005. However, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism published the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, developed in terms of National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004), on 23 February 2007. The regulations came into effect on 01 February 2008. In preparation for the implementation of the regulations the DEAT convened information sessions to ensure that all stakeholders, including the general public were adequately

123 Section 2.3 and Section 2.4 of NEMA provide definitions of sustainability and sustainable development124 Section 24, 1996 South African Constitution125 http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/inforeep/decisions3.htm

78

78

informed about the implementation of the regulations in order to comply. The following sections of the Biodiversity Act apply to the Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy: Chapter 1 – Interpretation, Objectives and Application of Act, Section 5 (Application of International Agreements), Chapter 3 – Biodiversity Planning and Monitoring, Section 45 (Contents of Biodiversity Management Plans), and Chapter 4 – Threatened or Protected Ecosystems and Species, Section 51 (General Purpose of the Chapter).

143. The 2006 EIA Regulations: South Africa revised their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations on Monday, 3 July 2006, thus signaling the start of an official implementation process. The new regulations, which were revised to be quicker, simpler and better, are the result of a substantial consultative process and were published by Environmental Affairs and Tourism on 21 April 2006. In an earlier notice published by the Minister, the Environment Conservation Act (ECA) EIA regulations of 1997 were repealed in their entirety, thus paving the way for the improved National Environment Management Act (NEMA) EIA regulations. The 2006 EIA Regulations include Chapter 5, Sections 23 and 24 of the NEMA as amended to date. An EIA is a proactive and systematic process where potential environmental impacts, both positive and negative associated with certain activities, are assessed. The list of activities requiring an EIA was thoroughly reworked into nine thematic areas, such as property development, energy generation and industrial activities. These have been further divided into two schedules based on the nature and associated risk of the activity. For example, those activities in schedule one, such as transformation of land to develop residential areas larger than three hectares, will now be subject to only a basic assessment process; activities in schedule two, such as power stations, will require a thorough assessment process (scoping and EIA). One of the most important features of the new regulations is the introduction of compulsory timeframes to which authorities must adhere. Under the new regulations, authorities will be obliged to deliver within 14 days for purely administrative actions, within 45 days for review and decision making on minor reports, and between 60 - 105 days for review and decision making on complex reports. Although all of the 2006 EIA Regulations apply to this particular safeguard policy, the specific provisions addressed in this analysis are as follows: Chapter 2 – Competent Authorities, Section 8(b); Chapter 3 – Applications for Environmental Authorizations, Section 15, Sections 22 through 38, Chapter 6 – Public Participation Process, Sections 56 through 59; and Chapter 8 – General Matters Affecting Applications and Appeals, Sections 69 though 72.

144. The first World Bank operational principle requires using a screening process for each proposed project, as early as possible, to determining the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment (EA) so that appropriate studies are undertaken proportional to potential risks and to direct, indirect, cumulative and/or associated impacts. Additional requirements for this operational principle include using sectoral or regional environmental assessment when appropriate. NEMA and the 2006 EIA Regulations satisfy this principle; NEMA as amended to date Sections 23 and 24, and the 2006 Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the NEMA have also been amended. South African legislature states screening is mandatory for all development projects. The DEAT has issued lists of activities to guide and frame the screening process. The first list relates to activities that “may not commence without environmental authorization from the competent authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impact of activities must be subject to full scoping and EIA processes.” The second list relates to activities that will be subject to “Basic Assessment” as described in the 2006 EIA Regulations. Once a project falls under the lists of

79

79

prescribed projects, project proponents are responsible to submit an application to the relevant authority. Projects on the first prescribed list will require a plan of study for scoping acceptable to the relevant authority. A scoping study is prepared by the project proponent and submitted for review by the relevant authority. Once the scoping study report is approved, the proponent begins the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) as mandated by NEMA and applicable regulations. The 2006 Notices is in reference to Activities identified in terms of Section 24(2)(a) and (d) of the Act (NEMA), which may not commence without an environmental authorization from the Competent Authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impact of activities must follow the procedure as described in Sections 22 to 26 of the 2006 EIA Regulations, and Sections 27 to 36 of the 2006 EIA Regulations. Sectoral and Provincial environmental plans are referred to in Chapter 3 of NEMA, Sections 11 through 16.

Physical Cultural Resources

145. The objective of the Physical Cultural Resources Policy is to assist in preserving physical cultural resources (PCR) and avoiding their destruction or damage. PCR include archaeological, paleontological, historical, and sacred sites, including graveyards, burial sites, and unique natural values. Without a country system, this goal is achieved in investment projects through six respective World Bank operational procedures.126 South Africa, however, fully conforms to these objectives and operational principles, achieving the protection of physical cultural resources through a variety of legislation and procedures. South Africa’s environmental law recognizes the significance of human processes in the phenomenon of an integrated environment. A vital component of the human process includes cultural heritage, which broadly consists of the intellectual, artistic, social, and historical record of the human species that constitutes the common cultural patrimony of the human race.

146. Legislation and Regulations: The 1996 South African Constitution, Sections 24 and 31, Section 1, 24.1c, 23(2)(b) of the NEMA, 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, World Heritage Convention Act 1999, KwaZulu-Natal Act 10 of 1997, Natural Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA), and 2006 EIA Regulations. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 contains two applicable sections: Section 24 (Environment) and Section 31 (Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities). Section 1 of the NEMA defines “Environment” as inter alia “the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions that influence human health and well-being.” Additionally, the NEMA 126 The Natural Resources Operational Principles: (i) Use a precautionary approach to natural resources management to ensure opportunities for environmentally sustainable development. Determine if project benefits substantially outweigh potential environmental costs; (ii) Avoid significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats, including those habitats that are (a) legally protected, (b) officially proposed for protection, (c) identified by authoritative sources for their high conservation value, or (d) recognized as protected by traditional communities; (iii) Where the project adversely affects non-critical natural habitats, proceed only if viable alternatives are not available, and if appropriate conservation and mitigation measures, including those required to maintain ecological services they provide, are in place. Include mitigation measures that minimize habitat loss and establish and maintain an ecologically similar protected area; (iv) Whenever feasible, give preference to sitting projects on lands already converted; (v) Consult key stakeholders, including local nongovernmental organizations and local communities, and involve such people in design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects, including mitigation planning; (vi) Provide for the use of appropriate expertise for the design and implementation of mitigation and monitoring plans; and (vii) Disclose a draft mitigation plan in a timely manner, before appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and in a form and language understandable to key stakeholders.

80

80

provides for an assessment of impact of development activities on “cultural heritage” through Section 24.1c. On June 10, 1997, South Africa ratified the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Two years later in December 1999, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park was declared a World Heritage Site. National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA) aims to create an integrated framework for the protection of cultural heritage with regard to the management and development therefore, as well as participation in and access to heritage resources. Finally, Act 10 of the KwaZulu-Natal Heritage Act 1997 applies specifically to the proposed project and provides rules and procedures for dealing with cultural heritage and archeological properties.

147. The 1996 South African Constitution: South Africa’s environmental law recognizes the significance of human processes in the phenomenon of an integrated environment. A vital component of the human process includes cultural heritage, which broadly consists of the intellectual, artistic, social, and historical record of the human species that constitutes the common cultural patrimony of the human race. The Constitution makes it clear that all South Africa’s citizens not only have the right to a healthy and well-conserved environment, but also have the right to benefit from natural resources for economic and social development. The following sections of the Constitution apply to the Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy: Chapter 2 – Bill of Rights, Section 24 (Environment) and Section 31 (Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Communities).

148. National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA): NEMA promotes the sustainable use of natural resources and co-operative governance in environmental management. It supports institutional capacity in all spheres of government for effective implementation of participation, and it promotes equitable access to natural resources. It promotes the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of marine resources. The following NEMA provisions apply to the Physical Cultural Resources Safeguard Policy: Chapter 1 – Interpretation and Purpose, Section 1 (Interpretation); Chapter 3 – Applications for Environmental Authorisations, Section 23(2)(b) (Content of Basic Assessment Report) and Section 24.1c (Submission of Application to Competent Authority).

149. 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; The World Heritage Convention Act 1999: South Africa ratified the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on 10 June 1997. The objectives of the 1972 Convention included promoting co-operation among nations to protect natural and cultural heritage of outstanding universal value, of concern to all people. It promotes multi-sectoral initiatives and integrates cultural and biological conservation. In 1999, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park was declared a World Heritage Site, and regulations in accordance with the World Heritage Convention Act were promulgated via Regulation Gazette 6834.The World Heritage Convention Act of 1999 ensures that culturally and environmentally appropriate activities take place in World Heritage sites; promotes tourism in World Heritage Sites; promotes the empowerment of heritage development institutes in projects related to World Heritage sites; promotes participation in governance; secures community well-being and empowerment; calls for inter-governmental coordination. It allows for the expropriation and consolidation of tribal and state lands.

81

81

Section 22 of the Act requires the any Authority that may be established for the purpose of managing a World Heritage site to develop and implement an Integrated Management Plan (IMP) and to harmonize and integrate such an IMP with applicable:

Plans in terms of National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA), the Cultural Institutions Act 119 of 1998, the Development Facilitation Act and the National Planning Act (NPA);

Provincial government planning and development plans;

Regional planning and development plans; and

Local government planning and development plans.

150. KwaZulu-Natal Heritage Act 10 of 1997: This Act applies specifically to the proposed project and provides rules and procedures for dealing with cultural heritage and archaeological properties. It provides incentives for the protection of cultural heritage, including prohibition of any demolition of “heritage landmarks.” The objective is to provide for the establishment of a statutory body to administer heritage conservation on behalf of the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal, in particular the care for, maintenance, repair and management of historically important sites; architecturally important buildings; public monuments and memorials; military cemeteries and other important graves; traditional burial places; archaeological and paleontological sites and artifacts; rock art; meteorites; historical shipwrecks, important cultural objects and trade therein, and the traditional building techniques of the people of the Province, by way of providing protections relevant to the type of site or artifact, and its relative significance; integration of protective measures into planning, development and local government systems and by providing for the establishment of educational, training, interpretive and tourism-related projects; and to provide for matters incidental hereto. The following KwaZulu-Natal Act provisions apply to the Physical Cultural Resources Safeguard Policy: Section 8 –Inspection and Documentation; Section 17 – Rights and Duties of Other Authorities and Individuals127; Section 19 – Formal Protections128, Section 20 – Formal Protections129; Section 27 – Heritage Resources Management130, and 27.1

127 Section 17.3.d: At the time of the revision of any plan, or on any other suitable occasion, and in consultation with and to the satisfaction of Amafa aKwaZulu-Natali, make provision for the identification and protection of the heritage resources of the area under its jurisdiction through use of the appropriate provisions of this Act; Section 17.3.e: Implement the minimum incentives for conservation, as determined in this Act.128 Section 19.2: No person shall damage, alter, redecorate, remove from its original position, subdivide or amend any plan thereof except under the authority of a permit issued by Amafa aKwaZulu-Natali.129 Section 20.2: No person shall damage, alter, redecorate, remove from its original position, subdivide or amend any plan relating to the status of a Provincial Landmark except under the authority of a permit issued by Amafa aKwaZulu-Natali.130 Section 27.1: Any person wishing to undertake a project described n terms of the following categories: (a) construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300 m in length; (b) construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50 m in length; and (c) any development, or other activity which will change the character of an area of land, or water - (i) exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; (ii) involving three or more existing “erven” subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven, or subdivisions thereof, which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations; or (v) any other category of development provided for in regulations,

82

82

151. Natural Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA): This Act aims to create an integrated framework for the protection of cultural heritage with regard to the management and development thereof, as well as participation in and access to heritage resources. The following NEMA provisions apply to the Physical Cultural Resources Safeguard Policy: Section 2(viii) – Definitions, Section 35.a and Section 38 (38.1, 38.2, 38.3.a.) – Heritage Resources Management. The NHRA defines development in Section 2(viii) as “any physical intervention, excavation, or action other than those caused by natural forces, which may in the opinion of a heritage authority in any way result in a change to the nature, appearance or physical nature of a place, or influence its stability and future well-being.” The NHRA provides for community involvement, including owners of lands, however clearer indications are needed as to the extent of participation and obligations of communities, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations in the process of cultural heritage assessment and conservation.

152. The 2006 EIA Regulations: South Africa revised their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations on Monday, 3 July 2006, thus signaling the start of an official implementation process. The new regulations, which were revised to be quicker, simpler and better, are the result of a substantial consultative process and were published by Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister on 21 April 2006. The following sections of the 2006 EIA Regulations apply to the Physical Cultural Resources Safeguard Policy: Chapter 3 – Applications for Environmental Authorizations, Section 22 (Steps to be Taken Before Submission of Application), Section 23 (Content of Basic Assessment Report131) for BAR; Chapter 3 – Applications for Environmental Authorizations, Section 29 (Content of Scoping Reports132) for SR; and Chapter 3 – Applications for Environmental Authorizations, Section 32 (Environmental Impact Assessment Reports133) for EIAR.

shall at her/his own initiative and at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the Council and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development. 131 Section 23.2.h: A description and assessment of the significance of any environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, that may occur as a result o the undertaking of the activity or identified alternatives or as a result of any construction, erection or decommissioning associated with the undertaking of the activity; Section 23.2.i: Any environmental management and mitigation measures proposed by the EAP; Section 23.2.j: Any inputs made by specialists to the extent that may be necessary; Section 23.2.k: Any specific information required by the competent authority.132 Section 29.1.d: A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which the physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment may be affected by the proposed activity; Section 29.1.g: Information on the methodology that will be adopted in assessing the potential impacts that have been identified, including any specialist studies or specialized processes that will be undertaken; Section 29.1.j: Any specific information required by the competent authority.133 Section 32.2.d: A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which the physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment may be affected by the proposed activity; Section 32.2.i: A summary of the findings and recommendations of any specialist report or report on a specialized process; Section 32.2.j: A description of all environmental issues that were identified during the environmental impact assessment process, an assessment of the significance of each issue and an indication of the extent to which the issue could be addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures; Section 32.2.p: Copies of any specialist report and reports on specialized processes complying with Section 33 (Specialist Reports and Reports on Specialized Processes).

83

83

World Heritage Convention & Operational Guidelines

Applicable Legislation: e.g. Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 Public Finance Management Act, 1999

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (once promulgated)

Integrated Management Plan

(IMP)

South African World Heritage Convention Act, 2000 & Wetland

Park Regulations

National Environmental Management:

Protected Areas Act, 2003 & Regulations

Subordinate documents & processes

Ag r ee me n ts &

C

o n tr a ct s

Gui de l in es &

Sp e c ifi c at io n s

Pa r k Rul e s &

Pe r m

it Co n di tio n s

Po l ic ie s

Pr o gr a mm

e sPr o ce s s es

Pl an s

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Applicable National, Provincial, Regional & Local Plans e.g. Integrated Development Plans (IDPs)

84

84

ANNEX 3 EQUIVALENCE MATRIX

PER OP 4.00 TABLE A1134

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project activities

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies135

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTObjective: To help ensure the environmental and social soundness and sustainability of investment projects. To support integration of environmental and social aspects of projects into the decision- making process.

The Constitution and various acts, including the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) provides for the Government to (i) protect ecological processes, natural systems and preservation of biotic diversity in the natural environment, (ii) promote sustainable use of species and ecosystems and effective application and reuse of natural resources, (iii) protect the environment against disturbance, deterioration, defacement, poisoning, pollution or destruction as a result of man-made structures, installations, processes, products or human activities, (iv) establish and maintain acceptable human living environments in accordance with the environmental values and environmental needs of communities, and (v) apply appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure the integrated environmental management of activities”. EIA is one of the tools that the NEMA promotes.

Section 24 of the South African 1996 contains mandatory, clear, applicable provisions on environmental protection and sustainable development.

Under the Constitution, the NEMA has: (i) a comprehensive Chapter 1 on “National Environmental Management principles” which mandates all stakeholders to ensure the environmental, social and economic soundness of development activities (See Section 2. 3 and 2.4 on definition of sustainability and sustainable development), and (ii) a chapter 5 on “integrated Environmental Management’

None None

Operational Principles:

1. Use a screening process for each proposed project, as early as possible, to determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment (EA) so that appropriate studies are undertaken proportional to potential risks and to direct, and, as relevant, indirect, cumulative, and associated impacts. Use sectoral or regional environmental assessment when appropriate.

Screening is mandatory for all development projects.

DEAT has issued lists of activities to guide and frame the screening process.

The first list relates to activities that “may not commence without environmental authorization from the competent authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impact of activities must be subject to full scoping and EIA processes”.

The second list relates to activities that will be subject to “Basic Assessment” described in details in the 2006 EIA Regulations.

Once a project falls under the lists of prescribed projects, project proponents are responsible to submit an application to the relevant authority.

NEMA as amended to date (Sections 23 and 24; and 2006 Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the NEMA (2006 EIA Regulations hereinafter)

2006 Notices (lists) related to Activities identified in terms of Section 24(2)(a) and (d) of the Act (NEMA), which may not commence without an environmental authorization from the Competent Authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impact of activities must follow the procedure as described in Sections 22 to 26 of the 2006 EIA Regulations, and Sections 27 to 36 of the 2006 EIA Regulations.

Sectoral and Provincial environmental plans are referred to in Chapter 3 of NEMA, Sections 11 through 16.

None None

134 Prepared during the preparation of the GEF-funded Development, Empowerment and Conservation in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park and Surrounding Region Project.

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

Projects on the first prescribed list will require a plan of study for scoping acceptable to the relevant authority. A scoping study is prepared by the project proponent is to be submitted for review by the relevant authority. Once the scoping study report is approved, the proponent begins the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) as mandated by the NEMA and applicable regulations.

Requirements of Regional and Sectoral Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and Provincial Management Plans (PMPs) are described in the NEMA and are meant to “coordinate, harmonize the environmental policies, plans programs and decisions of the various national departments that exercise functions that may affect the environment or are entrusted with powers and duties aimed at the achievement, promotion, and protection of a sustainable environment, and of provincial and local spheres of government in order to “…secure protection of the environment across the country … prevent unreasonable actions by provinces in respect of the environment…”. These EMPs and PMPs, accompanied by Environmental Implementation Plans (EIPs) are prepared by relevant department and all provinces and regularly updated every four years.

Concerning EMFs, the NEMA, as amended through date, mandates the Minister and/or the province’s authorities to “compile information and maps that specify the attributes of the environment in a particular geographical area, including the sensitivity, interrelationship and significance of such attributes which must be taken into account by every competent authority” (Section 24.3) and no authorization shall be granted to any activity that is not consistent with such attributes.

2006 EIA Regulations, Chapter 8 Part 1 Sections 69 through 72 on EMFs

2. Assess potential impacts of the proposed project on physical, biological, socio-economic and physical cultural resources, including transboundary and global concerns, and potential impacts on human health and safety.

Under the NEMA, in case of any activity that requires an authorization or permission by law and which may affect significantly the environment, the project proponent must assess and, evaluate the potential impacts on environment, socio-economic conditions and the cultural heritage, prior to implementation”.

“Basic Assessment” must be prepared by an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and must describe the “manner in which the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment may be affected by the proposed activity” and how the proponent intends to address all potential impacts.

For projects subject to scoping and environmental impact assessment, a more thorough description of the proposed

The NEMA, Section 24 (i) Regulation for projects subject to Basic Assessment (Section 23 (h)) mandates the EAR to provide a description and assessment of “the significance of any environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of the undertaking of the activity or identified alternatives…”

Sections 22 through 26 of the 2006 EIA Regulations describe the Basic Assessment Report.

Section 27 through 38 of 2006 EIA Regulations governs the preparation, content and adoption of scoping and EIA reports.Cumulative impacts must be identified: 2006 EIA Regulations:Sections 23. 2 (h) for a BAR; Section 29 (1) (f) for a SR; and Section 32 (2) (k) (i)

None None

86

86

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

project, its siting and its potential impacts are required in the Scoping Report (SR) that must be approved by the relevant authority before a comprehensive and thorough Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) is prepared.

Transboundary and global concerns are explicitly referred to in the NEMA but not in the 2006 EIA Regulations.

for an EAR.

Section 2 (b) (n) and Section 23 (6) of NEMA refer to global and international responsibilities related to the environment and activities that “will affect the interest of more than one province or traverse international boundaries”

3. Assess the adequacy of the applicable legal and institutional framework, including applicable international environmental agreements, and confirm that they provide that the cooperating government does not finance project activities that would contravene such international obligations.

South Africa‘s Constitution provides for the implementation of international conventions and international customary law in the country. NEMA has a full Chapter on compliance with all international commitments of the Republic of South Africa and the 2006 EIA Regulations mentions the obligation of any applicant to take into account the provisions of all international commitments made by South Africa under environmental agreements.

The applicant must identify and describe all legislation and guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of the Basic Assessment Report.

Regulations in Connection with the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park (Regulations R.64) Section 2.1. d ..”to ensure the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park be managed, protected and developed in a manner consistent with South Africa’s obligations under the Convention and international best practice”

Constitution, Chapter 14 Sections 231-232-233.

The NEMA, 1998 as amended to date refers to compliance with international law in various sections including: Section 24.3 (c) and (d) and 24.4, 24.5 , 25, 26 and 27

The NEMA-Biodiversity Act 2005 Sections 5, 45 and 51 refer to application of relevant International Agreements binding on the Republic”

The 2006 EIA Regulations: section 23.(2) (e), 27 (f) refer to identification of all applicable legislation, including applicable international conventions ratified by South Africa in Basic Assessment Report or Scoping Report.

None None

4. Provide for assessment of feasible investment, technical, and sitting alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, potential impacts, feasibility of mitigating these impacts, their capital and recurrent costs, their suitability under local conditions, and their institutional, training and monitoring requirements associated with them.

The NEMA provides for “The investigation of the potential impact, of the activity and its alternatives on the environment…” The Regulations in Notice plan of study for scoping provides a long list of items that must be addressed in the report including: “a description of the proposed method of identifying the environmental issues and alternatives”. It is also a rule that the authority may accept the scoping report and decide that “the information contained in the scoping report should be supplemented by an environmental impact assessment which focuses on the identified alternatives and environmental issues identified in the scoping report.As for the EIA, it is mandated to provide “a description of the feasible alternatives identified during scoping that may be

The NEMA, 1998 as amended to date Section 24.7 (b), (c) and (d) and 2006 EIA Regulations

Section 8. 5 when considering applications for an activity, authorities expect the proponent include reference to “any feasible and reasonable alternatives to the activity….and any feasible and reasonable modifications and changes to the activity that may minimize harm to the environment”

Section 23. 2 (g), on consideration of “identification of alternatives to the proposed activity….including advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives will have on the environment and on the community that

None None

87

87

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

further investigated”.There is reference to the “cumulative impacts” and “no action alternative” in NEMA and the 2006 EIA Regulations which refer to the obligation of the EIA expert to prepare a scoping report with consideration to “all alternatives identified” and finally it is mandated that the EIR provides “a description of each alternative...” . “a comparative assessment of all alternatives…”…”including the option of not proceeding with the activity”

may be affected by the activity” in BAR

Section 29.1 (b) on description of the “proposed activity and of any feasible and reasonable alternatives that have been identified” and 29. 1 (i) (iii) description of “the proposed method of assessing the environmental issues and alternatives, including the option of not proceeding with the activity” in the SR ; and

Section 32. 2 (f) and (h) require assessment of advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives will have on the environment and on the community – a comparative assessment of all alternatives identified during the EIA process

5. Where applicable to the type of project being supported, normally apply the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (PPAH). Justify deviations when alternatives to measures set forth in the PPAH are selected.

South Africa is not equipped with an instrument comparable to the PPAH. However, the definition of principles of sustainability under the NEMA contains many of the principles used in the PPAH to define clear and precise quality and emission standards used in various economic sectors of activities.

In addition, the NEMA provides for the preparation of EMPs by all the departments in charge of any portion of the environment. These EMPs must define: “the environmental norms and standards, including norms and standards contemplated in Section 146 .2 (b) (i) of the Constitution”.

The NEMA: Section 2.4 and Section 11.2

NEMA considers as a basic principle the principle of “best practicable environmental option” which is defined as providing the “most benefit or causes the least damage to the environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to the society, in the long run as well as the short run

None

PPAH is not relevant to the proposed pilot project.

None

6. Prevent and, where not possible to prevent, at least minimize, or compensate for adverse project impacts and enhance positive impacts through environmental management and planning that includes the proposed mitigation measures, monitoring, institutional capacity development and training measures, an implementation schedule, and cost estimates.

The NEMA states clearly that “disturbances of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided or where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimized and remedied”. Also, the NEMA mentions that if disturbance of site and landscapes that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage cannot be avoided, it must be mitigated, minimized and remedied.

Applicable regulations mandate the project proponent to submit an EAR which must include: (i) the extent and significance of each identified environmental impact, and (ii) the possibility for mitigation of each identified impacts. Prior to granting any authorization, the competent authority must assess the “ability of the applicant to implement mitigation measures and to comply with any conditions subject to

The NEMA, Section 2.4 (a) (i) through (viii), Section 2.4 (b) (i) and (p) on mitigation measures and costs; and Section 24.7 (f) on formulation of arrangements for the monitoring and management of impacts, and the assessment of effectiveness of such arrangements after their implementation”

2006 EIA Regulations - Section 8 (b)- Section 23. 2 (h), (i), (j) and (k) for BAR- Section 27 (f) and (g) and 29. 1 (i) for SR, and- Section 32. 2 (j) and (k) and 34 (b) for the EIAR and related EMP. Section 35 of the EIA regulation 385 , April 2006 requires that a draft EMP is developed with the EIAR. Once a ROD is issued, and presuming it permits the

Cost estimate is not required as part of an environmental impact assessment report and/or management plan.

This gap can be filled by adding such a requirement as part of ROD for specific EIA reports.

88

88

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

which the application may be granted”

The Record of Decision (ROD) related to any EIAR includes a description of the measures to mitigate, control or manage environmental impacts or to rehabilitate the environment

development to go ahead, the EMP is updated to incorporate and new conditions from the ROD.

7. Involve stakeholders, including project-affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations, as early as possible, in the preparation process and ensure that their views and concerns are made known to decision makers and taken into account. Continue consultations throughout project implementation as necessary to address EA-related issues that affect them.

The NEMA has many provisions related to the consultation of stakeholders and public participation in decision-making processes. Consultation of stakeholders (“Interested and Affected Parties” (IAP) in the NEMA) is mandatory for basic assessment, scoping and EIA processes, including during implementation of mitigation measures and EMPs. The independent expert in charge of preparing the EIA must have “the ability to manage the public participation process” and is “responsible for the public participation process to ensure that all IAP, including government departments that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity, are given the opportunity to participate in all the relevant procedures contemplated in these regulations.

IAP may obtain information, including copies of EIARs and EMPs and copies of the decisions of the relevant authorities whether at national and/or local level. The scoping must provide an appendix “containing a description of the public participation process followed, including a list of IAP and their comments”.

Finally. It is important to note that after a decision is made about an EIAR, the EIAR and all related documents and appendices become public documents under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000

General principle of public consultation in the NEMA Section 2.4 (f) and (k) and Section 23.2 (d) and Section 24.7 (d)

2006 EIA Regulations: Chapter 6 “Public Participation Processes” including Sections 56 through 59 and more specifically:

1. For Basic Assessment Report (BAR): Section 22 (a) on conducting a public participation process; Section 22 (c) on opening and maintaining a registry of all IAP in respect of an application; Section 22 (d) on documenting the public participation process conducted including objections received from IAP; and Section 23 (2) (f) on description of the public participation and consultation process undertaken during the preparation of a BAR.

2. For scoping process and preparation of a scoping report, similar requirements are described in Section 28 (a); Section 28 (c); Section 28 (d); and Section 29 (1) (h).

3. For EIAR: Section 32. 2 (e) and the 2000 Access to the Information Act describe these requirements.

None None

89

89

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

8. Use independent expertise in the preparation of EA where appropriate. Use independent advisory panels during preparation and implementation of projects that are highly risky or contentious or that involve serious and multi-dimensional environmental and/or social concerns.

The EIA Regulations clearly imposes on the project proponent to contract an independent expert to prepare the scoping report, EIAR and later for supervision of the implementation of mitigation measures and EMPs as appropriate. They are defined and referred to as “Environmental Assessment Practitioners” under NEMA.

The NEMA provides for independent review of all phases of the investigation and assessment of impacts.

DEAT implements a systematic review process under very strict review guidelines established to ensure consistency in review and clarify the role of reviewers throughout the process.

The NEMA as amended to date:Section 1 (d) and Section 24.7 (d) refer to “independent review and conflict resolution”; and Section 17 and 18 mention “Environmental Assessment Practitioners” must be independent.

Section 24 (I) states that relevant authority may “appoint an external specialist reviewer and may recover cost from the applicant, in instances where: (a) the technical knowledge required to review any aspect of an assessment is not readily available within the competent authority; or

(b) a high level of objectivity is required which is not apparent in the document submitted, in order to ascertain whether the information is adequate for decision making or whether it requires amendment”

Not a significant difference.136

None

9. Provide measures to link the environmental assessment process and findings with studies of economic, financial, institutional, social and technical analyses of a proposed project.

The NEMA provides for linkages between environmental management in general and peoples’ economic, social, cultural, and health needs.

NEMA the EIA is linked to the underlying factors (economic, technical and social) which characterize the proposed project.

The NEMA: Section 2(2), (3) and (4) provides for the general link between environmental management and the overall economic and social development; and Section 24 provides for direct linkages between the environmental impact assessment and socio-economic and cultural conditions.

The 2006 EIA Regulations provide for additional and specialized studies that may be needed and are defined in the SR (Section 29.1 (d) and (i)).

None None

10. Provide for application of the principles in this Table to subprojects under investment and financial intermediary activities.

The NEMA and 2006 EIA Regulations are mandatory requirements for all subprojects.

The 2006 EIA Regulations recognizes also the possibility for an applicant to apply for various similar projects in the same or different geographical areas and provides for “combination of applications” subject to consider that environmental impacts of each activity must be assessed in terms of the location where the activity is to be undertaken.

The NEMA, Chapter 5 on “Integrated Environmental Management”

2006 EIA Regulations Section 15.

None None

11. Disclose draft EA in a timely manner, before

Disclosure is dealt with across all the segments of environmental management

The NEMA as amended to date: Section 3.4 (f) and (k) on participation of all IAP

None None

136 Use of independent experts to review and assist during EIA preparation, review and monitoring of “projects that are highly contentious or that involve serious multi-dimensional environmental and/or social concerns” is not specifically mentioned or provided for in the NEMA and other applicable regulations. However, this is not relevant for the proposed pilot.

90

90

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and in a form and language understandable to key stakeholders.

and conservation processes in South Africa. It is part of the general principles that form the ground of environmental law in South Africa.

Notice is given to stakeholders about any project subject to environmental impact assessment. Draft report is disclosed and stakeholders are informed through newspapers (local and/or national) and radio.

Information to be disclosed for the purpose of the consultation process is described in the 2006 EIA Regulations.

In addition, all stakeholders registered during the consultation process have access to final documentation and Record Of Decision.

South Africa has adopted a comprehensive Act on Promotion of Access to Information in 2000.

which assumes appropriate information is disclosed to them to ensure transparency and fairness in environmental decision-making processes.

The 2006 EIA Regulations states that IAP must be given opportunity to discuss draft BAR (Section 22. f), SR (Section 28.g), draft EIAR (Section 32.1) and EIAR (Section 32.2.e), Special Reports prepared to complement the EIA are also subject to public disclosure and discussion by IAPs (Section 33.2. h and i).

Also Chapter 6 of the 2006 EIA Regulations on “Public participation process” governs disclosure-related issues.

Section 31 of NEMA on “access to environmental information and protection of whistleblowers” and Promotion of access to Information Act, 2000.

PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCESObjective: To assist in preserving physical cultural resources (PCR) and avoiding their destruction or damage. PCR includes archaeological, paleontological, historical, and sacred sites, including graveyards, burial sites, and unique natural values.

South Africa’s environmental law recognizes the significance of human processes in the phenomenon of an integrated environment. A vital component of the human process includes cultural heritage, which broadly consists of the intellectual, artistic, social and historical record of the human species that constitutes the common cultural patrimony of the human race.

National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (hereafter the NHRA) aims to create an integrated framework for the protection of cultural heritage with regard to the management and development thereof, as well as participation in and access to heritage resources. And, in practice the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA) and South African specialists and practitioners are using best international practices including but not limited to the Australian Burra Charter as a guide to developing strategies for understanding the problem of heritage assessment, managing resource assessment and developing policies with regard to the assessment.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 Section 24 (Environment) and Section 31 (Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities)

South Africa ratified the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on 10 June 1997

The NEMA defines “Environment” as inter alia "the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions that influence human health and well-being" (Section 1) and provides for an assessment of impact of development activities on “cultural heritage” (Section 24.1 c)

Finally the Kwazulu-Natal Heritage Act, Act 10 of 1997 applies specifically to the proposed project and provides rules and procedures for dealing with cultural heritage and archeological properties. 

None None

Operational Principles: General objective of integrated environmental management entails the

NEMA Section 23 (2)(b) None None

91

91

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

1. Analyze feasible project alternatives to prevent or minimize or compensate for adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts on PCR, through site selection and design.

identification, prediction and evaluation of the actual and potential impact of development on inter alia cultural heritage.

The NEMA accordingly acknowledges the importance of Heritage Impact Assessment in the EIA process.

Provincial legislation confirms these rules and mandates proponents to take measures to avoid impacts on cultural heritage

Kwazulu-Natal Act 10 of 1997 provides incentives for the protection of cultural heritage, including prohibition of any demolition of “heritage landmarks”

Regulations in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 in Connection with the Greater St. Lucia Wetland park (Regulation Gazette 6834)

2. If possible, avoid financing projects that significantly damage PCR. As appropriate, conduct field based surveys using qualified specialists to evaluate PCR.

The South Africa’s legal framework for cultural heritage conservation and protection prohibit any investment that may damage a physical cultural resource. Current practice under the NHCA implemented by the South African heritage resource practitioners includes: (i) an assessment to identify the heritage resource found; (ii) information pertaining to the significance of the resources; and (iii) a statement of significance. Finally, obligations arising from the significance must then be identified, information that may affect the future of the resource must be gathered, a policy must be developed and a statement of policy must be formulated. In the last instance the process requires strategies to be developed which must be implemented through a management plan. The process will be concluded with monitoring and review of the assessment137.  South African Heritage Resources Authority must be involved to assess any discovery and survey the site under environmental assessment or considered for a project and may issue a prohibition to further develop the site or mandate mitigation and conservation measures to be taken by developers.

S 2(viii) of the NHRA defines development as: “any physical intervention, excavation, or action other than those caused by natural forces, which may in the opinion of a heritage authority in any way result in a change to the nature, appearance or physical nature of a place, or influence its stability and future well-being.”

Same process is provided for under the Kwazulu-Natal Heritage Act (Section 8, 17. e, 19.2, 20.2…) and Section 27.1 provides a list of activities that must be notified by applicants to the Cultural Heritage Council which will approve the selection of a specialist to assess the proposed activity and its potential impacts on its areas and prepare a plan for dealing with cultural heritage resources

None None

3. Consult local people in documenting the presence and significance of PCR, assessing the nature and extent of potential impacts on these resources, and designing and implementing mitigation plans.

The NHRA provides for community involvement, including owners of lands, are consulted and their comments taken into account in final report regarding the impact of any proposed development on a cultural heritage property. However, clearer indications are needed as to the extent of participation and obligations of communities, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations in the process of cultural

All applicable rules on consultation for EIA process and in addition

NHRA, Section 35.a, 38.3.a

Kwazulu-Natal Act, Section 17.3.d and 27

None None

137 This was the process followed during the implemented of the EIA process for the “Cradle of Humankind” Project and agreed upon by DEAT and the Agency in charge of physical cultural heritage.

92

92

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

heritage assessment and conservation.4. Provide for the use of “chance find” procedures that include a pre-approved management and conservation approach for materials that may be discovered during project implementation.

All project proponents must notify the responsible heritage resource authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development. If the heritage resource authority has reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected by such development, it will require of the proponent to submit a heritage impact assessment report. Approval of the mitigation measures and management plan if required is made by the relevant cultural heritage administration.

The 2006 EIA Regulations provides for comprehensive survey of the proposed activity and its impacts on area of influence including on cultural heritage, when if applicable will require the applicant discuss additional terms of reference for the cultural heritage aspects of the assessment and prepare a specific report

The NHRA, Section 38.1

The 2006 EIA Regulations Sections 22 and 23.2. h, i, j, and k for BAR; Section 29. 1. d, g and j for SR, and Section 32.2 d, i, j and p for EIAR.

None None

5. Define and undertake measures for strengthening institutional capacity to implement mitigation plans and to deal with impacts on PCR identified prior to and/or discovered during project implementation.

South Africa is equipped with adequate capacity to deal with cultural heritage resources at central level. And independent consultant who would be contracted to prepare scoping report and EIR are expected to be trained to deal with all applicable regulations including those on cultural heritage resources. Such consultants must have the skill, competence and qualification satisfactory to SAHRA

NHRA, Section 38.2 (a)

2006 EIA Regulations

None None

6. Disclose draft mitigation plans, in a timely manner, before appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and in a form and language that are understandable to key stakeholders.

Disclosure is mandated as part of the EIA process.

The NEMA

The 2006 EIA Regulations.

None None

NATURAL HABITATSObjective:

To promote environmentally

South Africa has two main laws that fully confirm to the objective; these are the Protected Areas Act 57 of 2004 and the Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. Together they

Constitution : Section 24

NEMA Section 2 and Section 16 through 18 on “Protection of natural Environment”

None None

93

93

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

sustainable development by supporting the protection, conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of natural habitats and their functions

form a comprehensive legislation on establishment, protection and conservation and management of natural habitats, their biological diversity wealth and environmental functions. Key principles embedded in this legislation include: (i) development must not degrade the natural, built, social, economic, and governance resources on which it is based, (ii) current actions should not cause irreversible damage to natural and other resources, as this potentially prevents the realization of future sustainable options, (iii) where there is uncertainty about the impact of activities on the environment, caution should be exercised in favor of the environment, (iv) land use and environmental planning need to be integrated.

South Africa has a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

NEMA-Biodiversity Act 2004, which provides for “management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity….the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection, the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources….” and

The NEMA-Protected Areas Act, 2003 as amended to date, which provides for “the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; …..for the management of those areas in accordance with norms and standards; [and] for .public consultation in matters concerning protected areas..”

Operational Principles:

1. Use a precautionary approach to natural resources management to ensure opportunities for environmentally sustainable development. Determine if project benefits substantially outweigh potential environmental costs

The NEMA is aiming, among other objectives, at prohibiting or limiting those activities that will be identified as having a detrimental effect on the environment, legislation on protected areas and biodiversity is an important asset.

Under NEMA, the Minister of Environment may by Notice in the Gazette declare “any area…as a limited development area” on which no development can be undertaken unless on the basis of a conditional authorization. And, any development project that may affect a protected area is subject to a full EIA to be reviewed and monitored by DEAT at national level.

Finally, it should be mentioned that a matter of principle, NEMA is grounded on a “risk-averse and cautious approach which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions..” and therefore require authorities to use the precautionary principle in all their decisions

The NEMA:

Section 2.4.vii

Section 23 (1) and Section 27

Chapter 4 Part I of the NEMA, Protected Areas Act 2003 Regulations prohibits activities that may have a negative impact of conservation and protection of biological diversity of the protected areas, (Section 50-56) and

Chapter 4 , Part II of the NEMA, Protected Areas Act, Regulations lists Restricted Activities (Section 57)

Chapter 4 Part III of the NEMA, Protected Areas, Regulations lists Prohibitions or Restrictions of Land use in Protected Areas (Sections 58-60)

The 2006 EIA Regulations provides for assessment of all activities that may impact a protected area and for assessment of such impacts.

None None

2. Avoid significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats, including those habitats that are (a) legally protected, (b) officially proposed for protection,

The NEMA states that “sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems, such as coastal shores, estuaries, wetlands and similar systems require specific attention in management and planning procedures especially where they are subject to significant human resource usage and development pressure”

The NEMA, Section 2 And Section 24. 2. e

Legally protected special nature reserve can’t be converted except “by resolution of the National Assembly” Protected Areas Act of 2003 as amended, Section 19. However the Act provides that an area or

None None

94

94

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

(c) identified by authoritative sources for their high conservation value, or (d) recognized as protected by traditional communities.

is an important principle of sustainable development of South Africa.

Based on this principle, the Minister in charge of environment and provincial government shall “prepare compilation of information and maps that specify the attributes of the environment in particular geographical areas, including the sensitivity, extent, interrelationships and significance of such attributes which must be taken into account by every organ of state charged by law with authorizing, permitting or otherwise allowing the implementation of a new activity, or with considering assessing and evaluating an existing activity” Currently, 6% of the land surface of South Africa is formally conserved through the system of national and provincial protected areas. The target is to expand this to 8% by 2010138. To this end, DEAT has prepared with relevant authorities and stakeholders a National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) which takes into account important poverty alleviation and community development programs that have been initiated and which present opportunities to improve natural resources management and linking biodiversity to social development.

part of an area declared as “protected environment” may be excluded from withdrawn from the protected area system by a Notice issued by the Minister of Environment or Provincial Government as the case may be.

3. Where project adversely affect non-critical natural habitats, proceed only if viable alternatives are not available, and if appropriate conservation and mitigation measures, including those required to maintain ecological services they provide, are in place. Include mitigation measures that minimize habitat loss and establish and maintain an ecologically similar protected area.

The EIA process provides for a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of any proposed activity that may impact a protected area. In such case, it is the national authority which will be responsible for reviewing the SR and EIAR. Mitigation measures and/or a comprehensive environmental management plan will be required, implemented and monitoredThere is no provision to oblige the Government and/or proponent to ” establish and maintain an ecologically similar area”

The NEMA as amended to date and the 2006 EIA Regulations.

The NEMA, Protected Areas Act as amended.

None None

4. Whenever feasible, give preference to sitting projects on lands already converted.

NEMA provide for the development of national and provincial environmental management frameworks and plans, including implementation plans and maps

The NEMA 1997 as amended to date, Section 23.2 (b)

The 2006 EIA Regulations on alternatives

None None

138 South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2005 (Draft disclosed by DEAT for public consultation and comments, see http://www.deat.gov.za//PolLeg/Legislation/2004Jun7_2/Biodiversity%20Act-7%20June%202004.pdf

95

95

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

that provides for, among other issues, for compliance with the national environmental management principles. The basic principle which these plan must comply with is to avoid disturbances to ecosystems and loss of biological diversity and where they can not be avoided they are minimized and or remedied

to the proposed activity and more generally general

Chapter 1 on Principles of Environmental Management (Section 2.r) and Chapter on Procedures for Cooperative Governance which deals with Implementation plans and management plans.

5. Consult key stakeholders, including local nongovernmental organizations and local communities, and involve such people in design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects, including mitigation planning.

Consultation of stakeholders is a key requirement during environmental assessment process which is mandatory for all activities that may impact a protected area. The NEMA, Biodiversity Act also provide for public consultation including affected and local communities for all issues pertaining to biodiversity conservation.

The NEMA, Protected Areas Act has a Part on “Consultation process”, including “Public Participation” and consultation of affected organs of state, communities and beneficiaries. Any draft act, regulation, or activity that relates to protected areas must be disclosed and opened to public consultation. Disclosure is ensured through publication in newspapers including local newspaper to ensure participation of local communities.

Also Parks Board are mandated to involve local communities in protected areas management including preparation of management plans, and in developing as appropriate co-management of protected areas frameworks

The NEMA and 2006 EIA Regulations

The NEMA, Protected Areas, 2003 as amended to date Part 5 Sections 31 through 34

The NEMA, Biodiversity Act, 2004, Section 63 on consultation related to specific issues dealing with threats to and biodiversity conservation issues, and Sections 99-100 which governs the consultation process.

None None

6. Provide for the use of appropriate expertise for the design and implementation of mitigation and monitoring plans.

NEMA provides the general principle that EIAs and EMPs, including specialist reports are prepared and developed by specialists approved by the authorities.

Review and monitoring is done under the supervision of monitoring of specialists that the applicant contract as part of the EMP and the authorities have the ability to contract independent experts to monitor implementation and look at more specific issues.

The NEMA and 2006 EIA Regulations

The NEMA Protected Areas, Sections 38 through 44

None None

7. Disclose draft mitigation plan in a timely manner, before appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and in a form and language understandable

Disclosure is provided for under NEMA. It is provided for the publication of notices and relevant documents concerning EIA and EMPs in local journals to make them accessible to local communities. There is no reference to language in laws and regulations, but all documents related to

The NEMA and the 2006 EIA Regulations

Section 2..(f) and ((k) which deal with public participation and disclosure,Section 23.2 (d) and 24.7 (d) on “public information and participation independent review and conflict resolution in all phases

None None

96

96

Bank Policy (OP 4.00) Requirements

(Objective and Operational Principles)

Government of South Africa’s Equivalent Requirements Differences between OP 4.00 and South Africa’s requirements

Improvements needed to address the differences before implementing the project

Objectives and Operational Principles as stated in the relevant laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

References to the relevant sections of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, and policies

to key stakeholders. environmental issues are disseminated in Afrikaner and English

of the investigation and assessment of impacts”

97

97

Attachment to the Matrix

Applicable Acts, Regulations, International Agreements

I- Relevant Legislation to Overall Environmental Governance in South Africaa. The Constitution of South Africab. The National Environmental Management Act, 1998c. The Provision of Access to Information Act, 2000d. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)

II- Environmental Assessmenta. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)107 of 1998 as amended to

date139; and b. Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental management

Act , 1998 to regulate procedures and criteria as contemplated in Chapter 5 of the Act for the submission, processing, consideration and decision of applications for environmental authorization of activities and for matters pertaining thereto, and: including:

1. List of activities and competent authorities identified in terms of Sections 24 and 24D of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998: list 1 related to activities identified in terms of Section 24 (2) (a) and (d) of the Act, which may not commence without environmental authorization from the competent authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impacts of activities must follow the procedure as described in Regulations 22 to 26 of the EIA Regulations 2006, and

2. List of activities and competent authorities identified in terms of Sections 24 and 24D of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998: list 2 related to activities identified in terms of Section 24 (2) (a) and (d) of the Act, which may not commence without environmental authorization from the competent authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impacts of activities must follow the procedure as described in Regulations 27 to 36 of the EIA Regulations

III- Physical Cultural Resourcesa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 Section 24 (Environment) and

Section 31 (Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities); b. The National Environmental Management Act ;c. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) 25 of 1999;

139 The NEMA and its implementing regulations have replaced progressively the Environmental Conservation Act (ECA) 73 of 1989, including: (i) Government Notice. R. 1182 concerning the identification under Section 21 of the ECA of activities that may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment, published in Government Gazette No.18261, Pretoria, 5 September 1997, and Amended by GN R 1355 of 1997-10-17, GN R 448 of 1998-03-27and GN R 670 of 2002-05-10, and (ii) Government Notice. R. 1183 concerning regulations regarding activities identified under Section 21 (1) of the ECA, published in Government Gazette No. 8261, Pretoria, 5 September 1997 and amended by GN R 1645 of 1998-12-11 and GN R 672 of 2002-05-10.

98

98

d. Kwazulu-Natal Heritage Act, Act 10 of 1997140 e. World Heritage Act, 1999 Regulations on the Establishment of the Greater St.

Lucia Wetland Parks and Authority (R.635); andf. World Heritage Act, 1999 Regulations in Connection with the Greater St. Lucia

Wetland Parks (R.634).

IV- Involuntary Resettlementa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, Section 25 (property)b. Environmental Conservation Act (ECA), as amended to datec. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA)d. Housing Act, 107 of 1997,e. Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), 62 of 1997f. Land and Assistance Act, 126 of 1993g. Land Reform (Labor Tenants) Act 30 of 1998,h. Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994,

V- Natural Habitatsa. National Environmental management Act: Protected Areas Act, Act 57 of 2003 as

amended to date,b. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Act 10 of 2004

VI- International Environmental Treaties, Conventions and Agreements to Which South Africa is a Party141 and Which Are Relevant to the Use of Country System for the Greater St Lucia Wetland National Park Pilot Project

a. Convention on Biological Diversityb. Convention on World natural and Cultural Heritagec. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changed. Convention to Combat Drought and Desertification, Especially in Africae. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)f. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl

Habitats (RAMSAR)

140 This reference to the Kwa-Zulu Natal Act is necessary because of the location of the proposed GEF Project on the territory of the Kwa-Zulu Natal Province141 South Africa’s Constitution has a Sub-Chapter 14 on “International Law” which has a Section 231 on “International Agreements”. In addition, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), Act 107 of 1998 as amended to date, (notably Section 25) makes provisions for the treatment of “International Obligations and Agreements” related to Environmental Law. The list provided refer to those conventions and agreements that are useful for the purpose of the proposed GEF Project and the preparation of the Report on the Use of Country System (UCS)

99

99

ANNEX 4.

PRIORITIZED AREAS OF INTERVENTION FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

Key objectives Key ActionPark OperationsTo re-establish and manage the Wetland Park as one open ecological area

- To erect, construct and maintain appropriate infrastructure in support of conservation management

- Identification, re-establishment and protection of key ecological corridors and linkages within and adjacent to the Park

- Incorporation of additional key ecological land into the Park by initiating and concluding Land Incorporation Agreements with relevant land owners

To rehabilitate degraded areas and restore ecological functioning within the Park and in doing so, enhance the World Heritage values

- Implement a land care programme, including the removal of alien invasive species against annual plan of operation

- Conduct a feasibility study to determine the optimal solution for the management of the St Lucia lake system

Commercial development Position the park as a value for money destination - Diversify product base through

o Upgrading of public facilities o New tourism facilities (by establishing

partnerships with the private sector)o Develop day visitor facilities o Establishment of a tourism activities base

- Improve quality of tourism service in the Park through mandatory tourism accreditation programmes

Develop a Brand for the Park that is representative of the geographic, biodiversity, and cultural diversity of the Park

- Develop the Wetland Park brand

Empowerment and TransformationFacilitate the transformation of the tourism sector and support neighboring communities and land claimants to participate in the commercial development of the park

- Where appropriate, support the establishment of equity partnerships between private sector operators and mandatory community partners

- Implement SMME incubation pilot programme which will enable entrepreneurs to successfully tender for activity concessions

Facilitate access to economic benefits for communities living in and around the Park through the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, as well as through land care programmes

- Where appropriate, provide opportunities for SMMEs and temporary job creation in rehabilitation work, alien clearing, construction and maintenance of Park infrastructure

Provide support to land claimants in the settlement of land claims and the implementation of settlement agreements

- Facilitate the participation of communities living in and around the Park and land claimants in the management of the Park through the Local Area Planning process

100

100

Key objectives Key Action- Participate in activities that will support the

settlement of land claims by the Regional Land Claims Commission on the Wetland Park, such as mobile workshops

- Implement land claims settlement and co-management agreements in partnership with the Land Claims Trusts

Maintain relationships and implement effective consultation processes with communities living in and around the Park and land claimants

- Develop local area plans with beneficiary communities in order to provide a framework for development within each locality that takes account of the relevant legal, social, environmental, institutional, economic and financial parameters

Communication, Interpretation and EducationImplement an environmental education programme aimed at both school children and adults that promotes sustainable development, conservation and appreciation of world heritage values

- Develop a concept and raise funds for the implementation of an environmental education programme

- Undertake capacity-building and educational programmes to promote appreciation of the World Heritage values

- Provide for controlled access for visitors to learn about and appreciate the world heritage values in the Wetland Park.

Source Draft IMP, Table 5. pp. 67-69

101

101

ANNEX 5.

RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION WORKSHOPST. LUCIA, SOUTH AFRICA

NOVEMBER 13, 2008

Objectives of the Workshop:

1. In an introduction to the Workshop, Mohammed Bekhechi (World Bank) has mentioned that the workshop has three main objectives (1) updating stakeholders on status of the iSimangaliso Conservation and Community Development Project Preparation; (2) Providing information to stakeholders on the use of South Africa’s environmental and social laws and policies for the implementation of the proposed project and (3 gathering and discuss comments and feedback from stakeholders on the Project and the Use of the Country System as described in the draft Country Safeguard Diagnostic Review prepared by the Bank.. The Consultation Workshop was also an opportunity to gather stakeholders’ comments and feedback on the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) prepared by the iSimangaliso Authority to address any resettlement issue that may have happened during the Project implementation period. This RPF was prepared because the involuntary resettlement policy will not be piloted under the Use of Country System for the proposed Project. The RPF is issued as a separate document.

Presentation of the iSimangaliso GEF Project

2. Ms Bronwyn James delivered a presentation on the iSimangaliso GEF Project which discussed: (1) the projects background and objectives, (2) Process to date in the project preparation phase, (3) Project components which cover the ecological, socio-economic and institutional goals for the Project.

The way forward:

3. (1) Stakeholders supported overwhelmingly the iSimangaliso and the World Bank to continue to work on completing the GEF project preparation and to finalize the Project Appraisal Document (PAD),

(2) The Bank informed the assistance that the proposed Project is planned for the Bank’s Executive Board presentation on 21 April 2009.142

142 This date has since been revised to July 12, 2009.

(3) the Project is planned to be effective by July 31, 2009 to allow disbursement to proceed right after that date, and that

(4) Should the participants have any further comments, please contact the iSimangaliso Authority.

The following Table summarizes and discusses the stakeholders’ comments and feedback on the iSimangaliso GEF iSimangaliso GEF Project and the draft SDR findings and recommendations

Question ResponseThere are many hydrological studies that have been done – will this project repeat these studies – what’s new?

We are not re-inventing the wheel. We will consolidate existing studies but there are also gaps that need to be looked at. For example socio-economic studies.

Are we looking at models of different scenarios and are there control sites. Also, these models need to include ecological and community needs.

The studies will propose different options of restoring the Umfolozi/St Lucia mouth and estuary and will include ecological and socio-economic issues and concerns.

Define the spatial parameters of the project. In component one the study focuses on the Umfolozi river and flood plain (linked with the estuary): the area will include the lower river and mouth of the estuary and the catchments that feed into the system. In component 2 the study focuses on the education facility and land claimant support: the area of study is park wide, that is the 14 land claimants and the traditional authority areas surrounding the Park.

The system has been mismanaged for the past 5 years and fresh water is not flowing into the estuary. There are sluice systems already available that will allow for the fresh water from the Umfolozi to flow into the lake.

This is a view and one of the options that will need consideration.

iSimangaliso needs to liaise with UKZN who is already doing a socio-economic study. The lead is Duncan Head.

Point noted

How wide will the socio-economic impact be? The socio-economic impact stretches much further to the west and to the north and those factors need to be included in you study.

The socio-economic studies vary with the components. In component one, the direct stakeholders will be along the Umfolozi/St Lucia areas. In component two, the direct stakeholders are the land claimants and the traditional authority areas that abut the Park. Furthermore, the studies will define where the socio-economic impacts lie.

What processes did you follow in deciding the various studies that have been proposed?

We have defined Terms of References (TORs) which broadly define the ecological and socio-economic studies. The TOR was developed through extensive input from the World Bank, EKZNW and iSimangaliso.

It will be important to consider the socio-economic benefits within a broader framework. For example what impact will the project have

These factors will be taken into account in the socio-economic studies.

103

103

on the commercial and recreational fisheries in South Africa.Are there going to be guidelines and ‘don’t go there’ policies?

Guidelines may be developed but I can’t answer to policies that may/may not be put in place.

Lack of capacity in key compliance agencies both at national and provincial level to ensure compliance of environmental laws.

Component 3 of the proposed iSimangaliso Project shall help enhance the capacity of the institutions involved in the management and conservation of the park.

The stakeholder documents must be released to the environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Also, environmental NGOs must be included in the implementation of the GEF project.

Our intention is not to exclude any stakeholders. NGOs are recognized as important stakeholders in this process. NGOs will be cited as a separate category in the documents so as to be more representative of your status.

It would be good to include the sugar cane farmers.

: We recognize that there are diverse interests represented in the iSimangaliso GEF project. The sugar cane farmers are represented under the private sector

I am pleased with the project and find it well planned. I can see that some people will benefit by this project. However, I need clarity on how everyone will benefit. I can see the old people won’t be able to participate in those business projects. What provision would be made for such people that can’t participate in some of the proposed opportunities, for example how will vegetable producers be assisted?

This is an important question. This GEF project is one of many projects that the iSimangaliso Authority implements. We focus on a range of different stakeholders at different levels in the community. At the moment, iSimangaliso is hoping to sign an agreement with Flemish Funders to run a garden project that will focus on improving the livelihoods of the more vulnerable members of the community.

We need conservation education, for example education on the Black Rhino.

Point noted.

Why are there weaknesses/failures in implementation of the legislation?

The legal processes in South Africa are sufficient and that there is no need to comment on this question. People are given sufficient time to comment when the government proposes legislation.

I want to know whether announcements will be made on the proposed developments on the Eastern shores. There is a suspicion amongst people that there is still something waiting in the pipeline for big development on the Eastern Shores and that big hotel chains and big money will be involved. Will this project bring clarity on this issue? Will these developments continue and what is the status of these developments. Are they shelved?

The commercial strategy in the Park is very clear. The Integrated Management Plan will be put out to public comment within the next few months where the commercial strategy is outlined. iSimangaliso has put out several communications including the iSimangaliso News on the re-tendering of the Cape Vidal development. The Authority has very transparent processes when it comes to development and tendering in the Park. In terms of development in the Park, the strategy has always been to develop what is already there, that is to develop existing nodes. Also once a tender process has been completed; the preferred bidder’s development plans will go through the EIA process.

Is there a possibility to extend the timeframe to We will distribute the document on the 21

104

104

comment of the SDR as companies close during this year for holiday (15 December -2 January)?

November and the deadline for comment will remain the 31 December 2008.

WESSA’S WRITTEN COMMENTS:WESSA fully supports this project mainly because we believe that firstly, a plan for the integrated functional rehabilitation of the Umfolozi flood plain needs to be devised as a matter of urgency to safeguard the hydrological integrity of the St. Lucia lake system. Further, the other catchment systems that feed into the lake also need to be rehabilitated and therefore an integrated plan for this rehabilitation is of prime importance.

We further support the proposal to promote the upliftment of the local communities both in terms of education and livelihood opportunities wherever possible.=

It is hoped that WESSA will actively participate in this process and the Duku- Duku I&P Forum established under the auspices of Local Government and Housing.

WESSA WRITTEN COMMENTS: Lack of capacity in key compliance agencies both at national and provincial level to ensure compliance of environmental laws.

We will pass this information onto the relevant authorities. In iSimangaliso there are also EKZNW compliance staff

WESSA WRITTEN COMMENTS: Lack of sufficient meaningful consultation with NGOs and Interested and Affected Parties prior to strategic environmental decisions being taken.

iSimangaliso is serious about consultation. Consultation necessary in fulfilling its legal mandate in the Park is undertaken. This includes for example, EIAs and key strategic documents such as the Integrated Management Plan. There are also a range of Park specific structures and forums established, and broader forums that iSimangaliso itself participate in. Furthermore, the public are kept informed through the quarterly park news papers (circulation 40 000 directly) electronic news flashes (circulation 6000) and the media.

WESSA WRITTEN COMMENTS: Finalization of an approved Integrated Environmental Management Plan for the iSimangaliso Park. We are gratified to note that a call has been made to implement and complete the plan for full public consultation on the Draft IMP by the end of January.

Agreed

KIAN BARKER WRITTEN COMMENTS: But there needs to be an end to the current "destructive" management that has diminished Lake St. Lucia to it's current state. Added to this the large carbon foot print created by the large amount of fossil fuels consumed to create a "sustained problem". In the document there is a need to move away from this "wasteful" management style, have it made illegal and seek an ecologically sustainable solution. The

We recognize that there are diverse range of views on the system and its management, and thank you for your extensive comment and suggestions on what the study aimed at bringing fresh sediment free water into Lake St Lucia should attempt to examine. We will pass them onto the consultants who will be responsible for undertaking the studies.

105

105

important issue here is to avoid as much as possible social impacts. However my concerns will be expressed in certain factors and planning that will be required. St. Lucia as per legislation has not been managed to maximize ecological diversity. In fact there has been a notable decline in many species. Although there were reports that many species were present. The actual biomass of what remained has never been mentioned. Secondly the remaining species are trapped (land locked) in this ecosystem and therefore cannot reproduce. The lack of reproduction of 82 fish species is representation of massive biomass- that is absent both in the estuary and the sea. Nothing was done with any sense of apparent urgency. On a number of occasions the Umfolozi was cut-off and shifted to Mapelane or southwards. Effectively preventing any recruitment or migrations in and out of this system.  Drought is one thing, but messing with an ecological process is another. I have heard of no modelling, there just was a lot of speculation on past data. Internationally we are faced with a massive fish collapse, due to fishing - fish are at least utilized as food. The past couple of years have seriously impacted on the remaining fish population. If there link to the Indian Ocean had been maintained I doubt if we would have seen such a major ecological collapse. Therefore a more stringent management plan, preferably along the lines of least disturbance management is required. Also 'least disturbance' tourism in the estuary mouth area. Never have I seen so much vehicle activity in such a dynamic ecological area. Vehicles, tractors, boats right in the middle of possibly one of the most ecologically sensitive zones of Lake St. Lucia. Simply any management must not only examine the estuary but also "unregulated" vehicle access into this area. It is not a right, but a privilege. Any other tourism must be carefully examined in this area to reduce impact of migratory fish, invertebrates and birds when the system is open. But opening this system to mirror the frequency of the past is critical. The final decision will not be popular and will definitely need to be a collective effort and not left to the devices of a single individual. A working

106

106

committee of people that have a very clear and unbiased approach and no potential or existing commercial interests in the estuary and main lake system.KIAN BARKER’S WRITTEN COMMENT:But what is critical is to be able to spend a World Bank loan is to get sustainable results. I see the only solution here is to build a suitable scale model and test it, with various manipulated options. Options include the following: 1. Dredging an offshore basin to draw sea sand out of St. Lucia Estuary. This concept is to make the floor of the sea deeper than the estuary. Currently the estuary is deeper than the sea and this just ensures more sand enters. The final effect is a congested estuary mouth. Digging a sand trap is ecologically expensive. Harbours work on this principal of keeping the offshore waters deeper than in the harbour. Hereby there is outwards sedimentation. 2. Narrowing the estuary channel. Over the years there has been less and less freshwater entering Lake St. Lucia. The original channel was formed with a high volume flow rate. Now that the flow rate and volume is significantly reduced there is insufficient water to scour the channel. By closing down the width of this channel from one side, better flow rates and scouring can be expected (will need to be modelled to find the optimal  working width with in and outflow, in association with projected volumes). 3. Closing off part of the estuary. This was proposed to Ricky Taylor a number of years ago. In this instance a sand wall can be placed across the narrows near Ndoda or Fanies Island. A very similar scenario to what was used in the Aral Sea with profound results. World Bank was also involved in the Aral Sea project. Interestingly the Aral sea fishery was in a "proportionately" better state than lake St. Lucia. They still managed to annually commercially harvest 40 tonnes of fish. This initiative will prevent or reduce the very high evaporative effects of the large expanse of lake St. Lucia. Currently figures of 2200mm per annum are evaporated from the lake with only about a 1000mm of rainfall and none of the Umfolozi catchment water being allowed to enter Lake St. Lucia until recently (past six

We thank you for your extensive comment and suggestions on what the study aimed at bringing fresh sediment free water into Lake St Lucia should attempt to examine. These will be made available to the consultants who will be responsible for undertaking the studies.

107

107

months). This can be modelled also using rainfall and ground seepage that is estimated at 4500l/m shoreline. Also a smaller more compact surface area means the net inflow will equal the net outflow. Great to scour the mouth. In the past the net inflow was far greater than the net outflow resulting in the eventual closure of the mouth. If there is a period of high rainfall the lake can be re-connected or a spillway system can be created to link the "lakes". When water the level start receding, then separate the systems. 4. Future modelling of rising sea levels and settlements in and around Lake St. Lucia. Resettlement will be required if the sea level continues to rise at the current rate of 9 to 15mm per annum. Here it will be necessary to use GPS to model  and the eventual size of Lake St. Lucia over the next 50 years and whether blame will be place on finding a long term solution to the estuary been sustainably opened.  5. To investigate using Teza lake as a diversion lake of the Umfolozi to allow flood waters to enter the lake as a settlement area. Sacrificial in a sense. Then allow excess water to drain down the Msunduzi River. This might require completely reshaping the Umfolosi Delta System. 6. Getting more clean freshwater from the Umfolozi may not be feasible, rather changing the surface area of Lake St. Lucia to utilize a smaller portion than attempt to rehabilitate the whole system. The Umsunduzi Estuary has an interesting tapered shape that ensures a constant flushing. Water is channelled into this system and flushes back out. By using this as a model/control, St. Lucia estuary should be remodeled to have a similar functioning.  7. Management criteria should be set on biota and not abiota. Salt and water are weak tools of management, there needs to be a concerted effect to quantify and qualify the amount of biota and what is optimal, bearing in mind what abiotic resources are available. 8. Create higher water levels in at least part of Lake St. Lucia. This will ensure onshore water tables are maintained and not drained into the estuary when the lake level is low. As per point 3. 

108

108

9. If any Islands are threatened with potential erosion threat by salinity, sand bagging should be considered. Islands are abiotic, sea levels are rising and therefore it can be expected that these islands will be under threat from rising sea levels and other potential factors. Proactive management. 10. Considering all the domestic, industrial plantation and human industrialization, it would appear an impossible task to get more freshwater into lake St. Lucia, apart from using a feeder system from the Pongola Dam. Potentially of invader fish species would be negligible considering the salinity and or a electrofisher system. Modelling required here. 11. All these solutions are aimed at being least invasive on local communities and utilising resources that are present rather than being sourced from over-utilized resources. Basically, all the potential options need to be modeled, no simple solution will be forth-coming. But what can be expected is that Lake St. Lucia will become more salty, there will be a potential change in the bio-diversity, but many populations of organisms have remarkable epigenetic potential to "recreate" communities. But what can be agreed is that the current management is not beneficial. But a good computer or scale model is require to create a better understanding and management plan to ensure the future of this remarkable lake system and the bio-diversity found within and outside the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. A healthy ecosystems means a healthy tourism sectors and resultant community benefits.

BONGUKUPHIWA MTHETHWA’S WRITTEN COMMENT: On page 51 bullet 3 where it says; “ infrastructure development: with tourism development there will be the development of a range of infrastructure, from accommodation, roads, parking areas, gates, etc.” I will personally be glad if you could consider the development of the road P232 that stretches from Mbonambi through Sokhulu down to Maphelane because it is the main route that transports tourists to Maphelane Nature Reserve and it is in a very bad condition and tourists and community are not happy the way it is right now. INKOSI Mthiyane forwarded his request to the relevant Department to have it tarred, but nothing has

iSimangaliso sees the upgrading of this road as important for the development of Sokhulu and improving access to Maphelane.

109

109

been done yet up to now. I think having it attended will contribute immensely to tourism development and having more visitors coming to that destination. I also think that if we join our hands together and speak with one voice we can get good results.

BONGUKUPHIWA MTHETHWA’S WRITTEN COMMENT: intends to facilitate Capacity Building to local communities and I think that it is going to be one thing that will make us participate in a meaningful way in the Development of the Park and once again it will ensure meaningful transformation of the tourism sector.

Agreed

BONGUKUPHIWA MTHETHWA’S WRITTEN COMMENT: Recognition of the fact that biodiversity protection and conservation is part of the iSimangaliso mandate within the Wetland Park, but there is a clear need to strengthening the protection of the Park so as to avoid poaching and illegal hunting and unreasonable chopping down of trees within the protected areas and ensure that progress is made in the sustainable development of the Park..

The Park is protected by law including the World Heritage Convention Act and Protected Areas Management Act. The strengthening of protection through compliance activities such as awareness and education, and tangible benefits from sustainable benefits are strongly supported. Both awareness and the delivery of benefits are included in Park programmes.

110

110

Appendix One to Annex 5

Stakeholders’ Consultation WorkshopOn Use of Country Systems (UCS) for Safeguards

For GEF iSimangaliso Project Stakeholders Consultation

--Attendance List--

Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

GOVERNMENT

Ayanda Matoti Marine and Coastal Management amatoti@deat.gov.za Tel: 021 402 3634Fax: 021 402 3009

Kallie Naude Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)

knaude@deat.gov.za Tel: 012 310 3700Fax: 012 322 7114Cell: 083 941 2009

Ms Fatima Rawjee Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)

frawjee@deat.gov.za Tel: 012 310 3700Fax: 012 322 7114Cell: 083 941 2009

Ricky Taylor Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) taylorr@kznwildlife.com Tel: 035 590 1436Craig Mulqueeny Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) craigm@kznwildlife.com Tel: 031 274 1164

Cell: 082 338 2040

Andy Blackmore Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) andyb@kznwildlife.com Tel : 033 845 1346Fax : 033 845 1499

Mr NE Zuma Mtubatuba Municipality Idpled.mtumba@lamtic.net Tel: 035 550 0069 or 753 2465Fax: 035 550 0060Cell: 082 530 2445

Dr J Combrink Mtubatuba Local government councilor for St Lucia town

NA (cell) 083 254 5014(tel) 035 590 1224

Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

AGRICULTURE

Gerrit de Jager Umfolozi Sugar Farmers Association

gerrit@ucosp.co.za

Fax: 035 5500773Cell: 083 440 4188

Rudi Redinger Crystal holdings pierre@crystalholdings.co.za Tel: 035 590 1410Fax: 035 729 0110Cell: 083 440 6704

Marius Adendorff SA Sugar Research Institute Marius.adendorff@sugar.org.za Fax: 035 550 0097Cell: 083 655 5011

LAND CLAIMANTS & COMMUNITY

Ephraim Mfeka Bhangazi Community Trust mfekaef@telkom.net Fax: 035 550 4338Cell: 082 765 4822

Jaconia Mhlanga Bhangazi Community Trust NA Fax: 035 550 0068Cell: 072 667 6277

Mr BJ Mfeka Western Shores NA Cell: 076 350 9690Ms Sibongile Msweli Western Shores NA Cell: 073 534 0228Ms TP Zulu Western Shores NA Cell: 083 558 9454Mr J Buthelezi Zwenelisha NA Cell: 072 677 7473M Buthelezi Zwenelisha NA Cell: 076 741 8347A Ngubane Zwenelisha NA Cell: 082 402 1866 Senzo Ngubane Zwenelisha NA Cell: 073 479 5194Bongukuphiwa Mthethwa

Sokhulu bongukuphiwa@telkomsa.net Cell: 083 430 3911Cell: 086 510 0006

Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

112

112

LAND CLAIMANTS & COMMUNITY – continues

ND Buthelezi Sokhulu NA Cell: 078 157 1309JE Buthelezi Sokhulu NA Cell: 083 238 0218Thobile E Mhlongo Sokhulu NA Cell: 082 728 8211

TOURISM

Kian Barker Shakerbarker tours info@shakabarker.co.za Tel: 035 590 1162Fax: 035 5901070

NGO

Di Jones WESSA conservation@wessakzn.org.za Tel: 032 946 0685Fax: 032 946 0686

FORESTRY

Lize Nel Siyaqhubeka Forest & Mondi Lize.nel@mondigroup.com Fax: 035 580 4703Cell: 083 448 9992

Mr Samson Mbokazi Siyaqhubeka Forest Samson.Mbokazi@mondigroup.com Fax: 035 5504295Cell: 0760989279

Asanda Madikane Siyaqhubeka Forest Asanda.madikane@mondigroup.com Fax: 035 5504295Cell: 0834144899

Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

OTHER

Michelle Boshoff Richards Bay Minerals Michelle.boshoff@rbm.co.za Fax: 035 901 3980

113

113

Cell: 082 893 8537Zacaria Lsmede Wast Snooz NA Cell – 0766448923PJ Fryer Sustainable Development

Projectspj@ecocoast.co.za Tel: 032 946 0685

Fax: 032 946 0686Simon Bundy Sustainable Development

Projectssimon@ecocoast.co.za Tel : 032 946 0685

Fax : 032 946 0686

iSiMANGALISO

Herbert Mthembu iSimangaliso Herbert@isimangaliso.com Tel : 035 590 1633Fax : 035 590 1602

Sizo Sibiya iSimangaliso sizo@iSimangaliso.com Fax : 035 5901638Cell : 0833901249

Nerosha Govender iSimangaliso nerosha@isimangaliso.com Tel : 035 590 1633Fax : 035 590 1602Cell : 083 321 2903

Terri Castis iSimangaliso terri@isimangaliso.com Tel : 035 590 1633Fax : 035 590 1602

Bronwyn James iSimangaliso bronwyn@isimangaliso.com Tel : 035 590 1633Fax : 035 590 1602

Nick Swan iSimangaliso nickswan@iafrica.com Tel / Fax : 031 765 4849Cell : 082 807 7796

114

114

Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

WORLD BANK

Lala Steyn World Bank Consultant Lala.steyn@gmail.com Cell: 083 417 8563Paola Agostini World Bank

Task Team Leaderpagostini@worldbank.org Tel: 1 202 473 7620

Karsten Feuerriegel World BankCo Task Team Leader

kfeuerriegel@worldbank.org Tel : 012 431 3113Fax : 012 431 3134Cell : 083 300 9925

Erika Odendaal World BankProgramme Assistant

eodendaal@worldbank.org Tel : 012 431 3109Fax : 012 431 3134Cell : 083 300 9925

Mohammed Bekhechi

World BankLead Counsel (Legal)

mbekhechi@worldbank.org Tel : 1 202 4580149

Salimata Follea World Bank sfollea@worldbank.org Tel : 1 202 473 4740

Harvey Himberg World BankSr Environmental Specialist

hhimberg@worldbank.org Tel : 1 202 458 9099

Antonio Chamuco World BankProcurement Officer

achamuco@worldbank.org Tel : 258 21 48 2350

Fenwick Chitalu World BankFinancial Officer

fchitalu@worldbank.org Cell : 072 771 4153

115

115

REFERENCES

1. “The Integration of Biodiversity into National Environmental Assessment Procedures,” Biodiversity Support Programme (UNDP/UNEP/GEF), September 2001. 2. L.A. Sandham, M.J. Moloto and FP Retief, “The quality of environmental impact reports for projects with the potential of affecting wetlands in South Africa,” February 2008, http:///www.wrc.org.za.

3. Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park Authority, Annual Reports 2006 and, 2007;

4. iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Annual Report, 2008.

5. DEAT 2006/07 Annual Review

6. DEAT, 10 Year Review,” 1994-2004 (10 Year Review)

7. Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park: Integrated Management Plan (2007-2012, internal draft)

8. Petrus Brynarad and Lianne Malan, “Conservation Management and Intergovernmental Relations: The Case of South African National and Selected Provincial Protected Areas.” Politeia, Vol. 21., No. 2, 2002

9. Jens Staerdahl, Zuriati Zakaria, Neil Dewar and Noppaporn Panich, “Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand and Denmark: Background, layout, context, public participation and environmental scope,” Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Vol. 3, no. 1, 2004 (Staerdahl et. al)

10. Nigel Rossouw, Michelle Audoin, Paul Lochner, Stuart Heather-Clark and Keith Wiseman, “Development of strategic environmental assessment in South Africa,” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, September 2000 (Rossouw et al.)

11. DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document, Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa, February 2000 (ISBN 0-621-29925-1), DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document.

12. CSIR, “Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) A Primer,” September 1996; CSIR, “Protocol for Strategic Environmental Assessment,” 1997); CSIR/DEAT, “Principles for Strategic Environment Assessment: Working Draft for Discussion (unpublished), 1998;

13. CSIR/DEAT, “Towards Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidelines for South Africa,” Draft Discussion Document, 1998; the DEAT/CSIR Guideline Document, referenced above; and DEAT, “Strategic Environmental Assessment,” Integrated Environmental Information Management Series, No. 10, 2004 (DEAT, SEA, 2004).

14. DEAT White Paper for Environmental Management Policy for South Africa, 1998.

15. DEAT, “Strategic Environmental Assessment,” Integrated Environmental Management Information Series, No. 10, 2004 (DEAT, SEA 2004)

16. Francois Retief, Quality and effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a tool for water management in the South African context.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Vol. 9, No. 1 (2007) (Retief, 2007),

17. Rossouw et. al., Francois Retief, “Effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa,” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,” Vol. 9, No. 1 (2007); Francis Retief, Carys Jones and Stephen Jay , “The emperor’s new clothes- Reflections on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2008).

18. R. Therviel and M Partidario, “The Future of SEA,” in Partidario. M., Clark, R., eds., Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2000); and B. Dalal-Clayton and B. Sadler, Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. (2005).

19. Sandham, et. al. The case studies include the Braaamhoek Pump Storage Scheme; the Mooi-Mgeni River Transfer Scheme; the Midnar Dam Scheme; and the development of infrastructure n the Seekoeivlei Nature Reserve.

20. Strategic Environmental Assessment (Update) of the Development Planning of the Great St. Lucia Wetland Park, The Greater St. Lucia Wetland park Authority, prepared by ACER (Africa) Environmental Management Consultants, June 2003 (SEA), p. xii

21. Environmental Assessment Technologies, “Environmental Assessment Review: Beach Driving and Boat Launching in the Greater St. Lucia Wetland park” November 2002 (EAT).

22. The World Heritage Committee [3] issued a statement “Taking note of the urgent need to re-establish co-operation and confidence among the stakeholders for the purpose of effective conservation and management of St. Lucia Wetland National Park…. expresse[d] strong concern regarding the potential impacts that the reported developments and the lack of a comprehensive environmental assessment plan might have on the property; encourage[d] the promotion of the development of new skills such as tourism among local communities for a better management of the property; and request[ed] the State Party to provide a report on these issues to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.” (Annual Meeting 2003).

117

117